Tuesday, May 08, 2012

Thoughts on the trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

335 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 335 of 335
Anonymous said...

(And I suspect that part of the explanation for the much greater suicide numbers among men than women, in Norway, are to be found in mechanisms as those I just described above - although I don't actually *know*, so if some among the very many professionals, police, psychologists, media people etc reading here these days know, feel free to supplement my musings.. )

Anonymous said...

"None of them were interested in the conversation!!!

There are some victims who wish to be helped or to confront the source of their victimhood and to stop being victims...

Then there are victims who hide behind some victimology story, in order to garner themselves a following, or publicity or some form of host for their 'victimology parasitism'.. these avoid any attempts to solve the source of their so-called 'victimhood' problem, since solving it will remove the host for their ideological, physical or emotional parasitism opportunities!!

I really thought Eivind was the former.... "

Fuck, Andrea, I thought you were writing about all the female victimologist.. !

How odd that the guys, including Eivind, were not interested into fitting into some self-declared feminists' frame-work :-)

I wasn't really going to give you the time of day, but since I just did, now (sigh.. ) how do you define your feminism? Most feminists never define their own version of feminism - they just take for granted that people get what they mean with it. But since feminism sprawls in a multitude of directions, and seems to sort under various definitions, perhaps you might care to tell us what YOUR personal, own definition is (and if there is a universal one, too, under which most reasonable, not too fringe-feminists might sort.. )

TIA :-)

Anonymous said...

("victimologists")

Guy Faux-wlkes said...

The internet is chock full with people who want to start revolutions, who are desperate for _something_ to happen; something that may break up the monotony. To wit:

http://dprogram.net/2012/07/11/citizens-viewpoint-we-are-one-person-away-from-revolution/

And, how about this one (from a staunch feminist, no less): "Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex." http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Anonymous! (what a creative name!)

LOL... Eivind at least appeared to have an open mind and was willing to discuss the issue of defining feminism and resolving the issues...

Did you read the links in my comment?

Emma: I am a feminist and I invited Eivind and Men's Rights Activists to discuss their concerns and the source of the Feminist - Anti-Feminist problem: A Proposal for defining the Feminist vs Anti-Feminist Problem.... ..

If you had bothered to read the article, i linked to in my comment.. you would see I totally agree there are female feminist victimhood parasites.. as there are male Men's Rights victimhood parasites...

The issue is to find those who are sincere about resolving their victimhood issues and the source of their problems.. this can only be done by means of brutal honest problem solving discussions, focussed on root causes of the problems...

Those who are sincere are happy to resolve problems.. those who are not sincere.. but who prefer to be parasites victimhood leeches (feminsts or MRA's)... prefer to be leeching victimhood parasits and avoid problem solving...

Maybe read the article.. if you are the former..

Are you a sincere MRA problem solver.. or are you a MRA victimhood parasite????

Guy Faux-wlkes said...

"Although completely physical, the male is unfit even for stud service. Even assuming mechanical proficiency, which few men have, he is, first of all, incapable of zestfully, lustfully, tearing off a piece, but instead is eaten up with guilt, shame, fear and insecurity, feelings rooted in male nature, which the most enlightened training can only minimize; second, the physical feeling he attains is next to nothing; and third, he is not empathizing with his partner, but is obsessed with how he's doing, turning in an A performance, doing a good plumbing job. To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo. It's often said that men use women. Use them for what? Surely not pleasure.

Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities and obtaining, if he's lucky, a barely perceptible physical feeling, the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he'll swim through a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there'll be a friendly pussy awaiting him. He'll screw a woman he despises, any snaggle-toothed hag, and furthermore, pay for the opportunity. Why? Relieving physical tension isn't the answer, as masturbation suffices for that. It's not ego satisfaction; that doesn't explain screwing corpses and babies."

Emma said...

Andrea,

Sure, there are probably "victimhood paracites" out there, who don't want to solve the problem, but would feel more comfortable remaining in their own victim group, but Eivind isn't one of them. He has been busy looking for work and trying to finish his thesis, so I doubt his lack of response was due to not wanting change. He's definitely one of those who wants things to become better.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

"Sure, there are probably "victimhood paracites" out there, who don't want to solve the problem, but would feel more comfortable remaining in their own victim group, but Eivind isn't one of them. He has been busy looking for work and trying to finish his thesis, so I doubt his lack of response was due to not wanting change. He's definitely one of those who wants things to become better."

Yes.. victimhood parasites are always the majority in any and all victimhood groups, Mens' Rights and Feminists included.

I don't know what his lack of response was due to... I imagine you may be correct. As a matter of Honour (I am member of Radical Honoursty culture) I prefer to give all the benefit of the doubt on any issue of ambiguity.

So we shall have to wait and see which path Eivind takes. HOpefully he is released soon, and if the Norwegian authorities are going to proceed with a case against him.. that he gets a fair trial; although I consider that highly unlikely.

Norway's Patriarchal Feminist justice system is massively corrupt.. and suffers from immense masculine (reason and logic) insecurity and a fear of transparency and truthseeking.. and an addiction to propaganda and bullshit the public relations image management...

But Eivind is a fighter.. and hopefully the Men's Rights victimhood pansies will support him to get a free trial. I most certainly shall do so.. and as usual the victimhood pansie feminists shall not appreciate my non-victimhood opinions and my support for transparency and truthseeking, above propganda and bullshit the public relations image management.

Anonymous said...

Så nettopp intervju med deg på NRK nå, og du ser jo helt ufattelig dum ut. Du ser ut som en prototyp på en stygg nerd. For et fjols! Ikke rart jenter ikke vil ta i deg med tang en gang. Loo-ooser! (og ja, jeg er en jente, som ikke er kresen en gang)

Emma said...

female anonymous,

Please think really hard why you feel this intense need to come here and broadcast to everyone how you aren't attracted to Eivind Berge. Then think very hard how this alleged lack of attraction disproves anything he said, at all.

Anonymous said...

Til anonyme kvinnehelvete: for en jævla kuk du er!

Guy Fauz-wlkes said...

Fitte, heter det vel.. ? Cunt.

Men ja, EB kunne med fordel sett mer macho ut. Han trenger MASSE coaching på kroppsspråk og slikt. Særlig de siste fem sekundene av innslaget var pinlige - hvordan han ålte seg inn på rommet og satte seg på stolen, med hendene i fanget og på pulten. Er han kuet av fengselsvaktene? Frykter han for livet sitt, om han ikke framstår som mest mulig kuet? Hvorfor gikk han ikke bare karslig inn i rommet, og ga en karslig håndhilsen til reporterne (vinket, eller noe)? Eller bare stille seg bak stolen. Hvorfor måtte han sette seg ned på stolen, og se så "weasel-y" ut?

Han svelgte også enkelte ord, under intervjuet - i alle fall "voldtektstraffer" (eller -dommer, husker ikke helt). Ergo trenger han også litt trening i diksjon.

Mer macho kroppsspråk, om du ønsker å overhodet tas seriøst, Eivind!

Andvind Bergvik said...

Mer macho kroppsspråk, om du ønsker å overhodet tas seriøst, Eivind!

Enig! Heldigvis kommer han til å få masse gratis macho-coaching av fangene når han sitter inne. Han trenger litt mer biff også, så får håpe han ikke skulker unna vekttreningen heller! :-) Jeg regner ellers med at når Eivind treffer det fargerike fellesskapet inne bak murene, så kommer han til å revurdere de litt naive forestillingene han har når det gjelder innvandring. Skal se at ikke en tur i fengsel var det beste som kunne skjedd han ;-)

Dikter said...

Berge du Berge du kjempet mot
vaginalstaten Norge, med ukuelig mot.
Men at staten har makt, ja det vet vi jo
Den er innstilt på å drepe
om den først smaker blod

Så nå sitter du der da
blant mordere og ransmenn
for å ha ytret dine meninger
med grovkalibret tastaturpenn

Man skulle kanskje tro
at man ble dømt basert på handling
men selv ble du fengslet
fordi du ønsket deg forandring

Men mannsrettigheter
hvem bryr seg vel om det?
når de menna du kjemper for
er selveste taperne?

Man skal ikke ønske
det som staten ikke vil
det er den som bestemmer
hvem som er slem og snill

Så en slemming det er du
for det har samfunnet sagt.
Derfor blir du møtt
med avsky og forakt

Har du glemt første bud
Ja hvordan var det nå igjen?
flertallet har alltid rett
glem aldri det
min venn

Smeg Ma said...

Enjoy prison!

Anonymous said...

I don't think Eivind Berge needs advice on body language at the moment; I'd say he needs a very good lawyer. He's deep into it, to say the least.

And to all of you who gloat over his apprehension: Don't get too smug, because this could also happen to you. If the police come to YOUR door, what would you do? The guy must be scared out of his mind.

Emma said...

I don't think he's scared out of his mind, but it's not a pleasant situation. I feel like to make him truly scared out of his mind, you need much more than that. The good lawyer part is being worked on.

