Thoughts on the trial

Breivik's obsession with Islamization is (I hope) but a tiny footnote to the history of the coming civil war between MRAs and manginas over feminist sex law. The lack of attention to men's rights issues in the trial so far is somewhat disappointing. Breivik at his worst has even embraced and amplified pieces of feminist dogma, most notably when he claims Muslim men have raped 90,000 Norwegian women since 1960. This is doubtless true if you use the feminist (and now legal) definition of rape, but if rape instead is reasonably defined as intercourse resisted by the woman to the best of her ability unless she is credibly threatened with death or serious injury, the claim becomes untenable. Nonetheless, some auspicious developments for men have emerged from the trial so far. Breivik is at his best when he takes on psychiatry. The spectacle of court-appointed psychiatrists exposing themselves as charlatans is pleasing to behold. Indeed the most positive upshot of Breivik's activism and judicial process, in my view, is making it more difficult to declare future activists insane. Breivik has thus served to habilitate Western terrorism. Since "treatment" in a mental asylum is the most barbaric and inhumane sanction society can legally impose on an individual (arguably worse than the death penalty), such punishment is understandably wished upon perpetrators of extraordinarily heinous crimes. However, psychiatry is inherently pseudoscientific and coercive enough without being brazenly applied towards political ends. Thus when activists are defined as "psychotic" and "schizophrenic" and held unaccountable merely because their political views deviate from whatever is politically correct, the charade becomes so obvious that it backfires on their entire profession and the psychiatrists are so widely discredited that their efforts work to the terrorist's advantage. If Breivik is subjected to chemical torture, it will be obvious that the system is corrupt and does not follow its own ostensible ethics which require a valid diagnosis. Pretending he is insane when he is obviously a rational warrior would turn him into a martyr and bolster any resistance movement against the current regime. It is possible to disagree with a political regime and decide to fight it even unto death without being delusional. You may not agree with the ideals behind that decision, but defining such activists as insane only serves to obliterate your own credibility and hence undermine the legitimacy of the regime you represent. This realization has evidently hit the Norwegian forensic psychiatric community like a ton of bricks and they are now engaged in damage control, trying to save face by having Breivik declared competent after all, which is the maximum victory he can gain from the trial under the circumstances and what now appears to be the most likely outcome.

Unlike Breivik, I don't mind living in a multicultural society. Freedom of religion and migration are self-evident rights to a libertarian like me, and racism is anathema. But I do not want to live in a society with sex laws based on misandry. The feminist police state is so morally repugnant that I cannot in good conscience stand by complacently as it escalates, even if I am not directly punished by feminist law myself. An activist for men is still such a rara avis that we must at least to some extent laud any adversary of the feminist state, even if he is unsavory in some ways. MRAs are few because sadly, most people lack the moral development to see beyond positive law. They fail to comprehend the concept of natural law, which would tell them feminist sex law is a travesty upon earth. The problem with most people is they are too law-abiding. Hence they are easy to oppress, and easily persuaded to hurt others in the name of authority. Most people just blindly follow authority. I differ from the hoi polloi most significantly insofar as I realize the authorities are full of shit, particularly in regard to sex crimes, and so I do not respect them. I fully discern what hateful scumbags are the feminists in the abuse industry who came up with our contemporary sex laws, and I understand the nature of the lies they use to justify them all too well to fall for their propaganda.

Excessive respect for authorities is even found in the Men's Movement. Hence you have the syndrome among the more simpleminded MRAs that the only antidote to untrammeled criminalization of male sexuality they can see is to apply these same absurd laws to women equally. They regard it as a victory when hateful laws are applied to women as well as men, partly because they are brainwashed by feminists to believe the sexes are equal and also because they cannot conceive of nullifying laws because their moral development appears to be lacking. They think the law is the highest authority. Thus they tend to applaud when the feminist state hurts women too, for example by imprisoning a mother for three years and requiring her to register as a sex offender because her 17-year-old daughter decided to work as a stripper. Yes, the feminist state has once again outdone itself in hateful absurdity. At this point we can dispense with any notion that the state exists to protect women and see it for the behemoth inflictor of maximal damage to all people that it really is. But two wrongs do not make a right. We need to cut the crap and attack the madness of feminist anti-sex hatred at its core.

I base my morality on basic universal (libertarian) principles, and I disrespect positive law when it egregiously contravenes what I believe is right. This means I reject at least 95% of current sexual legislation, which I see for the misandry it is. Bluntly put, I consider myself a political sex offender, which is not a popular position to take, but to me it is more important to do the right thing than to be tolerated by polite society.

What are the limits to misandry? Experience tells me there is literally no limit. Misandry can proceed arbitrarily far. To illustrate, age of consent and statutory rape laws are openly based on nothing but legal fictions with no basis in fact whatsoever, yet they enjoy wide support. The very word "statutory" candidly signifies that these crimes are created by statute rather than reality. Yet droves of "men" (and I use that term loosely) are primitive enough to internalize the hatred against themselves codified by these laws. They are simpletons and impressionable fools, to be sure, but that is how it is. Moreover, an entire industry (that we MRAs contemptuously call the abuse industry) has sprung up to reify the legal fictions represented by these laws, brainwashing girls and, perversely, even sometimes boys so as to feel "raped" or "abused" after harmless, consensual sex. Every time I read about men (and sometimes women) falling victim to these laws -- which is daily -- my hatred against feminism grows.

No matter how far the feminist state escalates, the majority of men will support it. Politics is simply a competition of who can be the biggest mangina and hurt men the most to the advantage of women, and the cops will enforce any law you tell them to no matter how unreasonable and hateful. History has shown that if you (or even an invading army) tell Norwegian cops to round up all the Jews and ship them off to death camps after confiscating all their property, for example, they will happily oblige. There is no reason they won't do the same with sex offenders, and feminists get to define "sex offender" exactly they way they want. The only people who deserve to be targeted by feminist sex laws are the politicians themselves. Amusingly, male politicians are frequently hoist by the hateful laws they helped pass, but even then they will never speak up against the law itself. They will merely defend themselves within the framework of the law (claiming they "didn't do it") rather than seek jury nullification like a proper MRA would do, and they will continue to support any misandrist law the feminists can conceive of, at least as long as women can vote. Women are Team Women and so are most men. If the feminist state tomorrow declared, say, that sex with women with brown eyes is always rape, I have no doubt manginas would support this law and the entire justice system would unflinchingly enforce it, because many laws already on the books are every bit as absurd. As we keep seeing time and again, the cops are unabashed scum of the earth who blatantly single out the most misandristic laws for the highest priority of enforcement. I have followed feminist escalation long enough to be disillusioned of any limits to misandry, because clearly none exist.

