Collapse

For all our talk about gender roles, there is little attention paid in the manosphere to the deeper basis for keeping civilization running. Let us not forget that the economy is an energy equation. Whatever else is going on, nothing can work unless the laws of thermodynamics are obeyed. You can do all sorts of funny stuff with enough energy, but without a huge energy surplus, there is very little to do beyond subsistence farming for the vast majority of people, as history indeed attests to. The inescapable need for sufficient energy input is often forgotten in the manosphere, just as it is in almost every other sphere nowadays. Which is also unsurprising if you think about it, since we all grew up in an unprecedented era of extreme energy abundance and never directly felt the harsh economics of natural existence. MRAs often assume that if we only fix marriage and repeal some laws, everything will be all right. But I fear we may run into a greater problem even if all this is accomplished. There is one sphere dedicated to this problem, and they do seem to be onto something. According to the peak oilers, we will soon reach a point where the energy needed to hold the system together that we all rely on is unavailable. After reading sites like the Oil Drum and Gail the Actuary for a while, I suspect they may be fundamentally right. And I say this as someone who thought believers in peak oil were all tinfoil-hat lunatics until very recently. If this means I too have gone insane, then please point out in the comments which part of the limits-to-growth argument is flawed, because it sure seems more convincing right now than the cornucopian vision.

In a word, I have become peak oil aware. I am convinced the world is in a much worse state than the mainstream media is letting on, and it will be all downhill from here. If you watch the news, you get the impression that fracking and shale oil have solved peak oil to the point that the U.S. will soon be an exporter, renewable energy will gradually replace fossil fuels and be almost as good, and of course economic prosperity is always right around the corner. It is also arrogantly assumed that we can easily keep the system running long enough to burn enough fossil fuels to cause significant global warming, which is seen as our most important worry (as if peak oil won't do us in long before climate change possibly can). But if you look more closely into any of these issues, it becomes clear that the official position is catastrophically flawed. Renewables are a joke, with so horrible energy return on energy invested (EROEI) that it's unclear if they can even serve to delay collapse rather than hasten it due to the complexity they add. At best, renewables can work as fossil fuel extenders, but they don't produce enough energy to reproduce themselves. For example, we don't know how to use solar cells to make more solar cells without an oil-based infrastructure. You can't make more hydroelectric plants or maintain the existing ones without oil, either, or wind farms, or any of the proposed alternatives.

There is simply no practical alternative to burning fossil fuels. In truth, we have no idea how to maintain industrial civilization and keep us all fed any other way. Not with seven billion people (except nuclear, but that won't happen in time for political reasons). For every calorie in our food, ten calories from fossil fuels go into growing and processing it, and this is the only way we know how to do it. There is even no readily available alternative to liquid fuels, and these are absolutely essential to prevent collapse. And even more immediately, there is probably no alternative to our debt-based financial system to keep the wheels turning. As soon as awareness spreads in the system that all the growing debts cannot ever be meaningfully repaid because the necessary wealth will never materialize in a shrinking economy, the whole system comes tumbling down. This is not a physical necessity, but it is a strong likelihood. It is also possible that essential services will keep running until we hit hard physical limits (which admittedly would take decades), perhaps by means of government coercion such as forced labor, but this is highly uncertain and would in any case be highly unpleasant.

Collapse could start as early as this week if the U.S. government defaults on its debt, or perhaps they will come up with a way to kick the proverbial can down the road a bit further. In any event, they can't borrow their way out of their problems in a shrinking economy for long, so eventually collapse will catch up with them. Because of globalization, the depression will spread, and so we must return to a world with much less complexity. Because of resource depletion and population overshoot, the future will be ridiculously much worse than any other period in history. The stone age will likely seem like Utopia compared to what awaits us, because back then they were only moderately crowded and still had low-hanging fruit around to mostly subsist (although deforestation was already a problem back in prehistoric times). Whatever technology they had was also realistically suited for their world, while we can't get anything done without computers and oil, none of which will be available in the future.

When I see the malice perpetrated against men by governments around me, I take solace in the likelihood that they will soon lack the energy to keep it up. There will be plenty of benefits for men as entropy overtakes feminist enforcement of all their hateful sex laws. For one thing, a post-collapse society cannot keep a sex offender registry because all electronic records will disintegrate. There will be no functioning electric grid and no Internet, so all surveillance technology will cease to function. Cops will have no way to check if you are wanted, and said cops won't be paid properly anyway, so they probably won't even stay on the job.

And governments cannot incarcerate a great number of people in a low-energy world unless they can coerce slave labor out of them to make the EROEI of the prisoners sustainable. This is unlikely because the technology needed to force slaves to work the fields is lacking and cannot be produced at the scale needed. You can't manufacture as much as a shovel without oil, and the machinery currently used will break down, never to be repaired. Contemporary prisoners all have an EROEI much lower than 1 (usually zero), which isn't workable for long. Perhaps slavery was sustainable in previous times when all of society was adapted to that level of existence with the technology and skills to go along with it, but I don't see that happening now. Most likely, collapsing states will be faced with the option of killing off prisoners or setting them free, because resources to employ guards and feed them and the prisoners too will be lacking. This is the silver lining of peak oil from an MRA perspective.

On the other hand, most of us will starve to death or succumb to disease or wars or exposure as we flee the cities, which will be the biggest death traps of them all. I am hardly a rugged survivalist type myself, so I realize I will probably not be among the 1% or less expected to survive the kind of collapse envisioned. But after recovering from the initial peak oil blues most people experience when they become aware of the predicament, I have come to feel optimistic about the coming collapse. Because I hate the sex-hostility perpetrated by our governments so intensely, I will be happy to witness their downfall even if I have to suffer alongside them. At least I will get to see the terror in the eyes of feminists and manginas when they realize the lights of our civilization are going out for good and it's only brutish barbarism from here on. The moment when the scumbags in law enforcement and our legislatures realize their kids will not grow up because there will be no economy to sustain future generations, and their own pensions are as worthless as Monopoly money, will be priceless to us decent folks. There is nothing we can do to prevent collapse, so it's best not to be too invested in any worldly things, but we can still take delight in the suffering of our enemies. Sure, people could have reasonably good lives in preindustrial times, but not with seven billion...

Even if you are a hard-core prepper, I wouldn't expect to survive much longer than most people, because unless you have the kind of fortified facility only a billionaire can afford, it is impractical to have food when others around you are starving. If nothing else, you will quickly run out of ammunition to fend off looters. Therefore, I don't bother with prepping. It is always prudent to keep a well-stocked pantry and learn basic survival and self-defense skills, of course, but beyond that, there isn't much any of us can do to improve our chances. I expect that within a few months after supply lines are cut, things will get so bad, the outcomes for each of us will be largely uncorrelated with our preparations.

This is assuming a fast collapse. It is also possible the collapse will be more protracted, in which case we will live longer and get gradually poorer, our life expectancies will fall and so on. Archdruid John Michael Greer is a proponent of this sort of slow catabolic collapse, and he might be right. He is also probably the most erudite peak oil writer, in my opinion, and his blog is not to be missed. The Archdruid thinks business as usual can continue for ten more years, after which a long series of calamities will befall us over the next hundred years. At that point the human population will be down to three billion and falling. This is possible if we are able to catabolize parts of our infrastructure and recycle it in successive stages for the benefit of a much reduced population, and unfortunately it also enables oppressive governments to stay in business longer. I don't claim to predict exactly what will happen, and I don't think anyone knows. But one thing seems certain: This cycle of civilization is doomed, and we won't make it to the Singularity first like I foolishly believed in my youth, because we don't have enough energy to channel into technological progress. Prosperity isn't something which magically appears as randomly the wind blows, like I used to assume and as economists still seem to think. Prosperity must of course be based in a real energy surplus, and that energy surplus will no longer be forthcoming.

Rape hoax in Aftenposten

I would like to draw attention to a feminist fraud perpetrated in the newspaper Aftenposten. Women lying about rape is nothing new, but did you know they even make false accusations on behalf of men, against other women? Bizarre, isn't it? But it makes sense now that the law is about to be changed in order to criminalize even more of male sexuality as rape. So in order to drum up support from gullible men for their expanded rape definition, feminists are impersonating a male "victim" of "rape" by a woman, as if men need this law, too. The narrative somewhat resembles the story of the freak show known as James Landrith (and as noted, even he has been exposed as a fraud) -- except this one is obviously not written by a man at all. Read it and see for yourself, if you can read Norwegian.

