Sunday, September 25, 2022

RIP Nathan Larson

This requires its own post, because it marks the passing of a male sexualist hero. Take a moment to remember and appreciate a balanced activist life as summarized and vindicated in a comment I just received from "Jeffrey." And by balance I mean Nathan found ways to live in addition to being an ideologue for our cause.

I've been informed that Nathan Larson died on Sunday September 18th, one day before his 42nd birthday. He'd been on a hunger strike for months and was being held in a prison hospital. I've not yet been able to confirm this news from official sources, but the person from whom it originates was a good friend of his and an administrator on his forum. This same person has just uploaded a 20-page handwritten manifesto by Nathan in which he explains why he chose to risk chose to risk so much to pursue a relationship with a young girl.

The manifesto begins with the following paragraph: "As the government seems to be putting forth a misleading narrative that I sought to sexually exploit a young girl using coercion or deception, I feel it is time to correct the record."

Here is the link to the complete manifesto: http://www.dropbox.com/s/difrft7zf04jj8u/Nathan%20Larson%27s%20Manifesto.pdf?dl=0

It's important to remember that Nathan was not quite the monster or psychopath that the media has made him out to be. Granted, he has posted fantasies on the internet that would make the Marquis de Sade smile, but those posts were not indicative of how he acted in real life. To quote his own words, "When people go over the top, there’s a grain of truth to what they say." (Source: https://archive.ph/UyO1F).

The girl that he "kidnapped" told one of her friends that she had fallen in love with him (source: http://archive.ph/AhMO2), and there is no evidence whatsoever that he used coercion or threats to convince her to leave her parental home with him.

Claims that he drove his ex-wife Augustine to suicide are highly doubtful, considering that she killed herself shortly after "Child Protective Services" removed her daughter from her custody indefinitely. It's much more likely that sadness about losing custody over her daughter is what motivated her suicide. In the end, both her and Nathan lost as a result of her misguided attempt to be granted sole custody.

"Augustine took her own life on June 8, 2015, shortly after the Department of Human Services removed her child based on an anonymous tip claiming that she had mental health issues preventing her from safely caring for the child. Augustine denied this, but was unable to persuade the court to release the child from state custody. The child is currently in the care of August's parents." (Source: https://archive.ph/895bn).

Claims that Nathan violently raped Augustine also seem to be false. She had a rape kink and they had an agreed-upon safe-word. While Nathan has admitted that he ignored the safe-word on at least one occasion, it doesn't seem to be the case that he ever used physical violence against her. It took her weeks to decide that what happened was "rape." (source: http://archive.ph/bHeGG).

Saturday, September 24, 2022

Acting

I owe y'all an explanation for the film role I said I was getting. So, here it is.

Sunday, June 26, 2022

Skepticism vs. ideological possession

Here is a reminder that we don't need to conduct any new studies to debunk false sexual abuse of the sort claimed to lead to trauma despite being consensual and physically harmless. We don't even need the old studies, because they never presented any real evidence to begin with. All we need is plain critical thinking the way it always should be applied to something new. Forget all the propaganda: just treat CSA as a new claim and see what happens. Angry Harry already made this point some twenty years ago when he came up with the idea of "tea abuse." Suppose some people claimed that that having a parent who drank tea when they were children was a later cause of major depression, illness, suicide and psychological dysfunction. Do we need studies to refute this? No, skepticism is enough, at least until someone presents extraordinary evidence for the claim, with the burden of proof clearly resting on them.

There are times when something new really is harmful. Leaded gasoline is a great example, which we luckily figured out and got rid of within 50-100 years, and really should have thought better of from the beginning as it was hardly a secret that lead is toxic. Tea has been consumed long enough that we can rest easy though. And as to sex, we have eons of experience against feminist claims taken out of thin air in the past century alone with no evidence to back them up:



We just need hard-nosed skepticism to refute the feminist claims of CSA. The fact that girls are evolved to reach full reproductive competence at 11-13 years of age (along with the psychosocial maturation necessary to function as an adult in a primitive society), and did so in the Old Stone Age as well as now (only interrupted by periods of poor nutrition in between), sets the bar of skepticism astronomically high to any claim that sex with teenagers is inherently abusive. That skepticism is lacking because of ideological possession, but it is nothing more than what a rational person would apply to either a newly discovered/reputed toxin such as tea or a supernatural claim. All we need to do is cut through the ideology and special-interest politics benefiting old hags and jealous parents and their entourage of parasites in the abuse industry -- in a word, feminism -- and all the "abuse" goes away too, retaining no more force than tea abuse. So what if society has gotten more complicated in other ways recently? You might as well claim we need a degree in quantum physics in order to not be traumatized by taking a shit, so removed from real biology and mentality is our contrivance of "child sexual abuse" -- nothing more than a superstitious excuse to punish whatever you want.

Society is ideologically possessed as if by an evil antisex demon, and I as a man am only trying to defend ourselves against the mad injustice. Look at the ethereal nonsense "sexual abuse" has become, of both children and women and men too, a complete farce that puts the Malleus Maleficarum to shame in the bullshitting olympics of the ages. Look at the latest permutation of "rape" in the feminist state of Norway, which has lost literally ALL the substance traditionally associated with that concept and now consists of sheer nonsense, where perfectly willing girls are even "raped" by charging you money for sex, and the bigger the luxury prostitution the bigger the offense because offering a girl money is defined as a sort of violence used to get her to sleep with you (it is really bad game to pay girls so much, which as we can see makes them treat you like shit, plus he was a sometime wanker too, but he did nothing morally wrong and comes off as a role model on balance, finding ways to swim in premium pussy at the tender age of 19 when many of us were still incels). Supposedly 24 girls have been "raped" with exactly zero grounding in any real rape or abuse... One does wonder, do the normies really, REALLY read this and think OMG A HORRIBLE SERIAL RAPIST or are they able to see through the bullshit on some level and realize that this is just a ridiculously generous sugar daddy, even more silly because he is young enough to go on regular dates with these girls without raising an eyebrow?

Tiltale: Ung mann betalte unge jenter store beløp for voldtekter

En ung mann fra Østfold er tiltalt for voldtekt av i alt 24 jenter. 13 av jentene skal ha fått betaling for overgrepene, hvorav én fikk 300.000 kroner.

Mannen var i slutten av tenårene da han i løpet av et års tid mellom høsten 2019 og høsten 2020 skal ha gjennomført alle overgrepene.

Mannen fra Østfold er tiltalt for voldtekter av i alt 24 jenter under 18 år i løpet av denne perioden. De yngste jentene var kun 13 år da overgrepene startet, og for flere av jentene skjedde overgrepene gjentatte ganger.

Overgrepene besto ifølge tiltalen både av fysiske overgrep og overgrep via nett.

Den unge mannen er også tiltalt for å ha betalt 13 av barna for overgrepene. Flere av dem skal ha fått svært store beløp.

 En av jentene skal i alt ha fått utbetalt 300.000 kroner over en periode på noen måneder, samt sigaretter, snus og alkohol, mens en annen skal ha fått 143.000 kroner.