Anonymous said...

Emma: jeg syns det er skremmende at du syns det å planlegge å knivstikke noen til døde er "meh". Det sier mye om hvor langt inne i Eivind Berges fantasiverden du har forsvunnet. Hva hadde du gjort om han hadde gjort de syke fantasiene sine til virkelighet? Hadde du forsvart ham?

tanga: det er nok du som må se litt nærmere på fakta. At du tyr til barnslige personangrep framfor ordentlige argumenter viser vel ganske klart at du også har forsvunnet langt inn i konspiranoia-skogen. Breivik hadde ingen intime forhold i årene som ledet opp til terrorangrepet (venner er ikke det samme, og også de mistet han kontakten med i disse årene).

Og det er vel ingen her som kan benekte at antifeminister uten unntak er menn med mangelfulle sosiale antenner som vender sin seksuelle frustrasjon mot kvinner og autoriteter. Ved å "rase mot maskinen" gjør de om sin egen seksuelle impotens og avmakt til en form for politisk makt. Dette forklarer jo at dette "incel"-begrepet dukker opp så mye i dette kommentarfeltet.

Anonymous said...

Forresten er jeg ikke spesielt redd for at politiet skal komme og banke på døra mi. Først og fremst fordi jeg ikke oppfordrer til politidrap på bloggen min. Og fordi jeg ikke tror norske politimenn er innblandet i en stor sammensvergelse med radikale feminister for å sette flest mulig menn i fengsel.

Anonymous said...

"Og det er vel ingen her som kan benekte at antifeminister uten unntak er menn med mangelfulle sosiale antenner som vender sin seksuelle frustrasjon mot kvinner og autoriteter."

Er det ingen som kan benekte det? Det finnes vel sågar kvinnelige antifeminister, men dette er egentlig på siden av saken.

Mener du at en manns verdi er knyttet opp mot hvor mange damer han har ligget med?

Er det riktig at en mann kan diskrimineres om han ikke har draget på damene?

Det er nettopp DISSE holdningene som appellerer til mannsaktivismen i meg. Menn kan mobbes pga sine personlige problemer uten at noen reagerer. Men det blir noe annet om en person mobbes pga handicap, fedme, spisseforstyrrelser, selskading, dysleksi; ja sågar økonomiske problemer er vel delvis sammfunnets skyld, gitt enkelte gruppers argumentasjon.

Å tråkke på andre for å gjøre seg selv stor, er den mest laveste form for selvhevdelse. Det er kvalmende og nedrig!

Anonymous said...

Fra en kvinnelig anti-feminist. (Selvsagt må man ta et visst forbehold om troverdighet på internet men dog)

As an anti-feminist woman (yes I AM a woman, yes I do identify in the outside world as anti-feminist) I have to say that I don't hate feminists. I totally disagree with about 90% of their beliefs. I dislike just about everything that is to be found in the feminist propaganda. I despise the feminist movement.

It is my contention that feminism has hurt women far more than anything men have done. I believe that the de-femiisization of women has been a major factor in the rise of depression in women and in the divorce rate. I believe that the emasculization of men has harmed men singularly and as a gender within our society. I am sick to death of reading all the little girlies spouting their feminist dogma when they haven't even left their parents homes to experience real life. And I can clearly see how much harm feminism has caused in our families and hence harmed our children and continues to harm our children. Therefore, I will always speak out against feminism, here and in the real world. And I further think that men speak out less becuase they are so vilified if they dare to raise their voices in their own defense.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100403175156AATXeBU

Anonymous said...

"Og det er vel ingen her som kan benekte at antifeminister uten unntak er menn med mangelfulle sosiale antenner som vender sin seksuelle frustrasjon mot kvinner og autoriteter."

Nå er det da vitterlig menn med drag på damene og således har mange sexpartnere, som er mest utsatt for falske voldtektsanklager. Som kjent er jo alle disse falske voldtektsanklagene ofte fremsatt på grunn av sjalusi og eller hevn for "utroskap".

Anonymous said...

Som mann må jeg si at jeg ikke føler meg spesielt diskriminert (dette er sikkert et kjempeproblem for dere antifeminister, men jeg har det godt med meg selv, og det er vel det viktigste). Streite, hvite menn i rike, vestlige land som føler seg diskriminert eller dårlig behandlet fordi de er menn burde ta noen steg tilbake fra dataskjermen og skaffe seg litt perspektiv. Vi snakker om den mest privilegerte gruppen mennesker i menneskehetens historie, folk med alle forutsetninger for å gjøre positivt arbeid til alles beste, og hva gjør dere?

Dere sitter og griner og syter og truer med å drepe fordi dere føler dere tråkket på av en usynlig konspirasjon som ingen andre kan se.

Anonymous said...

"usynlig konspirasjon"

Nå er verken lovene som er designet for å få fengslet flest mulig menn eller praksisen der en anklaget mann blir tvunget til å bevise sin uskyld, på noen måte usynlige. Ikke er det en konspirasjon heller, men derimot idioti satt i system.
Kan hende rammer det deg selv en vakker dag? En erkemotbydelig politifeminist i Oslo har jo bl.a. kommet med trusler i.f.a å ha advart mot å ha sex med damer som er litt beruset. Underforstått at du da sannsynligvis vil bli fengslet.

Anonymous said...

DNA-reformen som Storberget satte i verk, er jo et eiendommelig eksempel på dette. I media, og blant folk flest, tror man at det må ha blitt begått en seriøs forbrytelse for at DNA registrering skal finne sted. Sannheten er imidlertid at om politiet finner det nødvendig av hensyn til etterforskning kan enhver forbrytelse som kvalifiserer til fengselsstraff (altså alle forseelser og forbrytelser) føre til oppførelse i DNA registeret. Foto og fingeravtrykk likeså. Selv om mannen (for det er selvsagt menn dette går utover) blir frikjent er han fortsatt registrert i registeret til evig fremtid.

Anonymous said...

Når man leser Hanne Kristin Rohdes uttalelser om alkohol og sex som "trusler", er det et klart tegn på konspirasjonstenkning.

Jeg lurer på om det er noen som kan underbygge disse påstandene med statistikk? Er det stadig flere menn som blir fengslet for sedelighetsforbrytelser (totalt eller i forhold til kvinner), eller forbrytelser generelt? Og er det kanskje andre faktorer som har bidratt til dette, som at kvinner føler mindre skam enn før for å anmelde en voldtekt?

Jeg tror det går an å diskutere problematikken uten å ta utgangspunkt i denne konspirasjonsteorien hvor radikale feminister har infiltrert rettssystemet og politistyrkene.

Denne DNA-reformen gjelder vel like mye for kvinner som for menn, og har mer sammenheng med et stadig voksende overvåkningssamfunn/krigen mot terror (som jeg syns er mer bekymringsverdig) enn med denne påståtte feministsammensvergelsen.

Anonymous said...

i.f.a. = i form av?

Lite brukt forkortelse, aldri sett før. Er den anerkjent.. ?

(Digresjon over, men er genuint nysgjerrig på dette.)

Anonymous said...

http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/krim/politiet-vil-forlenge-varetektsfengsling-av-ekstremblogger-3834080.html

Bare en liten tanke: Han har blogget på dette viset i 5-6 år, og plutselig er han så farlig at han må varetektsfengslet på ubestemt tid.. ?

Anonymous said...

http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/article3436342.ece

Emma said...

"There's a high chance of him doing it again"? His messages have been repeated over and over in the media for a week. Those that could have been encouraged, have been encouraged. Plus I somehow doubt he will repeat all the worst phrases all over again. It's not exactly the situation for it?

Emma said...

I don't think planning to stab someone is "meh". He thought about this, once. And never since we got together, at all. You don't need to sink into someone's "fantasy world" to have empathy and understanding. I understand his former desperation perfectly and think it's bizarre people are even surprised this can happen to someone from incel. It should be common knowledge, although depression is more likely.

No, I wouldn't support him if he actually killed a cop like he once wanted to. But I know he won't, it's not even an issue. With me, he has no reason to. I have no reason to distrust him, no reason to believe he is a bad person in any way. Just passionate with words, overly honest and brave to the point of stupidity (which can be both vices and virtues).

So, go worry about REAL violent men, those we can't know anything about, because the police is going out of their way to silence their frustrations (by example of Eivind Berge's arrest) and makes non-violent (but understandably angry) protest tricky and severely punishable. I worry about them too, you know (who says they won't kill ME, for example? 22 July happened in my city) Eivind and I, on the other hand, are peaceful and non-dangerous precisely because we're so out in the open.

Anonymous said...

Emma: Du sier Eivind ikke er farlig nå som han har et forhold til deg.

Vel du har litt av et ansvar å bære. Avslutter du forholdet med ham, kan han jo på ny få tilbake sine morderiske tanker. Til pressen har han jo uttalt at, hvis det ikke var for deg, ville han i dag ha vært en drapsmann. Det var bare dager om å gjøre før han hadde gjennomført planen sin. Og Eivind er jo som du sier svært ærlig.....