However, as the feminist police state escalates, even as most men support it or are complacent, the few MRAs who do oppose it will get more militant. The current political milieu is tremendously radicalizing for those of us who pay attention. Opposition must rise from the grassroots in order to perturb such a regime. With asymmetric warfare, we can inflict significant damage and perhaps influence policies and laws. There is precedent for activism at the group level influencing authorities. Look to the African-Americans for one example. Los Angeles burned in 1992 because blacks were angry about a court verdict, triggering a new verdict with a fairer outcome (not that I condone double jeopardy, but the point is blacks are admirably capable of group activism, unlike men). Now Zimmerman must be lynched in order to avoid race riots, because blacks are race-conscious. Unfortunately, men are still low on gender-consciousness, so the feminist state can pretty much do as it pleases for now. Men ought to emulate the black sense of racial identity applied to gender, and we need more belligerent leaders to incite the masses like they have MLK, Jesse Jackson and so on. My dream is for the Men's Rights Movement to grow strong enough to at least hurt the state at a comparable level to what American blacks can, eventually making the authorities too scared to fight their war on male sexuality. If we trudge on, we can achieve this. Let us set aside racial and religious differences and each of us from the humblest blogger to the deadliest activist do what we can to fight feminism. Let us all get along and direct all our animosity squarely at the feminist state and its enforcers.

How dare men think yes means yes?

"For you boys and men I want to ask: If the girl has been drinking at all, do you really dare take the chance that she actually means 'yes'?"

This is the latest threat from the police in Oslo, uttered by spokescunt for sex crimes Hanne Kristin Rohde. In other words the pigs are eager to arrest and prosecute you for rape if a woman regrets sex after a single drink -- even if she said "yes" -- and thanks to feminist rape law reform which introduced the concept of "negligent rape" back in 2000, they can. Women are officially to be regarded as such delicate flowers that the slightest amount of intoxication will invalidate their consent. Which would seem somewhat insulting and contrary to any notion that women are equal, perhaps, but also tremendously empowering. Alcohol instantly confers on women a blank check to accuse men of rape in case they have any regrets whatsoever. Meanwhile men are always held responsible for our actions no matter how much we imbibe, of course. I feel like I am back in freshman orientation again, except by now the most hateful feminist policies have been realized on a societal scale.

Thus the feminist utopia is taken to the next level. However, a criminal trial is currently underway in Oslo to remind us that not all men are happy about the feminist regime. You reap as you sow, feminists, and insurrection is looking more compelling for Norwegian men every day as you escalate the misandry.

Let me repeat that quote again in the original:

- Til dere gutter og menn vil jeg spørre: Hvis jenta i det hele tatt har drukket, tar du virkelig sjansen på at hun faktisk mener «ja»?

Gentlemen, this is how much your country hates you, and all the players in the justice system openly admit that this is how they want it. Now I suggest you reflect a little on what you want to contribute back to a society which is prepared to ruin your life on such a flimsy pretext because that's how much of a piece of shit a man offically is compared to a female.

The Misandry of Politics

If you join the gang of violent misandrist thugs known as the police, don't be surprised if they turn on you as soon as you act like a man. Albert Covarrubias learned the hard way how men are treated by feminist law enforcers. The 29-year-old officer was shot by his fellow pigs as soon as they got wind of his relationship with a 17-year-old girl.

Police said he had to be arrested immediately on suspicion of illegal sex with a teenage minor early Saturday because of the seriousness of the evidence and allegations against him.
The officer physically resisted the arrest and fired his gun before another officer fatally shot him at a DUI checkpoint where he'd been working, police said. No one else was injured.

Since his job was to hurt people, I can contain my sympathy for this dead feminist enforcer. But his premature death wasn't right either, and it should serve as a warning for other men trying to decide what to do with their lives. Gentlemen, this is how much our society loathes us just for being men. It behooves us to reflect on our worthlessness as defined by our culture, because it has bearing on what our contribution back to this society should be. Feminist sex law formally codifies the relative worth of the sexes, and make no mistake about it, a man is a worthless piece of shit. What happened to Albert Covarrubias was not an anomaly. Our culture thinks nothing of throwing the life of any man away for the slightest sexual insult to a woman. Whether it is real or based on nothing but statutory fiction or even false altogether is of little consequence. The bottom line is men are despised for embodying anything resembling manliness, and all our institutions exist to serve women at the expense of men. Astonishingly, they even expect men to serve and uphold the system while treating us as pariahs at the same time.

So, too, in politics. The high-profile rape accusation against Helge Solum Larsen is now exposing not only the nature of feminist rape law, which lets women regret sex and bring rape charges regardless of the circumstances, but also the wider misandry endemic to our entire political system. It is as revealing as it is ugly. This scandal has really brought out the worst in the party Venstre and other political commentators. Their hateful feminist values now shine through for all to see. When sex with young nubile women is regarded as an automatic "breach of trust" on the part of male leaders, it is clear that Norwegian politics is a culture which caters only to women. Men may become leaders, but they are not supposed to reap the fruits of their efforts. The depth of anti-male bias in Norwegian politics is perhaps best summed up in this hateful statement by Anders Giæver: "Ikke noe politisk parti kan leve med at en av lederne har seksuell omgang med en beruset 17 år gammel partifelle på et partiarrangement, uavhengig av andre omstendigheter." So there you have it. An earnest feminist scumbag lies down the law for all the manginas to follow. Regardless of the circumstances, rape or not, sex with drunk 17-year-old girls at party events is incompatible with a political career. Why would any man in his right mind sign up for a career in such a system? What is in it for men, if they have to abnegate their sexuality in order to be in politics? Are our male politicians really that stupid? Am I the only one who thinks it's time to start a pro-male party?

Men are only tolerated in our society as long as they behave like eunuchs. When men act like men, we are criminals and when famous men act like men it is also a "scandal." But in truth, the law is the scandal and so is the culture of misandry. Helge Solum Larsen simply did what any normal man would do. This type of situation still goes on regularly despite the hypocritical feminist affirmations of our male politicians; but in this case, the girl had her regrets and since this is a feminist state, it is taken seriously as rape and exposed all over the news. As the details now stand, there is still a tiny possibility that it was in fact rape (and by that I mean the girl was forced to have intercourse despite resisting to the best of her ability). But by defining rape so ludicrously that real rape is drowned out by all the phony feminist-defined rape, it has gotten exceedingly difficult to spot a real rape. The presumption must be that this is not real rape even if it legally is. We are so used to drunk women getting away with calling sex rape simply because they regret it that if a real rape should occur in a nachspiel setting, it requires extraordinary evidence. Feminist rape law reform has done even more than false accusations to destroy the credibility of the accuser. Paradoxically, by taking rape too seriously, feminists have achieved a climate where rape allegations cannot be taken seriously by any reasonable observer until we pretty much get to see it with our own eyes.