Mannen skal også ha betalt tre unge kvinner over 18 år for sex.

I tillegg er mannen tiltalt for å ha betalt en av de unge kvinnene 90.000 kroner for at hun ikke skulle kontakte politiet og fortelle at hun følte seg plaget av ham og presset til å ha sex med ham mot betaling.

Det er satt av tolv rettsdager til saken som skal starte 19. september. (NTB)

No, as far as I can tell the normies still don't care how absurd, how hateful, how senseless this is, how empty the accusations (including the retarded idea that girls can be "abused" over the Internet, as if there is any sexual value in wanking), because they are functional morons in relation to everything to do with sex crimes, impervious to any more reason than existed in the darkest witch-hunts. What passes as justice is indistinguishable from witch-doctoring, it is witch-doctoring, and no true believer is even going to read this post or anything else approaching a critical analysis of "sexual abuse" because they are so smug or complacent in their true belief that they think they don't have to. What's next, is holding hands and dancing with a 17-year-old sexual abuse too? Oh wait, that already happened, astonishingly even pioneered by a female "offender" on male "victim," and people are immunized from speaking up because they are conditioned to view ALL of sexuality including all flirting and "grooming" and lack of humorless draconian "safeguarding" and boys getting lucky with the slightest scrap of affection from women as abuse. Are you feeling uneasy yet if you followed those links and admitted a flash of consciousness, or still a normie? Normies cannot spot the intolerance because their mass psychosis dictates that all persecution of sexuality must be for good reasons, so I bet you don't feel it unless you are one of my regular readers or perhaps coming in from the MAP movement who are our only extant kin.

It hit me anew how isolated I am when my grandma died recently and because of the situation I didn't attend the funeral. How profoundly I don't belong, how I have severed all connection not just with society at large but my former family by my activism and the normie reaction to it (though I certainly still hope to start my own family!). As antisex bigotry marches on laying ever greater swathes of sexuality waste it strikes me that the only effect of our activism at this point is to destroy our own families too. They will feel the hate, but they won't pause to try to make sense of it from our point of view, coasting along in the smug conviction that feminism is always right and there can't possibly be anything wrong with the sex laws. When yesterday's sugar daddy is today's rapist, just to name the latest escalation which should shock the bejesus out of any decent person, they don't give a flying fuck about the redefinition of our normal sexuality into criminality, as if it has always been that way and there is nothing to see here. Sometimes I feel it is still worth doing activism just so our families can feel there is something wrong, even if they can't comprehend that it is not me who has gone insane. They will never allow themselves to hear a single rational argument, sticking exclusively to feminist propaganda, with journal articles by Rind et al. also off limits and my blog at best relayed and distorted though the news media where it is simply dismissed as "extremism." They will only ever think that I am sick or at best ideologically possessed, even though it is society who is both and still on its way to ever more extreme feminism.

I shall complete this post printing what I also wrote in Norwegian on Facebook about not going to my grandmother's funeral. For reference, this is the first post I wrote about my family's betrayal: "Why I have repudiated my family," which I now follow up with an update ten years later, the first notably sad consequence since I really did mean to go to that funeral and was even asked to be a pallbearer. But I didn't, and with that I lost the final gathering of that side of the family, which I hear was grand with lots of relatives coming in from Sogn and Sunnfjord to give her a worthy sendoff. It was the end of a whole generation, the one which experienced World War II. It was quite sad to miss the funeral, but at least it gave me the impetus to write this yet another futile attempt to explain that us sexualists are not doing it to be mean or anything like that, but because we are deeply morally convinced and intellectually sure of our activism. Rather than sick violent misogynists we are near-pacifist conscientious objectors to a senseless antisex war which hurts us all, even if your only feel for it is that a family member no longer considers you family (and of course you care nothing about the men in prison).

***

I dag begraves min farmor, Dorthea Berge (født 1926). Jeg skal ikke i begravelsen. Jeg skulle gjerne gått i begravelsen, men naturligvis vil min far være der, og det ble for stressende. Jeg har unngått min far siden 2012 fordi han da samarbeidet med politiet mens jeg ble arrestert og fengslet for min mannsaktivisme. Og ikke på en naiv tilgivelig måte heller hvor man snakker godt om en person uten å vite at det er dumt å snakke med politiet i det hele tatt, men ondsinnet hvor han tok deres side og fortalte alt han visste i den tro at det kunne hjelpe til å få meg dømt. Det hadde slett ingen effekt da jeg ble blankt frifunnet av Gulating lagmannsrett, og saken til overmål var så grunnløs at jeg senere fikk erstatning for urettmessig straffeforfølgelse i en sivil sak som jeg reiste, men det var ikke takket være pappa at det endte godt for meg, som altså valgte purkejævelens side i straffesaken -- en avgjørelse han må leve og dø med, for det innebærer et endelig brudd, fra HANS side.

Selvsagt, men jeg skal forklare hvorfor i tilfelle noen fremdeles ikke skjønner tegningen. Og han ser ikke ut til å forstå alvoret selv, da han nylig presterte å formidle gjennom NRK i "Gutter mot verden" at «det ikke var meningen å bryte kontakten» med meg. Det var et vanvittig flåsete utsagn som impliserer at jeg burde late som ingenting har skjedd og fremdeles ha kontakt. Det går naturligvis ikke, for hva ville det sagt om meg om jeg gikk med på det?

Det ville være den ultimate ydmykelsen, en fraskrivelse av egen aktivisme som om jeg skulle "innrømme" at politiet hadde rett -- ikke bare i å ville dømme meg som de altså heller ikke hadde loven med seg på (uten at det hadde spilt noen rolle) -- men at feminismen har moralsk rett i å lage de sedelighetslovene vi har. Jeg er mannsaktivist på ære og samvittighet, eller det jeg nå kaller seksualist. Det er moralsk overbevisning det dreier seg om, samvittighetsnekt mot krigen mot seksualitet. Jeg blogget med overlegg og mente hvert ord jeg skrev, som er summen av all min livserfaring og nå altså har blitt postmeditert i ti år til uten at jeg har endret mening. Å late som ingenting har skjedd etter sviket fra familien vil være å "innrømme" at vi egentlig er på samme side og feminismen har rett. Det vil aldri skje fordi krigen mot seksualitet er en høyst reell konflikt og jeg er en av de få som kjemper på seksualiteten sin side.

