This isn't insanity, either. Rodger is mentally stable throughout his life, but virginity naturally becomes increasingly frustrating as time goes by. He has poor social skills, which despite counseling will never improve, but he's not schizophrenic and does not slip into psychosis or anything like that. At worst he might be a high-functioning autistic, but even that is unclear. Maybe he is just suffering from social anxiety. The most insane part of the book is when he thinks he will win the lottery and dabbles in the law of attraction, but he gets over that and there are no magical beliefs guiding him on his way to revenge. He is rational and calculating and meticulous, even planning his suicide well in order to avoid capture and imprisonment (use two handguns with a spare in case one jams). There is absolutely no doubt that the rampage is caused by sexual deprivation, and up until the end he holds out some hope that he will get laid after all and cancel the whole retribution thing. As long as he can't have sex, he is determined to destroy some of the happy sexually active people around him. Girls who pick other men and the lucky men who get laid are targeted equally, and he even plans to kill his housemates and brother and step-mother.
You either have to experience celibacy yourself or read this manifesto to comprehend how dangerous this sort of man is. While reading, I was struck with the realization that he is at least as smart as you, and he is going to use that intelligence to kill you. This means he has a good chance of succeeding, which he did. There is no "treatment" for this condition (besides getting sex), because the incel is just as smart as the psychiatrists or cops or whoever tries to intervene, and so he will anticipate their moves and thwart them. The close shave with the cops when they almost search his room is chilling, but here he demonstrates that he is indeed sane and from then on he sleeps with a loaded gun nearby to ensure he will get in at least some kills if they come back.
The monster virgin is a true product of our sex-hostile feminist society, which denies that involuntary celibacy can ever be a problem and is more concerned with constructing the bizarre lie that women can be rapists than acknowledging the basic needs of men. You reap as you sow.
91 comments:
A brill post, as usual, Eivind.
Not much to say, this is exactly what happens in insane feminist societies and one should not except these monsters to understand any of it. It's all so vile and disgusting that it literally makes my mouth foam.
I do have a slight objection, though - you use the word incel as a lack of sex. It is a lack of sex, but since there is no specific word for a lack of relationship maybe you should mention that too? This way it just makes us seem like all of us just want sex and enables feminist hate machines to say "we can't get laid" or something.
But you have a gf and I doubt you'd be satisfied with just having one night stands all of your life.
Or at least that's how I am - I'd much rather have a gf that sleep with 30 different women every month.
Yes, relationships are important and Elliot Rodger clearly longed for a relationship, like most incels. But I think simply losing his virginity would be enough to prevent the rampage. In fact he says that if only one girl had shown some interest based on seeing his videos and given him a chance to go on a date, he would have cancelled his plans. But for some reason he didn't feel like seeing a prostitute. At some point he had a female counselor, and he enjoyed that, but apparently he thinks hired women are too fake and only provide temporary relief:
"The second counsellor that was assigned to help me was a girl named Sasha. She was only a year older than me. Sasha was the first young girl I had interacted with in the entire time I stayed in Santa Barbara, and she was only hired to talk to me. How pathetic is that? At first, I didn’t want to have a female counsellor, but when I was introduced to her, I saw that she was quite a pretty looking blonde. I couldn’t refuse the opportunity to hang out with a blonde girl, despite the fact that she was a hired friend. It was the only time in my life that I had the experience of spending time with a girl my age, and even though it was all fake, I really enjoyed it. I felt so much better about life after each time we met. But then, I thought about how unfair it was that I could only get a fake little taste of such an experience, while other men get to do such a thing every single day with their girlfriends. Eventually, Sasha had to move out of Santa Barbara, and I decided not to have any more female counsellors. It has the same effect as hiring a prostitute, I imagine. It temporarily feels good for the moment, but afterward it makes one feel like a pathetic loser for having to hire a girl when other men could get the experience for free."
Fra manifestet:
"I began to have fantasies of becoming very powerful and stopping everyone from having sex. I wanted to take their sex away from them, just like they took it away from me. I saw sex as an evil and barbaric act, all because I was unable to have it. This was the major turning point. My anger made me stronger inside. This was when I formed my ideas that sex should be outlawed. It is the only way to make the world a fair and just place. If I can’t have it, I will destroy it. That’s the conclusion I came to,
right then and there.
I spent more time studying the world, seeing the world for the horrible, unfair place it is. I then had the revelation that just because I was condemned to suffer a life of loneliness and rejection, doesn’t mean I am insignificant. I have an exceptionally high level of intelligence. I see the world differently than anyone else. Because of all of the injustices I went through and the worldview I developed because of them, I must be destined for greatness. I must be destined to change the world, to shape it into an
image that suits me!"
Og:
"I formed an ideology in my head of how the world should work. I was fueled both by my desire to
destroy all of the injustices of the world, and to exact revenge on everyone I envy and hate. I decided that my destiny in life is to rise to power so I can impose my ideology on the world and set everything right. I was only seventeen, I have plenty of time. I thought to myself. I spent all of my time studying in
my room, reading books about history, politics, and sociology, trying to learn as much as I can.
I became a new person, furiously driven by a goal. My torment would continue, but I had something to live for. I felt empowered."
Glem Bundy, Lepine, Columbine. Det blir ikke mer direkte enn dette.
I wonder why he didn't hire a prostitute? Even when decided to take his own life? Why did he choose to die a virgin?
Eivind:
"I was fueled both by a desire to destroy all the injustices in the world and to exact revenge on everyone I envy and hate."
To my mind, this is evidence that Leftist ideology: specifically the Cult of the Victim and the Mentality of Entitlement exacerbated the INCEL aspect of Roger's motives. The statement quoted above is Socialist egalitarianism in summary.
"I wonder why he didn't hire a prostitute?"
That is difficult to understand. He even spent thousands of dollars on lottery tickets because he thought women would like him if only he got rich. That money would be a lot better spent on prostitutes, and that is certainly what I would have done.
