Sunday, April 22, 2018

Gally's verdict

Do you believe in homeopathy? Well, this is an even more pseudoscientific concept. You take some "sexual abuse," sometimes real but more often not, represent it in some medium such as photography or text, dilute it and keep diluting it until all you have is ones and zeros represented by electrons flowing in computer networks or magnetic fields on a disk. The more you dilute it, the greater is the supposed crime.

Child pornography is the gift that keeps on giving -- to prosecutors and the police state. The potential punishment for each of these inert computer files is on par with genocide, or soon will be. You could already imprison the entire world based on one image, and penalties keep escalating as we speak. As anyone who has seen Murder on the Orient Express knows, culpability for other crimes, even very serious ones, is diluted to nothing very quickly in the opinion of reasonable men when there are many people involved -- so how come child porn is the sole exception that works the other way? Far from being supported by reasonable people, this injustice is backed by a Voodoo theory of harm from representation, every bit as irrational as the belief that someone can steal your soul by taking pictures, but now insidiously institutionalized in feminist jurisprudence and brainwashed into the populace.

And it doesn't stop there, because e.g. the Norwegian child porn law is also a full-fledged blasphemy law, criminalizing the very idea that anyone under 18 can be sexual. Yes, the law attempts to enforce a lie, in all media including drawings and text. It even applies to fiction. I could make a criminal out of myself and all my Norwegian readers right here and now by stringing together a few sentences from my imagination that sexualize minors -- think about that! Drawing a stick figure would also do the trick. The depth of evil required to support this law boggles the mind, and you have to be an idiot to internalize it as "justice." An idiot of the oversocialized and bullshit-indoctrinated rather than undersocialized kind (who, to be fair, would not tend to believe something so stupid), but an idiot nonetheless.

I am proud to say that I have categorically opposed child porn law from its invention in the 1990s, unlike my spineless peers who let the scumbags in our legislatures tell them how to think, and I seethe with contempt and derision against the buffoons who accept it, which is sadly most people aside from male sexualists (hence I have no illusions about being anything other than a quisling to my society). How can you not see the damage you have done? The mistake was to allow censorship of private possession or expression at all. Once the police has the odious concept of a "possession of information" crime in their arsenal, it quickly escalates into a weapon of mass criminalization. Once you allow punishment for the mere possession of ones and zeros, you open a Pandora's box of police brutality. I saw it coming, and here we are, having to live in fear of what we see, write, and soon also think, prosecutions for which is now only a matter of technological rather than ideological or moral restraint.

Gally's case is a good example, and here [link coming soon] is the judgment from the district court (in Norwegian). It is a study in the depraved minds who support child porn law, try to justify their sick beliefs, and even be hateful political activists who take the level of punishment to yet another level, as he is sentenced to two years and three months. He has already filed an appeal, however, and there will most likely be a retrial. Let's discuss it in the comments. These scumbags even affirm that the cartoons in Gally's possession should be used to imprison him ("Det var også grove tegnede bilder i materialet." (p. 12)) -- it is a morality so vomitingly alien to everything I stand for that I need to restrain myself now lest I veer into another kind of criminal speech.

The persecution of child porn possession is made more tragicomic by the fact that it is men who are ruined by pornography (and masturbation). So the joke is on the police state in more ways than they realize, as they help men pursue actual sex more aggressively and ably by suppressing pornography. The children depicted are not victims of child porn, at least not by the depiction -- but the male viewer is. I recommend that all men avoid looking at pornography -- underage or adult makes no difference -- because it is toxic to your libido and virility. This should be regarded a personal health issue, however, such as smoking or drinking, rather than a criminal matter. I am not so opposed to regulating the commercial exploitation of pornography, but I don't buy the charade that anything magical happens at 18 and can't accept criminalization of possession or noncommercial sharing/expression.


Gally said...

Not to sound too paranoid, but this level of exhaustion that I am currently experiencing is very non-typical of me. I have no explanation for it, but I know that there are certain auditory attacks (such as what hit the US spies posing as diplomats in Cuba, recently), and I can't rule out that since this is a hallmark case, maybe - just maybe - some parties are *not* interested in there being a retrial.

I have walk to Galdhøpiggen from Spiterstølen cabin, rested one day, then walked over Glittertind to Malmheim cabin, and the other day to the cabin at the lake.
Each walk taking over seven-nine hours and with 35 kgs in my backpack, and not being in anyway in good form, and still I have not felt as exhausted as I inexplicably feel now.

So should I drop mysteriously dead, there will be a thorough autopsy.

Just as a heads up to those cunts who think they can play around with their semi-militarized toys and get away with it. You are not half as smart as you think you are.

Eivind Berge said...

If they can get the same verdict in the Court of Appeals and perhaps have it upheld by the Supreme Court as well, it would set an even stronger precedent for more prison time in child porn cases, so I am not sure prosecutors fear a retrial. Their agenda is so thoroughly part of the mainstream sentiment right now that they have good reason to be cocky and little reason to use covert weapons like you suspect.

The misandry is escalating so fast right now that it makes my head spin. Just look at India suddenly introducing the death penalty for "child rapists," and increasing the minimum sentence for the "rape" of a woman (over 12) from seven to ten years (and that is on top an insane definition of "rape" which goes far beyond the Norwegian one and is similar to the hateful UK definition which requires only lack of consent and no violence or coercion):

The verdict is public information anyway, but we don't need to help vigilantes by making your name easily accessible, so don't feel pressured to publish it here. The ideas are what counts, and we know what they are and how to argue against them, as I've already done above. The entire basis for criminalizing child porn possession is utterly senseless and cannot be justified in any sort of rational way, so the only sane position is to have the law repealed.

Gally said...

Yeah, it's probably just the pressure getting to me, and becoming sort of hyper-active.

My mother got an ulcer / infection in her digestive system because of all of this, so the NRK is most definitely also being brought to court. Their portrayal of me is so fucked up malevolent it is without comparison for any of the cases that has ever been brought against them in the Press Ethical League (PFU).

And I have been granted anonymity there, so a complaint is being written next week, then looked over thoroughly so as to be as complete as possible (whilst staying within the limit of 4500 words), and by god is the hammer coming down.

Eivind Berge said...

I haven't seen the NRK program since I don't have or care for TV, but I gather the title was something like "The Monsters and I." Knowing the details of the accusations against you, it is astonishing that they couldn't find a better "monster" to portray in such a show than a victimless criminal (and one not finally convicted yet at that either).

Gally said...

Yeah, let's just say if they had any brains their legal department would read through the sentence, and contact my lawyer - who is qualified for cases brought before the Supreme Court of Norway by the way - and offered a settlement.

But no.
They think just because they are a national media supported channel, they can just waste the tax-payers money - which we are now pretty soon forced to pay whether we have a TV or not (I stopped watching TV at 17 yo and have only briefly owned one since) - and run cases that they are OBVIOUSLY bound to lose.

About India though, yeah they are pretty much at the top of the list of nations where the men rape, but why does that happen when they have had feminism for way over fifty years and they had the world's first female prime minister?

Because the upper-caste women check the gender of their fetus and selectively abort the female ones, ensuring that they have mostly sons because they are the ones that bring in the cash.
Which, hear me out party-people, means that these upper-caste men in turn chose the lower-caste women because they are the most obedient ones, leaving... *drum-roll* a lack of women for lower-caste men.

And that's why they rape, because they can't get no pussy any other way.
The first question they get when they meet the potential bride's parents, is "How much money do you earn?"

Straight up, check my lyrics if y'all don't believe me, rape in India is caused by selfish rich women.

Anonymous said...

I haven’t yet heard a convincing argument for a child’s under 18 ability to give informed consent. In fact, my conversation with Eivind and his answers to this question left me even more reassured by this argument.

The huge discrepancy between the boys and girls who found it a positive experience just made me feel even more protective towards girls specifically.

The fact that pedophiles are the only ones arguing in favour of underage sexual relations, and that there are no young people doing the same is hugely damaging to the cause and a blatant demonstration of the power imbalance inherent is this entire issue.

The trauma by society problem is a HUGE moral problem. Since societal judgement will lead to trauma for some children as we transition to a more “sex positive” society, how many children is it acceptable to write off as collateral damage during this period?

But since there is no reason nor research to suggest that children grow to be more well rounded individuals due to having had sex with an adult, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, what benefits, beyond the sexual satisfaction of pedophiles would such a societal shift serve?

I think there’s a good argument to be made that if anybody is retreating to emotion on this issue, it’s pro-contact pedophiles who are ultimately seeking legal access to other peoples children for what appears little more than self-serving sexual gratification.

