When the scumbags in law enforcement try to have you criminally prosecuted and you are acquitted in a court of law despite proudly taking full responsibility for the acts you are accused of, prosecutors end up sending the opposite message than what they intended: Such acts are legal and can be committed with impunity and utter contempt for the police. Indeed, it would be a better deterrent against offensive speech to refrain from prosecuting baseless cases and leave us wondering if we are breaking the law. Now Arslan Ubaydullah Maroof Hussain has been acquitted of inciting terrorism, while arrogantly standing by all his statements. Read the full verdict here (in Norwegian), which also includes the quotes he was on trial for -- a useful template for what we can certainly say legally.
I love court cases where the accused proudly admits to all facts and disdainfully proceeds to attack the law itself or its application, and still wins. It is a glorious situation similar to what happened to me two years ago, and now it has happened again in Norway. Supporting and celebrating terrorist acts is now certified legal. The cops acted in bad faith, much to their embarrassment. Their bluff is called, and the slimeball prosecutors are the object of public derision even among politically correct commentators who normally support fascism. I can declare with increased conviction that I hate the guts of cops and wish them the worst, and Islamists now know for sure that they can celebrate the atrocities of ISIS such as beheadings and the like with legal protection.
While I was accused under the general incitement law which covers all crimes (§140), Hussain was accused of inciting terrorism specifically under §147c, but his statements are very similar to mine (in fact I was surprised at the time that I was never charged under §147c myself, since the spirit of this law is the best match for what men's rights activism means). Both statutes also similarly state that you have to call for action (the crucial word is "iverksettelse"; read the verdict for a good discussion) before the law applies. Merely supporting or celebrating criminal acts is not against the law. Neither Hussain nor I told anyone to actually carry out specific acts of violent activism -- we merely stated that such acts comport with our values and we glorified them in various ways. The cops tried to stretch this too far, as if we can "indirectly" incite terrorism criminally by celebrating it. Prosecutors must have known that their line of reasoning flies in the face of the principle of legality, which basically means that laws can't be applied so vaguely, and now they have egg on their faces. The court has ruled that only your explicit statements count as far as criminal incitement law is concerned, rather than the interpreted spirit of your message, even if it most assuredly is the correct interpretation. So both Hussain and I are confidently within freedom of speech as it legally exists in Norway. I already knew that, of course, but it's good to have it reaffirmed. This verdict makes it perfectly clear that we are free to opine publicly that certain crimes are morally right and even wish and pray for them to come to fruition, which is all we have done.
On a side note, it is a little bit funny that when I was cleared of all criminal charges, pundits were quick to denounce me nearly unanimously based on pure politics and call for more draconian laws (confer Lex Berge) without even giving my supposedly illegal statements due consideration, but now the same pundits support Hussain and call his acquittal an obviously correct decision after evaluating the legal aspects dispassionately (and look at this). Go figure. The media pundits must love Muslims much more than ethnic Norwegians. And perhaps they understand that the Men's Movement, if it gains traction, can be more insidious because we are an enemy emerging from within the feminist state with its hateful sex laws that these manginas will defend at any cost. We don't look like Muslim militants. Which reminds me: Should the Men's Movement support the Islamic war effort as well, at least morally? There is at least one powerful argument in favor: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Insofar as the Muslims can hurt the feminist state, they have my support. But otherwise I have very little in common with Muslims, so I don't know how fruitful any cooperation would be. Choosing between feminism or Islamism looks rather like a pest or cholera situation. What do other MRAs think?
Sunday, October 05, 2014
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The first thing that came to mind is that the Norwegian State Police came across looking like total chumps again. It reminded me of Breivik case, where the Army had to intervene to stop one lone gunman---and Norwegian cops can arrest people for what they say?
WTF??? I think that Norway needs to have a serious discussion about what kinds of dregs they must be recruiting into the police force.
Yes, it is much worse than their handling of Breivik, because Ubaydullah Hussain isn't even an actual terrorist. He is just a regular Muslim voicing his support for Jihad on Facebook. I doubt his statements even violate the Facebook terms of service, yet the Norwegian police wants to have us imprisoned for that kind of speech. Apparently they learned nothing from their embarrassing attempt to prosecute me, and so once again they are humiliated in court.
I tend to think you are right. If these are our only two options, Islam is probably clearly preferable to feminism as the lesser evil. Not my idea of an ideal libertarian society, but nonetheless better than the femifascist state with its war on male sexuality.
I guess we can mostly just sit back and watch them destroy each other at this point.
Should the Men's Movement support the Islamic war effort as well, at least morally?
A couple of points:
Firstly, seeing as ISIS was practically created by the same Western/NATO powers that are trying to destroy it, it is pointless to support ISIS as much as it is pointless to support the NATO soldiers fighting them, because at the end of the day they are both fighting for the same master (NATO/Western Imperialism).