Emma said...

Hva så? Det er sikkert mange menn der ute som ville blitt farlige hvis plutselig ingen ville ha dem lenger, og det varte noen lange år. De bare sier ikke det rett ut (og kanskje ikke vet det selv akkurat nå). Eivind er ærlig, andre bare våger ikke.

Også er jeg fremdeles sammen med ham, så hva er problemet? Jeg har planer å være sammen med ham for alltid, hva sier du nå?

Anonymous said...

Du sier du har planer å være sammen med ham for alltid. Eivind hadde også planer - om å drepe. Planer er hva de er - planer.

Dessuten fremmer du ikke mannssaken mye hvis du fremstiller menn som ikke får sex som farlige tikkende bomber som legger planer om å drepe.

Det høres tvert imot ut som en primitiv mannsfiendentlig teori, som du neppe er i stnd til å dokumentere.

Emma said...

Jeg sa det kan skje. Hva er så mannsfiendtlig med det at det kan finnes menn der ute som ER tikkende bomber? Jeg sa også at jeg tror det er mer vanlig å bli deprimert enn å bli voldelig, men begge er mulige. Nei, ikke alle menn ville bli drapsmenn, men kanskje nok til å gjøre livet "spennende"? Ikke alle tyr til voldtekt heller, men det er nok til å være ekstra forsiktig når man går ute, for eksempel, og prøve å finne løsning på problemet. For eksempel ved å unngå lover som gjør ærlig tilgang på sex for vanskelig.

Jeg vil ikke fremme mannsaken ved å lyve og late som alle menn er helgner, som kan tåle hvilken som helst frarøvelse av livskvalitet uten å reagere i det hele tatt. Det virker like godt som å fremme kvinnesaken ved å hevde at alle kvinner er helgner. Vi er alle mennesker, og mennesker kan ofte reagere mot urettferd og frarøvelse av det som er viktig for dem med desperate handlinger. Synes det er du som er mannsfiendtlig her. Påstår at en gruppe mennesker skal være uten en eneste feil og med null potensiale for vold for å være verdt å beskytte.

Og jeg forstår ikke hvorfor du henger deg opp i planene hans. De finnes ikke lenger. Så lenge vi er sammen, det er ingen eksisterende problem. Vil du fengsle Eivind for handlinger han i fremtiden vil, en dag, kanskje eller kanskje ikke, gjøre?

Incel said...

Emma, don't try too hard... These PC robots will never understand what incel does to a man. It's amazing that you are able to understand as a woman while many men can't.

Anonymous said...

"Incels" should grow a pair of balls instead of threatening people on the internet.

Anonymous said...

"Incels" should grow a pair of balls instead of threatening people on the internet.

A funny way of putting it, considering Berge has been imprisoned based on his heartfelt opinions. How many are willing to face time in jail, just to prove a point?

Incel said...

Haha, grow a pair. You do understand that not all incels are too shy to make romantic advances and that being incel for too long can cause otherwise decent men to kill themselves or even others?

I've seen friends kill themselves, turn to drugs, drop out of college or turn to booze because of it.
It made people like George Sodini, who were otherwise successful, commit massacres.

Eivind was absolutely right when he said that being fine with incel is exactly the kind of reaction that is abnormal. No matter how much the feminists actually want that reaction and no matter how much they would be elated to have little sexless ants and robots who never complain, let alone rebel.

Anonymous said...

If I remember correctly, the presedence is that Stein Lillevolden got, I think, 1 and a half years in jail for promoting violence against the state. What Berge has done is promoting killing, wich is a bit more serious. I think you are looking at around two years in jail, especially if he is stupid enough to keep on insisting on his political views in custody instead of rolling over and repenting.

Martin K said...

"Politidrap harmonerer 100% med alt jeg står for og er overhodet ikke noe jeg vil beklage. Tvert imot vil jeg understreke at jeg anser politidrap som den edleste formen for mannsaktivisme, og jeg skal love deg at jeg hadde utført det selv om jeg ikke hadde fått meg kjæreste."

Sorry for å påpeke det, men det er faktisk et konkret eksempel på oppvigleri.

Emma said...

Kanskje, men det var også bare en del av debatt han hadde med en annen kommentator og bare hans meninger. Han mente ikke for det å være oppvigleri, og den finnes ingen konkrete oppfordringer i denne sitaten.

Emma said...

Here's a quote from him from 2 years ago, before we even met.

"A lot of people from Jezebel and elsewhere are trying to get me shut down, but I am not violating Terms of Service, so it would be unreasonable of Google to do so. I have merely made a philosophical argument. I haven't told anybody to actually go out and rape women (or even kill cops, at least not outside of self-defense). What I have done is argue that these things are morally justified under certain circumstances and described how I feel about them.

I am convinced that rape (or some form of sexual coercion) is equality, analogous to affirmative action for women (if implemented by democratic means like women have done; illegal rape would be vigilante equality). Those are just objective statements of fact, and all attempts to refute them have hinged on blatant falsehoods like sex not really being a female resource or rape not really being about sex.

But I have to concede that two wrongs don't really make a right. It does not follow from feminists and their enforcers doing what is wrong that we should also do what is wrong. That's what the problem with my argument boils down to, and I admit this. I have, however, exposed massive hypocrisy of women in the comments telling men to just deal with our sexual marginalization while they of course are perfectly entitled to their forcible equality."

He haven't told anyone to do anything illegal, no. He even admitted two wrongs don't make a right and that there are actually problems with his arguments, even though for the most part he still has the opinions he has.

Andvind Bergvik said...

"Sorry for å påpeke det, men det er faktisk et konkret eksempel på oppvigleri."

Oppviglerparagrafen er blitt mer og mer foreldet i dag, så spørsmålet er om den fremdeles er anvendbar, og i såfall hvor direkte truslene må være for ikke å bli omfattet av ytringsfriheten. Og disse er ikke spesielt konkrete.

Det er konteksten som er viktig, ikke hvert løsrevne ord. En ting er hva man sier til en rasende folkemengde eller når man snakker til folk som bruker vold til daglig og man er ansett for å være en leder, en annen ting er holdninger og meninger på en egen blogg eller i en bok f.eks. Da står ytringsfriheten mye sterkere. Hvis noen mener politiet fortjener problemer om de selv utfører vold urettmessig og de som prøver å drepe dem er bra folk så er ikke det noen direkte trussel, det en støtende mening. Slik er det hvert fall i de fleste land som har noe ytringsfrihet å snakke om. Faktum er at vi har uttalelser som kan tolkes som voldsglorifiserte nesten overalt i samfunnet vårt, fra musikk til politisk ideologi, og folk dømmes ikke til fengsel for det med mindre det finnes konkrete planer for å utdøve den volden. Og det er det ikke i denne bloggen. Den bare omhandler temaet på en ærlig og godt skrevet måte.

"Stein Lillevolden got, I think, 1 and a half years in jail for promoting violence against the state"

Stein Lillevolden var en lederskikkelse i et miljø der vold mot politiet var en del av hverdagen. Det at han ble satt i fengsel for å være en av de som i detalj instruerte opp hundrevis av Norges voldelige venstreekstreme yrkesdemonstranter i voldsbruk i en tid med hyppige konflikter med politiet er noe litt annet enn det å gi uttrykk for misnøye og ekstreme meninger på sin egen blogg. Ingenting tyder på at noen andre enn Eivind har tatt skade av meningene hans, utenom at det kanskje har oppstått litt irritasjon på en av kjønnsleppene til vaginalstaten.

Anonymous said...

Incels should grow a pair and deal with rejection like normal human beings. Newsflash: most men deal with rejection at some point in their lives. Most learn from it and grow from it. If being rejected by women turns you into a wacko or a murderer, that's not society's fault, and it's not the fault of a widespread feminist conspiracy. Take some personal responsibility instead of blaming all these imaginary forces. Go see a therapist, look into religion, whatever: just deal with it, don't whine about it on a blog. It's pathetic. Get. A. Life. Maybe?

About incitement to violence: Berge's statements are more direct than any of those made by Mullah Krekar, for instance. It is a misunderstanding to think that you have to outright tell someone to kill someone else. Berge's statements fall within the incitement category as determined by legal precedent. He has a good amount of readers, which he is aware of. He is also aware of the emotional instability and political extremism of his readers. I have a feeling he will get off with a slap on the wrist since he comes across as such a wussy loser in person, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Emma said...

Oh sure, rejection is something everyone can get, and if there were no laws that criminalized various ways in which men can get sex, you'd have a point. But as long as they are there, the problem is NEVER just the individual guy's. As long as they are there, sexless men turned wackos is definitely something society contributed to.