Eivind Berge said...

Congratulations for seeing that there is a difference between boys and girls. But I don't agree with the rest.

Firstly it is nonsense to define children as "under 18." The closest you come to a magic sexual change is puberty, so you should at least use that.

The power imbalance issue is nonsense, not only because the idea that such an imbalance is necessarily abusive is wrong, but because whoever has the most power in a sexual relationship is the one least interested in it, and that is almost always the child in such relationships. So if there is a power imbalance problem, it puts the adult at a disadvantage and favors the child.

As to there not being a young pro-pedophilia movement, well, do young people really argue for anything? I don't think this proves anything one way or the other. It used to be customary to beat kids who misbehaved, and still is in some places, yet I have never seen any political activism on the part of kids to end corporal punishment. That doesn't mean corporal punishment isn't harmful and abusive. So if kids don't speak up about things that hurt them in very immediate ways, why should we expect them to be activists about the non-harm of sexuality?

And obviously the benefit of ending sex-hysteria is not just to the kids, but also to get rid of the needless punishment of victimless crimes. Contrary to your lack of empathy for "pedophiles," they are people too and just as much worth as you.

And finally:

"But since there is no reason nor research to suggest that children grow to be more well rounded individuals due to having had sex with an adult, and plenty of evidence to the contrary."

This evidence does not exist. Can you show me even one nocebo-controlled study, for example? You can't, because it would be "unethical" to even conduct one. All we have is ideology and associational studies at best, and that ideology is highly noxious and dishonest about presenting causal relationships between sex and bad outcomes.

Anonymous said...

How can a child give consent to brush it's teeth or go to sleep if a child i now possible way can give consent?

Eivind Berge said...

And to answer the argument that wee need to keep criminalizing underage sex to avoid society-induced traumatization during the transition -- if this is really a problem, then we just need to tolerate it, yes. You can't have social progress without some problems with the transition, but that argument is overwhelmingly morally outweighed by the benefit. It's like saying slavery should never have ended because the transition was painful to the economy. Very amusing and desperate and clearly wrong.

Anonymous said...

There has not been a young pro-sexuality movement till now because the media, the entertainment industry, the school system, government agencies, civic organizations, the politicians, and many Blue Knight parents have been doing their best to promote sex-hysteria and pedo-hysteria to children. Also, young movements are not necessarily *led* by very young people, because to be a successful political leader one needs experience.

Right now there is growing a young pro-pedophilia movement, and I believe that Amos Yee is a prominent figure in it; he is quite young. I myself am 23-years-old.

The very phrase "informed consent" is meaningless here. In what way is it "not real consensual" when a 12-year-old looks you straight in the eyes and clearly, loudly proclaims "I want you to fuck me"? She may literally jump on your cock without saying a word; her own *actions* are all the proof you need that she wants to get fucked. Saying that it's impossible at 12 but magically becomes possible at 15 or 16 or 18 or 20 or 25 is plain and simple metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

The big problem today, which I've written about and will continue to write about, is infantilization. Children undergo mass brainwashing to remain in arrested development. And adults delude themselves that this is the natural state of affairs. In fact, it's unnatural; it is a "self-perpetuating myth." Yet, despite the endless sex-hostility directed at children by all of society, many are intelligent and brave (and horny) enough to overcome the brainwashing that society foists on them, and willingly & enthusiastically choose to have passionate sex.

In my latest blog post I asked "what are the specific things that a 18-year-old is capable of, that a 12-year-old is not capable of?," and so far - zero responses. That is telling. Of course Eivind is correct: if there must be some "magic line," it should be at puberty and not a day later.

The argument of "collateral damage" ("societal judgement") is bullshit. It perpetuates grave injustices like circumcision - "if you don't circumcise your son, kids will laugh at him, so you are hurting him by not mutilating him." Yeah, some people need to be the first to make the change and that's that. Bigoted society can go to Hell if it doesn't like it.

It is clearly evident that depriving young people of sex results in very severe social and sexual dysfunction on their part. Those who have sex after school hours (or during school hours) don't become mass shooters, for instance. Also correlation =/= causation. But anyway, those who were sexless as young are in very obvious ways worse off than those who had young sex. I guess I need to write a post about it.

There is no evidence that sex is harmful to teens.

And whether or not we are all "pedophiles" doesn't change the veracity or lack thereof of our arguments. Ad hominems don't work anymore.

We need a moral revolution...

Anonymous said...

More and more people are supporting youth sexuality!


Eivind Berge said...

Great activist! But he's wrong about masturbation being harmless. Masturbation is in fact harmful to boys. But it's harmful because it leads to less sex, and the mainstream considers sex bad, so it doesn't notice, at least not until adult men who masturbated too much become impotent.

Chinzork said...

While we're at it, where is the evidence that "adults" 18 or over are able to give informed consent (ignoring the fact that informed consent ins't a proper standard for sexual consent in the first place). Considering how often "adults" make stupid decisions, an arbitrary age for any sort of consent makes no sense at all.

Anonymous said...

Google is evil:

Anonymous said...

In this video Varg explains how to get a traditional wife, something that many of his followers have been questioning because of the obvious shortage of traditional women in a Western Europe plagued by whores, feminists, progressives and materialists.

Varg encourages those who doubt this possibility to make an effort to achieve it because he assures that with effort it is possible, making a mention of himself, since he has achieved a traditional, young and beautiful French woman.

Varg mentions that according to traditional Indo-European societies and the world in general, the ideal age of marriage for women is between 16 and 20 years of age, as this is the appropriate biological stage for them to begin to have many children. According to Varg's own wife to the women:

"At 20 you can choose what you want.
At 30 you're for sale.
At 40 you'll have to take what you can get.
At 50, no one will want you."

Varg says that no healthy man will seek out a woman who is about to expire or who has already expired. It also says that a man's best time to get married is around age 30. That at 20-25 we men still have the mentality of a child and that at 30 we are mature enough to choose the right wife and be a complete man for her. It says that women need to procreate at a very young age, to be wives and complete mothers, not the women of the modern world who study and work wasting their best biological stage to procreate and raise children.

The video on the subject:

Gally said...

@Manosphere Aggregator:
"The big problem today, which I've written about and will continue to write about, is infantilization. Children undergo mass brainwashing to remain in arrested development."

You are correct, and this can also be seen as parallell to the psychological phenomenon of "Learned Helplessness":
Learned helplessness is behavior typical of an animal and occurs where the subject endures repeatedly painful or otherwise aversive stimuli which it is unable to escape or avoid. After such experience, the organism often fails to learn or accept "escape" or "avoidance" in new situations where such behavior would likely be effective. In other words, the organism learned that it is helpless in situations where there is a presence of aversive stimuli, has accepted that it has lost control, and thus gives up trying. Such an organism is said to have acquired learned helplessness.

And this is why we have the kind of schooling system that we have: To make people both think that they are identically powerless to find agency in their lives just because of their ages, and also, to realize that the people in power (their teachers) treat them differently based on their _academic_ skills and willingness to conform and obey.
Which is discussed by a number of sociology intellectuals and education reformists right now:

Danny Whittaker said...

What an adorable little temper tantrum 😂😂😂 “Contrary to your lack of empathy for "pedophiles," they are people too and just as much worth as you”. Such an inspiring vision of what constitutes masculinity. I would have thought things like meaningful work, building, creating, providing for one’s family, and community engagement would have also been important aspects. But no. Just shagging schoolgirls. I think it’s more likely, in your case at least, that your masculinity is so deeply defined by sex with prepubescent girls precisely because they’re physically, socially, politically and economically unable to dominate you. Your sense of masculinity is so weak and fragile that you’re incapable of rising to the challenge of dominating an adult woman whose strength of character and intellect is so vastly superior to yours that you have no other option but to aim low and prey on the only people naive enough to mistake you for actually being a man.

Eivind Berge said...

Political activism is about what is wrong with the law, not a comprehensive definition of masculinity. Men's rights activism therefore has no need to emphasize "meaningful work, building, creating, providing for one’s family, and community engagement" unless it is politically relevant. That says nothing about their place in masculinity.

"Dominating an adult woman" is likewise not what men's rights activism is about, except to remove the unfair laws women use to dominate men. My sense of masculinity is actually so strong that I don't feel the need to prove it by displaying how "dominant" I am nor assert it in the various apolitical ways that men who accept the hateful feminist political regime do. Male sexualists have more important things to do, hence we are focused on what matters, which is police violence and the laws that enable it.

Steel said...