Jeg er blitt tvunget til å ha sex. Jeg er blitt voldtatt. Det hendte en natt en helg, og jeg hadde drukket en del. Ut på kvelden havnet vi på et soverom. Vi pratet og jeg sovnet. Da jeg våknet, var det en som nærmest lå over meg, mens den andre fiklet med underlivet mitt. Jeg forsøkte å vri meg unna, men kom ingen vei. Og så forsvant jeg, liksom. Kunne bare observere det som skjedde - helt lamslått. Kroppen min var gått i lås. Så forsvant de, og jeg ble funnet sovende på rommet tidlig morgenen etter. [...]

Aside from the fact that no normal man would react to a perfectly harmless sexual situation like the text claims, the last sentence is jarringly incongruent and transparently spoken by a bitter feminist cuntrag: "Synd jeg ikke er kvinne, da kunne jeg bare dratt på meg bestemorstrusen og snudd ryggen til."

And the saddest part is, people are buying it, and it looks like the new rape law will soon be passed by the legistlature with little opposition. Here is an example of a mangina who has been duped by the charade, clearly also influenced by the "men's human rights" gibberish of AVfM which includes blind allegiance to feminist rape ideology.

To anyone with a functioning bullshit detector, it should be abundantly clear that the purported anonymous 19-year-old male "rape victim" is a feminist impostor. As one of my commenters puts it in the comments to my previous post:

Ja, f.eks. måten hun "Mann(19)" bare skriver 'mottak' i stedet for 'voldtektsmottak', som om det er et dagligdags tema, avslører at dette er en person som har voldtekt på sin daglige agenda. På slutten kommer hun "Mann(19)" inn på den reelle agendaen for det falske debattinnlegget, at menn og kvinner må være på lag i å kjempe mot voldtekt, hvilket for henne åpenbart betyr utvidelse av voldtektsbegrepet og senking av beviskrav samt lengre straffer. Folk flest synes å sluke dette tøvet til hun "Mann(19)" rått.

Whether Aftenposten is in on the fraud or they simply got hoaxed, I don't know. It would behoove them to do some fact checking, because this seriously hurts their credibility. They have also published another article by the phony rape accuser, which is also obviously written by a professional feminist. Please get the word out because this is doing serious damage. If I still haven't convinced you that entire concept of female sex offenders is inherently laughable -- which it is -- at least you should not be hoodwinked by outright lies.

Feminist rape gets a reality check in Dubai

As we all know by now, in Norway and other feminist countries it is a simple and routine matter for any woman to have her regrets after sex, cry rape and count on the police and justice system to do its utmost to convict the accused man regardless of how willingly she had sex. A young woman from Norway, 24-year-old Marte Deborah Dalelv, naively thought she could do the same in Dubai, but was shocked to learn that what passes for "rape" in Norway is criminal conduct for women in Dubai. The courts in Dubai didn't agree that her story constitutes rape, and sentenced her instead to 16 months in prison for fornication and drinking alcohol. This case was first widely publicized here in Norway, and now CNN reports it as well. It beautifully showcases the entitlement of feminist women to have all their regretted sex prosecuted as rape. And it also predictably brought the manginas of Norwegian politics out of the woodwork, who vehemently protest this verdict while they are perfectly happy to imprison men for false rape in Norway. In short, this case highlights all the reasons why I became an MRA: Normal male sexuality makes us all rapists in the eyes of the law, and the entire system here conspires to promote this misandry.

One side of a story is almost never accurate, and here we only have the woman's story quoted. Even so, Marte's story does not add up to rape even if she is telling nothing but the truth. She describes only token resistance in going to the man's hotel room before willingly going to bed with him, and then blacks out and implies no resistance at all until she has her regrets the next morning as she wakes up naked. There is no violence; only drunkenness and regret. The case could hardly be more stereotypical of regretted drunken sex redefined in retrospect as rape thanks to feminist rape law -- minus the feminist law. The accused rapist is just a normal, persistent man, behaving like I have done many times and any of us would. Only with perverse, misandristic laws can this be rape, and I am pleased that Dubai rejects the hateful precepts of feminist rape law that Marte thought she could get away with.

Marte Deborah Dalelv was at worst taken advantage of while drunk and careless, like any normal man would do, but she was not raped. I am happy that she is now experiencing a backlash for her hateful attitude that she is entitled to have men imprisoned for our normal male sexuality.

Remember also that admitting it was not rape amounts to confessing to the crimes she is convicted of, so she has a powerful incentive to remain a false accuser, even as she probably understands by now that she made a foolish mistake by calling the police.

In Norway a woman is never at fault for her actions, no matter how irresponsible. If a woman has any sexual regret at all, for any reason whatsoever, a man is always guilty of rape. Kudos to Dubai for standing up to this feminist ideal. While I am no fan of the sex-hostile moralism of Sharia law, their system is clearly superior to ours and admirably equitable. I don't agree with criminalizing fornication. But if we must have so repressive laws, it is much fairer to hold the woman responsible along with the man in cases of regretted sex (and in this case the man was sentenced to prison as well, just not for rape). Sharia law is the lesser of two evils. Rather than institutionalizing false victimhood like feminist law does, it holds both sexes accountable to rigid moral standards. I would take excessive moralism over excessive misandry any day. Thus, as an MRA, I applaud Dubai and I welcome Islamization of Europe too, over feminism at any rate.

Lex Berge is in effect

As a direct result of the embarrassing failure of the Norwegian police to prosecute me for statements on this blog (all of which can still be found here), politicians promptly set in motion a process to change the law. And now on May 24th, 2013, the new law went into effect.

In hopes of having better luck prosecuting MRAs and other outspoken undesirables in the future, the government has changed the legal definition of "public" in such a way as to include the Internet. Not just anything on the Internet, but statements communicated to at least something like 20-30 people, as explained at length here. So private email is still not public, but blogs and forums are. Specifically, this was accomplished by changing section 7 of the old Penal Code of 1902 into this:

§ 7. Med offentlig sted menes et sted bestemt for alminnelig ferdsel eller et sted der allmennheten ferdes.

En handling er offentlig når den er foretatt i nærvær av et større antall personer, eller når den lett kunne iakttas og er iakttatt fra et offentlig sted. Består handlingen i fremsettelse av en ytring, er den også offentlig når ytringen er fremsatt på en måte som gjør den egnet til å nå et større antall personer.

Endret ved lov 24 mai 2013 nr. 18.

While defining the Internet as public is not problematic in and of itself because that merely reflects the truth, given the laws it in turn affects, this legal reform is sadly a setback for freedom of speech in Norway. Changing the legal definition of "public" acts and utterances has implications for several more criminal laws, so I dare say I have had quite a significant impact on our penal code. In my case though, it means §140, the law on incitement according to which I was charged, could theoretically have been applicable. §140 applies to incitatory public speech, and now statements made on the Internet can qualify.

However, contrary to popular belief and tabloid portrayals this doesn't necessarily mean they can convict you just for advocating cop-killing like I did. The incitement law specifies the advocacy of initiation ("iverksettelse") of a crime, and I don't believe anything I have said on this blog would qualify as such. Did I tell anybody to go out and kill cops? No, I said killing cops is the right thing to do for MRAs as activism against misandric sex laws. I said cop-killing is in complete harmony with everything I stand for. There are weighty reasons for why this law is not meant to criminalize this sort of speech, according to precedent and legal scholarship. Statements about the morality, utility and desirability of revolutionary acts are meant to be exempt, or else a whole lot of leftists and feminists also ought to be prosecuted. So even if I had not been liberated by the Supreme Court on the technicality that the Internet is not public, it is dubious whether the cops would have been able to convict me anyway in a jury trial. And let us not forget that glorifying crime, which I was also wrongfully charged with, is and remains legal as I have emphasized before. We are free to celebrate publicly when acts of violent activism befall our rulers and their enforcers, and we are free to make moral pronouncements about such acts and state that we support them. What is new is merely the criminalization of incitement on the Internet to initiate specific criminal acts, but I never engaged in that anyway.

45 Reasons for the Denying the Differences between Male and Female Sexualities

Today, for the first time on my blog I present a guest post. Walt Forest has written articles I've enjoyed for The Spearhead in the past (such as "The Hot Teacher Myth, and How it Hurts Men"), so when he submitted a piece for consideration, it was easy to accept it. This is a good list of reasons for why feminists deny the sex differences between men and women, though I might add he left out the one which irks me the most, which is how denial of sex differences is used to criminalize male sexuality further by pretending women can also be culpable for sex crimes. Hence we get what I like to call the female sex-offender charade, in which feminism sacrifices some women as factitious sexual predators in order to cater to gullible fools such as the manginas at A Voice for Men who might otherwise have seen the relentless criminalization of male sexuality for the misandry it is.

45 Reasons for the Denying the Differences between Male and Female Sexualities


by Walt Forest


1

We deny differences between male and female sexualities because we mistake sameness for equality (and move farther from true equality than ever).

2

Stephen King once wrote: women think they understand male lust, and that’s probably just as well for their sleep and peace of mind.