Å være seksualist kan sammenlignes med å reise tilbake til antikken og være mot slaveriet da ingen, ikke engang Jesus, hadde noen moralske motforestillinger mot å holde slaver. I den forstand er pappa et produkt av sin tid, hvor hele samfunnet nå mener at seksualiteten skal straffeforfølges maksimalt og det ikke er mulig å finne på en sedelighetslov som går for langt i hva den rammer, kort sagt at feminismen har alltid rett. MEN, at han tok politiet sin side kan ikke bortforklares så enkelt heller, for det er ikke noe man gjør mot familiemedlemmer, full stopp. Han ville aldri gjort det mot de andre barna, uansett hva de var anklaget for (og jeg var altså bare anklaget for blogging som ble hevdet å være oppvigling men slett ikke var det heller i lovens forstand). Det blir gaslighting å late som denne normen ikke eksisterer heller, noe den gjør ikke bare i og med at han fikk klar beskjed i avhør om at han ikke hadde plikt til å si noe som helst (som ingen har til politiet, men forskjellen er at retten ikke tvinge deg til å vitne heller), men at terrorlovgivningen til og med inneholder et unntak for straff for familiemedlemmer som skjuler en terrorist etter de verste terroranslag (§ 137), langt, langt verre enn blogging.

Hvis jeg skulle kunne forsone meg med hva han gjorde... Hva ville det si om forskjellen på mine søsken og meg? Det ville si at jeg ikke fortjener den lojaliteten som normale mennesker har til sine familiemedlemmer, og dette skal jeg liksom akseptere? Det vil være en selvutsletting av hele mitt menneskeverd. Det ville sagt at jeg ikke HAR noen venner, og enda verre (da han også mente jeg var "syk"), ikke har evnen til å ta moralske valg, som altså skal overprøves av politi og rettsvesen, til syvende og sist med mitt samtykke om jeg hadde gitt avkall på at det var noen reell konflikt mellom pappa og meg. Det er evnen til å ta moralske valg som definerer en person. Det er det som skiller oss fra dyrene. Hvis ikke mine meninger blir tatt på moralsk alvor og jeg skulle akseptere det så har jeg gitt avkall på menneskeverd, og det er ikke aktuelt. Mennesker holdes ansvarlig på godt og vondt, og hvis du mener jeg er ond så må du innse at det er en reell konflikt, ikke tro du kan "rette" på min moral med annet enn ikkevoldelige argumenter.

Menmen, jeg fikk besøkt farmor på kort tid før hun døde, og det får være nok. Hun var 96 år og har vært dement de ti siste. Det var absolutt hennes tid, men trist at familien ikke går overens nok til jeg kan gå i begravelsen. Enda et vondt resultat av feminismen. Det koker ned til at pappa og jeg har verdier som helt grunnleggende ikke går overens, da han er feminist (eller normie, som nå er det samme) og jeg er seksualist. Det går an å være politisk uenig i en familie, men ikke bruke vold til å tvinge meninger på andre, som han altså prøvde seg på da han samarbeidet med politiet. Om det skulle lykkes så ville det endt som i 1984 eller snarere filmen Brazil... Det ville ikke vært noe igjen av meg, for en slik hjernevasking kan bare utføres over mitt lik. Du kan ikke trylle frem en Eivind som ikke mener meningene sine og heller blir feminist, for den personen eksisterer ikke, samme hvor mye makt du bruker.



Saturday, June 18, 2022

The wonderful Newgon

The meaning of words change over time; only dead languages stay the same. I am old enough to have seen my type of activism go through several names, from antifeminism in the 1990s to men's rights activism (MRA) in the 2000s to male sexualism in the 2010s to MAP activism in the 2020s. Yes, "MAP" has grown on me despite my earlier misgivings about using a special word to denote normal sexuality. YesMAP as opposed to NOMAP, obviously, since we have absolutely no affiliation with the anti-contact crowd. I am not ashamed of the MAP label because I acknowledge that language is evolving and if someone carries forth your activism under an unfamiliar or superfluous name then we should focus on the politics rather than the lingo and be thankful.

I am thankful for Newgon because they ensure that our activism lives on regardless of what happens to this little clique over which I sometimes style myself as leader with varying degrees of seriousness. In truth, we are almost irrelevant, but Newgon is a serious organization. Just look at their page on the female sex offender charade! I could scarcely have done it better myself:

https://www.newgon.net/wiki/Testimony:_Adult_Female_with_Minor

Kudos and praise to high heavens! We are not alone! We have kindred activists out there whose ideology if not precisely identical at least overlaps a good 90% with what we used to call the Men's Rights Movement back in the days of Angry Harry and now refer to as male sexualism here on my blog -- or just sexualism is really what I have landed on. I say 90% because they don't seem to be on board with nofap, but you can't have everything. The Newgon site is much more impressive than it looks at first sight, archiving all kinds of sex-positive writings that may otherwise get lost, and even better, I know the people behind it are solid, enthusiastic activists. So even though I don't expect us to make much political progress any time soon, I can rest assured that sexualism is in good hands irrespective of my own efforts. Long live sexualism as (mostly) synonymous with MAP activism! I still prefer "sexualism" and use that in my own writings, but I warmly welcome our new allies, regardless of how they want to style themselves.

Perhaps we should reflect a little over the linguistic shift from antifeminist to MAP. The more I think about it, the more sense it makes because feminism is now synonymous with the culture in which we unfortunately find ourselves. The normies are feminists without using that word, which is now reserved for only the most newly extreme antisex bigots who probably want to raise the age of consent to 25 at this point and change the definition of rape to all sex without a consent document signed every five seconds. A normie who thinks it is wrong to have sex with minors under 18 does not usually identify as a feminist, even though his ideology is radfem by 1990s standards. He simply does not know how bigoted he is because feminist indoctrination has been so successful at normalizing their hateful criminalization, even instituting the most extreme jurisdictions (typically California) as the norm for the entire world. As such, calling ourselves antifeminists would hardly be intelligible to this society as it would not even begin to describe to them how radical we are. "MRA" doesn't get the point across either since the ones still known under that label are busy celebrating 1990s feminism and applying it to men too. That leaves us with sexualist -- which is a fine word for all resistance to oppression of sexuality, but not in common use -- and MAP, which has actually gone mainstream, at least as a word and identity if not a serious challenge to laws yet.

So, here we are. Lest anyone think am aligning myself with child abusers, have a look at Newgon's ethos page:

Elective 12 is our (non-binding) Age of Consent position

The best available evidence supports the idea of an elective-emancipation system for young people aged 12 and up. We do not bind participants to this position.

The proposed model is in effect, a passport system where young people age 12 and up, can sign to emancipate themselves in (potentially) a variety of areas. With respect to adults and emancipated minors, this will include legal consent to physical/sexual relations. Other important rights may be included, however, we will not campaign on most of these issues until there are signs of an emerging policy consensus:

  • Education
  • Employment, inc. military
  • Finance
  • Driving a motor vehicle
  • Alcohol, substances, gambling, body modifications and medical
  • Graphic media content bars
  • Voting (this might be dependent upon the above)

We propose that emancipation will be the choice of the young person, assuming they can be assessed by a doctor as mentally competent - broadly in line with their peers. With respect to sexual relations, the age of 12 is identical to the system employed in the Netherlands up until very recently. However, allowing young people to self emancipate gives them the power to choose what aspects of their lives they will be responsible for. Various controlled outcome studies will be conducted by social scientists after these changes are put into effect, creating more jobs.

