Wednesday, December 07, 2011

The Feminist Police State vs. Female Teachers

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

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

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

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

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

There is still a silver lining, sort of. By insisting on equality, feminist legislators and prosecutors make buffoons out of themselves for all the world to see. Besides a select group of MRAs, no one gives a damn when a man is imprisoned for a victimless crime, because men are regarded as worthless in our society anyway, but when a woman is a victim of the system built to empower women, alarm bells start ringing in a wider audience. It takes just a tiny bit of humanity to comprehend that this is a police state run amok. Even the copy in feminist newspaper Dagbladet is slanted against the police state between the lines. Evidently it occurs to some feminists now that things are getting out of hand. Yet experience from other countries indicates that the populace is willing to absorb considerable escalation of the feminist police state against women also. As is often the case, a revolution eats its own children. What was meant to be a utopia for women and children is starting to give the victim class a taste of their own tyrannical medicine. The feminist state is spinning out of control, turning against new groups of offenders based on new kinds of phony crimes at a staggering rate. The abuse industry is even increasingly preying on children, destroying childhood in the guise of protecting children. Some examples from just last week:
A 9-year-old is suspended for sexual harassment because he told another student that a teacher is “cute.”
A high school student is handcuffed for wearing a hoodie that did not match school colors.
a 13-year-old student is arrested for allegedly burping during class.
a 7-year-old is investigated for sexual harassment for hitting a boy in the groin who was allegedly choking him.
How did we come to this? How did a movement intended to promote "equality" devolve into a reign of terror persecuting women and children as well as men? How can women continue to support the feminist police state and its odious laws, seeing that they may well be its next victim? Yesterday a law was proposed to criminalize possession of rubber gloves if the cops feel we might intend to use them for terrorism, along with another slew of new powers for the police state. That level of hysteria has already been implemented with regard to sexuality. Grooming law similarly empowers cops to arrest men for hypothetical crimes, and even provoke fictitious crimes altogether just to get innocent men imprisoned. It is time for the people to fight back on every front, because the feminist war on male sexuality has proven what depths of tyranny our government is capable of. So has the war on drugs, but that is a story for another day.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Psychiatry Claims Another Victim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, November 28, 2011

My Antifeminist Journey

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

The "Trafficking" Charade Groweth: Au Pairs and Gypsies

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

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

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

Thursday, November 03, 2011

The Feminist Police State Grinds On Versus Julian Assange

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Does the Emancipation of Women Always Herald Civilizational Collapse?