Monsterjomfruen er et produkt av taperens sosiale dysfunksjon, og følelse av å være berettiget sex kun i kraft av å være et menneske. Det er bra patetisk...om han bare hadde innsett at grunnen til at jenter ikke vil ha ham er at han oser av misogyni og bitterhet, hadde det vært håp. Men gudene forby at slike folk skal vise selvinnsikt, de tyr heller til drap enn å gå i seg selv...!
Det er nok ganske vanskelig for enkelte å forstå at man ikke skal være berettiget sex, når det finnes så mange andre forestillinger om berettigelse. Eksempelvis forestillingen om skjønnehetstyranniet, som er en ide en typisk feminist har trykket til sitt bryst. Stygge, upopulære jenter/kvinner legger skylden på samfunnet for at de er som de er. Selv om det som egentlig ligger bak er misunnelse på de som er vakrere enn dem selv. Men selv de mest usmakelige kvinner har en bedre sjanse på kjøttmarkedet enn det det et eksalerende antall menn har i vårt samfunn. Før var den typiske feminist-løgnen at grunnen til dette er "misogyni og bitterhet" men når antallet menn som faller utenfor stiger over 20 og nærmer seg 30 prosent, og trolig blir tallet enda høyere i fremtiden, begynner argumentasjonen å falle sammen. At 1/3 av alle Norges menn har en type asosial diagnose som gjør utfallet så dramatisk at han er avskåret fra ethvert seksualliv er ikke logisk etterettelig. Særlig ikke i et samfunn som så til de grader er feminisert, det vil si tilskåret etter feminismens prinsipper. Resultatet burde, gitt feminismens forestillinger, ha motsatt effekt. Aldri har kvinner og menn vært mer likestilte. Aldri har noen menn på jorden føyet seg mer for kvinner enn her, likevel fører dette til at kvinner ikke finner dem gode nok. Ironisk nok er det de relle misogynistene, menn med sterke psykopatiske trekk, som har flest kvinnelige partnere. Terrenget stemmer ikke med feminismens kart. Kvinner blir tiltrukket av menn som dominerer dem. Ikke alle naturligvis, og ikke like eksplisitt i enhver sammenheng, men som tendens er dette den mest eksakte biologiske deskripsjon man kan gi. Forøvrig har jeg aldri sett en feminist gi meg vektige og rasjonelle motargumenter mot dette
VIrkelig, en tredjedel av norske menn er avskåret fra ethvert seksualliv? Det finner jeg vanskelig for å tro,har du noen tall på dette? Og om så var, ville det vært deres egen feil. Det er lett å skylde på en ytre faktor, som feminisme eller "feministstaten", men faktum er at det er individet som selv må ta ansvar for sitt eget liv. Hvis man ikke er i stand til å skaffe seg seksualpartnere, bør man belage seg på å klare seg uten.
Jeg finner det forsåvidt fabelaktig ironisk at det gjerne er libertarianer-menn som blir bitre MRAs. De gnåler i vei om at det er åh så urettferdig at de ikke får sex. Men ifølge deres egen ideologi, hvor alt, inkludert seksualitet, er en markedsplass, har de jo på rettmessig vis blitt utkonkurrert. Markedet har talt! :D
Guigui, din jævla ekle løk, har du fått med deg at vi ikke lever i et libertariansk samfunn, og at markedet (sexkjøpslov/generell seksuallovgivning) er stoppet av ekle menn som deg?
Haha, ekle menn som meg? Jeg er mot sexkjøpsloven, ikke bland meg inn i den faenskapen. Om det finnes et marked for prostitusjon, bør folk få lov til å være både prostituerte og kunder.
Når det gjelder seksuallovgivning: Jobb for å endre den, og i mellomtiden... deal with it. Det er virkelig ikke noe problem å finne noen å ha sex med, hvis man er en normal, oppegående person.
http://www.nrk.no/viten/en-av-fire-menn-far-ikke-barn-1.11706117
Denne artikkelen sier hver fjerde mann. Tendensen er økende så 1/3 er nok ikke utenkelig om noen år.
Jeg tviler på at hverken 1/3 del eller 1/4 del av norske menn er libertinere. Dessuten tviler jeg på at alle libertinere mangler seksuell erfaring.
Jeg tror heller ikke det er et poeng for eksempelvis en libertiner at sex er en rettighet. Poenget er bare, om du leser det jeg skrev litt mer nøye, at samfunnet baserer seg på å konstruere "rettigheter" for noen samfunnsgrupper, når man finner det opportunt. Eksempelvis om urettferdigheter knyttet til hudfarge, lønn, kjønn osv, men aldri i forhold til seksualitet, fordi dette hovedsaklig er et problem som knyttes til hvite, vestlige menn.
Eller for å si det på en annen måte, hele feminismen er tuftet på tanken på "ytre faktorer" når det gjelder kvinners såkalte mangel på makt, om dette nå kalles patriarkatet, overklasse eller rasisme.
Aldri manglende guts, feighet, udugelighet, skjørhet, kulturell ukultur, latskap, usunn livsstil, manglende stå på vilje, bekvemmelighet, det finnes flere former for makt og kapital enn slik den defineres av marxismen osv...
Her gies utelukkende strukturelle forklaringer, men med en gang det kommer til kjønnsmarkedet, da er det selvsagt "ansvar for eget liv" Individuelt ansvar synes å fordufte med en gang man har med "kvinnesak" å gjøre. Da er det plutselig et samfunnsansvar. Faktisk i slik grad at man kan sjonglere mellom det spesielle og til det generelle uten en eneste gang å trekke et etterettelighetens sukk.
X antall voldsangrep mot kvinner blir samlet under begrepet kvinnevold. Det blir pakket inn i beste nominalistiske stil, og slutter å være en rekke enkeltstående hendelser men behandlet som et samfunnsfenomen, som absolutt alle menn skal stilles til ansvar for, omtrent på samme måte som arvesynden ble fenomenologisert i vår kristne fortid. Tør jeg bruke en velkjent venstrevridd klisje, som et slags "gufs fra fortiden" At menn er vel så mye utsatt for vold har lite betydning når målsettingen er å politisere virkeligheten.