Secondly, as Jack already pointed out, Islam in general considers men to be expendable (hence the presence of male suicide bombers) and worth mutilating (circumcision) so it's pointless to support that aswell, even in a passive or moral sense.
Feminist ideology is so hateful to men, it would have the Islamic prophet locked up as a sex offender if he lived today. I don't think there is any doubt -- however oppressive Islam may be, it doesn't come close to feminism.
All nations consider men to be expendable. Your country will not hesitate to conscript you if they need cannon fodder, while as far as I know, Islamic suicide bombers are volunteers. Male genital mutilation is also freely practiced in our countries, so that is no argument.
And there does not appear to be any hope for men's rights activism as a mass movement anyway. The best we can do is perhaps a few lone wolfs inflicting some scattered damage on feminist society -- unless we are part of an ideology actually capable of proselytizing, which Islam does very well. MRA simply does not fly on its own, for reasons probably having to do with basic human psychology, so as a practical matter we kind of have to pick the closest viable ideology/religion and support it.
Bear in mind, though, that the threat of Islamization is FAR greater in Europe than in the US. I don't think the US has the slightest chance of becoming an Islamic Republic---unlike the UK, where 'Mohammed' is now the most popular name for new-born boys.
My feeling is that groups like ISIS are being used by the Femifascists in the US---which, let's be candid---is the biggest exporter of radical feminism worldwide. I believe that they encourage groups like ISIS so they can ethnically cleanse countries like Syria of it's more moderate elements. Then, they have to move in to put down the 'extremists' and afterwards nation-build with femihag overlords.
If you look closely, this is the same pattern they've been following in all their military adventures since the 1990s.
Good point, Eric. Islam is a minimal threat on American soil at this time. Maybe there is something else men's rights activism could be packaged with in order to make it more compelling to the masses? MRA is a political sex-offender ideology which fails to get support even from most actual convicted sex offenders. It is ironic and sad. We are the voice of reason and tolerance when it comes to sexual morality, yet we get almost no support even from the people who need us the most. I guess we need to team up with a religion of some sort in order to win hearts.
"Teret’s alleged victims also included a 13-year-old who delivered newspapers in her school uniform. One day in 1967, he invited her in and raped her, the jury was told. After that, she visited often for sex"
Hun ble voldtatt, og så kom hun tilbake for å bli voldtatt mer? Kan ikke si jeg blir overrasket over å lese sånne ting lenger.
Eivind Berge holds an irrational hatred towards the UK. This is not a new assumption on his behalf though. If he cared to use some of his reasonable skills, he would have had to acknowledge that US is far worse than UK. They put people away for life there, basically for nothing. By contrast in UK an average life sentence stands on average around 15 years.
Just to give one example of the draconian sex laws "over there", a 17 year old boy sent nude pictures as a response to pictures given to him by his 15 year old girlfriend. As a response police would force him to undergo a degrading photo shoot of his penis, by means of injection, so that he would get an erection. If he did not concur, he would have to plead guilty, and be registered as a sex offender for life, and on top spend 3 years in prison.
The US penal system is one of the worst in the world, and anyone denying this fact is either an idiot or a lier.
I am well aware that the American system has its share of abuses and absurdities, but I still disagree that the USA is worse than the UK when it comes to repression of sexuality. While it is true that Americans tend to be more brainwashed by age of consent than Britons, when you look at the whole picture, there is something profoundly odious about the UK which is unmatched by any other jurisdiction. Anonymity for accusers, for example, is enforced in the UK but struck down as unconstitutional in the US. And the Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 institutes the most extreme definition of rape in the world, which in the USA is only matched by college campuses where it lacks the force of criminal law. The definition of rape under UK law is now so bizarre and hateful to men that it boggles the mind that the scumbags in British jurisprudence can even dream up this shit. Just look at this:
This is beyond hateful. It takes a special kind of monster only found in the UK to come up with a concept of rape so corrupted that it includes "conditional consent," which according to that article can go like this: "So if a woman only consents to sexual intercourse on the condition that they are in a relationship, which the defendant leads her to believe is true but in his mind there is no such relationship on the current law, this could be rape."
And the witch-hunt associated with Jimmy Savile and his old friends would also be impossible in the US due to statutes of limitations, which I think is something like 20 years for rape in most states (only murder had no statute of limitations in the US the last time I checked). Meanwhile in the UK, prosecutors will zealously bring rape charges based on no other evidence than a woman's word about what supposedly happened 50 years ago. These men are judged outside of their historical context in a real-life witch-hunt unfolding before our eyes. Institutionalized hatred of sexuality in Britain is qualitatively different than anything going on in the US, to the point where it is not even internally consistent with any sort of ideology, however deranged. The way the British legal system presents normal sexuality as rape and abuse without even a pretense of rationality or principles of justice is pure insanity; there is no other way to describe it. The entire atmosphere of the place oozes with a sort of psychotic misandry which comes across (and approvingly so) in every article of every British publication with the exception of http://www.spiked-online.com/ and approximately three genuine MRA blogs.