(I posted it in holocaust21's blog but I'm posting here too so you know too this)

Tom O’Carroll is a declared enemy of male sexualism, I didn’t want to believe theantifeminist but I just read this in his blog commentaries, responding to a guy who says “male sexualism is nonsense”:

[the guy] >For all I know, you guys take seriously this “male sexualist” nonsense and the ensuing pseudo-psychological assessment that accompanied it.

[TOC] I don’t, as should be obvious. That line has little support here. But some who start from that position when they arrive at HTOC tend to become less extreme after being exposed over time to my posts and many of the comments here. I do believe HTOC has an educative function in that regard.

It would not be a great idea to send the extreme misogynists packing, in my view. That’s the way guys end up going berserk and massacring strangers with firearms. Social isolation is a killer.
So.. We’re a bunch of misogynistic, extremist freaks for him. Nice.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that is ironic. I wonder where he gets the misogyny from. I understand that he is not so concerned about heterosexual relations, but he should be able to feel an affinity with our opposition to sex laws that he himself is a victim of.

It's hilarious that a bunch of boylovers should educate men who like teenage girls on how to be normal. We are already the normal men, of course, and he should rather thank us for respecting his group of true freaks to the extent that we do, because the mainstream sure as hell does not.

Gally said...

@Frankie the weak-ass troll:
"...that your masculinity is so deeply defined by sex with prepubescent girls precisely because they’re physically, socially, politically and economically unable to dominate you."

Fascinating attempt at discounting relevance & validity of arguments by delegitimization, but why does that then explain that all my heroes are female and so much stronger than me in every regard?

Oh well. It's not that you have anything usefull to bring to the table, or that you feel capable of responding to any of the arguments you are met with, so good luck trolling here I guess.

Oh and once again sorry for being a slowpoke but I really have to work on meeting a deadline for a complaint against the NRK, and I'm getting that queasy suspicion my case is such a hot potatoe that most serious lawyers don't want to touch it for fear of being treated like pariahs by the police just for defending me, and even more so by their potential future clients should they win. Which I will make sure they will.

So that's a bit of a paradox: Certain groups are cut off from legal representation, because lawyers are mostly interested in the nine tenths of the law that deal with property and finances, and not so much about justice.

"I don't have the capacity", is what one told me.
Another, "I recommend...", and yet another "If you chose...".

Looks like I need to do most of the work myself, which is a bummer but then again that's what you get when you're a "firework".

(obligatory youtube )

Eivind Berge said...

Was he one of us?

Or at least as much one of "us" as Elliot Rodger was. I have never recommended taking it out on random civilians, but sexually frustrated young men will do what they do. Sure looks like activism for male sexuality. It just isn't being labeled as terrorism by the police and media, apparently in order to delegitimize us as a political movement.

Anonymous said...

Why should it matter if he thinks that we're misogynists, Steel? You're not trying to spread division within our ranks, do you, Steel?

I strongly believe in the efficacy of a "thousand cuts" strategy. The more people resist the system -- each person in his own unique and idiosyncratic way -- the better it is. Tom O'Carroll is not necessarily a very effective propagandist, but he's still fighting for one of the causes that we believe in.

Tom O'Carroll has treated Eivind, Holocaust21, and myself with a lot of respect. He is not our enemy, and people who seek to pit us against each other are no allies.

There are many ways to be a male sexualist. One way is to be a pro-sex libertarian, like TheAntifeminist (and like Americanrifleman09).

He does not identify with my position that there should not exist a law that says "a man is not allowed to force himself sexually on a woman." That is, he supports the retention of some sex-crime legislation.

So what? Does that mean that he is not a male sexualist? Of course he is a male sexualist - it's just that he has his own position about what society should be like, and while I don't necessarily agree with all of it, it is still a legitimate position within the movement.

Not everyone has to be as extreme as myself and support the legalization of rape, just as not everyone has to be as vehemently anti-fap as Eivind, and just as not everyone has to convert to Islam like Caamib. We all have our own ideas, which aren't completely identical; yet we are still the same movement, because we agree about fundamental things, and are united in our opposition to the present system.

That's the meaning of coalition. O'Carroll may not be a member of our coalition, but as far as I'm concerned he is an ally.

Anonymous said...

Terrorism out of sexual frustration is understandable, but strategically counterproductive.

Terrorism to spread a Manifesto, on the other hand, makes a lot of strategic sense. I'm going to write a male sexualist Manifeso, and while I don't intend to commit terror acts in order to spread it, if someone else does so, it may help us.

Writing that, I sound like an agent provocateur, so let me clarify that I do not advocate this strategy and do not call for people to follow it. But if someone is inspired by my radical Manifesto to be a terrorist... well it may give us some publicity, that's for sure.

But again, the proper strategy is persuading the masses to support us, not to commit violent crimes.

Eivind Berge said...

Exactly. My values are the maximum amount of propaganda for the minimum amount of violence. I got great mileage out of committing no violence whatsoever when I was portrayed as a violent extremist in the media and courts with all the benefits that entails but none of the downsides. That's something to aspire to, but can't easily be replicated because it also requires idiotic cops who charge you based on nonexistent laws.

Anybody contemplating terrorism in the name of male sexualism needs to drop it until they got their manifesto in order. It's not like we can just point to some holy book like some other movements; we need to do the heavy ideological lifting ourselves!

Gally said...

May I add, I respect strong women.
The Vikings did too, which is as anctual fact that can be extracteded from the grave-mounds of their honored warriors.u

Eivind Berge said...

I am actually somewhat impressed, for lack of a better word, by the Toronto attacker Alek Minassian. If a male sexualist can't be bothered to write a manifesto of his own, this is about as good as it gets in one line, I think:

"All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!"

Thanks to the referenced gentleman's literary efforts, that line goes a long way to express incel frustration and the resultant ruthless aggression, at least, though it falls short on ideological specifics such as which laws we want to abolish. Still, it is a poignant expression of male sexualism, or a subset of it. Just when I thought the Men's Rights Movement was dead, not only did a bright young leader emerge, but we also get this. The violence is unconscionable, of course, but the news story undeniably furthers our movement since it shows that depriving men of sex can have nasty consequences.

Especially since the media has pretty much correctly picked up the gist of it, though it is presented with the usual feminist slant:

Minassian on Monday posted a cryptic message to Facebook minutes before setting off in his rented vehicle, Sgt. Graham Gibson, a homicide detective with the Toronto police, said Tuesday.

Investigators found a Facebook account they believe belongs to Minassian, CNN law enforcement analyst Josh Campbell said.

A message posted on the account earlier Monday read: "All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!"

Campbell said investigators believe the post refers to the man who killed six and injured 14 in a drive-by shooting and vehicle ramming attack near the University of California Santa Barbara campus in 2014. Rodger later died from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Investigators said Rodger was motivated to carry out his attack by a personal grievance related to his immersion in the extremist ideological subculture of men's rights activists, who believe women don't actually want gender equality and have been brainwashed by feminist propaganda.

Eivind Berge said...

If any new readers are unfamiliar with Elliot Rodger, this is how I reviewed his novel back in 2014:

And here you can read it:

Tal Hartsfeld said...

You know, anymore I often feel a little strange listening to a lot of older songs

For example:
SEXY + 17 by The Stray Cats
I SAW HER STANDING THERE by The Beatles ("...Well she was just seventeen, and you know what I mean...")
YOU'RE SIXTEEN by Johnny Burnett (of course meant to be an ode to teen romance in general)
...then Ringo Starr had a hit with this song in the '70s (he was in his 30s by then)
...and, speaking of "16": INTO THE NIGHT by Benny Mardones

...keeping in mind all these songs were hit records---played on the radio and for sale to the general public.

Eivind Berge said...

Yup, those songs "sexualize children" and are therefore by definition banned by the Norwegian child porn law. Except they get a pass due to artistic merit, or actually the social capital of the creators. If anybody without a sufficient artistic reputation writes or performs or possesses something like that, they are fair game for prosecutors.

John said...

How about (she's) 'under my thumb'from the rolling stones.can you imagine that tune coming out today?!
More great news! 2 cops shot, critically wounded in Dallas today + the 2 dead pigs near Gainesville fl last week.and of course, the Toronto "psycho" who everyone is trying to paint as just another "radicalized" muslim.i have tried to explain to the mindless herd of commenters on Yahoo the guy is an incel to the usual no avail,just more thumbs down.but Yes! These guys REALLY need a manifesto! He tried to get a cop to kill him,which usually easily works in America,maybe not so much in Canada.i would leave a manifesto blaming fucko feminism, the war on men,male sexuality, that not
many are aware of!anyway,the narrative the "media" and the left are pushing is that these incels,myself included,have been "brainwashed" by mra "hate groups"
online! Not of course, because they aren't getting any,and have to endure the shaming language for years, or decades. no, anything but that.i was incel long before social media of course.