Hvem i helvete tør å ha impulsiv sex i et land hvor du kan bli lagt i jern kun fordi en kvinne sier hun ikke ville?
Les deg opp før du kommer inn her og vrøvler, din ekling.
Må bare få lov å tilføye at jeg siste artikkel ble skrevet av meg, men ikke den som omhandlet sexkjøp
Pokker, her snek det seg inn en post før jeg fikk lagt ut forklaring. Ja ja shit la gå
Skjønte at det var en annen, anon. =)
Når det artikkelen: mengden barn som menn får har nok flere årsaker, som jo også påpekes der. Og det er jo egentlig bare et mål på hvem som reproduserer seg, ikke hvem som er seksuelt aktive.
Ellers har du nok et poeng, når det gjelder denne tendensen til å eksternalisere all verdens problemer. Det er en uting.
Anon 2: Du får å sex med menn da vel, hvis du er så jævlig redd for dette falsk voldtektsbeskyldnings-spøkelset! Funka for min del, iallfall. Eller forsikre deg om at kvinnene virkelig vil ligge med deg... det er ikke så vanskelig å se om de er entusiastiske, hvis man har normale sosiale antenner. Alltid funket for meg, det også. ;)
Ligge med menn? Er du syk i hodet ditt?
Vi må ta innover oss at vi er omringet av menn med så tykke lag av selvbedrag, at det ikke er å forvente at noen skal skjønne at kvinnene og jentemennene har lyktes i å gjøre ærlig mannlig seksualitet til klovneskap. Erotikken er forlengst ødelagt av traktorene i riksmediene. De har mye den samme holdningen som forkvapsede Elliot; de skal destroy alt som er godt og fantastisk fordi de ikke selv kan få det (av ulike grunner; vrøvl om greater good og kvinnekamp, de føler seg ikke attraktive, mannshat/blitt dumpet i bøtter og spann)
Pff, erotikken finnes i fleng. Det er bare det at det er *ditt* ansvar å skape den, i samarbeid med én eller flere dertil egnede partnere.
Og nei, ække syk i hodet. Å ligge med menn burde jo være idealet, når man er så redd for kvinner. ;)
Man kan selvsagt argumentere i forhold til statistikk slik man vil. Det vil nok være vanskelig å forske på andelen jomfruelighet blant etnisk norske menn. Tallenes tale er likevel så oppsiktsvekkende at de ikke kan underkommuniseres.
I et av verdens mest likestilte land er andelen barnløse menn "spesielt høye" I Kenya tar man derimot det å få barn som en selvfølge.
Teorien min er at vi har skapt en samfunnsstruktur hvor kvinner er blitt så proppet full av kravstorhet at den naturlige omsorgsevnen er blitt svekket. I media gnåler man om hvor bra og riktig dette er, samtidig som menn i økende grad skyves ut i ensomhet, og institusjoner overtar som den forsørgende parten for barna. Det finnes andre forskningsrapporter som viser hvordan kvinner dessuten resirkulerer menn. Det vil si menn med barn, blir mer mer attraktive for kvinner, og dermed også oppretter flere familier.
Heldigvis er ikke alle norske kvinner like ille som de maktkåte feministene som trykker trynet sitt frem i media til stadighet, med en moraliserende pekefinger for hvordan menn skal være, og hva kvinner har rett på. Men tendensen er skremmende.
Du høres ut som en seksuelt aktiv mann. Den dagen du sitter på glattcelle fordi jenten din har fått høre av en venninne at du egentlig har voldtatt henne, kan du jo lage dikt om hvor fantastisk dette landet er med naturen og alle de fine fjordene.
Jada, det skjer ikke med deg, sier du. Det har alle de andre sagt også. De også har fått sjokk.
Det er ikke så vanskelig å se hva seksualpartnere synes er ok, og hva som ikke er greit, anon. Det fordrer selvsagt at man er i stand til å kommunisere med partneren sin, men dét burde da virkelig være minimumskravet for folk som velger å være seksuelt aktive.
Hvis man er i stand til å se partneren sin, og forsikre seg om at han/hun er 100% med på leken, så er faren for en voldtekstbeskyldning praktisk talt ikke-eksisterende.
Sier du, og skjønner ikke poenget: kommunikasjon eller ikke, trusselen vil ligge der uansett som følge av lovverket. Det er nok til å gjøre mange menn paranoide. Til og med kommunikative lyrikere som deg, som stryker partnere gjennom håret med jevne mellomrom og sier varme ting.
Sånn sett er det jo en risiko i alt sosialt. Vold er ulovlig, og du kan havne i trøbbel om noen påstår du har banket dem opp. Du kan urettmessig beskyldes for tyveri, og ran, og for alskens lovbrudd. Går du rundt og er paranoid for dette også? Det er jo tross alt en trussel som ligger der.
Face it: det bildet du maler er kun et reelt problem hvis du ligger med galninger... eller faktisk har så store sosiale problemer at du ikke evner å gjenkjenne entusiastisk konsensus i seksualpartnere. Og igjen, da bør en også styre unna seksuelle relasjoner, og holde seg til den gode, gamle håndjageren.
Håper ikke en av de du stryker gjennom håret blir forelsket i deg. For stikker du da kan noen fort bli hevngjerrige. Og det gjelder ikke bare galningene, det gjelder like mye den stolte posh-jenten. De er plutselig "blitt brukt". Da er alt lov. Og heldigvis har de lovverket med seg. Jeg har sett nok fortvilte menn. Vekk med deg!!!!
Thatincelblogger:
Which only goes to show that their real motive is hating men themselves.
http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2014/05/elliot-rodgers-and-really-big-lie.html
Pardon for my poor English sir but i'm Argentinian.