Also, can somebody please tell me the identity of Solum's accuser, if you know who she is? I'd like to publish her name and it seems the mainstream news media are conspiring to shield her. I know this is common practice with sex allegations, but it is wrong. All parties should be named and everything should be out in the open.

No Accuser Needed For Feminist Rape Trial

The feminist police state has once again outdone itself. You would think that no matter how ludicrously rape was defined, it would at least require an accuser. Not so in this hateful feminist utopia. All it takes to charge you with rape is footage of nude, apparently unconscious women on your hard drive. Such is the zeal of feminist rape prosecution that no woman ever needs to come forward and accuse you, or even be identified. Man charged with raping three unknown women:

Politiet mener opptakene er gjort i 2010 og at noen av mannens møbler synes på filmene. De har siktet ham for voldtekt av de tre kvinnene.
Mannen har forklart at bildene ikke sier ham noe, men at han ser at trekket på sofaen ligner og kan være hans.
...
Politiet mener filmene uansett holder til domfellelse.

This is even more absurd than the trial we saw last month where a man got 4.5 years for a supposed rape attempt which nobody remembers. That case at least had a woman involved who felt violated, even though she couldn't remember what happened because she had been drinking to blackout. Yet even an oblivious accuser is superfluous to feminist justice. This case has no accuser, only the feminist machine seeking to destroy a man's life for its own sake.

I regret expressing misgivings about my initial joyous reaction to Breivik's activism at Utøya. The contrition wasn't heartfelt, and recent escalations of the feminist police state make me feel so sheepish for vacillating that I hereby retract my disclaimer. The feminist state is so flagrantly out of control that it and its abettors most assuredly deserve anything they can get.

Nonviolent Resistance: FIJA

There are ways to fight tyrannical laws without resorting to violent insurrection. We don't even necessarily need to get unjust laws repealed in order to protect ourselves. As long as the right to a jury trial is respected, the people can defend citizens from the worst abuses of government. It is called jury nullification, which is a peaceful way to tell the government to fuck off. If I ever find myself on the jury of a criminal trial involving, say, statutory or feminist-defined rape or nonviolent drug offenses, I would vote to acquit in any event as a matter of principle, regardless of the evidence, because I fundamentally disagree with the laws in question. Convicting anybody for such bogus, victimless crimes would be contrary to my core libertarian moral values. Moreover, it would be my right and duty as a juror to judge the law as much as the person, and refuse to convict when I find the law morally repulsive. Sadly many jurors fail to realize this, and instead think they are supposed to uphold the law no matter how much they disagree with it. Today I was delighted to come across an organization working to inform potential jurors of their proper role. FIJA is the Fully Informed Jury Association, and here is finally a charity I can get behind! As they put it,

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if the government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.

FIJA Works to:
Inform potential jurors that they cannot be required to check their conscience at the courthouse door;

Inform potential jurors that they cannot be punished for their verdict;

Inform everyone that juror veto--juror nullification--is a peaceful way to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny.

This goes for Norway too, with some caveats. In some ways we have less rights and a more oppressive state. We have (at least) triple jeopardy. Double jeopardy is built into the system as a matter of course. Our jury system, which was instituted in 1887, works roughly like this. Defendants are first tried in Tingretten, which is a sort of kangaroo court with one judge and two semi-professional laymen who vote and produce a verdict which isn't taken very seriously by anyone (it scarcely even counts as jeopardy). Then if either party appeals, which is extremely common, the real trial is in Lagmannsretten with 10 jurors and 3 judges. At this point, a certain level of flagrant disrespect for jury nullification is built into the system. The matter of guilt is up to the jury of 10 peers, but if they vote to acquit and the 3 professional judges disagree (if they find it obvious that the defendant is technically guilty but the jury has decided to disregard the law -- the very definition of jury nullification), they can quash the verdict and order a new trial, subjecting the defendant to triple jeopardy. In the new trial there are only four laymen in addition to another three professional judges, and even here I am not sure if an acquittal is necessarily final. Thus there are some serious structural obstacles to jury nullification in Norway. Nonetheless, our jury system is still pretty strong, and it is important that we keep it that way. Ideally we should strengthen it, of course. The buck should stop with an acquittal in Lagmannsretten, after which there should be no way the defendant can be retried for the same crime. This only happens occasionally, however, so with respect to appeals and multiple jeopardy, I am about 70% pleased with the way it works now. We should also guarantee the right to a jury trial for all crimes, and not just crimes punishable by more than 6 years. We might also debate whether just 7 votes out of 10 jurors should really be sufficient to convict. (In the American system, all 12 have to agree. But on the other hand, their system has many other shortcomings including the governmental extortion that is plea bargaining, all kinds of unfair restrictions on what evidence is admissible including rape shield laws, and even ways to get around the double jeopardy rule simply by picking another name for the same alleged crime -- so I am not saying their system is better overall.)

In rape trials based on feminist corruption of the legal definition, jury nullification is in fact already happening. It just isn't recognized as such. The official propaganda has it that some flaws in the system must be preventing justice from being served. We are constantly told that the system needs to be reformed in various ways to convict more men, from the supposedly careless way rape accusations are initially handled by police to the pesky problem of juries refusing to get with the feminist program and convict. But indeed, the low conviction rate (or "high attrition rate," as feminists put it) in rape trials is proof that the system is working, at least to some extent. There is still some vestige of justice and sanity left. The people is protesting corrupt laws and odious feminist prosecutors by refusing to convict in many cases. And ironically, women jurors vote to acquit accused rapists more often than men do, according to one study. Yes, on rape juries, manginas run more rampant than feminists! The problem from an MRA perspective is state feminism, corrupt laws and the disrespect for the citizenry embodied by the weak position of the jury. And it keeps getting worse. Feminists are lobbying to abolish the jury altogether in rape trials, citing what is in fact jury nullification (and should be respected as such -- the proper course of action is to back off and reverse feminist rape law reform) as evidence that only professional feminist lawyercunts and manginas are fit to decide who is guilty of rape. When that happens, we won't have any nonviolent recourse against tyrannical feminist prosecutions, but we still do as of today, and we should avail ourselves of this opportunity for nonviolent activism while it lasts. If you ever serve on a jury, please don't let the feminists with their laws and judges cow you into voting for a guilty verdict if it goes against your conscience.

Which Men Does MRA Serve? Alphas or Betas?

Is the Men's Rights Movement only for betas? An article signed by four "masculinists" (of Maskulinist.no) in Morgenbladet, where I am also cited, raises the question of which group constitutes the Men's Movement, and I suppose it is easy to get the impression from a cursory look at MRA sites that we are all about betas. I guess I haven't been clear as to exactly who is included in our movement as I see it, so perhaps it is time to define MRA.

