Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Oversocialization explains the female sex-offender charade

The bizarre behavior exhibited by the manginas in the Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM), found at A Voice for Men (AVfM), whereby they embrace the most absurd and hateful feminist ideals regarding sex, and even more bizarrely, apply these standards to women as well, is puzzling in the extreme. After thinking long and hard about what might possess these nincompoops to behave in such a deranged manner, and rereading the Unabomber Manifesto, I think I have figured it out. I thought for a long time that they must be some kinds of autistic freaks or something like that, but the explanation may be found in the far more pervasive concept of oversocialization. The buffoons at AVfM fancy themselves as rebels against feminism, but of course they are nothing of the sort. They are feminists of the most extreme kind. I hate feminists, but most of them have the decency to at least back off the most absurd manifestations of their odious worldview in practice -- for example if you were to apply their sex-hostility literally to women as well as men. The buffoons in the MHRM have no such barriers. They are loose cannons among radical feminists, who will cling desperately to feminist tenets no matter how absurd it gets in the real world.

Here is yet another example of their idiocy: Boys raped more often than girls.

Any person just a few short decades ago would laugh his ass off if you told him women can "rape" boys. An honest biologist would still laugh his ass off at such an imbecile notion, as would any halfway rational or commonsensical person. Biologists know perfectly well that because the sexual superiority of women is the prime fact of life for deep evolutionary reasons, women committing "rape" or "sexual abuse" is not a meaningful natural concept but a legal fiction you have to be oversocialized to take seriously. But the manginas in the MHRM do take it seriously, because they have been oversocialized into feminist ideology.

Ted Kaczynski explains how it works in his Manifesto:

   9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we
   call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of
   inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while
   oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of
   modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.


   24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the
   process by which children are trained to think and act as society
   demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and
   obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning
   part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists
   are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.
   Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such
   rebels as they seem.
   25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can
   think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not
   supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some
   time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
   so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally
   imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt,
   they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives
   and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality
   have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe
   such people. [2]
   26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of
   powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means
   by which our society socializes children is by making them feel
   ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's
   expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is
   especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of
   HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized
   person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of
   the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a
   significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty
   thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate
   someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick
   to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do
   these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of
   shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even
   experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to
   the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And
   socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
   confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading
   of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological
   leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down
   for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of
   constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest
   that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human
   beings inflict on one another.
   27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the
   modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of
   great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism.
   Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or
   members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university
   intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our
   society and also the most left-wing segment.
   28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his
   psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually
   he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of
   society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in
   conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes
   an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses
   mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial
   equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed
   to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to
   animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve
   society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All
   these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of
   its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are
   explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the
   material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and
   the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the
   oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but
   justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of
   truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

Thus the manginas at AVfM attempt to oversocialize their natural attraction to teenage girls away (whatever age of consent local feminist legislators decree, the manginas will unquestioningly accept and internalize in the most servile fashion), since their feminist ideology will not permit them to think any "unclean thoughts." This would merely be laughable if these clowns didn't take their bizarre oversocialization one step further and insist that underage boys who get lucky with women are actually victims. And of course they also support all the hateful feminist sex laws and abuse-industry nonsense applied to men and women alike, so they are frankly as pure evil as the scumbags in law enforcement who put feminism into practice, and must be exposed as such. There is simply no nice way to put it; they are feminist scum.

I suppose the Unabomber has correctly identified this as a leftist phenomenon. A leftist is above all else a conformist. The leftist does not think for himself; he merely absorbs the political correctness of his times, and if these ideals conflict with human nature, then human nature be damned. And in this day and age, the pinnacle of political correctness is the ideology of ubiquitous sexual "abuse" (or usually and increasingly just called "rape" regardless of the details). The more socialized you are, the more you see "rape" or "sexual abuse" everywhere, until "abuse" encapsulates all of human sexuality (and beyond -- as even an image of a baby breastfeeding can qualify). With sufficient oversocialization, it is even possible to insist on the existence of female sexual abusers with a straight face. This is the pathogenesis of the female sex-offender charade, which has caused me so much headache. Never mind that common sense, natural science and experience all tell us it is preposterous to hold women culpable for sex crimes. The oversocialized leftist mangina will insist on his internalized politically correct hogwash even if all his senses and reason as well as science contradict him. Thanks to the Unabomber for identifying the word for it. I know my ranting against the female sex-offender charade for the umpteenth time probably won't sway any of the manginas, but at least now we know what to call the phenomenon that rots their brains.

The Unabomber is brilliant in some ways, foolish in others. One way he was wrong was thinking he had to kill people in order to get his message out. With writing skills like his, there is no need for violence, at least not in the Internet age. Rather than wasting away in a supermax prison, he could have had a popular blog now if he had only waited for the rise of the Internet. It is also completely unnecessary to use violence to bring down industrial civilization, since peak oil will take care of that beautifully. Soon there will be no occasion for what the Unabomber derides as "surrogate activities," as any survivors of the imminent Malthusian catastrophe will have no choice but to struggle to stay alive by the sweat of our brows, rather than leisurely sit by as fossil fuel slaves do the work. My attitude now that I am aware of peak oil is that unless you are already incarcerated, then insurrection against the feminist establishment is largely superfluous.

