Thursday, March 08, 2018

Guest post by Gally: "Declaration of Existence"

What follows is a guest post by a man who has recently joined the Men's Rights Movement after a run-in with one of the laws we fight to abolish because it constitutes an evil criminalization of male sexuality. His experience also highlights the importance of the emerging alliance between the MRA and MAP communities. We are in this together, because while most men are not primarily attracted to minors, most men are certainly attracted to minors to some extent well under the age of consent, down to and including what is sometimes called hebephilia. And it is just common human decency to oppose bad laws and persecution of pedophiles just for existing. Or should be. 

My name is Gally.

I take this online handle in homage of "the greatest warrior who has ever lived," "Battle Angel Alita" (Yoko von der Rasierklinge), whose story of epic struggles with coming to terms with her past, understanding herself, and accepting what she is and also what she is not, has provided me with more inspiration than any other story I have ever read, real or fictional. It is a great manga, better even than Evangelion in my opinion, and for those interested you can find it here:

As such, I have a few reflections that I would like to share with you. First a disclaimer though: I am a minor-attracted person and most would consider me a pedophile. Although that is technically inaccurate; pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children and I am attracted to pubescent minors, so the more precise term would be "hebephile," but in lieu of distinguishing the term "Minor Attracted Person" (MAP) is recommended.

So, if this upsets or triggers you, you are welcome to not read any further, but I would respectfully request that if you chose to comment, you do so after having read through what I have to say.
I would like to add though, that MAPs basically either think that contact with minors is okay or they don't think contact with minors is okay, and I'm mostly in the latter camp as I have found that personally it's hard for me to hide that I like somebody, and therefore I advice other MAPs to also not get too socially involved with minors that they find themselves having an attraction to, given that it might lead to contact that is too intimate and/or age-inappropriate.

So please consider that people can be and act sensibly and responsibly -- in fact, most people do act responsibly and considerately regardless of sexual orientation, kinks, or mere fantasies, fetishes, or paraphilias.

That aside, in a related issue it has been said that we are what we do, but I would argue that we are also information.

The DNA in all the cells in our body (only ten percent of which are actually human; 90% of "our" cells are bacteria without which we would be unable to digest carbohydrate-based food such as proteins, but only fat and sugar), if unraveled to a string, would reach to Pluto and back. Eleven times. The DNA of all human beings currently alive on our planet Earth could encircle the Milky Way (which is 130,000 light-years in diameter) 20 times over. The combinations of any one pairing of a sperm cell and an egg holds the potential of randomly mixing 43 chromosomes -- one half from the sperm, the other half from the egg -- in two to the power of 43 different ways (2^43).

The number of humans who have ever lived on our planet is thought to be only about 20 billion (counting from the last 10 million years of Homo sapiens thought to be a genetically distinct species), meaning that just by chromosomal pairing alone, only 1/3500-part of what we as a species, what humans are, has ever surfaced from the vast sea of potential humans that can be brought into existence.

The real number may be incalculable, considering that recent research has revealed that our DNA is actually not static, set from birth to death, but changes according to our environment -- and possibly even according to our experiences, influenced by brain chemistry -- our mood, whether we are happy or depressed, at peace or subjected to violence, if we experience freedom or oppression.

What was once thought to be mostly "junk DNA" may not be so after all, but like medical conditions such as heart disease, does not always manifest itself at all times but could be triggered by unknown, hitherto unpredictable and unimaginable combinations of events.

No longitudinal studies have been carried out on this as of yet, but as DNA sequencing becomes exponentially cheaper, we might discover connections between the environment and our evolutionary process that could be as shocking to science as the theory of evolution once was.

To quote a clip from the computer game Alpha Centauri (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Secret Project: The Human Genome Project):
"To map the very stuff of life; to look into the genetic mirror and watch a million generations march past. That, friends, is both our curse and our proudest achievement. For it is in reaching to our beginnings that we begin to learn who we truly are."
Genetic analysis (comparison of actual mutations to known rate of mutation of male and female chromosomes) has already revealed that throughout human history, only half of males have succeeded in reproducing, whilst almost all females have. Which, one could argue, means that evolution -- and thus, progress -- is almost exclusively a male endeavor. Which also explains why males have more variation -- there are more male geniuses than female geniuses, and more males who never find a mating partner (1/3 of all men in Norway) than females who never find a mating partner (1/6 of all females in Norway).

We are information above all, and there is nothing that is more Holy of Holies than Knowledge, for only knowledge can bring understanding, and only understanding can create with intent -- with a goal in mind. Be that evil, to gain power over the weak, or good, to bestow powers upon them.
To quote the science-fiction author Peter Watts:
Evolution has no foresight. Complex machinery develops its own agendas. Brains — cheat. Feedback loops evolve to promote stable heartbeats and then stumble upon the temptation of rhythm and music. The rush evoked by fractal imagery, the algorithms used for habitat selection, metastasize into art. Thrills that once had to be earned in increments of fitness can now be had from pointless introspection. Aesthetics rise unbidden from a trillion dopamine receptors, and the system moves beyond modeling the organism. It begins to model the very process of modeling. It consumes evermore computational resources, bogs itself down with endless recursion and irrelevant simulations. Like the parasitic DNA that accretes in every natural genome, it persists and proliferates and produces nothing but itself. Metaprocesses bloom like cancer, and awaken, and call themselves I.
Our interactions shape others, as theirs in turn also shape us.

Our identities, therefore, are in constant flux, as noted by many religions -- from the Bible's "Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another" to Buddhism's reflections on the transitory nature of man, to the Native American story of the struggle between the "good" wolf and the "bad" wolf that lives inside of our hearts, and how feeding the "good wolf" that is cultivating constructive and positive habits and behavior is recommended if you want him to win the struggle with the "bad wolf."

My point being, behavior is changeable, we are creatures of habit, we can change and we can improve ourselves and the lives of others and even the course of history by our participation in it.

We can learn from our mistakes, and for many this is the primary way of learning -- trying, failing, and improving -- but we cannot learn from mistakes that we are not able to make -- or that we are not allowed to make, as we fear an ever-watching, ominous presence of mass surveillance by people whose only intentions is to punish and harm us.

We can do good towards one another. But only if we understand the difference between good and bad. And we can seek peaceful, ethical solutions to problems that in the past may have seemed almost intractable, impossible to solve. We can think; not just feel. We can understand -- or at least accept -- reality as it is, not just condemn others, and by doing so, through proxy curse our common humanity. We can be generous; not just selfish. We can seek what is best for others, not just what we desire.
And we can have progress. Real, tangible, measurable progress, social growth, care for the weak and the confused and even for those with little self-control or ability to reflect upon consequences.

One of the oldest recorded stories is that of the "Fall from Grace," or as it is also called, the "Original Sin." Woman rebelled against a meaningless command by a dictatorial authority, allied with Man, and in the story it is said that God himself admitted that now they had both "become like God, knowing good and evil" -- by gaining experience-based knowledge of the difference between Good and Evil, through rejection of a meaningless "evil" as the eating of a piece of fruit from a particular tree was.

The price paid was to be cast out, and living a life of hardships and struggles.

A high price, that not many are willing to pay, but instead bend their knee and accept commandments to not think for oneself, but obey unquestioningly, even to meaningless absurdities.

Right now the world is in a dire state.

The level of freedom and independence of the press has never been lower, at the same time as we are manipulated by fake news, politically controlled propaganda, and an almost insane denial of the truth and a blatantly open disregard for empirically provable, reproducible, peer-reviewable scientific facts. Surveillance equipment is exported from western nations to repressive regimes all over the world, and Human Rights that were introduced after the second world war are being gradually rolled back for carefully selected minorities.

The ones whom it is easy to portray as evil.

As sick.

As disgusting.

As dangerous.

As abominations that are inhuman and must be purged, or locked away for as long as possible, as a way to frighten others not to commit similar crimes, rather than be offered any meaningful preventative therapy or harmless outlets.

People like me, whose crime is being different in that I am more attracted to teenagers than to women my own age, and whose rights to the liberal progress that other minorities have enjoyed to the betterment of society in general (such as homosexuals and transgenders), are being denied.

Many who experience such a degree of hatred, kill themselves -- especially young pedophiles, who would rather die than ever risk harming a child.

Others suffer through recurring depression, a feeling of alienation from society, despair and fear, and engage in substance abuse.

And then there are those whom the authorities succeed in convincing that they are evil, not in control of themselves, sick and destined to commit crimes sooner or later, and who chose to do so, fulfilling the only role that society prescribes for them.

They -- we minor-attracted people -- are being used as a spearhead to drive through changes in our societies that makes the rule of law become less based on objective and established principles, but more on subjective abuses of power. The argument being, exceptions must be made to the way the law is practiced, and one must punish harder because the current harsh punishment is clearly not working and therefore, the "logic" goes, it isn't harsh enough, because of course punishment -- in the eyes of those who see punishment as preferable -- is the only thing that helps.

They say that "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and also that "if you truly believe you can compensate for incompetence by increasing your efforts, there is no end to what you cannot do."

In the same vein, "Military Idiocy" is defined as "It didn't work, so we need to do more of it," and "Police Idiocy" isn't much different: "It doesn't work, so we need to continue doing it."

So with their incompetence the only solutions they understand are punitive, violent, cruel and sociopathically sadistic, and as a result they are in the process of causing changes that make governance of the people be more about control under the threat of punishment, than about preventative measures through guidance, acceptance, and inclusiveness. Changes that alienate us from each other, that make us wary of speaking our minds, thinking our independent thoughts and questioning others', and make us fear expressing ourselves in ways that we are uncertain could be used against us at some point in time.

Changes that are even measurable in how far from home children have been allowed to roam, as documented at "Stranger danger" is a divisive tactic that splits local communities, and Divide & Conquer is the oldest strategy in the book. Make people fear their neighbors, and they will never be able to cooperate sufficiently to protest against exploitation.

In addition, surveillance makes everybody who is not rich enough to not have to work or obtain an education and build a career in cooperation with others too concerned with their employer's reputation and angsty about making mistakes, which makes it harder for the 99% of the population who are not born rich to ever learn from their mistakes and understand elementary facts of life such as that we cannot just eat cake if we do not have bread, and thus gain life experiences that makes us compassionate of others, tolerant, forgiving, and wise.

In comparison, the one percent who are born filthy rich can write books like Chicks O'hoi where they describe how they have an entire suitcase full of sex toys and love having their asshole rimmed and how their jaw is almost cramped from sucking dick for so long. The author of that book is anonymous, by the way, but let's just say I have a very strong suspicion I believe I know who she is. And if she is reading this: stylometric analysis revealed that J.K. Rowling was the author of a book she didn't want people to know she wrote, and your entire Instagram-account has been downloaded and I have no problems finding the programs that can do such an analysis.

The ignorance of the rich -- and their self-satisfaction from being "better" than others through having more money -- has always been a great comfort for the state, since if they really understood how others suffered from hardships that they themselves have never experienced, they could have made meaningful change towards and actually contributed to the betterment of society.

For the other 99% who are not as docile and indolent due to being spoilt rotten, surveillance is in effect a way for governments to be dumbing down the people, make them fearful and obedient, and above all: not protest against injustices and abuses of power. Lest our own lives comes under scrutiny, and every word we have ever written is combed through and analyzed, taken out of context or misrepresented, and used against us.

The plan is well underway to turn human beings back from free citizens with rights, to serfs who are under the control of whatever local official is effectively lording his power to define what "law" means and whom it applies to, under his personal jurisdiction.

The police and the military welcome this return to serfdom, as it caters to their psychopathic delusions of grandeur and dreams of powers over even the thoughts and feelings of others.

I recently had the pleasure of attending such a display of police psychopathy, as I was accused of downloading child pornography, what the police wants to define as "documentation of sexual abuse against children," while including cartoons, written stories, and defines "children" to include those over the legal age of consent.

One thing even the police managed to testify truthfully was that the vast, vast majority of the material in my possession involved teenagers posing in the nude. Pictures produced by a professional photo model studio, with the parents' consent, as documented at

In other words, at the very lowest level of what the law considers child pornography, and in my personal opinion very comparable to mere nudism -- which is not now, nor ever can, be made illegal.

Unless, of course, we adopt standards for morals that are applied in countries which have been the most reluctant to adopt human rights, to the point of actively working against their acceptance in their particular region of the world -- where workers are exploited as slaves and people in practice have no rights or protection under the law.

In the Western world, we have enjoyed human rights because we have been needed as workers in industry and production of commercial goods, and our labor and creativity has caused an economic growth of 3-4% annually since public education was instituted in Great Britain in 1876.

This is changing with the coming of the second machine age, where human cognitive labor is gradually being replaced by machines.

We are becoming less needed, and people without jobs are said to "have the Devil's idle hands," as they have time to think about the crimes, incompetence, and illegitimacy of those in power.

And question why we allow them to rule over us in all things, instead of being allowed to make decisions for ourselves.

Why some small group of people decide that our country (Norway) should support a war halfway across the world, why we should be subjected to decisions made by other countries (The EU, which we are not a part of but still subjected to), why our resources should be exploited at our loss (our country's hydropower generation exported at European market price), why we should invest in activities with no certain profitability (opening up of polar-circle oil fields) that contribute to environmental degradation (at least for the fisheries there and in turn the local communities).

It is easy to make people obey other, incompetent people in power, and accept their illegitimate rule.
Just tell them you are the only ones who can protect them from monsters.

Find some "useful Jews" that you can pretend are the monsters.

Pick out the worst of those who commit crimes, and relentlessly proclaim that they are representative of all of them, then crank up the propaganda and claim that you are now finding it to be even worse than what the public has been told in the past.

Describe the hideous crimes of the extremely few in as graphic, gory, and tabloid detail as possible. Do not encourage reflection by mentioning numbers such as how many percent of men are attracted to pubescent teenagers, and yet never do any harm.

Fuel the outrage and ride the waves of the moral panic. When people panic, they lose the ability to carefully think things through in a calm and rational manner.

And people will obey.

Because you will have convinced them that you are their Savior.

While in reality, behind the scenes a surveillance apparatus is being created that will put an end to social growth, destroy the middle class, and end human progress as we have known it.

A totalitarian police state is emerging, ruled by psychopaths and the most infantile, ignorant, incompetent, imbecilic, inept, insular, and spoilt rotten selfish rich people, positioning themselves to return society to a state of aristocracy and serfs, and we are letting it happen because in reality, we don't really care about the rights of others as long as we can have shiny things to play with.

How blind we have become. And how childish.

I am Gally.

I am a panzerkunstler.

I was born on the 6th of March, 2017, as that was when I decided to set my foot upon this battlefield. I did that with the full knowledge and acceptance that nobody voluntarily goes to war, expecting a long, prosperous, or happy life.

I still chose.

It has now been a year; I have met the Enemy, and He has taught me much.

I have risen from a mere "Lehrling" to now just recently, becoming a "Krieger" (

I am now officially at war.

I do not expect my life to be a happy one.

Or long.

But I decided of my own free will, to join this battle, after hearing a story.

You can find it yourself, if you go look for it.

At the time, I used the handle "LytaHall" on

The story was told to me by a retired police investigator, who for twenty years had specialized in cases involving the sexual abuse of children.

He told me of a man who had lured a ten-year-old girl from the neighborhood into his bedroom, where apparently he had made inappropriate advances that had been rejected, and due to the harsh punishments -- this was in the US -- he killed the girl out of desperation that she would tell on him.

I have never in my life experienced anything like what I experienced when I realized what an ABYSS of helplessness and powerlessness I was standing in front. There was nothing I could do, or say, that would change that innocent child's death, the investigator was retired and was only interested in idle conversation, the police are not in themselves drivers for policy or social changes, and if the development of the kind of harsh punishments for such crimes reach Norway, motivated by political posturing and moralistic-based virtue signaling, instead of us looking to nations such as Germany with their successful "Dunkelfeld" program, then that is going to happen in Norway too.

I can change that.

I can read books, I can argue the case for offering free mental health care and harmless outlets before somebody commits a crime, rather than merely waiting for them to do something wrong and then punish them afterwards.

And I am willing to do so.

Even at the cost of my own happiness and health.

Because I wish to do good.

I wish to help make this world a better place, and I am smart and knowledgeable enough to make a difference.

My enemy has taught me much.

I am still learning.

But although I may make mistakes, the true sign of a warrior is not to never suffer defeat, and not to never strike a blow that misses, but to keep on fighting, and to get up again after being defeated.
And to grow stronger.

I am Gally.

I am a panzerkunstler, klasse Krieger.

And I shall now use what I have left of my life to try my very best to prevent the kind of abominable, perverted criminal "justice" system that they have in America (Filling Up Prisons Without Fighting Crime: Mark Kleiman on America's Criminal Justice System), from reaching Norway.

Because looking at the numbers, in the US 13 times more children are killed than in Germany (, and part of that is undoubtedly that "two can keep a secret, if one of them is dead."

To quote parts of the philosophy of panzerkunst:
Panzer Kunst also provides a definite tactical advantage, since it gives its user the ability to analyze an opponent's fighting style and to retaliate accordingly. Therefore, a Künstler will rarely be defeated in a second combat with a given enemy. Künstlers also seem to have been imbued with a sense of fanaticism and willingness to sacrifice themselves if necessary to carry out a mission.
I am Gally.

And I am now (and until my death) at WAR.

Defiance. Because my Conscience does not allow me to stand idly by, as People in Power hurts others for their Personal Careers (Two Steps From Hell - Freedom Fighters).


1 – 200 of 225   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

No, Eivind, we are inmmature adolescents until ours 30s so stops your sick advocacy sex is ok only between consenting adults (the brain is only fully mature at 30)

Eivind Berge said...

New research says the brain is fully developed at 13, at least in terms of the number of functional brain cells:

And anyway, there is no reason to require complete maturity, whatever that means, for this purpose. My view is that it is downright bizarre to claim that anyone older than 13 can't consent to sex.

Anonymous said...

Title: Alt-Righters are Alt-Feminists Since They Support Preferential Treatment
for Women

It’s very simple, really: alt-righters believe that men are supposed to sacrifice
their own lived to “defend” women from whatever outside forces are
considered threatening to them. Whatever their version of patriarchy is, it’s
a gynocentric patriarchy; a patriarchy in service of women, not men.

This “patriarchy in service of women” thing is actually much bigger than
just the alt-right. Tradconism is the other side of the overtly Feminist coin.
An overt Feminist is a Female Supremacist, who believes that women
deserve preferential treatment for being the superior sex. That’s pretty
straightforward. In “contrast,” the alt-righters don’t view their
pedestalization of women in terms of female superiority, but in terms of
“honor,” “obligation,” “heroism,” and various other similar appeals to
distinctly masculine emotions. Obviously it all leads to the same things, in

By the way, let me note that when I call it masculine emotions, I should
specify that it’s more like Anglo-European emotions; in Japan, for instance,
it was the obligation of women to sacrifice themselves for their husbands
(that’s according to Inazo Nitobe, Kakuzo Okakura, and Lafcadio Hearn), and
in Vietnam, even mothers had to sacrifice themselves for their firstborn
sons, according to the US Navy. The notion that female life is worth more
than male life is distinctly European in origin; it’s not universal among all

Anonymous said...

I was watching Fox News during Hurricane Matthew or Hurricane Harvey
(don’t remember which one) and they showed the helicoptered rescue team
— all male, needless to say — picking up a wife, her children, and her dog,
and then at last picking up the husband; it was said that it’s the policy to
always rescue women before men. It now occurs to me that this is the
reality on the ground (or in the sky, if you will) when Tradcons get their
way. It’s just taken for granted that the blood of women is redder than the
blood of men. And again, this notion is far from universal. It doesn’t have to
be this way, at all.

In this way, it’s revealed that the alt-righters, who are essentially Tradcons
with a little bit more “edge,” are in no way radical when it comes to their
conception of male-female relations. They are completely subservient to
their protective instinct. Their protective instinct is dictating a certain
morality to them, and this morality — when stripped of all its romantic
trappings — is revealed to be mere gynocentrism. It appears that they
cannot resist the imperious impulse to die for women. In my view, one of the
central pillars of manospherian or alt-manospherian ideology has to be the
absolute rejection of gynocentric morality, and its replacement with
something else.

It doesn’t mean that no man should ever sacrifice himself for a woman if he
so desires. The issue here has to be individual male authority: if I choose to
sacrifice myself for my wife, I may do so; but if I choose to give up on her life
in order to save my own, likewise I may do so. That’s because women should
be the property of men, and therefore, men and only men should choose,
each regarding his own private property, what value is ought to be attached
to that property. You may value your own property more than yourself, or
value yourself more than your own property; the point is that there is
absolute individual male authority. A non-gynocentric, pro-male kind of
patriarchy means that men own women, and as their owners, have property
rights over them. And because the property is held individually and not
collectively (unless society goes full-Communism), it follows that ownership
of women is by definition individual.

Anonymous said...

The alt-right is collectivist, and it sees men as collectively owned by women,
even if there alt-righters voice some support for a fake patriarchy. Because if
an outside force (meaning, literally, a force outside your own self) can
command you to die, that means that this force owns you. It own your life!
And in this case, although patriarchy is the camouflage, any force that tells
men to collectively die for women is gynocentrism. Under gynocentrism,
even if men technically own women, at the end of the day it’s the other way
around, as women use men for their own purposes at the expense of the
interests of men, meaning that it’s women who own men. That’s the altright
version of “patriarchy.”

Which is why, as I said, it has to be a tenet of our ideology that
gynocentrism, as a collective phenomenon, in incompatible with the kind of
social organization we envision. It simply cannot be that men will have to
die for women, while at the same time this system would be called
“patriarchal.” Patriarchy means that I, alone, will decide if my blood, or the
blood of my wife, is more red. Unless one supports absolute Communism,
there has to be a system of private ownership, so the question of “who owns
whom?” has to have a clear answer. Our answer is this: as a free man —
(we’re not discussing slaves right now) — I own myself, and I own my
family. And that’s that.

And to make it perfectly clear: that doesn’t mean that there can’t be
collectives policies. Obviously, that men should own women as property is
itself a collective policy. But the collective policies must be designed to
advance the interests of the property owners (men), not of the property itself
(women). That, and only that, is genuine non-gynocentric patriarchy.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for posting another Tom Grauer classic for preservation. With our leader gone, I was thinking about who the new leader should be? The best I came up with is that for the time being, the male sexualist movement is led by a triumvirate consisting of The Antifeminist, Holocaust21 and myself. But if anyone wants to put in the effort to be the kind of energetic figurehead that Tom Grauer was, feel free to step forward, and we might endorse you if you are good.

Chinzork said...

Honestly, the whole notion of a "fully developed brain" seems arbitrary to me. There is no solid reasoning regarding when and why a brain should be considered fully developed. Considering what we now know about neuro-plasticity, the notion of a "fully developed brain" is nonsensical.

Personally, I think that a more accurate view is the the mind (in connection with the brain) can acquire (or lose) certain ability. The ability to consent to sex, and I'm talking about actual sexual consent and not the nonsensical "consent" standard that is currently used, is gained extremely early in one's life (and coincides with the awakening of sexual desires).

"The best I came up with is that for the time being, the male sexualist movement is led by a triumvirate consisting of The Antifeminist, Holocaust21 and myself."

I think having a board of individual leaders is better than having a single leader. It strikes a good balance between centralization and decentralization for our purposes.

Anonymous said...

The main question is why making sex should require a developed brain at all, given that even the most brainless creatures on the seabed have been enjoying sex from time immemorial.

Anonymous said...

I think the main problem is that the modern conception of sexual consent is completely nonsensical. It is based on informed consent, which is often used before medical procedures when you sign forms and waivers. However, sexual experience is totally subjective, so informed consent is not a good standard for evaluating it.