Actually, I don't see how you can have any freedom of speech at all, if you're gonna go by that principle. If you don't have to tell anyone directly to do something, then a lot can qualify. "I hate that guy". "God, I hope he dies". "If all people of gender X disappeared tomorrow, I think the world would be a better place". "I wish Jesus came back and smote all the heretics", etc. Oh, and actually, you don't need to say anything violent at all, to ignite violence. Sometimes, all you need to say is that people should be free to interpret the Bible as they see fit, and someone will interpret it in a funny way and cause violence (real example). If you don't have to directly tell anyone to kill, where does the boundary go? So you say he must have meant to incite violence because it seems like it to you. How are you justified in imagining intentions where there might be none, and having someone jailed for what you imagine they must have intended? Laws can't be that diffuse. I have more authority on what Eivind must have thought when he wrote all that anyway, so why is your imagination more important than my insight?

Emma said...

He doesn't have tons of unstable readers that I know of (apart from those "normal people" who come here and wish him torture and death now and then), hanging onto his every word. Not enough to create any real violent resistance. Nobody really wants to become violent. THAT Eivind is also aware of. I would say this is the safest blog to say offensive things, since no one ever agrees with him on his most violent opinions anyway.

Anonymous said...

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the incel thing. I believe in personal responsibility, and I don't think men are just sex zombies who will turn into psychos if they don't get laid. Isaac Newton was a virgin his whole life. I understand that it can be hard going without sex, but I don't think that justifies terrorism. It's just ridiculous to me, and most other normal people. Step outside the bubble and maybe you'll see what I mean.

When it comes to incitement, imagination has nothing to do with it, and neither has your "insight". None of your examples are at all reminiscent of what Berge has actually written. He has been very clear about what he wants (targeted violence against a particular group of people with the intent to kill), who should do it (like-minded men who read his garbage), suggestions on how to do it, etc. The intentions are clear, I don't have to imagine anything.

And yes, laws can be that "diffuse". When you're dealing with language, you have to use judgment and treat every case individually. That is the basis of our legal system.

xincel said...

If being rejected by women turns you into a wacko or a murderer, that's not society's fault, and it's not the fault of a widespread feminist conspiracy.

Legal and civil standards have changed in the last few years so that if you're a man in an industrialized country, there's a significantly larger chance won't get a girlfriend or a wife that meets a certain standard, if you do she's likely break up with you under most circumstances, which is more likely to be costly for men. There are more incel men because society have changed towards a more male hostile society. And more dramatically, there are more aggressive, capable males left alone. Denying kids to a certain percentage doesn't need to be bad if the males aren't resourceful or too many, but if it becomes so common even high achievers are affected, chances are a significant amount of them will want to get back at society for not getting a partner. I know that feeling well.

Newsflash: most men deal with rejection at some point in their lives.

Feminist thinks "dealing with rejection" is synonym for not throwing a tantrum for not getting a lollypop and not throwing a tantrum because some people decided it would be better you lived as a fruitless lonely hermit jizzing the unbarren earth around you the rest of your agonizing days. But see, they're very different things. Constant rejection year after year is like being a burn victim. Do you just deal with it?

Most learn from it and grow from it.

Newsflash: couples are a zero sum game. Even if you "grow from it", as long as there are fewer eligible females available, other men will be forced into your putrid position even if you start getting lots of ass. So you're basically advocating to men cock block the other guy to get rid of your own problems. Nice try. How about get rid of feminism instead?

If being rejected by women turns you into a wacko or a murderer, that's not society's fault, and it's not the fault of a widespread feminist conspiracy. Take some personal responsibility instead of blaming all these imaginary forces. Go see a therapist, look into religion, whatever: just deal with it, don't whine about it on a blog. It's pathetic. Get. A. Life. Maybe?

Yeah, just start focusing all your non male work energy on some whacky substitute for real life and go die quietly, don't write about it, don't talk about it, cus.. I don't want that! Go now! Classic psychopathic ruthlessness and joy in the face of other people's suffering. Newsflash, resourceful men are not going to accept meaningless substitutes people offer them to remedy the problems of feminist regimes. They would rather attack the feminist states for trying to screw them over.

Emma said...

You're implying I said incel justifies terrorism. I didn't.

My point is that this climate breeds its own monsters, and if you want to solve the problem, it's of no use (not to mention cruel) to lay ALL the blame on those who can't take it anymore and blow up. You'd have more luck solving the problem at its root. It's relevant if you care about preventing this sort of stuff, rather than moralizing that no matter how horribly a man is treated, if he blows up it's 100% his fault and society/government has no obligation to do anything about itself.

xincel said...

I understand that it can be hard going without sex, but I don't think that justifies terrorism.

But you don't get to decide. Resourceful, painfully single men get to decide. When men get less sex and more violence directed towards them, some of them will turn to violence against the system. It's just inevitable. The point is to make the system less violent against men in the first place, because that's what's fueling the situation. Let people exchange sex services legally, fair divorces, no bogus "diversity" discrimination, get rid of feminist nuttery in legal and educational system and suddenly there's no need to be terrorist anymore.

Anonymous said...

Wants to kill people because he can't get laid, calls other people psychopathic for suggesting alternatives. Yeah...

And yeah, you do just deal with it. Millions of people do every day. They don't go around fantasizing about killing people and making up conspiracy theories. But I guess they're the crazy ones, right?

Also: whining on your blog about the big, bad feminists is pretty much the definition of "some whacky substitute for real life". Resourceful men don't do that. Resourceful men have real lives.

Anonymous said...

Or how about this: stop being a conspiracy nut who thinks he's being discriminated against when in fact he's part of the most privileged group in the entire world - and suddenly there's no need to be a terrorist anymore!

xincel said...

Or how about this: stop being a conspiracy nut who thinks he's being discriminated against when in fact he's part of the most privileged group in the entire world

Typical illogical feminist shaming tactic, deflects valid criticism with saying someone else is worse off, so nothing can be done. Thinks basing opinions on hard statistics and not their select group of emotions is being "a conspiracy nut".

Emma said...

Actually, my examples are exactly like what Eivind has written. He said he wanted something to happen (so did religious fundies want). He said he hated certain people. He said that if people of profession X died, life would be better in some ways. Many people agree with me that putting those things together in no way leads to your conclusion, so whether he did anything wrong is still very much subjective.


Where did he create suggestions how to kill?

Anonymous said...

Emma:

Skjønner du virkelig ikke hvor sykt innholdet i bloggen er og hvilke destruktive holdninger som EB fremmer?

Tror du en så hatefull mann vil bli et godt forbilde for eventuelle barn dere skal få?

Emma said...

Oh my, anonymous. Men are so priviledged they die the most in wars, how wonderful for them. And in peacetime, they have obligatory army service.

Emma said...

Egentlig er han ikke hatefull for mennesker i det virkelige liv. Inntrykket fra bloggen hans og hans ekte personlighet er ikke det samme. Bloggen er spesielt for dette - å utrykke misnøye og spre antifeminisme. Så hvis vi skulle få barn, ville det ikke vært et problem. Tro hva du vil, men han er en av de søteste, mest hyggelige gutter jeg har møtt ;) Og det ville du også, til din overraskelse, se, hvis du møtte ham selv og ikke var aggresivt innstilt akkurat da.

Emma said...

Innholdet i bloggen er ikke sykt, men jeg forstår at de fleste mennesker er personer av sin egen tid. De vil ikke forstå det akkurat nå.

Anonymous said...

Norwegian men don't die in wars unless they want to. Army service isn't mandatory. Anything else?

Emma said...

Eivind was taken into military against his will for a year and was paid very little for that. What if he thought it was a waste of time? It's not mandatory for a woman.

xincel said...

I believe there are more male incels in Western countries based on statistical evidence, and I believe being a male incel results in a number of social and physical problems based on medical scientific evidence. The rise in male losers is real, and you'd be an idiot to ignore the science.

For the record I'm not an incel, I get laid all the time with beautiful women now. My worry is Norwegian society will become unstable with all the Breiviks and other resourceful Scandinavian solo terrorists and my supply of sex and wealth wither with it.

Anonymous said...

Til alle dere helt spesielt uopplyste tullinger som er her inne og snakker nedsettende om Norges kanskje eneste dønn ærlige mann (og nå snakker jeg ikke om hans hissige og ikke bra politiretorikk som han sikkert bare sa for å få PR): dere er en gjeng med boss!

Anonymous said...

Terrororganisasjonen Ottar mottar statsstøtte, Berge fengsles. Hvorfor er enkelte meninger så mye mer tolerert enn andre?

Forresten Statens Vegvesen kunne vel dradd nytte av disse brøytebilfeministene. Send dem ut i trafikken til vinteren!

Incel said...

It's amazing that somebody could be so heartless as to equate incel with rejection. Everybody gets rejected, but not everybody gets rejected every single time for years and decades. To say that the men who suffer through this are to blame alone and have to solve it on their own and that it's nobody's problem but theirs if they don't is heartless and sick.

There are men who can't help themselves, men who are painfully shy or those who needed a very long time to beat it, by which time their chances have dropped to almost zero because women desire experience and confidence and they didn't get laid when they were 15 or 16.