If we stopped denying difference, countless women would suffer sleepless nights and highly troubled minds.

3

We deny difference out of fear of being told we are “naïve,” “in denial,” “too pathetic to get laid,” “backwards,” “bigoted,” “prudish,” “Victorian,” etc. These terms are now more than insults. They are denunciations meant to ostracize, socially or professionally, anyone who dares to question the ideology of sameness.

4

Many women do not like to admit that their sexual power gives them enormous advantages over men. Therefore they deny the difference from which this power comes.

5

The creators of sexual harassment policies and laws deny difference and its myriad implications on the human mating ritual, making any man who tries (however timidly) for the proverbial bra strap an “offender,” and the woman who pushes his hand away (no matter how bright-eyed, no matter how she giggles) into his “victim,” who is granted with this status the power to ruin his life if she chooses. This is, of course, exactly what our man-hating society wants.

6

We all know those men who enjoy making other men envious by describing (in the most casual of tones) how someone’s wife or girlfriend, hot teachers, sexy female bosses, and women they have only just met routinely lead them by the hands to their beds, “no strings attached.” The credibility of these Don Juan tales depends on our denial of difference.

7

The woman who feels the same way a man does about sex exists only in pornographic fantasy. Many men, like modern-day Don Quixotes, like to pretend these slutty Dulcineas are real. To do so, they must deny difference.

8

Some women wish to avoid the responsibility that female sexual power should entail. To do so, they deny this power and the difference from which it comes.

9

We all know those women who stir up male interest by suggesting they want sex as badly as any man. The popularity of these teases depends on denying difference.

10

Women who have abused their sexual power over men naturally want to remain blameless (and go on abusing). They can get away with it, so long as we deny difference.

11

The myth of “the fuck buddy” depends on denying difference.

12

Men commit suicide at about five times the rate of women. To understand why, we must ask, What makes men different? But we don’t want to understand why. As a society (if not always as individuals) we hate men. We deny both the crisis and the difference at its root, and hasten still more men to their deaths.

13

We mislead young women by assuring them that the men they go out with feel the same about sex as they do. The resulting disappointment (and worse) creates a constant supply of new man-haters. In this way the denial of difference fuels our society’s already overwhelming intolerance of men.

14

A woman who has been used can assure herself that she only wanted sex, just as the man did, so long as we deny difference.

15

Men who obtain sex by falsely suggesting the possibility of commitment and love can flatter themselves by pretending that their victims only wanted sex, same as they did. It’s a simple matter of denying difference.

16

By pretending that women feel the same as men do, we encourage husbands to leave their wives in search of sexual freedom. As neither this sameness nor the freedom it would create exists, these husbands wind up miserable. This is exactly what our man-hating society wants, so we go on denying difference.

17

Men who wish to be pious can make believe they are resisting the temptations of countless women yearning to sin with them, thereby exaggerating their own virtue without suffering any of the angst real sexual opportunity would create. In this way denying difference can create an instant sense of righteousness.

18

A wife may imagine her husband surrounded by horny women who leave him cold because he loves her so much. This romance depends on denying difference.

19

Storytellers have long endowed their female characters with a male-like sex drive to provide audiences a temporary escape from the oppressive everyday reality of difference.

20

The great novelist Isaac B. Singer once said that a story, to be interesting, must concentrate on the exceptional. As there is little quite so exceptional as the woman who feels like a man does about sex, she is the subject of a great number of stories, all of which hinge on denying difference.

21

If we did not deny difference, we would have to admit that the storyteller’s art (whether in film, fiction, journalism, or oral) has been sacrificed to create today’s propaganda of correct “gender politics.” Our stories are no longer about expressing truth, whether of the sexual reality or of our hearts. They are about upholding the false ideals of sameness.

22

By denying difference, we can mislead generations of young men, giving them a false idea of women, causing them a great deal of disappointment and pain. This is exactly what our man-hating society wants.

23

When a woman and a man fall in love, it can be reassuring for both to deny the chasm of difference that separates them.

24

Samuel Johnson once said that the law gives woman so little power because Nature has given her so much. Now that women’s legal power meets and exceeds that of men in the West, why don’t we turn to these “natural” inequalities, consider what should be done about them?

Because we don’t have to, so long as we deny difference.

25

Female sexual power is non-transferable: we can no more grant it to men than we can the ability to give birth. Achieving true equality of the sexes would require taking into account many different types of power. Rather than rising to the challenge, we turn away—denying difference.

26

If we admitted difference, we would eventually have to acknowledge that one of the most effective ways of dealing with it is through observing the propriety and decorum which our culture developed over the centuries for this purpose, and which we now take such pride in having put behind us (even as we, hypocritically, continue to follow it). But we lack the necessary humility. Instead we deny difference.

27

If we admitted difference, we would also have to admit there are sound reasons for legalizing prostitution.

28

Men who go to prostitutes like to think these women enjoy the experience as much as they do, even though they demand money to provide it and often clearly loath their clients. The fragile illusion of mutual desire depends on denying difference.

29

If we admitted difference, we would have to pity the man who goes to prostitutes rather than hating him. Our society prefers to hate men, so we deny difference.

30

Across much of the U.S., uncover female police officers pose as prostitutes and arrest any man who offers them money in exchange for sex. The men know about these stings (they are covered by the local media) yet they risk everything—job, wife, family, respect, reputation—and, in the end, lose everything.

We can avoid confronting the deep and widespread male desperation these actions suggest, dismiss these men as “losers,” if we deny difference.

31

All those gay men who think they would be God’s gift to women if they were straight would have to admit they would be in the same boat as their hetero counterparts if we acknowledged difference.

32

If we stopped pretending that men and women feel the same about sex, many men who currently pass as bi-sexual would feel secure enough to “come out” as straight, and admit they are only taking advantage of the sexual freedom homosexuality offers. But this would suggest men suffer from sexual oppression, and that women are the oppressors—the last thing anyone wants to admit. We would prefer to blame the men themselves for all the misery we make them suffer. So we deny difference.

33

If we did not deny difference, all those swingers would have to start calling themselves wife swappers again.

34

Women who try to be like the characters in “Sex and the City” (or whatever television show they watch now) are reluctant to admit that they are forcing themselves to play a part that does not suit them (unlike like Sarah Jessica Parker herself, who has confessed that in “real life” she is a prude). To avoid coming to terms, these women deny difference.

35

Countless baby boomers would have to concede their so called “sexual revolution” was a sham if we failed to deny difference. (As one would-be hippie put it: “The only ones cashing in on the free love action were the pushers and the lead singers in the more popular bands. The rest of us were lucky if we got to take part in a gang rape.”

36


By pretending women feel the same as men do about sex, we can keep male hope of sexual freedom at its current fever pitch, increasing women’s sexual power over men even more.

37

The woman who chooses a mate because of his status in a given sphere (whether social or economic) is not “natural,” as the evolutionary psychologists would have us believe, but rather a symptom of our degraded culture. By denying difference, we can avoid facing the suffering such women cause themselves and especially the men they pass up for all the wrong reasons.

38

Men who use their status in a given sphere to obtain sex would like to think that women are attracted to more than their success. They can convince themselves, if they deny difference.

39

The old chivalry involved opening doors for the ladies and letting them have the first life boats when the ship went down. The new chivalry, a perversion of the old, is far more dangerous. Observing it is simple: all you have to do is deny difference and the sexual power difference creates. In this way we allow women to enjoy all the benefits of this power, with none of the responsibility wielding it should involve, none of the penalties its abuse should incur.

Never have we placed women so high upon their pedestals as we do now that we deny difference.

40

If we tell men that women in other countries are “less inhibited,” men flock to those countries. If we tell men that urban women are more “sophisticated,” they will rush to the cities. I suppose if we place in men’s minds some old fashioned idea of the lusty farmer’s daughter, they will even go to the country. When we deny the universality of difference, pretend that it is only a construct of certain cultures (almost always those we wish to look down upon), we keep men running back and forth, here and there, and prevent them from realizing what is being done to them, which is the point.

41

Mainstream feminism owes much of its current popularity to its depiction of Everywoman as a heroine battling male oppression. If she fails, she is tragic, the victim of men. If she succeeds, her victory is all the more triumphant. We have all heard it said: “She had to work twice as hard.” Admitting difference and the female sexual power difference creates undermines this fiction by reminding us of the truth: women have many advantages that men do not. Sensing how unpopular this truth would be with its base, feminism denies difference.

42

Some gay men like to think their sexuality is essentially the same as women’s. (It never occurs to them to ask why we have no heterosexual equivalent of the gay bathhouse). If we admitted difference, they would lose this illusion of oneness with women.

43

Male masturbation fantasies often rely on denying difference.