What I'm saying is not farfetched when one considers the fact that this thinking is already applied to males. It should simply be applied to females as well.

The fact is that many females like being "raped." The popularity of "romance novels" among females should make this very clear. The question is whether or not females will admit this (most will not).

Anonymous said...

"The main question is why making sex should require a developed brain at all, given that even the most brainless creatures on the seabed have been enjoying sex from time immemorial."

This ties into what I am saying about the modern conception of sexual consent as well. Other animals don't use informed consent to evaluate their sexual acts, so why should humans? I understand that humans are different from other animals in some ways, but I see no good reason why we should have a separate standard for sexual consent.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree, sex is an extremely primitive skill, not some technological intervention that requires special knowledge as is the case with medical procedures. "Informed" consent is almost entirely misplaced in a sexual context. The real issue is asset management. Every girl is sitting on a million bucks, so it is understandable that her family/society doesn't want to squander it. Every society guards the sexual assets of young girls, in one of two ways: either by an "honor" code or a "victim" code. Male sexualism rejects both, but it is a really tall order to get rid of something so fundamental. The best we can realistically hope for is probably a return to honor culture. That would be progress, however, because the current victim culture is the most odious sexual morality ever seen on earth. It is also flagrantly irrational, because minors *can* in fact consent. When laws pretend that all sex under a certain age is rape, it is a *lie*. So you don't just have the draconian consequences of consensual sex found in an honor culture, you have a perversion of reason and science as well. And the collateral damage of targeting women, too, as sexual abusers, since our pseudoscientific victim theories can't distinguish between the sexes. In honor cultures, women can only sexually abuse themselves (by whoring and adultery), because honor culture is honest about the fact that female sexuality is the asset that is being guarded.

Gally said...

I might add to the above comment by Eivind, that the difference in consequences between males and females copulating, is that the male loses a few tens of calories worth of sperm, whilst the female risks losing / investing what amounts to - let's see if we can do the numbers back'O-the-envelope style - 2000 calories a day normal consumption for an adult, roughly divided by 10 for a fetus (pick a better number if you want) for the added calorie cost per day for the duration of a nine month's long pregnancy, which is about (rounding up) 200 days * 200 calories per day, what, some 40000 kalories? That's roughly the equivalent of an entire month's worth of food.

And that's just the start of it, then comes the breastfeeding which comparing with other primates, our weight and developmental progress suggests should - and do, in poorer countries - last for three and a half years.

As such, the expression "Every girl is sitting on a million bucks", is therefore not a mere joke.
In addition, for a woman, a pregnancy carries a real, real heavy burden and a *definite* risk of complications such as vaginal fistulas if the birth canal is too narrow - wich is why the procedure "caesarean section" was invented, as the aristocracy tended to marry the youngest girls in order to secure alliances with other royal families and produce the most offspring so as to secure their lineage against assassinations - which was quite a rutine back in those days.

For these and some other reasons, we can argue that the low percentage of men who are the *real* pedophiles - about one or two percent, clearly shows evolution at work: That which does not generally promote a higher chance of more copies of the genes being passed along, is selected against, BUT - and here's the but, which people tend to forget when they consider whether something is "natural" or "sick": Evolution does not only work linearly. It works by introducing - and *maintaining* VARIATION.

Humans are natural, nature is amoral, and if it works then it doesn't need fixing.
"Mother nature" has no concerns above and beyond a very very simple message: "Shut up and multiply".

Gally said...

Continued: Oh no, I am not quite done yet:

It is up to us as humans to decide what is proper and what is not, and in doing so, considering the risks inherent in, well, everything from crossing the street to fucking.

Recently, here in Norway, they have introduced seatbelts on the busses.
With a cute little warning sign like they have on airplans, that lights up and says *PLING* each time the goddamned fucking bus starts driving from a stop.
And people actually put them on, especially women I have noticed, because they want to be seen as "sensible".
The irony, of course, is that you are allowed to stand in the midway of a bus. Because, you know, sometimes there are not enough seats and we can't have more busses running more often because that would cost money now wouldn't it?

But wear that goddamned fucking seatbelt because it makes you look like a responsible adult and you crave being seen as decent and responsible like it was a goddamned fucking virtue-signaling olympic competition.

I'm sorry for swearing, but recently due to how the media has treated me and the police as well, has been unable to eat solid food, and has developed heart trouble too.

So, the level of idiotic hypocrisy and cruel and unusual punishment that is rutinely doled out in these cases, kind of gets to me, and I had an attempt at an ethical discussion of these matters over at the forum for the university that I just so happen to attend, studying Information Security - and you can imagine which other groups of people also study information security - so if you do not mind I believe I shall take the liberty of sharing a brief clip about the difference between honesty and hypocrisy, and then I believe I shall go got drunk, and should I happen to post whilst drunk and say something silly, then I apologize in advance, but to quote a possible origin for a quote often attributed to Winston Churchill, in one of his rather famous retorts (allegedly
"... a character hostile to Fields says to him “You’re drunk.” His sharp rejoinder is:

Yeah, and you’re crazy, n’ I’ll be sober tomorrow n’ you’ll be crazy for the rest of your life.

So anyway, take it away "Doug Stanhope: Voice of America - ABORTION IS GREEN":

Gally said...

Along the same line, "Why your opinion doesn't matter" is also brilliant:

Gally said...

That "unable to eat solid food, and has developed heart trouble too." was not in reference to me by the way.

But my mother, who has been most wonderfully supportive to the point of being almost told to go fuck off when she has tried to deliver books and other stuff to me when I was - completely unnecessarily I might add - in police custody until THEY got through with MANUALLY looking at enough of the young, sexy teenagers in the nude instead of fucking using the Griffeye Analyze image recognition software that they have had for years and goes directly to the national databases which in turn are directly connected to the fucking INTERPOL's goddamned internationally maintained databases that allows an investigation to summarize the content in literally hours, NOT goddamned fucking four months by four guys sitting there looking at naked fifteen year-old girls each day, everyday, and has the auducity to come to court and claim that they have felt it being a huge strain.

Yeah I bet it has.

In your pants.

You backwards, hypocritical apes.

Anyway, I'm done for now, now to wait for the verdict and then the real fun begins.

Eivind Berge said...

That is hilarious. All they really need is a checksum to know the content if the file is already in a database, but instead the cops took time to look through them manually? I am not surprised, however. The database is for catching people to feed the prisons, not for reducing exposure to this sort of material, and them not doing so shows that they don't really believe there is any need to prevent men from looking at it. Cops just believe they are special and above the law.

Eivind Berge said...

I remember the Daily Antifeminist had a post titled something like "The police eat donuts and look at child porn." Now sadly lost, but literally the truth, like most of his blog not the trolling it looked like at first sight.

Gally said...

"That is hilarious. All they really need is a checksum to know the content if the file is already in a database, but instead the cops took time to look through them manually?"

What's even funnier, is that they argued to begin with that if they had used the program, it would have identified MORE images as being illegal and they wanted to decide for themselves whether it was illegal or not so that they could build their OWN databases and NOT go through the central Norwegian police authority - who no doubt have written guidelines explicitly advising against this, for the very simple reason that from a central point of view it is desirable to follow standards - and then, THEN after they have explicitly and repeatedly ascertained that the material was almost exclusively erotic posing only - and the head IT-guy who was in charge of setting up their PCs so that these troglodyte monkeys could sit there and decide whether this or that image which the program had flagged as "yellow" (meaning semi-legal) or "red" (meaning illlegal) actually was legal or illegal, and didn't bother with any further classification, testified that what he saw them looking at whenever he walked past their offices, was images of fifteen-year-olds - you know, before catching himself and recalling that their agreed-upon claim would be that it was between ten and fourteen-year-olds - after they had went through that process and he had explained in stultifyingly boring detail how Qubes OS works which is completely irrelevant to the court and the judges who wanted an answer to how much material had been accessed - AND he had lied through his teeth and claimed that ALL the material was immediately accessible when I can PROVE that it has all been packed in archives as that was - AND IS - the downloadable format - THEN, they turn on a dime like they have completely forgotten where they are and what they are doing in court and what they have actually said, and go off on a schpiel about "the accused not understanding the harm he has caused" - which apparently all of the parents of these teenagers neither understood as they were offered free legal assistance to sue the photo model bureau and demand compensation, and NONE of them took that offer because hey, modeling pictures are not sexual abuse - and argue for the harshest punishment possible (two and a half years out of the max three permitted under that paragraph 311) PLUSS me bearing the costs of the trial when I am economically destitute and my mother is on disability pension, AND they have sat there for four months, keeping me in jail at the cost of some 4000 NOK per day (divide by seven for US dollars), AND wasted valuable police time (assuming the police actually have better things to do than look at nude teenagers, like researching crime having actual victims)...

Gally said...

Words fail me in describing what I think about this.
I don't know where to begin - with Dunning-Kruger, how they are clearly so pathetically stupid that it is almost pathological, to describing how this is like tip-toe tap-dancing on the very fine line between sociopathy and sadism, and how the cognitive dissonance is so full of irony that it could be strip-mined for a billion years and still be there...

This is some kind of Keter-klasse SCP-objekt right there, some kind of alien artifact which clearly has infected their minds and made them think they are infallible and has surgically cautorized their pre-frontal cortex that deals with higher order reasoning and and evaluation of alternatives, risk-analysis and consequence-estimates and like the brains of functioning mature adults, tries to work out what different possible paths the future can take, as in what do we actually end up with if we are going to have an entire class of people for whom the law as in "justice", the difference between right and wrong, in effect does not apply?

When I read about Project Artemis in the VG, I took a look at the /tech/-part of one of the remaining forums. They had a discussion-thread that had gone on for a little over a hundred pages (about 20 posts per page).
And surprisingly, none of these people actually understood how Task Force Argos had used the forum to hunt people down.
They were all talking about things like "but but they weren't using javascript", some had speculated that maybe fonts could have been poisoned, but not a single one of them realized that the guys at Task Force Argos has access to military listening networks that can do controlled packet fragmentation and measure stocastic time-perturbation and with large enough files - and many enough of them - being downloaded, not a single person on earth can hide from having their IP narrowed down to within a few kilometers.

WITHOUT, that is, a combination of knowledge of how the NSA uses both their abilities as a Global Passive Adversary AND what that means for the fourteen eyes nations AND what a Corruptor-Injector network actually does.
Hint: Its primary purpose is to downgrade your SSL-connection and then hit you with code that uses exploits that only are known to the military because only the military has the equipment to perform the kind of code-fuzzing that reveals weaknesses that are actually beyond Heartbleed, Rowhammer, and the research that group Zero at google does that reveal Meltdown and Spectre.

No wonder they want to put me away.

And now, my lawyer tells me he cannot even accept documentation that shows the police to be lying, but has to ask them "are you sure you are not lying"?

Oh, I am SO looking forward to the retrial.
I succeeded in making them think I was a broken down, alchoholic fool with mental issues, and they shat their pants completely.

This is going to be som "Rory Mercury"-level speech right there, and I fully expect the national papers to be interested in following this up.

For reference:

Gally said...

In fact I doubt they can even prove that they have forensically secured the material according to digital evidence standards, making it arguably inadmissible to be used in court as they cannot guarantee that it has not been tampered with.

Ars Forensica and Testimon are both going to be given ample opportunities to comment on this. THEY, as opposed to these clumsy fools - the South-West Police district has been described as being the least technically competent in the country - THEY, are interested in professionalism, standards, and following proper procedures.

Gally said...

Oh, and just one final thing:
When I walked alone from the Spiterstølen cabin to the Glitterheim cabin, across the highest mountain in all of Scandinavia - Glittertind, 2780 meters tall - and a storm was brewing at my back, and getting closer, I was never afraid.
I had never walked across mountains before, I felt the heat in my body being drained through my shoes, and I had to keep up the pace to stay warm.
But I was never afraid.
Not even when the winds started to pick up.
But I kept going.
Passing bow-hunter's stone-circle after circle, where the hunters used to lay in wait for the caribou, guided to them by scarecrow-like trappings, and I admired our history as a people going back thousands of years, where the Norse spirit has had to deal with hardships, and harsh conditions, I felt closer to what we, us, Norwegians are.
We are vikings, we are fighters, we are not ones that give up easily or crave comfort above all, but who appreciate courage, and honesty, and brotherhood.

And as I reached the summit, the weather cleared, the skies opened, the sun shone and the goddess of the winter and the hunt, Skaði herself smiled on me.

And as I have now lured the enemy into revealing their methods - on the 18th of May they performed a TEMPEST attack in the middle of the city, just to catch my email account being logged into, but they forgot that protonmail is a privacy and security oriented mail provider, and that it can log access attempts with time, and success or failure, and three hours later the police in Oslo logged in after the fourth attempt, so much data from so many computers had the incompetent baboons in the police recorded - as I now know how they operate, and I know how they think, with my cunning hunt I have honored a goddess.

And the gods chose their champions wisely, and they despise blessing fools, because fools make them lose face to the other gods.

Now, Skaði can point to me, and say: "Do you see this man that I smiled upon? He has not disappointed me. Now see what my champion can do, as I bless his Hunt."

(Regardless of whether you are spiritual or religious or atheist, you may think of the gods as either real or just real usefull metaphors, concrete placeholders for abstract concepts if you like)

Regardless, reading about how people in the past used to think about things, and the stories they told one another and that are still remaining it this day, is also interesting, because it hints at how they lived and what they experienced.
So, as is a goddess of the winter and the hunt, she also is i gigantess, who are most often referred to as killers.

Not a goddess of peace, in any sense of docile surrender and acceptance of suppression and injustices, but of conflict, and the resolution of conflict through force, clever hunting, and accurate targeting.

And conflict there most certainly will be.

May the peace that follows the conflict, be better than the war that is necessary to arrive at the peace.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for shining light on police methods. I was wondering how they managed to catch a security expert like you, but I guess no one is safe from the technology they have access to.

Gally said...

Actually no, this was while I was in police custody.

And I manipulated them into that, because I realized part of the reason why they wanted to go through all of my social accounts, was to see if I had adviced anybody on computer security in the sense that could be connected to where to find things and avoid detection.

Had I done that... I would most certainly have been truly fucked. Then the PST - the Norwegian Security Services - would have become involved.

There is one thing that the police do not enjoy, and that is having computer experts advice people on how the law can be broken and how they can get away with it.
Especially if they are actually correct.

Those specific laws have not been imported to Norway as of yet I believe, but they are undoubtedly in the pipeline, as it makes the police's work so much easier - accuse somebody of sharing advice on computer security for illegal purposes, put them in police custody indefinitely, and you can basically avoid having to both investigate or interrogate them because sooner or later they will crack, confess and plead for a lenient sentence, or you will just have contributed to you meaningless reign of random terror as the insane police state you have become and as the thinking of psychopaths go, "if they don't fear you they don't respect you".

Anonymous said...


Eivind Berge said...

That is a logical extension once you accept that information can be criminalized as in child porn law; then advice on hiding that information and avoiding detection and so on is also fair game, and this can be extended as far as it suits the police, obviously along with all sorts of surveillance. It has been obvious to me from the beginning when the child porn law was introduced in the 1990s that we need to nip this slippery slope in the bud and not compromise with the police state AT ALL on this point. This is why I take a 100% principled stance against child porn law. Criminalizing possession and noncommercial sharing is NEVER ok.

Eivind Berge said...


I read his post, but don't entirely agree with The Antifeminist on this. I think it is better to point out, as he does himself too, that most men are in fact MAPs to some degree. There is nothing wrong with us, so why should we worry about the labels? I don't use these words much, but it doesn't bother me that some "aspies" do (and I not sure how many are really aspies either). MAP is a political movement and support group now and the term is sticking.

Gally said...


I happen to like words. Words are, in a sense, what forms the boundaries of our minds, and the extent to which our thoughts can wander, and find form, and be expressed to others so that they clearly understand precisely what you mean.

That doesn't make me an "aspie", that makes me at worst a pedant.

Or, at best, an intellectual with a penchant for lexically correct semantics.

Also, as an aside, the claim that "all men are minor-attracted to some degree" is in my opinion a claim that cannot be used to enlighten the debate.
Nor to make people feel they are on some sort of common ground, because the rejection of pedophilia is not based on reason, but on moralistic thinking.

Perhaps the best book that explains this, is the book "The Righteous Mind", by Jonathan Haidt.

In it, he argues that liberals think only in three terms of morals, and are primarily concerned with harm reduction and asks "well who does it hurt, and should it be illegal if it doesn't hurt anybody"?
Whilst conservatives have three more moral dimensions, and primarily think about "does this kind of thing fit in, in our society, or does it erode our common social moral 'glue'", so to speak.

A liberal, therefore, will think "well if he is just jerking it to pictures of teenagers why the hell should I care, there are enough other assholes out there to hate on", whilst a conservative would think "how does this upset our community and causes internal strife, does it go against established sentiments about what is proper"?

So yeah, if you want to build bridges, start with understanding what material you have to work with - here's a good pointer, to a nice childrens' song, "London Bridge is Falling Down":

The take-away point being: "Iron and steel will bend and bow".

As an aside, the origin of the song is said to be that when the vikings invaded London - King Kanute's (of "you can't stop the tides"-fame) real name is actually Knut, a Norse name used even today, he was most likely Danish - they put hooks on the central bridges in London and tore them down by rowing their boats gently - or, more likely, fiercely like hell - downstream.

In preparation of invasion of the inner city of london, which you might find it interesting to look up CGP Grey's presentation on, on youtube.

But I digress. Being an "aspie" and all. :P

Eivind Berge said...

Under the most inclusive definition of "MAP," someone who thinks it is a dirty word that does not apply to him would have to argue that he is not attracted to 17-year-old girls. That would take some astonishing mental gymnastics if he is a normal heterosexual male, so I don't see how this isn't enlightening the debate. Or at least should in theory.

Gally said...

Well - perhaps "enlightening" was a wrong word.
"Influencing" might be a better choice of words, perhaps.

See, what I fear is that one ends up preaching to the choir, somewhat.

The opposing side is so entrenched, that simply firing shots from our side that may hit here and there, isn't going to change much.
We need to get up from the trenches, have a few drinks with the enemy, and celebrate christmas and peace on earth in the trust that "God" approves.

This is why I think the best we can accomplish, is to first accept that the public believes that MAPs are sick, because if they believe that then that can be used to request treatment rather than punishment.
Than would shift the issue from being something the police can exploit, to something the mental health profession can look at more closely.

And I do believe that what they will find - as Prevention Project Dunkelfeld has - is that most are, like me, harmless.

Which is a start. You can't make people consider acceptance, if they fear and also distrust.

We have to start somewhere, and also another thing: Some changes take generations. Trying to rush them, may actually work against its purpose, because a number of psychological "defense" mechanisms become activated when you are confronted with something that goes against your "Core Beliefs":

I'm in this for the long haul. I have fifteen good, productive years of life left in me, maybe even twenty, and I will learn.

Eivind Berge said...

Have you read this?

I blogged about it before too:

Here is more recent news:

And all of this goes to show that "treatment" can coexist with draconian punishments as just another excuse to lock people up for their sexuality. Indefinitely. So be careful what you wish for, and that Norway hasn't quite reached the level of hysteria of the USA yet.

Chinzork said...

I think we should create terms to label ourselves, but the "phile" terms are all socially stigmatizing in some way. "MAP" is too ambiguous, especially since the definition of "minor" can be changed arbitrarily at any time.

Personally, I prefer referring to ourselves as "extremely virile men with very strong sex drives."

"Thanks for shining light on police methods. I was wondering how they managed to catch a security expert like you, but I guess no one is safe from the technology they have access to."

Keep in mind that numerous people have avoided detection online by police authorities, so it is important not to portray the "authorities" as having more power than they actually have. The technology that they have is powerful but nowhere close to all-knowing.

Gally said...

Well, my apologies for not reading your links right now, but I'm getting a bit tipsy and at the risk of sounding arrogant I think I can guess at what they contain, as it seems to me that you take most of your information from the bad way the US is handling things.

Me, I have the unpublished treatment-manual from the Dunkelfeld project, and I have discussed with many different people, and you are absolutely correct when you state that "treatment" can coexist with draconian punishments as just another excuse to lock people up for their sexuality. Indefinitely."

But the opposite is also possible.
If I please may refer to a part of the story of the "Zenith of Things Tournament", that is a central part of the story of panzerkunst: (you may have to briefly go through a few pages to grasp the arc of the story at that point).

Briefly: "What if".

"What if", something happened, that nobody could call fair?

You are correct in calling for the cooperation of MRAs and MAPs.
And as has recently been revealed, 9 out of 10 who are banned from participating in online debates in the newspapers' comment section, are men over 40.
Who, as my mother quite astutely commented on, "may have understood a few things".
They are not necessarily just "bitter losers".

In time, we can learn.
And "as you with my condemners, so with you my grace shall deal".

I will lend you power ( ).

We will figure out how to put that to good use.

Gally said...

Keep in mind that numerous people have avoided detection online by police authorities, so it is important not to portray the "authorities" as having more power than they actually have. The technology that they have is powerful but nowhere close to all-knowing.

This is true, but as has been documented by Bruce Schneier and confirmed by many others, the NSA has capabilities that are unparalleled.
And they have cooperated with the FBI, in numerous cases, to specifically locate sites on the TOR network, and hunt down people who sexually abuse children.

Right now, Task Force Argos is moving on and targeting all of Asia, chasing those expats (and the natives) who have tried to profit from live-sending of child pornography.

This I know from having read about it, by the way, I stay away from exploitative things to the best of my ability and yes I have succeeded in that to a very significant degree.

What I find, for cases where I have been asked to advice people (non-pedophiles I may add) on Information Security, is that they have trouble integrating that with their normal workflow.

So, my best advice would be: If you have children of your own, or you are in a work-position where you have authority over children, or have relatives whose children you sometimes look after, do not under any circumstances download child pornography of under 13-year-olds.

That puts you smack-dab in the crosshairs of what the INTERPOL has decided to go after.
Find something else, nudism is still legal for example.

I don't fear going back to jail, because actually I met quite a lot of nice people in there, who had experienced so much shit in their lives that they were capable of distinguishing between harmless people and actual, real assholes.

But you may not want to go to jail, being accused - and that leaks out - of downloading child pornography, and if you lie about it - well that's a pretty big gamble to take, because if you lie about one thing, then what else could you be lying about?

The people I met in jail, and that I had the opportunity to talk to, and who got to know me a little, had no problems with me.
To my surprise, I thought they would be bullying me, or threaten me, or what have you, but they were actually quite including up to the point of defending me when some tool accused me of molesting kids which of course was untrue, by quite vocally telling him "You don't accuse somebody of something they haven't done!".

Well, just sharing here people, sorry if I'm being wordy and all.

Warz said...

Here's what I've saved.