I mention the matter now because, owing to the egocentricity in our historical outlook, to which I have already referred, it is often supposed that female emancipation is an invention of the modern white man. Sometimes, we imagine that we have arrived at a conception of the status of women in society which is far superior to that of any other age; we feel an inordinate pride because we regard ourselves as the only civilized society which has understood that the sexes must have social, legal, and political equality. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Apart from the last sentence, the above paragraph is a good summary of attitudes held by most Westerners today. Certainly feminists tend to exude the sentiment that we are exceptional for exalting the ideal of equality (while always somehow falling short of true equality, of course, affording them the opportunity to keep whining about perpetual victimhood). It may come as a surprise, then, that the quote is taken from a book published in 1934: J.D. Unwin's Sex and Culture. I finally took the time to peruse it because as old, dense and obscure as it is, this book has attained the status of something like a classic in the manosphere. Unwin's thesis, based on a survey of more than 80 different societies, is that women's emancipation is incompatible with a flourishing civilization and high culture. The anthropological and historical records indicate that the enforcement of monogamy is inversely proportional to what Unwin terms "social energy." Civilizations rise under conditions of absolute monogamy (or at least a considerable amount of restrictions on the pre-nuptial sexual freedom of women), while the inevitable women's liberation and attendant loosening of sexual mores that follow lead to civilizational collapse.
The energy of the most developed civilized societies, or that of any group within them, was exhibited for so long as they preserved their austere regulations. Their energy faded away as soon as a modified monogamy became part of the inherited tradition of the whole society. No group of human beings, however, has ever been able, or at any rate has ever consented, to tolerate a state of absolute monogamy for very long. This is not surprising, for it is an unequal bargain for the women; and in the end they have always been freed from their legal disadvantages. To express the matter in popular language, they have been 'emancipated'. This has happened regularly and unfailingly in every recorded example of absolute monogamy, except one; in that case special circumstances prevailed. The Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, Romans, and Teutons began their historical careers in a condition of absolute monogamy; in each case the women were legal nonentities. After a time the laws were altered; a woman became a legal entity, the equal of a man. This happened among the Sumerians before they were dominated by the absolutely monogamous Babylonians; then among the latter just before Babylonia fell under the sway of the uncultivated Kassites. Under the ius gentium the Roman matrons were freed from most of the disadvantages from which they suffered under the old ius civile. Among the Anglo-Saxons the same changes were taking place when after the reign of Cnut the ecclesiastical authorities succeeded in obtaining control of sexual regulations. After the introduction of a pseudo-indissoluble monogamy (which, so far as the position of women and sexual opportunity were concerned, was the same as absolute monogamy) the English instituted the same reforms, which were still incomplete in the twentieth century. Only among the Athenians was the emancipation of native-born women never completed. Yet there seems to have been an emancipating movement in Athens too, but apparently the Periclean decree of 451 B.C. and the laws in regard to the epicleros, never repealed, prevented the native-born women from being freed from their legal disadvantages. In Athenian society the part which was played, in later Sumerian, Babylonian; Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and English society by emancipated women was played by the Outlander women (as Professor Zimmern has called them). Thus the impulses which helped to inaugurate the changes were, operative, and to some extent satisfied, in this case also. (Sex and Culture, pp. 343-44) 
I won't go into Unwin's theoretical explanation for the relationship between social energy and sexual restraint, because I don't much believe in it. That kind of Freudian theorizing is rather dated, but Unwin can be forgiven for not being conversant with evolutionary psychology. The historical evidence he presents, however, appears solid. The cycle of sexual restraint (or rather sexual egalitarianism, giving men the opportunity to to invest in families and thus society), feminism, decline and eventual displacement by cultures who subjugate their women has been played out time and again throughout history. The present decline of Western civilization is thus entirely expected, and we can probably look forward to being superseded by a more energetic culture. Islam is a good candidate. Not optimal, since they do allow polygamy, but this theory predicts that they will do better than our moribund Western civilization.

Sunday, October 02, 2011

Victimless Crimes

Lately the Norwegian news media has been trying to shame two male politicians for victimless crimes that are only crimes by virtue of the feminism which real men despise. What they don't seem to get is that just because you pass a law against Norwegian men purchasing sex worldwide and then manage to nail one in Latvia, making this headline news only brings attention to the bizarre and flagrant feminist reign of terror which is the status quo in Norway. This kind of propaganda is counterproductive to feminism because it only serves to highlight unjust laws unless you brainwash people to internalize those laws first. As attested by this blog, some of us are impervious to feminist brainwashing and instead react to feminist escalation by redoubling our antifeminist activism.

Likewise there is no shame in having sex with nubile young teenage girls, and regardless of how the law defines it, only feminists and laughably primitive men have internalized the misandrist sex laws criminalizing such behavior. Real men can see through the charade and know that sex with sexually mature girls under the age of consent is only "abuse" in feminist legal fiction. The reaction to hearing about men accused of statutory rape separates the wheat from the chaff as far as character goes. Only intellectually feeble and easily suggestible sheep unable to think for themselves accept the legal fiction that girls under some arbitrary age are ipso facto victims if they have sex.

Hoksrud and Øygard, you have done nothing morally wrong. There is no shame in breaking unjust laws. It is rather our duty to oppose unjust laws and break them whenever we feel like. It is our moral obligation to undermine and discredit feminist sex laws whenever we can. So while the feminist state is persecuting you, you need to hold you heads up high and join the MRA movement, to which you already have some credibility as martyrs -- but only if you attack the law rather than try to deny or excuse your actions while implying there is nothing wrong with the law. As we have seen, your own parties lack the spine to support your actions just because they are illegal. Seeing Siv Jensen uphold Norwegian law as something men ought to obey even when it is so flagrantly unjust says a lot about her and I decided there and then that I would not vote for Frp again. As to Rune Øygard, his otherwise leftist politics can be excused if he will stand up as a victim of feminism and publicly denounce feminist sex laws. This basic antifeminist cause ought to unite men across the political spectrum. I hope everyone can see by now that the feminist reign of terror is a threat to any man regardless of his position in society. Belonging to the politically correct party won't even help you, so what do you have to lose by becoming an MRA?