I forgot to mention that freedom of speech is much stronger in the USA than in the UK, where it does not exist at all. I certainly don't condone any kind of law against child pornography, but you have to admit the UK takes this to a whole other level of insanity than the US. In the UK, possessing pictures of women who merely look like they might be underage even though they demonstrably aren't is sufficient to make you a sex criminal, and they will also imprison you for "extreme" porn such as fisting, which is unthinkable in the US.
As to the admittedly absurd story about the 17-year-old boy you mention:
"If he did not concur, he would have to plead guilty, and be registered as a sex offender for life, and on top spend 3 years in prison."
This is not correct. He could of course plead "not guilty" and demand a jury trial, where he would most likely be acquitted. The prosecutors are bluffing and attempting to coerce a plea bargain. This despicable practice is common in America, and sadly, many defendants fall for it and plead guilty to something. But the fact remains that child porn law is far more expansive and hateful in the UK.
The UK is the sort of place where you can be dragged to die in prison when you are 80 for having had an impure thought when you were 17 (as judged by the standards of the far future, of course) -- while the entire nation joins in the chorus of condemning you as a pervert and thinking that's the way justice is served. Man is a wolf to man, indeed, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the UK at the moment.
All of this is very true yet Savile died peacefully at the age of 85 or something after something like 50 years of "abuse".
Sure, every case I read about seems like silly bs that nobody would care about in any sane society but still... Incredible and I'd say morbid fuss was raised after his death. Why didn't somebody do anything about "one of the most profilic sexual offenders in Britain's history" ?
There had been allegations during his lifetime, but they were dismissed and accusers ignored or disbelieved.
Just seems weird. Strange, strange world.
Oh my god
The system serves hatred of sexuality and nothing else. Lucky boys, victimless crime, prosecution can only do harm to all parties. Yet this is precisely what the scumbags in law enforcement want, because that is their nature. I hate their guts so profoundly I don't have words.
Hmmmmm long dark winters can make people a bit weird. Is it really religion that makes people do things? As long as there is no radicalisation, I don't think so much happens.
Nei og nei. Ser at ordføreren i Sund har mistet all tillit til Bergens-politiet i forbindelse med Monika-etterforskningen. Tja, et mord er vel ikke noe særlig å sløse resurser på, all den tiden man jobber for å få dømt blottere, menn som har "befølt" barn eller kvinner, som ligger med kvinner som angrer seg i etterkant, kikker på fy-fy sider på internett, betaler for sex, eller uttrykker seg ufordelaktig mot politiet på blogg. Å hevde noe annet må regnes som ekstremisme, og må bekjempes i sosialdemokratiets navn.
Bergenspolitiet må virkelig være landets mest gjennområtne politikorps, som igjen blir bekreftet med Monika-saken.
Daniel, how do men get radicalized if not through religion? There is an ongoing war on male sexuality, yet hardly any men get sufficiently radicalized to fight back against feminist sex laws. Muslims have less reason to insurrect than men in general (they are not particularly religiously oppressed and they get away with more than most men before they are persecuted by the feminist state as sex offenders) and they are a small minority, yet they manage to carry out some bona fide activism that MRAs can only dream of. Clearly they are doing something right and we should take heed. I am impressed by their attack on Canada today. Muslims are clearly the only group of men with any vitality in the world today, while all other men aid and abet the oppression of their own sexuality (with the exception of a handful MRAs).
"Maybe there is something else men's rights activism could be packaged with in order to make it more compelling to the masses? MRA is a political sex-offender ideology which fails to get support even from most actual convicted sex offenders."
No offence Eivind, but why should they? We only represent one corner of the MRM, and even here most of us have gone on record to denounce porn, virtual sex, and even casual sex as sins of the flesh.
The sex positive aspect of Islam is that it promises 72 virgins in paradise for all the low iq sexually frustrated angry young men who sacrifice themselves in jihad,(conveniently allowing the mullahs and other alpha Arab males to take their pick of the surplus females in their polygamous marriages - the other 'sex positive' aspect of Islam).
You asked whether we should join forces with Islam. Our 'sex positive' men's rights movement already appears to be Islam without the sex positive parts - the 72 virgins in paradise and the polgaymy.
Unfortunately, it does appear that it is the virgins in paradise bit that motivates all these testosterone fuelled young men (even white men) to join Isis.