To say that all of these men have to be left alone or even suffer punishments for using prostitution is monstrous and is typical manslaughter of a certain number of men.
As long as things are like that and as long as politically correct robots recommend therapy as a solution to these problems I am glad everytime violence happens.

Incel said...

Consequences of incel men not getting help are already here and they're called suicides. I've been a member of an incel community and there were three suicides during my stay there.

They all could have been prevented if the government did something about it. So could have been Sodini. Yet, nobody did anything.

Anonymous said...

Incel: "by which time their chances have dropped to almost zero because women desire experience and confidence and they didn't get laid when they were 15 or 16"

That's right, but I'd like to point out a key ingredient: today's female hypergamy. Women can get a better deal genetically and materially for a while if they just dupe and keep dummy males around to service them using distractions and substitutes and only mate with a more select group. But one day the shit hits the fan, of course.

xincel said...

Incel male support groups that turn into suicide groups must be one of the most depressing sights on earth bar none. The only thing worse would be having a choir of feminists screeching BE HAPPY ABOUT IT OR BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF YOU PRIVILEGED MALE SHIT around it.

Even long after I stopped being incel I still feel the icy hand of death around my upper spinal chord just reading and thinking about it. You can't stop a percentage of normally functioning men using violence against a system that makes them incel. It's in our genes and morality. The problem can't be cured, only mended as the damage occurs from anti male politics and laws.

A man with no partner has nothing to lose genetically by revolting, so that's very often what he'll do. It seems to be one of the surest ways to destabilize a civilization to have a resourceful male incel population, the duped males will turn on and attack their societies sooner or later.

Anonymous said...

"Even long after I stopped being incel I still feel the icy hand of death around my upper spinal chord just reading and thinking about it. You can't stop a percentage of normally functioning men using violence against a system that makes them incel. It's in our genes and morality. The problem can't be cured, only mended as the damage occurs from anti male politics and laws."

Meget bra skrevet!

xincel said...

Thanks, anon. It's not that repressing say 10% of the males is always bad for society, as long as it's the elements they want to get rid of, who can't fight back and/or are too stupid to understand they're cheated. The problem starts when men with normal or above normal abilities get too little attention from women because of misandric laws, one man armies like Breivik.

If you make sex services cheap and legal, omega rage will be obsolete. If you can get good sex from just being talented enough to have a normal job in a functioning society, only dregs will become incel anyway. It's when they have the job and no obvious major shortcomings or excel and are still incel there's a problem, because then there's no motivation to work or study. The only thing society can do about incel rage is socially controlling and then jailing any remaining smart men for expressing the wrong opinions. But the people who talk and write are not the ones that do and vice versa, so it doesn't do much except create a repressed politically correct state with few officially allowed opinions like Norway is today. The only thing that helps is getting rid of anti male hate laws like banning normal human sexual services.

Emma said...

" But the people who talk and write are not the ones that do and vice versa, so it doesn't do much except create a repressed politically correct state with few officially allowed opinions like Norway is today"

That's what I would predict, except I think it will become even worse, because those on the edge between doing and writing would choose doing.

Anonymous said...

http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Gar-gjennom-millioner-av-bilder-2737543.html

Emma said...

Looks like he's gotten pessimistic and thinks more people are against him than there are. But that is understandable, with his opinions and his situation. His family isn't working against him. They are just sad and disappointed with his words and the whole situation, but they didn't reject him. He probably didn't even get any of my three letters.. (no sign that he has, and they travel superslow for some reason!). Chances are, he got too little tangible support lately. That's awful...

Anonymous said...

That's too bad, Emma - this must be a difficult time for you. I wish you as good a weekend as possible.

Anonymous said...

Ank! Tingretten er korrupt!

Emma said...

Nope! He didn't get any of my letters! What the fuck? I wasn't writing anything violent or whatever. I thought it was supposed to be a sentence WITHOUT letter restrictions?

Anonymous said...

They'll do their best to make him look insane!

Anonymous said...

Så politiet krevde altså brev og besøksforbud og fikk det ikke, men de brøt loven og innførte brevforbudet selv. Det er skikkelig 3. verden. På den annen side, det bare viser hvordan type folk man har med å gjøre. Politi som rutinemessig bryter loven når det passer dem og vet de kommer unna med det, og lokal kenguru-rett som egentlig skal være uavhengige, men i praksis nesten alltid tar parti med politiet mot tiltalte samme hva sakens fakta tilsier.

Emma said...

Ok, the lawyer told me Eivind got ONE of my three letters, just now. But it wasn't even the first letter, it was either the second or the third. I sent the first one 2 days after I got his first one.

Anonymous said...

Emma: I don't know, what you know about the case. But the latest news is that Berge got four new weeks in custody. I did not like the police attorneys last conclusion that Berge is mentally unstable.

It seems like they are really coming down hard on him, and that he might spend years in prison for this. The logical thing would be to give him a fine, and probation, just like Tore Tvedt when he declared war against jews. But this is the POLICE! One should really not mess around with the police.

They'll probably want to declare him insane, and force him to go through with some treatment. The police has no respect for the law, and they always get away with it. If they want to manipulate evidence, they will do it. If they want to lie, or go against the law they will do that as well. Never trust the police!

Emma said...

http://www.nyhetsspeilet.no/2009/10/politiske-fanger-i-kongeriket-norge/
This is what he is risking.

Emma said...

I really fucking hope it's just a BS article and nothing like that ever happens, but you never know. I have no proof that this really happened or didn't happen, so no reason to reject this possibility. Norway is kinda famous for using forced treatment more than other countries in Europe (read that in a psychiatric care magazine, not one of those "conspiracy" ones, just a magazine about the practice), and tons of other newspaper articles said that for some reason, lives of people in forced psychiatric care are shortened with 25 years compared to lives of people outside. Anyone know why this is so?

Anonymous said...

Ah, Nyhetsspeilet. Such a reliable source. I have no proof that invisible forest elves DON'T exist, so no reason to reject this possibility!

But sure, no one here is a conspiracy nut...

Anonymous said...

En "konspirasjon" kan være så mangt. Det behøver ikke å være en "skjult maktelite" eller noe slikt. Det holder at noen få personer går sammen om å "ta" en annen person.

Det er jo forøvrig - såvidt jeg har sett - også erkjent av helsemyndighetene at tallene på bruk av tvang innen psykiatrien er for høye og at bruk av tvang må ned.
Så å påstå at det ikke forekommer bruk av grunnløs tvang i psykiatrien, er i hvert fall ikke basert på logisk holdbare slutninger.

Emma said...

Ok, thanks, at least it isn't reliable. But you can't blame me for being a bit worried right now. The other links I found were from mainstream newspapers, hopefully more reliable? It seems like mainstream knowledge is that a too high use of force in psychiatry is a problem. So maybe they don't attack political dissidents with it, but they are kinda overenthusiastic about locking people up anyway (maybe for thinking differently, not necessarily political disagreement). Anyone know what to do in this situation? I HAVE NO IDEA what can happen. But it was one of the first things I noticed when I came to Norway. Negative feelings, especially anger, are seen as evil and abnormal, so I wouldn't be surprised that they might use the same type of thinking in court. Hopefully they aren't so irrational, but you never know?

Anonymous said...

is it different in russia? are people allowed to think negative? at least its against the law to protest against the putin.

http://morgenbladet.no/samfunn/2012/pussig_protest

Anonymous said...

Disse kvinnene er samvittighetsfanger, og russiske myndigheter har satt dem i fengsel som en del av en bredere, politisk kontekst, skriver Amnesty, ifølge Ria Novosti.
Å være , vil si å være forhindret fra å uttrykke seg på grunn av sin rase, religion, hudfarge, språk, seksuelle legning, eller politiske eller filosofiske overbevisning. Amnesty mener russiske myndigheter lot seg rive med av det politiske stemningsskiftet som har vært i landet, etter at et større folkeopprør brøt ut etter valgjukset under dumavalget i desember.

Emma said...

Sure lots of stuff is illegal, but last time anyone was forced into psychiatry for political thoughts was 1937.

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Contact FAMPO.

Scientifically, there is no such thing as 'mental insanity. Its all just pharmaceutical corporation profiteering from persecuting people who have different cultural values or points of view.

I have been fighting pharmaceutical psychiatry for 10 years. Pity very few want to fight it (cause they are happy to accuse everyone who disagrees with them of being insane, etc).. until it happens to them.

On this, I must say I have the most respect for Eivind for his refusal to endorse Pharma Psychiatry and his support of Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity principles.

Fampo: Norway, the Last Soviet Republic: Censorship, Child Protection and Psychiatry Worthy of a Dictatorship.

I know quite a few professors who are in the anti-psychiatry movement. If Eivind wants I can contact them and ask them if they would be willing to testify on his behalf stating their expert opinions that psychiatry is a fraud.

I made the same offer for Breivik.. but I don't know why he did not accept it. Stupid.. or maybe he thought the Court would give him a fair hearing.. or whatever.