44

All of the reasons for denying difference listed here (as well as many others) reinforce each other. If journalists, novelists, film makers, television people, the tease in the next cubicle, the would-be Casanova at the water cooler, all deny difference, women and men must be the same, right?

45

Which brings us to the biggest reason of all: we deny difference because everybody’s doing it.

Another round of feminist rape law reform in Norway

Criminalizing sexuality, and particularly male sexuality, is the most salient aspect of feminism, in my view. All the other feminist shenanigans pale in comparison because criminalization represents direct, institutionalized violence against men. Witnessing ever more hateful and draconian legislative attacks on sexuality is the primary reason behind my radicalization into an MRA. It has reached the point where even the mainstream media these days report the profound impact of feminist sex law reform. In 1999, sex with very drunk or unconscious women was defined in Norway as a relatively minor crime of sexual exploitation and punished by an average of 4 months in prison. Today the same phenomenon is called "rape" and the usual sentence is 4 years.

And that's just one example from a long list of legal reforms during the past 13 years which includes criminalizing negligent rape (abolishing mens rea), criminalizing johns (but not whores), the introduction of a grooming law and associated police stings, criminalizing bestiality, escalating mandatory sentencing, and so on. But despite these extreme advances in misandry, feminists are far from satisfied with the status quo. Now, for the fourth time since 2000, here we go again with another major round of feminist-driven sex law reform. Definitions and penalties for various sex crimes ranging from stalking to rape are set to escalate, in order to capture even more of male behavior and increase the prison population. Sex with anyone under 14 is now categorically to be defined as "rape," shamelessly instituting a deliberate lie in order to demonize men further. A brand new category of "abuse" of 16 to 17-year-olds will also be invented which effectively raises the age of consent to 18 if only the pigs find a pretext for claiming the girl was in a "vulnerable life situation" -- which can mean practically anything they want it to mean. The statute of limitations for sexual offenses against minors is proposed abolished, and retroactively so, so as to prosecute old men for alleged sex crimes many decades in the past. And bizarrely, they want to redefine masturbation to "intercourse" in order to apply the full force of rape law to men who persuade girls to perform sexual acts on themselves. The government has even managed to propose expanding the scope of child pornography law, which is already so absurdly broad that images of adult women who look young are covered, as are drawings and texts which sexualize "children" under 18. This is not enough for the feminists, so now even more ways to incriminate men for "child pornography" are set to be invented.

All the proposed laws can be found here, and now the NGOs and various interest groups will have their say (and notice they are pretty much all feminist groups -- notorious feminists like Ottar are on the list while MRAs are absent), before legislators decide on the final version.

Out of all this hate the highlight is, as usual, the definition of rape. The legal concept of rape has always been the most central concern of feminists, and now the law is officially intended to match the hate-propaganda promulgated by Amnesty International, the UN and other hate groups against men. The spiteful lobbying of these groups really does pay off, and the changes are happening astoundingly fast. Up until as late as 2000, rape law was still fairly sane in the Norwegian Penal Code. This is a facsimile of rape law (§192) before all the recent reforms:

"Den som ved vold eller ved å fremkalle frykt for noens liv eller helse tvinger noen til utuktig omgang..." -- This defines rape as sex coerced by violence or serious threats, which is a reasonable definition. Simple lack of consent does not make it rape and neither does a trivial threat. The woman needs to be made to fear for her life or health. This definition is also consistent with Common Law ("Carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will") and even with evolutionary psychology (“Human copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to her or others she commonly protects” is the definition used by Thornhill & Palmer in A Natural History of Rape). If you dilute the definition to include lower levels of sexual coercion (such as threatening to break up a relationship or start a rumor about a woman), then "rape" ceases to be a heinous crime and pretending we are dealing with the same phenomenon is dishonest.

Yet this is precisely what the feminists have done and, perversely, they have escalated the punishment extremely at the same time as expanding the definition to include trivial levels of sexual coercion. As of 2000 and onwards, any kind of threatening behavior will do, and so will unconsciousness on the part of the woman (which in practice usually means she had sex drunk and later regrets it).

And still, this is not enough. The most vaunted reform in the proposed changes is now to remove the requirement of force/threat entirely, and define rape in terms of simple lack of consent. In practice this means the woman is to be regarded the same way as the law currently treats unconscious women -- even if she is completely sober and feels no fear and is fully able to resist or flee at no risk, she shall not be bothered to do so, because holding women responsible for their actions under any circumstances at all is too much to ask in the current political climate.

If this definition passes, Norwegian rape law will be brought up to the level of the most flagrantly hateful rape laws in the world, such as the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 in the UK. English law went all the way ten years ago and defined rape as intentional penetration of a vagina without consent, and consent is defined as agreeing by choice with the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Violence or coercion does not enter into the definition at all. I have pointed out this trend before as well as the fact that courts tend to convict men according to this radical feminist definition throughout Europe regardless of the letter of the law. In Norway the courts have already routinely convicted men for "rape" without coercion for twelve years now, beyond what the law actually says, as the judges themselves admit. This legal reform is thus more a matter of harmonizing the letter of the law with practice and precedent, but it nonetheless represents a profound conceptual shift in what the feminist state considers to be rape, paving the way for a renewed deluge of accusations against men who will now have even less room to defend themselves.

I would encourage all Norwegians to watch this space for the statements of the interest groups. My regular readers probably know better, but I know a lot of men support NGOs like Amnesty and Save the Children. Do yourself a favor and read the statements from these organizations as they appear and decide if you really want to support such brazen hatred against yourself. I know there are no political parties we can vote for who don't support misandrist sex laws, but you don't need to fund the lobbying for these laws by the odious scumbags in Amnesty and the like also, now do you?

Beware of sex-negative MRAs

A casual observer might get the impression that the Men's Rights Movement is growing, since there clearly are more self-identified MRAs now than ever. But actually, most of this growth sadly consists of a cheerleading chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry rather than any real antifeminism.

There is a deep schism in the MRM between sex-positive and sex-negative MRAs which is well illustrated by how Angry Harry is now treated at A Voice for Men. Angry Harry is a venerable old MRA, a founding father of the movement, and for him to be ostracized like that just for being eminently reasonable is a travesty.

AVfM purports to be an MRA site but is actually a cesspool of feminist filth, where they worship radical feminists like TyphonBlue. She is a particularly nasty promoter of the feminist sex abuse industry including the lie that women are equally culpable for sex offenses. TyphonBlue is so extreme and clueless in her feminist thinking that she even attributes my former rage over celibacy to "processing (badly) some sort of overwhelming sexual trauma from his past." In the feminist worldview, sexual abuse is the only explanation for every perceived problem, and any man who disagrees with feminist abuse definitions must have been abused himself and is in denial.

TyphonBlue, the AVfM crowd and other feminists have a special poster boy for female-on-male "rape" in the former marine James Landrith. I always felt James Landrith was one of the most unsavory characters on the entire Internet, as his advocacy for the expansion of rape law has disgusted me for many years now. Even if he were telling the truth, it is patently absurd to take his sob story of female sexual coercion seriously as rape. The story inspires jealousy in normal men instead of sympathy and Landrith is a hypersensitive outlier to be traumatized by whatever experience he had. Angry Harry says so himself,

Furthermore, even if these particular memories were 100% correct, it seemed very unlikely to me that a 'normal' man would be so traumatised - and remain traumatised even 20 years later - by the incidents described in his article. So, as I said, I groaned inwardly, being somewhat depressed at the thought that false memories and/or 'particularly sensitive' victims were invading one of my comfort zones in cyberspace.

Now it turns out this feminist poster boy is exposed as not only a preposterously sensitive moron but a fraud as well. Angry Harry has caught James Landrith carefully changing his story and relying on recovered memories just like any other feminist accuser of the most untrustworthy kind. Now Landrith even claims, based on memories recovered in therapy, that the woman spiked his drink before "raping" him, making the feminist melodrama complete.

I myself called out the female sex-offender charade several years ago. To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women. I have emphatically stated that women cannot rape men nor sexually abuse boys. I regard it as crucially important for MRAs to make it perfectly clear that we do not acknowledge female sex offenders even in principle. It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist). It is unreasonable to make laws based on hysterical outliers, and most importantly, the laws they want correspond exactly to the most hateful feminist sex laws which hurt innocent men every day. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that anyone supporting the female sex-offender charade is not a true MRA. This is a very good test to separate the wheat from the chaff -- ask how someone feels about female sex offenders, and if they respond that male victims of women are marginalized and female sex offenders need to be prosecuted more vigorously (or at all), then they are most certainly not one of us.