Friday, September 09, 2011

Baumeister Now Claims Gender Equality Leads to More Sex

I have previously cited noted psychologist Roy Baumeister for his work demonstrating that sex is a female resource. Now a new study of his published this summer has been doing the rounds. It has been portrayed as proving that gender equality leads to more sex. If true, this would pretty much overturn the standard MRA narrative regarding how feminism correlates with the availability of sex. Sex is still very much seen as a female resource, but the new evidence would appear to indicate that feminism actually leads to women putting out more freely. That would be ironic because we tend to think of feminism as a sexual trade union designed to maximize the value of female assets, driving up the cost of sex.

This is the reference:
Roy F. Baumeister & Juan Pablo Mendoza (2011): "Cultural Variations in the Sexual Marketplace: Gender Equality Correlates With More Sexual Activity." The Journal of Social Psychology, 151:3, 350-360.
Sexual economics theory assumes that heterosexual communities can be analyzed as marketplaces in which men offer women resources such as love, respect, money, and commitment in exchange for sex. In response to economic, political, and other disadvantages, women collectively restrict their sexuality to maintain a low supply relative to male demand, thereby ensuring a high price. Hence, we tested the hypothesis that sexual norms and practices would be more restrictive in countries marked by gender inequality than in countries where the genders were more equal. An international online sex survey (N>317,000) yielded four measures of sexual activity, and 37 nations' means on all four measures were correlated with independent (World Economic Forum) ratings of gender equality. Consistent with predictions, relatively high gender equality was associated with more casual sex, more sex partners per capita, younger ages for first sex, and greater tolerance/approval of premarital sex.
I always keep an open mind and am able to admit I have been wrong when I encounter new evidence invalidating my previous views. However, having read this article, I don't think the data prove that gender equality leads to more sex for men. Let's look at the actual figures. The numbers in the below table form the entire basis of Baumeister's conclusion. He didn't bother to conduct any surveys himself. Instead he relied on an online sex survey done by condom manufacturer Durex in 2005, from which it was not possible to obtain separate data for males and females, or even gays and straights. Numbers from this database were then combined with an index of gender equality for each country obtained from the Global Gender Gap Report 2006.

For one thing, the least gender-equal country in the data set (Turkey) is also the one with the highest number of partners, and they are also not terribly far behind on casual sex. How do they do this? But let's say Turkey is some kind of aberration and these correlations are generally accurate. Even so, it's easy to understand that they don't necessarily warrant the conclusion that women dispense sex more liberally when they get more gender equality. If you for example have a bunch of people trading monogamy for casual sex once a year, you get fabulous scores on these "indices of sexual activity," yet there is less sex going on, to say nothing of happiness or quality of life. Clearly these indices can be misleading. And even if there is more casual sex going on in gender-egalitarian societies, and women are willing to be more promiscuous, we have reason to believe a great deal of this extra sex befalls alpha males. The number of partners in the table is just an average, which says nothing about the distribution of these partners. It may not be so egalitarian after all. More likely, something like a Pareto distribution is in effect. It would be consistent with this study as well as every observation and everything I know that 20% of men get 80% of the casual sex. In Norway a full 30% of the population hasn't had a single one-night stand, either. So what if there is less casual sex in non-feminist countries, and you have to wait a couple more years to lose your virginity? As long as you are pretty much assured a wife, this is a better proposition for beta and omega men who rarely if ever would get laid in a feminist society. We already knew alphas have a good time under feminism (at least until they get hit by a rape accusation), so there is really nothing new under the sun in this study.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