Not sure I agree with those other areas or the passport model, but it is a refreshing position in this day and age and close enough to our own ideology as to be almost indistinguishable. If anything, they are more moderate than us. I would also say that an age of consent of 12 is non-binding but at least as low as 13 is definitely binding to be called a male sexualist, along with a complete rejection of the female sex offender charade as equally nonsensical as criminalizing witchcraft -- and I do not care how this is received, because my conscience does not permit me to condone the persecution of harmless women. As you can see, neither Newgon or us are currently trying to normalize actual pedophilia in men, but we do not care what the public calls our eminently sensible positions on male sexuality either.

Saturday, April 30, 2022

The persecution of Katie Smith

I am interested in how the female sex offender charade got tacked onto the rest of the antisex hysteria without debate. It is the singularly most insane thing any culture has ever done. There is zero evidence that female sexuality can be harmful to anyone, and mountains of evidence that it is beneficial to boys. So how did we go so wrong? That's what keeps me up at night, philosophizing about how society can lose its mind so completely and feeling sympathy for the victims. The latest victim in the news is Katie Elizabeth Smith:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10741409/Shocking-new-details-glamorous-PE-teachers-sex-affair-14-year-old-boy-freed.html

Shocking details have emerged of how a glamorous PE teacher groomed a 14-year-old school boy with Snapchat sexts - as she walks free from prison after almost 18 months.

It is not the details that are shocking, you morons in the media, but the feminist police state's reaction to them!

Katie Elizabeth Smith, 30, bombarded the teenager with sexually explicit messages and sexual videos and photos while teaching at a NSW Hunter Valley school.

Smith also fondled and touched him but was later convicted and jailed after her attempt to blame the affair on the child failed to convince police.

It can now be revealed that Smith urged him to stay silent and warned he would get 'into trouble' with law enforcement if he didn't do as she said.

During their months-long dalliance, Smith lured the boy to a storeroom where they kissed as she placed her hand onto his school shorts.

They met in a car park where she touched his genitals, the Court of Criminal Appeal heard this week.

The boy then returned to class and during their affair sent Smith three photos of his private parts, one of himself naked and and one video of himself naked or engaging in a sexual act.The then 26-year-old teacher responded with five intimate photos of herself and two videos of herself, including one of her performing a sex act.

Multiple sexual images were exchanged between the boy and Smith over at least five months.

The details of how the illegal affair rapidly accelerated days after the schoolboy added Smith to his Snapchat account in late 2018 have now been laid bare after she successfully appealed her sentence.

Smith, who sobbed uncontrollably in the dock in 2020 when a judge sent her away for a maximum three years and ten months jail, has had 18 months slashed off her sentence.

How is it possible to conceptualize this as a harmful situation for the boy and think punishment is appropriate? (To their credit, the Daily Mail does not call it abuse, merely illegal, but they don't object to the criminality either.)

Is it similar to how China seems willing to commit suicide over a commitment to zero covid? Not on the face of it, since covid is a bad thing unlike sex. Illness is worth avoiding; you just need to be proportionate about the measures taken. But if we ignore how the female sex offender charade made zero sense from the beginning, perhaps society's implementation of it is comparable. We blindly follow rules to achieve simplistic goals, whether it be zero tolerance to covid or the "absolute prohibition on sexual activity with a child" that this sentencing judge clings to even when she can see it leads to absurd verdicts. Corrective mechanisms are sorely, sadly lacking, in China perhaps because the state is too authoritarian.

In our case, pathological deference to authority is a major factor too, and we have less excuses about threats of violence for not conforming ideologically. We could end the female sex offender charade if enough people pointed out that the emperor has no clothes. Look, I am not arrested for publishing this. I am not even censored, and experience zero social discomfort, not for the female sex offender charade at any rate! Because there is literally nothing to it -- nothing to sustain it besides a flimsy delusion that people snap out of when they are made to think twice. It is a paper tiger sustained by a trance. All it takes is to make people think, and it shatters at least to where only grift remains. You can do it too, simply say you don't believe in it! And then we refuse to cooperate with the persecution. Be conscientious objectors to the war on sex. We can do it! It's all about the mindset because the thugs in law enforcement are nothing without our superstition. They feed on superstition to do their evil. They need our consent, which is grounded in delusions that can be changed by thought. So, think!

Society is dreaming that female sexuality is harmful, but it does not believe it. We are in a collective dream state. Dreaming is the suspension of disbelief. We've all been there -- one second before waking up still believing wildly untrue things because they are part of the dream. All it takes is the blink of an eye and reality snaps into view. Women "sexually abusing" boys is exactly like that. A conceptual nightmare where feminist theory has replaced reality. The dreamer cannot see the truth, but all it takes is to wake up.

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

The Ukraine post

As awful as it is, the current situation of war in Europe and looming World War III lifts my spirit because I have lived with an unrecognized war my whole life and now the normies get to taste their own medicine. It really helps to normalize my feelings about cops when the average person feels the same way about Russian soldiers and even has explicit permission to incite on social media. Welcome to the warrior club which is really just the human condition anyway. Because I am a man, my sexuality is criminal by feminist laws, and because I am an activist I am acutely aware of that fact. The normies believe their war on sex is not a war because it is just something one does, like human sacrifice or slavery in other times was perceived as similarly apolitical: so successful has feminism become.

Wars of aggression used to be normal too, and I agree it is more civilized to regard them as crimes. The war on victimless sex is a war of aggression which is now completely socially acceptable, however. When someone like Virginia Guiffre employs the violence of the state to loot Prince Andrew, she is applauded like one might applaud the Vikings for marauding or the Roman empire for expanding, if one lived in their times. Victims of the sex laws are afforded exactly zero sympathy no matter what happens to them, be it death like Epstein or looting or anything in between.

I sympathize with victims of wars of aggression INCLUDING the war on sex. I do not share this supposedly civilized society’s blind spot or excuse of fake sexual abuse to justify war. To me that carries just as much weight as any old “reason” to conquer another peaceful group and steal their resources. The feminists might as well state their laws are to provide Lebensraum for women for all I care, because that’s how I read them anyway. Society has no inhibitions: whatever a woman gains by sexual accusations no matter how empty and no matter what a man loses, she is always celebrated and society always screams for more. Individual verdicts are sometimes overturned or reduced on appeal, but the trend towards ever more criminalization of sexuality shows no sign of abating.

I do stand with Ukraine, but in the proper perspective as equal victims to so many men (and some women) whom society does not regard as victims at all. Feminism is about destroying our lives, and their preferred method being a slow death by prison rather than a quick bullet or bomb only makes it more odious, if anything. And I realize that feminism is unlikely to go away without a cataclysmic crisis. Therefore, I welcome World War III as much as I fear it. COVID was not strong enough to slow the pace of antisexual legislation anywhere in the world, but now at least Ukraine is facing a greater priority. If that is what it takes, who am I to complain? Most of us will probably not personally benefit from the downfall of feminism, but we get to die as men rather than caged animals.