The word for such people is feminist or mangina. And now I've got some bonus advice for manginas: If you want to be sex-negative, then there are ways to go about it without catering to the feminist abuse industry and without advertising how stupid you are. For someone brought up in a feminist milieu this might be difficult to grasp, but guess what -- there are ways to prohibit and punish undesirable sexual activity without defining it as "abuse" of some helpless "victim." Traditional moralists have done so for millennia. One example is Islamic sharia law. Another is traditional Christianity and our laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy and so on in place until recently. Even obscenity can be dealt with on grounds of morality rather than the hateful and ludicrous persecution of "child porn" we have now, where teenagers are criminalized as sex offenders for sharing "abuse" pictures of themselves. A blanket ban on obscenity such as in the old days would be infinitely better and more fair than this charade. I don't agree with the sex-hostility of traditional morality either, but at least it isn't as retarded as the false-flag MRAs who apply feminist sex abuse theory to males. So if you want to be taken seriously, it would serve you better to advocate for traditional moralist values and laws instead of the feminist sex-abuse nonsense.

When a boy gets lucky with an older woman such as a teacher, quit insisting he was "raped" or "abused," because sexual abuse is not what is going on here. Forcing these relationships into a framework of "rape" or "sexual abuse" designed for women only serves to showcase your lack of intelligence and ignorance of human sexuality. It is also not needed in order to proscribe such behavior if you really believe it needs to be a criminal matter. You can punish the woman (or both) for fornication and/or adultery if you insist on being so sex-hostile. No victimology is needed! No denying the boy got lucky and ludicrously attempting to define him as a "victim." No sucking up to the feminists and no display of extreme imbecility on your part.

I can't really argue with moralism, because it basically consists of preferences about what kind of society you'd like to live in or claims about the will of some deity. It is not in the realm of rationality, so beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't all that much to say. But when you make claims about abuse and victimhood like the feminists do, those claims can be tested because they bear relation to the real world and human nature, which is what science is about. Thus scientific methods such as is employed by evolutionary psychology can greatly illuminate the nature of rape and sexual abuse, and whether women can be perpetrators, and it can easily be shown that feminist jurisprudence makes thoroughly unscientific claims. Feminist sex law is neither based on evidence, rationality nor morality and should not be taken seriously. It is mere pseudoscience concocted to justify an ulterior motive. If you still insist on it, you are left with pure absurdity, as is easily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Feminist sex abuse is so arbitrarily defined that if you are blindfolded and transported to a random jurisdiction where you meet a nubile young woman, you would have to consult the wise feminists in the local legislature before knowing if you can feel attracted to her without being an abuser (or even a "pedophile" if you are utterly brainwashed). And if you see a romantic couple, you similarly cannot know if the younger one is being "raped" without consulting the feminists you admire so much. That's how much faith manginas place in feminists -- they allow them to rule their most intimate desires and defer to them unquestioningly. Manginas are feminist sycophants and the MRM is now full of them in places like AVfM, The Spearhead, and the Men's Rights subreddit.

What is going on is this. The manginas are so steeped in feminist propaganda that the only tool in their intellectual toolbox is "abuse." And so in Western countries, even conservatives and religious fanatics (barring Islamists) will only ever argue that any type of sexual activity needs to be banned because it constitutes "abuse." Old concepts of sin or crimes against nature/God have been almost entirely supplanted by the feminist sex "abuse" paradigm. In terms of "abuse" is now the sole means available to conceptualize anything you disapprove of regarding sexuality, so everyone, including devoutly religious people, jumps on the bandwagon and promotes the politically correct abuse industry. Even prostitution is now to be legislated exclusively in terms of sexual exploitation or "trafficking" of (mostly) women -- traditional morality does not enter into it and of course all whores are themselves only innocent victims while the johns are the abusers. Feminists and manginas simply cannot help themselves because they know no other morality after a lifetime of being exposed to feminist propaganda. Feminist theory is so pervasive, any alternative is literally unthinkable for liberals and conservatives alike these days. This is how you get the bizarre charade of putting women on trial for "raping" willing and eager 17-year-old boys. Prosecuting female sex offenders is the most comical and perverse legal charade in history, yet false-flag MRAs support it along with the feminists because they have been that well indoctrinated with feminism. Brainwashing really works. Last night I got a comment from a true believer which well illustrates the profoundly obtuse mindset of a male feminist:

if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the privileges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree.

Such blind devotion to feminist sex law is the hallmark of a mangina. They neither comprehend that men and women are different, nor do they see anything wrong with these hateful sex laws when applied to men either. Instead they unflinchingly support equal injustice for all. We real MRAs need to denounce these fools. Don't be led on by these impostors who claim to be on men's side while promoting the very worst aspects of feminism. Rest assured that real MRAs are not like that and we do exist. The real MRM will trudge on despite our depressingly small size at the moment.

Civil commitment is the new frontier of misandry

Civil commitment of sex offenders is the latest frontier of escalating misandry, at least in the USA. A long and thorough article in The New Yorker delineates this burgeoning avenue of systematic and institutionalized hatred against men: "The Science of Sex Abuse" by Rachel Aviv.

By way of example, a man called John is already imprisoned for 12 years with no end in sight, only for viewing pornography and entrapment by predatory cops who masquerade as underage girls online.

You see, the feminist state is not satisfied with locking up men for the duration of our already absurdly draconian prison terms for phony sex crimes. While, for example, sentencing for possessing child pornography has increased by over 500% in the past 15 years to 119 months on average, the prison term is only the beginning if you are a sex offender. When you are supposed to get out is when the potential life sentence begins, all made possible by the Adam Walsh Act of 2006.

In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which its sponsor described as the “most comprehensive child crimes and protection bill in our Nation’s history.” It allows the federal Bureau of Prisons to keep inmates in prison past their release date if it appears that they’ll have “serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.” Their extended confinement is achieved through civil commitment, a legal procedure more often used to hospitalize patients who have severe mental illness, usually bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. The law is named after Adam Walsh, a seven-year-old boy who was kidnapped at a mall and decapitated. (His father went on to host “America’s Most Wanted.”) Since the nineties, twenty states have passed similar statutes, known as sexually-violent-predator laws, for offenders who suffer from “volitional impairment”—a legal term that does not correspond to any medical diagnosis. (...) In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that sexually-violent-predator state laws are constitutional, because they adhere to the medical model of commitment, by which patients who pose a danger to themselves or others can be prevented from leaving a hospital. To be detained, inmates must have a psychiatric illness or “mental abnormality”—typically sexual in nature—that renders them out of control.

And it doesn't take much to be deemed a “sexually dangerous” offender and hence be detained indefinitely after serving your regular prison term. Any semblance of masculinity will suffice to doom you in the eyes of your feminist overseers.

John waited for his civil-commitment hearings at the Devens prison, and although he had completed his prison term, his daily routine was largely unchanged. He wore the same uniform as other inmates and was subject to the same punishments, schedule, and rules. During a routine shakedown six months after his detainment, guards confiscated an accordion file in his cell containing more than a hundred pages of drawings and notes. A prison psychologist wrote that the papers, “when considered in their totality,” suggest that John “believes children are sexual beings who can consent to sex.” John appeared to be searching for ways to justify his desires. “Our culture has a fear of (children’s) sexuality,” he wrote on one page. “Strictly speaking a girl between 13 and 17 is not a child,” he wrote on another.

Yes, merely speaking the truth about teenage sexuality can be enough to get you indefinitely locked up. Truths I routinely promote on my blog would ensure that I never would get out of prison if I found myself in the nightmare of civil commitment as a sex offender. I fully admit to being a "sexually dangerous person" by feminist standards and I swear I would never go along with their charade and pretend to hold politically correct views on sexuality even if my freedom depended on it.

This is similar to the Norwegian travesty of preventative detention ("forvaring"), which is increasingly common even for trivial sex crimes and enables the same kind of indefinite imprisonment for hypothetical future crimes, except in the American system you don't even need to be sentenced to preventative detention in the first place. Any ostensibly time-limited sentence will do, even for victimless and completely bogus crimes constructed entirely by police deception.