My Fellow American

I have been asked by the My Fellow American project to share their short film about tolerance towards Muslims. As they explain,
My Fellow American is a film project in the United States devoted to recognizing that Muslims are our neighbors. I am reaching out to you because you addressed the recent events in Oslo, Norway, on Eivind Berge's Blog and I am hoping you will share this message of tolerance with your readers. We’ve put together a 2 minute film that I believe you will be interested in sharing, watching, and discussing.
Unlike Anders Behring Breivik, or Fjordman for that matter, I don't have a problem with mulitculturalism in principle. In fact, I think of Muslims as potential allies against feminism. Even Sharia law is probably better for men than the current feminist utopia, if Islamization should ever progress that far. So this is a message I can get behind.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

More Evidence for Female Erotic Capital and the Male Sex-Deficit

Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital is a new book by Catherine Hakim that should probably be required reading for anyone still in denial of the fact that sex is a female resource. Since I haven't yet read it, I will rely on this review for now:
According to her, while young women may possess considerable charms, men's desire for them always vastly outstrips supply. The reverse is simply not the case: men are both less attractive to women, and markedly less desired by them, especially as those women grow older. What Hakim terms "the male sex-deficit" underlies both the ubiquity of female sexual imagery – as pornography, as marketing adjunct – and the persistent unwillingness of society at large to "valorise" women's good looks. It is, quite simply, not in the interests of all those priapic patriarchs to allow women to actualise their erotic capital, for to do so would seismically alter the balance of power between the sexes.
Ah, but feminism is precisely about valorizing women's good looks. The balance of power between the sexes is already seismically altered because women now have (or soon will have) equality in every way and then all their sexual power on top of that. To make things worse, Norwegian men are even criminalized for purchasing sex while women can legally sell.
That the religiously dogmatic and the merely male chauvinist should have both demonised – and, paradoxically, diminished – the impact of female sexuality from time out of mind, is, following Hakim, only to be expected. In Anglo Saxon societies, such as our own, the net result is, she avers, that we have less sex overall than they do in steamier, less puritanical climes, while our sexual relations are mediated by a tiresome push-me, pull-you interaction: men wanting sex, women refusing it. According to Hakim, Christian monogamy is, quite simply, a "political strategy" devised by the patriarchy in order to ensure that even the least attractive/wealthy/powerful men gain at least one sexual partner.
Indeed, to ensure that most men get a partner is exactly why I believe we should return to Christian monogamy. Whether there is more sex overall in "steamier, less puritanical climes" is beside the point, because it isn't evenly distributed. When women get more freedom to choose, they reject more men, and these men will tend to act as a destabilizing force against civilization, as I know from personal experience.

I may not agree with Hakim's conclusion, which apparently is a call for further female empowerment through prostitution, but it looks like this book is a good resource for debunking the feminist lie that there are no essential sex differences in sexual motivation, as it is said to be "complete with rather leaden prose, extensive annotation, reams of statistical evidence, appendices and tedious repetitions" all pointing to the fact that sexuality is a resource that belongs to women.
Hakim's view is that the myth of "equality of desire" is endorsed by feminists, and that this leads to what she terms the "medicalisation of low desire", whereby therapists and counsellors try to convince women that their lack of sex-drive is a function of psychopathology rather than hormones. She anticipates being criticised by feminists as an "essentialist", who defines men and women by biological characteristic, but rejoins – I think fairly – that the feminist position is equally so.
Yes, the feminist denial of sex differences also harms women in some ways. But these are just minor inconveniences compared to the huge benefit women reap from denying human nature. Because only by denying female erotic capital can feminists credibly sustain the illusion that women have been oppressed and thus justify all their coercive "equality."

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Jeg tar avstand fra Breiviks handlinger

Jeg ser jeg har blitt omtalt i BT og selektivt sitert fra denne bloggen. Det er viktig for meg a understreke følgende. Jeg tar blank avstand fra Breiviks handlinger. Skytingen på Utøya og bomben i Oslo er forkastelige handlinger. Det er overhodet ikke forenlig med det jeg står for å ta uskyldige menneskeliv gjennom en terrorhandling. Det er helt fokasterlig og kan overhodet ikke forsvares av de anliggender jeg har i min blog.