Anyway, let me know. My email address is on my profile. So you are welcome to email me if you wish Emma. I would need Eivind's consent to ask them on his behalf.

Also be careful of attorneys. Most lawyers in Norway are happy to be enslaved to pharma psychiatry! Petrified of exposing it.

Anonymous said...

So, feminists, psychiatrists, pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, the police, the courts...

Anyone else you want to throw in there?

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

‘There is no such thing as mental illness. Psychiatric diagnosis of ‘mental disorders’ is just a way of stigmatising behaviour that society does not want to live with. Psychiatry thrives on coercion and is replacing religion as a form of social control.’
-- Dr. Thomas Szasz

“Biological psychology/psychiatry is a total perversion of medicine and science, and a fraud.”
- Neurologist Fred Baughman

“Going to a psychiatrist has become one of the most dangerous things a person can do.”
- Peter Breggin, MD

"There is no such thing as a mental disorder. A mental disorder is whatever someone says it is, and if the person saying "This is a mental disorder", has enough power and influence, then people believe 'Oh, that is a mental disorder'.
- Dr. Paula Caplan, Harvard


“The entire enterprise of defining mental disorder is pointless, at least in so far as the goal is to allow us to recognize ‘genuine’ or ‘true’ disorders”
- Dr. Mary Boyle, Schizophrenia: A Scientific Delusion?

“DSM is a book of tentatively assembled agreements. Agreements don’t always make sense, nor do they always reflect reality. You can have agreements among experts without validity. Even if you could find four people who agreed that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, that smoking cigarettes poses no health risks, or that politicians are never corrupt, such agreements do not establish truth.”
- Making us Crazy

“To admit the central role of value judgments and cultural norms [in the creation of the DSM] is to give the whole game away. The DSM has to be seen as reliable and valid, or the whole enterprise of medical psychiatry collapses.”
-- Lucy Johnstone, The Users and Abusers of Psychiatry

"[Alleged Mental Disorders] are based on a grab-bag of checklists for disorders that are published in a book called the DSM; which is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. There are no statistics in this book, by the way. That just makes it sound more scientific."
-- Dr Margaret Hagen, Professor of Psychology, Boston University

Documentary:
* DSM: Psychiatry's Deadliest Scam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcuhhJ1BaMk

* Psychiatry: An Industry of Death
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE36wS_HlVQ

* Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Druggin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsqDyEMkLpQ

* Marketing of Madness: Truth about Psychotropic Druggin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41_8hZoVKjE

Emma said...

Thanks for the tips.

Emma said...

Fuck, I almost sunk into despair there! He called me and said a psychologist talked to him for a long time and found him normal. His last letter sounded scared and it scared the fuck out of me too. But it looks like he's not in such grave danger after all, apart from not being out yet. He said he tried to tell the court that he regrets his most offensive utterings against the police and has no plans to repeat them in the future, but they just didn't listen and thus he is still in jail.

Oh, and he got all 3 of my letters now, all at once I guess. Maybe they were just checking them many, many times, or something

Anonymous said...

How can he have 2,7 million images/pictures? Many copies of the same downloads, perhaps, given all those separate hard-disks? Lots of screen shots from debates - or what are they.. ?

Also not sure how much Eivind should've regretted in yesterday's hearing. He can save that for the trial. Is he still using that inexperienced paralegal, and not the skilled, seasoned Kaj Wigum?

I'm not sure whether Eivind has access to his own blog in prison (read only), but he should have simply pointed out that he was speaking purely ideologically + recounting how he himself said before. His fateful comments were posted on Monday June 25, but the following Saturday, he moderated them and wrote specifically that he has no plans no and would not do anything. I'm not sure whether he and his defence lawyer (the inexperienced one?) emphasized that.

Also, that he's been writing similar stuff for years, so why the arrest and drama now? Surely it must be related to the first anniversary of July 22 coming up (tomorrow)?

And yes, courts in Bergen and in Norway are often too unindependent - the judges not being trained in ideology or politcal philosophy *at all*. Only drilled in Norwegian law, and they are definitely (normally) too much in line with the police prosecutors. So whenever you hear politicians in Norway say that "there's no problem with too much power to the police, as all important decisions have to be sanctioned by the courts", know that they are being dishonest. In practice, in Norway, the courts do what the police suggest in more than nine out of ten cases - and most of the time, it's processed the way that a judge sits in his or her office, receives police documents and just gives them the stamp of court approval - no hearings, even.

This is all a bit scary and uncomfortable, as Norwegian law often is anything but clear (as it's written), and thus, the courts do have a lot of power - which they usually use to make concessions to the police/district attorneys.

Law and order, above all.

Anonymous said...

http://sciencenordic.com/what-drives-prostitute

Anonymous said...

Oh boy, a bunch of out-of-context, unsourced quotes and links to YouTube clips! Anything in there about how Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing? That's my favourite!

Anyway, I don't really get why you're all arguing about Berge's guilt, when he's already admitted to breaking the law:
http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/--Jeg-regner-med-a-bli-domt-2734017.html
"- Jeg står for uttalelsene. Objektivt sett rammes disse trolig av loven."

By the way, the law also covers "forherligelse" (glorification of violence), which he is definitely guilty of. Seems his main argument (besides the whole "feminazis rule the world and are denying omega incel men the sex they deserve" thing) is that the law shouldn't count for blogs, which is... Well, let's just say I hope he's not a law student.

I also noticed he lives with his mom (just like that other one!) and compares himself to Nelson Mandela. Mandela and his mom could not be reached for comment.

Emma said...

http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/hordaland/1.8258433

Might be out in the nearest future (although the police appealed to High court), jury was convinced of that argument.

Emma said...

He didn't admit he was encouraging violence. He said his words are probably punishable by this law, and in another newspaper he said "forherligelse" is something he did. But in the past, he also said that a lot of things can be covered by this law, as there is a Norwegian law for almost anything, if they are hellbent on arresting you. Now you know the context of his "admitting guilt".

Emma said...

" Remember them jailing someone over a pretty tame Youtube video that merely expressed the wish that Norwegian soldiers would lose the war in Afghanistan? Krekar doesn't seem legitimately threatening either, yet he is harassed endlessly. I am openly antinomian and there are any number of laws they could employ that would be far more literally applicable to me than the people they've actually used them against so far. The government is just a gang of thugs with guns and they've got laws so broad now against any kind of dissenter that what is specifically criminal or not is a moot point. As far as I'm concerned, the letter of the law is irrelevant because we have reached the point of universal criminality, with some law covering some aspect of everybody's normal behavior, and if you aren't in jail then that's just because they haven't bothered investigating/prosecuting you yet"

Anonymous said...

Congratulations Eivind and Emma!

Anonymous said...

Looks like the regional court agreed more with Eivind than the locals. If it goes to the Supreme court, I predict a similar dismissal, in practice dismissing the case. Only 3rd world dictatorships have jail time for writing about dislike and negativity on your own out there on the internet blog anyway.

Lagmannsretten is playing safe and partly washing their own hands here. They're saying they would have thrown out the case if someone asked them, and in all fairness, Eivind was allowed to appeal the first verdict to them, but he didn't. So even if Eivind wins a settlement for being unduly incarcerated, lagmannsretten can't be blamed for it. That's convenient.

Anonymous said...

Yay! Justice has prevailed (it seems).

Anonymous said...

It seems that you Emma has been a good inspirator for Eivind when it comes to hate the authorities. Congratulations!

Anonymous said...

Yeh, and may be she also can push him further on....

Incel said...

That's fantastic news, keep fighting, Eivind and Emma :)

Anonymous said...

It's not punishable "to hate the authorities" or to express such hatred. That is, if the law is followed. Police dont get that, though.

Sleuth alpha said...

"Anyway, I don't really get why you're all arguing about Berge's guilt, when he's already admitted to breaking the law:
http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/--Jeg-regner-med-a-bli-domt-2734017.html
"- Jeg står for uttalelsene. Objektivt sett rammes disse trolig av loven."

By the way, the law also covers "forherligelse" (glorification of violence), which he is definitely guilty of. Seems his main argument (besides the whole "feminazis rule the world and are denying omega incel men the sex they deserve" thing) is that the law shouldn't count for blogs, which is... Well, let's just say I hope he's not a law student."

So many sarcastic Norwegian and North American people.

Co-incidentally, both countries are riddled with feminist laws and influence. So what we get is a bunch of whiny smart-ass guys who flex their sarcasm, i.e. passive-aggressiveness. Quite a few have gay tendencies also, for instance having french-kissed buddies at parties, or hand-jobbed each other in saunas or in the military. Dis-fucking-gusting.