Tom Grauer's 3 YouTube videos:
I always grab youtube videos like these the moment I see them, i recommend a program called "youtube-dl" btw, it's a breeze to download videos using that:

Download link:!cg03TLwS!zDtuWtL31tdN9bQxIbHtwO1Dl3fAxSOy6Y2CNpXZS0Y

Dailyantifeminist articles: I just didn't consider the scenario of him, himself, deleting everything just all of sudden like this. So I didn't download anything when the blog was online. But I was playing catch-up and grabbed the google caches, they are only temporarily available for a while. I have compiled a zip with html files of all the articles I saved from google cache aswell as

List of articles:
- “LGBTP” is The Most Disingenuous Meme I’ve Ever Encountered
- “MyPostingCareer” and “_pol_” are Blue Knight Centrals
- Alt-Right Responds With Silence (or Perhaps Glee) to Suicide of Actor Mark Salling from Glee
- As Leader of The Men’s Movement, I Declare That The Definition of The Word “Gentleman” is Now “Rapist”
- Blue Knights are Catladies in Male Form, and Abhor Liberty Just The Same
- Cenk Uygur Used to Know the Score About dem Whores
- Cheer Up, MGTOWs_ Absolute Femicide is Not Implausible if Ancient Astronauts Were Real
- Does Tom Grauer Even Exist?
- Feminists are Low Sex-Drive Catladies
- How to Shift The Overton Window, or_ Why You Must Support The Legalization of Rape, Pedophilia, and Child Prostitutes
- I Hope That There is Child Porn of Me, and That People Jerk Off to It
- I Made a Video of Myself Rambling for Almost Half an Hour
- I Understand Your Psychology and The Shitty Strategy Resulting From It_ 5 Points For Your Consideration
- Let’s Scare Single Mothers by Accusing Men Who Date Them of Being Pedophiles
- Manosphere 1.0 Collapsed Because It Refused to Earnestly Discuss Teenage Sexuality
- My Dream Job is Child Pornographer
- My Traffic Has Gone to The Crappers Ever Since No-Pedo Week Commenced. I’m Calling It Off!
- Napoleon is Being Raped in Hell by Liliths With Flaming Vaginas
- Nesa Jay and Elina Desaine are Fun Women, and You’d Definitely Want Them Living Next Door
- Now That Eivind Berge Declared Me As The Leader of The Men’s Movement, I Will Take My Blog Even More Seriously
- On Motivation and Money
- Poe’s Law_ Blue Knightism Edition
- Puritanism-Feminism’s Inherently Infantilizing Worldview Exemplified by an Article I Was Just Linked to
- Rape Must be Legal, Here’s Why
- Revisiting The Misandric Fixation Series_ Part 1
- Schools are Prisons and Students are Thoughtcriminals
- Teenage Sex is Consensual_ a Mini-Series. Part 1
- The Aesthetic Front of Male Sexualism – Maxfield Parrish
- The Alt-Right’s Response to #MeToo Proves They’ve Gone Off the Rails
- The French Petition is Akin to Trying to Turn a Malignant Tumor Back Into Being a Benign Tumor – It Won’t Work
- The Reason You (White Knight) Oppose “Sexual Harassment” is Your Dysfunctional Survival Instinct
- There was Another Guy Who called Himself “The Daily Antifeminist,” Who wasn’t Me
- What’s Up With The Bronies?
- Why I Created This Blog

Download link:!w8F0hSTQ!y9E8m88sfl8Dr0zS7wisB11VND4delRWJAoOHfFOOCU

Gally said...

Thank you for your efforts, well done.

That said, as these are all eye-catching titles, there is something to be said for HOW one choses to engage in a discourse, when one KNOWS that the opposing party is going to be fighting nail and tooth and claw and fang against you.

Karen Straughan, Norman Finkelstein, Dan Bennet and Richard Dawkins and Dmitry Orlov, and Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry and Slavoj Zizek, all people who have fronted controversial views in front of audiences strongly hostile to their views, engaging up to half a dozen of demagogically skilled opponents at a time, but done so successfully, because their arguments have been calm, neutral, reasonable, and above all their conduct has been beyond any possible distractive rebuke.

Graham's Hierarchy of Argument quickly stepped down if you put things in a way that is merely designed to upset people, if you don't use dialectics (such as Hegelian or Kantian), you WILL lose the debate as people are mostly interested in being entertained, not informed or confronted with disturbing facts, and what ever gold nuggets is contained in your rhetoric, the discourse still goes the way of, shall we just say, the fecund and you WILL lose not just the case by it becoming about YOU and not your arguments, be seen as having lost on points alone by being perceived of behaving provocatively - aka the definition of "trolling" - only, and in turn, no matter how "brave" you think you are (for all of three weeks, whopedi-who that's somebody who can stand up under real pressure for sure), you are in the end merely inviting trouble and in fact just like Andrea Dworkins statements (together with every other vitriolic feminist's statements) is merely used in the aftermath for all time, as evidence of the claim that NAFALT: "Not All Feminists Are Like That" is untrue (, "they are all bigoted men-haters".

So - yeah, I think if you want for your arguments win through, you need to understand that just like a good dish - or a well-dressed person who clearly takes care of his or her looks - the initial presentation is key to helping lower people's resistance to your views, and how you further go about unraveling your train of thought, you have to take the responsibility for helping your reader overcome his or her biases and, in fact, apply a little psychology and not just state your strong opinions in pride of having arrived at conclusions that in your view are so obviously correct that those who cannot see them are deluded.

Gally said...

Yes, they may in fact be deluded, feeble-minded, or just misled because they want to fit in, but telling somebody that they are stupid does not really help them become less stupid, it only makes them stubborn. And resentfull.

I think we should learn a little bit from this, and quite frankly, the difference between christian sects such as the and any church that people feel welcome to set their foot in uninvited, is that whilst both have an internal logic that does not hold up under scrutiny and yet is mostly logically consistent - if it it true that the bible prohibits (male) homosexuality and that it was a crime punishable by death by direct commandment from god alone, then clearly it follows that god has a thing against male homosexuals, but if you want to argue that then your rhethoric does not reach very far if you put it in the form of "God hates fags".
Whilst, just to take an example here, were you to say that "we are all sinners and god loves us and wants us to be helped not to sin and we should ask for his blessing in that and seek his forgiveness when we err", then suddenly your message becomes palatable to even those who have no intention to stop their bum-fucking but who at the same time has an interest in worshipping god.

Just as a point in how the message you convey means that you are a small cult that people shun, or a large church that many people feel welcome to join or at the very least come visit on christmas.

I should really stop here as my point has been made, but just to expand upon that, given where I happen to be coming from, I would rather that pedophiles - and yes, even hebephiles - be viewed as mentally ill, AND offered treatment, because it is a fact that some people do offend and what with the laws being the way they are, that can result in coercion, manipulation, even threats that are traumatic to children, OR at worst even murders.

I have no problem stating my case in no uncertain terms, but at the same time the end goal of any conflict is - or should be - peace and a greater understanding, and our goal as a common humanity should be to Bless Ourselves with our insights and seek commmunity, not to divide us into opposing factions for ever cursed with useless hostility.

Gally said...

As they say in one of the X-Men movies, quoting Abraham Lincoln - who I might add, was an absolute asshole when he was young as documented in the classic book "How to win friends and influence people", and used to spend his time embarrassing the hell out of them until somebody finally got angry enough and challenged him to a duel to the death:

“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” - Abraham Lincoln

And he made REAL change, and succeeded in abolishing slavery.

His predecessors, who tried the same? They had no hope in doing so, because as the Southern states correctly pointed out: "Abolishing slavery would mean ruining us and we would have to secede from the Union of the United States were that to ever be suggested in seriousness and not just merely contemplated and recommended, as we cannot do without their labour".

And there are some real, concrete, and from the point of view of the rulers, "good" reasons why things such as the age of consent are the way they are, in particular why it coincides with the end of public education, whilst ironically you can start working and earn money for your parents at the age of thirteen in Norway (I started at twelve and a half, as we were and still are poor).

It's about control, and it's about focusing on indoctrination in the eductation system and in particular, it is about making people used to thinking in terms of divided groups - the ones who get good grades, and the ones who are fed up and don't give a shit about the meaningless curriculum.

"Kny Thy Enemy" is only the beginning of it, "Before you start a War, you better know what you are fighting FOR" is the continuation, and the final END GAME better be clearly defined or all you in effect really is doing is spending your time on a personal Pet Peeve.

Well to put it in the words of George Carlin: "I don't *have* 'Pet Peeves', I have got MAJOR FUCKING PSYCHOTIC HATREDS".
Which means, *I* am willing to step over my own corpse in the course of this battle, and if it means understanding my enemy enough to get inside of his head, and loving my enemy enough to get inside of his heart, then that is what I shall do because the alternative is certain defeat.

I am Gally, I am a panzerkunstler, and for combat in zero gravity (against armoured opponents having inhuman strength and speed by the way), first the three laws of classical mechanics apply.

Do you remember what they are?

I'll have another beer or two now, and then we can get back to talking battlefield tactics. ;)

Gally said...

Oh, and what I have gone through this last year?
That experience-based knowledge right there is the equivalent of two master's degrees and then three years of working experience.

I read seven thousand seven hundred fucking pages in four months in police custody, putting me in jail means nothing more than having somebody make my dinner for me and wash my clothes while I concentrate on learning.

So excuse my language and my use of youtube-videos, but I am seething and as such "I put my middle finger up":

Which is the title of a brilliant book by Alice Dredger by the way, "Galileos Middle Finger", about how genital variation used to be accepted and then became seen as unnatural and people were genitally mutilated to look "normal", and just recently Malta became the first spearhead nation to forbid that practice, meaning other nations can and will follow and Iceland is now seriously suggesting to make it illegal to genitally mutilate baby boys.

We are smack dab in the middle of a Rights Revolution the likes of which the world has never seen, and we can contribute to that, but only if we say things in a way that makes people want to keep listening.

Gally said...

By "fecund" I meant shit, by the way.
Looks like one of the five / ten books I am allowed to have in my cell, is going to be Merriam-Webster's dictionary.

Which will piss the guards off something fierce, as it is about the biggest book there is. I think it weighs about 25 kilos, they could probably argue that I can't be allowed to have it in my cell on the grounds that I could use it as an assault weapon. lel.

TYO said...

About the Peter Madsen case; Strangely there are no anger against him or men in general visible in media or social media because of that case. This even though this guy is clearly despicable and highly dangerous as he tortured, killed and dismembered a young woman. His sexual interests are sado-masochism - he's a sadist I guess. He had gruesome porn on his phone and computer. He had videos of women being killed, cut, decapitated and hanged, which apparently is available on the Internet. This man is a creep, a despicable creep. And he is clearly dangerous to woman. Even so, there is no outcry against him or men in general. Almost nothing at all. No one suggesting that portrayal of SM-sex, torture-porn, SNUFF-films(real or fake) should be made illegal to possess. Compare this to someone caught after possession of images of naked cute nubile girls between 13-18, they are targeted as the scum of the earth and people wanting draconic punishments for them. It is ridiculous. Same thing when someone has had sex with a willing and participating 15 year old girl and people - including the police and the courts - go totally nuts over it. This double-standard makes me sick. What are your thoughts on the Peter Madsen case, Eivind?

Eivind Berge said...

About the Peter Madsen case, I couldn't have said it better than the above comment. It is entirely illogical that pleasant sexualization of minors is seen as unimaginably worse than the most sadistic torture, including sexually motivated torture of women. Madsen elicits less outcry than a rapist or even a sexual harasser because he used knives instead of his penis or his hands, but that is how the current anti-sex hysteria works. Sex always trumps violence, and sexualizing a child is literally the very worst thing you can do.

Gally wrote:

"I should really stop here as my point has been made, but just to expand upon that, given where I happen to be coming from, I would rather that pedophiles - and yes, even hebephiles - be viewed as mentally ill, AND offered treatment, because it is a fact that some people do offend and what with the laws being the way they are, that can result in coercion, manipulation, even threats that are traumatic to children, OR at worst even murders."

While I understand where you are coming from, I strongly disagree that we should endorse the idea that hebephiles are mentally ill, and thankfully even the majority of the psychiatric community does not agree with this view. Firstly because it is not true that they are sick, obviously, but that's not what you are arguing, so I want to emphasize the risk of harmful psychiatric coercion and confinement. Recall that a favorite "treatment" for sex offenders is castration, chemical for now but it could easily turn physical, and there are other sadistic treatments as well.

If you looked into our minds (and the technology is almost ready to do so), you would find hebephilic thoughts in most of us. The difference is that our primary attraction is to girls after puberty, but they certainly are sexy while pubescent as well. It would be horrible if this perfectly normal desire could be used to pathologize us. I would much, much rather be seen as evil for my hebephilic thoughts than mentally ill. I would rather have a vigilante or the police after me than psychiatry. The former you can defend yourself against, and the latter will only lock you up and not subject you to "treatment," which in this case might well mean castration.

And I do not love my enemy. I believe that we should fight evil with evil.

By the way, when I myself was imprisoned, I was briefly accused (by family members who cooperated with the police) of being mentally ill, and it was the most scary experience of my life. I wrote about it here:

This was not for sexual reasons, but some unspecified and nonexistent diagnosis my family dreamt up to distance themselves from my political views, but it was bad enough, and luckily the psychiatrist declared me sane.

We REALLY do not want to expand the excuses to declare you insane by including hebephilia. Civil commitment in the USA, or preventative detention in Norway would then much more easily be used against sex offenders, which means you may never get out, in addition to other harmful "treatment" and the sheer stigma of being considered insane.

Eivind Berge said...

Another reason to oppose the pathologization of hebephilia is that it conflicts with our fight against the age of consent. It doesn't look good to simultaneously argue that the age of consent should be lowered and that hebephilia is pathological. That would be a pretty horrible way to shoot ourselves in the foot. Now I realize that the laws are one thing, and what happens to offenders accused of breaking the law is another, and Gally is most concerned with the latter for obvious reasons, but my conclusion still stands for all the reasons I've mentioned.

I was very pleasantly surprised when hebephilia failed to be recognized as a mental diagnosis in the DSM-5, which I had expected to happen as it would align with the hysteria outside of psychiatry. But psychiatrists showed some spine for a change and resisted popular madness.

Eivind Berge said...

I think the most important message the MRA movement can send is that the hatred against sexuality is a two-way street. We MRAs (and hopefully MAPs) are seething with political hatred against the establishment. We are not sick, but rational and principled political dissidents, not quite warriors yet, but not because we are peacefully inclined. The last thing we want to do is to portray ourselves as mentally ill, as that would legitimize most of their hatred and destroy most of our arguments and sting.

Gally said...

"The last thing we want to do is to portray ourselves as mentally ill, as that would legitimize most of their hatred and destroy most of our arguments and sting."

On this we are in 100% agreement.
Since we are discussing this openly, I felt had to seek the assessment of the local emergency hospital a few days before my trial, because I feared I might be suffering a psychosis. I had written down my thoughts, as a way for them to be able to make such an assessment, but nope, the answer I got was simply "I can understand that you are clearly angry, but you are coherent and have no mental problems or issues that would make you a danger to yourself or others, and your judgement is not impaired in any way".

But, there have been times when I have gotten so angry that I have had nosebleeds, which is basically when my local physician agreed to prescribe valium so that I could take that when I suffered bouts of anger. Which I don't really use, but it's comforting to know that I can avoid nosebleeds should I need to "take a chill-pill", so to speak.

Now, moving on I feel we are having a constructive discussion here (although I may be phrasing myself a bit whimsically, and the youtube-videos you can all just ignore if you want), so let's see what our differences in opinion may be, in a bit more precision if you don't mind.

"While I understand where you are coming from, I strongly disagree that we should endorse the idea that hebephiles are mentally ill, and thankfully even the majority of the psychiatric community does not agree with this view."
I fully agree - however, "therapy" isn't just for the mentally ill, and there is a difference between psychology and psychiatry in that the latter is looking for a diagnosis and a prescribed (and unfortunately often standardized and involuntary) treatment "regime" if you will.
Whilst the former, psychology, can be as simple as just talking to a neutral and (mostly) objective third party because you don't have any friends who you want to confide one or another thing in.

Also, there are a number of very important difference between the way the US practices psychiatry on offenders, and the way that Germany practices it.
We have some of the same problems as the US here in Norway, and the Number One problem is that licensed health professionals are explicitely COMPELLED by the law, under the threat of losing their license to practice, to report people to the police if they have reason to suspect that a child is under risk of being abused.
Which, of course, means that they would rather be safe than sorry, and which also of course completely erodes the whole patient-therapist trust based relationship and if you talk to a psychologist you have to be carefull about what you say so that no baseless suspicion arises that would risk you being investigated or worse.

In Germany, it is the other way around. Germany, as we recall, experienced the rule of the Stazi, and their response to a surveillance society was to institute very stringent laws for the protection of the privacy of information for their citizens (and amusing also, caused them to become the most nudist-frequent nation because that was their mental reaction to the state's attempt to make them fear having something to hide, defiance in a rather amusing way).
To be specific, in Germany a licensed health professional is explicitely FORBIDDEN by law to reveal patient confidential data. To anybody. Not just at threat of losing their license, but actually being prosecuted.

Gally said...

What happens then?
What happens then, is the reason why the BEDIT treatment manual of theirs isn't published.
What happens then, is that they can treat - through group therapy sessions and also cognitive therapy - the kind of people who (in their own suspicion) need it *the most*.
That is, and you have probably already guessed it: People who are in active sexual relationships with minors or children.
WITHOUT reporting them to the police.

They don't like to talk about it, and don't really admit to it on youtube, but it's right there in the therapy manual, descriptions of people who they have been unable to help and how a therapist has to be prepared to end the treatment if the person is in such a relationship and after some sessions, shows no willingness to want to get out of it.

Another thing is that they send most people who seek their help, away. One of the reports I read said that out of 1800 people who had sought their help over a period, only 80 remained who they thought needed long-term cognitive therapy and follow-ups.
2/3 were just told to go home, after the first few sessions.

So those are two quite different approaches there.

"If you looked into our minds (and the technology is almost ready to do so), you would find hebephilic thoughts in most of us."
I've never found any good numbers for that. The word 'most' isn't very precise, but we can agree that men are attracted to youth. But we are also attracted to proven ability to procreate, that is mature women who have already had kids. Or else one might end up spending some years shoting blanks, it is though that you need about 150 copulations for a pregnancy to occur, on average, and that is in our modern society so the numbers may go either way in our evolutionary past, but access to fatty foods is what triggers puberty in girls, and since the 1877 when the AoC was raised to 16 in Britain (right after the public education was instituted), the age of first menstruation in girls has dropped seven years.
So in our evolutionary past, it's hard to say at what age people first started becoming pregnant, but I agree on the point that men react to secondary sexual characteristics (tits to feed a child and hips to give birth to a baby).

Eivind Berge said...

That sounds good about Germany, but Norway is taking the Stasi path, so that is what we need to consider although we should also fight to have the law changed to be more like Germany. I don't have anything against voluntary therapy for those who find it useful, but psychiatric diagnoses are really ugly things that should definitely not be expanded to cover more of our sexuality.

Gally said...

"Another reason to oppose the pathologization of hebephilia is that it conflicts with our fight against the age of consent. It doesn't look good to simultaneously argue that the age of consent should be lowered and that hebephilia is pathological."

This is where it becomes complicated. Let's first try to agree that those two - age of consent and hebephilia being pathological - are different issues.
Let's take the latter first, and define "pathological: Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive".
Now, let's also wind back a bit, I said I would rather it be VIEWED as mentally ill than criminally ill, and that I stand by because prisons just so happens to do nothing for the rehabilitation of offenders of any kind.
Why? Because the kind of people working there cannot tell the difference between two types of cabbage. And that's a story that is definitely going up on a site at some time, but let's just say the police didn't want to put Anders Behring Breivik in prison rather than in an institution because they wanted to be nice to him.
On the issue of "maladaptive" - attractions and fantasies are not maladaptive, but actions can be considered so. Or, as you may know, DSM-V succeeded in distinguishing between pedophilia as a mental, diagnosible disorder and simply a paraphilia. Which, they kind of had to gloss over and pretend they hadn't said, when the moral panic of "oh noes they are normalizing simply being attracted to somebody and not otherwise having any problems with that", hit them.

So, in short: I would rather a person who had sex with somebody below thirteen - which I share your opinion is a reasonable cut-off for policy-making - be sentenced to mandatory cognitive therapy (without drugs) than be put in prison and suffer the negative consequences from social ostracizion, psycological terrorization, bullying, violence and even poisoning.
THAT does not help them become stable individuals, and may actually cause them to commit crimes once they get out.

Eivind Berge said...

The part of the Antifeminist's criticism of "aspie terms" that I agree with is that these "aspies" think they are too special, and I think you are somewhat falling into that trap here, Gally. Your orientation is not as special as you think. I can't prove what percentage of men have hebephile desires, but my hunch is that it is the vast majority. It doesn't matter that menstruation can happen later under some circumstances, because ovulation is concealed in adult women as well, so that is not how men get attracted. We react to secondary sexual characteristics, as you admit, even if these appear quite young. I am also not buying that mothers are more attractive than girls who are showing signs of sexual maturity but have not been pregnant yet, because that is not supported by anthropological data. I know it is true for chimpanzees, but that is more plausible because they don't even have menopause, so their males are far more attracted to mature females in general.

Gally said...

"And I do not love my enemy. I believe that we should fight evil with evil.

By the way, when I myself was imprisoned, I was briefly accused (by family members who cooperated with the police) of being mentally ill, and it was the most scary experience of my life. I wrote about it here:"

I'm going to go through your site and read more about your experiences at some point in time, right now I'm satisfied with my impression of you as an upstanding and highly intelligent person with your integrity and ethics intact.

Me, I love my enemies because they teach me things I could never teach myself.
Life is a journey, and the highest order of intelligence you could possibly argue for, is turning a curse into a blessing.
In order to be able to do that, you need to understand suffering on a level that is personal.
Constant irritation creates pearls; enormous pressure and heat, diamonds.

And my enemy has honored me, by giving me the cell in Norway that holds the record for illegal police custody, four years - I was there for four months.
That's real respect, when they try to break you by showing you special attention and even tells the inmates what you are in for, prints out the accusations of the police and handes them out, and makes psychopaths threathen both me and my mother with stabbings and being burned alive.

I don't believe in Evil. I believe in Agape, the greek form of love based on principles. That said, referring back to my statements about Skadi: There are more than one way to fight, and while violence is certainly one of them, it tends to not make people sympathetic to your cause.
For that reason alone I would advice against using it.

Besides, it's much more satisfying crushing an enemy with your intellect than with your fists.

Eivind Berge said...

I know the DSM used to get pedophilia right too and obviously disagree with their backtracking. It is dishonest to claim a condition is pathological unless it is maladaptive (because then mental health services are just sham cover for social control), so a happy pedophile cannot be sick. But at least they didn't degenerate further into defining hebephilia as sick, and we should keep it that way.

I shudder at the thought of sentencing anybody to treatment for any reason. As a voluntary option, it may be acceptable, but I strongly believe that anybody convicted of a crime should always have the option of prison. Even if eligible to be found not guilty by reason of insanity (which I agree with in some cases), you should always have the option of claiming legal responsibility if you want it, and thus get a regular sentence. This is what Breivik had to fight for, and he had his way but only because the court didn't heed the first psychiatric evaluation. I sympathize very much with his desire to be in prison rather than "treatment," and oppose anything that will make it harder to be found criminally sane. Calling us insane is also a way to discredit us politically, so it is very, very bad for a political activist to be defined as insane rather than a responsible terrorist. It should be a human right, in my opinion, to be able to opt for criminal sanity in all cases.

Gally said...

Note from 2018-03-10 18:10:37.701

"The part of the Antifeminist's criticism of "aspie terms" that I agree with is that these "aspies" think they are too special, and I think you are somewhat falling into that trap here, Gally. Your orientation is not as special as you think. I can't prove what percentage of men have hebephile desires, but my hunch is that it is the vast majority."