Dette er det aller viktigste jeg har å si i denne situasjonen. Hvis det jeg har skrevet i min blog blir tatt til inntekt for slike handlinger, tar jeg sterk avstand fra det.

All annen diskusjon om det jeg har skrevet er irrelevant i forhold til dette anliggende, altså selve terrorhandlingene som Anders Breivik står bak.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Anders Breivik: Paleoconservative Activism Or Beta Rampage?

At the time I wrote my last blog post, I believed I would probably become Norway's first modern violent activist in peacetime. Celibacy enforced by a feminist regime had driven me to the point where I saw no other option. I would target the pigs who enforce feminist law, knowing I could realistically at least kill one of them before I would be captured or killed myself. Thus revenge would be assured and if I lived, my reputation as a violent criminal would make me attractive to some women. But then in the nick of time this blog attracted a lovely girl commenting as "Emma." It turns out her real name is Nataliya and she is now my girlfriend. No actual violence was necessary, and it looked like Norway would be a peaceful place for now. I knew things are seriously amiss around here and that neither feminism nor multiculturalism is sustainable in the long run, but I had no idea a formidable activist named Anders Behring Breivik was already years into meticulously planning an attack that would show the entire world what Vikings are made of.

On July 22, 2011 the social democratic regime in Oslo was struck by violence so spectacular it took us all by surprise. The ruling class of a country has never, as far as I know, been so systematically and viciously assaulted by a single individual. The bombing of government offices was impressive enough, but the shooting spree which followed was mind-bogglingly effective, literally decimating the crème de la crème of aspiring young politicians for the ruling Labor Party. The ethics of shooting defenseless teenagers at summer camp can be questioned, to say the least, but it sure was a brilliant way to strike at the core of the Norwegian political elite. These are the next generation of political leaders, and what better way to terrorize the parents – the current top holders of political office – than going after their kids? As Glenn Beck has observed, the AUF youth at Utøya are reminiscent of Hitler-Jugend. Utøya is where leftist kids come to be indoctrinated every summer, steeping themselves in liberal propaganda and listening to inspirational speeches by current and former social democratic leaders such as Gro Harlem Brundtland. In retrospect, it was extremely thoughtless by the ruling class not to post a single armed guard at this event. Politics is serious business after all, and such a hotbed of recruitment concentrated on an island with no easy escape is an obvious target for political enemies, if you think about it. I guess they were still under the illusion that Norway is an idyllic place which somehow does not foster violent malcontents no matter how downtrodden we get.

Indeed, the perpetrators of the evils against men I've chronicled on my blog are the direct maleficiaries of Breivik's aggression. While I am as prone to feeling sympathy for innocent-looking kids as the next guy, and I too feel this atrocity was a bit excessive, then the ugly face of the scumbag Knut Storberget keeps appearing in the news to remind me that this was not an attack against the innocent. Storberget is the main poster boy for feminist corruption of justice, and there is no fucking way his presence can evoke anything but hatred. The corrupt nature of the Norwegian justice system hits home also when, as Breivik appeared at the hearing Monday, the court closed its doors and conducted its business in complete secrecy, admitting neither the public nor the press. They shamelessly did this by request of the cops in order to prevent Breivik from addressing the public. And Storberget is already starting to exploit the situation by agitating for a stronger police state.

Fortunately, Breivik was able to release a manifesto which is now so widely disseminated that they have no hope of censoring it. It could be better, marred by plagiarism as well as lack of proofreading (for obvious reasons, this could not be outsourced), but overall, 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence is fairly decent and contains much truth. While I cannot get behind Breivik’s entire program (for one thing, as a libertarian, I strongly support freedom of religion, though I acknowledge the problems associated with Islam gaining influence in Europe), he does, at least, understand sexual politics:
Females have a significantly higher proportion of erotic capital than males due to biological differences (men have significantly more prevalent sexual urges than females and are thus easily manipulated). The female manipulation of males has been institutionalised during the last decades and is a partial cause of the feminisation of men in Europe. This highly underestimated factor has contributed to the creation and rise of the matriarchal systems which are now dominating Western European countries. European women, in light of the feminist revolution, are now considerably more influential than men due to the sum of all forms of capital. (p. 1180)
From this follows also the fact that rape is equality, as I have pointed out, though it is unclear if Breivik has yet to grasp this point. He seems lamentably politically correct in some ways and at times spouts feminist drivel of the worst kind, such as, “Ethical dilemmas which involve sex can often appear in situations where there is a significant power difference or where there is a pre-existing professional relationship between the participants, or where consent is partial or uncertain” (p. 1173). This is the kind of feminist tripe used to legitimize the worst sex laws against men, and sadly he appears to have internalized it.