As I have said before, the Men's Rights Movement has not grown. There are only 3 sex-positive MRA sites that I know of beside myself: The Anti-Feminist, Human Stupidity and Angry Harry. The rest is merely feminist oversocialization, although I suppose The Spearhead should get an honorable mention for lately at least somewhat acknowledging the insanity of feminist sex-hostility as codified in law, as well as the foolishness, if not the biological absurdity, of men trying to assume the role of victims of rape by women (Price has, however, written some embarrassingly naive articles on the female sex-offender charade in the past where he has parroted the feminist narrative in much the same way as AVfM). I have no hope that there will ever be an effective Men's Rights Movement, but we don't need it anyway, because with peak oil comes peak feminism. If the feminists and manginas want to do something enduring for their cause, they might get busy trying to figure out how to keep up mass incarceration in a low-energy world. Rather than dreaming up ways to identify more sex offenders, they ought to be seriously worried about how to even keep the sex offenders they got incarcerated long enough to serve out their sentences. John Michael Greer has got a post up about seven sustainable technologies that may be practiced in our low-energy future, and the industrial prison system is not among them. I don't see how anything like the feminist sex abuse industry can possibly exist without the abundant energy flows provided by fossil fuels. Look back to the prison population in the era before fossil fuels, and you get an idea of how many people a low-energy society is capable of imprisoning. It is no accident that mass incarceration was unheard of before the Industrial Revolution, and for most of history, incarceration wasn't even recognized as a standard punishment. (Slavery did exist, and can in theory arise again if most of the prisoners are coerced into manual agriculture, but there will be insufficient energy available to make the transition to sustainable slavery in our coming dark ages, not least because the feminists don't even realize that time is running out for reorganizing their infrastructure if that were to be accomplished). Since the prison is a cornerstone of feminist society, there is reason to rejoice even as all the things we care about and depend on are about to disintegrate. Technology has been convenient and fun, but we also see what kind of sex-hostile dystopia it leads to, which gets worse for every passing year. So perhaps peak oil is a good thing even with the extreme hardship and die-off it necessarily entails, because the alternative for men is surely prison unless you put on the charade of an oversocialized mangina.


Anonymous said...

Great article---this needed to be said.

A part of oversocialization too is the absurd belief the MHRM dunces hold that they can actually co-opt feminism, by employing and absorbing feminist rhetoric and feminist tactics. That just makes them feminist allies with no corresponding gains for men.

So far all their strategy has 'achieved' for them is to alienate men who should have been their friends and allies, while utterly failing to gain mainstream acceptance among feminists, as the recent 20/20 debacle clearly shows.

They not only repress their own sexuality (and would gladly repress ours) in accordance with their feminist beliefs, but they are completely blind to MISANDRY as a cultural phenomenon---hence the more they try to appease and copy the femihags, the lower they'll sink until they become even more of a caricature of the 'Men's Rights Movement' than they already are.

PS: On sex-positive blogs, I'd like to add Rookh Kshatriya's 'Anglobitch' blog to the list, and here he is on feminist infiltration of the MRM:

It's a sex-positive blog, though not updated as regularly as it once was.

Richard said...

I heard most of the crowd at avfm are homosexuals.

They are trying to corrupt heterosexual relations.

jack said...

You are spot on, except I don't think the emphasis on "The Left" is helpful. Barbarossa has quite a few videos on Youtube about this left-right charade. "The Left" is too vague a category to be helpful. Plus, sometimes the left turns out to be less in favour of mass incarceration than "the right" (see Obama recently saying cannabis is no worse than alcohol, not until the cows come home will a republican admit as much).

Eivind Berge said...

I agree that many conservatives aren't much better and they certainly support mass incarceration. It seems to me that much of politics works like this: The left dreams up new categories of "abuse" to criminalize, and then conservatives come along with their "let's get tough on crime" stance to help enforce those same laws and increase the punishments. They are about equally odious, I guess, but it takes a leftist to come up with much of the theory justifying the police state. Conservatives don't have the malignant imagination to invent so many hateful laws as leftist ideologues do, but they don't have the sense to oppose them, either.

jack said...

The notion of the Left inventing laws to be later massively enforced by the Right is compelling. Of late France's socialist government passed a law to criminalise prostitutes' clients. Expect enforcement to be lax or non-existent … until the Right (or the far right in the person of Marine Le Pen) comes to power and France "gets tough on crime".

On another note, the massive incarceration of chiefly male offenders that has taken place in the US and elsewhere cannot be attributed to feminism because the war-on-drugs has been its major provider since long before feminism got out of control. Hence, massive incarceration of men might be interpreted as men physically eliminating other men in the competition for pussy, hardly a feminist conspiracy.
(If many Americans complain too many men are chasing too few women on the sexual market, what would it be if all the horny young black rotting in US jails were let loose?).

It will be interesting to see whether, as drug enforcement is loosened (cannabis already legal in some US States etc.), misandric sex laws kick in to take over.