I would like to say that i'm not agree with that MRA affirmation wich blame feminist for incels cruel existance. I'm an incel who supose that this fact could be lower in a less women opressive society. Men and women, what are they? Genders. And gender is not a natural fact, gender is a social construction. Both gender are defined by its relation with other. A totally equally gender society will destroy power differences between genders. And we, men, will not be opressed by masculinities ways of being prescriptions. We, incels, are opressed by men not by women, we defined ourselves by the position we kept in men space not women. Then, of course, we will be defined by women, but we will be defined by women for the place we wept in men space. Men space wich defined itself by women space. So, a change in all the gender sistem, an more equally gender change will be a change in the place incels kept in men space.
(Incels must be against the biological psychology notion of gender, because this line of investigation naturalize power and historical constructions)
When he is off the mark is when he maintains that women nowadays copulate with "degenerate" men. He would've known better had he read some evolutionary psychology. In fact women copulate with the men who are the counterpart of the women men want to copulate with. They go for masculine men just like men go for feminine women. This is not something men should blame women for IMO. He is a fascinating character though, not at all like serial killers who are boring. There will never be many men like him though. Most men will keep a low profile as long as they're allowed their dose of porn.
Weep for these men:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/06/william-norman-grigg/when-the-state-breaks-a-man/
Natt & Dag kaller deg riksonanist. Umiddelbar kommentar?
Modern-day "Cain vs. Abel" scenario.
I made a post on what anti-feminist men need to do. I wonder if Eivind will agree on this. Probably not, as he despises MRAs who believe in nonsense like female on male rape too much.
Anyway, all of this is just wishful thinking but who knows...
http://thatincelblogger.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/my-message-to-anti-feminists/
I remember watching newsnight here in the uk,they were discussing prostitution they had a woman pro and two anti.one was an ex prostitute "professional victim"if you like,she said well if it was illegal more men would be encouraged
to get sex for free.even as a good looking man its never going to be as easy as that of a woman!and as you mention what we see in the news is proof of what can happen when men are denied an existential need.
Going on 27 and an involuntary virgin myself. Though not because of a lack of social skills but because of the illegality of my attractions and massive iatrogenic harm awaiting my preferred partners if we do do anything together. I am preferenced towards preteen girls. I've had ample oppurtunity to have sex with adult females and while I do have some attraction to them I just never went through with it. When reading his manifesto I was able to sympathize at some points and I can see how such sexual frustration can be psychologically twisting for a person. I do not excuse his actions in the slightest but I can understand them. Especially if he was a high functioning austistic individual. They generally have worse social and coping abilities.
I also have had ample oppurtunity with preteen girls, more often the girl attempting to initiate, which I find particularly arousing and cool, when a young girl socialized to be asexual still attempts to express her sexuality and innate right to be sexual. Still I always reject anything overtly sexual, not because I believe consensual sexual pleasurable interactions are wrong (that is feminist pushed abuse industry propoganda) but because if someone finds out I get thrown in jail and she has to deal with feminist therapists who will try their hardest to make her damaged and to make her a victim. I will then also be forced to be kept away from those I love and am attracted to.
Lucky for me just being with a little girl romantically (though not very sexually) is enough for me to be happy regardless of my virginity (note that to me losing my "virginity" would be a session of mutual oral sex or masturbation with a little girl, not penetrative sex). However if me and a girl I loved were kept apart, if the law and society forced me from forming any such interactions, I could possibly see myself snapping like Elliot and rampaging with my rifle.
@GirlLover
At first I thought you were using the word "iatrogenic" wrong, since I couldn't imagine how sex can cause harm as a medical side effect, but I see you are absolutely right. Any damage from the sexual relations you describe would have to be caused by the abuse industry itself, since I am unaware of any convincing evidence that children voluntarily expressing their sexuality is inherently harmful. However, those odious scumbags in the abuse industry should really not be dignified with salubrious words like "therapist." When we know they are in the business of *creating* victims, we should name them accordingly as the monsters they are. If they apply a smidgen of intellectual honesty, they must also be aware themselves that they actively cause harm, so they are truly despicable people.
That said, you have to admit it is deviant and probably very rare for adult men to be exclusively attracted to prepubescent girls, to the point where fertile women are uninteresting to you. That is very problematic for lots of reasons and I wouldn't cultivate it if I were you, even though I totally agree the witch-hunt against pedophiles is undeserved. But maybe it's a fixed orientation you can do nothing about, just like homosexuality?
@Carancho
Yours was a very funny comment, evincing complete brainwashing by feminist ideology. Feminists told you gender is entirely socially constructed, and you believe them. So you think incels only get frustrated if society tells them to be? You are an incel, but you don't have any feelings about it besides what your society tells you? It is absurd. Incel rage comes from within, not from social constructions. Indeed, society currently tells us sexual frustration is nothing to worry about and certainly doesn't cause violence, so there should be no incel rampages by that logic. In fact, I think telling incels they don't have a problem only makes it worse, since it adds insult to injury.
@ Eivind Berge
Well I am not exclusively attracted to prepubescent girls, but I am preferentially attracted to them. I prefer them over adult females in all ways, not just sexual. I prefer their company, their friendship, their romance, etc. I guess it is deviant in the sense that it is not the norm, but I want to emphasize that it is no different than the other sexual attractions to different kinds of people. I can't do anything about it, I tried when I first realized it. As a teen I would just naturally gravitate toward preteen girls. I thought nothing of it. Even when I masturbated to fantasies involving them or found myself staring at their genital areas longer than considered "normal".
In my late teens I realized societies hatred of people like me. Though I never hurt a girl and by all accounts they loved me. I still bought into the whole "you're a monster" crap. I tried very hard just to focus on legal girls. However my attraction to adult women was so... minute and unfulfilling.
Basically I am saying it is unchangeable like homosexuality or heterosexuality. It just is. By all unbiased research there is nothing wrong with it or anything wrong with consensual expressions of it.
Note that such research is heavily supressed and ignored in favor of the "all children are abused and damaged beyond repair" model that most people adopt.