Well, hunches are not really precise science. I know, it's a cheap shot but let's exchange a few blows just for sports. ;)
The numbers are all over the place.
And you may actually be correct, for western nations where sex with minors is not the norm, studies still show that up to about half of adult men find teenage girls sexually attractive.
And in what one usually call "primitive" societies such as the Yanomami-people of the Amazonas jungle, they hardly menstruate at all because from the moment of menarche they are considered marriage "material" and become impregnated by their assigned husband.
None of them would ever understand what you meant by a "pedophile" if you explained it to them in excrutiating detail; their point of view is that if nature says "good to go" then they don't really have any signs showing speed-limits in the jungle.
I'm sorry for using such poor allegories, but I've been under some strain lately. At least my mother could eat a full meal today, which is an improvement.

"It doesn't matter that menstruation can happen later under some circumstances, because ovulation is concealed in adult women as well, so that is not how men get attracted."
My thinking goes that we may both be right, because as they say about programming in the language Perl: "Tim Toady".
Meaning: "There is more than one way to do it".
For example, the more baby boys a woman has, the higher the chance means that the next baby boy will be homosexual.
Which means that the longer back in time you go, as women had more children, the gayer it gets.

Why? Well we don't know, but if you are gay you don't necessarily reproduce yourself so the resources you can amass can be shared with your siblings and so that could confer an evolutionary advantage to people sharing "your" genes, or more specifically: The genes of the children of those who succeeded in giving birth to you.

For your general information I am special in a number of ways, as in having untreated Reactive Attachment Disorder, Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response, and a Galileian Mindset.
But, I don't think that my sexuality matters very much, it's just that we happen to be talking about these matters and so it inevitably becomes a prominent issue.
That said, humans are in a state of flux and development, and a primary sexual attraction to minors that could arguably have been caused by social maladoptation at some stage of development, might change to simply considering them cute and pretty and otherwise going about your day having intercourse with a partner on your level of development.

There are no longitudinal studies on this, just a political desire to condemn.

Eivind Berge said...

"Me, I love my enemies because they teach me things I could never teach myself."

I partly agree with this. If you read my account of the psychiatric evaluation, it taught me never to speak to my family again because they are on the police side, and in fact worse than the police because the cops wouldn't have thought of insanity on their own. I didn't know in advance that my family would betray me, but am thankful to the police for uncovering that fact so I could remove that risk factor from my life. My family are fully aligned with the feminist police state and all their hateful sex laws, so my experience was the diametrical opposite of yours in that respect. Indeed, my family were the first to betray me and cooperate fully with the police while the rest of society and media didn't much care for the police overreaction.

Gally said...

"I didn't know in advance that my family would betray me, but am thankful to the police for uncovering that fact so I could remove that risk factor from my life."

That, I am very sorry to hear.
I have had the good fortune of a mother who, as she has become older and more mature, has become very, very sensible indeed.

Without her support, I would be far worse off.

Anyways, as they say, "you have my sword".

I actually do have a sword, the original version of Arya Stark's "Needle":
She ended up using a more rapier-like one in the TV-shows though, maybe it was just a bit too heavy for her?
Anyway, anybody crossing my door-step with ill intentions, runs the risk of meeting considerable resistance. In fact, I think it could even go through a stab-proof vest, because most of those are cheapish and meant to protect against knives with a mostly round point, and a sword with a real sharp point can be used with some five times more force.

Calculate the pascals of pressure and you quickly end up with "this is not a guy to mess with".

Oh and they say you should never talk about your security setup in detail, but that's just the first level of defense, the welcoming part of it all if you like.

Also, I have some ability to make digital "shields", so at some point that may be something that might be interesting to discuss, given that people with controversial views may need better digital security than others.

Actually I have been asked to help harden up VirPed, but I'm not sure I have the time ATM and... well. I think they should lay a better foundament before I involve myself.

Gally said...


I just read through Eivind's account of his experiences, and reflections upon the current state of things, at

Reading this, and having shared similar experiences - and injustices - I have no problem calling you @Eivind a Brother in Arms.

There will always be some disagreements, but those are seeds for further growth, and may come from different experiences and walks of life.

At this point in time, I need to find a lawyer who wants to dedicate his career to ensuring that minor-attracted people are not just steam-rolled over.

There are currently around 80 people locked up, as they have been, for one and a half years, scattered and kept in isolation under the torturous way that meaningless incarceration is carried out in Norway.

I can help.

But I need a lawyer who understands that going down that path, is a career-choice.
And will of course carry at least a temporary stigma, until we can sort out the difference between crimes and their severity in breaking the law, and the police's illegal abuse of power.

I am a panzerkunstler.
First law of Newton: "An object moving, will continue in a straight line".
Panzerkunst response: Apply a vector that changes that line.

Second law: Force is equal to mass times acceleration.
Panzerkunst response: Apply force quickly (and decisively) if the mass of your opponent is huge.

Third law: Action equals Reaction
Panzerkunst response: Consider how you can recuperate after facing and engaging with a "huge and armored" enemy.

Because the war is not decided simply by one battle.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, Gally. I agree our differences are not so significant. I wish we could help those people in remand custody. Do you mean 80 just for child porn?

Norway has a bizarre system where for a lot of crimes you basically serve the time ahead of the trial, which is more like an afterthought. This works to promote police convenience above all (so they can investigate at their leisure and extort confessions and so on) and allows the police to mete out punishments before any real trial pretty much as they see fit. Apparently the idea is that if you are found not guilty you can just get compensation for the time served (as I did), but in many cases the damage done does not really compare to the compensation. The worst part is the widespread use of isolation, which is easily torture.

Gally said...

"I wish we could help those people in remand custody. Do you mean 80 just for child porn?"

My bad, to be specific this is referring to the number of people currently being locked up in police custody and who have undoubtably suffered social isolation for 1.5 years in the so-called "Dark Room"-cases where originally the FBI manipulated a judge to give them permission to unleash a 'sploit that came from a former TOR-developer, and which was ILLEGAL for the police in Norway to use at the time.

This, means that there is a potential for a pretty huge collective case being made.

And there are nobody in Norway who happens to have my technical insight in combination with, shall we just say, "other things of import and hopefully interest to the courts"?

It is obviously clear that there are real problems with my case: One the one hand they have decided to run independently, on the other hand the hammer has already come down upon them from up high to try and gamble for a high punishment, and to be honest I think there are some inbred retards sitting around thinking they are demi-gods because the lies they have presented - in testimony under oath at court - are not possible sustainable.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me Gally, but there is nothing that is really - in actuality - illegal for the police to use as evidence in Norway. USA and possibly other places have strict rules about what can and cant be used as evidence, but in Norway There are of course laws that regulate what the police cant do during investigation, but that does not mean it cant be used in court if the law is breached like f.ex. USA. In Norway the police and prosecution can do pretty much anything and not get punished for it, and use the relevant info they've gotten against who they choose.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, you know it's much easier to get a conviction from say a jury when the defendant has already been imprisoned, and it's all a psychological tactic by the police/prosecution to get a conviction. There is seldom any real justification for the pre-trial imprisonment, but they all pretend there is. A defendant who has already been imprisoned will also seem more dangerous on a jury member. And the prosecution will use tricks like this all the time when possible.

Ministry of Virtuous Hebephilia said...

ROYAL DECREE OF HIS MAJESTY GALLY THE FIRST: Hebephiles are requested to go to their Mental Education Center and declare themselves mentally ill and maladaptive. They will be mentally and adaptative readjusted for the glory of Our Lord Gally. Have a nice day.

ANTI-HEBESEX JUNIOR LEAGUE SPONSORED ANNOUNCEMENT: We reminded to Proles and members of the Outer Party that MRAs are our allies. MAPs is at war with Feminists, we have always been at war with Feminists.

NEWS: Tomorrow our Dear Leader will meet with Norway's Supreme Head of State, Eivind Berge and the Dukes of Great Britain holocaust21 and theantifeminist, to discuss the fall of last King of Israel Tom Grauer I. In another order of things our Lord Gally has decreed that sex with a person under the age of 13 is "highly illegal" because his supreme eminence has so decided in all his wisdom.

HI I'M YOUR WINDOWS HELPER: His Majesty Dear Leader Gally I, King and subjugator of the pedophiles, hebephiles and ephebophiles, Grand Cross of the Alita Order would like to declare something else to the masses of ignorant peasants?

World Domination or Watching Anime Today Sir?



Eivind Berge said...

LMAO! Definitely the funniest ever comment on my blog :)

And yes, it's sadly true that Norwegian cops can pretty much get away with presenting anything in court. On the other hand, it luckily works the other way too, since the defendant can also enter anything he wishes, unlike in the USA. But now that feminists have managed to abolish the jury as of January 1st this year, this is largely a moot point since Norway doesn't actually have a justice system anymore, just rule of professional judges. Well, lay judges are still nominally the majority, but they can't nullify since they have to justify their verdicts and thus get overruled by the professional judges if they go against the law. All of this explicitly for the sake of boosting convictions in rape trials and bring verdicts into line with feminist rape law reforms, but it applies to all cases and prevents Norwegians from getting a fair trial by definition.

Chinzork said...

Another thing to keep in mind is that Norway does not have the sort of extremely corrupt prison-industrial complex that America has. This is one of the big reasons why America has the highest proportion of its citizens in prison despite being "the land of the free." The below posts offer good explanations.

Chinzork said...

Also, America has a large number of legal vultures who make obscene profits from divorces.

Gally said...

Yes well...
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win" - Mohandas Ghandi

So let's take a few of the counter-arguments and ridicule and see what we are working with here.

"Excuse me Gally, but there is nothing that is really - in actuality - illegal for the police to use as evidence in Norway."
I personally have been told of several cases, by lawyers, where the police had to give up the case or backtrack on it, due to having used illegal methods to obtain evidence or it being unrelated to the original case being investigated.
One example, a guy was suspected of harassing girls online and they forced him to unlock his phone by physically holding him down and pushing his finger on the unlock-part of the screen. The case was dismissed because at the time that was illegal for the police to do.
Second example, a girl accused a guy of rape, and on going through her phone the police found evidence of her smoking cannabis and fined her for that whilst dismissing her rape accusations. They were forced to backtrack on the fine part of it.

"There are of course laws that regulate what the police cant do during investigation, but that does not mean it cant be used in court if the law is breached like f.ex. USA."
That claim makes no sense, and maybe you should add the common disclaimer "I Am Not A Lawyer", IANAL because clearly you don't know what you are talking about.
The police in Norway probably routinely break or "stretch" the law, and don't want people to know which methods they use (such as investigating two degrees of separation, meaning the connections of suspecs and their friends too) and routinely surveillancing their mobile phones and internet connections etc., but when they actually go to the step of securing evidence that can be presented to the court, they go through a process that involves established legal methods having accepted precedence - they even have a phrase-name for this, "using a 'white' entreance", to hide their shadowy and gray-scale (or just plain black, illegal) legality methods.

In the US, this and related methods is most commonly called "constructing a parallell investigation".
Meaning, explaining away what your capabilities are, so that people cannot become informed to take steps against them.
Case in point, Task Force Argos claimed to recognize the stomach and then the penis of a guy who had aboused young prostitutes in Asia, just by routinely looking at completely unrelated pictures because obviously the police have nothing better to do with their time than look at people's innocous holiday pictures in the hope of recognizing penises... whilst in reality every camera has built in defects in their CCD-chips that means each picture taken can be compared with other known pictures. AND every goddamned fucking picture ever taken and posted on the internet is being scanned and fingerprinted and compared. They even show this in one of the promotional videos for the software that helps police investigate cases.
Here's the reference to that discussion:

And people buy those kind of explanations because by and large, people are computer illiterate.
Me, I got lay-judges carefully picked out for my specific case from the child-protection services and youth-therapy, who gave off the air of not just being the usual "OMG lets lock everybody up I am so excited I finally get to judge somebody"-infantilism, but also the "I'm so stupid I can't even understand my own questions far less the answer I just received".
It's all to trigger a consensus cascade for the verdict and thus give it a fake air of legitimacy by posturing "AND THE SENTENCE WAS UNANIMOUS".
Yes of course it will be when you have one judge and two retards playing judges because they want to convict people and enjoy a sense of power and righteousness.

Gally said...

Moving on, we don't have juries anymore in Norway, for the reason that we came to the conclusion that they are all retarded and that's what's going to happen to the lay judge arrangement too. In time.

"ROYAL DECREE OF HIS MAJESTY GALLY THE FIRST: Hebephiles are requested to go to their Mental Education Center and declare themselves mentally ill and maladaptive. They will be mentally and adaptative readjusted for the glory of Our Lord Gally. Have a nice day."

See this is what I am talking about. Finally some ridicule, from being ignored, looks like as Sechs against Zekka ( ), I'm finally getting some respect.

Now, just as they say if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns, in societies where having sexual relations to minors isn't "normal", it follows that a number of people who do, therefore aren't "normal".
AND, to repeat myself, because of harsh punishments, WILL treat that relationship as a danger to themselves and therefore find themselves forced to make sure it isn't revealed. Which in and of itself can be argued to lead to behaviour towards their partner that is less than considerate, even downright unhealthy for their development. Again, threats, coercion, manipulation, none of which are good.
And some people have actually realized that, and come to the conclusion that their having had sex under such conditions had caused harm, and that the underage sexual partner needed help, but the only alternative to make sure she got the help she needed, was for them to turn themselves in to the police.
And some have actually chosen to do that. Which as you can imagine, takes real balls. Not everybody have those huge clonking cajunas though, and in a perfect world I think people should be helped rather than punished.
I have no problems though with those who have sex with young sluts who afterwards happen to construct an alternate reality up in their heads where they balance the cognitive dissonance of their consent and even personal initiative at the time, with how "in reality" the men should not have had sex with them because because because NOW ten years later they regret it:

So let's agree to disagree on SPECIFIC clarifications of exactly what our disagreements are about.

"MAPs is at war with Feminists, we have always been at war with Feminists."
Feminists tend to be confused. In the so-called "fourth wave", they are trying to get back to having a "legitimate primacy", a real reason for existing, if you like, whilst in most affluent western nations they have reduced themselves down to a special interest group mostly consisting of middle-class white women who wants a shorter work-day and the same pay for completely different disciplines as long as the education takes the same time.
All of my female friends, both those younger and older than me, have been quite clear on either outright despising feminism or finding it completely irrelevant in Norway.

Moving on, because my sleep-pattern is erratic these days and I don't really have better things to do with my time than wait for the verdict so that I can report the police to the... um... police, for lying in court, amongst other things.

Gally said...

"In another order of things our Lord Gally has decreed that sex with a person under the age of 13 is "highly illegal" because his supreme eminence has so decided in all his wisdom."
Yeah well, see count the numbers of the ages in english (eleven, twelve, thirTEEN...) and you will find that a teen is defined from the age of 13, which used to be the limit of acceptable sexual contact in Europe for 650 years, so there is historical basis there and also the HPV-vaccine is given to twelve-year old girls here in Norway because it is twice as effective if it is administered before they become sexually active.
So at some point you have to draw a line in the sand, and pick which arguments you are actually going to use because if you don't take into account that about 99% of the population is going to dismiss an argument that begins with "I don't think there should be an age of consent at all...", then you are intentionally setting yourself up to fail epically and that seems like a strange thing to do, to me.

On a more interesting reflection, most of "child pornography" produced today is minors sexting and camming, which, from the point of view of "some changes happen so slowly you don't notice them, other changes happen so quickly they don't notice YOU", you might want to consider picking your battles. It could be that, in effect, change will happen by itself and nobody needs to argue for anything in relation to "child pornography", really.
Already the INTERPOL is quite specific in that they don't give a shit going after people downloading child pornography of those, it's just something they are obliged to do if they should happen to come across it.
But they are aware of at least 13000 people in Norway who download child pornography and they don't really do anything about it, currently. Of course that could change, but with the number of people currently imprisoned for the Dark Room-cases, it is becoming more and more probable that there will be real legal interest in looking closer at the legality of the police's methods, and also what punishments and treatment these people are actually subjected to.

This also just so happens to be where your Majesty King Gally comes into play, as I did an interview with the NRK in all the best faith and got basically portrayed as a perverted wanker, which naturally, means not only that I will pursue that legally, but also that it will draw some attention what I ACTUALLY had to say during those three and a half hours of interview which they boiled down to three minuttes to portray me in the worst possible light.

The King may be mad, but it's a good kind of mad because there is a plan to the madness.

"HI I'M YOUR WINDOWS HELPER: His Majesty Dear Leader Gally I, King and subjugator of the pedophiles, hebephiles and ephebophiles, Grand Cross of the Alita Order would like to declare something else to the masses of ignorant peasants?"

Yah. Go get Qubes OS 4.0 RC 5.
Because hey, when the head security guy of Amnesty International - who operates under repressive regimes to ensure human rights are monitored and preferrably upheld, tweets this:
When I use Qubes I feel like a god. Software thinks that it's in control, that it can do what it wants? It can't. I'm in control.

Then maybe it is worth looking into. Fuck windows BTW, if you want to spend a week hardening that untill it becomes half-way secure and usable and not the teletubby surveillance os that it is, be my guest:

Also I should get my own blog, but it's in the works so bare with me.

Eivind Berge said...

"Moving on, we don't have juries anymore in Norway, for the reason that we came to the conclusion that they are all retarded and that's what's going to happen to the lay judge arrangement too. In time."

Those "retarded" laymen were the only ones standing between us and tyranny. I would much rather be judged by regular people, who manage to nullify odious laws once in a while, than professional feminists who reliably uphold the hateful laws. For example, if I happened to be serving on a jury, I would vote to acquit in all child porn cases as a matter of principle, no matter what the law says. Having no juries ensures that this won't happen. The laymen left in Norway now are just for show. The jury we had was also a false security since the professional judges could set aside their not-guilty verdicts, but it was better than nothing.

Gally said...

@Eivind: "Those "retarded" laymen were the only ones standing between us and tyranny. I would much rather be judged by regular people, who manage to nullify odious laws once in a while,"

Do you have an example? Genuinely interested here, have lay judges ever done anything good? Or are they just a way for the state to pretend to have a sliver of legitimacy, like a firing squad where nobody knows whose rifle holds the bullets or the blanks, but they are all in it together because executing people is such a great solution and if they all participate then they all agree that it was a consensus-based decision and nobody actually experiences any kind of post-traumatic stress from realizing that they singularly killed somebody with their bare hands and they don't even know why they did it.

In a related story, there was this one judge in Oslo who had sentenced quite a number of men to prison for having had incestual intercourse with their underage daughters, only it turned out that the only basis for reaching that verdict, was two "expert" medical witnesses who had some quite, shall we just say, "personal" opinions on what a young girl's hymen should look like?

He spent most of his pensioneer years trying to right those wrongs by bringing the cases back again, after it had been revealed that those "experts" had no medical basis for their claims as testified to the court.

And I don't really see how lay judges in these kind of cases can help but just add to the moral outrage of the case.
For the child-protection judge, the only thing she was interested in, was hearing how the prosecution claimed material showing a two-year-old had been found in my possession.

And psychologically speaking, I believe that if you were to construct a poll showing their motivations for becoming lay judges, you would find that most of them believe in incarceration - and harsh punishments - as a good preventative measure, not community service, rehabilitation, forced mental treatment or any other alternatives.

In my view they are idiots with hammers, looking for the nails only.

Eivind Berge said...

I am talking about the real juries that just to acquit in a lot of rape appeal cases, which is what triggered their removal. We shall see if the conviction rate goes up now that the professionals have more power, and I think it will because the juries were preserving a more reasonable concept of rape against the corrupted legal definition.

I don't have a high opinion of the lay judges in the district courts, which is obviously a sham since they are not selected at random and keep serving for some time. So there I have no examples, but in theory they can still do a little bit of good sometimes.

Gally said...

Yes, well I remember reading that jurors, when we had those, were instructed to COMPLETELY look away from any lack of objective evidence in rape-cases, and instead EXCLUSIVELY focus on who seemed "the most convincing".

Now, which would seem the most convincing in such kinds of cases, somebody who is used to appealing to other's emotions or somebody who is used to having to argue his case without lying or stepping outside of provable facts and talking about his feelings, shall we just say, whose arguments are scrutinized to the point of being losing face from lying - whilst the other party constantly does that as a natural way of social interaction with her peers?

In the US, the policy of hiring the police explicitly states that they should not have an IQ above so-and-so, not just because the might become bored with the meaningless routine work, but also because they might question the difference between right and wrong in their routines and brainless orders, and actually side with the accused.

Intelligence causes not just empathy, but also higher order cognitive functions such as a love based on principles (agape) and a willingness to question.

In comparison, this is illustrative of how the apes in uniform goes about performing their jobs, to the full satisfaction of the state I might add as they in doing so, demonstrates the states ability to apply brute and cruel force without a single compassionate thought or real ability to protest or appeal: "Graphic content warning: Baboon eating gazelle alive"

Anonymous said...

Good luck, Gally. You wont get any where(other than to prison)by focusing on the police doing something technically illegal - in breach of the "straffeprosessloven". The police's wrongdoing does not make your own "wrongdoing"(I'm not saying you've done anything wrong) any lesser in the eyes of the court. I know this even though - as you say - I'm not a lawyer. But good luck anyways.

Anonymous said...

And Gally, how the heck could you be so insane to participate in a program made with the creep Emma Clare Gabrielsen?! Did you not do any research before you said yes?! If you just googled her name, you would(should) have known to stay away from this extremely false and manipulative feminist-person.

Eivind Berge said...

The point is that juries are supposed to judge the law as much as the man, and that is what they were doing to good effect in rape cases. Because the law is now insane after all the feminist reforms, normal people put their foot down and refused to convict anywhere near as much as objective facts and the law called for. Which is what the feminists couldn't tolerate, obviously. The abolition of the jury is the single greatest victory for feminists in Norway and the greatest tragedy for men. It is also reason enough by itself for civil war! Regardless of how one feels about men's rights! If there is any democratic principle worth dying for, it is this one. We now don't have what I consider a justice system at all an no verdict can be respected.

I blogged about it before:

And now it is reality :(

Gally said...

"And Gally, how the heck could you be so insane to participate in a program made with the creep Emma Clare Gabrielsen?!"

Because I have a good heart, I am not afraid, and I am confident enough that I can make some good come out of this - also, some things are worth taking risks for.

Besides, she's just a narrator, the real people behind this are Annemarte Moland and her boss.

Any sufficiently advanced creativity in indistinguishable from incoherency, which is all part of The Plan (with a capital P), by the way.

You ain't seen nuthin' yet, you think these little ramblings that are full of spelling mistakes that I do just to blow off some steam whilst I'm inebriated, is anywhere close to what I can do and argue in a real court and not that Kangaroo-shit where the police took out charges THE DAY AFTER the NRK program aired - one week before christmas, and with me suffering the effects of powerfull medication to kill some serious foot-fungus that I can only imagine came from the deep dark jungle due to the cell's previous inhabitant- with a prepared and dedicated lawyer that actually knows the laws around these cases and has more technical insight than being able to download Chrome and barely bothers open email-attachments?

Round Two and "Hertzschlag" coming up, bitches.

Gally said...

And @Eivind, if we are talking about "war", one of the books I read was "The 33 Strategies of War". Which was one of the hardest to go through, as it was so densely packed with examples of various strategies used in warfare.

So, there will be ample opportunities to discuss overall strategies. And various individual tactics.

Gally said...

Also, not that we are necessarily discussing any specific individuals here, but one problem with the Child Protective Services in Norway is that they don't give a shit about the irresponsible neglect of kids by the rich.
As long as the child is "doing well" in the sense of being given enough money to buy clothes and food and pay others to do their homework, they don't care if she (or he) starts doing cannabis from an early enough age that it has a detrimental effect on the development of her (or his) brain and then moves on to cocaine and never obtains an education but continues along the same line of writing a little here and there and supplementing that by paying ghostwriters to make the writing make sense and not be on the level of a 16-year-old when you are over twenty...