Eivind Berge said...

I am afraid you may be right. The war on male sexuality is a perfect candidate to replace the War on Drugs to keep the prisons full. In fact, it seems better suited, since there is a lot more social stigma associated with being branded as a "pedophile" or "rapist" than a drug dealer, yet drug dealers get slammed away for even longer at present. The War on Drugs shows that remarkably, not even social stigma is needed for mass incarceration. Drug dealers are cool. The very same people who fight and support the War on Drugs often use drugs themselves and consider drug dealers as assets to have in their social circle. On a deeper level what is going on may well be just men eliminating competition over pussy. All it takes is a technicality of a victimless crime for society to throw away your life and you will get hardly any sympathy from anyone, especially if you are male. That's how evil humans are. It will continue until the prison system becomes economically unfeasible, and at that point we return to old-fashioned lynchings, I suppose.

Nonetheless, I think feminism is a proper term for the war on male sexuality, and it is worth resisting.

JimmyGiro said...

Consider the purges in the Soviet Union, mostly based on the vague law of Article 58, 'counter-revolutionary crime', and its many sub-sections and additions.

Unlike the war on drugs, whereby drugs need to exist in the case, the 'counter-heterosexuality laws', only need suspicion to be enforced. And as for the energy to mobilise enforcement, again think of the Soviet Union, which baffled the likes of Solzhenitsyn, as to how can so many people go along with such injustice; and yet comply they all did, both perpetrators and victims of the State's insane whimsy.

Richard said...


If you see sex-negativity on my site - please feel free to point it out.

I have already removed the "female pedophile" stuff after you pointed out how it is just re-hashing feminist ideals...

If you see other stuff - please let me know.

Anonymous said...

Eivind & Jack:

This discussion brought to mind this article from a year a so ago:

Welmer writes: "Those men who support feminism are exactly those men who would be on the bottom of the totem-pole in a male dominated environment. It's about relative status. If there truly were a Patriarchy and male dominance in society, these men would be the losers that other men look down on for whatever reason. So it's in their best interests to use feminism to dismantle masculine institutions or power whenever possible, as this gives them more relative power and status."

What Price says here about the male feminists I think also applies to the MHRM manginas.

If the Men's Movement were a sex-positive movement, and achieved those goals, the AVfM males would STILL be the 'losers' in the sexual marketplace. IOW, taking a sex-positive stance doesn't benefit them at all; hence they water the MRM down with liberal feminism---just enough to keep male sexuality down and prop themselves up.

Price also notes: "Male feminism is really about envy, maybe moreso than the female kind."

And no doubt the same sexual JEALOUSY driving feminist sex-negativity drives the MHRM sex-negativity.

In this way, it can be seen that male feminism is even more dangerous that radical female feminism---and worst of all in the MHRM variety! said...


you know I agree with most of you say.

I also would like to find the deeper reasons for some human-stupidity, insane human behavior.

I am dumbfounded how intelligent, open-minded people, and especially MRA's really bought the notion that sex with a willing 17 year old enthusiastically consenting girl is RAPE.

And that so called child porn is so terrible that it is acceptable to have the occasional collateral damage of a man imprisoned for photographing himself when he was younger, or getting 8 years for photographing his 17 year old LEGAL girl friend or wife.

It is utterly amazing how effective PC feminist brain washing is.

I hope you will visit to comment on Human-Stupidity.

You did inspire me to write a soon-to-be-published post about a man who was repeatedly raped (or sexually assaulted) by a 19 year old bikini model girl, who would just ignore his protests that he had already come, was tired and just wanted to sleep.

Anonymous said...

Jeg er stolt over at det finnes menn som deg i dette landet. Jeg er også glad for at du skriver det du skriver om Ted K. Han skjønte mye, selv om han grunnleggende tippet helt feil vei.

Jeg håper du fortsetter å hele tiden finne nye vinkler ift de "oversosialiserte" manginaene. I dette landet er mediekampanjene tydeligere enn noengang, ihvertfall riks.

Selv om du mener at en kamp mot feministregimet er overflødig nå som du har blitt energifokusert, skal du hver dag vite at du har vært en stor inspirasjon for mange menn som har opplevd å bli buret inne i et bur utelukennde på bakgrunn av at en kvinne SA at de hadde gjort noe. Du er en inspirasjon for mange andre også.

Jeg er glad hvis du vil fortsette å kjempe med pennen. For som du sier, man trenger slike som deg utenfor supermaxene.

Hvis du ikke allerede har lest noe særlig av Murray Rothbard, tror jeg du vil finne din andre store kjærlighet i ham. Han er den ryddigste og modigste mannen i vår historie, fullstendig blottet for føleri og helt tro mot sin objektive frihetsetikk. Han skjønte så til de grader at makt korrumperer, og han ble til slutt helt kompromissløs i sitt forsvar av naturlige rettigheter.

Heldigvis er mye av det han har skrevet lagt ut på Mises etter hans død for 20 år siden.