Sex is not a human right. And no women owes incels anything.
I am always disheartened when an isolated, socially-negligible suicide terrorist is used to sully the "good name" of PUA, such as it is. A 2-year period spent planning a suicide attack is an indicator of the real desires of the person, a man who genuinely desired to pick up women, or whose desire for women was foremost, would have created a plan to get laid.
We'd have two years of approach videos filmed on the sunny streets of Isla Vista, however awkward--and the awkwardness of a woman's reaction Elliot Rodger approaching would be greater than that of women's reactions to George Godley on his worst day--but it would be something approximating PUA, a normal life, or at least an effort to be normal. (And you can see in tons of PUA videos very ordinary, anodyne, stupid conversations as "hooks" like asking for the time or directions fail--the woman leaving, mildly amused or mildly annoyed, just street ritual, blöde Anmachsversuche, bad Game.)
What we got was isolation, megalomania, and suicide terrorism. I don't know if this even counts as "incel terror" because he didn't even have a fantasy of sex at the base of his behavior, he had a fantasy of status, perhaps romance, a shadow of a wisp of a blonde dream.
Eivind, hvad er "incels", om jeg må spørge?
"Incel" means "involuntarily celibate." Men who are sexually rejected by all women are called incels.
Nok et bidrag i den forfalskede overgripsindustrien
http://www.nrk.no/verden/sexslaveaktivist-beskyldes-for-logn-1.11748894
Fantastisk. Men morsomt hvordan NRK repeterer resten av "menneskehandel"-hysteriet som om ingenting har skjedd. Det burde blinke noen varsellamper. Når frontfigurene i rescueindustrien beviselig lyver om sine egne historier, hvorfor skal vi tro på resten?
Dette kan muligvis interessere nogle:
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/05/30/somaly-mam-holy-saint-and-sinner-sex-trafficking-251642.html?piano_d=1
For mange voldtektssiktede frifinnes. Derfor vil bistandsadvokat Salomon avvikle juryordningen.
http://www.osloby.no/nyheter/krim/Juryen-frifinner-i-hver-tredje-voldtektssak-7586963.html#.U4logcbjbLg
“To increase sexual desire to an unbearable level whilst making the fulfillment of it more and more inaccessible: this was the single principle upon which Western society was based.”
― Michel Houellebecq, The Possibility of an Island
Jack, could you please explain what he meant when he said "this was the single principle upon which Western society was based". What did he mean by that?
Houellebecq meant that he saw young women (and pics of young women) all over the place outdoing each other in sexyness, but at the same time if he approached any of them he risked bitter rejection or prosecution. He meant in comparison to this obsession, all other pretenses and principles didn't count.
hi guys there's a very good youtube channel by thinkingApe-tv
about 200 plus videos and a very good one on elliot rodger and the religion of sex check it out.
Because of the incestuousness and insider deals of the Hollywood community, success often looks like people are being handed something for free to someone at a small degree of separation to the process. Rodger was also a student in the context of a school where few students worked at a job, and those few were for the most part employed to earn spending money, or in the UC's fig-leaf student jobs as part of a tuition aid package, the real labor of maintaining and servicing the campus being provided by "insourced" illegal aliens on the grounds that everything is okay when done by the State.
He was thus drifting without prospects of acquiring any real trade or education, in a social context where real work is for suckers and the local working-class is proletarian labor in tourist service industries such as beachfront restaurants and dude ranches. Being just privileged enough to have your nose pressed up the glass blocking you from the object of your desire can cause personality disturbances in even the healthiest person.
Also, I have an odd perspective as an Israeli and as the victim of suicide terror on two occasions. Suicide terror is unique in that it is preventable but cannot be deterred, physical interception and elimination of the threat is necessary. Practically speaking, Palestinians had the right to do to me anything I could not physically prevent, and likewise they were practically if not legally in a situation of lawlessness vis-a-vis the IDF and Israel Police, it mattering only whether the right people were hit to prevent an attack. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department was thus unprepared from a case management/involuntary commitment 5150 point of view and in terms of an actual combat response, which deputies had to mount at two subsequent sites during the spree because their initial attempt to engage and neutralize him with fire failed. (And in fact had he not committed suicide he might have killed one or more cops as they engaged him in the car.)
Det er nesten så du ikke tror det du ser:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yta55u2zP2U
Yes. I must admit to having my own suspicions concerning Elliot Rodger. He had money. If it was just sex he wanted, why did he not use some of that money to get it?
There is something not quite right about all of this. I think we could be looking at a possible false flag attack here.
På tide å sende et (fredelig) leserbrev Eivind og fortelle verden hvordan den henger sammen. Hjembyen (i.e rosabloggerne i bygget vis a vis Deli de Luca og brødkafeen et steinkast fra Torgallmeningen) mener at du ikke finnes:
http://www.bt.no/meninger/leder/Moralismens-overtak-3162484.html#.U8-OKPl_vT8
http://www.fanaposten.no/
http://www.fanaposten.no/nyheter/Barnevernskontor-holder-Astengt-etter-trusseldrama-193015.html#.U9AM7Pl_vT8
En mer "tabloid" sak får du ikke, og som politiet sier: det er svært uvanlig at det blir så dramatisk.
Dette skjedde imorges. Hva gjør BT og BA? De legger lokk på saken fullstendig. De er satt til å informere Bergen og Norge, og legger ut alskens saker om det ene og det andre. Men ikke denne, en sak som er uhyre spesiell og som har skapt voldsomt oppstuss. En sak som til og med kunne fått internasjonal oppmerksomhet.
Hvorfor? Det er helt sykt å se hvordan redaksjonene holder på. De er så sannelig politiske aktivister.
Jeg har ikke ord.
Man kan ikke stole på bergenspressen etter dette...
Nei, det er tydelig et politisk valg hvis de ikke omtalte den saken mens den forgikk. Og så finnes det liksom ikke mannsaktivister ifølge lederen om sexkjøp heller? Er dette en ny strategi å tie mannsaktivismen ihjel?