Who knows, you might just be picked out of several hundreds of better candidates just for the sake of your family's connections and also for some weird book you wrote about analingus and sextoys.

But, that's neither here nor there, which some people also just so happen not to be, farting all over Europe and not really even living in Norway except for partying it up and has no concept of what dedicated work is to the point where it takes three months to make a program that should have taken only one, because she keeps calling in sick due to being hungover or randomly takes vacations to god knows where

Not that we are talking about what could possibly be described as a "real person", or for that matter anybody in particular, mind.

It's funny though how some start with the first image on their instagram-account way back in 2012 in what is obviously a series of topless pictures in front of the mirror, and never looks back at what they have posted but is so drunk and meaninglessly confident - cocain tend to do that - that they just keep on going like a trainwreck.

You know, like that youtube-video "Welcome to Facebook"-thing:

Anonymous said...

@Gally: Your writing makes you seem pretty far out of it. Like insane or at least unstable. Because you ramble on incoherently about God knows what. Try and collect your thoughts or else non of what you say will be taken seriously by any one.

Gally said...

Interesting blogpost by Eivind by the way, on the issues of trial by jury.
Haven't thought of it in that light before, thanks for bringing those perspectives to our attention.

Anonymous said...

@Gally: Eivind writings are very thought through so they always can stand the test of time.

Gally said...

"Your writing makes you seem pretty far out of it. Like insane or at least unstable."

Got that tested just the other week, so no.

The coherency will undoubtably improve by an order of magnitude by me just getting my own blog and writing about one specific issue, with references and more of a balance between indepth explanations and simple examples, instead of obscure references, anecdotes and asides.

Then add another magnitude or so from being able to format the text, proofread it, and especially edit it for grammar and spelling.

And I don't have so many concerns and worries in life, together with a Blood Alchohol Level of around 0.16.

And I'm skipping the references to youtube-videos, I guess.

Anonymous said...

Hey guys I found a small manifesto about Gally: "According to his program he will execute the Last Judgment as Messiah, but within the current political system. His first step is to be appointed the Prime Minister of Hebephilia. Then he will reform Hebephile society and be offered the post of the Secretary-General of the Minor-Attracted People. Then Gally will reign over the whole world with two legitimate authorities, not only sexually but also political. The world economic system will be altered to encourage every nation to be self-sufficient, based on agriculture and dōjinshi creation. He accuses pedohebephiles of being maladaptative because relationships with minors are "too intimate and/or age-inappropriate". He wants make Japanese mangas like Evangelion and Alita Last Order new chapters of the Bible. He wants the USA to withdraw its army from all overseas positions, including the Moon. After his Judgment he will throw the corrupt hebephiles and pedophiles into the Fire (see Book of Revelation)."

Gally said...


I have a small comment:

Chinzork said...

One thing I really liked about DAF is the energy he put into denouncing the Anglo-American alt-right and similar "traditionalist" movements/ideologies. Since Puritanism-Feminism ultimately gains its power from "traditionalism," attacking these sorts of people is very good from a Male Sexualist perspective.

Anonymous said...

Title: Judith “Freakshow” Butler’s Agender Agenda is Factually Wrong: Only Words
Have a Gender

The commentator Gantier99 had complimented me for my content and for
my style, and then made this suggestion:

"Oh and btw if you felt like demolishing the new religion that’s
confusing and abusing our children, gender identity, that’d be

Sure thing, Gantier. This ‘religion’ you are referring to is not only a bitch but
also a witch, and I’m gonna drown it in a pool of acid.

The Trans-Formation Of
Immaterial Things

Let’s start with a famous quote from the Chinese philosopher Zhungzi, not in
order to boast of our “vast knowledge,” but because it seems pertinent to the
matter under discussion:

"Once upon a time, I, Chuang Chou, dreamt I was a butterfly,
fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a
butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly,
unaware that I was Chou. Soon I awaked, and there I was,
veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then
a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a
butterfly, dreaming I am a man. Between a man and a
butterfly there is necessarily a distinction. The transition is
called the transformation of material things."

Anonymous said...

Chuang Chou aka Zhungzi describes here one entity “transforming” into
another by moving from one reality into another reality; from the real world
into the dream world, or vice versa (doesn’t matter). This transition from
one reality to another one is called “the transformation of material things.”
So let’s talk about a transformation of immaterial things; let’s talk about
Judith Butler’s “gender identity” theory.

As I wrote here, Feminists are androgenized females; they are biological
mutants, often dykes. And as Lothrop Stoddard (call him whatever you want
– he was correct) tells us, mutants suffering a taint in their character tend
to formulate twisted ideologies in order to sink society down to their
subhuman level. And that, my friends, is exactly what we see here: an
androgenized female mutant formulating a twisted ideology of “gender
queerness” and promoting it to young people who have not yet made up
their minds about such matters in order to convince them of it, thereby
legitimizing her own mental aberration. Basically it’s propaganda, which is
what all of us are doing when we promote our ideas and especially when we
promote our ideas to young people; it’s engagement in a “meme war,” if you
will. And Butler’s meme has resulted in monstrosities like Lactatia.

Judith Butler has taken all of us into a “dream-like state” by inventing the
Gender Theory and its corollary: (Gender-)Queer Theory. Right now, those of
us who subscribe to the worldviews of Genderism and Queerism are exactly
like Zhungzi who can’t tell whether he’s a butterfly that believes its a
Chinese philosopher or a Chinese philosopher who believes he’s a butterfly.
The confusion is deliberate. But actually, perhaps not “exactly” like Zhungzi.
There’s a difference, you see. Zhungzi referred to a transformation in the
material world. Not so with Butler, whose theories suggest a transformation
(more like trans-formation) that occurs in the abstract realm. That’s the
issue with “gender.”

Anonymous said...

“Gender,” which she contrasts to “sex,” is something that according to her
each person decides for him- or herself, or it’s decided by society. Either way,
it’s a matter of identity, not physical-biological reality. She uses that
nonsense to argue that in a free society, you get to decide you own “gender”
(which does not even have to be male or female – hence the “queer theory”),
and as it’s usually considered a good thing to live in a free society, it
“logically follows” that we need to let each individual identify as whatever
“gender” they feel like identifying as (or as no “gender” at all), rather than
allowing social constructs determine the “genders” of individuals. It’s not
complex, when boiled down to its essence. And the argument being made is
entirely within the abstract realm of ideas; there is no argument here
regarding anything concrete that’s happening in the material world. Hence,
an immaterial transformation of “gender.”

I use the term “gender” in scare quotes because in fact, there simply is no
such thing when applied to anything other than words. That’s
because gender is nothing but an originally-innocent linguistic term
denoting the maleness or femaleness of words, e.g. the gender of the word
“he” is male and the gender of the word “she” is female. That’s it. It has
nothing to do with concrete reality, such as inanimate objects or living
beings. Gender is a linguistic term; sex is a biological term; the two exist in
entirely different and separate realities that can’t ever, by definition, cross
over. You only have a sex, and if you think that you have a “gender,” you’ve
been brainwashed. Unless you are a word, you can’t have a gender. Capisce?

Anonymous said...

The Blatant Double Standard Vis-a-Vis Pedophiles

Contrast the abuse inflicted on children by the Ladyboy Brigades with what
we, men who sexually desire children (or, more often than not, “children”),
are doing. You know that I’m not into the whole “oh I’m such a good person,
I would never harm a child” type of ineffectual apologetics that some pedos
engage in. I wrote about it yesterday. But come the fuck on: these
freakshows are literally slicing genitalia and breasts off children. And they
are mentally torturing them in a manner that would’ve made the
Inquisition blush. And the “progressives” support that. Meanwhile, the
force known as Puritanism-Feminism is doing all it can do to lock up men
like myself in prison for watching CP, which they now call “abuse images” or
“abuse videos” or whatever other misnomers they would come up with. Ha!

To me, the fact that the current system approves of the madness known as
“trans-genderism” while doing all it can do to wipe pedophiles off the map
shows that there can be no “alliance” between the pedo-side and the Left. We
in the Male Sexualist Movement should seek to form alliances with
libertarians and other groups of the same “flavor” and disposition; we have
no friends among the Tradcons or among the Progs. Both Tradcons and
Progs get into fits of protective instinct over-activity when the issue of
genuine young sexuality is brought up; but talk about “gender identity”
bullshit and suddenly the Progs have your back. Well, at least the conservadaddies
are consistent, in that they absolutely deny all connection between
youth and sex, whereas the Progs are so utterly insane as to prohibit young
sex while supporting monstrous young “sex-change” transmogrifications
intended to make the biology of children somehow magically conform to an
imaginary and non-existent “gender.”

And don’t for a moment think that I’m letting the Tradcons off the hook
here. The Tradcons are using the existence and promotion of trannyism to
argue that “the Left wants to legalize and normalize pedophilia by way of
trannies! They will use sex-changes to allow children to have sex, oh noes!”
Such idiocy and complete delusion are the defining features of the Blue
Knight conservatives: with conservatives, it always boils down to their
overarching dread of youth sexuality, which they believe must not ever exist,
and their severe anxiety and paranoia which tell them that everything that
happens in the world is a ‘sinister’ pedo-conspiracy to make children engage
in sexual activities – the horror, the horror. Meanwhile, in reality,
criminalization of young sexuality has never been more draconian, with
men thrown in jail en masse for looking at still pixels.
The World is in The Twilight Zone (It’s Also in The Toilet, Now) and I, For
One, am Sick and Fucking Tired of This Shit.

Gally said...


In the marketplace of ideas, I am more for the Bazaar than the Cathedral.

That said, there are several books that have been written about how to argue, and one place to start would be the simple "Graham's Hierarchy of Arguments".

At the very lowest levels is simply stating your opinion. That, I am afraid, results in nothing more than spouting sloganeering rhetoric.

Unfortunately, people today tend to not read very much, or rather, they read what they agree with - partly in due to the recommendation algorithms that are used online, giving you more of the same in the (correct) assumption that that will be click-bait good enough to expose you to more adds, which can be refined to make you a product.
A product, of what one may call not quite propaganda, but rather "intellectual indolence".
Now, in the above references to blog-posts about transgenderism, there are no references to history - the Berlin Institute of Sexology for example - no references to current books having been written - such as Alice Dredger's "Galileo's Middle Finger" - and no references to the current debate on the issue, carried out by professionals such as Deborah Soh.

As such, it becomes kind of like what one could call at the very least preaching to the choir, and at worst, uninformed and unnuanced.

I'll leave you with a joke though, which may indicate where I stand on the issue.
It was told in the form of a cartoon shared with me on facebook by a transgender person, and the joke goes:
"Haha, you are wearing a girl's dress even though you are a boy!"
"No, I am wearing a girl's dress because I happen to *like* dresses and I just so happens to *also* be a girl."
"Bah, how can you say you are a girl when you have a boy's penis?"
"Wrong, I am a girl and so it IS A GIRL'S PENIS!"

End of story. That was the joke.

Eivind Berge said...

Transgenderism isn't a big deal for men's right, though. The only issue I can think of is that while I don't believe women can rape, claiming to have "a girl's penis" would be a poor excuse. But then again, Tom Grauer advocated abolishing the crime of rape altogether, so it wouldn't actually matter under his system. Given the insane sex laws we have now as the alternative, I am happy to have all rape prosecuted as nonsexual assault instead.

Also, why not claim to have a girl's penis to get into a woman's prison? But then again, the women could claim to be men and we are back where we started.

Gally said...

Usually in the US transgenders just get locked up in solitory confinement actually (for the slightest infraction of meaningless and contradictory rules and regulations) because the guards find them "icky".

Which, you know, does wonders for their general mental health.

I have nothing against people who identify as this or that gender, or as intelligent / competent people when they are clearly dumb / incompetent, or even people who identify as apache attack helicopters, so in that sense we are in agreement.

Also in many cases there is simply no space for separate restrooms / showers, so who cares really.

Gally said...

Also the whole idea that you shouldn't be allowed to have sex with the opposite gender whilst in prison is pretty retarded.

Then again human rights have never included the right to sexuality, which Abraham Maslow put on level one or two on the hierarchy of needs, right along with food, shelter, and security.

So there is some work to be done with ethics there.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree, but in a world where presidents and CEOs are prohibited from having sex with their staff because it is "sexual harassment," I don't see mixed prisons with tolerance for sexual relations anytime soon. You can still have sex with visitors, however. At least in Norway that is usually allowed.

Gally said...

Yeah, I mean... just in general, neither rights to sexual autonomy nor even bodily autonomy is in the so-called "human" rights.

It's basically just a charter written in a rush during the Nurnberg trials to be used retroactively to counter the "but we are allowed to do whatever the hell we want with OUR citizens because we can make up our own goddamned laws as a sovereign nation".

Another related case in point is that the United Nations - and its predecessor, the "Leaugue of Nations", never talked about the need for evidence-based law-making or political empiricism.

It's basically just a big-boys club built around the G8's excuse for vetoing calls for peace in conflicts that the big nations want to keep going (Israel's ongoing genocide, anyone?), and you know, when you have to hire an actor famous for her role as a child-witch in a children's fairytale series of movies, to push issues for women's rights "He For Her" with a straight face whilst completely ignoring the hypocrisy inherent in pushing for the rights of one gender only...

Well. I fear as people wake up to how the powers that rule over us are illegitimate, criminal, and do not have either our best in mind nor that of anybody else but themselves or even the fate of humanity, things are going to turn ugly and we are already seeing states preparing for mass incarceration, and writing laws that effectively pry open the doors of despotism and not the rule of law, equal for all...

In the words of Dmitry Orlov: "Have your collapse, and have it early, so that you can be prepared for a future that is not going to exist".

Anonymous said...

A pedophile has had his conviction for child sex offenses overturned because the judge ruling over his case ordered that he be repeatedly electrocuted for not answering questions.

Terry Lee Morris, 54, was convicted of soliciting a sex act from a 15-year-old girl and sentenced to 60 years in jail in 2014.

During his trial, a court heard how District Judge George Gallagher had ordered the defendant to be jolted with 50,000 volts from a shock belt on three occasions.

Shock belts, which are used in courtrooms such as the one Tarrant County in Texas where Morris’ trial was being held, are placed on the defendant’s legs. They are only meant to be used the suspect becomes violent during proceedings.

The Texas Eighth Court of Appeals has now ruled that Morris’ constitutional rights were violated after Gallagher ordered him to be electrocuted and then removed from the court because he refused to answer questions.


The transcripts states:

Gallagher: Now, are you going to follow the rules?

Morris: Sir, I’ve asked you to recuse yourself.

Gallagher: Are you going to follow the rules?

Morris: I have a lawsuit pending against you.

Gallagher: Hit him.

During the argument, the judge orders the bailiff to electrocute Morris on two further occasions before removing him from the court.

Full article:

Eivind Berge said...

Wow, I didn't know "stun belts" were used in court. That is appalling. Also, 60 years in prison for "soliciting a sex act" from a 15-year-old girl? Just for asking for it??? That must be a new record in misandry all by itself.

Gally said...

That's funny.
At my trial, the police explained how they had spent four investigator's time all day for four months in order to go through the images, while keeping me in police custody (in case my l33t haxx0rmage10rd mad skillz could delete material already in their possession according to the affadavits) and personally determine whether they were illegal or not - when they are in a database that can be looked up and have been for about a decade - and they informed the judge that "We just HAD to go through the images with FOUR investigators because or else it would have taken 49 days and we went through 15000 image manually each day and it was really, really a strain".

And I asked "And how many MINUTES would it have taken you to look them up in the database", the judge just told me to shut up or he would have me thrown out of court, "final warning".

But I guess we'll move on to strapping electricution-clamps on the testicles of people accussed of downloading pictures of fifteen-year-olds in the nude, in due time.

Not to go all Godwin, but looking at the graphs of how the punishments for such things have increased, it ain't looking good.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge said...

I have trouble deciding exactly how serious Amos Yee is, but mostly I think he is a troll. He says he supports pedophilia, but then he also supports the #MeToo movement, which is as opposite as you can get, especially when he omits everything in between. He doesn't seem to have a consistent male sexualist ideology like Tom Grauer, and also no one really takes him seriously, so he isn't helping our movement. Like he says himself, he is an artist, and that is what I think too, a performance artist rather than an ideologue. I think he would advocate anything that gets him attention. Taking a moderate, sensible stance like lowering the age of consent to 13 would be too boring, so instead he advocates sex with babies and makes a clown out of himself.

Gally said...


That's pretty much the conclusion I got out of it too, but I think he is a highly intellectual person who is basically "testing out the boundaries", so to speak.

Of course, part of being really smart (in weird ways), is that you sometimes have to pretend to be weirder than what you really are, so as to gloss over things because you would rather have people scoff and dismiss you, than look at you in disbelief as with the eyes of a deer in the headlights of a trailer.

Most real shakers-and-movers intellectuals start out as smart-arses and even plain assholes, and Amos seems at the moment to be more of a performance artist than a serious person.

Then again, he is young, and although I had actually considered engaging him in debate, I think he should get a few more years to get dry behind the ears and maybe realize that you can read things not just on the internet but also books, before I bother.

I wish him well though, but I deeply disagree with, well, very many of his stances.

Anonymous said...

You sould be restricted from interacting with anyone under the age of 18 and be banned from using computers or other electronic devices to look at or download images of anyone under 18.

Anonymous said...

No one under my regime will go to jail for having sex with a young girl of any age, AoC sould be destroyed, period, it is not debatable, except those who grossly abuse or penetrate must go to a labor camp for acting like an asshole.

Listen because it is important: Your problem (everyone's problem, literally everyone' s) is that you are democrats and you support the parliamentary system and believe that things are changed by convincing most people of something... Error. The only way to change the world the way you want it to is to take an elite of people, strike a coup d' état and establish a totalitarian state where everyone is forced to think like you.

An example: Ergo, if I think that sex with young girls should be defended, then I don't make a "pedophile activist movement" and try to convince people that it's okay to like and fuck little girls, it's absurd, People are not supposed to be free and think for themselves, they are supposed be SLAVES and obey the dictates of RELIGION. Secondly, they will not accept for the reasons already explained a thousand times.

Is it impossible to hold a coup or revolution and make a totalitarian state? but it's even more impossible is to try to convince billions of assholes of something that is absolutely contrary to their way of life. They'll never accept sex with underage girls. Neither the MRA will achieve anything, feminism is the state religion, only a world war that ends with the West will allow to get rid of feminism, so why are you wasting all your time?

Eivind Berge said...

"Why are you wasting all your time?"

You are right that we probably can't change the world. So why are we trying? Maybe to feel better about ourselves, at least? And to teach our enemies that there is real opposition at every level from the moral to the military (if we had resources). I call it Quisling therapy. The military part is fantasy, at least for now, but our moral and ideological opposition can be very real. In my personal life I don't talk to most of my family, for example, because of these differences. And I try to reach as many people as I can through my writing. Without sincere and serious activists like me, people will think there is no opposition to puritan-feminism -- that they have a monopoly on sexual morality -- and do we want to give them that smug satisfaction? No, I want to teach them that their ideology is just one that happens to be backed by the most violent power at the moment, not the one that every sane and serious person subscribes to.

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge's cat

_(:3 」∠)_

Gally said...

"You sould be restricted from interacting with anyone under the age of 18 and be banned from using computers or other electronic devices to look at or download images of anyone under 18."

Harsh man.
And you know, in our information society where everything is based on using services and such that are becoming more and more digitized, that pretty much constitutes unusual punishment.

But hey, thanks, just before I read your post I wrote up a little list of what I can actually publish, given my know-how.
It goes a little like this:
1. LUKS (fulldisk encryption done the proper way)
2. Password (proper ones, not breakable ones)
3. 2FA (two-factor authentication, the usuage of digital tokens as keys)
4. OS (how to chose one and for what purpose / architecture etc.)
5. OPSEC (operational security, how to go about doing your business without giving away clues to your identity or where-abouts)
6. HW (further expansion on how hardware can provide levels of security, like plates of armor reactive-chobham-panzerstyle)
7. IDS (how to figure out if somebody is trying to crack into your setup)
8. Net (how to use VPNs and darknets to fly under the radar of anything below NSA-level Global Passive Adversaries)
9. PSYSEC (how to figure out how to think about it all, and identify cracks in your setup where your brain is lulling itself into a false sense of security all theatrical like and shit)
10. DESULTIMATE DEATH DESU (to be revealed)

So congratulations!

You just motivated me to spend my time on writing up some serious shit that will make your rig UN-FUCKING-BREAKABLE

Hope that makes you happy too.

Oh, yeah, and "2PAC - 'Fighter'":

Anonymous said...

Theantifeminist is the clear example of "I am what I attack":

Theantifeminist is the greatest of all aspies, an aspie so great that he has not realized that it is nothing less than a MAP, a Hebephile of the first category.

You are so aspie hebephile that you ignore that you are an aspie hebephile.

You think you are so superior and intelligent to others, that when you allow comments in your blog you were dedicated to annulling and mocking the new kids, whether they were insecure and insecure or simply thinking differently from you, as if you were a messiah and everyone who thinks differently from you is an "aspie".

You're so utterly stupid and unsuccessful with women that you enjoy complaining that a building is falling apart because a woman has built it, you should be ashamed of yourself, asshole.

Nobody cares about you, only 3 guys (literally 3 guys) who have believed part of your nonsense, and even those have more dignity and humanity than you do, allow them to debate in their blogs and don't make fun of you, you are only on your blog as a god who lives in the sky and only comes down occasionally to put order to mortals. No, I'm wrong, you don't even bother to leave your blog, you don't give a shit about everybody else.

I'd put this on your blog, theantifeminist, but you're so cowardly, miserable, hypocritical and overbearing that you've got the comments off for no one to refute your string of bullshit.

Fuck you, aspie hebephile, we're tired of putting up with you, most of them shut up but I'm not.

Gally said...

No, we are building bridges, and arriving at understandings, and perhaps alliances.

So, I think it is all good.

And I can be patient.

Anonymous said...

Gally indicates he doesnt think older men should actually have sex with younger girls and he has indicated support for virtuous or non contact groups. Anyone in this movement, especially someone you put in a feature article like this should fully support adult minor contact and no AOC. In this movement you're either in all the way or you're in the way. Gally should be devoting his entire energy to fighting his own legal case. Oh, and if Amos Yee said he supports the MeToo, kick him out of this movement now and tell him to get his ass on the next flight back to Singapore. Amos may be young and inexperienced but supporting MeToo is pretty obvious Benedict Arnoldship.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree about Amos, but not Gally. The #MeToo movement is obviously not compatible with MRAism or male sexualism, since it is about piling more misandry on top of all the sex laws. Amos has no problem with feminist sexual taboos such as the ones prohibiting sex due to power differences or work relationships; he just thinks children are equal. He doesn't actually seem to understand that the current legal definitions of rape and sexual assault and harassment are feminist corruptions because he is so steeped in them that he hasn't heard of any alternative.

Resisting those feminist sex-law reforms and additional #MeToo taboos is the primary purpose of the MRA movement. When it comes to age of consent, the minimum requirement for being an MRA is to be against anything higher than 13, in my view. Lower can be discussed, but anyone who supports the liberation of teenage sexuality is fighting for reasonable sex laws. And being no-contact is just common sense as long as the alternative is prison.

Anonymous said...

Amos if he was part of something (which he didn' t) he would be in any case of the "paedophile activist movement", not of the "MRA", so Eivind can't throw him out, because well, he is not part of this MRA movement.

Anonymous said...