In a nutshell, Putin knew his economy was in trouble, but the thought he still had a strong military that could be leveraged. With a pretext of NATO expansion in the mix, he went ahead and staked the country on Plan Z. One month in, it can be summed up as a war of attrition which will either destroy the Russian Federation along with more or less of Ukraine or us all too if it escalates. There is no off-ramp in sight and I have no idea how it will end except I don’t think Ukraine can lose and I don’t think Russia can win.

Wednesday, February 09, 2022

A serious talk about consent

Let's leave the nonsense about brain development and other red herrings to the normies and have a serious chat about consent. And let's do so from a male perspective rather than an imitated feminist perspective like fake MRAs do. You see, there are some things where consent really matters and is impossible. They are not what the feminists claim, and feminist reasons applied to boys are also gibberish. The real things males can't properly consent to are evolutionary traps.

Specifically, men cannot consent to masturbating to pornography. It is also dubious whether men can consent to birth control or abortion for the same reasons, but I will leave those subjects to another day and make this another nofap post in a faint attempt to pick up the torch after Gary Wilson.

Men cannot consent to porn because our brains never develop sufficiently to handle it properly because evolution hasn't taken it into account yet. We may be adapted to pornographic cave paintings (by not finding them very arousing), but not the modern digital kind which has only been around for a couple generations. From Wikipedia:

Within behavioral and ecological sciences, evolutionary traps occur when rapid environmental change triggers organisms to make maladaptive behavioral decisions. While these traps may take place within any type of behavioral context (e.g. mate selection, navigation, nest-site selection), the most empirically and theoretically well-understood type of evolutionary trap is the ecological trap which represents maladaptive habitat selection behavior.

Witherington demonstrates an interesting case of a "navigational trap". Over evolutionary time, hatchling sea turtles have evolved the tendency to migrate toward the light of the moon upon emerging from their sand nests. However, in the modern world, this has resulted in them tending to orient towards bright beach-front lighting, which is a more intense light source than the moon. As a result, the hatchlings migrate up the beach and away from the ocean where they exhaust themselves, desiccate and die either as a result of exhaustion, dehydration or predation.

Sea turtles can consent to the light of the moon, but not the lights of modern human civilization. In order for sea turtles to be able to consent to city lights, they would have to keep evolving for however long it takes to be cognizant of the true fitness values involved. Similarly, human males cannot consent to digital pornography, which are another kind of modern lights leading individuals systematically astray to desiccate and die childless, even suffer predation along the way from the feminist police state.

This is a true meaning of consent, unlike the mumbo-jumbo promoted by our gynocentric culture. We also arguably can't consent to gambling and hard addictive drugs for similar reasons. We can debate whether we still want to permit some of these things (and certainly prohibition can easily do more harm than good, as we have seen with the war on drugs), but the case against them can't be dismissed so easily, which can be summed up as an inability to consent.

So please, let's quit obsessing over fake cases of invalid consent like those mocked in this excellent meme and pay attention to what matters.



Sunday, January 02, 2022

Wolf, wolf

So I was on a podcast last night and an audience member made a false accusation to the police live because they didn't like my opinion that the age of consent needs to be lowered to 13: 


I don't know what this bigot wrote in their police tip, whether they simply referenced the YouTube video or made up some lies. Most likely the police will recognize it as bullshit, but I am documenting the origin of this accusation here just in case, so if they act on it it will be clear to all what is going on.

I had another false accusation recently (case dropped already) that was more elaborate including role-playing as me on Skype to another vigilante and producing screenshots of it that they submitted to the police along with a deranged story (more on that in a future blog post). You get used to it as an activist on this subject. Vigilante trolls will constantly try to cancel you or frame you or whatever. However, the more they cry wolf, the more ineffectual their accusations become. So by all means, go ahead and spam the police with false accusations about me if that's what you're into.

Thursday, December 30, 2021

Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty

What they did to Epstein they did to me. What they did to Ghislaine Maxwell they did to me. Because I am a man, and these convicts represent normal male and female sexuality. All the credible accusations were empty. It is as normal for us to buy sex from teen girls as it is for the girls to sell it. The feminist state are monsters and all the normies who condone this senseless criminalization are monsters too.

If Epstein was a “pedophile” or “sexual abuser” then I would be insulted if you don’t have me pegged as one too, as should all normal men be. That word is a badge of honor the way the antisex bigots use it. Just imagine how perverted you’d have to be to not be attracted to the girls in question (or gay, but they aren’t naturally agecucks either), the youngest of which was 14. In truth, what Epstein was accused of does not even qualify as “ephebophilia,” which ends by 14 years old for most girls. And I don’t think we need that word either because that is just normal male sexuality too, but it goes to show how far out of touch the bigots are with scientific and commonsense truth of what constitutes full sexual maturity (Exhibit1Exhibit2).

What they did to Epstein they did to me, and all normal men. He is the patron saint of regular male sexuality, and Ghislaine Maxwell is another martyr for sexualism, another victim of the feminist War on Sex who deserves honors for fighting the good fight on a political level too by virtue of all the unmistakably regular men she implicated. There comes a point when you can’t peg us as deviants anymore because we are so obviously normal, and meanwhile we shall be proud of our sexuality no matter how much you try to shame us. Your stance on this verdict is a litmus test on whether you are a good person or a monster.

Jeffrey is my role model, my hero, and Ghislaine is a heroine. The normies secretly long to be in Epstein’s circle, but we male sexualists have the balls to admit it. To all the normies reading this, now is a good chance to repent your denunciation of sexuality and identify as a male sexualist, or simply sexualist because as we can see, feminism persecutes good women too.

Saturday, November 20, 2021

Laycase and the battle for the battle

Feminism is horrifying. Absolutely horrifying because it translates into violence against us for our sexuality. And I am just about the only one who can feel the horror even when not imprisoned myself. Must it be thus? Perhaps it helps to study similar criminalization on pretexts that are no longer current beliefs. To realize the horrifying truth that there is no social upheaval even if they criminalize most of sexuality and no matter how draconian punishments get, look at leiermål. So why should it be any better now? It isn’t, and we can’t expect it. People simply put up with it. The authorities just need to base their laws on the superstitions of the times, and no one will rebel. Back then it was the wrath of God, now feminist notions of rape and abuse are used to accomplish the same prohibitions. People are no more enlightened, just in thrall to different superstitions. It doesn’t fly to punish the lack of a marriage certificate anymore, but to say that one person is “underage” works wonders. People believe this gibberish like they believed the old crap. And so on for an endless series of taboos to suit every occasion. All involved are adults but one is a teacher? Lock her up! He paid for sex? Lock him up! And of course every occasion is “rape” if the woman or prosecutors say so. All of sexuality is criminalized and I am the only one who is horrified, along with a handful of other male sexualists and our allies the MAPs.

We have gone from believing in the badness of sex because a supernatural power disapproves to believing in the metaphysical badness of sex itself. The only passable justification for criminalizing sex these days is that somebody is a “victim,” but once you invent a victim there is no limit to how far it can be contrived, up to an including blasphemical information that is solemnly prosecuted as if there is any substance to it.