Dette er en HUGE story. INGENTING kan forklare dette annet enn et bevisst politisk valg.
Dette skal undersøkes nærmere. Dette skal selvsagt folk svare for.
Fortjener en post ;)
Ser forresten at selve hendelsen hendte i går. Fanaposten fulgte opp saken med steningen idag. Jeg har sendt mail til en del avisredaksjoner og bedt om svar.
Det er altså så skammelig at jeg har ikke ord. I stedet har de nå nettopp publisert en sak om at barnevernssaker "ligger for lenge".
Når skjer det at menn heller rødsprit over seg selv i Norge - og finner frem ligheter. Med påfølgende stengt kontor?
OG INGEN SKRIVER NOE OM DET??????????????????????????
Det er tydeligvis en type aktivisme som feministene ikke helt vet hvordan de skal håndtere. Det funker dårlig å latterliggjøre eller håne en mann som truer med å tenne på seg selv, så da tenker de nok at det beste er å holde kjeft om saken. Den type desperat aktivisme kan ikke bare avfeies som "ekstremisme" heller. Så det gir en slags mening at jeg kunne få så masse oppmerksomhet mens noe slikt forbigås i stillhet.
Fanaposten oppgir i mail at de også er svært forundret over at BT/BA la lokk på saken.
Forøvrig:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/mark-van-vugt-phd
Tror ikke slike artikler gjør ham mindre krigslysten akkurat. Dette er bare den grove versjonen av all den andre mobbingen han opplever fra presse og politikere.
http://www.bt.no/meninger/debatt/Imaginart-hat-3166496.html#.U9c3W_l_vT8
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/prostitusjon/advarer-mot-aa-fjerne-sexkjoepsloven/a/23263403/
Alt som utvider politiets makt er selvsagt en "suksess" sett med deres øyne. Drittsekkene i politiet bryr seg overhodet ikke om at jobben deres er skadelig og uønsket av alle parter så lenge de får utøve vold mot menn. Her sier de altså rett ut at sexkjøpsloven er en "innfallsport" for voldsmakten, så da spiller det i klartekst ingen rolle for dem at sexkjøp ikke er straffverdig i seg selv. For dem er det helt greit å straffeforfølge menn bare fordi det er bekvemmelig for politiet; så ondskapsfullt er sinnelaget deres -- de er tvers igjennom råtne mennesker.
Og noen mer politisk mannehatende gruppering enn Hordaland-politiet skal du lete lenge etter. Purkefaen selv er et større problem enn loven, og hvis de mister sexkjøpsloven, så kommer de bare til å bruke en annen innfallsport for å forfølge mannlig seksualitet.
Hvorfor forfølger de mannlig seksualitet?
Er det fordi
1) de er sjalu menn som er redde for å miste konen
2) de er misunnelige på menn som har mer draget enn dem?
3) de er feminister/politisk bevisste - altså maktsyke?
4) de er kristne og dermed slaver av stammetekster fra Judea?
5) de får høy status blant feministkvinnene på jobben?
6) de vil distansere seg fra "sex-freaks" slik at de slipper å bli psykologisert og fortalt at det er noe galt med dem siden de er så så sex-fikserte (penisforlenger osv)?
7) de mener at all sex utenom reproduksjon/ekteskap er unaturlig og ikke hensiktsmessig?
8) de mener at menn høye på sex kan skade BNP eller gjøre menn overambisiøse og maktsyke og dermed ødelegge samfunnet som vi kjenner det nå?
Hva tror du?
Det kan nok være litt av hvert, men jeg tror mest på nummer 3, 5 og 6 på den listen. Har ikke inntrykk av at de er spesielt kristne, men feministpropagandaen sluker de rått. Og så nyter de makten det gir dem over andre menn og sikkert anerkjennelsen fra feministkvinnene på jobben også.
se på de helt ufattelig ekle "vanlige" mennene i promoen i begynnelsen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVz_ej7wS98
jeg spyttet på skjermen da den femte eller sjette mannen dukket opp, det gjorde jeg virkelig
Det har vi det fra hestens munn. Det er i stor grad den røde agendaen som er drivkraften. Sosialistisk idealisme, som selvsagt også omfatter feminismen. Og de blå bevilger bare naivt mer penger til kommunistpurken. Ingen vi kan stemme på vil ha mindre av svineriet.
Nok et justismord på trappene. Politiet har tatt ut tiltale uten et fnugg av bevis. KUN basert på denne jentas påstander alene. Det er helt forjævlig at man i dagens samfunn kan ta ut tiltale uten bevis i slike alvorlige saker. Strafferammen ligger på 10 år!
http://www.nrk.no/hordaland/politikar-tiltalt-for-overgrep-1.11869991
Denne lillebroren som det refereres til ble også avhørt av politiet uten verge!
"Politiet har tatt ut tiltale uten et fnugg av bevis. KUN basert på denne jentas påstander alene."
Hvordan vet du dette? Kjenner du sakens forhold?
Har du tiltalen forresten?
Vi vet at det ofte blir tatt ut tiltale på grunnlag av jentens ord alene. Dessuten er jeg grunnleggende uenig i at det er straffverdig å ha frivillig sex med mindreårige, så saken er uansett et godt eksempel må misandri, selv om mannen skulle være skyldig etter tiltalen og samme hvor gode bevisene er.
"Hvordan vet du dette? Kjenner du sakens forhold?"
Ja
"Har du tiltalen forresten?"
Jeg har selvsagt ikke tiltalen. Den ble overlevert av uniformert politi til tiltalte.
Jeg kan ikke se at det fremgår hvorvidt det skal ha vært utført frivillig sex eller ikke i denne saken. Uavhengig av hva Berge mener, er uansett sex med mindreårige forbeholdt noen av lovens strengeste straffer.
At man tar ut tiltale uten bevis er i seg selv bevis på at den politiske korrektheten er kommet så langt at man er villig til å gjøre hva som helst for å få menn dømt i sedelighetssaker.