Dette er hans Bibel,du kommer til å elske hver bokstav:

Les også For a new liberty og denne:

Rothbard kom helt i skyggen av Nozick (selv om det var Rothbard som "omvendte" Nozcik), derfor har ikke så mange hørt om ham, spesielt i Europa. said...

Help! My 18 year old girl friend has raped me 298 times

This is what you inspired me to. Thanks.

Observer said...

The way I see it and this is just my take, Eivind, is that most of them who point out that more men than women are raped under feminist definitions of rape are doing so to dispel that feminist talking points; see: rape hysteria, the man bad woman good narrative. Problem is, they aren't making this very clear that they're countering feminist bullshit.

What they should be doing is using this data in conjunction with non-conjectured rape statistics straight from the horse's mouth, the supposed "epicenters of rape," college campuses.

This will show that rape in the US and other first world countries is vanishingly rare. It's about 27? per 100000 last I checked in the US, and less than 2 per 100000 here in Canada--and who knows what they define as rape for the purpose of those statistics in these highly politicized times when feminism has infiltrated government as much as it has. Is it rape convictions? Or is it simply reports/accusations, as is the case with official college campus statistics which show a hilariously low number of reports even then.

Another thing they're trying to do is point out the legal double standard where men get the book thrown at them and women get little or no punishment for by and large consensual sexual relationships between adults and post-pubescent teenagers. Again they need to make this clear. There's also a divide here. Some of them seem to think women should be getting sent to prison for years and years while others think the laws should be made more reasonable i.e. again, I live in Canada where the age of consent used to be a reasonable 14 years old and was last decade bumped to 16 because of feminists weaseling in an appeal to emotion argument about prostitution which was already illegal for those below 18 years of age.

Anonymous said...

Er det noe som mangler i denne artikkelen -

eller er det seriøst slik at det kun er troverdighet og ord mot ord som har ført til en dom på 4 år i fengsel i denne saken?

I mitt hode er ikke den ene forklaringen så veldig mye mer troverdig enn den andre.

Hvis lista helt reelt ligger på dettte nivået i Norge så er det jo tilrettelagt for uttallige justismord fremover.

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, det er standard prosedyre i norske voldtektssaker at skyldspørsmålet avgjøres på bakgrunn av en troverdighetsvurdering alene. Dessuten går jo historien hennes i dette tilfellet ut på at det er kvinnen, og ikke mannen, som misforstår og tror det er kjæresten hun har sex med. Selvsagt skal mannen straffes for hennes påståtte misforståelse; det skal ikke mer til. Og normalstraffen når kvinnen angrer seg uten bevis overhodet er som artikkelen sier nå oppe i 4 år, som er mer enn du fikk for voldelige overfallsvoldtekter for bare noen få år siden.

Mer fundamentalt er det mannlig seksualitet som er kriminalisert. Voldtektsbegrepet er så utvannet at kvinner i praksis kan få hva som helst pådømt som voldtekt. Men selv om man mener at dette er en rimelig definisjon på voldtekt, så burde selvsagt saker som dette uansett blitt henlagt lenge før de går til retten, om man skulle tatt hensyn til normale rettsprinsipper. Når begge historier i utgangspunktet er like troverdige, så blir en rettssak det samme som å rulle en terning med ekstremt urettferdige odds. Kvinnen har ingenting å tape mens mannen risikerer 4 år. Drittsekkene i politi og rettsvesen vet hva de gjør, og velger å sette alle ressurser inn på å få dømt menn de vet like godt kan være uskyldige.

Elisa Sawyer said...

This is true life testimony of cure of cancer with cannabis oil

Guy Faux-wkes said...

Definitely one for the Berg(e)ster:

Anonymous said...

Ikke bare sitt der og vrøvl om peak oil og andre dommedagsprofetier. Kast deg modig ut i debatten slik du har gjort før, men på en seriøs måte uten trusler (for all del, kall dem gjerne manginaer). Det er noe i veien med mediene i dette landet, og den siste lederen i Aftenposten nå er direkte farlig. Og de vet så godt kostnaden av det de skriver, men de bryr seg ikke. De er inherently kvinner disse mennene.

Kom på banen! Send innlegg, diskuter på nett.

Eivind Berge said...

Helt syk propaganda mot menn i avisene de siste dagene. Nå er det en offisiell "sannhet" at 10% av norske kvinner har blitt voldtatt. Alt basert på denne studien som bruker feministenes voldtektsbegrep for alt det er verdt:

Også tydelig at drittsekkene i den nye regjeringen ikke er det spor bedre enn foregående feminister. De er enda verre, og en ny utvidelse av voldtektsbegrepet kommer nok.

Men alvorlig talt, peak oil er her. Nå sier mainstream media akkurat det samme som meg.

De går bare ikke så langt som å spekulere i hva som vil skje når markedet ikke tåler høyere oljepris. Men vi kan jo legge sammen to og to selv. Og da får myndighetene og resten av manginaene langt verre ting å tenke på og slett ikke ressurser til å fengsle 10% av norske menn som voldtektsforbrytere.