Men's Rights Activism is a backlash against feminism. Feminism is basically about restricting men’s access to women’s bodies by means of the police state, all while forcibly reaping the fruits of men's labor without having to put out any more than they feel like. MRA is the opposite. Succinctly put, MRActivism addresses how to get laid and what happens when you do. The former is perhaps best summed up in my “Rape is equality” post, and the latter includes criminal (and civil) sex accusations as well as anything to do with divorce, paternity fraud, child support and custody, etc. While how to get laid is by definition a beta and omega issue, what happens when you do is also highly applicable to alphas. Feminist corruption of justice has made sex extremely risky no matter how alpha you are. Alpha victims of feminist sex laws include Julian Assange, DSK, Silvio Berlusconi, Herman Cain, and Israeli ex-president Moshe Katshav, who is now in prison for false rape and sexual harassment. And that’s just to name a few recent examples off the top of my head. Even Bill Clinton and Al Gore almost ran afoul of feminist sex law, so clearly no man is too powerful to be a victim. There is also a plethora of recent examples here in Norway, where thousands of men criminalized by the new law against buying sex now are exposed by hackers after the media dug into a website where prostitutes advertise and found, unsurprisingly, that men in all kinds of positions were customers. I am linking to the complete user database including all phone numbers (but not the text messages between hookers and johns, which I do not possess because the hackers were too chickenshit to share them) in order to show all these men that the feminist police state is a very real personal threat against which we should all band together. This material alone could be used to at least triple the Norwegian prison population for a year if feminist prosecutors used it for all it is worth, but I guess it was too overwhelming to charge some 20,000 men all at once...

Of course, men always compete for women, with each man preferring to keep all the pussy for himself. Alphas and betas are not natural allies, and so far, hardly any alphas have come out in support of MRA. They probably don’t feel the need to yet. Life is generally good for alphas under feminism, but all it takes to ruin your life is a woman’s word. I believe all men ought to conspire against the feminist police state out of solidarity but also for their own good, and when that happens, feminism won't stand a chance. The hard part is convincing the alphas that supporting feminism is a bad idea, as most of them seem to be incapable of realizing this until it is too late. But they should. Even when I was most sexually frustrated, feminist sex laws and rape reform in particular always remained at the forefront of my mind and I was seething with hatred and murderous rage against the cops who enforce all the freshly minted feminist sex laws against men who do easily get laid. We are in this together, alphas and betas alike, and it is high time to fight the feminist police state. In fact, oppugning feminist jurisprudence is arguably more important than promoting sexual egalitarianism, since at the very least, men would be able to pay for sex without persecution.

The Feminist Police State vs. Female Teachers

The amount of hysteria our society is able to generate over victimless sex crimes continues to astonish. When I read about Stacy Schuler (gym teacher sentenced to four years for sex with high school senior football players) a few months ago, I thought we weren't quite at that level of insanity here yet. I was wrong. The feminist police state of Norway is now charging a female teacher with "sexual abuse" of a 16-year-old boy, a consensual affair for which she faces up to six years in prison. The cutting edge of feminist hatred lies in criminalizing intimate relationships between students and teachers, with feminist prosecutors having a bonanza going after women too (male sexuality is already so thoroughly criminalized that it's difficult to expand that way). This type of feminist justice has played out many times over in Anglo countries for years, and now sadly we are set to repeat and perpetuate the charade. By hateful feminist logic, being a teacher magically transforms sex into some sort of heinous "abuse." In Norway (Strl. § 193) this is punishable by up to six years (actually, they also have the option of asking for preventive detention for such crimes, which is a potential life sentence), even if the student is over the age of consent (which is way too high, but that's not the point I am arguing here) -- in fact, this law is applicable to "victims" of any age, and the position supposedly being taken advantage of can be not just an official job but any type of trusting relationship, even a friendship. This law is thus a silver bullet which accusers and the feminist state can use against anyone they damn well please whenever our absurdly expansive definition of rape falls short. It's not even an obstacle to prosecution under this law that the "victim" was the one seducing and instigating sexual contact with the "abuser."

Of course, the motivation behind passing this law, as with other absurd sex laws, was to hurt men and empower women. But when you play the equalist charade, you are bound to have some women accused from time to time as well. The feminist police state, in this case represented by Tore Løwengreen, dutifully assures us that although he has never seen a case like this before, the cops regard it as a very serious felony, which they investigate and prosecute with the utmost zeal, just like they would against a male offender.

- Vi ser veldig alvorlig på denne saken, sier politiførstebetjent Tore Løwengreen i Østfold politidistrikt.

At this point it is difficult to decide whether to laugh, cry, or go on a rampage. Frankly I am at a loss as to how it is even possible for a human being to see this as a case of sexual abuse, even with reversed gender roles. How can such deranged feminist bullshit take hold of a man's brain to such an extent that he actually internalizes it? I'm really stretching my suspension of disbelief here trying to give him credit for some sort of humanity; emotionally he appears as just a feminist zombie spouting the party line. Now, it is conceivable that Løvengreen is simply parroting political correctness because it is his job, which he values more than his dignity, and he does not deep down actually believe this boy is a victim. I should give him the benefit of the doubt that he might be a hypocritical scumbag before pronouncing him a moron. But it is also possible he is genuinely brainwashed by feminist ideology, being a gullible fool. In order for the regime of state feminism to work its hateful ways, at least some of the actors need to believe in its lies, I think. There could also be a false consensus effect at work, where political correctness as dictated by the top feminist ideologues holds sway without the general public or even the enforcers much believing in it. Under this theory, the cops and courts operate under the banality of evil, but a more likely and sinister explanation is that the feminist abuse hysteria has honestly infested law enforcement and jurisprudence at all levels. This is where I feel heightened empathy and love for erstwhile humanity, and am impelled to write this post and engage in all sorts of activism against the feminist reign of terror.