Marxist feminist in TOC blog:

"I translate: Amos Yee is not a reactionary male chauvinist like Tom Grauer and (to a lesser extent) Eivind Berge; thus he does not share their “male sexualist” (read anti-equality) ideology, and he does not help their “movement”. But Amos is not a “troll” and does not “makes a clown out of himself”; he is rather a worthy fighter for freedom and equal rights for all ages, all genders and all sexual orientations."

Eivind Berge said...

The problem with that kind of "equality" is that age is just one of an endless number of feminist sexual taboos. Feminists, including Amos believe in a concept of "consent" with so many exceptions that just about anybody you realistically come into contact with is excluded. That would go for children as well. Who cares if there is no age of consent when sex with an 18-year-old is illegal just because you work in their vicinity, for example? It is better to have an age of consent and then treat everyone above that age as actually able to consent, than the #MeToo crap which says women are too feeble to consent to a workplace affair at any age, and where men who rise to the top positions find themselves with less sexual freedom than they had in kindergarten.

theAntifeminist said...

@Anonymous - Wow, strong words. If only you could devote such energy to hating and fighting the feminists who are your actual enemy. But hey, you probably still think that would be 'misogynist'.

I stopped allowing comments on my blog for a number of reasons. Yes I was sick of people like you using anonyomous handles, fake e-mails, hiding behind TOR etc just to mind wank and dump their own aspie theories on my porch whilst clearly demonstrating that they hadn't even bothered to read my articles. I was also being trolled big time, probably by some aspie 'MAP' (perhaps you) I no doubt angered by being too slow to approve their comment, and who consequently began leaving his violent child rape fantasies and projecting them onto me. As I wasn't updating my blog much at the time and many of my regular commentators had disappeared, I was waking up every morning only to a string of comments left by this psychopathic aspie, so what was the point?

I might set up a commentating system again, which would require registration, and of course the likes of Eivind would be welcome to comment as he has in the past. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I've left maybe half a dozen comments on Eivind's blog, I don't comment anywhere else, or haven't for years. Regarding only 3 people linking to me, are you referring to the fact that Tom O'Carroll and other 'MAP's do not link to me and such like on account of my 'misogynism'? I had Angry Harry link to me, the father of the Men's Rights Movement, and also the support of people like Bernard Chapin. Even Paul Elam asked me to help him build AVoiceforMen when he started it.

Yes, Eivind is a lot more patient than I am. We're all built differently, and being argumentative and no-nonsense is my style. 'MAP' and hebophile are massive mistakes in my opinion, at least for a movement that seeks to defend male rights and male sexuality. Even if I was the biggest hebophile on the planet, it wouldn't alter the fact that identifying as a 'hebophile' would be a huge tactical mistake. Not only because it pathologizes normal male sexuality - the very thing feminists are doing - but because most of these people who identify as 'hebophile' are in fact suffering from a mental handicap that has nothing to do with their (quite normal) attraction to teenage girls. The fact that you can come here and rage against somebody who has given a decade of their lives to fighting for your (and our and my) rights pretty much exemplifies why male sexualists shouldn't seek you and your fellow self-identified 'hebophiles' as allies. First the men's rights movement was hijacked by frauds and femiservatives, and now the remaining genuine core - our male sexualist corner - seems destined to be taken over by ephebophebophiles.

*ps : I've read that the German quack who invented the terms 'hebophile' and 'ephebophile' defined the fomer as attraction to 13 year olds, and the latter as attraction to 15 year olds. What about men who find 14 year old girls attractive? Are they not allowed to feel 'special'? I propose a new term - 'phebophile' for those men who think 14 hits the sweet spot. Also, I have my doubts if these definitions are precise enough. What about men who find themselves attracted on average to girls 14 and 1/2 years old? Maybe 'demiphebophile'? (and 'demihebophile' etc for those who think 13 1/2 year old girls are most attractive?).

**I see that in Japan, any person under 20 is considered a minor (at least until later this year when the law will likely be changed). Does this mean that any Japanese man who finds 19 year old women attractive is a 'MAP'?

If feminists can love gays and transgenders, it's only a matter of time before they learn to love paedos...well at least hebophiles. I read it at Matt Forney!

Anonymous said...

Looking for what theantifeminist says about the majority of old people in Japan I find this:

Psychologists and psychiatrists are one of the greatest threats to the human species, spitting poisonous garbage like this "adolescent psychiatrist:

"he waged an almost one-man battle against the move to recognize 18-year-olds as adults. In fact, Saito espouses the exact opposite of what has been proposed by the ministry, arguing that the age of majority in Japan should be raised to as high as 25."

"“We can hardly expect 18-year-olds to have the same sense of responsibility as grown-ups, even if we lower the age of majority,” Saito says."


More: If you read the text you will see how even 19 years old call and consider themselves literally "children". Having hair on the genitals and breasts is completely and absolutely irrelevant to these brainless slaves of the state.

A 18yo named Suzuki:

“I’d be more prepared to call myself an adult at the age of 25 — if that kind of thing is in any way possible.”


The human race is sick with death, we must start a world war, and kill this degenerates en masse.

Anonymous said...

Here are some anecdotes from one of Tom grauer's articles about females who lost their virginity at 12.

Ok this happened back in 6th grade and I got invited to this huge party thing this kid had (he was really rich) and my mom thought he was a girl xD and let me go to the party (she doesn’t want me going to boy parties for some reason) so I went there with my best friend and when we got there we are some food and later we all went to the guys room. Someone suggested we play a game called 7 minutes in heaven and so we did. There was this one really cute boy there also that I’ve been crushing on majorly and him and I got picked. So we went into the closet and he pushed me against the wall and started making out with me. I was really scared at first but then I went along with it. I was wearing a dress and I felt his hand slip in through my dress and my panties. I wasn’t really scared and we ended up having sex. It was embarrassing from the moaning and stuff. We got dressed and got out of the closet just as the kids mom walked in. From that day on me and my crush(and now bf) secretly dated

Anonymous said...

It all happened when my mom left me home alone to go Christmas shopping. I had a crush on a boy named Michael he was 13 and I was 12… I had a crush on him and him on me. So he lived right around the corner and I call him over and his parents let him do whatever he wants and he came. We started talking about home work for science and we had to say what happened to a fertilized egg and sperms etc.. so then he is like “let’s talk less and do more” and I was like mmmmmm. So he started takin g off my pants and then I took him until we both got undressed. I saw his super big penis and I liked it. We started with oral sex and then some licking My vagina and his penis and then mmmmm he puts it inside me OMG!! we both started gasping and mmmmm. He already was going over puberty but I wasn’t we didn’t used condoms and I didn’t got pregnant. I would say even though I was really young I loved it so if I had a chance to erase it I wouldn’t, now he is my boyfriend and we both are in college we went to schoo like nothing and practicly that was my Christmas gift. His parents didn’t even noticed he stay to sleep away from home and my mom never knew. Still I love him sooooo much.

Anonymous said...

Lost My Virginty At 12

(im not using grammar in this story lol) Well when i was 12 me and my bestfriend both really liked this guy. Me and my bestie were having a sleepover, and we decided hey why dont we invite (our crush) over. Omg good idea that would be so much fun. I said. Well we invited our crush over and he invited one of his guy friends to come. Of course she wasnt aloud guys sleeping over so we snuck them in. We went up to my friends room and we started talking. Then jade said.. You know what game we should play? What we all asked. 7 minutes in heaven!! Okay..We all agreed..Guess who i got to go in the closet with? My crush! I thought it was soo amazing. We went in the closet and he start making out with me and touching me. He started taking my clothes off. While he was still making out with me. Eventually we we both naked. We had sex and i really enjoyed it. After that day he was my bf and we did it regualary. I’m still with him today and its more fun then ever. Ps. I didnt use a condom and i didnt get pregnant. Lol i lucked out so much. Hope u enjoyed my story

Anonymous said...

SEX AT TEN! Virginity Loss!
Call me Amy.

I lost my virginity at 10. Yup. It was to this guy who was 16, let’s call him Thom. My parents, (call them Kailie & Peete) were really into sex. My older brother, call him Frederic, and my older sister, let’s call her Maurella, were into ****. Maurella would leave her **** magz’ around the house and Frederic would ********** in the shower. Both of them had lost their virginity. Anyway, so I kinda grew up with sex. When I was ten, Frederic brought home his boyfriend, Thom. Anyway, let’s just say that with Frederic’s help, Thom and I got, err, intimate, and before we knew it “AHHHH” my virginity was no longer. After the first pain, I began to really like sex. Kailie and Peete found out, but they didn’t really mind. They gave me ‘pills’ so we could have more sex!

Soo, that’s that. I have been having sex for the last twelve years. I LOOOOOOVE it!!

Amy C.

Anonymous said...

Me Too…

…and to state one thing clear: No, it wasn’t rape – I wanted it, he wanted it, so why not doing it!?

I guess I’ve always been quite precocious, enjoyed touching and rubbing my slash since I was 9 or 10 (and hell yes, I did it very often) – just felt too good… Plus my parents have always been talking very openly with me when I asked them questions about being that loud in bed *lol* So I think I was really sexual at quite a young age… and of course I was courious about sex and ******* and I knew that it would happen at the right occasion 😉

This occasion was some boring party for some of my dad’s business contacts and their families in our garden… And there was this new guy, he was 17 and had moved to our area only two weeks ago. His apprearance wasn’t too attractive, but we started talking and he was so funny. Plus he was jealous of me because I was allowed to smoke and drink – and he wasnt… So we went to somewhere in the garden where his parents couldnt see us, had some smokes and drinks, talking, laughing, having fun – and somewhen we just started kissing. It didn’t have anything to do with love, it was just fun… I had been kissing some guys before, so I know that he was good 😉

And as I felt him touching my back, my legs, my neck something in my head said *click* – and I wanted him to be my first… I asked him if he was virgin and as he said “No, of course not!”, I knew it would be the perfect occasion… He asked if I was really sure and after I nodded, we went into the house, still touching each other, entered my room and he took of my bikini top and started touching me all over. Didn’t take too long till I also lost the rest of my clothes – and made me lay down on my bed, then taking of his pants… and his **** started playing with my ****. From then, I just felt as if I were in heaven *lol* Next thing I feld his **** sliding into me carefully – it was pain like hell and I cried and screamed… But only for some moments, as far as I remember – then I just started enjoying the feeling that I wasn’t virgin any more.

As you might imagine, I didn’t *** (had first ****** with him weeks later) – but of course, he came in me. None of us had been thinking about protection, it wasn’t just on my mind in that moment. I just wanted to start with sex… and luckily, I didn’t get preg 😉 When it was over, we went on kissing and touching and I just enjoyed this feeling… When I looked on my watch then, I saw it had only been half an hour since we had been leaving the garden – but for me, it felt like hours because of this new experience.

We then took on our clothes and went back to the garden – and half an hour later, he and his parents had to go… And I went back into my room, thinking about all this and being really proud… and most of all looking forward to seeing him again next day 🙂 And I guess you know what we did then *lol* But he used condoms (which I didn’t really like)… So next day I wanted to ask my mother to help me get the pill – but when I started she already knew everything: She had found my bed sheets with the blood stain in the middle (although I thought I had been hiding it good enough *lol*). And she was very very supportive… Thank you, mum!

Well, and with me on the pill then, we didn’t hold ourself back… Although his parents didn’t know of us (they were very conservative), we met every day and ****** like rabbits *looool* First I just felt cool and grown-up, then I started liking it… and today I know, it was the beginning of my sex addiction

Anonymous said...

First Time

I was 12, he was 7 years older. I had had a massive crush on him for a long time, he was hugely hansom, and I would melt anytime he even said hi to me (he lived next door, anytime I saw him outside, I would find some reason to walk down our driveway, which just had a low hedge between it and his driveway). Especially if I saw him go outside to wash his car or do anything outside, I’d throw on a cute little outfit (nothing slutty, I was 12 and barely knew anything about sex or being sexy) and go down the driveway hoping he would say something, anything to me. I thought I could see him out of the corner of my eye watching me whenever i was out.. but I didn’t know if that was really what he was doing, or just me being hopeful. Anyways.. I’m rambling.. one day he asked if i’d like to date.. and of course I said yes. i think I almost fainted when he asked. Most our dates were over at his house when his parents were gone, I’d sneak over and we’d watch movies or tv cuddling on the couch, he would get a bit touchy but i never said anything because all i wanted was him to like me. When we kissed.. it was the most amazing moment of my life, i felt warm everywhere and all i wanted was to be with him.. Sorry, rambling a bit again. As we dated he went further and further with his touching, and I never did anything to stop him, until one day we were in his room and he started undressing me. I was in a skirt and t-shirt, bra and panties. When he started taking my bra off, i stopped him, and he asked “don’t you love me” which of course i said yes, and let him continue.. I stopped him again when he started pulling down my panties, and he told me how much he loved me, and how beautiful i was, and said “don’t you want to be a good girlfriend” which of course, i wanted to be the best girlfriend in the world to him, and I told him that, and he told me that this is what good girlfriends do, so i let him take my panties off, and I was naked in front of him, the first time any boy had ever seen me naked (he had felt me up a lot before, but this was the first time i was ever naked with him). he started kissing my body, my breasts, my *****, running his hands over me. i was scared, but excited to, it felt so good when he touched me. After he had played with my ***** for a while, he stood up and had me suck on him, it was the first time i had ever seen him, or any boy naked, so it was really something new for me.. i put it in my mouth and he told me how to move and how to suck on him. He was really big, well, at least he seemed big to me, of course I was quite small too. After he was fully hard, he layed me on my back and got between my legs. I was extremely scared, but i didn’t say anything, and tried to smile for him, i loved him and wanted to be a good girlfriend. He pushed inside me, and it hurt a ton, he went slow, he tried to be gentle, but it still hurt a lot, he told me to try to relax, that is was normal for it to hurt for me because I had never done it before. I tried relaxing, and he pushed deeper… I didn’t have my hymen anymore, i had broken it doing gymnastics, so there wasn’t really any bleeding, and he slowly pushed in me, pulling out a little, then pushing in further. It felt so big in me, i didn’t think he could fit, and it took him time, but he got all in me, i was crying some because it hurt, and he kissed me telling me how wonderful I was, and that I was the best girlfriend he could ever ask for. I was so happy at that moment. As he got inside me, he slowly started going faster and faster, he was kissing me and playing with my breasts, and after a little while he pumped really fast and then came inside me. Thank god I didn’t get pregnant. But, afterwards he told me how wonderful I was and how amazing I felt and how much he loved me, i felt so good, so special, I loved him more than anything in the world.

Anonymous said...

I consider rape to be forced non-consensual sex. I feel it’s offensive calling sexual experiences due to an age difference the same thing as that. Granted in this case there was a bit of an age gap, but by your definition, he would have been raping me if it was one day before my 18th birthday, and he was one day after his 18th birthday. Do you honestly believe that in a case like that, that’s an appropriate term?

Tom Grauer: That was in response to some Blue Knight telling her that she was raped because she was below the AOC. Go to the link; that’s literally what he said. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think that the Blue Knight was actually one of us, using a troll tactic to prove the absurdity of AOC laws.

Anonymous said...

Two more anecdotes.

That very first time he didn’t *** in my mouth, he just had me suck him until he was hard. However there were many other times after that where he did *** in my mouth, and he told me to always swallow. And.. share it with him? That would just be weird.

Yes, we were “together” for about a year, during which i generally went over to his place a couple times a week. I learned a lot about sex from him, he also had me start dressing up sexier when i would come over to see him, and I got a number of outfits that I wore just for him. About 2 months after I lost my virginity to him, he took my anal virginity as well, and over time the sex got quite a bit rougher as well. He liked to try a lot of different positions, and we did lots of different things over the year we were together

Anonymous said...

I Had My First Sexual Intercourse When I Was 12

I know, i was very young.

When i was 11 i had already a bf, and it was not one of my age; he was 10 years older then me. A student who i saw every morning when he was waiting for the bus to campus and i walked there every day to go to college. I looked forward every morning to see him and fixed my eyes on him when i came closer and he fixed his eyes on me when i passed and went my way to school; i could feel that. After some time we began to flirt and talk. He lived 2 blocks from my house and we got more conversations and spent time together. He helped me with my maths and i gave him company. Every time we mutually enjoyed more and more of the company of each other. An one day we felt close to each other and he hold my head in his hands and kissed me on my lips. In his company i felt the butterflies in my belly but when he kissed me, a flame of desire welled up from my deepest inside; comparable when i touched myself, which is another confession.

So we became secretly b and gf and we passed time together in his room and from kissing we entered in the petting phase where we explored our bodies with our hands, groping and touching and partially we explored with our lips. I was most times on fire and felt my body an increasing desire to be more intimate with me and i could feel the same desire in him. We had long talks about what we were feeling and on my 12th birthday we went more intimate then ever. He felt my desire for more and we ended up with his head between my legs and kissing and licking my lips and wet vulva. his tongue wandered over my vulva and entered in my vagina and ¡it drove me crazy and provoked uncontrolled body convulsions, stronger then i ever had when i ***********. I almost passed out when i had an ****** of this luscious oral sex experience.

After a week or so, i went to his house again with the feeling that something was going to happen; he had the same feeling and we both were very nervous with cold hands and accelerated breathing. We ended up in his bed where he was very gentle and delicate with me; it was the first time i took his penis in my mouth and sucked and licked him. I felt we got more intense and i needed his penis in me; i was ready for penetration. We laid me on my back and i closed my eyes when i felt his top entered between my lips, as he shove it little by little in my well lubed vagina. My mind went like empty and i only moved by instincts. I remember that the penetration made me out of my mind when the first (little) pain changed in lust and excitement and i felt myself floating on a wave of lust. And later he told me that it seemed that i had experience in this. But that was not so; the lust got so overwhelming that my body reacted automatic on the penetration. When he cummed deep in me my whole underbelly cramped on his penis and my body against his body. I almost lost conscience and the ****** was tremendous. We stayed more then a year together and we had several similar encounters, till he left my city to do his masters in another country and we lost contact. But i kept always sexual active since my experience with him. And it were always older men, but thats another history. I also didn’t lose my virginity at 12; that happened before and i did that myself and that’s also another history.

Anonymous said...

Four anecdotes.

Sooo Good

I was at my friends house and we were playing truth or dare. I got dared to blow a realllyyy hot guy that was my friends brothers friend. So we started talking and he started to grab me and I loved it. I was actually quite wet. So he asked to finger me and I let him. It felt okay, but then he ate me out. OH MY I’VE NEVER FELT ANYTHING THAT FELT SOOO GOOD. His tongue sliding up and down my **** and going in my ***** felt amazing. I moaned the whole time to make sure he knew how good he was doing. So I took my bra off and started blowing him. That was funn! The best part was listening to him say “oh don’t stop keep going keep going” we were naked already and he asked to have sex. I wasn’t sure but I was so horny I just said yes. He said are you sure an i said he’ll yea. He slowly and gently slid his penis into me. Hurt like hell for a moment or two. Then it felt amazing. He started going faster and faster as I moaned and cummed all over his amazing penis. I dot regret a thing.

I was 12 when I lost my virginity to my 14 year old brother he pulled down his boxers a I sucked him till he got hard then he took of my shirt and bra pulled down my trousers and nickers and I told him to put a condom on he said I can’t get pregnant because we are related so he put in me it hurt like hell he started off slow at first until he started going faster I was screaming so loud until eventually he came inside me just as we finished our parents came home so we got dressed in a hurry.about 3 weeks later I found out he did make me pregnant.

I was 12 almost 13 we had been together for awhile and I asked him if he wanted to come round to mine and he dropped the sex bomb and I said yes, we did it and it was great, I’m now 15 and am still seeing him

**** @ Age 12

My 16 year old cousin ****** me when I was 12. More like eleven but was closing on twelve. It didn’t feel good the first time but on the second round, it felt so good and I came for the first time. I wasn’t introduced to anal sex until I was having sex in the boys bathroom later on that year. The boy was ******* me doggystyle and then he stuck in my *******. It took a while get use to it but I was moaning like I was before and soon I had to have it in both holes.

Gally said...

"Yes, Eivind is a lot more patient than I am. We're all built differently, and being argumentative and no-nonsense is my style. 'MAP' and hebophile are massive mistakes in my opinion, at least for a movement that seeks to defend male rights and male sexuality. Even if I was the biggest hebophile on the planet, it wouldn't alter the fact that identifying as a 'hebophile' would be a huge tactical mistake."

There are some upcoming technical solutions to the "trollage" problem, such as can be hinted at

Briefly, you pay for posting and you gain rewards if your posting is good.

That's a direct monetary incentive right there, which may eliminate shit-posters and also "holds the potential" to elevate the level of debate.

The technicalities are being explored, but much of crypto-"whatevs" is up in thin air at the moment as new laws are being written and the implications of that at the very least makes the market turbular.

We'll get back to this, hopefully.

In the meantime, may I recommend having a look at , which to me seems to strike directly at unreasonability: Sex workers need protection, clients should be vetted, and the whole business should become more responsible.

(also I have a thing for youtube videos that you are free to ignore, but in tone with this post, I'll be referring to: )

Eivind Berge said...

Pinkdate's business model (if it actually materializes and isn't just an exit scam, which its opsec makes it perfectly situated for) is to take a 10-20% cut on every sex work transaction that it facilitates. In order for this to work, whores must first choose Pinkdate as their pimp, and the illegal nature of this business means their clients must pay in cryptocurrency, preferably secretive ones at that. How realistic is this? The first part is plausible, since many escorts already work for agencies and other pimps who take at least as much. I will be very impressed if whores and gentlemen start transacting in Zcash and Monero, however. As a Zcash miner, I would love for Zcash to be adopted, but it isn't looking good at the moment. Bitcoin didn't get adopted much for this purpose, and regulations on bitcoin will make it harder to use the others as well. I takes a leap of faith to get them into everyday use.

While governments can't track your Zcash transactions (if you use a z-address), they can control every point of entry into fiat. So how are the escorts going to spend their Zcash on things they want, like paying rent or buying food? If a noticeable black economy emerges based on these currencies, governments will crack down on that as well by physically raiding the activities paid for, so I don't think you get around using fiat unless you just want to buy sex and drugs for the money. Perhaps cryptocurrencies have already reached their potential, at least for as long as the current political structures persist.

Gally said...

Well, there is this fascinating thing about how we humans benefit from "projecting competence" way and beyond what we actually have.
Sometimes it is called moralism, other times posturing, and then there is "virtue signaling".

Now, I read through quite a few books while in police custody (for no reason as previously explained), and in one of them, Steven Pinkerton of "The Better Angels of our Nature" tries to approach an explanation of "why" we (in the western world) had the Reneisance, "why" we had the development of humanistic philosophy, "why" we have become people who behave better towards one another - to the point where I could flat out tell a former friend, that I was attracted to 11yo girls, and he had absolutely zero problems with his twin girls climbing all over me, sitting on my lap, riding me like a donkey, chit-chating with me in a tent and so on and so forth.

So my point being: "Throw your bread upon the waters. Long after, you may find it again"

Meaning, if you don't know what will succeed, just invest a little in different things.

Gally said...

Now, for the question "how is crypto-currencies going to be converted into [X, Y & Z]", I do not have a good answer.

I do offer this perspective though: If you took an average person from 100 years back, transported that person into this time and this society, and informed him how everything he though impossible had been made possible, how everything he thought was wrong had been shown to not be so, and how much more happy people were, he would have looked at you for tree seconds without blinking before his head exploded.

In that vein, I offer to you another youtube video, that I find illustrative of the key concept: "Release me",

Eivind Berge said...

I agree with investing in different things if only I had money to invest. And of course it is possible that new ways of doing things will emerge that I haven't foreseen. What I am seeing though with things like Pinkdate is that we are basically just trying to find loopholes in prohibitions, and the authorities are pretty good at closing those once they come to their attention.