Personally, I break the law all the time. I fucked an East-Europan woman last night, in her fancy car, in a parking lot here in Oslo. I have as many girlfriends and lovers as I want, at the same time (moral "laws"), I do whatever I want. I have posted a good few comments here in this thread, yet never once expected a call from the police. Any of you pussies here who stopped commenting out of fear you'd be called in for questioning (avhør)? Don't even answer - I know you did. After it was mentioned by police that they would research those who comment here as well, almost no one commented anymore. In Norway, almost anyone is afraid of the police. Everyone is a pussy. 99% of you are wuzzes and pussies or outright assholes. If a Kurdish gang beat you up, over having flirted with the Norwegian girlfriend of one of them, not one of your pals would help you get revenge. You'd even be afraid to report it to the police, and if you did, you'd know that the police would drop the charges, and then you'd possibly whine about it on the internet.

Norwegians have become a bunch of pussies, and everybody is afraid of the police. If you say that you've spent a night in a jail cell, people won't even ask you what for - you're just considered "out there" and tainted. That's how much power police have in Norway, when it comes to the "polite society" Eivind is talking about. A thorough bunch of yellow pussies. Police have the authority to throw someone in a holding cell, without having a police lawyer look at it until at least 4 hours later, and by doing only that, most of the time, the police thugs have succeded in tainting a person to the extent that he'll have trouble gaining access to politics, or running a security guard business - unless he or she is resourceful and know how to fix these things.

As for the "law student" comments, please.. You're an idiot. You are not a law student or scholar yourself. Eivind was right all along. His actions could of course be punishable, if he was only subjected to weak law practitioners. And he was, at first: both the police lawyers and the weak start-up judges in the lower court found that he was a criminal, and therefore jailed him.

Sleuth alpha said...

(continued comment)



We have an obligation to break laws that are stupid, hence I do. I guess I've broken the law well over one thousand times. Haven't done any pros abroad, since the law came into effect, but I will. All in good time. I'll also marry some nice girl here in Norway, have kids and be stand-up citizen. I don't see anything conflicting there. In a society with as many stupid laws as Norway has, you break those that you see fit - those that should never have been there in the first place. I've never been punished, once. Neither has Eivind so far, and he won't be, either.



What those who aren't actual law scholars fail to realize, and that Russian (they are often tough; I've fucked about a dozen or so R women, so I know) immigrant Emma, and non-law scholar Eivind Berge knows, but the majority of spoiled Norwegian (adult) brats don't realize, is that there truly IS a law to cover just about anything. Being a law scholar - and a good one at that - entails knowing which of these are in actual use, and which aren't. But it's even more nuanced than that, of couse - you have to know the qualifiers, and the judicial trends. The judges of Gulating are more knowledgeable in such areas, as for instance, they can read academical English. It also helps that the worst, weakest judges of Gulating have retired because of old age, in the last handful of years. Perhaps two or three are left, but will retire within the next five years or so.

Congratulations on your release, Eivind. It was a bit weak of you to sit in court and apologize about what you wrote - but I guess you didn't have access to your own blog, forgot what you had written, precisely, and your thoughts got muddled while being in jail and in the public eye at the same time. Next time you will not sit in court and apologize, ok? You will stand for what you did, and you will explain the weak, fresh, inexperienced judges in the first instance court (Tingretten) how it's within the confines of what international law (that Norway has signed on to) allows you. The judges sitting in that city court have only been sitting on their asses at Dragefjellet (law faculty of Bergen), reading 8-12 hours a day, for five years, and going to lectures, and are then eligible to go straight into work as judges, wearing black robes, meeting real people and deciding real destinies. There's no law clinic or other practice for them, before they start working as judges. They graduate high school, come to Dragefjellet, fool and fuck around there for 5-6 years, and then they get to wear black robes. Did you know about the "Erotic Evening"-parties they hold there, btw? Most female law scholars in Norway are utter sluts. Many I know have had sex in the handicap toilets of the law faculty, during parties, with random hunks (or not so hunky guys), while drunk. They drink and puke like all others, have random sex, dump each other like wet towels, fool around on social media sites and even comment in silly places like this blog.. It happens, believe me. They are no better than you. Just so you know. They just come from a different background. (You know, Fana, Paradis, Starefossen and Bærum, mostly. Plenty of ski bums there too, btw.)

Sleuth alpha said...

(closing remarks)



Keep your chin up, sport! Don't let them break you. I'll let it pass that you looked like you'd been thrown in the tumble drier, this first time, but now you are experienced, and this will season and harden you - man you up. Just let it sink in for a week or two, max three, and you'll be in fighting shape again, and come back brighter - with a vengeance.

And congratulations on Emma. She's the real deal. A true hero, and a role model for the few righteous women who read here (out of whom I'm sure there's not a single Norwegian, as just about all Norwegian women are utterly spoilt, stupid (from all that reckless, youthful drinking and partying), hedonistic, slutty and brainwashed).)

Anonymous said...

Its realy interesting to read which kind of Norwegian men you deal with. Probalbly that tell much about who you are.

And the Norwegian girls are sluts?

Tell me, what are you brave man?

Nothing but a babling clown I gues.

Alfa Romeo said...

Dudes giving each other handjobs in saunas? What does that have to do with anything?

Sleuth alpha said...

And what propelled you to make this comment was the fact that your brainwashed world view got a little shaken? Important to knock all the little kinks back into the fold - that's the result of your indoctrination. Ever heard about how crabs in a crab tank behave? They get trapped down there, as they don't let any other trapped crab crawl back out of the open hole at the top of the tank/trap.

When you read about someone doing exactly what they want, your first impulse will be to make a comment where you suggest they are either lying or are clowns. Norway is one of the foremost tyrannies of conformity in the world. It's one of the nations with the highest degree of conformity - only rivalled by the likes of Pakistan and Korea, according to serious studies. So good Norwegians will always berate all those who don't act like good Norwegians.

Eivind too should know all about this by now. He kept showing Norwegian conformity and social democracy the finger.

Alfa Romeo said...

Um... No? I'm not a homophobe, so I don't think dudes giving each other handjobs is "disgusting" or "kinky"? It's normal sexual behavior.

What I was reacting to was the fact that the stuff about being gay doesn't actually have anything to do with the rest of your post, where you extol the virtues of doing whatever you want. (You'll notice if you actually read my one line post that I'm not accusing you of lying or being a clown - just asking what sweaty hunks in saunas pleasuring each other has to do with your overall point.)

Sleuth alpha said...

Yes, AR, I realize you are a different commenter from the anonymous person. The latter is not in proper command of English as a written language, for instance.

Personally I find hand-jobbing each-other unsavoury, but if you enjoy that then be my guest. It was just intended as a random example. I'm not a homophobe, though. All I am saying is that Norway has become very feminine, and it's a result both of being spoilt, as a nation or a generation, I believe, and of feminism as unofficial state ideology. I could be wrong. This is a debate forum, so opposing opinions are welcome (at least as far as I'm concerned).

However, guys giving each other handjobs is not against the law, unless it's done in public. If guys are so scared of the police and of public/social disapproval that they resort to giving each other hand jobs because they don't dare to consort with professional female company, it's not good. If they do it simply because they feel like it , want to and are completely liberated of gender stereotypes, fine with me - they may knock themselves out, have a ball. I certainly don't morally oppose it. All sexual behaviour between consenting adults if fine by me - even when it IS against the law. (The wrongful Norwegian one, that feminists had instituted in 2008, effective January 1, 2009, including globally - without there having been proper political debate or consensus about that last part (which they snuck in afterwards).)

Alfa Romeo said...

I didn't see the other poster, so I thought you were replying to me. Sorry!

I do think you're wrong about the connection between feminism and homosexuality. Gays are more visible now, but I have never seen any statistics that indicate there are more of them now than in the past (numbers between 3-5 per cent of the population are common in very different countries). The historical material that exists on homosexuality in the past (such as Kinsey's research in the 40s and 50s) shows that same-sex experiences is definitely not a new phenomenon.

But I agree that the prostitution law was wrongfully pushed through without much debate, and I have always opposed it personally, even though I would never buy sexual services myself (no sauna handjobs for me either, just to make that clear).

Schopenbecq said...

That's wonderful news Emma.

Please pass on our best wishes to Eivind on behalf of myself and my readers.

Emilie 18 said...

Helt seriøst?? Har du ikke bedre å gjøre enn å bare diskutere, skrive lange innlegg med bare masse negativt? Nyt livet liksom. Dette blir fordumt, du sitter for mye bak pc skjermen.. Hahaha!!!!!!!!! Blir skikkelig deprimert på bloggensvegne, Eivind.. Men ja stå på videre i livet. Skikkelig trist. Leste om deg på VG. Du er vel en slik person tenker på om en super hyggelig kar som nyter livet. Not! Er ikke du en voksen mann. Du prøver å stå så hard for.dine meninger, du prøver for hardt, rett og slett... Du åpner deg helt, du virker.så merkelig, så full av.en trang til å diskutere, kverullere, mene.... Slapp av litt. Du burde tenke mer positivt. Youonly live one, hørte navnet ditt, vil huske deg som negative eivind som kom i varetekt for å være litt for rarr, håper du blir lykkelig.

Anonymous said...