Let me therefore interject some sanity. In a sane world, sexual relations between teachers and students would not be regulated by criminal law. It might be defensible for schools, if they are feeling particularly sex-hostile, to have a policy against student-teacher sex, where the worst consequence would be termination; but escalating the hysteria to the level of a crime is never justified. Moreover, a sane society would take sex differences into account, and not pretend a man and a woman copulating are doing the same thing. Since the sex act does not even physically look the same from the point of view of both genders, it takes a tremendous amount of feminist brainwashing to even entertain the notion that there is no meaningful difference. As previously stated, in my opionion women fundamentally cannot under any circumstances commit rape or sexual abuse against males. Since sex is a female resource, males are always lucky to get it from a woman, or at least it is absurd and unacceptable for the law to treat them as victims of female sexual acts per se. Female sex offenders are thus categorically excluded from my ontology. Admittedly this is an extreme position, but it is at least as extreme on the part of feminists and the state to deny any sex difference whatsoever. The proximate explanation for why it's wrong to impute sexual predatorhood to women is just plain common sense and human experience. Nobody can fool me into thinking boys can be abused by pussy, because I remember how much I wanted to fuck the female teachers when I was that age myself. Boys want sex and in the rare event that they get lucky with older women, their peers and grown-up men alike naturally envy and applaud them rather than pity them as victims. The profound visceral rage, hate, and jealousy this case invokes in healthy men like me based on life experience is strong evidence all by itself for a police state gone insane. The ultimate explanation for why women cannot sexually abuse boys, however, can be dispassionately and logically formulated as parental investment theory. The minimum necessary parental investment for each sex explains why each additional mating is beneficial to men and tends to be detrimental to women. As a result of these fundamental restraints, evolution has equipped boys with adaptations to welcome and enjoy opportunistic mating opportunities more, whereas girls are designed to be coy and picky. Boys are objectively as well as subjectively and socially empowered by sex with the teacher, whereas girls are objectively if not subjectively more or less exploited (but not so much that this deserves to be criminalized, either). Any concept of "sexual abuse" which flat-out denies this biological reality is sick to the core. It is insulting and demeaning to men on so many levels. To me, the female sex offender charade is right up there with the lie that rape is about power rather than sex as the most aggravating aspect of feminism. Draconian sex laws against men are bad enough. Going after women for being nice to boys adds a whole new level of insult to injury, and promotes an even colder world for boys to grow up in than I did. It also constitutes a perverse waste of taxpayers' money and, of course, hurts innocent women who are locked up for sharing their sexuality with more or less ungrateful brats while the frustrated majority stands by wishing they could only be so lucky.

There is still a silver lining, sort of. By insisting on equality, feminist legislators and prosecutors make buffoons out of themselves for all the world to see. Besides a select group of MRAs, no one gives a damn when a man is imprisoned for a victimless crime, because men are regarded as worthless in our society anyway, but when a woman is a victim of the system built to empower women, alarm bells start ringing in a wider audience. It takes just a tiny bit of humanity to comprehend that this is a police state run amok. Even the copy in feminist newspaper Dagbladet is slanted against the police state between the lines. Evidently it occurs to some feminists now that things are getting out of hand. Yet experience from other countries indicates that the populace is willing to absorb considerable escalation of the feminist police state against women also. As is often the case, a revolution eats its own children. What was meant to be a utopia for women and children is starting to give the victim class a taste of their own tyrannical medicine. The feminist state is spinning out of control, turning against new groups of offenders based on new kinds of phony crimes at a staggering rate. The abuse industry is even increasingly preying on children, destroying childhood in the guise of protecting children. Some examples from just last week:

A 9-year-old is suspended for sexual harassment because he told another student that a teacher is “cute.”
A high school student is handcuffed for wearing a hoodie that did not match school colors.
a 13-year-old student is arrested for allegedly burping during class.
a 7-year-old is investigated for sexual harassment for hitting a boy in the groin who was allegedly choking him.

How did we come to this? How did a movement intended to promote "equality" devolve into a reign of terror persecuting women and children as well as men? How can women continue to support the feminist police state and its odious laws, seeing that they may well be its next victim? Yesterday a law was proposed to criminalize possession of rubber gloves if the cops feel we might intend to use them for terrorism, along with another slew of new powers for the police state. That level of hysteria has already been implemented with regard to sexuality. Grooming law similarly empowers cops to arrest men for hypothetical crimes, and even provoke fictitious crimes altogether just to get innocent men imprisoned. It is time for the people to fight back on every front, because the feminist war on male sexuality has proven what depths of tyranny our government is capable of. So has the war on drugs, but that is a story for another day.

Psychiatry Claims Another Victim

It came as a bit of a surprise that Anders Behring Breivik is declared insane by court-appointed shrinks. Which is rather like calling him an animal. Breivik is appropriately offended by this character assassination, which should be enough to raise serious doubts about its validiy. They deny him moral agency, and I bet it even feels like an attempted disqualification of his activism, as if it didn't count after all. There is something deeply dehumanizing about being held unaccountable for your actions. Just like a dog or insect cannot be held to moral standards because they are incapable of moral reasoning and don’t know what they are doing in any moral sense. But is it true? Is he really “psychotic,” and has been so for years during meticulous planning? A "paranoid schizophrenic"?

I had not expected this conclusion, but if he was to be declared insane, I certainly would have guessed they would claim "paranoid schizophrenia." This is the stereotypical diagnosis used when psychiatrists want someone committed whom they can't find anything specifically wrong with. It's like taken out of a book by Thomas Szasz. Watching today's events reminded me of why I don't trust psychiatrists; why I will only subject myself to examination by them over my dead body. As expected, Breivik's insistence that he is sane is simply taken as evidence that he lacks insight into his own illness. Thus any attempt to reason with them will just result in digging yourself deeper into the institutional abyss.

So what does this supposed insanity consist of? Since the full report is secret (another flaw in our system), we are only given some clues, such as "grandiose delusions." It is supposedly delusional to envision himself as a future ruler of Norway. I agree that would be unrealistic to say the least, but being overly ambitious does not have to mean you are insane. By the logic of psychiatrists like Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr must have been psychotic to run for president in 2008 with no hope of winning, only to receive 0.4% of the votes. As Breivik is not found to be hallucinating, this type of "delusion" is the sole basis for their diagnosis. Another example cited is his desire to breed Norwegians and put them in reservations, presumably for eugenic purposes. While incredibly wrong-headed and unlibertarian, this does not qualify as a delusion either, as I see it. If Breivik is delusional, then Hitler and any number of despotic megalomaniacs must be considered unaccountable due to insanity, and that's not usually how we see them. Nor does killing 77 people for what you regard as the greater good inevitably qualify as insane, or any general in any war would be insane. How many civilians got killed in Afghanistan, again?

I believe cognitive liberty needs to be a basic human right, even for the worst criminals. It is a much worse fate to lose your cognitive liberty and be forcibly poisoned by toxic chemicals than merely be incarcerated. Psychiatric treatment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment equivalent to torture, in my view. So even if Breivik happens to be truly out of touch with reality, I categorically oppose sentencing him or anybody to psychiatric care. A desire to sentence him to a punishment worse than prison may have factored in, but ultimately I think the psychiatrists just couldn't help themselves, being as entrenched as they are within a framework of assuming power over individuals. In a larger sense, it points to the extreme conformism in our society. I encountered some of the same kind of bigotry at a public debate with feminists recently, where I was called delusional just for my opinions. And this was even coming from a former terrorist who was himself caught with explosives in Beirut in 1977.