The article also describes the utter corruption which passes as "research" on pedophilia and sex offenses. Prisoners are coerced into confessing false crimes against imaginary victims, and then this is used as "evidence" for continued incarceration and also published in the scholarly journals of the abuse industry, where such lies become mythology and form the basis of further escalation of hateful laws and policies against male sexuality. Thus when feminist judges and legislators cite studies like the “Butner Study Redux” from 2009 in the Journal of Family Violence which purports to show that men convicted of child pornography are 85% likely to also have committed physical sex crimes, we know it is hogwash, concocted by good old feminist methodology:

The program required that its hundred and twelve patients accept responsibility for a life of deviant behavior and thoughts—a philosophy common to most treatment programs. Since sex crimes are vastly underreported, it is reasonable to expect that inmates have committed more crimes than their records reveal. At a professional workshop, Hernández explained that he created a climate of “systematic pressure,” so that inmates would “put all the cards on the table,” abandoning a “life style of manipulation.” Patients were required to compose lists of people they had sexually harmed, which they updated every few months. At daily community meetings, when offenders insisted that they had nothing left to disclose, other prisoners accused them of being in denial or “resistant to change.” If they failed to accept responsibility, they were expelled from the program. For sex offenders, who occupy the bottom of the prison power hierarchy, the Butner unit was a safe haven in the federal prison system. One child-pornography convict, Markis Revland, told the judge at his civil-commitment hearing that when prisoners discover a sex offender among them “they’ll go to great lengths to stab that person.” He requested treatment at Butner after being raped at knifepoint in a Kansas penitentiary. He was encouraged by the psychology staff at Butner to “get it all out,” and came up with a hundred and forty-nine victims. Like other patients, he kept a “cheat sheet” in his cell so that he could remember his victims’ ages and the dates that he’d abused them. There was no evidence for the crimes, thirty-four of which would have occurred during a time when Revland was incarcerated.

I recommend reading Rachel Aviv's article in full. Read it and hate. This glimpse of truth is apt to inspire hatred against the scumbags in law enforcement and the rest of the abuse industry more than I am able to myself on my humble incitatory blog. After prolonged exposure to escalating misandry I hate cops so profoundly that words fail me and eloquence deserts me (due to all the stress hormones associated with raw hatred), but this is mainstream reporting, which is somewhat encouraging. Cops are truly the scum of the earth and I hate their guts for their persecution of male sexuality on the basis of feminist sex laws. While many so-called MRAs these days sadly are busy promoting the feminist sex abuse industry as long as it upholds equal injustice for women as well as men, I direct my activist hatred squarely where it is deserved at the feminist sex abuse industry itself and its core values. Those core values are hatred of normal male sexuality, plain and simple, and the only rational thing for men to do is to band together and fight back against the abuse industry. In practice, this probably means working for the collapse of Western civilization since feminism and manginas are now clearly endemic to it, but so be it, because this is not a society I want to live in.

A public service announcement to the Norwegians: Glorifying crime is legal

How hard can it be to comprehend the distinction between incitement and threats? Evidently, most journalists are too dense to grasp that incitement does not equal threats, even if you explain it to them repeatedly. While media coverage of a subject you are intimately familiar with is often amusingly inaccurate, this takes misinformation so far that it just boggles my mind. These are examples from the most recent spate of media coverage of my case:

http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/trusler-paa-nett-blir-ulovlig-3947185.html
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/norsk-politikk/artikkel.php?artid=10071887
http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/mottar-ofte-trusler-paa-nett-loven-er-en-revolusjon-3947189.html

They report that the government now wants to make threats on the Internet illegal -- as if this is legal now, which of course is bullshit and can get you into a lot of trouble if you take it seriously. The word they should have used is incitement ("oppvigling" in Norwegian), but this does not appear to be included in their vocabulary; it is all just "threats" to them. Since the news outlets do such a lousy job, I am going take it upon myself to clarify some legal matters surrounding incitement, threats, and glorification.

Firstly, despite what you read in the newspapers, threats have nothing to do with my case. I was never accused of making threats, nor does the proposed legal reform consist of criminalizing threats. Threats on the Internet have in fact been illegal since before the Internet existed, as the law against threats makes no reference to the medium:

§ 227. Med Bøder eller med Fængsel indtil 3 Aar straffes den, som i Ord eller Handling truer med et strafbart Foretagende, der kan medføre høiere Straf end 1 Aars Hefte eller 6 Maaneders Fængsel, under saadanne Omstændigheder, at Truselen er skikket til at fremkalde alvorlig Frygt, eller som medvirker til saadan Trusel. Under særdeles skjerpende omstendigheter, jf. § 232 tredje punktum, kan fengsel inntil 6 år idømmes.

If I had been threatening murder like the newspapers keep reporting, you can be sure that the cops would not have passed up the opportunity to charge me for making threats and would have used §227 instead of §140.

I was just charged with incitement, for expressing my opinion that killing cops is a morally legitimate course of activism for MRAs. This might fit the legal definition of incitement, except the law specifies that incitement must occur in public, and "public" happens to be defined in such a way as to exclude the Internet. I was also somewhat baffled that they didn't try §147c or perhaps §135, though these too would have fallen through on the same technicality (§135 is null and void for additional reasons I will explain below and slated to disappear entirely in favor or freedom of speech). Anyway, I was charged by §140 only, which reads as follows:

§ 140. Den, som offentlig opfordrer eller tilskynder til Iværksettelsen af en strafbar Handling eller forherliger en saadan eller tilbyder at udføre eller bistaa ved Udførelsen af en saadan, eller som medvirker til Opfordringen, Tilskyndelsen, Forherligelsen eller Tilbudet, straffes med Bøder eller med Hefte eller Fængsel indtil 8 Aar, dog i intet Tilfælde med høiere Frihedsstraf end to Tredjedele af den høieste for Handlingen selv anvendelige. Lige med strafbare Handlinger regnes her Handlinger, til hvis Foretagelse det er strafbart at forlede eller tilskynde.

This basically states that whosoever publicly exhorts or incites to the implementation of a punishable act or glorifies such or offers to carry out or aid the execution of such, or who aids and abets the exhortation, implementation, glorification, or offer, can be punished by up to eight years in prison.

I was also charged with the "glorifying" a crime part, the most flagrant example of which cited from my blog being this post. However, as my lawyer has cogently explained to me, glorifying crime is legal and, crucially, it will remain legal after the new law is passed, and even after next time the Penal Code is revised entirely. The take-home message I want to convey in this post is that we are free to exult in and publicly celebrate successful violence against our oppressors.

If you consult the law, it will as quoted above still tell you that glorifying crime is illegal. Even the hearing note published by the government promulgates the myth that the proposed law temporarily expands the scope of §140 and other laws beyond what is allowed by the new penal code of 2005 until that one replaces the current Penal Code of 1902. Hell, even the Lawyer's Association is duped, though they at least half-heartedly oppose such illegal expansion. But this is wrong. The government cannot do it. Most people don't know this, and you certainly can't glean this information from reading the newspapers. I also can't guarantee that the police lawyers have got this straight yet, so there is a risk, if you glorify illegal acts publicly, that you might get arrested and charged, maybe even jailed for a while by the lower courts. But I am confident that you will be cleared in the end just as I was. So rest assured that we can legally express our joy when feminist enforcers are killed.

No punishment for glorifying crime is possible after due consideration of the law, and the reasoning goes like this: A new Penal Code is already worked out, which was already approved back in 2005. And the section of the new law equivalent to §140 does not cover glorification. The new incitement law simply reads like this:

§ 183. Oppfordring til en straffbar handling. Den som offentlig oppfordrer noen til å iverksette en straffbar handling, straffes med bot eller fengsel inntil 3 år.

There is a rule to the effect that when a new criminal law is passed, but not yet in effect, then to the extent that it counts to the citizens' favor, the new law will apply immediately in that regard. So anything in current law which is no longer criminalized in the coming law, is also not punishable today, and glorifying crime is one example of this. Conversely, if the new law constructs new crimes, then of course the state must wait for the law to take effect before prosecuting you, and nothing can become retroactively illegal, or else I could have been convicted under the Penal Code of 2005, which is already Internet-ready.

So why isn't the Penal Code of 2005 implemented yet, after seven years? Supposedly this is due to problems with legacy software in the government computer systems. It would cost billions to update the old systems and make them compatible with the new law, and so the law is postponed indefinitely. My guess is it won't be implemented until sometime in the 2020s. The delay is actually a good thing, since the new law is even more hateful than the old in some ways. The chapter on sex crimes is infuriating reading indeed, perfusing my soul with seething antifeminist hatred. The sex laws thoroughly criminalize every aspect of sexuality you can imagine, same as before, and then some. Negligent rape can now get you ten years, up from eight, while negligent manslaughter is still limited to six years. Most spectacularly: A legal fiction of "rape" is constructed for all sex with anyone under 14. This was formerly construed as "abuse," which is also dishonest and hateful, but now the feminist sex abuse industry escalates their malice to the point of forcing those under 14 to believe they have been "raped" when they have consensual sex. This is similar to the Anglo-American notion of "statutory rape" -- except Norwegians are not culturally prepared to grasp the difference, and so at least initially, news reports of "rape" will tend be taken literally until the unwashed hordes wise up to this legal mendacity. While this change is strictly linguistic and the sentencing remains the same, it represents escalated demonization of men by means of a deliberate lie, showing the true nature of the revolting feminist scumbags in our legislature. They know what they are doing and I requite them with an equal measure of hatred.