Gally said...

"Gally You're going to jail because of feminists, stop worshiping women, you idiot."

We are humans, you imbecile.

From Ada lovelace to Hedy Lamarr to Marie Currie and more people than I care to recall, there have been female heroines who have faced obstacles and worked hard and who are worthy of praise.

What on earth makes you think:
Feminism represent women
Females are useless

No, I chose who I admire, thank you, and quite a number of them are women.
I would mention contemporaries, but that would help identify me so I won't do that.

I will say though, that we have but one world and we are all in this together, and that is why we need to speak up for reason, not prejudice.

Feminism is (or has become) an ideology which does not represent most females, OR their interests.

Gally said...

Oh, and it's 25th of April today, "Alice day", and WAR has been declared.

The PST (Police Security Services) tried to activate my (turned off) Blackphone 2 four times today (through S7 'sploits only, so far).


The war has begun.

(obligatory, etc. )

Eivind Berge said...

We should expect the security services to ramp up their surveillance of MRAs now that we are in the news for terrorism. They won't find any organized terror, however, and lone wolves like the one in Toronto are very difficult to detect in advance, especially since they tend to be only marginally politically aware. Based on the three confirmed manosphere-inspired attacks so far (the third one being Sodini) they seem to be 99% motivated by incel and 1% politics. I marvel at what can happen when incels get more radicalized.

Gally said...

"We should expect the security services to ramp up their surveillance of MRAs now that we are in the news for terrorism"

Yeah, and right now somebody in the PST is sitting there going all "whaddafuck!?!" ( obligatory )

There is no way on this green hellish earth that they can melt through my setup - *without* invoking the E-security services AND in combination with five eyes nation level adversaries.

I as gots mah shits togetha, modas. (obligatory )

PS! Oh and it's gon' get hardar still.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, no person under the age of 18, under any circumstances, would ever want to have a sexual experience of any sort with an older person.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for paraphrasing the absurdity of Norwegian child porn law. That is literally what it means, except it goes further and pretends minors don't want to have sex with each other either, or have sexual thoughts of any sort. You can imagine how little respect I have for the dimwits who buy into this.

Anna Valovina said...

Prostitution is one of the most serious violations of human rights and is a direct attack on the freedoms and general life of women who are exploited. It is one of the most severe forms of violence against women. It's a brutal expression of what sexism is all about.

Unired States has become the country that most exploits and exports women so that the demand for prostitution from the richest countries is met... because the rewards of trafficking and prostitution are very succulent, so everyone there prefers to look the other way and benefit in one way or another.

The system is perfect for the pimp, from the laws to the raw materials he receives from the poorest countries, everything is in perfect harmony.

The blame and responsibility lies first and foremost with the State, because it allows it, it allows this to happen, with its laws that are opaque and that in the end seem to be protecting the pimps and the men who sexually exploit women. Then there are, of course, the pimps, who make the goods available and make a profit. Men who pay to penetrate women who do not want them are also responsible. It is also the fault of the society that prefers to look the other way or repeat the same discourse, because in the end the society repeats the discourse of the pimp lobby: "Well, they want, they choose", and seeing them as the others, as if they were something else, not us, all of us, women for example. We seek equality and they, the others, have chosen that. This is all the prostitution system.

Anonymous said...

Rape culture is a real thing. Just take a look at some of the more extreme testimonies to discover that if there is an epicentre of the culture of rape, that may well be the'incel' culture. In one of them, which has become viralized in recent days, a man admitted to stopping a 14-year-old girl on the street and then chasing her until she ran away from him. "That feeling when you follow a girl and she realizes your presence is good," he said. "You're important to her. You are no longer an insignificant face in the crowd. The user, however, qualified that, despite his behaviour, he abhorred rape. However, not all of his'incel' colleagues seem to agree with him.

Eivind Berge said...

"Rape culture" is a silly name for it, but I can relate to that mindset from my own incel days, which are thankfully many years past. I think of incel as a state of charmless psychopathy, because it removes all empathy or compassion with fellow humans, making you capable of raping and killing without moral constraint, while also making you more repulsive (at least until you actually do those things). It rarely leads to actual violent behavior, however, not because the incel feels it would be wrong, but because he tends to be low on courage, which partly explains his lack of success with women in the first place.

I can see how an incel would cherish a girl running away from him as the closest he can get. If he can have nothing else, at least he can make her feel some fear. The alternative is sexual invisibility, after all.

Eivind Berge said...

If you are looking for some constructive advice on how to get out of inceldom, then my number one advice is nofap. Once you get rid of that toxic maladaption, most of the time your natural instincts will be sufficient to make you do what actually works to get sex, i.e. constructive risk-taking such as approaching women in not so creepy ways (which will be effortless because you will be driven by positive sexual energy rather than the impotent simulacrum left after fapping).

The media now portrays incels as feeling entitled to sex, and there may be some truth to that, but feminism bears much of the blame for the pretense that sex is easy and that women want sex just as much as men, even going so far as pretending women can "sexually abuse" boys, lol. Of course a man will feel entitled to sex if he buys into the feminist denial of sex differences, so what do they expect?

It is clear from Elliot Rodger's manifesto that he pretty much expected women to fall into his lap if he put himself into any kind of social setting with them. But that's not how it works most of the time, so you have to get real. Getting laid is a very, very hard problem for men, especially if you expect more than one or two partners in a lifetime. The median man has only had sex with five women in his life (and will have eight by the time he dies), and that's with a lot of trying! If you want to beat your inceldom and perhaps even do well with women, you absolutely have to ditch the idea that they are or should be easy once and for all.

What incels can and should feel entitled to, however, is for the state not to make it more difficult than it needs to be, with all the hateful feminist sex laws as well as affirmative action for women. This is what makes incel activism justified.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that is the implicit morality in the feminist sex laws. Women can't decide the simplest little thing like sharing a nude picture without the state stepping in with draconian punishments in case they have any regrets.

But it would be better if we simply forced women to accept the adult responsibilities they claim to want.

John said...

Yes and Jordan Peterson merely suggested, in an interview that MAYBE,just MAYBE women shouldn't wear makeup to work since ya know they hate to be looked at 'in that way'.the mangina interviewing Peterson was just flabbergasted at this suggestion.i like Peterson-"men
test ideas,women test men".as for approaching women,it would be insanity for ME to do that.i have the uh "small hands" that women hate Trump for.shit Trump can NOT even get his trophy wife to hold hands with him or even a smooch.i doubt they have actual sex.its why he had to visit whores I guess.peterson also said, eventually, all manifestations of male sexuality will be under some legal scrutiny.which were seeing already of course.he could be the actual *leader* of a 'men's movement'.he already is in a way.

John said...

Right now on yahoo: "inside the misogynistic mind of the Toronto killer". I left a comment, which might be one of my last. yahoo sent me an email stating I might have 'violated THEIR 'tos'. i don't care as long as NO pigs come to my door.

John said...

Of course it's nothing but a business.who are these retards? The whores that Elliot Spitzer fucked, he paid 5 GRAND an hour to (my tax dollars at work).but women are "forced" to do everything by "evil" men.forced to wear makeup,dress sexy,forced to get drunk, then regret that,dial 911 in the morning, forced to exchange sex for roles in movies that make them millionaires.women apparently all have the intelligence of your average 4 years old! All I can do? Is stay far far away...

John said...

Well,it's official! incels have been 'radicalized/created' by the internet!!
women are off the hook again! This is THE greatest time in all of human history to be a female. all the rights,privileges,the law on their side and none of the responsibility! It's apparently all on me to blame for being an incel I've been informed.haha, well they are correct about one thing I HAVE to get off the makes me physically and mentally ill to interact with these blind dolts.

Gally said...

"Eivind, no person under the age of 18, under any circumstances, would ever want to have a sexual experience of any sort with an older person."

At the now closed paraphilias sub-forum,, at least once a girl dropped by who not just happened to claim to be sixteen, but who wanted to have sex with her 50 yo (married) teacher.

And she was Norwegian, too.

We all adviced against it though, but I could detect no lies in what she said. Other than, afterwards I thought maybe she claimed to be sixteen because that is the AoC in Norway, and perhaps she was just a few years younger.

So absolutely, young girls find older men attractive for a number of reasons, such as life experience, self confidence, charisma, humor, and understanding what women feel and how they think.