I am offended by psychiatry claiming Breivik as another victim. Of course, my heart goes more out to all the victims of psychiatry who did nothing evil to deserve it. Paradoxically, the more heinous your crime, the more shielded you are from the abuses of psychiatric treatment. Peaceable patients do not have the benefit of a large public hearing before psychiatry starts messing with them. Law-abiding patients don't have the luxury of being confined to the relative safety of a regular jail while an independent commission is second-guessing their pyschiatrists. Instead they go straight to the asylum. Psychiatry rivals feminism as the worst social problem of our time. Arguably psychiatry is worse, since it violates your personal integrity rather than just imprison you. Indeed, if you are a victim of psychiatry, it is probably in your best interest (as well as a publicly beneficial act of activism) to kill a guard or cop in order to get a fair public trial and possibly escape treatment before it ruins your health completely. I have previously written laudatory posts about a man who killed a cop trying to apprehend him for forcible drugging. He turned out to be so dense as to testify in court he thought the cop was a burglar and killed him by accident, and so he blew it. The upshot in this case was just a sentence back to the asylum, just like Breivik is facing, but at least you have a shot to plead for prison rather than psychiatric abuse under a great deal of media attention if you make a criminal out of yourself rather than just another nameless victim of psychiatry. There is still a small chance Breivik can pull this off when he gets his day in court.

I would agree that if someone is so out of touch with reality that he genuinely was unaware of what he did, then it does not make sense to hold him criminally accountable. I still oppose forcible psychiatric treatment, which is always a moral travesty under any circumstances. There is simply never any justification for violating someone's cognitive liberty. A civilized, humane society would always offer at least the option of regular imprisonment to the criminally insane, upon conviction by an ordinary trial. Now if they desire psychiatric care, that is another matter, but it is unethical to force this on anybody, not least because neuroleptics have horrible side effects which shave decades off your life expectancy. I have seen my own grandfather suffer tardive dyskinesia due to psychiatric coercion, though somehow he still managed to reach old age. Now I realize iatrogenic adverse effects from somatic medicine can be just as bad, but at least you have the option to refuse treatment. Medicine should operate on the basis of informed consent, or it does not deserve to be called medicine at all.

Finally I want to condemn the Norwegian barbarity of "preventive detention" (forvaring). One upside of being declared insane is you are not actually eligible for this, but lots of criminals are. The maximum sentence for any crime is ostensibly 21 years (soon to be extended to 30 for terrorism), yet even relatively minor crimes (especially feminist sex crimes) can get you preventive detention instead, which is a potential life sentence as it can be indefinitely extended as long as you are deemed likely to commit more crimes if you are released. This is incredibly hypocritical and has no place in any fair justice system. It really makes my blood boil to lock people up for hypothetical crimes not yet committed, and if you think longer sentences than 21 years are justified, which is not a point I am arguing with here, then that should be the sentence in the first place.

My Antifeminist Journey

Men's Rights Activists are made not born. We arise out of the hostile conditions of state-enforced feminism. Although frequently depicted as hating women, in truth we simply react to misandry. It is as simple as hate breeds hate. I trace my first memory of serious aversion to feminism back to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings of 1991. I was viscerally appalled that those accusations by Anita Hill were taken seriously as possible misconduct because I instinctively knew, even as a young teenager, that what they called "sexual harassment" is just normal male sexuality and a society which criminalizes it is a sick, revolting society. I still don't understand how American men -- or men anywhere -- can be such milquetoasts as to tolerate sexual harassment policies, let alone internalize them as valid and desirable rules to govern their behavior every working second and empower and enrich women at their pathetic emasculating expense. To me it is absolutely astonishing that any man can even take the concept of sexual harassment seriously and, when accused, defend himself within the framework of the law and claim he didn't do it rather than attack the systemic injustice of instituting sexual harassment policy in the first place, which is the notion that women are discriminated against if they have to encounter sexual references or quid pro quo advances in the workplace, based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and also brought into the academy by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. A man would have to be an utter moron to go along with this charade and accommodate women on these terms. It is made even more preposterous by the concept of sexual harassment policy now being detached from its historical origins as an innovative feminist tool to empower women over men and presented as the natural order of things. Gullible fools are even made to believe it's now a gender-neutral concept and that men can also be victims, so as to construct a red herring against the reality that sexual harassment policy is all about oppressing men.

However, my most formative moment as a fledgling MRA occurred during freshman orientation at Austin Peay State University in 1998. This was my first close encounter with a dystopian vision of the feminist police state turned into brutal reality. The first week for incoming students at any American college is notorious for the hatred heaped on men, which once again this year escalated to new levels, studiously obliterating any vestige of due process for males to defend themselves against ridiculous accusations. But even in 1998, I was met with a concerted week-long display of hateful feminist propaganda, all carefully choreographed to impress upon male students the threat of accusations of rape and sexual harassment at all times. Through lectures, dramatizations, leaflets, posters, T-shirts and so on, we were barraged with incessant propaganda that male sexuality equals rape and/or sexual harassment, and how eagerly accusations are awaited from any female offended by as much as an unwelcome desirous glance from a male, which professional feminists will then zealously prosecute to the full extent possible. There are even mandatory signs permanently displayed in every building urging women to report sexual harassment. My most germane memory is a lecture by some woman who was a professor of sociology. I am not even sure if she identified as a feminist. Her enthusiasm for feminist sex law was tempered by having a college-aged son herself. The resulting cognitive dissonance was funny to behold, as she understood how all this extravagant legal protection for women could just as easily screw her son. She pointed out that the law puts tremendous pressure on males, who bear the full responsibility for any sexual encounter. I vividly remember her explaining to us that in Tennessee, intoxicated women are not legally able to consent to sex. She said the woman does not even have to be visibly drunk, and the man does not even have to be aware that she has been drinking. One girl raised her hand and asked if that meant if she had sex after drinking and then felt bad about it the next day for whatever reason, she could simply decide that it was rape. "Yes," she was told, and I could see the smug look of power in her face. I was livid. That was the moment I completely realized I belong to the shit gender. I forthwith fathomed the full abysmal depth of the institutionalized worthlessness of men, how it extends to women wielding the brutal violence of the institutions to lock men up for many years based on the most minuscule of contrived insults, even when they are entirely and admittedly based on regret for consensual acts. I realized that by that definition, I would be a rapist myself and my staying out of jail would depend on women not bothering to report me. After all, alcohol is involved more often than not in the college hookup culture. And I realized that our society is perfectly OK with treating men this way; that this kind of perverse female empowerment is wholly intended by legislators and happily enforced by the police. In short, as considerations of fairness are irrelevant to males because we are so worthless, and the slightest sexual insult against a female is considered weightier than a man's life, sheer violence is our only recourse one way or the other.

We were then told that in order to avoid rape accusations, men should ask women at every step if they wanted it and never do anything unless we get a clear affirmative answer. Which, of course, qualifies as sexual harassment. If we ask for sex, we are harassers, and if we get it, we are rapists. Women have every aspect of male attention covered form the first glance to possible regrets many years after sex. At any stage can they turn around and bring the full force of state violence to bear against the man.