Our sexualist activism is like going back to the ancient world to preach abolitionism. It didn’t even occur to Jesus that slavery was wrong, and similarly no “good” people today see anything wrong with the persecution of sexuality. Such is the enormity of our task. Before we can fight the battle, we need to fight the battle for the battle. The battle for the battle is to make people understand that there is a war on sexuality, that persecuting sex is not inevitable like death and taxes. This is the stage we are at: our battle isn’t even recognized because the normies are in lockstep agreement that sexuality must be persecuted to the max. I am not just an enemy of the state: I am an enemy whose enmity can’t be acknowledged as anything more than crime and craziness because the war on sex is not seen as a war. Politics is simply a contest about who can come up with the most hateful sex laws, with left and right outbidding each other with new ways to lock up more people for more and more sexuality. As long as they can make up some story related to a “victim,” persecution is never opposed in the mainstream. Even most prisoners and sex offender registrants don’t see themselves as enemies of the state because the persecution is so normalized. But what if the public could snap out of the fake victim narrative? In theory, that would help because people don’t believe in religious justifications anymore. Perhaps then they can realize that feminism is the same shit as leiermål in a different wrapping, and more malignant because there isn’t even the slightest exception to the persecution like marriage used to be. Now they just persecute all sexuality indiscriminately.

We need a word like “leiermål” to make sex offenders see themselves as enemies of the state and get everyone to realize there is war on sex going on. A word that obviously means “sex criminalized for the hell of it” or to the benefit of our rulers. Don’t let them make us call it rape and abuse when it isn’t. Coin an English word with the same valence as leiermål and use it to undermine the feminist agenda. (And in Norwegian we can just start saying “leiermål” again, of course.) Let us pull the fake moral rug out of their language with an honest word for their criminalization of sexuality. Suggestions? Perhaps something like “laycase”? ”Sexual misconduct” is already just as meaningless, as is “statutory rape,” but we need something more catchy, one short word which flows well in common usage.

By all accounts the normies were less enthusiastic about criminalization back then. Sex offenders weren't stigmatized. Although it wasn't enough for rebellion, surely it must have helped turn people against the laws that the word so clearly signified oppression rather than the fake victimology our oppressors use these days.

Now I am going to translate and paraphrase some of the Wikipedia article on leiermål to get a flavor of what we are talking about. But we might as well be quoting current laws, because they are practically identical apart from the justification.

Leiermål (from Danish words for lay/intercourse + case) is a bureaucratic (legal and ecclesiastical) term which was used for various kinds of sexual relations outside of marriage. Laycase was especially impactful for women and men of all ages and social classes i Scandinavia in the 1600s and 1700s because of new laws and draconian punishments that were introduced at the time.

Laycase was considered a crime and usually discovered when resulting in pregnancy, but pregnancy was not a precondition for regarding the act as illegal and punishable. Various kinds of laycase had different degrees of severity. There was a distinction between simple whoring and double whoring (see below). In addition to being called whoring, laycase was also referred to by words like intercourse, laying together, sleeping together, sharing a bed, etc.

In the 1600s, state and church had common interest in developing a new set of laws which also regulated sexual conduct and punished violators. Motivation was twofold. They wanted to avoid the wrath of God, but also to regulate and control people.

Criminalization of laycase was a Nordic phenomenon. In other European, Catholic countries, extramarital sex was just as “sinful” as in Norway, but not a crime and therefore did not concern secular authorities. In Sweden, there were laws concerning lägersmål and in Denmark lejermål similar to the Norwegian ones.

These laws were in part based on the Bible, including many Old Testament rules and legal principles from the books of Moses. The laws are therefore characterized by what we would today consider barbaric sentencing, torture and unacceptable definitions of sex crimes and norms for sexuality, plus a stigmatizing concept of humanity [yeah, right, as if feminism isn't equally stigmatizing!].

On 16 October 1617, a decree was issued which made the prohibitions even more restrictive. Both men and women were made criminally responsible and the fines were to be paid to the King. Lawbreakers of both sexes were now to be punished more harshly than before for extramarital affairs. At first, the law was not taken literally, and until 1661 it was mostly men who had to pay fines for their laycases.

It was innovative that laycase represented a violation of both secular and ecclasiastical law, and both men and women therefore had to “atone” to both these “offended” authorities. It was required that violators first confess their sins publicly to priest and congregation in church, and then pay their respective laycase fines. The fines for so-called simple laycase (see below) was 12 riksdaler for men and 6 riksdaler for women.

Whereas few women were punished before 1661, an increasing number were prosecuted and had to atone with fines and corporal punishment (whipping, forced labor, execution) later in the 1660s.

If the accused were unable to pay, which was often the case on part of the woman, they were to be sentenced to a subsidiary penalty. For the authorities, two things were important. Income from the fines were important to the king, and it was of moral importance that the letter of the law was upheld.

There was a difference between the public laws and the norms of the people. Nighttime trysts were common and largely accepted, and betrothal was was recognized as the starting point of sexual relationships. It was relatively common to cohabit before marriage. In the 1500s, intercourse was understood as a binding act which should lead to marriage. If that didn’t ensue, the man was convicted while the woman was considered offended. If the couple got married, any children were considered legitimate and the parents got away with a fine for “too early intercourse.” After 1791 this fine was skipped if the couple got married before birth, and in 1812, first and second-offense simple laycase was decriminalized and the fines abolished, thus leading to a century and a half of respite before feminism reinstituted a worse regime.

As to the severity, the laws applied to various different kinds of sexual relations. The different kinds were considered more or less severe. Suspects who were found guilty risked very harsh penalties, even execution, for example for repeated offenses. The classification scheme they employed illustrates the peculiar morality of the times and sheds some light on the development of sexual crimes from then up to the current situation with equally deranged laws with a feminist justification.

The following crimes were considered most serious:

· Whoring in the form of one-sided adultery, which is sexual relations between one married and one unmarried person (also called half whoring).

· Double whoring in the form of two-sided adultery, which is sexual relations between two people who are each married to someone else (also called whole whoring).

· Laycase in forbidden connections, which is to say sexual relations between cousins, second cousins or in-laws.

· Incest was defined as sexual relations between persons closely related, up to 3. degree and also including relations by marriage.

· Homosexuality, sexual relations between persons of the same sex.

· Bestiality -- sexual acts which involve animals.

· Sodomy -- a collective term for both homosexuality and bestiality.

Less serious sex crimes (punished by a fine):

· Maidenhood violation, which is to have intercourse with an unmarried woman after a false or invalid promise of marriage. The term and thinking stems from medieval times and is rooted in the idea that unmarried women’s chastity is valuable. [Notice how this one has been turned completely around to the MOST serious sex crime by feminism, using the entirely new justification that age gaps are abuse!]

· Simple laycase, which is intercourse between two unmarried persons (also called loose laycase).

· Too early childbirth, which is to give birth earlier than 7 months after getting married (also called legitimate laycase).

Leiermål was clearly a common and prevalent sin and crime. Two thirds of public confessors in the 1700s were involved in laycase. Church records reveal that more than half of all girls and women who got married were already pregnant.