Eivind Berge said...

Not the advice I would have given, but it would have been extremely dangerous for the teacher. Of course he would have been convicted as an "abuser" even if he was the one being seduced.

As to Jordan Peterson, I guess he is kind of an MRA leader, but he needs to do better than say male sexuality "will be under some legal scrutiny." SCRUTINY? As if they just study it or something? He does well describing how men get screwed over in divorce court, but the feminist sex-hostility barely seems to register.

John said...

If we are going to get anywhere in responding to these feminist pigs/sjws, it's going to be by leaving 'pedophilia 'cp'etc completely out of the conversation.even though I agree that watching cp is harmless and no one should EVER even be arrested over it, and I like grauer,it's a non starter, to say the least.I *nominate* jordan Peterson to be the *leader* of the mythical mens look at just how badly these aoc,& cp subjects
are being received, just follow eivinds Twitter feed.pure hostility and being reported I'd say at least 100
times to twitter= zero traction.we need a mainstream guy like Peterson and concentrate on these sjw slugs,their compelled speech, the anti male laws, anti male bias in the courts and of course the lack of any responsibility on women's part for anything.

John said...

To be honest, I'm not sure he used the word 'scrutiny'.ive watched a LOT of his YouTube videos.

John said...

Just the fact he's being attacked by the left as "transphobic" "nazi" and such, shows he's merely talking truth to idiots.and like how they don't get to him and he articulates these positions very well,on topics ranging from biology to the war on men.

Anonymous said...


I'm starting to doubt that we will ever see the verdict posted here. That's too bad, because I was really looking forward to seeing the "evidence" discussed in the verdict and also the descriptions of the so called crime.

John said...

I see Mr Bill Cosby was just convicted of 3 felony counts of sexual assault.not good news for men as the prosecution succeeded with zero evidence! Pretty good huh? And Cosby had millions to spend on,Mr average Joe's all over $merica, beware
! So,some college dude just bailed out of jail here in Florida accused of rape by a girl who admits she was drunk!and he has no record, and was visibly upset at his first court appearance. well,sometimes it's good to be me-- small hands,ugly in the eyes of the women that matter, and considered to be very "creepy".no bullshit "rape" charges in this guys closet.

Anonymous said...

"As demonstrations were announced across Spain, Amnesty International said: “The lack of legal recognition that sexual relations without consent constitute rape gives rise to the idea that it’s down to us as women to protect ourselves from rape."

Eivind Berge said...

Which of course gives rise to the idea that it is down to us men to protect ourselves from the government. I have said all along that we are a terrorist movement, and at least the incels are now getting that recognition:

Eivind Berge said...

About that Spanish "Wolf Pack" case, there is no violence alleged, and of course no rape, yet they manage to sentence the men to nine years for "sexual abuse." And women are still demonstrating because the sentence wasn't 22 years for "rape." Can the hatred get any clearer than this? They already have the insane "sexual abuse" law, which is apparently applicable to any regretted sex, and still it isn't enough.

However, there is also an upside to making everything "rape." Then the alternative is not a lesser sentence for something like "sexual abuse," but complete freedom (unless there is nonsexual assault), which often happens when the court has only those options in clearly consensual cases like this. Norway removed the lesser crime of sexual coercion that is not rape 18 years ago, but at the same time instituted the travesty of "negligent rape," so that is the lowest this case could objectively have been convicted as in Norway. The men obviously did not intend to rape, but prosecutors will often try for "rape" anyway. And now they have removed the jury to get around the people's reluctance to convict based on a corrupt definition of rape. The juries didn't much care for the "negligent rape" concept either, so the only way to really enforce feminist sex laws is to corrupt due process as well.

The complete inability to have any kind of reasonable sex laws strengthens my conviction that we need to get rid of them altogether, which is the male sexualist position. While I think it is still important to point out why some legal definitions of rape and other sex crimes are more reasonable than others, nothing less than the most draconian sentence (and the label "rape") for everything will suffice in today's climate. So if total conflict is what women want, that is what men should give them. It is time to quit respecting women, because they have proven that they don't respect us. The more I think about recent developments such as the Me Too movement, the more I am convinced that incels actually have the right idea. I have been focused on laws, and tried to point out how to make them reasonable, but the misandry we are up against runs so much deeper because it's taboo to even discuss reasonable laws in a culture that considers a "rape" conviction the only solution to any kind of female discomfort or regret.

Eivind Berge said...

So now we have two positions:

Feminism: the only sex crime is rape
Male sexualism: there is no such thing as a sex crime

There is no middle ground anymore, and frankly I am done arguing for it, because the more you argue, the more it recedes.

Anonymous said...

This was gang rape. It's inconceivable that an 18 year old girl would agree to go off & have sex with 5 strange men within a few minutes of meeting them. Wholly repellent what they did & how the judiciary has dealt with it

Eivind Berge said...

It was not rape regardless of what the girl thought about it because there was no violence. How she feels is beside the point (legally speaking) when she does not resist despite not being threatened. The men were just having fun, with no malicious intent (except the phone theft). I realize that group sex with strangers is rarely a girl's idea of fun, but you can't blame the men for grabbing what looked like a fabulous opportunity that came along. Who wouldn't? This is a pure expression of normal male sexuality. The girl assumed a submissive stance and for all they knew she was enjoying it. They bear zero moral culpability for the sex, and the "sexual abuse" law that got them convicted should never have existed either.

Eivind Berge said...

Getting a gangbang with an 18-year-old girl you just met on the street is a lot like winning the lottery, but that doesn't lead to culpability for rape any more than being told you won the lottery makes you a robber. Even if the chance is one in a million, it's not your responsibility to second-guess your win if everything looks normal.

To say otherwise is to claim that 18-year-old girls don't have the agency to consent to sex. With one or more men doesn't matter, they must be held responsible for their actions. And younger girls too for that matter, but this isn't even about age of consent.

Eivind Berge said...

The fact that you want to use these considerations to imprison men for 22 years says a lot about your depraved character. Imagine if we go down this path... If I just met a girl who agrees to have sex, am I a rapist because I just met her five minutes ago? Is seven minutes enough? An hour? How can I possibly tell where the line goes? And if I am in a group, how many men makes it rape, after how much time? These considerations are nothing but excuses to lock men up for no reason but to protect a girl's "honor" regardless of her actions. Either women can consent to sex, or they cannot, and if you want the latter then we need to adjust their other rights and responsibilities as well to bring them into line with the infantile beings you believe women to be.

Eivind Berge said...

Another funny aspect to the sentiment that "it's inconceivable that an 18-year-old girl would agree to go off & have sex with 5 strange men within a few minutes of meeting them" and therefore it is "rape" is that this isn't really a reflection of the inconceivability, but of the value of the girl. If she were 40, there would be much less outcry, maybe no trial at all, but not because middle-aged women are much more likely to engage in group sex. And if she were 60, there would just be yawns all around, despite the fact that 60-year-old women are less interested in sex than the other two. The difference is that the sexuality of young women is valued much more highly for obvious reasons. The hotness of the girl, however, does not make sex rape, everything else being equal. This is a fallacy, or more honestly something people don't care about because the prime concern of civilization is to manage young female sexuality, with men being nothing more than dispensable pawns to that game, whether they are imprisoned or sent off to die on war or whatever.

Anonymous said...

Danish Peter Madsen is now found guilty of torturing by tying up and stabbing a 30 year old women in the vagina and other places before murdering her by cutting her throat and chopping her head off. Thereafter dismembering the body. This for his own sexual pleasure and because he was a sexual psychopath. And we hear no outrage from the typical feminists. No rage at all like we see when a girls ass is touched. I think the feminists are fascinated with Peter Madsen and admire him.

Manosphere Aggregator said...

There is nothing inconceivable about an 18-year-old having sex with several men within minutes of meeting them; there are some women who are like that. Not a lot of women, but there are some. Yes, generally women have a much lower sex-drive than men; but some women are insanely horny and insanely promiscuous and enjoy wild orgies. The idea that "it could not happen" can only come from out the brain of a mangina.

And there are, as a matter of actual fact, 12-year-old women who are into wild promiscuous orgies just as there are 18-year-olds and 28-year-olds who are into it. Whenever you some story like "ohh naww, a young teenager was raped by several older (usually just slightly older) men," what really happened is a horny slut with a dripping-wet cunt whoring out with a bunch of dudes, and then someone -- herself or someone else -- deciding that some kind of victimization has occurred. That's why I call for the legalization of rape - apparently it triggers people much more than legalization of pedophilia, and so I think that I need to focus on rape more.

toim said...