Da er det oppsiktsvekkende at media fremstiller det som om menn nærmest er gitt "blankofullmakt" til å forgripe seg på kvinner/jenter.
Så hele saken er bygget på jentens forklaring som er backet opp av kameraten som er lillebroren til tiltalte?
"Jeg kan ikke se at det fremgår hvorvidt det skal ha vært utført frivillig sex eller ikke i denne saken."
Jo, det fremgår at det var frivillig. Det står:
"Mannen er tiltalt etter Straffeloven § 195 første ledd første straffealternativ. Strafferamma for seksuell omgang med barn under 14 år er inntil ti års fengsel."
Den paragrafen dreier seg per definisjon om frivillighet, altså offerløs kriminalitet. Ellers ville de brukt voltektsparagrafen.
Bortsett fra at det antakelig ikke var sex (samleie) i dette tilfellet, siden det står "første straffealternativ." Ved samleie er minstestraffen 3 år, og da hadde de nok nevnt det. Slik er paragrafen:
"§ 195. Den som har seksuell omgang med barn under 14 år, straffes med fengsel inntil 10 år. Dersom den seksuelle omgangen var samleie, er straffen fengsel i minst 3 år."
Og med tanke på Straffelovens korrupte utvidede definisjon av "samleie" også (§ 206), så vet vi at det dreier seg om noe vanvittig trivielt i denne saken. Vi vet dermed at disse handlingene er utelukket:
"§ 206. Når bestemmelsene i dette kapittel bruker uttrykket samleie, menes vaginalt og analt samleie. Med samleie likestilles innføring av penis i munn og innføring av gjenstand i skjede eller endetarmsåpning. Ved handlinger som nevnt i § 195 likestilles med samleie også innføring av penis inn i og mellom de store og små kjønnslepper."
FY FAEN!!!! Cliff Richard. Ikke siktet, skjedde for en generasjon siden, og mannen henges ut foran en hel verden mens han nyter en velfortjent ferie i Portugal på sine siste dager. Tidenes mest vellykkede sanger i England. Hva faen er det som skjer?????????
Britene har gått fullstendig av hengslene i pedohysteriet sitt. Nå har altså heksejakten gått så langt at gamle rockestjerner blir jaktet ned og uthengt og forsøkt knust med alle midler, samme hvor mye man elsket dem før, så da kan ingen være trygge lenger.
Vi lever i sinnssyke tider. Rasjonalitet er ekstrem mangelvare.
Hvem blir de neste? Kanskje Beatles eller Rolling Stones?
Alle gamle rockestjerner har sikkert vært borti en mindreårig groupie på et eller annet tidspunkt, så de er alle pedoer etter engelsk standard. Jeg ville rømt landet fortest mulig om jeg var dem, med tanke på at det er millioner av damer som vet hvem de er og utvilsomt fantaserer om hva som kan ha hendt for flere tiår siden nå i lys et fanatisk pedohysteri. Når vi da har et politi som også er fanatisk opptatt av å forfølge slike anklager, så er heksejakten et faktum.
hello eivind I've been meaning to respond to this but I just haven't had the time its me John you know the guy that is constantly repeatedly suspended from Twitter anyway I certainly don't have to read his manifesto I'm living the incel "life" & as you know it truly sucks to make matters even worse now I'm simply just hostile towards women thus ensuring that I will never get any unless of course I pay for it . I'm back on Twitter for now as @pelagic4 but that probably won't last another day or two at most Twitter keep banning me for the reason that they give is "too many replies" its bullshit of course it's pure censorship and apparently once you're banned on there your banned over n over after that infinity
I also agree with you that there's far too much emphasis on this idea of women raping men. men get raped alright but by other men in prisons the Twitter suspension keep on happening regardless of what I do or say or don't say I guess I need to start a blog
I § 195 omtales en lavalder på 14 år. Men er den seksuelle lavalder i Norge ikke 16 år?
Jo, lavalderen er 16, og frivillig sex med personer mellom 14-16 år rammes av § 196.
"§ 196. Den som har seksuell omgang med barn under 16 år, straffes med fengsel inntil 6 år.
Fengsel inntil 15 år kan idømmes dersom
a) handlingen er begått av flere i fellesskap,
b) handlingen er begått på en særlig smertefull eller særlig krenkende måte,
c) den skyldige tidligere har vært straffet etter denne bestemmelsen eller etter § 192 eller § 195, eller
d) fornærmede som følge av handlingen dør eller får betydelig skade på legeme eller helse. Seksuelt overførbar sykdom og allmennfarlig smittsom sykdom, jf. smittevernloven § 1-3 nr. 3 jf. nr. 1, regnes alltid som betydelig skade på legeme eller helse etter denne paragrafen.
Villfarelse om alder utelukker ikke straffeskyld, med mindre ingen uaktsomhet foreligger i så måte.
Straff etter denne bestemmelsen kan falle bort dersom de som har hatt den seksuelle omgangen, er omtrent jevnbyrdige i alder og utvikling."
Når straffeloven av 2005 trer i kraft (eller kanskje før), skrus mannshatet opp ytterligere, slik at frivillig seksuell omgang med barn under 14 år blir definert i den nye § 299 som "voldtekt." Altså har drittsekkene på Stortinget vedtatt en kalkulert løgn for å demonisere menn ytterligere. Slik blir sexlovene da:
http://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-05-20-28/KAPITTEL_2-11#KAPITTEL_2-11
At det bliver "defineret" som voldtægt beviser at det ikke er, ellers ville man ikke være nødt til at "definere" det...
In the "manosphere" there are different movements, and I have a hard time identify you as anything established. Do you consider yourself a MRA, PUA, MGTOW, anti-feminist or maybe a traditionalist?
You have mentioned you dislike the MRA movement because of the sex-nagative attitude they harbor.
You also don't approve of the age of consent in may countries, as well as laws on prostitution. These are issues people withing the MRA or MGTOW communities don't agree on among them self.