The penalty for a first offense of so-called simple laycase and other less serious instances was a fine, 6 riksdaler for women and 12 for men. Those who couldn’t pay had to serve a subsidiary prison term. There were many who didn’t have enough money for such big fines, especially women (one year’s pay for a maidservant was commonly one riksdaler).

In 1715, two second cousins were convicted by a court in Western Norway after admitting that they had slept together. She was married to someone else. The sentence required both to confess publicly in church within eight weeks. She also received two years’ forced labor and a fine. He received two years’ forced labor.

In a case from 1736 where a stepfather had impregnated his stepdaughter, both were sentenced to death. He was guilty of both incest and whoring. However, the King took into account that she was young and commuted the death penalties to life in the nearest fortress for him and life in jail for her. [Notice how the feminists have explicitly and unabashedly recriminalized exactly the same thing as one of the worst crimes, with youth being aggravating rather than extenuating!]

In 1761, a 47-year-old widow who had given birth outside of wedlock was sentenced to death because the man she had the child with was a brother of one she had slept with about five years previously and then became pregnant, but the baby was stillborn. This new crime was nonetheless to be considered incest. The father was sentenced to 8 years of forced labor. Evidently the old concept of incest could be stretched almost as far as feminist “sexual abuse.”

The persecution of sexuality outside marriage, and the draconian penalties were meant to uphold the social order. This entailed that the population in prisons and other penal institutions was of a very different character in the 1600s and 1700s than today. The huge fines would also have served the state’s (king’s) revenues well since up to 80% of court cases in some parts of the country were about leiermål. The majority of inmates in the country’s jails, workhouses and fortresses were classified as vagrants and beggars, but the group of laycase offenders was large. The group “women sentenced to death for incest, but pardoned” was considerable. Incest, such as sex with a sibling, cousin, second cousin, parent or other relative, was a serious felony which entailed a risk of capital punishment. If an uncle had a child with a niece, both were to be executed by beheading and then burnt on a bonfire. There was also a considerable number of women and men locked up for repeat offenses of extramarital sex and women who had given birth to babies while trying to conceal it (dølgsmål). (According to Wikipedia,) only ca. 10% av inmates were convicted of crimes that qualify for prison sentences today; however, I dispute this and think the author is in denial about the true malignancy of feminist sex laws. If not under current laws, certainly most of them could be imprisoned under the new concept of “rape” that Norway is about to get which requires the man to prove consent every time.

Women who were sentenced for third time laycase received whippings and men were in such cases either sentenced to death or a combination of jail and confiscation of wealth. For whoring between two people who were each married to someone else (so-called double whoring) the punishment was confiscation of their net worth. Half of the estate was seized for the King's coffers, and the other half remained with the innocent spouse.

For a second offense, married parents were sentenced to banishment from the diocese or county. If they offended a third time, they could expect the death penalty.

Those who were convicted of laycase in forbidden connections, which also includes relation by cousinhood, second cousinhood or marriage, were sentenced to confiscation of property in addition to forced labor for two to four years. If anyone offended a second time in a similar manner, death penalty awaited. Incest leading to birth was punished by death. It was defined not just by having children with a parent or sibling, but also included cousins, second cousins and other relatives, even in-laws.

Those who were sentenced to death could appeal to the King. If they were pardoned, the death penalty was usually commuted to lifelong forced labor.

The harshest penalty was imposed if a married woman and a married man had an extramarital affair. By law, if these sinners did not break off their relationship, the man was to be beheaded and the woman should be tied up in a bag and drowned. Double-sided adultery was thus something akin to how feminism treats age gaps: the very worst offense imaginable and their whole morality in a nutshell.

For a third offense of laycase, the woman was to be whipped publicly and the man beheaded (the ordinance of 1619).

In 1767, the public confession in connection with simple laycase was repealed and the penalty lowered to eight days in jail. For rich people it was possible to buy oneself out of this punishment, but it was expensive: 10 riksdaler, the equivalent to almost 10,000 kroner today. For young servant girls who had an annual wage of 1 daler, it was impossible to pay such a fine. In principle, laycase remained punishable under the Norwegian Penal Code (straffeloven § 379) until 1972, but it was a sleeping law the final decades of its existence.

Which is when feminism picks up and over the course of the next four decades reinstates a worse regime than the height of leiermål, crowned by the abolition of the jury in 2018. We need to wake up to what it really is. Think about it: why should the authorities be more reasonable just because they speak in terms of “victims” rather than biblical admonitions? Both are excuses to control us and further the careers or our oppressors, with added financial incentives for accusers today to make it even worse. The difference is merely that the normies now believe in feminist mythology of  “sexual abuse,” “grooming” and all that crap rather than the books of Moses, so the fake victim approach works. It serves the same purpose as the old criminalization including redistribution of wealth, this time to the whole abuse industry rather than the king. Their definition of rape and other sexual abuse is a joke which means nothing more than laycase, so let’s make our language reflect that to at least undermine their moral standing if not yet the violence against us. If we can’t make war against the sex war, let us at least make words. Make them face up to what the conflict is really about. Don’t let them call us misleading names like “far-right extremist” or "misogynist" any more, and the way to make them realize that male sexualism is something entirely different than they imagine is to actually educate them like I am trying to do with this post, because they literally don’t comprehend this, so brainwashed are they with feminist antisex bigotry.

As we have seen, there was very much an equivalent of the feminist female sex offender charade in our history. However, as loathsome as it was, they never sunk so low as to pretend women can commit rape or sexual abuse. They would certainly want to punish the same women that feminists so gleefully persecute today, but it wold be for laycase rather than the mind-boggling absurdity of pretending female teachers “abuse” their lucky male students and such. If we can accomplish just one little increment in our lifetime, I pray that this is the one we get. It should be the lowest-hanging fruit of the entire War on Sex due to the insane stupidity of it, so is this too much to ask? They don’t have to stop imprisoning the women for this wish to be granted. Just quit adding insult to injury by pretending lucky boys are victims.

Monday, October 25, 2021

The persecution of Monica Young

There is the War on Sex, and then there is misogyny for its own sake on top of it. This travesty is so disturbing that it's very difficult to write about, but I can't let this sad fate go without a post. Monica Young is another victim of the most bizarre witch-hunt of all times:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9763227/Geography-teacher-Monica-Young-spend-two-years-jail-sexual-assault-student.html

She is judged as if we live in an anti-world where all the values are opposite to ours. You might call it a Satanic verdict except even Satanism isn't so deranged when you look into it. There is no rhyme or reason here whatsoever unless you postulate a metaphysical anti-world that is more real than this one and supersedes it.

The normies purport to believe that sex has magical powers that work precisely opposite to what we experience, which is to make people happy. According to feminist dogma which now serves as state religion, the happiness is an illusion and the metaphysical badness is real. The boy has been well coached to maximize payouts, and the world will buy his non-sequitur that his life is ruined by sex because the gaping hole in the logic is filled by the anti-world. It is on the level of "she was a dangerous witch who had to be burnt." Except the superstition is even more deranged because she was an obvious boon to the boy. Yet the superstition that she was "abusing" him seems almost as "true" to our culture as the belief in witches back then.