Nonetheless, Breivik was sufficiently angered by the Norwegian feminist/Marxist regime to attack it with the utmost vengeance. As was I before I got a girlfriend; the difference being my relative lack of conscientiousness and restraint in expressing my views. As a very public MRA already on the radar for intending violence, there would be no way I could purchase the ingredients to make a bomb without arousing suspicion; and even if I could, I would be unlikely to have the patience and diligence to complete a clandestine project on such a scale. But I would still be able to make a bloody nuisance of myself.

Breivik is being called insane right now for fancying himself at war with the establishment, and apparently regarding some newly founded incarnation of the Knights Templar as the legitimate authority in Europe. While that does seem a bit grandiose and perhaps fictitious, we must not forget that his perspective spans more than 60 years. By 2083, it is entirely possible, I think, that we may go through a civil war in Europe, the outcome of which is uncertain. I will not be surprised if Breivik turns out to be a greater hero in the long run to more people than the Marxist “traitors” he executed. Now he will surely gain a bevy of female admirers, as well.

Being born just one year apart, we grew up under similar circumstances. Norway today is a society sick to the core. It is a place which breeds monsters out of the betas and omegas in a sexual market increasingly skewed against males. I am not sure Breivik is properly considered just another beta going on a rampage out of sexual frustration (Breivik seems to me so idealistic his actions transcend sexuality, but then again it is usually a mistake to think men do anything at all for any reason other than to get laid), as fellow Roissysphere blogger Whiskey contends, but I know how close I was to such a rampage myself, and undoubtedly we will see increasing violence if feminist sexual politics is allowed to continue. I don’t particularly have a dog in the Christian vs. Islam fight (maybe this shows bad character, but I would not be averse to convert to Islam if that was the way to get laid), and now that I have a girlfriend I am not out in the front lines attacking feminists, either, but I remain politically aware, and recent events have been a step in the right direction insofar as they demonstrate a willingness among conservative men to revolt against the heretofore completely dominant left.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

The Futility of Anonymity

Italian police requested information from their Norwegian colleagues about two bloggers who were using a service hosted on servers in Norway to maintain their anonymity. It's bad enough that servers can get compromised so easily whenever the authorities want to look into someone, but it gets much worse. In a move completely characteristic of Norwegian cops' arrogance and utter disregard for rights, piggies copied an entire hard drive, thus securing identifying information on 7000 political activists.

While I support the right to be anonymous on the Internet, stories like this go to show it is pointless, really. Personally, I chose to blog under my full name not only because anonymity is futile but because I believe activism is more effective that way and I am in no way ashamed of my opinions. So I engage in open hostility against feminists and their enforcers. I have nothing to lose and nothing to fear. I don't have to watch my back because I currently do nothing illegal (even took the above picture myself, so no copyright infringement in this post), and I am positively itching for a lethal confrontation anyway, seething with rage and profound hatred against pigs as my life is destroyed by feminism.