The intended outcome of freshman orientation is to produce a docile mangina. But it didn't work on me. All that hateful propaganda instead sparked hatred in return and sowed the seeds of activism. Rather than cowering in fear of the police, I assumed a warrior mentality and started hating law enforcement. I really, really wanted to hurt those responsible for enacting and enforcing feminist sex law. I did not let feminism influence my personal sex life, but I paid close attention to feminist legal reforms. I watched disgustedly from a distance as radical feminists remolded Norwegian rape law to their hearts' content in 2000, abolishing mens rea and lowering the threshold of force/threat from serious violence to any threatening behavior whatsoever, no matter how slight and including otherwise perfectly legal stuff like ending a relationship if you don't get sex; and sex with females deemed unable to resist due to intoxication, sleep or unconsciousness was also from then on redefined as rape. This reform has predictably opened the floodgates of frivolous accusations against men. The number of women alleging rape to the police has doubled in a decade, yet the official propaganda that not enough women are reporting rape continues unabated. As rape law is limitless but convictions are lagging, today's feminist efforts are centered on eroding due process and ultimately removing the jury, as well as strengthening the police and escalating sentencing. So far the feminist state has been met with negligible resistance -- with one major exception -- and they relentlessly keep pushing for more reforms against men. It probably has to get much worse before it gets better. Sometimes it seems like there is literally no limit to the draconian laws against male sexuality that men will put up with. I can only conclude that most men are remarkably nonviolent, but I am not like most men.

Nevertheless, my own activism all these years has remained fairly innocuous so far, but that's not for lack of affect. Angered by billboards funded by the Clarksville Police Department saying "NO MEANS NO," I painted "VIS GRATA PUELLIS" atop my mortarboard at graduation in 2002. I thought I might get arrested, but nothing happened. I also want to award an honorable mention to Angry Harry, the first MRA I encountered, and whom I've been reading for at least ten years. While nothing can beat college in producing belligerent men, I also owe a great part of my antifeminist awareness to old codger AH, who really opened my eyes to the scope of feminist debasement of our society and convinced me that there will be a time of reckoning for the leftists.

So this is where I am coming from. Freshman orientation was 13 years ago and since then, the feminist police state has grown more monstrous beyond my worst nightmares. Society is already sentencing men to life in prison without the possibility of parole for looking at forbidden pictures of young females. A woman in Nevada got life in prison for letting a 13-year-old boy touch her breast. A man in Sweden was convicted of "child pornography" for possessing cartoons of girls drawn with too small breasts. Norwegian men are criminalized for purchasing sex in the entire world. These are just some examples of the outlandish sex-hostility of state feminism. And it just keeps getting worse and worse. The only way to turn the tide is for men to fight back.

The "Trafficking" Charade Groweth: Au Pairs and Gypsies

Suppose you hire an au pair while making it clear that she is expected to provide sex as part of the deal, which the woman accepts. A perfectly fair exchange, right? I would naturally expect sex from an au pair myself or I wouldn't hire her, and if she agrees, no reasonable person could object. Unfortunately, we live in a sick society with unbridled feminist power. In the feminist police state of Norway, this is now criminalized as "trafficking." A man and his wife are now on trial for this exact scenario, and it really makes my blood boil with renewed hatred. Just when you thought we had reached the high-water mark, feminism keeps escalating and inventing new ways of persecuting male sexuality. The feminist police state is on a relentless march towards criminalizing ever greater areas of male sexuality -- or in this case, applying existing laws in innovative ways in order to imprison more men. To feminist prosecutor Anne Cathrine Aga I have the following message: The Men's Movement is watching you, bitch, and we are seething with hatred against you personally and the police state you represent. Actions have consequences. Trials are still (mostly) public and they sink into our collective minds, where they form the basis of future activism. Hate breeds hate -- that is a fact of life too smugly ignored by feminists.

The feminist charade of "trafficking" is such a blatant travesty that I scarcely bother writing about it. Only the most gullible fools take the official propaganda at face value anymore, and besides, there are other activists at work diligently exposing the mendacity of the rescue industry more eloquently than I can, most notably The Naked Anthropologist. But I must mention one more example. There is a Gypsy family being prosecuted for "trafficking" in my home town right now. Their crime is simply to carry on their usual lifestyle, which is now defined as trafficking and sexual abuse. One woman is considered a victim of trafficking and sexual abuse by her husband because she at 15 is below the local age of consent, even though they are married according to their own customs. She is trying to get her husband out of jail, but the feminist police state insists on prosecuting. If just a tiny part of all the supposed sex slavery you hear about were true, it's funny that they have to pick a normal family going about their traditional ways to prosecute. I can only conclude that the entire rescue industry is full of shit. Where are the supposed millions of sex slaves in chains, eh? The man in this case is 20 and he is being imprisoned for having relations with his wife who is 15. They were legally married in a place where this is perfectly normal, then made the mistake of traveling to a progressive society. The feminist police state of Norway is a very hateful place indeed for men and will prosecute even when it hurts the "victim" too. Simply crossing the border is "trafficking" and their marriage is now defined as sexual abuse because we are so progressive. I for one do not accept this. I do not want to live in a society so full of hate, and that is why I am a men's rights activist.

These are just two examples going on right now in this feminist police state. We also have a fresh high-profile rape accusation well suited to expose the feminist definition of rape. The women of Norway now wield a shameless reign of terror over men, with unlimited access to feminist police power at their behest for the slightest sexual regret. However, there is a silver lining. Norway by now also has the strongest antifeminist resistance movement in the world, with seventy-seven dead feminists to show this year alone. 2011 is the year Norwegian men as a group emerged out of the blogosphere and into the battlefield. This in turn has led to a breakthrough for MRAs such as my good self in the public discourse, probably for the simple reason that the powers that be now realize ignoring us has deadly consequences. Men are angry now, and we have proven that we are deathly serious about resisting feminism. So the feminist prosecutors referred to above ought to wipe that smug look off their faces before it is too late. Clearly seventy-seven body bags wasn't enough, but I am fairly confident that you will be sorry one day.

The Feminist Police State Grinds On Versus Julian Assange

“Rape” has in my lifetime degenerated from a crime encompassing only the most severe kinds of sexual coercion, to no coercion at all. This profound expansion of the legal concept of rape must reasonably and perhaps inevitably occasion an equally profound reassessment of the sympathy we afford victims of “rape.” This reevaluation of victimhood due to rape is lagging, I presume, only because the feminist-corrupted definition has yet to sink in with most people. The public scrutiny of rape law generated by the accusations and extradition process surrounding Julian Assange is therefore a welcome contribution to the Men’s Rights Movement. While I sympathize with Assange’s predicament, one could scarcely hope for a better exposition of feminist rape law reform. The rape accusations levied against him by Anna Ardin, Sofia Wilen and the feminist state of Sweden are so patently absurd that you do not have to be an MRA to realize this is a frivolous witch-hunt even if he is guilty as charged. Some bare modicum of sanity will suffice. Today we have it from the horse’s mouth that the definition of rape hounding Julian Assange is institutionalized and entrenched throughout European justice, not just in Sweden. So if you support Assange and also believe the law should apply equally to all men, then you must agree that there is something seriously wrong with current rape law, as reformed by feminists.