Forresten har jeg ikke drevet med trusler før, kun oppvigling. Og det er fremdeles lov å stå for politidrap, så lenge du ikke oppfordrer til iverksettelse. Jeg minner også om at forherligelse av forbrytelser er lov, så lenge det ikke rammes av rasismeparagrafen, og det gjør ikke hat mot politiet. Politiet har ingen lovbeskyttelse mot publikasjon av hatefulle ytringer, i full offentlighet. Jeg ser frem til en rettssak nå hvor vi skal belyse dette og få folks øyne opp for at selv om du kan bli dømt for å kalle noen "neger" her i landet, så kan du fremme ubegrenset hat mot purkejævelen (unntatt oppfordring til iverksettelse). Og det trenger vi sannelig i dette hatefulle klimaet som menn blir utsatt for fra staten og media sin side. Når jeg leser avisene, så avler det et slikt hat i meg og en slik aversjon mot hele debatten at det er vanskelig å sette seg ned og skrive et seriøst innlegg. Hele debatten er jo fundert på et premiss som jeg ikke aksepterer -- feministenes voldtektsbegrep, som nå er nedfelt i straffeloven og snart skal bli enda verre.

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg la inn følgende kommentar på Aftenposten:

Er det riktig å si at "hver tidende kvinne i Norge har opplevd å bli voldtatt" hvis ikke kvinnen selv opplevde hendelsen som en voldtekt? For du får ikke 10% "ja" hvis du spør kvinner om de har blitt voldtatt. Jeg tviler ikke på at så mange kvinner har opplevd det feminister og nå også straffeloven definerer som voldtekt. Men hva så? All denne propagandaen er basert på et korrupt voldtektsbegrep. Det er å prakke på kvinner en kategori som de ikke kjenner seg igjen i basert på lurespørsmål, og så demonisere menn på grunnlag av dette.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Mediene er helt rabiate for tiden. De henger ut folk i hytt og vær, mesker seg med politikernes war on drugs, og kvinnene og kvinnemennene i redaksjonene har definitivt sluppet løs agendajournalistikken for alvor og økt temperaturen i mannshatet (det neste de kommer til å utrnytte for alt det er verdt er AP-kvinnens misbrukshistorie som nylig er slått opp, se VG. De fatter rett og slett ikke hvor farlig denne kampen er og alt den medfører av paranoia blant gode menn som aldri har lagt en finger på et annet menneske). De er kvinnens fortropp, vet du. Noen av dem går antagelig rundt og fråder av kamplyst. Jeg forstår så inderlig godt at du må passe pumpen din - og at du forsøker å vende ditt eget fokus mot noe som er bedre for blodtrykket ;) - for disse provokasjonene er nesten for mye å tåle. For en gjeng jævla kvinnemenn. What can one do? DET ER SÅ FLAUT AT DET ER IKKE TIL Å TRO.

Når går erstatningssaken din?

Eivind Berge said...

Har ikke fått noen dato enda. Regjeringsadvokaten har svart på stevningen at Staten står fast på at jeg skal ha null i erstatning, så det blir garantert rettssak. Det skal bli en fryd å tilbakevise de tåpelige argumentene deres. Men systemet er jo tregt. Skal holde dere oppdatert og blogge om det når det nærmer seg. Alle er invitert til å følge saken, og jeg skal opplyse om tidspunkt i god tid når den blir berammet.

Jeg trodde krigen mot narkotika var i ferd med å gå ut på dato nå som enkelte stater i USA begynner å ta til fornuften. Men det har tydeligvis ikke norsk politi fått med seg, og minst av alt i Bergen. Her er det eskalering som gjelder. De har skremmende mye ressurser når det kommer til å håndheve dårlige lover. Å sette inn hundre purker mot vanlig norsk ungdomskultur utgjør krig mot egen befolkning.

Det er heldigvis et par gode artikler oppi all heksejakten.

Husker du når tiltak som telefonavlytting og bruk av overskuddsinformasjon fra slike metoder var reservert for alvorlig kriminalitet? Nå brukes altså de mest utspekulerte hemmelige politimetoder mot de mest trivielle lovbrudd, som å røyke hasj. Purkefaen er tvers igjennom ondskapsfulle mennesker som misbruker alle maktmidler de råder over, uten noen som helst personvernhensyn overhodet. Det er så naivt å utvide politiets myndigheter i den tro at de vil utvise rimelig skjønn, for det er de ikke i stand til. Det eneste politiet gjør er å utnytte alle muligheter til å maksimere makten sin til vi får en politistat. Det er trist at politikerne ikke ser nødvendigheten av å begrense politiets rettigheter. Politikerne er i stedet opptatt av å fordømme hverandre for å bryte meningsløse lover. Helt utrolig at de ikke engang har noe lojalitet innad i partiet. Innser de ikke at det reflekterer ekstremt negativt på dem selv å dolke hverandre i ryggen for lovbrudd som folk flest skjønner er helt normalt? Jeg vet ikke om de virkelig er så dumme eller de tror folk er idioter. Det vi ser nå er uansett en patetisk forestilling tatt til nye høyder. Det er en skam i verdensklasse. Selv amerikanske presidenter er i stand til å innrømme narkotikabruk uten å kalle det et "tillitsbrudd."