I don't see you as a traditionalist either.
I personally think the sex-negative attitude among MRAs is ridiculous while I at the same time will not write off that men can be sexually harassed. I agree that rape, from an evolutionary standpoint, is quite different to women, them being picky when reproducing and end up pregnant for 9 months if it happens.
The age of consent should be 14. Sex with a 12 year old girls should be OK if the guy is only 2,5 years older. Sex with a 13 year old girl should be OK if the guy is only 3 years older.
I also agree that prostitution should be legal.
Maybe you could clarify where you stand with regards to these different movements.
You should also take a look at stardusk, RazorBladeKandy2 and barbar on youtube,
well I must disagree with" anonymous"
comment above that sex is not a human right. I happen to believe it is a right, in fact a birthright American men like me are supposed to do what jack off to internet porn forever? and what are what are we really doing down here on the planet anyway were supposed to make babies.
anyway feminism is making me physically ill now very sick of it very tired of it and I'm tired of fighting feminism on twitter. now I'm getting constantly banned and it's making me increasingly angry being censored all the time. just a very idea that these idiots think they're oppressed in any way shape or form makes me very very angry.
another thing that is infuriating me is the military police and their everyday murder of men in the u.s eivind has commented on this, and it continues to get worse and worse the only answer is to charge the pig shit cops with murder and that doesn't happen nearly often enough a man blatantly obviously murdered on film in New York and now one shot to death in Missouri and of course the victims are always men
Well, this was some drivel. This guy had loads of social problems, not only with relating to women. But you are correct that there is a feminism-infested society.
so now my accounts on Twitter are being suspended right and left repeatedly over and over and over regardless of what I do or don't say.now this bitch in particular have complained that she's received so called death threats from me and of course I have never sent anyone any death threats over the Internet or in any way shape or form but she has Twitter on her side now and I am being suspended minutes after making another account it's pure censorship in this so called free country I live in this is the latest thing for women and/or feminists to scream rape death threats cyberstalking,etc etc in order to silence Mra like myself
anyway back onto the point of this article.
the only problem I have with Rogers is the end result he killed a mere 6 people!?! I'm afraid that is very very lame considering how many automatic weapons are around. I know a lot of people might not believe this but I had the idea for the theater slaughter long before that guy did it in denver. at least he did what you have to do now which is kill yourself rather than go through the nightmare of decades in prison and public humiliation and shame unfortunately of course feminists have you use this to bash
Mras just an awful shame he didn't kill at least one pig cop. I've had several run ins with the cops myself including one instance where some female call the police because I cut her off going through a drive thru yes a drive thru of a fast food restaurant
another incident recently I apparently flustered a woman that I said hello to at a McDonalds and was not so politely asked to
leave
I guess you can tell that I really despise America and living here now. I not only want to leave but I think I must even if its just for my own mental health my own sanity or what's left of it it's like walking on eggshells now you never know who you'll offend and living in fear of the police even though you have to sucks unfortunately due to the spread of feminism all of the globe my options are shrinking
Thank you for this great post! Life is about relationships, I believe human beings were made to have relationships (of different kinds).
This hate in our world can only be conquered and overcome by love that comes from the heart!
@"Elliot Rodger's manifesto is absolutely amazing. It reads like an expertly crafted and professionally edited novel. In fact, it is so well written that it almost makes me suspect the whole thing is a hoax."
You don't have to almost suspect since it was clearly a hoaxed event
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1720&hilit=elliot+rodger&start=15
as were the Norway bombings and shootings
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1022
And what happened to Rodger?
Who knows? Could have easily gone into a witness protection program after his faked death. Could have used an entirely faked identity for the PsyOp and then returned to his real one, etc. What happened or did not to him personally is less important than the fact that what he participated in was a hoax and the propagandistic reasons for this and many other similar hoaxes (Sandy Hook, Boston Legless Marathon, etc.) in terms of psychological triggers installed DEEP into the subconscious of all the billions who believe the hoax prior to examination just because it was reported by the most untrustworthy source in the universe: the mainstream media.
Still the manifesto is interesting to read, regardless of whether or not he really meant it, SOMEBODY did mean it to affect large numbers of people and steer them in a particular direction favorable to the powers-that-be that pull all of these PsyOps.
~ Negentropic
(. . . continued)
People have to learn two things:
1) That they are manipulated mainly through FEAR
2) That IMAGES or VIDEOS and FILM cannot be trusted to be representations of real events PRIOR to authentication, especially if these images have been transmitted to you by the biggest liars and fraudsters in the history of the world: the mass-media
The big fear is that one day we will no longer be able to tell the difference between reality and a 3-D virtual reality digitally created, between an android, a robot or a human being, a "Blade Runner" kind of world. But by that time humans will have to have evolved enough discernment to become specialists in identifying "replicants," or they will be in sad shape. What I want to see is at least 5% of the world's population having as much discernment of reality and fakery and conspiracy knowledge as a Simon Shack or a Henrik Palmgren or a Sofia Smallstorm. Once we have an army that huge, we will be able to lead the rest in revolutionary ways that we cannot predict in the present. And we, hopefully as consistent practitioners of the win-win dialectic as opposed to the win-lose of the parasites, will be able to develop elaborate defenses and martial arts against parasitism that we do not have the resources to develop today. The double-edged sword of the internet is the only tool right now where, for a few hundred dollars, an average peon can gain access to vast amounts of knowledge but also vast amounts of misinformation and disinformation and get possibly spied on day-&-night in the bargain, but it shouldn't be the only one. Our fates should not be beyond our control or else we'll be no different than the "replicants" in Philip K. Dick's story and Ridley Scott's film.
"Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups...So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing." ~ Philip K. Dick
“You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity. At some time, every creature which lives must do so. It is the ultimate shadow, the defeat of creation; this is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life. Everywhere in the universe.” ~ Philip K. Dick
"This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance." ~ Philip K. Dick
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=224648&page=3
~ Negentropic
Post a Comment