So despite some minor expansion of freedom of speech (which I understand legislators were forced into due to human rights obligations -- not because they are nice), we can be thankful that these loathsome feminists can't figure out how to put the entire Penal Code of 2005 into effect yet. In the meantime, politicians must resort to patching up the old laws temporarily whenever they want to introduce new crimes, and this is what is now happening as a direct result of my case. Because I got out of jail, legislators are scrambling to enact what I have previously referred to as Lex Berge to make sure it won't happen again. Rather than touch §140 though, as a stopgap measure they now want to change the legal definition of "public" as defined in §7 from

1. Ved offentligt Sted forstaaes i denne Lov ethvert for almindelig Færdsel bestemt eller almindelig befærdet Sted. 2. En Handling ansees forøvet offentlig, naar den er forøvet ved Udgivelse af trykt Skrift eller i Overvær af et større Antal Personer eller under saadanne Omstændigheder, at den let kunde iagttages fra et offentligt Sted og er iagttaget af nogen der eller i Nærheden værende. 

to

1. Med offentlig sted menes et sted bestemt for alminnelig ferdsel eller et sted der allmennheten ferdes. 2. En handling er offentlig når den er foretatt i nærvær av et større antall personer, eller når den lett kunne iakttas og er iakttatt fra et offentlig sted. Består handlingen i fremsettelse av et budskap, er den også offentlig når budskapet er fremsatt på en måte som gjør det egnet til å nå et større antall personer. 

This will do the trick of making the Internet "public," which will affect various laws referring to "public" speech acts (details here) including §140. The proposed change has now been commented on by various interest groups, and their statements are available here.

As usual, the process of changing the law offers insight into odious feminist lobbying. Sure enough, feminist hate groups like the NGO known as Save the Children seize the opportunity to push for not just criminalization of incitement on the Internet, but more hateful sex laws as well. These scumbags specifically want to include closed, password-protected Internet fora and communities in the definition of "public" so as to criminalize more men who get in touch with hookers in closed spaces under §202, which criminalizes public communications pertaining to prostitution. I hate their guts profoundly and wish all men would heed my advice never to give a penny to feminist hate groups such as Save the Children, Amnesty, etc. who masquerade as charitable organizations. Lobbying by the nauseating cunt rags in these organizations is in large measure how the feminist state was built. For example, Save the Children was also instrumental in lobbying for our grooming law (§ 201a. introduced in 2007), which is now one more tool in the feminist toolbox used to hurt men. And Amnesty keeps campaigning for further expansion of rape law. Also, let us not forget how the cops themselves relentlessly agitate for ever more escalation of sex laws so they can persecute more men, even though the issue at hand is freedom of speech. They are the scum of the earth.

I suppose I should mention that there are some exceptions to my guarantee that glorifying crime is legal. I promote hatred against feminism, which is an ideology, and there is indeed no valid statute against promoting hatred towards political ideologies or glorifying crime against feminist enforcers. However, if you promote hatred towards or glorify crime against some race or religion and so on, then this could be covered by the so-called "racism law," §135a. Unlike the incitement law, this one was already adapted to the Internet in 2005, so another falsehood the journalists need to stop blathering about is that hateful utterances online are now going to be criminalized as if they weren't already:

§ 135a. Den som forsettlig eller grovt uaktsomt offentlig setter frem en diskriminerende eller hatefull ytring, straffes med bøter eller fengsel inntil 3 år. Likt med en offentlig fremsatt ytring, jf. § 7 nr. 2, regnes en ytring når den er satt frem slik at den er egnet til å nå et større antall personer. Som ytring regnes også bruk av symboler. Medvirkning straffes på samme måte. Med diskriminerende eller hatefull ytring menes det å true eller forhåne noen, eller fremme hat, forfølgelse eller ringeakt overfor noen på grunn av deres a) hudfarge eller nasjonale eller etniske opprinnelse, b) religion eller livssyn, eller c) homofile legning, leveform eller orientering.

This law is hateful and contrary to free speech and I totally oppose it, but it does not apply to men's rights activism. At least not unless the MRAs also happen to be racists, xenophobes, homophobes, or religiously intolerant -- none of which applies to me or most MRAs I know.

So in conclusion, while incitement on the Internet may soon turn illegal in Norway, glorifying crime (except against the usual protected minorities) is and will remain legal for the foreseeable future.

Why I have repudiated my family

It is said that you learn who your true friends are in times of hardship. One of the few things I am actually grateful to the cops for is making it abundantly clear who are and are not my friends. In my experience police interrogations are an excellent litmus test for who your true friends are and who are your enemies, or at best, naive authoritarian police-state sycophants with whom you should not associate at all for your own safety.

Suppose you are arrested, jailed and charged with bullshit crimes, whereupon the police interrogate family and friends in order to build a case. The results can be very revealing indeed, since of course you are entitled to read the transcripts of all these interrogations (although I am not sure the interrogatees were mindful of this fact). Out of all the 10 or so people the cops talked to (and they made reports detailing what was said on the phone too, so I got a good impression of the attitudes of those who declined a formal interrogation as well), only my girlfriend passed this test of true friendship. The rest revealed themselves as utter scumbags. It was shocking, really, as I had not expect quite such an exuberantly bootlicking display of kowtowing to authority. My father was the worst. At his interrogation he initially expressed relief that I was imprisoned and said he hoped I would receive a punishment that even Breivik was spared -- psychiatric coercion. And then he proceeded with badmouthing me for 13 pages, volunteering bizarre and erroneous reasons largely manufactured by his imagination for why he thinks I am "sick." All this despite not being obligated to say anything at all, as even in authoritarian Norway no one can be forced to testify against close family members. Other family members echoed my dad's sentiments, albeit with slightly less extreme embellishments. They all wanted to see me attacked by psychiatry. My opinions and stature as a public men's rights activist bother them, so they think they can conveniently make it all go away by fantasizing about mental illness.

The interrogations influenced the cops to order a psychiatric observation in the hope of declaring me unaccountable and provided grist for the mill for further imprisonment. The entire second court hearing was basically built around my alleged mental instability. The police lawyer even called me mentally unstable in the media before I had been evaluated by a psychiatrist. And in court he had the audacity to request closed doors in order to cater to my family (secrecy is often requested in Norway when the prosecution has something to hide) and make their lies less uncomfortable for them (we objected and secrecy was not granted).

I wish I could publish all the interrogations as well as the psychiatric report in full. My family tried to hurt me and they do not deserve secrecy. Due to egregiously unjust laws I am only allowed to read these transcripts at my lawyer's office. As I see it, all this secrecy is another feature of institutionalized corruption in the Norwegian justice system. These documents were presented to a court (actually three courts) in order to get me imprisoned (and successfully so for three weeks), and so they should of course be public. Secrecy serves accusers and the cops but it does not serve justice.

I could write more about the oddities of the Norwegian system. In Norway at pretrial hearings there are two separate games played: one in the courtroom and one in the media. Since the press is barred from quoting what is said in court even when they are allowed to attend (we demanded to get this limitation overruled as well but was denied), what is said publicly by lawyers on both sides as well as the defendant often does not correspond to what actually takes place in court. Different things are said to each when it is tactically advantageous. It quaintly felt like fighting in two separate arenas with different rules, and though I enjoy a good media circus as much as the next guy, I was frustrated by the lack of simple public illumination of the actual documents in the case, all of which I would have been well served by publishing.

So unfortunately I am limited to quoting the interrogations from memory, much of which I have forgotten. To get a flavor of it, my dad said things like I spend all my time isolated in my room behind dark curtains, so I must be sick. It is a false, and he doesn't even have any way of knowing what I do with my time since I haven't lived with him since 2005. And even then it was not true. For one thing, I marched in the Global Marijuana March five years in a row and even helped organize it in Bergen. Being the leftist that he is, my highly social activism against the drug war (as well as for men's rights) does not count. Since I choose to do other things than whatever he thinks would be proper, he has decided I am "sick" and need "treatment," and everything he told the cops was meant to substantiate that claim. Absurdly, much was made of the supposed dimmed lights in my room and the fact that I don't open the curtains much. Evidently you need the sun shining in your face while viewing your computer screen in order to be sane in his opinion? What a moron. There is a time to be out in the sun (which I do every day when I go running and other things) and a time to work at your computer, and combining them isn't terribly convenient.