Jeg liker Emilie 18 og vil nyte livet sammen med henne.. Når som helst :-)

Angående Eivind, hva skal jeg si.. Vi har alle våre lodd i livet. Eivind er visstnok sønn av en professor i bibelhistorie. Det kan ikke være bare enkelt. Emilie, kan du forestille deg å vokse opp med en far som er professor i *bibelhistorie*?? Folk som velger å bli professor i noe slik, er sjelden særlig lystige. Og som du vet, så oppdrar fedre sønner i sitt eget bilde. Foreldrene ville nok gjerne også at Eivind skulle bli en god, kristen akademiker. I tillegg ga de ham gener som gjorde ham litt lav av vekst og ikke veldig disponert for muskler. Skjønner du bedre nå hvorfor Eivind er som han er.. ?

Ps. Folk på bergenskanten er generelt kranglete, og kan holde det gående om de mest avsindige bagateller i ukesvis og månedsvis, f.eks. om eieren av en bygård på Torgallmenningen (den store åpne plassen midt i sentrum, med Burger King osv) kan få sette opp søyler foran bygget, og ha et gjennomsiktig regntak over. Slikt kranglet og kverulerte bergensere om i månedsvis, i avisspaltene, før internett var stort. Det er kulturen EB er vokst opp i. Hadde du gitt ham en god blow-job, massert ballene hans og slikt, noen ganger i uken, så tenker jeg at han hadde blitt en litt større livsnyter, og blogget litt mindre. Men du var dessverre "under-age" på den tiden Eivind ble "radikalisert", så det kunne du ikke avverget på den måten uansett :-) Og nå har han Emma, som virker som en ordentlig skatt - så nå tenker jeg at dette ordner seg, tross alt. Skal vi feire sammen? :-)

Anonymous said...

Jeg tror at emilie18s holdninger kan forklare mye av bakgrunnen for at Berge er blitt som han er blitt. Du er nok ikke den første som har ment at Berge er rar og annerledes. Når man blir møtt med slik nedlatenhet år ut og år inn så gjør det noe med ett menneske. Man radikaliseres. Bitterhet blir nok også en del av det. Særlig når vet så inderlig godt med seg selv at nedlatenheten kommer fra mennesker som er svært mye dummere enn det enn selv er. Det er vel også blitt slik at dumme og enkle mennesker har fått adskillig mere makt, gjennom realityshow, eller diverse andre media de senere år. Dumskap er blitt trendy! Nå gjelder det ikke å ha meninger med substans lengre, det gjelder bare å ha de rette meningene. Her er vel den ukritiske positiviteten det viktigste mantra. Kritikkløs frisk ungdom er det samfunnet vil ha, ikke refleksjon og tungtveiende analyse. Den viktige samfunnsdebatten burde bli gjenvunnet av de dypsindige filosofene. Ikke de heliumbefengte bimboene som har lært seg uttrykk slik en papegøye gjentar ord!

Anonymous said...

Damer som Emilie 18, eller i alle fall de dumme og deilige, kan med sin munn og sine hender gjøre ting for fyrer som Eivind, som de samme aldri kunne fått til ved å snakke eller ved å skrive - med tanke på å forhindre radikalisering og misnøye som fester seg lenge nok til at den etser og tærer..

Anonymous said...

I am guessing you did not get to have sex in jail? Did that make you wanna stab a cop more than when you where not in jail? If not stab, did you at least want to punch one in the balls?

Anonymous said...

hæhæhæhæ, du er jo kjempe lættis!!!! xD

Pawnylol said...

I have never seen someone use so many words to say so little.

Anonymous said...

Ateister og minarkisme går egentlig ikke helt sammen, fordi dere klarer ikke å begrunne den preferansen logisk, dere kan bare si ting som "jeg liker det" eller "jeg liker det ikke".

Som du sier så kan anarki lett virke moralsk overlegent for dere (ateister), fordi dere egentlig ikke har noen som helst kilde for rett og galt (utenom den indre rettferdighetsfølelsen deres - men gjett hvor DEN kommer fra?).

Ellers enig med at ateister egentlig ikke KAN forklare "natural rights", selv om det er dem som er grunnlaget for en fri stat.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G002

Mvh libertarianer og antifeminist (kristen og kvinne...)

Eivind Berge said...

Nå er jeg snarere agnostiker enn ateist, da. Du kan vel ikke være så sikker på troen heller?

Anonymous said...

Herregud, for en liten mann du er. Du trenger definitivt å få pult mer, du virker som en svært bitter og kåt mann som aldri får seg noe. Men det er vel ikke så lett, det er vel ingen kvinne ønsker å ta i en primat som deg med ildtang en gang.

Så da får du vel kjempe videre for at du kan få kjøpe deg fitte og knulle mindreårige. Det er vel den eneste måten du får deg noe på. Nei, Gud forby at kvinnene får bestemme selv over kroppene sine. Da får du jo aldri parret deg, stakkar!

Anonymous said...

Det er "morsomt" med menn som mener at deres behov for seksuelle handlinger skal tilfredsstilles av kvinner hele tiden. Hva med kvinners biologiske, grunnleggende behov/ønske ved sex? Som å ha sex med en de er trygg på og knyttet til, som kan forsørge avkommet og det å føle seg spesiell og verdsatt? Dette er akkurat like grunnleggende og primitive behov som menns behov for å parre seg med "uendelig" antall villige damer. Så hvorfor er det menns primitive behov som skal tilfredsstilles og ikke kvinners? Er deres behov viktigere??

Anonymous said...

Nå kan jeg ikke se at noen på denne siden, ikke engang Eivind Berge mener at "menns behov for seksuelle handlinger skal tilfredstilles av kvinner hele tiden"

Mange her inne er dog imot sexkjøpsloven, men den har lite med det ovennevnte å gjøre. Sexkjøpsloven forbyr menn å betale for sex, også i utlandet. Kvinner kan fint selge så mye sex de vil helt lovlig. Det er menns seksualitet som det legges begrensninger på, ikke kvinner.

Det var ikke slik at før loven trådde i kraft måtte kvinner selge seg selv. De hadde fint mulighet til å ta selvstendige valg da også. Såkalt trafficking var forbudt også før den nye loven trådde i kraft.

Grunnen til at denne loven så lett gikk igjennom har noe med samfunnets syn på mannlig seksualitet å gjøre. At den er svært lite verdt, unødvendig og kan forbyes. Samtdig som kvinners seksualitet er svært mye verdt, opphøyet, og bør beskyttes. Også i de tilfeller hvor kvinner selv velger hva de velger å bruke den til.

Men mest av alt handler det om en kåt formynderstat som elsker å undertrykke de som allerede befinner seg på bunnen av skalaen. Det er altså ikke menns "primitive behov" som tilfredstilles, men formynderklassens perverse evne til å herske over selv de mest intime delene av en manns liv.

Anonymous said...

How can you defend living in a multicultural society? It does not make any sense.

Vegard Hagen said...

In my humble opinion, Eivind has expressed several political opinions and rational concerns that are quite legitimate in themselves. But in my eyes, he completely and utterly destroys this legitimacy with his hateful ramblings about killing people.

Killing a police officer does not harm the state, it just kills a person and makes the state want to harm you. Also, it gives them all the legitimacy they could possibly need to do so: The moment you resort to violence, they can treat you ONLY as a dangerous terrorist and not pay any attention to your politics at all. I fail to see how this is supposed to accomplish anything good.

If you're angry about something and want to correct it, what you need to do is convince enough people and the state will correct itself.
It can be a slow and painstaking process, but it's the only way I know that really does work.

As Winston Churchill once said it, "Democracy is by far the worst form of government. Except all the others that have been tried."

Winston Churchill said...

Hear, hear.

Anonymous said...

Dette er er skikkelig bull crap. Du må være mer sikker på deg selv, det er sånn du får deg dame

Pellicer said...

Hear, hear..

+ "propinquity"

Anonymous said...

Hei "Bableren".
Det var jeg som sa at du bablet idioti når du hardnakket hevdet at Eivind kom til å bli dømt fordi politiet hadde uttalt at de så svært alvorlig på saken og at påtalemyndigheten kom til å legge ned straffepåstand i nærheten av maksimalstraffen. Jeg var på forhånd sikker i min sak at Eivind ikke hadde ytret seg straffbart. Og da ikke på grunn av offentlig-begrepet, men fordi ytringene i seg selv ikke er straffbare. Høyesterett tok feil når de i forbifarten, uten overveielser, påstod at ytringene var straffeverdige.

Og til politiet/statsadvokat: Dere er en gjeng ynkelige tapere!
Ville bare gni det inn.

Eivind Berge said...

Det er helt riktig: Ytringene her på bloggen er ikke straffbare i seg selv. Det med offentlighet eller ikke var bare en avsporing, og litt synd at det ble så mye fokus på det, for det er mange som går rundt og tror at jeg ikke ble dømt utelukkende på grunn av denne teknikaliteten. Håper å få belyst dette bedre i forbindelse med erstatningssaken som kommer opp den 24. november 2014 i Nordhordland tingrett.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 335 of 335   Newer› Newest»