Og enda mer skremmende er voldtektspropagandaen, ja. Hvis ikke det lovverket og beviskravene vi har i dag får nok menn dømt, så har vi virkelig grunn til å frykte det som kommer. Hvordan har de egentlig tenkt å implementere lavere beviskrav enn ord mot ord og en troverdighetsvurdering? Vi må i så fall overstyre juryen og innføre helt andre rettsprinsipper. Eller kanskje det er lynsjinger de trakter etter.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Det virker som om de bevisst spisser seg kun for å lage bråk og krig. Hvem er disse menneskene?

Anonymous said...

11 år. Tema: tro på mannen eller ikke.

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge said...

Enda en dom som baserer seg på ord mot ord og en troverdighetsvurdering alene. Kan like gjerne være fri fantasi. Slik er mannens tilstand: Rettsløs. Og så 11 år... Det ser ut som straffenivået er omvendt proporsjonalt med bevisene. Virker som de mest fantasifulle anklagene gir lengst straff.

Anonymous said...

Kan noen som leser denne bloggen komme med mer info om denne saken hvis dere har det? Evt linke til hele dommen hvis dere har den?

Anonymous said...

Når man sammenligner hvor lite som skal til før en mann kan tiltales for krenkende oppførsel, i forhold til barnevernsinstitusjoner, private som offentlige kan gjøre med det som staten definerer som "adferdsproblemer" så blir det litt underlig av PST å snakke om å forhindre radikalisering blant ungdom. Og så den evinnelige troen på tvang. Kan man tvinge mennesker til å bli lykkelige og tilfreds? Det bør vel være rimelig opplagt at hatefulle handlinger kommer som et resultat av stor misnøye i forkant?

Eivind Berge said...

Det "Motivasjonskollektivet" er tydeligvis en ekstremt utrivelig plass å bo. Verre enn fengsel på mange måter. Det er ingen som legger seg opp i om du har både ost skinke på skiven eller albuene på bordet i et vanlig fengsel. Jeg ante heller ikke at man drev med å sette ungdommer på isolat i tre dager i strekk for bagateller. Og så tre dagers isolasjon ved innkomst? Da jeg kom til Ålesund fengsel, var det 24 timer karantene før du fikk være med på fellesaktiviteter. Jeg skjønner ikke hvorfor barnehjem må ha et langt strengere regime.

Anonymous said...

Men hva må man ikke ty til for å få, kjekk, sunn, autoritetstro og ukritisk ungdom.

Anonymous said...

Merker meg at drittsekkene blant påtalemyndighetene vil frigjøre en video av Justin Bieber som pisser. Gadd vite om de kunne gjort det om den arresterte var en kvinne. Misunnelsen lever i beste velgående, og man gjør det man kan for å bryte ned de som har oppnådd rikdom og berømmelse. Slik behandlet de Michael Jackson også, selv om det senere ble bevist at ankalgene mot ham var humbug.

Eivind Berge said...

Fra lokalavisen:

Sexovergrep var nettfantasi

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Tror vi må bare slå fast en gang for alle at vi er omgitt av idioter.

Eivind Berge said...

Nå er erstatningssaken min berammet for retten: Hovedforhandling ved Nordhordland tingrett mandag 24. november 2014 kl. 0900 i Bergen tinghus. Så husk å sette av den dagen, og vel møtt alle sammen!

Anonymous said...

Lykke til! Et seriøst spørsmål som jeg håper du kan svare på: hva mener du er meningen med livet?

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg tror ikke det finnes noe fasitsvar på hva som er meningen med livet. Det er opptil hver enkelt å bestemme hva som er meningsfylt. Men jeg tror man som regel blir lykkeligst av å gjøre noe i retning av det naturen har laget oss for, altså handle slik at det er størst mulighet for å få mange etterkommere. I tillegg kan noen finne mening i politiske, estetiske, filosofiske eller spirituelle sysler, men det er ikke alle som har behov for alt dette. Selv er jeg opptatt av rettferdighet i tillegg til å dekke mine egne behov, og derfor ble jeg mannsaktivist og libertarianer.

Anonymous said...

Vet ikke om dette er et lett spørsmål: ble du en libertarianer fordi du intellektuelt og objektivt så urettferdighet eller fordi du følte urettferdighet på kroppen? Hva kom evt. først? Og tror du at det er vanskelig for den vanlige mann i gaten å så å si oppdage urettferdigheten uten å føle urettferdigheten på kroppen? Hvis ja, har de en god unnskyldning i ermet da?

Anonymous said...

Det er ikke vanskelig å gjøre folk kriminelle. Det handler bare om å iverksette en håndfull idiotiske lovregler, så vil man kriminaliseres deretter.

Er det å forhindre at man skal gjøre noe galt i rasjonell forstand samfunnet skal slå ned på, eller er det til stadighet å vedta den ene mer absurde lovregel etter den andre?

evilwhitemalempire said...


I just reckoned that AVFM was focused on making a mountain out of the smallest mole hill in the manosphere (female on male rape) as a diversion in order to keep from doing any kind of meaningful men's rights instead.