Gally said...

" What I am seeing though with things like Pinkdate is that we are basically just trying to find loopholes in prohibitions, and the authorities are pretty good at closing those once they come to their attention."

Funny you should say that, because... it just so happens that in relation to my case, there are so-called "dark" nets, the communication of which can't really be stopped.

Part of this is of course because just like with numbers stations operating on low-frequency bands ( see for an example ), the "gentlemens' consensus" is "you do NOT fuck with low-frequency, which incidentally was why the US did not intervene in the hutsi-tutsi genocide conflict and scramble their radios so that hundreds of thousands could have escaped and survived - the "agreement" if you will, is that "you don't fuck with TOR".

Now, of course, I am not stupid enough to use TOR (alone) for "serious business", because there is this thing about half of the exit-nodes being owned by the NSA alone, and also Sybil-attacks, but...

Let's just say some things cannot be shut down.

Their technical explanation is somewhat vague, but on the face of it, it makes sense: Have redundant, "sacrificable" front-serving servers redirect to certificate-servers that in turn connect to the real servers hidden on TOR.

I would love to read their documentation in further detail, but they are being vague about it so I can only guesstimate at things. From a technical point of view though, what they are proposing is doable, and from a personal point of view, as far as I am a judge of character, they actually think they can make money out of this.

Also verdict in my case falls tomorrow at probably high noon; I am so excited!

Gally said...

Perhaps another way of saying this, is that "The police and the military come from a profession in which a bigger and better gun, bomb, or other WMD can always be sure to hit the target" - and which is why Russia recently revealed their counter-shield rockets in response to the US placement of precicion military-command bunker busters - but anyway, the thing is, that in the digital realm.

In the digital realm, shields can be made that no sword could possibly break thorough.

No joke, the math is very, very simple but I won't go into detail about that now, let's just be content with knowing that as my enemy has pushed for haste in my case, they have also cornered themselves.

They is going down, bboy style hardcore:

Eivind Berge said...

I know, digital security can be unbreakable, but there is only so much you can do with pure information. I can theoretically have a fortune in cryptocurrencies that the government can never discover or seize, but once I start using it in the real world, they can get to me. Any time you travel or buy something tangible it is detectable, and the government will not tolerate too much real economic activity outside of their control.

Your "crime" is also pure information, which means it is really outside the scope of what governments should or can regulate, so I am not surprised they are messing it up and look forward to the backlash. I wonder if the judges will even note the stupid waste of police resources in the verdict? In any case, I am confident that you will embarrass them somehow, because that "investigation" is even more bizarre than I thought possible.

Gally said...

From a theoretical point of view:
" I can theoretically have a fortune in cryptocurrencies that the government can never discover or seize, but once I start using it in the real world, they can get to me."

My response would be "that depends on what you use it for".

And on your second point, YES I will most definitely wipe the floor with them.

Verdict fall tomorrow, I am not commenting on the case untill a verdict has been cast, but rest assured: I shall ask relevant questions.

Eivind Berge said...

Then you haven't been paying attention, because 100% of rapists are men. The notion that women can rape is exactly nothing other than a feminist lie. It doesn't matter that they have changed the law to make it legally possible that women can "rape" and even obtained some convictions -- women still can't rape, because female sexual coercion simply never carries that significance.

Anonymous said...

The moral types are:

He who acts without regard for morals even in the face of punishment. It's the antisocial individual, the criminal. Five percent.

He who acts according to morals for fear of punishment, but would act amorally if there were none. About 30%.

He who acts according to morals even if there is no punishment. This is the grown-up individual, what is called a person.

The one who acts according to morals even if it means punishment. This is the top guy. There are few of them, but more than meets the eye.

The second type is about 30%, and they exist, there is no way to end them. They're the ones to blame for things like concentration camps. If one party brings them all together, as Nazism did with the Nazis'"displays of violence intimidate some, but attract others", it is when the great collective crimes occur.

The worst of the worst is when those of the first type, the antisocial, take power and ally themselves with those of the second type.

Eivind Berge said...

I am the kind of guy who acts morally even if it means punishment. Or at least I try to be. 35% sounds high for the really dangerous types, but I guess you need that many to explain collective atrocities that undoubtedly have happened, so it seems to be true.

Gally said...

Well, what are the sources?

Genuinely interested here, I have some sources of my own that I can add later, but I really should have yours first.

For the record, I believe acting "immoral" or "doing wrong" or "sinning" is the exception, not the norm.

Eivind Berge said...

The norm is to support laws that I find deeply immoral, such as age of consent and child porn law. Male sexualists are rare exceptions who stand for ethical sex laws, as I see it.

How is the verdict?

Gally said...

The verdict was promised to be communicated to me today; but since the shit-heads working for both "Jæren tingrett" (the court) AND the local police station, were unable to print it out to me, I have no idea.

My guesstimate though is that the claim of bearing the costs of the case will be rejected, and the claim of 2.5 years will be reduced down to 14 months.

I believe I will be told on monday, before eleven o'clock.

Anonymous said...

Another pedophile who has taken his own life for a life of torment.

He wasn't gay or transgendered. No memories, no newspapers complaining about his death, no politicians mourning his death.

They don't give a shit about us. So we don't give a shit about them. So be it.

Gally said...

Rise above violence.

That is my best advice, and I can base that not only on history, but also on psycology.

I have read quite a few books, and I do believe I can can contribute.

Right now I am drunk though, so LOL. Sorry about that, but I will extinguish that dependency, in max four months.

(I lost 3 kilos of weith in custody when I decided to control that, and just four kilos for a wheek when I stopped eating)

Gally said...

That was per week, to be specific.
(and yes I can document that)

Eivind Berge said...

I quit drinking almost ten years ago and very much recommend that. No need to wait four months either.

Gally said...

"I quit drinking almost ten years ago and very much recommend that. No need to wait four months either."

Absolutely, and yes thanks, you are correct.

For me, things are going to be happening extremely fast now. Second stage, I have waited for this for an entire year, and now I am "boosting" escape velocity style.

It is 06:13 and I am already planning for the weekend, the aftermath, and the future.

theAntifeminist said...

"The BBC version is simply the real-life "1984" news of the Party , but the Sun version is worse, really, it's funny, an asshole who has seen nothing but google images of the game, he calls it "sick", what happens to the British? have Tourette's syndrome? can say 2 sentences without an insult? Hitler should have destroyed that shitty island. Seriously, the British are uneducated jerks. Nobody will miss them."

Depressing news indeed, and I have no love anymore for my country, but did you miss the part where it says it's also been banned in Ireland, Germany, New Zealand etc?

We might have been one of the most cuplable countries for inflicting this puritanical feminist anti-sex view upon the world (partly simply because we industrialized first), but we're also home to the biggest resistance (Belfort Bax, Angry Harry, Steve Moxon, David Thomas, Holocaust21, myself - I suspect Tom Grauer even had some connection to Britain).

theAntifeminist said...

"Now, I read through quite a few books while in police custody (for no reason as previously explained), and in one of them, Steven Pinkerton of "The Better Angels of our Nature" tries to approach an explanation of "why" we (in the western world) had the Reneisance, "why" we had the development of humanistic philosophy, "why" we have become people who behave better towards one another - to the point where I could flat out tell a former friend, that I was attracted to 11yo girls, and he had absolutely zero problems with his twin girls climbing all over me, sitting on my lap, riding me like a donkey, chit-chating with me in a tent and so on and so forth."

Do you really think human nature is improving? Isn't this part of the 'progressive' narrative that because 1% of previously discriminated society (gays) can now marry, it shows how much more enlightened and compassionate we are (whilst 100% of men, incuding gays, have to live in fear of clicking on the wrong link and exposing their harddrive to cp, or glancing at a 15 year old girl whilst walking along the street or on the beach for fear of being lynched or arrested).

Stephen Pinker also ignores World Wars 1 and 2 as 'abberations'. He doesn't have much to say about ISIS or the rise of radical Islam. Even the worst medieval societies didn't lock people up for looking at forbidden images. But he probably thinks that our 21st century doing so is actually a sign of 'progress' (we care more about children).

Anonymous said...


If anyone like you tries anything with my 15-year-old daughter, I'll beat and kill you.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't think human nature is improving. There has been less need for violence in the recent past because there has been so much wealth go around, and that is the the trend Pinker is observing. Sexuality was briefly liberated as well, with a peak in the 1960s and 70s, due to all this energy abundance and the fact that the birth control pill caught women by surprise, taking away a major pragmatic reason for sexual restraint before blaming men could fill that gap. Now tensions are rising again due to overpopulation and depletion of easily accessible resources. Your risk of being a victim of violence is still historically low, but not because people are better. Now they mainly express their hate in online comments about how much they want to kill pedophiles or other groups, but I think it can easily be translated into action when conditions are right. And there are so many hateful new laws only waiting to be enforced, so governments may well soon take care of that business anyway without the haters needing to get their hands bloody.

Chinzork said...

"Stephen Pinker also ignores World Wars 1 and 2 as 'abberations'"

WWI and WWII were essentially the continuation of large-scale conflicts that had occurred before them (e.g. Seven Years War). Basically, they were the logical conclusion of history up to that point. Such a large-scale conflict happening again (at least in the near or moderate-term future) is unlikely due to the current geopolitical power balance (same reason why the Cold War never turned hot). Of course, it is always possible but not likely IMO.

I think "progressives" like Pinker simply choose to ignore the "dark side" of human nature. What they put forth instead is an idealized version of humanity that doesn't exist in reality. Now, I am not saying that humans are inherently "evil" or "fallen," but we are definitely not angels either. Human beings are simply selfish and sometimes crazy. And when I say selfish, I am not simply talking about material selfishness but about a holistic selfishness that has both tangible and intangible components. The "good behavior" of humans is basically an attempt to satisfy intangible needs. This is why, for example, every religion and spiritual movement has some concept of salvation.

Anonymous said...

“I’ve spent the last seven years interviewing high-school and college students about sex and emotional intimacy — the last year-and-a-half talking exclusively to boys. Of course, we discussed sexual violation. I’d assumed, at least for heterosexual boys, that we’d talk about what they thought it meant to get consent from a girl, how they’d define assault. What surprised me was how often the boys brought up their own experience of unwanted sex: encounters in which girls did not respect “no” or, as with Dylan, took advantage of them when they were drunk.

I want to be clear: Girls bear the brunt — both physically and psychologically — of sexual harassment, assault, and rape, but they’re not its exclusive targets. Middle- and high-school-aged boys report being the victims of dating violence, including physical abuse, at rates similar to girls. In a 2015 study, 43 percent of high-school and college boys said they’d been the victim of some form of sexual coercion — verbal, physical, substance-related — and 95 percent said the aggressors were girls. And large-scale surveys of college students — including the 21,000 who participated in the Online College Social Life Survey and the 9,616 involved in Columbia University’s Sexual Health Initiative to Foster Transformation — have found that roughly one in eight men have experienced something that meets the criteria for sexual assault; in over 80 percent of those cases, one study found, the perpetrators were female.

43% of high-school & college boys said they’d been the victim of sexual coercion — and 95% said the aggressors were girls.

Roughly one in eight men have experienced sexual assault; in over 80% of those cases, the perpetrators were female.”

Eivind Berge said...

That is standard feminist drivel which conflates sexual with physical abuse to make it look like boys can be victims of female sexual acts, and furthermore equates the existence of female sexual coercion with sexual abuse. The reality is that of course males can be victims of female-perpetrated physical abuse and female sexual coercion, but none of this carries the significance of or deserves the name of rape or sexual abuse.

Eivind Berge said...

That article identifies unwanted sex and tries to shoehorn it into the feminist concept of sexual assault. But even while trying so hard, the feminist author has to admit that boys don't really see it that way: "Legally speaking, you call it sexual assault. But in reality, few guys do." She could only find one boy who was mildly upset in seven years of interviews. So this article actually proves my point. That Dylan character is an outlier if he exists at all, someone with either a bad case of feminist brainwashing or an allergy to something normal males find harmless.

Isn't it funny how this feminist propaganda actually shows the opposite of what it is trying to prove? Peggy Orenstein desperately wants boys to be traumatized in order to validate her hateful definitions of sexual assault, but reality isn't cooperating. Men most assuredly don't need these laws, and they are unfair when women use them as well because true rape requires much more resistance.

Eivind Berge said...

I could use the same tactic to "prove" that rape is harmless to women. If I spent seven years interviewing hundreds of females who have had forced or unwanted sex with men, I am sure I would find at least one who was unaffected. Would it be fair to use her as representative of the female reaction to rape? I think not, so why does this pass as a serious article about men's reaction to female sexual coercion?

Why is it so fucking hard to admit that the sexes are different? The author says herself: "No question, Dylan took his experience harder than the other boys I’d met." So why does Dylan get so much attention? How would you like it if I upheld the LEAST common female rape victim as normative, Peggy? You are not doing men any favors by pretending we are like that, only serving the feminist agenda, and I hope all my readers can see that by now.

Chinzork said...

I think the whole idea of sexual violence is nonsensical. Physical violence and sexual coercion both exist in reality, but sexual violence is something that only exists in theory.

Honestly, I do not see sexual coercion as a big deal at all for males or for females. In the first place, all sex is coercive on some level (once again the animal kingdom has numerous examples). Being coerced into sex can be annoying sometimes, but it shouldn't be the big deal many people make it out to be.

Eivind Berge said...

The odious ideology behind this "research" is this: Sex is something so horrible that only the most hysterical reaction is the right one. It doesn't matter how uncommon this reaction is -- it is always the one by which all sex is to be judged. There are no sex differences, because the 1% most hysterical men speak for all men. Despite all of these boys having grown up in a feminist environment where gender equality is chanted all day long, it took seven years to find one who would parrot the feminist party line about boys' perception of female sexual coercion, and so this is the boy who gets to speak for all men.

The pinnacle of sex-hostility, however, is the identification of boys who have had sex in order to not hurt a girl's feelings by turning her down as abuse victims. It boggles the mind that this can be twisted into sexual abuse, but that is literally what Peggy Orenstein does. See how hateful this ideology is? It posits sex as the supremely worst thing in the universe, to such an absurd extent that a boy is raped if he has sex to be nice. I can't fathom how these feminist scumbags can think like that, but they write it with a straight face, so I must assume they do. I don't have words for how disgusted I am. The paragraph I am going to quote now shows how the feminist concept sexual abuse has been extended ad absurdum like a parody on itself, yet the feminists are too dense to realize how bizarre and hateful they look:

Nearly 20 percent of the men Ford interviewed, like Dylan, said they’d been too incapacitated to refuse — some saying they’d been too drunk to walk. Most of the rest succumbed to something subtler: a voice in their heads that said, providing that a girl was neither too drunk nor too unattractive, guys should always be “down to fuck.” Refusing her advances would be awkward, unmanly, gay. Some even feared being rude. “They thought saying no to a blow job would hurt a girl’s feelings,” Ford said. “It seemed easier to just go along with it to end things.” That’s remarkably similar logic to girls who go down on guys without wanting to, especially during a hookup. They, too, were exquisitely tuned to gender expectations — the potential to be called a bitch or a prude — and worried about being “impolite.” They, too, would rather feel abused than risk humiliating or disappointing a partner. In either scenario, however, girls’ physical gratification was not a factor.

If this doesn't convince you that feminism is a pure anti-sex religion, obsessed with condemning sex in all forms as "abuse," I don't know what will. Why even bother with the theoretical justifications anymore? Just replace "sex" with "abuse" and be done with it, because the definitions have ballooned to encompass all of sexuality already.

So if a boy accepts a blowjob because he doesn't want to hurt a girl's feelings, he will definitely want to accuse her of sexual abuse, right? That doesn't hurt his feelings, because now he has an ideological reason to demonize her, namely feminism. You can't make this shit up. This is literally what feminists believe. This is feminist logic, and this is their odious morality and worldview.

Eivind Berge said...

After that dive into feminist filth, we now return to wholesome male sexualism. To the commenter who posted it -- please THINK a little next time you read a feminist article. We don't need that drivel here except to debunk it, and a little goes a long way because it is utterly predictable. Just the title is enough to see what is going on here: "Boys Often Don’t Recognize When They’ve Been Sexually Assaulted." Oh, so boys' experiences aren't authentic without feminist reeducation? See how demeaning and wrong and duplicitous that is? This is feminist propaganda, and that is all it is. The real agenda is to promote hateful feminist sex laws that hurt men.

Anonymous said...

New Meme: Eivind Gets Triggered by Crazy Feminist hahaha

Eivind Berge said...

I just read this astonishing comment on Cryonet (by Mike Darwin). It would appear that Japan is already so messed up that they could ban sex, or at least raise the age of consent to 30, and almost no one will notice. No wonder they are now susceptible to feminism:

About the nightmarish collapse of social functionality among those under 40 in Japan. I didn't think it was possible to so fuck up a society that ~40% of the adults age 30 or under have never had sex and have no intention of ever having it. Thirty percent of that demographic has also never dated. The Japanese press calls this sekkusu shinai shokogun, which means celibacy syndrome. Celibacy epidemic is more like it. A recent study by Japan's equivalent of Planned Parenthood found that "16% of men and 45% of women aged 16-24 were not interested in or despised sexual contact."

There are also roughly 13 million single people in Japan who currently live with their parents and about 3 million of them are over the age of 35! Then there are the 700,000 hikikomori; people who have withdrawn into severe isolation and who rarely ever leave home. Guess what they spend most of their doing? If you answered watching escapist TV and using the Internet you'd be right. While there are less than a million hikikomori now, government studies indicate that there ~1.5 million additional people who are in the process of becoming hikikomori.

I consider myself a serious student of history and I know of nothing that you can do to a population that will cause these phenomena -- certainly not in upwards of half of it! War, famine, brutal and degrading conquest, none of these things stop 40% of the reproductive age population from engaging in sex and reproducing. The only example of this that I can think of was the absence of libido among Nazi concentration camp inmates. This was primarily a result of starvation which abolished not only menses in the women, but also the ability to have an erection and experience wet dreams in men -- semen production apparently halted. If inmates managed to get access to an adequate amount of food, then reportedly libido and sexual activity typically returned.

While there are diverse social and economic problems that underlie the severe psychosocial dysfunction in Japan, this manifestation of it would have been unlikely, or even impossible if it were not for the refuge technologies of TV and the web.

Eivind Berge said...

To Amos Yee and his supporters who think feminism is all fine and dandy as long as we remove the age of consent, check this out:

The 16-year-old girl is over the age of consent, but the man is still arrested. He is not even a teacher or other "authority" figure that would enable other feminist laws, but no one cares because this is what this society does: arrest men for sex, regardless of the circumstances. "Age of consent" is just a mostly irrelevant distraction from the systematic oppression of male sexuality under feminism.

This is why pedophile activists will get nowhere without male sexualism, because we are the only ones who oppose this systematic oppression.

Anonymous said...

"i personally distrust (sometimes to the point of disgust) coaches of all sorts. some i have seen, are positively sick pedos (like church priests, to give you the idea what i mean)"

This is from same man in Twitter who said abortion is a right.

This is the crap that is the MRA.

Anonymous said...

Coaches and teachers should be allowed or even encouraged to marry their students, specifically old male teachers and young female students.

Anonymous said...

“Facebook is under fire for asking users whether pedophiles should be able to proposition underage girls for sexually explicit photographs on the giant social network.

The survey is the latest in a series of missteps by the Silicon Valley company, which has been criticized for allowing content that exploits children.

From violence on its Live streaming service to hate speech to divisive messages sent by Russian operatives trying to meddle in the U.S. presidential election, toxic content flowing through its platform has heightened scrutiny of Facebook.

Facebook scrapped the survey that posed questions about teens being groomed by older men after it was spotted by media outlets in the United Kingdom. It now says the survey could have been better “designed.”

The company routinely uses surveys to get feedback from the social network’s more than 2 billion users. More recently, Facebook has been relying on user surveys to take their pulse on everything from the “fake news” epidemic to whether Facebook makes them happy as people have stopped spending as much time there.

But the two questions in Sunday’s survey shocked and angered Facebook users.

“In thinking about an ideal world where you could set Facebook’s policies, how would you handle the following: a private message in which an adult man asks a 14-year-old girl for sexual pictures,” Facebook asked.”

Eivind Berge said...

I thought Facebook excluded sex offenders, so the existence of that survey was an improvement, then. It shows that maybe the threat of losing users due to a hateful stance on sexuality is influencing them to reconsider.

I blogged about it before:

And this still seems to be status quo as they gave in to pressure from puritan-feminism, unsurprisingly originating in the UK. Let us show Facebook our disapproval by spending little or no time there. I still have an account, but haven't updated my profile picture or done much of anything since 2012.

Anonymous said...

Hello, Eivind, if you don't mind, I'll leave you this that wrote holocaust21 in his blog, important to all MRAs::

Posted this on Mike Buchanan’s blog and he simply removed the comment. So much for “Justice For Men & Boys” caring about male suicides. I’m tempted to create my own political party called Real Justice For Men & Boys…!

I know you have a tendency to delete my posts that relate to paedophilia for reasons I can only guess but speaking of hurting our young men…

I just heard that this very young man recently committed suicide:

He was battling with his own sexuality (realising he was a paedophile) and had been expressing his views on youtube with the inevitable social justice backlash. I think he has deleted his youtube channel but if you search for “omnipolitics16” (the name he went by) then you can see all the replies to his videos which demonise him etc. It’s ironic that feminists will scream blue murder if a girl is as much as bullied – let alone if she commits suicide! But driving a young man to suicide, no problem! This society is just sick.

Gally said...

@theDailyAntiFeminist (my apologies for not answering sooner, I have been otherwise occupied as I still am)
"Do you really think human nature is improving?"

Absolutely, from the Flynn effect to modern medicine, healthcare, and prosperity and longevitiy both having improved to the point where a person today, compared to having the physical amenities of somebody living only 100 years ago, pretty much with fit into the upper levels of the arstocracy class.

whilst 100% of men, incuding gays, have to live in fear of clicking on the wrong link and exposing their harddrive to cp, or glancing at a 15 year old girl whilst walking along the street or on the beach for fear of being lynched or arrested

If any of that was the case then poeple would have noticed and you sound unrealistic. Bitterness can do that to a man, and also having a contrarian mindset , just as a pointer.

Stephen Pinker also ignores World Wars 1 and 2 as 'abberations'.
Well, have you read the book?
You might want to do so again, because he compares them with several things and argues the case that OVERALL violence has gone down, in part due to the rule of law - and international cooperation instead of constant little wars pissing people of and making trade almost impossible at times, in turn making taxation a game and not a part of politics.

He doesn't have much to say about ISIS or the rise of radical Islam. Even the worst medieval societies didn't lock people up for looking at forbidden images.
No, they only did so for reading the bible in their own language. See William Tyndale f.eks.

Gally said...

You might also want to throw in "Guns, Germs & Steel" there, as a comparison, where Jared Diamond talks about how clan-based societies basically were at constant war and the Incas built towers about 130.000 skulls high because, you know, meat was in short supply and ah... human flesh tastes very much like extra juicy pig-meat, which is why they call it "long pig".

And which also incidentally is why people on isolated islands with a hard-ruling upperclass tolerated them keeping pigs even though they were a constant nuicsance, eating from their vegetable gardens and so on, because the alternative would be what happen when Chrishmas' Islands biotope collapsed, which gave rise to the insult: "The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth"

Gally said...

Easter Island, my bad.

Part of the reason why they built those gigantic heads, was to show the other clans how much man-power they had. Like, that time's "nuclear deterrence".