It is my pleasure to cite the full text of the latest judgment, which at great length explains that rape law as applied in this case is par for the course in England and all over Europe. In England and Wales, the Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 established rape as intentional penetration of a vagina without consent, and consent is defined as agreeing by choice with the freedom and capacity to make the choice. English rape law is thus at least as extreme as the Swedish version (where coercion is apparently still part of the definition), which means the requirement of dual criminality is satisfied and Assange is to be extradited.

Court cases are often decided more by a climate of opinion rather than the wording of the law itself. The hateful wave of radical feminism sweeping Europe is so powerful, it overrides the varying local definitions and has men uniformly tried and convicted based on the radical feminist definition of rape. Norway, for example, is more extreme than the norm insofar as mens rea is abolished, but we still technically define rape as sex accomplished by some manner of force or coercion, (though this can be as light as e.g. threatening to spread a rumor about a woman), unless the woman is unconscious or otherwise unable to resist. Even so, the Assange judgment asserts that feminism is so impetuous, the trend is to bring charges against men based on feminist ideology even when the law is insufficient. This explains the logical incoherence of defining rape as sex obtained by force/threat yet not requiring resistance from the woman, which is done here in Norway. We might as well ignore the letter of the law and acknowledge the fact that feminist ideology is so pervasive it trumps everything. Fighting feminist law reform with attempted reversal of that reform is thus a futile endeavor, and MRAs must instead mount a resistance external to legislation. An overarching purpose of the feminist police states of Europe is explicitly to “tackle attrition” in rape accusations by whatever means necessary, the law or innocence be damned, and based on an absurd de facto definition of rape by which the essential element is simply lack of consent.

So there you have it. Those who still equate rape with actually being forced to sex, wake up and smell the odious feminist cunt commanding your local police force. Based on this definition of rape, what to think of the “victims” is self-explanatory. Women cannot have their panacean definition of rape and sympathy at the same time. Something has to break. However, even if we arrive at the point where “rape victims” receive nothing but ridicule from the general public (much like Anna and Sofia are getting at the moment), the feminist police state will grind on and destroy innocent men’s lives. As the definition of rape has been expanded to absurdity, sentencing for convicted rapists has perversely increased at the same time, and due process is also constantly besieged. To MRAs this can only mean war.

I look forward to the next chapter in the Assange saga, which will expose more human-rights abuses in the sick joke that is the Swedish justice system. It shall be especially satisfying to have the Swedish travesty of conducting rape trials in secret exposed to the world, because no matter what definition of rape you subscribe to, such a fundamental denial of due process is universally appalling to civilized people.

Does the Emancipation of Women Always Herald Civilizational Collapse?

I mention the matter now because, owing to the egocentricity in our historical outlook, to which I have already referred, it is often supposed that female emancipation is an invention of the modern white man. Sometimes, we imagine that we have arrived at a conception of the status of women in society which is far superior to that of any other age; we feel an inordinate pride because we regard ourselves as the only civilized society which has understood that the sexes must have social, legal, and political equality. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Apart from the last sentence, the above paragraph is a good summary of attitudes held by most Westerners today. Certainly feminists tend to exude the sentiment that we are exceptional for exalting the ideal of equality (while always somehow falling short of true equality, of course, affording them the opportunity to keep whining about perpetual victimhood). It may come as a surprise, then, that the quote is taken from a book published in 1934: J.D. Unwin's Sex and Culture. I finally took the time to peruse it because as old, dense and obscure as it is, this book has attained the status of something like a classic in the manosphere. Unwin's thesis, based on a survey of more than 80 different societies, is that women's emancipation is incompatible with a flourishing civilization and high culture. The anthropological and historical records indicate that the enforcement of monogamy is inversely proportional to what Unwin terms "social energy." Civilizations rise under conditions of absolute monogamy (or at least a considerable amount of restrictions on the pre-nuptial sexual freedom of women), while the inevitable women's liberation and attendant loosening of sexual mores that follow lead to civilizational collapse.

The energy of the most developed civilized societies, or that of any group within them, was exhibited for so long as they preserved their austere regulations. Their energy faded away as soon as a modified monogamy became part of the inherited tradition of the whole society. No group of human beings, however, has ever been able, or at any rate has ever consented, to tolerate a state of absolute monogamy for very long. This is not surprising, for it is an unequal bargain for the women; and in the end they have always been freed from their legal disadvantages. To express the matter in popular language, they have been 'emancipated'. This has happened regularly and unfailingly in every recorded example of absolute monogamy, except one; in that case special circumstances prevailed. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, and Teutons began their historical careers in a condition of absolute monogamy; in each case the women were legal nonentities. After a time the laws were altered; a woman became a legal entity, the equal of a man. This happened among the Sumerians before they were dominated by the absolutely monogamous Babylonians; then among the latter just before Babylonia fell under the sway of the uncultivated Kassites. Under the ius gentium the Roman matrons were freed from most of the disadvantages from which they suffered under the old ius civile. Among the Anglo-Saxons the same changes were taking place when after the reign of Cnut the ecclesiastical authorities succeeded in obtaining control of sexual regulations. After the introduction of a pseudo-indissoluble monogamy (which, so far as the position of women and sexual opportunity were concerned, was the same as absolute monogamy) the English instituted the same reforms, which were still incomplete in the twentieth century. Only among the Athenians was the emancipation of native-born women never completed. Yet there seems to have been an emancipating movement in Athens too, but apparently the Periclean decree of 451 B.C. and the laws in regard to the epicleros, never repealed, prevented the native-born women from being freed from their legal disadvantages. In Athenian society the part which was played, in later Sumerian, Babylonian; Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and English society by emancipated women was played by the Outlander women (as Professor Zimmern has called them). Thus the impulses which helped to inaugurate the changes were, operative, and to some extent satisfied, in this case also. (Sex and Culture, pp. 343-44) 

I won't go into Unwin's theoretical explanation for the relationship between social energy and sexual restraint, because I don't much believe in it. That kind of Freudian theorizing is rather dated, but Unwin can be forgiven for not being conversant with evolutionary psychology. The historical evidence he presents, however, appears solid. The cycle of sexual restraint (or rather sexual egalitarianism, giving men the opportunity to to invest in families and thus society), feminism, decline and eventual displacement by cultures who subjugate their women has been played out time and again throughout history. The present decline of Western civilization is thus entirely expected, and we can probably look forward to being superseded by a more energetic culture. Islam is a good candidate. Not optimal, since they do allow polygamy, but this theory predicts that they will do better than our moribund Western civilization.