I really like this writing ,, very memorable so many science that I found here ,,, thank you

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge said...

My Twitter has now been slightly censored. I have to delete one tweet before I can tweet again, but first I will memorialize it here:

It is about the Indian feminist who went on a hunger strike in order to get the death penalty for child rapists:

I wished she would starve herself to death, which Twitter considers "targeted harassment," but unfortunately she had her way.

Anonymous said...

Gandhi said that we should fight the sin, not the sinner - but that was India before feminism's seizure of power!

Anonymous said...

"5 strangers told an intoxicated teenager that they would walk her to her car. Instead they took her to another location where they filmed gang raping her. Being motionless with her eyes closed doesn't equate consent. That isn't sexual abuse. It's rape."

Eivind Berge said...

If she can walk to her car (and drive?), she is obviously capable of having sex too. This is not just not rape (which requires violence or threat), but a clear example of consensual sex.

John said...

Yea they're obviously looking for any excuse to boot you.who knows how many sub vegetables reported you. Anyway, WHY oh why didn't anyone inform me about the forum?! For now registration is closed but I can't wait to join.ive been reading it and it is hilarious. women are referred to as 'femoids' haha i love it.I'm also NO 'chad' so I don't think I'll have ANY banning problems on there.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, have to be careful. The "Twitter Rules" are so broad that just about anything can count as "harassment" or some other criterion. They might as well not have a ToS and just use their whim to ban people, which is what they do anyway. I will keep a low profile from now on since it's more important to at least have a statement of our ideology than to argue with these assholes who report you.

I didn't know about that incel forum either and am amazed to see how big it is.





I thought incels lost their voice when their subreddit was banned, but they are stronger than ever!

John said...

A female can get wasted drunk, walk down the street naked with a sign around her neck= "please fuck me now" and if any guy takes her up on her offer it's still "rape".AND she can decide it's "rape" at any time,including decades later, and if the guy gets rich/famous sue for big money even after the statute of limitations has long expired as several women from the fuckin sixties are suing cosby.far from being "oppressed" in any way, this is THE greatest time in all of human history to be female.

Tal Hartsfeld said...

Two more songs to add to the "promotion of underage intimacy" list:
SEVENTEEN by Boy Bennett & His Rockets
...try YouTube.

Tal Hartsfeld said...

...That's supposed to be "Boyd Bennett", God-Damn-It, sticky keyboards ...

Anonymous said...

"Regret rape" is a nonsense, Eivind?

Do you know what it is like to be in shock during a sexual act and not dare to say no, not even think about it, until it is too late and several days have passed? Do you know what it's like to think you're enjoying yourself but then find out it was all an emotional lie?

Anyone who thinks that "there is no ok to repenting a sex act" is a sick person who should not live in society.

Eivind Berge said...

You are being too nice. "Promotion of underage intimacy" is not what the abuse industry would call these songs. They use much more demonizing labels, so be a good feminist and ramp up the dysphemisms. Child exploitation lyrics at a minimum. Child abuse material? Or maybe child sex trafficking songs? Any better?

Eivind Berge said...

Rape requires mens rea, so it doesn't matter if the girl feels "shock" when she does not resist and also isn't threatened. That case is not rape or even abuse no matter how you look at it.

Anonymous said...

There is no way these people actually believe their own bullshit. They are telling us that women just randomly become "shocked" during sex, and that we need to take this "shock" seriously? Why? Who gives a shit about some ridiculous emotion that randomly pops into someone's head? This is emotocracy (rule-by-emotions) in action.

If during sex you suddenly and without reason become "shocked," you urgently need to seek psychological health. You are not a rape-victim or any other kind of victim. But you probably do deserve to be actually raped, so that you'll be able to compare the two types of experiences and learn to tell the difference between real rape and "regret rape."

These people are like caricatures of a BPD case. Or, actually, the arguments put forth by these people accurately exemplify what happens when a feminized, emotion-ruled society takes the nonsense of BPD cases seriously.

Eivind Berge said...

Indeed. The "shocked" or "frozen" argument for rape requires nothing more than the presence of a man, i.e. it applies to all sex. A universal weapon to accuse rape for no reason, which of course is the point.

Anonymous said...

The Feminist position seems to be: "if you lack the supernatural power of telepathy, you are a rapist." That is literally the argument being made here.

Imagine being an incel in 2018 and hearing this kind of insane Feminist bullshit non-stop from all directions. No wonder they go berserk. As far as I'm concerned, incel terrorism against the Feminist society is 100% justified.

Indeed, in this climate of extreme sex-hostility, incel terrorism is not merely morally justified - it is simply inevitable.

I think that we can have legions of angry incel warriors on our side; they may not care about the specific issue of young sexuality (though they *should* care about it, as it's extremely relevant to their own involuntary celibacy), but I'm sure that the call for outright legalization of rape is a true breath of fresh air for sexually frustrated men who are constantly subjected to Feminist mind-poison.

That is also why I see Femicidists (who are a small minority) as potential allies, despite never having been a Femicidist myself and despite ultimately disagreeing with this ideology.

The more I think about it, the stronger grows my conviction that Elliot Rodger is the true forerunner of Male Sexualism.

Anonymous said...

Well,you KNOW I completely fact I can NOT rule out my going out 'er' myself one day.ALL I have is complete mistrust/rage. Righteous hatred.the difference between myself and Mr er and the latest attack is I'd be much more specific, not this random stuff AND I'm not coming back.that would be priority one with me,no life in prison,waiting on any death row, no thanks. i can say this on here because the pigs can search my house anytime, I currently have no weapons, and have never been committed, 'hospitalized' etc and no history of violence of any kind and ZERO "stalking" "domestic violence" no "restraining orders"(sorry cunt on twitter) there's plenty of worse ways to go, and i personally see nothing wrong with what Rogers did.I have plenty of empathy, just not much for the West in general and none for women.i care more for animals,rats even than females.oh well....just in case i shall Sign this 'anonymous' because you can't be too paranoid anymore!

Chinzork said...

"The more I think about it, the stronger grows my conviction that Elliot Rodger is the true forerunner of Male Sexualism."

I think George Sodini deserves this label more than Rodger does. Rodger could perhaps be one of our "saints" though.

Anonymous said...

All of us men have committed some kind of harassment to women. Our desire is not above theirs. We are all children of patriarchy and we have normalized the culture of rape that occurs even in everyday relationships.

Eivind Berge said...

If our everyday relationships are full of rape and harassment, then these words refer to normal male sexuality and the solution is to normalize it in our ideology as well. This is what male sexualism does -- get rid of the cognitive dissonance induced by hateful feminism and proudly embrace our sexuality as natural and good and (when we have our way) legal.

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge said...

That's how it goes, the relentless march to criminalize ever more of sexuality. Sweden today, but it doesn't stop there and feminists won't be satisfied with this law either. We can only hope that it will lead to a corresponding increase of hatred in the hearts of incels and other men.

John said...

Uh speak for your own damn self fool. I've never harrased ANY female ever, mister bullshit patriarchy,which by the way, does not exist for the vast majority of white men.pity that I have to point out that which should be self evident. there's a LOT of men in jail, prison, on parole, or jobless, homeless. and a bunch of them are in prison for victimless "crimes".tell them about their 'white male privilege'.let's see now,I can't even get a damn date but I know I know, it's ME.status/height/looks are irrelevant to women,lol.

Anonymous said...

They always take advantage of any excuse to tighten up the Penal Code. What is curious is that with the argument of the protection of women it is the left that joins the historic demands of the right to raise the penalties for sexual crimes, to raise the age of consent and to use the discourse of the Church whereby all relationships outside the couple are suspicious, are against prostitution, complain every time a woman is provocative or with little clothing in advertising or posters... It is a state ideology without discordant voices, as in dictatorships.

Anonymous said...

to the feminist bitch above:

you're wasting your time explaining something I can't understand....
...or maybe you're the one who doesn't understand?

Do you understand that women as young as 23 start to be gross? the age of maximum apogee is from 16 to 23 and if we want to know we don't need to ask you feminists, it's enough to ask our cock, a greeting, old hag hahaha

Eivind Berge said...

Gross is the wrong word... I'd say women start to lose some of their preternatural beauty around 23. What they have between 16-23, or sometimes more like 12-25, is so powerful that it defies description. Then they start to descend to the mortal realm, while still retaining awesome power over men until long after they run out of eggs and never coming close to equality.

Gally said...

Got arrested on Friday on unspecified charges of "threats against somebody".