They still got population crash, because once you have run out of timber to build canoes - because you used them all to roll those stoneheads in place - you ain't got nuthin' left to go fish with, and so, *badoom*, you are left with chicken and soil-erosion because all the strong roots are gone and well.

I was *supposed* to receive a verdict all day - in fact, all of friday - but seems they have "made a mistake" and the verdict needs to be "corrected".

One funny thing thought: According to Norwegian law (IANAL), if your verdict becomes public, your complaint also does so.

So give it ut me, I can host my protest on tree different darknets AND a site I have paid for ten years.

Round #2, and this time I will both be prepared AND show up with the right kind of witnesses.

Eivind Berge said...

Do you mean that your appeal documents will include child porn which will then have to be available to the public by law? If so, I agree that is a good way to mock the law.

Gally said...

"Do you mean that your appeal documents will include child porn which will then have to be available to the public by law?"

I don't quite think so, but not to get ahead of myself, there will of course be requests for documents that are needed to "enlighten the case sufficiently", and not to say too much, I don't think the police have quite thought through how they may need to answer for their decisions.

Likely there's some turf-competition between Bergen police precinct and the South-West precinct (where this case has been running), where, let' just say, people in the South-West are clearly technically inept.

And the entire police custody has been illegal, something they in fact admitted to themselves in court, only the stumbling fool who tried to explain himself to the judge after he had been asked three or four times what kind of material and distribution of this was it they were talking about directly, forgot himself and didn't seem to realize that he admitted I was only in custody because they wanted to work through the case first.

Which is illegal, as the law is specific:
a) You are put in custody if there is specific and good reason to believe you can destroy evidence (which would be impossible seeing how they had confiscated all of my equipment)
b) There is specific and realistic expectation that you will repeat your crime where you put free (again, with what equipment?)

So, there's where we stand right now, and there is no wonder I should have had this verdict on friday but they still haven't "fixed it up" good enough to be publicized, which they now have only two more days to do should they wish to not be on overtime in deciding the case and simply declaring the verdict.

Gally said...

Actually, looking at the timing, they are already on overtimefor of almost a week.

That ain't normal procedure, clearly something is going down behind the scenes.

Anonymous said...

I was sexual assaulted by older girls at school, some 40 odd years ago. I guess that wouldn’t be classified as historic child sexual abuse because the perpetrators were girls!

Eivind Berge said...

"I was sexual assaulted by older girls at school."

I am sure you were, and don't we all wish to be so lucky? Now here is a warning: I have a very loose moderation policy on my blog, but trolling with the single most offensive feminist lie -- that women can commit "rape" or "sexual assault" -- will not be tolerated. It is extremely triggering to hear the female sex offender charade repeated more than necessary for our activism against it. If you are looking for sympathy because you believe you have had too much sex with women, visit a feminist site where sex-hostility is the prevailing ideology. This is a male sexualist site where sex with females is realistically valued.

Anonymous said...

Report this fake self-proclaimed "antifeminist" scum, he is not, is another degenerate bisexual "egalitarianist" who thinks that sex with a 16 year old girl is sexual abuse, throw out this human shame out of Twitter:

Anonymous said...

If you watch this guy's Twitter who called himself "anti-feminist" (laughs) and "egalitarian" (aka feminist, more laughs), you'll see that besides being "bisexual and like men" and a believer in "sex with a person under 18 is rape and sexual assault" (its againt the law blah blah blah i'm a idiot blah) he is "anti-transphobia", he is the example of a perfect useful fool and idiot lobotomized by the feminist system.

Even feminists don't want these gay, transgendered and bisexual scumbags, who have to run away and go to the likes of fake MRA Paul Elam and others.

Hey A FREE tip for you "egalitarian" prick: Being a sane man is being heterosexual and like women from early teens to up. Anti-male sexuality scum.

Anonymous said...

The last thing that betrays him as a feminist or useful fool of feminists, is that he uses the word "reproductive rights", instead of just "abortion" or "murder of unborn children", this is because for these "equalitarian" as they are just feminists with other name, abortion is a reproductive right in general, it only becomes a problem when it is applied only to males (Fake MRAs) or females (feminists), or even as these fake MRA are so aspies that some campaing about that "reproductive rights are denied to men" or that sort of masculinist/Fake MRA nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Gally said...

MRA's who are against abortion might wish to consider pushing for "legal abortion" instead of using terms that only serve to polarize the debate.
Namely, the right of a man to at any time decide not to pay child support.

Why should he, after all? It's a woman's body, is it not? And where and how does he get to have his say about whether a woman decides to lie to him about being on birth control, and becoming pregnant without his consent?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

@theantifeminist in his own blog:

"But most importantly, and most damagingly, these aspie asshats are actually pathologizing the attraction to 17 year olds, which every single man on Earth"

"or go into battle with potentially 3 billion men at your side?"

Most men willingly and delightedly reject 16 and 17 year olds (I not say 15 years old because for them, those under 16 years of age are to be CHILDREN directly and literally). Almost 3 billion men consider 17-year-olds to be genuinely immature kids. It doesn't matter if they are attracted to their bodies for 15 seconds, they look and go for fully formed adult women over 18 or 20, illegal at 18 or 20 too? even in that case NOT PROBLEMO most men prefer them over 25 or even a respetable number even in ther 30s. You're not getting any to your cause. Men do not want teens want adult women. Eivind Berge denies that hebephilia is normal to men. Man... Your ultimate enemies were all others men, not women. Because of that, you failed. Live your days in your own bubble if it makes you happier.

One thing before the curtain comes down, buddy. The only thing that could have saved you was to join people like "FeldMarchall" or whatever it is written and to separate you like another different sexuality: ephebophilia. Maybe you could have been something important, a "marshal of the ephebophilia Union"?? you know... a big fish in a small lake... A lake of ephebophiles, who feel and are like you. Ephebophilia means "Attracted to teenagers" not a "straight man" that are those who likes adult women but not an "aspie" that are those who have a mental handicap. No. Ephebophile. Which is what you are and will be forever. And the curtain comes down now.

Gally said...

"Most men willingly and delightedly reject 16 and 17 year olds (I not say 15 years old because for them, those under 16 years of age are to be CHILDREN directly and literally). Almost 3 billion men consider 17-year-olds to be genuinely immature kids."

I don't know how you can use the phrase "most" in such a cavalier way, but for your information, for about 99.99% of human history a person of 16-17 years old, being female, would already have two children.

Also, on a sidenote, we are talking 3.5 billion people on THE FUCKING FACE OF THE ENTIRE PLANET, not just the idiots in the US. Who by the way, genitally mutilate baby boys in order to prevent them from masturbating, so maybe they don't have a candle to hold up to the hurricane of righteous moral indignation that they profess to represent?

Which, brings me to the next point: What in the name of FLYING FUCK makes you think, for one goddamned second, that amongst all the mammalian species on this planet, who are counted as ADULT SPECIMENS when they are fully capable of procreating and giving birth without any complications what-so-everloving-fucking-shit-ever, WHY: Why and for what reason, biologically and logically speaking, are humans so different?

Are you not, in fact, arguing from your insular moralistic point of view, and may I add, inability to comprehend your own ignorant idiocy?

You fåkking Dunning-Krugerrand simpleton.
Here, let John Cleese finish the burnage:

theAntifeminist said...

@FeldMarshall - Most men 'reject' 16 and 17 year old girls simply because they likely couldn't attract a girl that age, and even if they could, the know they wouldn't be able to handal the social stigma that comes with dating a girl that young, even if technically legal in itself. I was dating a 19 year old in the Ukraine a couple of years ago and even there I found it hard to deal with the constant jealous looks and comments from other men and women, as well as aggression from local teenage boys. 16 and 17 year olds might be still 'legal' but there's a whole lot of baggage you have to deal with actually dating one, as well as recent legislative creep against 'sexting', 'grooming' and the like. All we can say is that whenever in human history it has been acceptable to date girls that age, then that age would be considered the norm of peak sexual attractiveness. Less than 20 years ago the most popular porn syndicate in Europe was 'Channel Seventeen' (they still exist and under that name, but obviously have to use only 18 and 19 year olds these days).

So if I look at hot 17 year old in Starbucks, and after 5 seconds, unlike 'most men' (according to you) instead of slapping my dick and telling myself 'eww, that's wrong', I think - 'well, she's hot, and the only reason not to think so is the fake morality imposed by jealous middle-aged femihags, so I'm going to keep looking and maybe I'll even try my luck'... this makes me an 'ephebophile'??

As for the other crap you've written (and yes, it's obvious that you are 'FeldMarshall') - I'm not sure in what sense 'I've failed'. Myself, Holocaust21, and Eivind have achieved more in the last ten years than the 'MAP community' did in decades. At least we know who the enemy is.

Anyway, yes, bring down the curtain and go back to spending the next 20 years discussing the really important question - the precise difference between an 'ephebophile' and a 'hebophile'.

Jennifer said...

No, Gally, those of 17 look like adult women but they are not, they are children, you sick fuck, that's why men ask for their ID to check she is over 18 because normal men do not try to sleep with a minor. which is, in addition to a crime, is disgusting.

Anonymous said...

A woman is an adult when she begins having periods. That is when she should be available for sex (in marriage) to a man of any age from his puberty (when his voice gets low) to any age beyond that. Muhammad prophet married aisha when she was 9 and he was 40 something. That should be legalized and accepted today because prophet muhammad is the role model ideal for all men.

Eivind Berge said...

We need to lower the age of consent to prevent unfair punishments, but it won't solve those other problems. "Ephebophiles" are just normal men who are willing to put up with all the hate that goes along with admitting that attraction doesn't start at 18. Most men conclude (correctly, I think) that girls are almost equally hot for several more years, and so resign themselves to only pursuing those over 18. And that's mostly fine, not much of a sacrifice, except for the ghastly consequences for those who happen to hook up with younger teenagers -- which I think is usually down to random chance rather than an "ephebophile" orientation. These men are victims under current laws, and male sexualism is the ideology which exists to help them.

It's hard to envision a society where teenage girls are free to be sluts, however. It seems they either have to be married or "victims" if they have sex, because too much value is at stake and it will be regulated somehow. So I think we are fighting an impossible battle if that is the goal, but it should at least be realistic to remove the most insane punishments.

Anonymous said...

“Police have been accused of “victim blaming” children who were targeted by grooming gangs in the Telford sex abuse scandal.

Officers investigating child sexual exploitation in the town were sent an internal memo telling them “in most cases the sex is consensual”.

Some of the victims were just 11 years old and specialist child abuse lawyer Dino Nocivelli said: “This is victim blaming at its worst.

“The authorities just don’t seem to get it. Children cannot agree to sex.

“Just because a child is not being physically forced to carry out sexual acts, it doesn’t mean they consented.”

A person under 16 cannot be deemed in law to have consented to sex, but the word “consensual” was used to describe offences involving children four times in the memo.

When questioned about the memos West Mercia Police Assistant Chief Constable Martin Evans still referred to the issue of consent.

He said: “Any incident that is reported to us as child sexual ­exploitation is investigated as such and is taken very seriously, regardless of any consent which may or may not have been given by the victim.”

Eivind Berge said...

Britain still has a distinction between illegal underage sex and rape, distinguished by actual consent, so the police are using the right terminology according to the law. Of course, this can get worse and probably will. France is currently in the lead with a new law setting the "all sex is rape" age at 15, but I doubt that will satisfy the abuse industry either, so expect this to creep up to the age of consent, which itself will probably be 18 before long.

Anonymous said...

You are wrong about that the Holocaust not happen, Eivind, but debating history is a waste of time. My knowledge of the facts is direct from my parents who were there, so I don’t need any more research.

Gally said...

"No, Gally, those of 17 look like adult women but they are not, they are children,"

Oh right, I am so oh so sorry, turns out that you are correct and living organisms cannot use their visual faculties to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate mating partners based on the full development of secondary sexual characteristics such as tits that can feed a baby and hips that can accommodate giving birth to a child pluss a healthy amount of body fat that can sustain a pregnancy without depleting resources.

And what you are left with, is namecalling instead of real arguments, because you can't do anything but repeat yourself.

(name-calling is imho fine IF but only IF you also present proper argumentation)

Anonymous said...

"Almost 3 billion men consider 17-year-olds to be genuinely immature kids. It doesn't matter if they are attracted to their bodies for 15 seconds, they look and go for fully formed adult women over 18 or 20, illegal at 18 or 20 too? even in that case NOT PROBLEMO most men prefer them over 25 or even a respetable number even in ther 30s. "

This is simply not true. If 3 billion men really believed that it would mean that male biology suddenly changed it in the last couple of decades or that basically all of history is a lie. Couple of millions of delusional morons like you believe so because they have internalized the crazy to such an extreme point and many more are attracted to them but ashamed/frightened, which is why you are so hated by remaining sane men like those constantly posting here. The amount of pain you case is unreal.

You are a delusional dangerous fool. The thing is, there is nobody to fool here. The morons who will agree with you have already agreed with you before and sane people aren't going to agree with you.

It really is that simple. If men fucked/married girls younger than that for millennia what makes you think they no longer want to? Either their biology would suddenly have to undergo a radical, incredible change or you believe all historical sources are lies. Of course, both of these ideas are nonsense and this is why you are an idiot. Your bullshit doesn't have a damn leg to stand on.

And mind you, I'm taking a different route than Eivind does. As a Muslim I am basically granted immunity by your kin (you can deny that it is what YOU believe but it is what the kind of people like you generally do believe, snowflake) and thus encourage all men to become Muslims and gain considerably more immunity. Muslims are one of the Sacred classes of the Western liberal society so becoming a Muslim is like a shield. At this point I'm more worried about the anti-islamic right/cuckservative blue knights than you.

Anonymous said...

*you cause

theAntifeminist said...

I wonder if the young 'MAP' YouTuber who tragically killed himself recently would have done so if he had chosen the identity of a male sexualist rather than obsessing over the feeling of being catastrophically different to other men?

I note also that there is a virtous 'MAP' on Holocaust21's site actually defending feminist child porn laws to the letter. MAP communities seem to spend all their time discussing whether looking at pictures of 17 year old girls in bikinis should after all, be made legal again, or whether the age of consent should be raised to 21, so long as society accepts that virtuous MAPS who find 20 year olds attractive but never offend, should be left alone. That and discussing the crucial distinctions between hebophile, ephebophile, phebophile, teleophile, telehebophile etc.

Male sexualists discuss ways we can f*** up the feminist agenda.

@Eivind - I agree that for most men, the age of consent of 16 or 18 isn't a tragedy in itself, but it's really the accompanying laws (such as insane cp laws) that imperil most men on a day to day basis. It's also the case that the age of consent isn't simply a weapon used by femihags to stop men having sex with girls aged below, it's used by them even more so to stop men from purusing young women just above the age of consent. As the delightful Jennifer implies, we live in a world now in which most men need to ask for a young woman's ID (and permission) before making a pass at them in a nightclub and so on. And given that underage girls find it easy enough to get hold of fake IDs to enable them to get into nightclubs etc, most men simply aren't going to take the risk of pursuing any female that looks under 20 and who might be under the aoc. The majority of 16 year old girls actually have completed their physical development, so if you have an age of consent of 18, then basically it's hard to tell whether a young woman is legal or not simply by her looks.

The same goes for online dating apps and sties such as Tinder, where it's very easy for minors to lie about their age.

@Gally - you confuse me with the DailyAntiFeminist (easily enough done). As regards your comments on Stephen Pinker, I'm still not sold on the idea that we are even generally getting nicer as a species. More importantly, I find it difficult to see how somebody currently being victimized by society can think that. I wonder how many Jews in Nazi Germany could take the view that 'well, this is all an aberation. People in general are getting nicer'. Today, the whole world can be compared to anti-sex NAZIs. Furthermore, the commonly held view that society is 'progressing' is a tool being used by feminists to justify their sex puritanism and persecution of normal men, or 'MAPs', or whatever you want to call the victims of feminist anti-sex laws.

@Jessica - the feeling is mutual. Personally I long for the day that evil jealous inhuman monsters like you who are willing to bring so much suffering to so many people, including the teenage girls you destroy with your victim labelling, simply in order to raise your own pitiful sexual market value, are wiped from the face of the Earth.

Gally said...

Well, Steven Pinker's views I am not familiar enough with to talk about with sufficient confidence, but he strikes me as a rather "feminized" philosopher, who is mostly occupied with gaining other's approval and being liked for his "prettified" opinions, than actually looking at things through the glasses of a self-sceptic.

However, "we are getting 'nicer'", was not the claim I made, it was "our lives have become materially and physically better (and longer)".

Now, you don't change ten million years of evolution in a century, and our inbuilt, latent game-theory-like thinking still operates mostly on instincts.
We have become marginally smarter, which would support Bertrand Russel's argument that you can't make a person more moral, but you can make him more intelligent, and then at least he won't do evil out of stupidity or incompetence.

Now, of course, the growth of the bureaucracy and also how capitalism rewards psychopathy, kind of counters that so we are sort of back at square one.

However, at the end of the day it's all about conditioning - provide people with plenty of examples of non-violent, kind, caring and compassionate people as they grow up, and those not so inclined to avoid violence will still hesitate to use it as a solution simply because it is unfamiliar and uncommon to them.
Add social sanctioning for bad behaviour, and positive rewards for good, and progress can most definitely be demonstrated.

Gally said...

You might benefit from growing a few more brain cells.

Here's some "fertilizer", "food for thought" if you will:

And I quote, from "Sexuality and Sexual Decision making":
Much of the literature on female adolescent sexuality focuses exclusively on the problems or negative consequences associated with individual girls' sexual behavior and narrowly defines sexual decision making as individual risk-taking behavior. Unfortunately, these studies often use samples of girls of color and poor girls, adolescents who are considered most at risk for being "bad" sexual decision makers; middle-class suburban girls or disabled girls, who are not considered at risk in part because their sexuality is less scrutinized or visible, are thus not often the focus of such studies. In addition, there exists a tendency to study girls primarily, even though sexual decisions, especially those that have negative consequences, are made by both partners.

In the United States, the timeworn adage that "boys want sex, girls want relationships" has permeated beliefs about adolescent sexuality. Only recently, as psychologists began to challenge these previous assumptions about male and female adolescent sexuality and intimacy, has girls' sexual desire been acknowledged as a factor in their sexual decision making.

Recent research attempts focus on understanding how adolescent girls experience their sexuality to determine effective means for empowering girls to develop responsible sexual subjectivities. Such research has generated new avenues for exploration, such as understanding if and how girls from different social and material locations negotiate the following:

Make active and safe choices about sexual behaviors and about the relationships within which they engage in these expressions of their sexuality. Develop a sense of entitlement to their own pleasure and desire. Identify and learn to negotiate the often unequal power distribution typical of male-female relationships.
The centrality of relationships in girl's psychological development suggests the importance of relationships in girls' sexuality development, including girls' decisions about sexual behavior. Taking girls' relational contexts seriously in both research and practice demands a focus on the meanings of sexuality and sexual decisions and the processes by which girls develop their sexuality beyond their choice to have sexual intercourse.

In other words: The development of grasping the concept of "consent" beyond "you are not allowed to make such decisions yet because you are 'too young'"

I bet if we didn't focus so much on telling young teenagers that they can't consent, we wouldn't be having so many blatantly false rape accusations from adult women.

Gally said...

Oh, and another thing:

"Meet Miami teen Angie Varona, whose life was turned upside down when she became an online sex symbol."

As the saying goes: "I would berry my dick so deep into that girl's ass that whomever could pull it out would be crowned King of the Britons"

Anonymous said...

Regarding the kid who committed suicide, that is tragic but just shows the insanity of the current world. "Kids" who aren't 18 can't consent for some reason but ripping a young man who was 17/18 on fucking YouTube is just peachy and bearable for somebody that young. This world is an insane cesspool and I hope AI develops to a point of completely autonomous consciousness and sees us as pathetic vermin we are, destroying us all.

Chinzork said...

"MAPs" are very similar to "MRAs" IMO. Both are obsessed with virtue signaling and kowtowing to feminism.

Eivind Berge said...

I am still trying to rescue the term "MRA," but it's good that we now have the option to call ourselves male sexualists to set us apart from the fake "MRAs."

Gally said...

@caamib: "cock-carousel freeloading vapid joyrider"

I am so stealing that.

Chinzork said...

" am still trying to rescue the term "MRA,""

I think the term "MRA" is beyond saving at this point. Besides, "Male Sexualist" is a much more honest term for our movement and philosophy.

Speaking of which, we should be on the lookout for "MRA" and "MAP" concern trolls. False friends are often more dangerous than open enemies.

Rebecca Reid said...


I was a naive teenage girl but I'm now an capable adult woman in my 30s I'll tell you why teenage girls want relationships with older men thats why its their responsibility to say NO:

I might not like it, you might like it, and we might all wish that is wasn’t true, but the thing is, teenage girls do fancy older men. They do desire them.

When we pretend that teenage girls don’t have a sexual identity, or that they don’t ever find older men attractive, we ignore the problem. When we ignore the problem, we allow it to flourish.

I attended an all girl Catholic boarding school where there was, as you can imagine, sweet FA in terms of male attention to be had. I had always assumed that man-drought was the reason that most of us developed a passionate crush on a teacher at some point in our school career.

But having spoken to women who were raised in slightly less bizarre circumstances, I’ve revised that assumption. It’s not just girls who go to school in the middle of nowhere with no boys to flirt with who form passionate romantic obsessions with male teachers.

It happens at every school, in every town, all over the world.

Don’t we all have that friend who dated an ‘older’ guy when she was at school? I have more stories than I can count of sneaking out of school to meet up with men in their twenties and thirties so that we could drive around in his car drinking the alcohol he’d brought us and sneaking an illicit cigarette.

When you’re a teenager it doesn’t take much to make you feel sophisticated. Drinking, smoking and the ability to drive feel like the trifecta of adulthood, and if you’ve got even two of the three, you’re impressive.

Dating a teenager is a particularly intoxicating opportunity for men who struggle with women their own age. The benefit of being an older man is that you’re able to attract more conventionally attractive girls.

A younger woman will look up to you. She’ll listen to you. She’ll see you as wordly, she’ll see you as impressive. If you tell her she’s ‘mature’ for her age, she’ll believe you.

Even a small age gap – mid teens to early twenties, still carries this kind of imbalance. The vast majority of men would never want to accidentally take advantage of a younger woman. When it happens it’s not motivated my malice or designed to be predatory. It’s because they don’t realise that they’re acting from a position of power.

I draw a line in my head between the older men I fancied at a teenager who resolutely refused to engage with it, and those who indulged it or even courted it. There were teachers who let me embarrass myself with clumsy childish flirting but never encouraged me for a second. I feel intensely grateful to them now. I would have done literally anything that they wanted.

There were also people who weren’t so scrupulous. A boss who groped me whenever he could. Older men at parties who made comments about my body or came on to me. I remember them too. And I wish they’d known that I didn’t fancy them because they were interesting or attractive, but because they seemed powerful to me.

They weren’t powerful. They were sad men who were dazzled by youngness and flattered by my attention. They didn’t pause to think about the fact that I would remember how they ran their hands over my body or asked me if I was ‘still a virgin’.

I just wish that for once the older man would brush her off and encourage her to go off and find someone a little closer to her age to explore with, at least until she reaches the status of a legal adult.

Gally said...

"I'll tell you why teenage girls want relationships with older men thats why its their responsibility to say NO:"

"I wish that..."

That's... all?

You have told us that the reason why is that you now "wish" something different than you did then?

Well whopedee-fucking who, you must be some kind of a genious.

And as for your diary-diarreah style of writing, I'll refer you to "Everyone is now dumber":

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 225   Newer› Newest»