Now it is belief in the metaphysical badness of sex that is the overarching superstition of our times. I guess this belief is needed to be "well adjusted" and undisturbed by the persecutions. One must believe in a metaphysical sexual soul, an anti-soul or whatever it is that is affected by sexuality in this realm and more real. When a boy goes through all the motions and emotions of enjoying sex in this world, that metaphysical sexual soul is damaged via some gobbledygook mechanism. The feminists can never explain what this mechanism is, but one must believe in it. One must believe that sex damns your metaphysical sexual soul forever if you are under some arbitrary age or meet any other of their infinitely expanding criteria of victimhood. Oh, yes, the feminists will tell you the damage is psychological rather than metaphysical, but that is a lie. There is absolutely nothing in this world that can explain "harm" from winning the ultimate fitness payoff that is sex with a young woman. The feminists believe in the metaphysical badness of sex which must be oversocialized into us whether they admit its metaphysical nature or not.

How do the normies manage to believe in this witchcraft? How do they manage to believe in the anti-world? How do they get past the anti-intellectual, anti-emotional, anti-moral gobbledygook and internalize it? (Which to be fair not all do, but they don't stand up for the innocent victims either.)

I have attempted to answer this in a long series of posts about the female sex offender charade and gotten none closer to understanding. I have only arrived at better words for the madness. The anti-world it is. And the nocebo industry. Monica Young is 100% sexual nocebo.

Monday, September 13, 2021

Metaphysical interlude II: the idiotic conundrum again

So I bought Geoffrey Klempner's book and read it on the Kindle app. Actually I got the whole Philosophizer Trilogy since it was the same price, but it's the Idiotic Conundrum that shall concern us here. It's a cool book, but didn't bring me closer to answers than his videos and free writings that I already discussed in my first metaphysical interlude. If you still haven't grasped the conundrum then it would be extremely useful, but for me it mainly served to make me feel confident to dig further into it knowing that if I make progress, I won't simply be replicating his thoughts. He does not present a metaphysical system anyway, spending most of the book lamenting the impossibility of getting an answer and dismissing existing philosophy as "theories" -- until the last couple of pages where he ends on a more optimistic note.

I might not have existed, but someone exactly like me might have existed in my place. What is the ultimate reality that decides if I am me? That is the Question, the Quest (for Klempner, at least), the idiotic conundrum. I shall not become obsessed with this myself, but it does deserve some thought.

Philosophers commonly ponder the nature of identity persistence through time (Ship of Theseus and all that all the way up to contemporary examples), but they rarely if ever bother to ask why I am me NOW! That is the Question. Being skeptical about your persistence through time does not get rid of it. I call it the cosmic serial number. I am one cosmic serial number, but I could have been another. If it does change over my lifetime then I am largely blind to that change, but that's not the hardest question. Materialists actually have more reason to believe it does change, because they deny an ultimate reality that could be far more mysterious than an arrangement of atoms, why not capable of sustaining you over time? Hume famously missed this too, and Descartes invented needless fairy tales that don't explain it either --  a soul "substance" that can't be it and a Cartesian theater that adds nothing. Kant was sort of onto something with his transcendental idealism and noumena but didn't go all the way to the idiotic conundrum, and Nietzsche missed it spectacularly with his eternal return which in this respect amounts to the same as atomistic materialism, which is to say denying the problem altogether.

Only Donald Hoffman comes close to actually explaining it. I have never seen him actually address it, but he lies the groundwork for an explanation in videos like this. Once you get rid of reductionism and the shared hallucination that we call spacetime with physical objects, the alternative might have the properties that we are after -- the network of conscious agents who interface via our shared reality. And you must drop the reductionist path if you accept that this "reality" is an interface. Studying the pixels on your screen doesn't get you closer to understanding how the processor works; the causal power lies on another plane entirely. A sort of idealism plus natural selection gives a better view. We are both so far removed from ultimate reality that we can't measure any truth about the structure of the world with our scientific instruments that only get at the interface, yet also directly plugged in since we immediately feel it.

Or at least can feel ultimate reality if we pay attention. Not just the two of us, Klempner and I. You can, too, unless you are literally a zombie. I know you can because I didn't always or at least not continuously ponder the idiotic conundrum or have a name for it, yet I believe I was conscious then too. Whenever there is consciousness, there is the conundrum whether you are aware of it or not, because someone else might have been having that experience in your place through no distinction that can be observable in this universe. You are therefore uncreated by this universe and something separate.

I had feelings as a child that I now would label as awareness of my cosmic serial number. I didn't regard it as a "conundrum," just marveled at it. I thought this sense of self was simply what it meant to have a self and I still don't think it is an uncommon feeling. What is uncommon is to make an issue out of it. It is slightly more surprising that some actively deny it and become positivists. And come to think of it, it is weird that an entire major religion like Hinduism makes a dogma out of there only being one. Atman the individual self is ultimately identical to the universal also called Atman or sometimes Brahman, they say; this is in the book and I thought so too independently: there is no justification to limit the number to one, just a story they made up. It sounds poetic to say things like we are all waves in the same water of consciousness, but there is no compelling metaphysical justification for it. If I have two glasses of water are they really one because there is one water? No, there is no reason why they can't be separate. Each new glass of water can have a new serial number that can't be written in it but can still be very real. What this reality consists of, this separateness of cosmic serial numbers, is the conundrum.

I guess I am not making any progress either, and that's okay. But now we have some common ground on which to start. You don't need a wall of academic references, just this book to get started having a stab at it. Even though I don't share his despair at not knowing, Klempner's "ring quest" resembles male sexualism in its futility, and as such I can relate. There is no indication that society will give up its belief in the metaphysical badness of sex in my lifetime, unless collapse gets rid of industrial civilization altogether. The normies believe it as firmly as they believed in witches in the thick of the witch-hunts. Ironically, they believe in the metaphysical badness of sex without particularly believing in metaphysical personhood. Now if they had a theory of the idiotic conundrum that also explained how perfectly enjoyable sex can be "abuse" -- at least they would have some internal consistency, but sexual abuse stands out as the only metaphysics they believe in. Without admitting that it is metaphysics, to be sure, instead blaming psychology, but they don't fool me.

I am aware, aware of the gap. Klempner and I share this awareness to the fullest but there are also smatterings here and there. For example in this conversation between David Deutsch and Tyler Cowen. The latter is a "metaphysical agnostic," which means he might be at least half aware. Deutsch calls it "something like physicalism," which doesn't quite get at it. You can believe you need the continuity of your physical body to be you (and hence not survive a Star Trek transporter) without realizing that that body and mind also could have been someone else existing in your place. Which should be the central question of consciousness, but is oddly ignored especially by the academic philosophers who study consciousness. Very odd that something so central can be so marginalized. But then again that's how it is with sexualism too, so I shouldn't be surprised.