These days a new Orwellian law is being pushed through in Norway (Datalagringsdirektivet), granting the police tremendously increased power to pry into our lives. Information on all email, web browsing and telecommunications of the entire populace is to be stored for the convenience of cops. Note that everyone is presumed guilty and subject to surveillance by default; this is not a matter of keeping an eye on suspects. While this is of course appalling and incompatible with any notion of a free society, I don't fear Datalagringsdirektivet, either. A transparent society suits me just fine and is bound to be a net positive for men. In stark contrast to the pigs, I take the moral high ground. Since a cornerstone of police method is deception, openness is going to hurt law enforcement a great deal more than it will hurt morally upstanding citizens (and besides, anyone who actually knows how to use a computer can easily get around the new surveillance anyway if the need should arise). Pigs have been known to engage in their usual lies and sneaky behavior on social media, but at least one major service has made it clear that this is unacceptable.
Facebook was the only company to make clear that its strict policies against fake accounts apply to law enforcement as well. In its 2008 and 2009 guides it notes that it will disable all accounts that provide false or misleading information, including police accounts, and in its 2010 guide it notes that it will “always disable accounts that supply false or misleading profile information or attempt to technically or socially circumvent site privacy measures.”
Kudos to Facebook for holding cops to the same standards as everyone else. As feminism and its enforcement cannot stand the light of day, the powers that be are only hastening their own demise be escalating surveillance. The truth will set us free.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Alpha of the Year: Keith MacDonald

Keith MacDonald is Alpha of the Year for 2010, hands down. No one else I've heard of even comes close. Keith has sired ten children with ten different women by age 25. Even more impressive, he has done so on a budget of £40 a week that he doesn't even have to work for since his back hurts, and only £5 a week is deducted from his incapacity benefit, earning him the accolade "Incapacity Casanova." Moreover, he does not appear to have needed to be criminal or violent in order to attract all these women, and unlike certain other famous philanderers, he has even avoided rape accusations. I also bet he never spent a penny on any PUA material or coaching. And to remove the last shred of doubt, it is clear that the women he gets are hot.

Taxpayers are understandably upset for having to foot the £2million bill for supporting Keith's ten children until they are 18, but Keith is a winner. Boy, is he ha winner!
Macdonald says he first had sex at the age of 10 and boasts that he has since slept with 40 women – claiming to be “a sex god on £40 a week.”
He fathered his first child at the age of 15 when his then girlfriend, Michelle Purvis, now 32, gave birth to a daughter, Jamie Leigh, who is now 10. When they split up he met Charlotte Anderson, now 25, who had a daughter, Kady, now eight.
Macdonald then met Jordan Banks who was just 15 when he got her pregnant. They had a son, Angelis, who is seven.
June Garrick, now 26, gave birth to his fourth child, Brandon, in October 2003 – a month after Angelis was born. In 2006, he met 17-year-old Stephanie Jubb at a bus stop. She gave birth to their son, Matt, three. Then he started dating Ms Barker, now 22, who gave birth to Emily, now two.
His seventh child was born after a brief romance with Bec Wright, now 22, who gave birth to Clio, also two. His eighth offspring was Ms Bryant’s daughter, Paige, born five months ago.
So how can a jobless, "feckless" layabout accomplish this? (Obviously, he is anything but feckless. Keith is smarter than all of us.) I wish I knew. Clearly he is a natural, and I doubt this level of game can be taught. Most men would need to be billionaires or world rulers to have anywhere near this kind of success with women.

Keith is in an altogether different league than even the best PUAs. Roissy, for example, for all his knowledge about pickup, is missing something essential. Roissy does not want children. Not wanting marriage is understandable. I don't think I would want to get married either under conditions of marriage 2.0 if I were the kind of man women want. But not wanting to impregnate women is a sentiment I can only shake my head at. It is all very well to get to fuck all those women, of course, but in the end, isn't it halfway pointless if you subvert the actual fundamental reason for having sex? Keith Macdonald has understood it. The last laugh will be his.

Just to get an idea of how much sex it takes to father that many children:
Given that the probability of conception per coital act is estimated to be about .03, a man must have 33 extrapair copulation partners (with whom he has sex once each) in order to be able to expect to produce one child (number of potential conception = .99).  A man can produce roughly the same number of children with one sexual partner with whom he has regular sex (twice a week) (number of potential conception = .96).
And that's assuming they don't use contraception. You would have to fuck 330 women once each to have ten kids, or ten women 33 times. This is what Keith has been doing, all in ten years from he was 15 to 25 while stupid betas have to work and pay. Great for him, not so good for society. I would certainly never stoop so low as to be a net taxpayer and work to pay for another man's spawn, but I am magnanimous enough to congratulate Keith Macdonald on his magnificent success in life.