We could offer the perfect secular alternative to Islam - in 20 years or less, the technology will probably be around for men to be able to download 72 virgins in their bedrooms (sexbots/ultra-realistic 3d printed sex dolls, virtual porn etc). But that doesn't seem to be a popular view around these parts, let alone the wider MRM.
I don't wish to sound harsh because you've made some brilliant points as usual, and raised some important issues, and there's been some great comments here, including Jack's.
As far as sex offenders are concerned, bear in mind that most of them were likely paedocrites up to or including the point when they got arrested for whatever feminist sex law they were breaking. Then in prison they receive forced 'therapy' and 'rehabilitation' courses, and early release, or even release itself, is usually dependent upon them 'accepting their guilt'. They'll probably just come out of prison even more hardened psychopathic self-decieving paedocrites than when they went in.
Another problem is that liberals in general still find it difficult to accept that feminists are illiberal and waging a war on male sexuality. This is why most anti-sex hysteria bloggers and activists refuse to blame feminism.
A further problem could be that those men strongly attracted to teenage girls could simply be, by their very nature, inclined towards mangina pussy worshiping personalities, and hence again be averse to seeing feminists (or any women) as the enemy.
However, there is some hope. I do see more and more liberal anti-sex hysteria writers taking on feminism as the source of the problem - obvious examples include the writers at Spiked Magazine. Even Jonathan King, the ex DJ and 'convicted sex offender', is now attacking feminism (he once banned me from his forum for doing so). Also Ched Evans, the footballer falsely convicted for rape under insane feminist laws, and his supportive family are squarely blaming feminists for his plight.
Finally, the unfortunate fact that European prisons will be overcrowding with sex offenders in the very near future does contain the ironic glimmer of hope that 'sex offenders' might become 'radicalized' and politically active. The thing is, if we want them to be radicalized by us and not by Islamists, we need to offer an alternative to Islam - not an inferior 'secular' copy.
I don't know who in the Men's Rights Movement has denounced casual sex; certainly not me (women may not want it, but they still oppose feminist sex laws if they can be called MRAs). Casual sex is obviously extremely rewarding for men on every level and I have never said anything else. As to pornography, my denunciation only goes so far as recommending against using it. I vehemently oppose any kind of forced censorship or laws against it including the existing insane child porn laws, which alone are reason enough for men to wage war against the state, in my view. I have merely advised against looking at porn -- any kind of porn -- because I recognize that it is unhealthy. Just like I oppose the War on Drugs while at the same time acknowledging that drugs are often harmful. Porn is bad for the male viewer because it detracts from your ability to enjoy real sex, both casual and in relationships. Men who want to be as virile as they can be and have a good sex life and connect with real women should give up porn and masturbation completely for their own good. Indeed, porn is one of the more sinister maladaptive behaviors that men are prone to, because it directly interferes with sexual motivation and performance. Realistic virtual sex would likely be far less harmful (I would not expect realistic sexbots to cause impotence like today's porn does, since real promiscuity has no such adverse effect), but it doesn't seem like a good idea either (still bad for your motivation to pick up real women who could realistically be had), and in any case I don't believe technological progress will continue for much longer. I believe the future of industrial civilization will most likely proceed along the lines sketched out by John Michael Greer in his latest post (and that's probably an optimistic scenario, since collapse could also happen much faster):
Yes, there are also some positive signs for antifeminism. Ched Evans is a very good role model and so is Spiked Magazine. But it is too little, too late. Islam is obviously not ideal, but it is the only substantial threat to the feminist states as long as the current world order persists. When feminist legislators have to worry about getting shot in their parliament, that is some serious display of masculinity, and only Muslims have the vitality to pull it off. We can forget about changing the system through democratic means, because there are simply too many manginas. The best we can do is to inflict damage on society to hasten its demise, or at least cheer on the jihadists who do (those are not mutually exclusive). And I agree there is a glimmer of hope of radicalizing the sex offenders as they fill up the prisons. Whether they become MRAs or jihadists is less important as long as they hurt the feminist state.
The living have a moral and physical duty to defend themselves; and humanity has evolved through heterosexuality.
When a State makes laws to prevent self-defence, and living urges; only to replace them with Feudal obeisance, and Sodomy; then that State is driven by a death cult, and fit for destruction.
Is it not what feminist/women want that we all convert to islam?
Eivind, I will agree with you on that Britain does have a hostile view (probably hypocritical) on sexuality compared to America where there is more freedom to talk and write articles on the topic of sexuality despite insane laws.
Frifinnelse også i ankesaken:
Så nå kan vi være helt sikre på at denne type ytringer er lovlige i Norge og at purkejævelen bare driter seg ut om de prøver seg på å straffeforfølge oss.
Post a Comment