Oldest trick in the book for the Norwegian psychopath-piggies, if they arrest you on a Friday and they can't get an arrest-warrant worked out by the end of the workday, the legal advice on duty goes home and they hold you in the drunk-tank until Monday when he comes back again.
In the meantime you are in legal limbo and have no rights to meals (I believe).

I got out eight hours after my arrest because this little bitch has a brain and he knows how to play the game.

Even gave them both fingers up in a seated yoga-position when they asked if I wanted to give them my passwords to all of my machines that they had illegally confiscated.

They used paragraph 191 in the "Straffeprosessloven" to justify the intrusion and ransacking of my home, never presented me with any written charges or court-approved confiscation / ransacking, and here's the thing: #191 became invalidated by law on the 21st of March... *drumroll*... 1995.

The Incompetence. Can you FEEL my contempt for these people?

Anyway. Will keep you updated I suppose, complaint to the police delivered on Saturday and official letter requesting legal support from the probably best lawyer-firm in the city delivered to them on Monday.
They had no questions and as I have spoken to them twice before I must assume they are now firmly on the case.

This is the third time the police has confiscated all of my computers.

I am starting to suspect they dislike me, for some reason hitherto unfathomable to me.

Eivind Berge said...

Sorry to hear that, Gally. Not that it matters since it's just an excuse on their part to use whatever force they want, but do you have any idea what these "threats" are?

Eivind Berge said...

I looked up that obsolete law Straffeprosessloven § 191, and it also says they can only keep you for four hours if they arrest you based on it. It covered trivial things like disturbing the peace or refusing to tell your name to a cop, and isn't called an arrest but an "innbringelse" which means it doesn't trigger the rights a charged person has. If they want to keep you more than four hours, they have to charge you with a real crime and give you a lawyer etc. So I assume that was just a typo and they meant something like § 171:§171

The old law can be found here:

Eivind Berge said...

And this is what they do to a VirPed. Hopefully everybody can see that a radically different ideology such as male sexualism is needed to end this oppression. It is not about unreasonable application of reasonable laws that won't harm you if you try to be virtuous as the mainstream defines it -- you should not buy into their worldview at all because it isn't even doing any tactical good. Gally pled partially guilty in the first trial, for to me inexplicable reasons. Maybe to appease them? He did not use even the most fundamental right of the accused -- protection from self-incrimination. No matter what you do, there is never any reason to plead guilty to crimes based on laws you disagree with. If you absolutely must appease to get it over with faster, plead no contest at worst. Norway doesn't have plea bargaining, so it wasn't that (those don't count as guilty pleas in my book because of the immoral coercion). What we do have is a small "punishment discount" for pleading guilty, but that isn't doing Gally any good either.

Eivind Berge said...

About this:

"If they arrest you on a Friday ... they hold you in the drunk-tank until Monday.
In the meantime you are in legal limbo and have no rights to meals (I believe)."

They must feed you, but there are much worse problems with this. You are not in a jail population or even a normal jail cell, but solitary confinement of the worst kind. This kind of confinement is (at most) humanely suitable for a few hours, and the legal limit (which they don't respect) is two days. Beyond two days, it is definitely torture and Norway has frequently been called out on it by human rights organizations.

Norway is one of the worst places to be arrested aside from places that use physical torture. American jails are much nicer, because you go right into conditions meant to be survivable and you can often bail yourself out anyway. America also has a (much larger) solitary confinement problem, but it is limited to those who break the rules inside prison (or at least are in supermax or death row) rather than being used as a matter of course as in Norway.

Gally said...

The adventure continues.

Looks like they disconnected my router and so on, and took down the neighborhood's connection at about 02:00 today, just to install some shit that messed with my connection.

When I used the ISP's DNS resolver and so on, some sites were blocked, others downgraded from https to http, and both VPN was disrupted and TOR was blocked.

Unfortunately for these nincompoops, keywords: Princess. Pea. Laying. Not.

So I fucked around with adding an external wifi-connector and fixed some of the settings as per Andrew Douma's recommendations for "Penetration tester's guide to Windows 10", and lo and behold: Back in control ( ).

And no, not a "typo". An oral statement from the police, recorded, TWICE.

They are up shit's creek with paddles about this --->||<--- deep.

Anonymous said...

Where's the verdict?

Gally said...

Not on my priority-list for things I have to do, that's for sure.
If Eivind wants to publish excerpts from it or all of it that's fine with me as long as there is anonymization.

Anonymous said...

Wow! You're clearly dont stand by your words. That's for sure.
It doesn't look like the police did anything illegal or false like you boasted about before, and this is why you dont want to show us the verdict. And on top of this, you admitted everything. You admitted it you fool!

Eivind Berge said...

Hmmm, my network or router also quit working for a while a few hours ago, but that could be random because it's not always reliable anyway. Any tips to check if they intruded here?

Eivind Berge said...

I can say the police definitely lied in court. For one thing, they claimed cryptographically impossible things that are quoted in the verdict for naive people to believe. That they managed to brute-force Gally's encrypted drives, for example? Yeah, right.

Gally said...


I'm not sharing the verdict because I don't think it should be published in full.
At that point it is up to Eivind, seeing as this is his blog, to chose what to publish.
Especially so given that he has the verdict, the appeal, and my explanations.

I know unusual network behaviour when I am experiencing it. This was not merely ONE router misbehaviour, this was a pattern of "weird stuff".
When even obfs4-bridges don't do it for TOR (or any of the other bridge-types), something is up.
On top of that, the constant VPN-detachments?

Every thing works fine now that I have hardened the system a little, and especially after I chose other DNS' than the ISP provided.

Checking for intrusion is difficult, but a reverse firewall is glasswire, which informs you which applications make connections OUT of your box.

Apart from that I would recommmend ProtonVPN, with the settings of core servers, fail closed, start with windows, random connect. has tips on other things, such as extensions for your browser - ublock origin, privacy badger, cookie deleter, etc..

Gally said...

Also and pluss shows you how easy you are to identify.

Eivind Berge said...

Gally, what do you suppose is the point of all this surveillance and repeated searches? Surely you are not downloading CP at this point, and none of us have anything to do with terrorism or possess any weapons other than my kitchen knives and your sword for self-defense. We are not doing anything worse than what we write here, and I make sure that is legal. So why are they throwing so much effort at this? Is it just to mess with you/us, because they have nothing better to do or just because of some perverse obsession with making sure you have no privacy? Or is there something else I am missing? From the way you describe the security intrusions, one would think you are Osama bin Laden, not some guy caught with harmless pictures who promotes no-contact hebephilia.

But then again, we live in a society with priorities so messed up and biased towards sex-hostility that this shouldn't really surprise me at this point. It still feels surreal though.

Manosphere Aggregator said...

"So why are they throwing so much effort at this?"

They understand that we are a political force with great potential, and want to kill us (figuratively and, perhaps in my case, literally) while we are still small and without much influence and power. They understand that we may actually change the face of the internet, and as it is said on the chans: "he who controls the memes, controls the planet." I actually have explained in meticulous detail why the governments of the world are all pushing a pedohysterical line, and since we are capable of disrupting their scheme, they seek to disrupt us.

You can't say that I didn't warn you that they would do that =)

Anonymous said...

Sex without desire is rape

Eivind Berge said...

"Sex without desire is rape."

Cool feminist slogan, bro, but you have to try harder if you want to encompass statutory "rape" and all the drunken regret-"rape" where women momentarily get carried away by their desires.

Chinzork said...

"Sex without desire is rape"

Depends on what you consider "desire." As I and other have said before, informed consent should not be used to evaluate sexual desire, which is why it only started being used once Feminism-Puritanism came onto the scene.

Also, using force to have sex with a woman is not a crime that warrants a harsh punishment. Objectively, punching someone in the face should be considered a worse crime.

John said...

Haha,apparently several Washington redskin cheerleaders are complaining that back in 2013(they HAVE to wait years, decades even to report this stuff) they were "mistreated" "harassed" the usual, even though they admit 'no sex was involved'.this #metoo thing is possibly the new gold rush!

Gally said...

"Gally, what do you suppose is the point of all this surveillance and repeated searches?"

Power-demonstration of imbeciles?

They are now fucking up my ProtonVPN-connections, but leave my TOR alone.
Whilst of course filtering my DNS-lookups and blocking access to a vast array of sites.

Retarded pigs are retarded, and confiscating all of my equipment of course hinders me in writing complaints and taking care of legal business and follow up on my case, and communicate with the outside world in general.

So at this point I think we can conclude that the police's abuse of powers means they are pretty much a police state.