I mean, if you can persuade enough men that female 'rape' of men is a serious men's rights issue then you can exhaust resources on it and thus get nothing done AND make men think you're doing something at the same time, right?

That would surely be the best way for feminists to manage a coopted men's site. said...


I think it is very unwise to cite mass murderer's writings as a positive example. It causes your haters to associate you with such violent criminals.

It does not matter if Unabombers, Breiviks actually say something very correct and are intelligent and outspoken people.

I don't think that it increases the power and impact for your argument if one of these dangerous violent murderous nutcases actually has some bright ideas and thoughts that coincide with your attitude.

I wanted to tell this a long time ago.

I hope you understand that I agree with most of your opinions. But I am worried your citing the thoughts of such people. Even if these murderers have intelligent ideas.

I am very opposed to violence, even more so mindless murderous violence by the powerless who will not get anywhere but in prison for their criminal acts.

This is about as useful as citing Adolf Hitler's writings to bolster one's support for construction of freeways, or to justify resistance against affirmative action for Blacks. It will only backfire. There ought to be other, more positive people who support your opinion.

Yes, I do cite the maligned Bruce Rind study that was condemned by unanimous votes in the US senate and US congress. But Rind was a scientist whose only crime were Un-PC thought crimes and unpopular taboo findings.

Anonymous said...

You seem to suggest there is no such option as a male, particularly a very young male, not wanting to have sex with some ugly hag.

Your dehumanization of men and boys rivals feminists and might even put them to shame.

Anonymous said...

Det som irriterer meg grenseløst er dette: da du gikk ut og argumenterte mot sexkjøpsloven var motargumentet til slutt at den nye hverdagen for enkelte menn var vanskelig, sånn var det bare. Og så vant de visst diskusjonen. Så lo de og latterliggjorde deg, selv om de made your point med konklusjonen. De ler av slike menn som deg hver dag, i aviser og overalt, og koser seg over at endelig skal mennene få lide litt. Mens det eneste du har bedt om er frihet. Du krever ikke mer enn det. Du sier ikke: jeg vil innføre et caesariansk aristokrati når du bruker din retorikk, du sier bare hands off, så skal jeg gjøre det samme.

Du er enkelt og greit utsatt for rå makt, det er enkelt og greit det. Og oppå det hele må du tåle å bli latterliggjort på det groveste. Overalt. Det er så utrolig, utrolig irriterende.

Eivind Berge said...

Det er helt riktig. Jeg har ikke bedt om noen urimelig makt for menn. Det eneste jeg har argumentert for er å fjerne noen hatefulle lover. Vi har i det minste erstatningssaken å se frem til 24. november klokken 9 i Bergen tinghus. Håper mange møter opp, for da er det tid for å latterliggjøre politiets metoder.

Anonymous said...

Ingen tør, og ingen vil. De mange som mener det samme som deg er forlengst slukt av ironiens tidsalder, og har akseptert at sex er noe man går stille i dørene med. Vi er så til de grader omringet av kuede menn som er livredd for stigmatisering. At du blir latterliggjort i din veldige synlighet driter de i like mye som maktfolkene driter i deg. Det er en kamp du ikke kan vinne. Du må rett og slett bare akseptere å gå resten av ditt liv å bli latterliggjort. Er det noen som er overrasket over at det koker over for enkelte?

Unknown said...

The bizarre behavior exhibited by the manginas in the Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM), found at A Voice for Men (AVfM), whereby they embrace the most absurd and hateful feminist ideals regarding sex, and even more bizarrely, apply these standards to women as well, is puzzling in the extreme. After thinking long and hard about what might possess these nincompoops to behave in such a deranged manner, and rereading the Unabomber Manifesto, I think I have figured it out. I thought for a long time that they must be some kinds of autistic freaks or something, but the explanation may be found in the far more pervasive concept of oversocialization. The buffoons at AVfM fancy themselves as rebels against feminism, but of course they are nothing of the sort. They are feminists of the more extreme kind. I hate feminists, but most of them have the decency to at least back off the most absurd manifestations of their odious worldview in practice -- for example if you were to apply their sex-hostility literally to women as well as men. The buffoons in the MHRM have no such barriers. They are loose cannons among radical feminist, who will cling desperately to feminist tenets no matter how absurd it gets in the real world.

Here is yet another example of their idiocy: Boys raped more often than girls.

Any person just a few short decades ago would laugh his ass off if you told him women can "rape" boys. An honest biologist would still laugh his ass off at such an imbecile notion, as would any halfway rational or commonsensical person. Biologists know perfectly well that because the sexual superiority of women is the prime fact of life for deep evolutionary reasons, women committing "rape" or "sexual abuse" is not a meaningful natural concept but a legal fiction you have to be oversocialized to take seriously. But the manginas in the MHRM do take it seriously, because they have been oversocialized into feminist ideology.

Great sophistry - which means making the worst argument look the best - but no proof whatsover that women cannot rape. If rape is an involuntary sexual act, than this is a UNIVERSAL principle. That means your comparission with the feminist fucktards was just a projection on your part, cuz if you excuse female rape just because of the vjayjay - evolutionary jibba jabba, you are no better than feminist rape apologists.

The so called pop feminists you refer to are just usefull idiots for the radical feminists, feminism's rotten core. They are sitting on their farter and spouting feminist drivel.

Shouting rape whenever a cock enters a vagina is fundamentally different to opposing child molestery of young boys by females or non-consesual sex female > male.

Eivind Berge said...

"If rape is an involuntary sexual act, than this is a UNIVERSAL principle."

This quote shows the extent of your feminist indoctrination. You are either an oversocialized child of your feminist environment, or an autistic freak unable to comprehend the nuances of human experiences. Rape is not defined as "an involuntary sexual act," you moron, except by radical feminists. And that is far from a universal principle, even today. Feminists haven't even managed to put this definition into law yet in many jurisdictions. Even after numerous feminist reforms, Norwegian rape law, for example, still requires the sex to be obtained by some manner of violence, coercion or threats unless the woman is unconscious. The scumbags in our new fascist government are indeed working on adapting your definition of sex being merely involuntary sex, so the definition then becomes simple lack of consent, but it hasn't happened yet. Chances are you don't even live in a jurisdiction with this extremist feminist definition yourself, yet you still believe in it because you are so brainwashed.

So, you fail to comprehend that rape is intercourse ACCOMPLISHED BY FORCE (which means the woman must resist if she is able) rather than simply involuntary sex like the extremist feminist propaganda says -- a profound distinction, which creates millions more rapists -- and the second way you fail is you also absorb the feminist lie that the sexes are equal, so it must in your simplistic mind work equally both ways regardless of gender. And you think this is a universal principle? LOL! Ask any person in the history of the world prior to radical feminists invented the lie that the sexes are mentally equal around 1970, and they will tell you that of course only men can rape. Duh. Female-on-male sexual coercion does not fit in the category of rape unless you ignore all human nature and apply the moronic arithmetic of gender equality. Only a buffoon who does not understand basic human concepts will conclude that if being forcibly penetrated is rape, then being forced to penetrate must be rape as well, and having a penis has nothing to do with it.

Are you able to see beyond the end of your nose? Do you not see how oversocialized you are by feminist mythology? Like a typical dimwit mangina from AVfM. You imbeciles promulgating this line of supposed men's rights activism remind me of a four-year-old who has just found out what murder is, and then tries to figure out what the prevalence is by childishly thinking that if murder is to cause someone's death, then most doctors and anyone associated with hospice care are murderers because they administer palliative care which hastens people's death rather than putting dying patients in intensive care to extend their agony as long as possible. The child would then logically conclude that oh gee, we need to imprison all doctors because they are all murderers! Of course, anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that you cannot simply apply banal definitions mechanically to learn about profoundly meaningful human concepts such as rape and murder. Grownups used to understand this. Throughout all of history before feminism, all humans had the common sense to understand that women forcing men to have sex does not belong in the category of rape. Even when female sexual coercion really occurs, it is such a qualitatively different, trifling experience for most men that it is ludicrous to call it rape and attempt to treat it exactly the same way. And needless to say, applying the most radical feminist definition of rape on top of all this nonsense can only do men more harm than good.

Anonymous said...

Feel your blood start to boil...

Anonymous said...

See also:

Anonymous said...

And not least...

jack said...

"rape is intercourse ACCOMPLISHED BY FORCE (which means the woman must resist if she is able)"

I remember making this point on Reddit Men's Rights(I used the wording "resisted to the best of her ability"). I was heavily downvoted and criticized. That was when I swore to turn my back for good on Reddit Men's Rights. If you remove the proviso that the woman has to resist unwanted sex as best she can, the definition of rape decays and you get a false rape epidemics.

Eivind Berge said...

The element of force is just as central to the definition of rape as lack of consent. Common law for centuries said rape is "carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will." Obviously it isn't forcible if the woman has reasonable ability to resist, but doesn't. Then the woman made a choice to go along with the sex even though she could have prevented it.

The Men's Rights Reddit is just a bunch of manginas if they go along with the revised feminist definition. And this goes for AVfM too, whose entire charade of "women raping men" relies on defining rape the feminist way.

This is the very core of feminism, as I see it, and the reason for my radicalization into an MRA. Feminists put a tremendous amount of effort into changing the definition, legally and culturally. It has been an ongoing process of lobbying and propaganda which is still not finished (many jurisdictions still retain a vestige of force or coercion in the definition of rape). If there was a real MRA movement, we would be as ferociously focused on resisting this change as the feminists are on effecting it, instead of simply accepting it unquestioningly like the morons in AVfM and Men's Rights Reddit do.

Bruno said...

Damn, you got it all wrong. Instead of reading Kazinsky you should try some Durkheim. Kazinsky is an amateur on sociology, 90% of what he says in the manifesto is nonsense or contradictory.

Eivind Berge said...

I am not endorsing most things Kazinsky says, but he got this right. We need a concept to explain that people who score OK or even highly on IQ tests can be so idiotic as to believe that women can be sex offenders in any meaningful sense, and oversocialization fits the bill.