He may have been able to fool the cops, but luckily the forensic psychiatrist was not so gullible. It was a tough call whether I should agree to talk to the psychiatrist they sent to Bergen prison at all, but I decided that since I have nothing to hide, it would be best to be completely open and get it over with, which is what was bound to happen if the psychiatrist was accountable himself. And he was. We can laugh at it now, but it got really tense at the time. The situation was a matter of life or death. Just imagine how you would feel if psychiatric coercion was brought to bear in an attempt to change your ideology. Would you sacrifice your integrity, allow yourself to be poisoned by toxic chemicals, and pretend to change your mind in order to eventually get out, or would you fight it to the death (and lose your mind in the process)? Facing this situation was a real possibility and if my family had had their way, I would not be here today. I have stated in no uncertain terms that in the event that I should fall victim to psychiatric coercion, then the outcome will be lethal not just for me, and I stand by this 100%. I would feign docility (fighting at every stage is most honorable, but let's face it: resistance is futile and inevitably leads to psychosis as you are strapped down and caged indefinitely) and emerge as a violent activist (i.e. suicide attacker, since I wouldn't let them capture me alive again) against psychiatry after however long it would take to get out, even if it would take decades. And since that blog post was already entered as evidence in the case, I had basically signed my own death sentence. It is doubtful that I would ever get out. I even reiterated my resolve to avenge psychiatric coercion in court, and upheld violent activism as the most ethical way for anybody to relate to psychiatric coercion if you are a victim of it. I feel very strongly about this and no technology exists to change my mind. They can torture you and kill you, but thankfully there is as of yet no way in psychiatry's toolbox to change a person's ideology into whatever they consider politically correct. Opinions cannot be coerced. At least not when your ideology is not based on any delusions but represents your full moral and political conviction. Yes, you would have to kill me in order to kill my ideology, because such is my concept of identity that the opinion cannot be separated from the man. And if I forfeit the integrity of my mind, then I shall consider myself already dead and act accordingly as described in my cognitive liberty blog post. If ever victimized by psychiatry, the remaining energy in this body shall go exclusively towards a bloody revenge.

People like my father do not respect my having an independent opinion. They think they can coerce me into adopting whatever opinion they see fit. It is bizarre and cruel, and mind-boggling that anybody can be so deranged, really. Personally I would not entertain the notion of coercing opinions on even my worst enemies, even if it were possible. You do not, if you are a decent person, settle disputes by pathologizing your adversaries. That would be an infantile worldview. The world is not some cozy place where you are right about everything and anyone who disagrees is sick. True heartfelt hatred exists in this world and whichever views you hold, somebody is going to hate your guts for it. They are entitled to their opinion. Irreconcilable differences exist and they may legitimately lead to violence and war, but never psychiatry. The struggle I am attempting to usher in against feminist sex law is motivated by real moral indignation, and no amount of psychiatry can or should change that even if you are on the opposite side. Feminism versus MRA is an irreconcilable difference that can only be resolved by violence; indeed that is how it is resolved as we speak. Currently, normal male sexuality is suppressed by state violence and men don't fight back. The MRA mission is to thwart the state-enforced violence that feminists wield today, and I was a political prisoner of this war. This conflict is real and has nothing to do with mental illness, nor can I be brainwashed by psychiatry to relinquish my agenda.

Fortunately, and despite the psychiatrist being selected by the police and thus biased accordingly, he saw through the foolishness of my family and pronounced me sane. His report was conclusive enough and so favorable I almost could have written it myself, but it was still a close shave. The Breivik case revealed that forensic psychiatry is rather like playing Russian roulette with your mind. If I had not chanced to be seen by a fairly reasonable psychiatrist, but rather some scumbags like Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim (it is still not clear to me if they are psychopaths or just plain incompetent, but either way they will ruin your life) who will declare you insane for no good reason, then my life would have been over, and it is no thanks to my family that it ended well.

In Norway, the convenience of the cops trumps everything. It is routine to keep in all likelihood innocent suspects in solitary confinement for months just so the cops can check out some distant lead or attempt to break you down in order to extract a confession; say if someone dumps a corpse in your garden and you seem like a shady character. It is really scary how easily the police have their way and how nonexistent is any movement for civil liberties. Suspects are also jailed based on fabricated evidence, or in my case highly distorted evidence (e.g. textbooks on explosives I received as a conscript in the military were used to paint me as a dangerous terrorist). I now fully realize based on personal experience that no matter how convincing evidence presented in court by the prosecution may appear to a spectator, it may well be total bullshit.

It boggles the mind that Norwegians put up with such police methods. It is as if they think police can do no wrong and should have unlimited powers. Pretrial detention is standard operating procedure. In Norway you are presumed guilty and jailed on first suspicion, frequently in full isolation, and then only released if the cops fail turn up any convincing evidence after months of investigation at their leisure. Foreign readers should take note that the Norwegian system is profoundly more oppressive in certain ways than what you expect, at least prior to trial. Where American suspects get to bail themselves out, Norwegian suspects get solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is torture and here it can happen to anyone for many months based on some vague suspicion and the flimsiest of pretext that you might otherwise spoil the (nonexistent) evidence. Yet this does not seem to bother most people until it happens to them. Norwegians are truly an authority-loving sheeple. In the face of such a totalitarian state, can you at least trust your family not to side with the cops and jump to the conclusion that you are maximally guilty from the outset? One would hope so, but I found that I cannot. My family showed their true color as world-class scumbags, and so for my own safety I have resolved never to talk to them again.

Good riddance. I consider myself fortunate to have tested this in a real situation. Others might take a moment to reflect if your family are liable to cooperate with the police, or even worse, sell you down the river to psychiatry. If so, you might want to remove them from your life. Such persons are a deadly liability and not worth the risk of associating with, even if they are your parents or siblings. This is not meant to be mean; just basic self-preservation.

Case dropped

Exactly three months after Norway's Supreme Court ruled that my blogging is outside the purview of criminal law, the police have finally conceded that they have to drop their case against me. It still needs to be finally decided by the Attorney-General, but at least the cops have admitted they have no case.

The stage is now set for claiming compensation for wrongful prosecution, including the three weeks I spent in prison. I haven't discussed the details with my lawyer yet, but we expect to be reimbursed according to the usual rates for baseless prosecution and imprisonment. I have been treated and portrayed as a criminal, even though I broke no laws, so I am clearly entitled to compensation like any other falsely accused person. However unpopular my opinions may be should have no bearing on this. And if the state refuses to settle for a reasonable amount, then we shall sue them.

Antifeminism in Norwegian

I can possibly thank the editors of Kuiper magazine for my freedom right now. This spring, they invited me to write an article (in Norwegian) on gender issues for their literary magazine, and so I did. It was supposed to appear alongside articles by feminists who were also invited to contribute. But as it turned out, the feminists didn't complete their work, and the editors did not want to publish my article on its own without any arguments from the opposing side. This is the excuse I received for not publishing my article:

Vi har nå bestemt hva som skal være med i Kuiper-nummeret, og har dessverre ikke funnet plass til din tekst likevel.
Det er det to grunner til: Da vi ba deg om å skrive en tekst, var tanken at vi skulle ha en debatt-seksjon i dette nummeret, hvor vi la skjønnlitteraturen til side og skrev om mannen i samfunnet. De to andre tekstene vi hadde tenkt at skulle stå til din tekst, blir heller ikke trykket. Den ene var for dårlig, og den andre ble aldri levert. Slik er det noen ganger når man lager et tidsskrift uten penger til å betale bidragsyterne våre for arbeidet de skal gjøre.
Vi vurderte å trykke din artikkel på egen hånd, men flere i redaksjonen var motvillige til å gjøre det på grunn av innholdet - og da særlig når din artikkel fikk stå uimotsagt, uten det motsatte perspektivet. Jeg beklager at det ble slik.

All because Kuiper declined to publish my piece on the gender war, or more accurately because some feminists couldn't be bothered (or were unable) to write decent articles, I am at large today and free to pursue more activism. So it all works out for the best, even though I was somewhat disappointed at the time.

Now I am traveling to Oslo to be on a TV show (Trygdekontoret) to debate feminists. Since this program tends to be more a comedy show than serious debate, and there is only so much you can say on a 40-minute TV production with several participants anyway, I thought this was a good time to promote my unpublished article before it is criminalized. Interested Norwegian-speakers can hereby read my article "Mannskamp" for a succinct overview of what men's rights activism is all about.

This article may or may not constitute criminal incitement if it were published in print media. The cops certainly believe it does, as they included it in the case documents in their attempt to prosecute me, and the lowest court (and only the lowest court) agreed with the cops and found probable cause sufficient for pretrial detention. But at any rate, as the Supreme Court has ruled, whether it would fit the criminal definition of incitement by §140 or not, everything I have written is legal for now as long as it is only published on the Internet. And thanks to Kuiper, I haven't published anything in print. The medium, rather than the content, makes all the difference and keeps me out of jail. So here is the link again for those interested in more than the satirical treatment of my views they may get on TV: "Mannskamp."

Comments are welcome on both the article and my appearance on TV, which will air on Wednesday, October 17 at NRK.