That said they are obviously reading this site, so my comments needs be sparse.

(obligatory etc. )

Gally said...

Or, admittedly, all of this could be due to a combination of low-range equipment on my part and the fact that all of the wifi's in this area are on three different channels and don't balance, and the ISP has recently performed some kind of service on the local terminal.

"Never attribute to malice that which incompetence alone suffice to explain", etc.

Oh and my sword is a collector's item, not a weapon, it's been confiscated before (that's police routine for you) and returned before. They pretty much just grab everything and anything that could be construed to be used as a weapon, down to a common garden axe (and kitchen knives and even scissors!) if they feel like it.

Dickheaded piggies.
Took all of my computers but left a surveillance camera and two wireless routers, all of which could have potentially contained storage devices.

Anonymous said...

Hey eivind,check out @justkelly_ok
tl.she retweeted a tweet by none other than Mr "takedown mras" regarding you. seems EVERY mra/mgtow/anti feminist HAS to get on her lousy misandry radar's a pity too because the damn bitch has gotten 100s banned.and of course,bashing incels naturally.

Anonymous said...

Funny how @justkelly_ok bashing "misogynists" 24/7/365 but has a painting of 2 women beheading a man as her header.isn't that a bit oh I dunno misandric? And even dare I say hypocritical? And also, what a lousy man hating cunt....

Gally said...


Which planet do you live on where there are 365 weeks in a year?

Anonymous said...

Ok I won't point out your hundreds of grammatical errors on here Ok? Pretty sure I meant days anyway ya think?

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be great if people could focus on the content of whatever the hell I'm saying? I mean I can do it, but very rare among my 'contemporaries' sans the ritalin i guess..

Gally said...

"Pretty sure I meant days anyway ya think?"

Oh. Like, there are 24 hours in a day, and seven days in a week, and then 365 days in a week of 24-hour days?

Swear to god, STEM-subjects are going straight to hell in a handbasket what with smartphones doing everything for people these days - including thinking, both mathematically, logically, and not the least socially.

Gally said...

"Wouldn't it be great if people could focus on the content of whatever the hell I'm saying?"

Yeah and I don't give a shit about some people's fascination with other people's stupid opinions.

Browse through the thread and you will see that I have already addressed how India is a prime example of how lack of sex causes rapes, which by the way of course isn't 'violence', anymore than taxation is 'theft'.

So yes, feminazis muddle the issues and blameshift with no comprehension of sociology or psychology (or sexology, of which the paraphilia of rape fantasies is the most common of all), so what else is new?

What is new, is that it is called 24/7/52, because you multiply each factor to get to 365 days of 24 hours in a year.

Or, 365,25 to be precise. That is, averaging the equiatorial and the cideral years. And that's probably a misspelling too, but at least I get the facts straight.

Gally said...

Oh and obligatory: Albedo 0.39 ,

Anonymous said...

Oh not to care about feminists opinions.they don't influence policy I keep forgetting's all in my fucking head! thanks for reminding me of that same line of thought, America's foreign policy doesn't impact the world,it's merely my opinion it might.thanks for getting my head screwed back on nice and tight.also, it's only a few bad cops out there that uh ruin it for the good ones and such.very enlightening chat.who cares if cops hate me? Won't ever impact my life!

Anonymous said...

That would be a no on browsing through the thread.i've glimpsed enough of your insane paranoia to last me years.nothing personal of course, you understand.

Eivind Berge said...

Kelly Ellis has me blocked, but by opening an incognito window I can see that tweet, yes. Luckily it is a very understated tweet that they can't easily use to ban me. Also very interesting, in her feed I see she is attacking the notable economist Robin Hanson for agreeing with us that sex inequality is a legitimate concern!

This is what he says:

"One might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.

As with income inequality, most folks concerned about sex inequality might explicitly reject violence as a method, at least for now, and yet still be encouraged privately when the possibility of violence helps move others to support their policies. (Sex could be directly redistributed, or cash might be redistributed in compensation.)

Strikingly, there seems to be little overlap between those who express concern about income and sex inequality. Among our cultural elites, the first concern is high status, and the later concern low status. For example, the article above seems not at all sympathetic to sex inequality concerns.

Two claims, in tension: 1) It is crazy to compare sex to income inequality, as sex is vastly less important. 2) One should know to step extra careful when talking sex, as it is our most sensitive subject, far more so than income. But why is it so sensitive if it's so unimportant?

Great points! These tweets are practically a paraphrase of my "Rape is equality" post from 2009, with some added insights. Our ideas have hit the mainstream, baby!

Anonymous said...

"Cideral" years? I swear to god the internet has literally dumbed people down.i do believe you mean

Anonymous said...

Oh yes the bitch had to attack him, and I have to recheck, but I think she managed to get Hanson booted off Twitter also.

Anonymous said...

Oh ok.good to see he's still on there.apparently her army is simply mass reporting him, no biggie, yea right.

Anonymous said...

Predictably,Hanson is getting attacked.
"Is Hanson the creepiest economist"? An article penned by a "man" what man uses "creepy" to describe another man? A lousy mangina. Hanson probably won't be
'Banned' I hope) just mass reported,blocked en masse,and insulted.
Twitter sucks thanks to the radical left.

Eivind Berge said...

Here is that article:

Hanson also thinks cuckoldry is as bad or worse than rape, which is another MRA idea I have been promoting. It is insane to let women get off scot-free with paternity fraud when the slightest sexual insult against women is criminalized. Paternity fraud is the female equivalent of rape and should be recognized as equally serious if we are going to have sex crimes at all.

If Hanson gets banned, free speech is over because it's hard to think of a more serious intellectual.

Anonymous said...

Yes,I could only read a paragraph or two of that article before getting nauseous. well he'll "just" be ostracized & shunned. he's verified with mucho following, so probably won't be suspended.and of course I completely agree with what he and you are saying. I see also that Kelly's fans are bashing you for being antipsychiatry! I've seen 4 different psychiatrists in my life, so I feel qualified to speak on how ineffective they are at the least,dangerous at their worst. what do they offer? Bullshit "diagnosis""chemical imbalances"(which DO occur, AFTER one takes their meds) and addictive pills with plenty of shitty side effects. God I hate a good 95% of the pinheads on twitter.

Anonymous said...

Well,before today I had never heard of Robin Hanson! this guy IS great.he just tweeted an article regarding 'beauty inequality'.thats been a concern of mine forever and he articulates the matter very well.and what he's said about incels,is rather unique.its too bad these really smart guys won't take on the full mantle of 'mra leader'and go 'all in' .its not necessarily a career/reputation killer anymore thanks to the #metoo movement and excesses of the 'sjws' anymore.Peterson is doing very well!

Gally said...

"That would be a no on browsing through the thread.i've glimpsed enough of your insane paranoia to last me years.nothing personal of course, you understand. "

My bad, must be in the previous thread then.

On the point of insanity, no I've actually got that checked when I thought I was having a psychotic episode, I'm just "treading a very fine line between geniousness and madness" as it is commonly called.
Which is why I won't reveal too much, at this point they have probably put a psychological profiler on my case.

On the point of paranoia, you are correct in the sense that I am being perceived as such by lots of people - but, in my defense, I would firstly add that being paranoid is as huge a plus for a CSIO ("Chief Security Information Officer", yes there really is such a work title) as being a below average intelligence psychopath is for a Police Officer.
Or, to put it in the words of Joanna Rutkowska, inventer of the Blue Pill-attack and creator of Qubes OS: "I wouldn't recommend working in information security to everyone. It requires an 'adversarial mindset'".

Gally said...

Oh, and secondly:

"All the best people are crazy".

Anonymous said...

Yes well I'm right to be paranoid myself and most consider me to be pretty much insane.that's the life of an pretty boy to be sure,add in my crazy mothers genetics,a dash of no free will,and voila! A recipe for no social life whatsoever. I loathe to be around anyone but I have to, it's me myself and I, nope, unlike the "get of your mom's basement" meme/insult, I am
a completely independent, self made man.besides,their are no basements in Florida ha

Gally said...

"Yes well I'm right to be paranoid myself and most consider me to be pretty much insane."

I hear you man. *brofist*.

I do information security, and that's pretty much important in this current political climate. As just one example, just three days after the Spectre-attacks were revealed, North-Korea went to the negotiating table.

Because they could have fucking brought down infrastructures all over the world, had the West not been willing to concede.

Food for thought.

Anonymous said...

Eivind Berge said...

The law lets women redefine consensual sex to rape, so college orientation might as well be honest about it. It was almost as bad already when I was in college 20 years ago. Wrote about it here: