Tuesday, May 07, 2019

Further reflections on the female sex offender charade: women-as-property edition

Before the female sex offender charade which holds that women can commit sexual abuse, women were also punished for sex, but it wasn’t a charade. Some of those laws were religiously justified, but let’s cut to the chase: women were punished because sex is a female resource and women were essentially property who were not allowed to dispose of that resource as they saw fit. In the same way you (or society) would punish a slave for running away -- and this was a sensible thing to do if you accepted the premise of slavery -- women would get punished for fornication or adultery because others wanted to control that resource. Mostly men, but it extends to family and society. Women can sexually abuse all right, but they can only abuse themselves and become damaged goods in the eyes of their masters, be it husbands or fathers or the law, and therefore need to be kept in line.

One might naively assume that the feminist movement, being ostensibly concerned with women’s rights, would loathe the idea of women as property. But no, it turns out that feminists are the biggest promoters of this state of affairs. There is a way to turn women into sexual property which is so stunningly effective that it not only persists to this day, but became a core feminist tenet, making feminists the useful idiots of the patriarchy. That is to pretend that women can commit rape and sexual abuse, and voila, you get to punish women for almost exactly the same things that a women-as-property justification would lead to, and then some. What I call the female sex offender charade is now seen as a self-evident truth by feminists, so ferociously guarded that they will try to silence any dissenters, and in the case of Twitter succeeded in having me removed for disagreeing. Here is a feminist bragging that she reported me leading to my suspension:


And when someone asks what it was I said that made her report me, another feminist from that discussion replies “That masturbating is more traumatic and psychically damaging than being sexually abused or raped as a child.” That is a distortion of what I said (screenshot of actual tweets that got me banned are here), but close enough minus the sex differences. Women cannot rape or sexually abuse boys, and as I keep saying, masturbation is unhealthy to males, so in the way feminists define it, it is certainly better to be “raped” by women than to masturbate. But although it is crucial to my points that women can't sexually abuse males, and male masturbation is unhealthy, notice how she leaves out sex differences altogether from the supposed reason I got banned, in keeping with the programmatic ignorance of feminism which ensures that they will never realize the truth.

When men get punished for sex, it is likewise because sex is a female resource that men take in unentitled ways. And there is overlap with today’s prevailing justification for sex laws, which holds that sex crimes are crimes of “abuse” against a “victim,” which is actually true when abuse is reasonably defined, precisely because sex is a female resource that females are naturally very invested in managing for their own purposes. It is also possible for males to sexually abuse other males and this is rightly punished as well, but what is not possible is for females to sexually abuse males (or more accurately, sexually exploit, but I shall pass over the finer nuances here; see this post for a more detailed discussion of what women definitely can’t do).

It is now established in the justice system that women can sexually abuse and exploit in exactly the same ways as men, but this does no more describe the truth than the similar institutionalization of punishment against witchcraft centuries ago. Humans are capable of bizarre superstitions, and feminism in particular is notable for its pseudoscientific denial of human nature. The myth that boys who have sex with women are “abused” in any meaningful sense is just as wrong as other contemporary myths like the idea that sugar leads to hyperactive children or vaccines cause autism; but nonetheless, all of these myths find believers. When such myths cause real harm, as in the cases of antivaxxing and sex abuse hysteria (but not the harmless sugar myth), sensible people are morally obliged to speak up, which is what a good bit of my blog is devoted to and my Twitter was before I got banned for this very reason. I can no longer tweet, but if anyone is interested my complete archive can be downloaded here.

The female sex offender charade is so mind-boggling because it violates both the laws of physics and common sense, which is worse than those other myths. It occupies the same status as both the treatment of women as property and the persecution of witchcraft, except worse because it singles out the nicest women. Female-perpetrated sexual abuse is just as contrary to the laws of physics as witches flying around on broomsticks, once you understand that the laws of physics (given the first cell of life, whose formation cannot yet be explained) lead to natural selection, which when you have two sexes like ours entails unequal minimum parental investment which ensures that sex is a female resource, which means women cannot sexually abuse males, at least not anywhere near equally.

Yet here we are, living under a justice system that pretends the sexes are equally able to sexually abuse, and the most surreal part is that opposition is virtually nonexistent except my own voice, which is also at risk of censorship every time I say something. Furthermore, it is ironically feminists who got us into this mess, while male sexualists are the only ones talking sense. The rest of the men's movement are also content with letting feminists persecute other women for victimless sex since it plays into controlling female sexuality against the fear that their wives will cheat on them with students and other less powerful but nonetheless somewhat threatening males, which is to say the women-as-property paradigm that is the ultimate explanation for punishing female sexuality.

It is not intuitive that vaccines can’t cause autism or sugar can’t make kids hyperactive, but it is elementary to any idiot that women can’t rape or sexually abuse. As with witchcraft, people need high priests to interpret reality for them in such a distorted way, using supposed esoteric knowledge that the obsequious oversocialized dimwits simply accept. The high priestesses today go by titles like psychologist and therapist (or as one of the women who got me banned from twitter comically styled herself, an “expert in child sexual assault”), and they perform exactly the same function as whoever decided that women could be witches that needed to be burned. While there is only so much of their drivel I can stomach, I have seen their “research” and know enough to know that the high priests are full of shit, and it is my moral duty to do what I can to make people stop trusting them regardless of the risk to my freedom of speech.

In the previous comment thread, Tom Grauer said I shouldn't be surprised by the feminists' desperate insistence that women can sexually abuse because
The issue of female sex offenders is a distilled case of a "power imbalance" -- and *nothing but that* -- being considered to be victimizing in and of itself, regardless of other factors and circumstances. Indeed, you can notice that the more out-of-touch various Feminist positions are, the more enthusiastically they support them, because their craziest ideas are simply regular Feminist doctrine taken to its most logical conclusion and most abstract manifestation. To Feminists, actual people don't matter; ideas matter, and the idea they have of "power imbalances" must be preserved lest the entire ideology loses its foothold.
And he has a point, but I am not giving up yet. I am hoping that perhaps the realization that they are treating women as property, or have merely replaced the scarlet letter treatment of the Puritans with an upgraded feminist version, or are indulging the ramblings of a mad witch doctor, will make them come to their senses. And if not, I think there might be a few more angles of attack worth exploring, because the absurdity of feminists or anyone supporting the female sex offender charade is inexhaustible to me.


Anonymous said...

I'm against sex shaming. It is interesting that politicians often use sexual relations against each other.

I suppose in your definition above, it is simply male politicians using women against other male politicians?

Eivind Berge said...

It goes way beyond male politicians shaming other politicians. I think laws tend to reflect the interests of the most powerful groups, and our "feminist" laws are no exception. In the above account I see the feminist sex laws as a proxy for what pathologically possessive husbands and fathers would do -- think a slightly less extreme version of honor killings. In light of this tendency, and given that you can't outright define women as property, it makes sense to pretend that they can "sexually abuse" and for example have your wife locked up for 30 years if she cheats with a student, which is really as good as killing her. Who cares if the justification is absurd when it gets the job done? (Answer: only the male sexualists! We refuse to contrive fake victims!)

Fathers likewise have draconian control of their daughters' sexuality via child pornography laws. Honor killings have gone out of style, but been replaced with near universal criminality for the girls now growing up -- they all take nudes, and this can be used to destroy them. These laws literally call it abuse material when girls take pictures of themselves, beautifully illustrating that the real reason for prosecuting girls and women as sex offenders is that they abused themselves and thus become damaged goods in the eyes of their owners.

"Trafficking" is another feminist word for sex which inadvertently lets slip that women are property. The way it is used it robs women of agency to make sexual decisions when money is involved, or even decisions about migration or living arrangements, and reduces them to a commodity to be controlled by the state. This is the only criminalization of sexuality that some women actually oppose (sex workers themselves do), but only male sexualists are calling the feminists out on the absurdity of female sexual abusers and pointing out how this plays into a view of women that one would think they don't want to be associated with. Sadly the myth of sexual abuse is now so strong that they don't smell the old shit it wraps up.

John said...

Yeah life would be a helluva lot easier if I didn't care so much about this issue, and many others.the zionist murderering pigs (and nope I'm NOT anti semitic)and this rotten police state bugs the shit out of me, and the naked imperialism(a woman was charged with 'possesion of a DAIRY CART'in Ponce inlet florida)it was held somewhat in check under Obama but with Bolton and pompeo it's going to get bad.the only national emergency,imo,in this country is the unprecedented inequality.i see roosh is "running for president" I agree with most of his agenda.have you read it yet Eivind? kinda refreshing to see someone besides myself that's a proponent of taking everything above $100 million from these billionaires.its not "un american" or "socialist". NOBODY needs billions, and I've been saying that for decades.feminists, yeah they are ruining social media and the "empowering" of women is at the cost of men's lives and careers.are you even "allowed" to be an mra/anti feminist on Twitter or have they banned everyone

Eivind Berge said...

I saw something about Roosh running for president and thought it was a joke, but if he is serious then that's amazing and I will have to check out his platform. Not that he can win, but he does have a following so it could get some interesting publicity for men's issues at least.

And yeah, I'm no socialist either, but I am getting fed up with the super rich and would be happy to take much more from them. They are not acting responsibly, especially with the banning of political dissent on their platforms. Twitter is as good as a public utility now and should not be engaging in political favoritism. Just like the roads are what you use to travel, Twitter is the place where you make short public statements, with no realistic alternative to reach a lot of people in that way, so shutting someone out simply because we have the "wrong" opinions is unacceptable.

Anonymous said...

Let's see...

It seems like for the past 50 or 60 years women have been having sex with whomever, or whatever they want.

That is sexual liberation, since men are not controlling any of it (except maybe the media)

The consequences have been disasterous

And aren't they being rewarded for it?

In the form of handouts from the government?

John said...

Totally.WE should be on there, still. feminists are allowed and encouraged to spread their man hatred(doxxing? No problem, go for it) but that's ok somehow.and only after trump is out of office can we hope he's banned.going to be a LONG 2 years at least.i get why many didn't want to vote for hillary but what I don't get is the support he still has- inexplicable.

Eivind Berge said...

"It seems like for the past 50 or 60 years women have been having sex with whomever, or whatever they want."

Yes and no. Something has also gone horribly wrong in the other direction. It was 21 years ago, with the Mary Kay Letourneau story that I first realized the justice system has come unhinged against women in some cases of spectacularly victimless sex. At that time, there was a sense of disbelief that the system could be so cruel and even some debate -- I remember Oprah Winfrey actually doing a show where they discussed whether this was really abuse in a way that wasn't just virtue-signaling irrational feminist sex-hostility with only one answer allowed, but sadly she and the rest of the establishment came down on that side and now you get banned for arguing against. The female sex offender charade is one side of feminism that we can't dismiss merely because women are given too many privileges in other ways. We, as rational, sex-positive men need to stand up for women against this heartbreaking misogyny, because they sure can't figure it out themselves.

Eivind Berge said...

If we are going to hurt women for being nice to boys, can we at least do it without the charade? With the pretense that the boys are "victims," there is the implication that women wouldn't be punished if we realized the truth that the boys are lucky. But this is naive, because women might well still be punished under a different pretext, for example religious moralism against adultery or that they are property of their husbands or clan, which is what all these avenues of controlling female sexuality come down to anyway. So it's not so much the fact that women are punished for victimless sex that bothers me, but the intellectual dishonesty of the justification. You don't see me writing endless rants against sharia law for example, even though it does the same thing to women, because it does so without the charade of contriving fake abuse. I wish we could be more tolerant, but it does not seem like humans can abstain from regulating sexuality in draconian ways, and that means controlling women's sexuality too against their own will, not just men's entitlement. Realistically, women are too valuable to give them free reign to dispense sex, so no society will let them do that purely based on their own feelings. But I know that such regulation can be done without dreaming up fake victims, particularly male ones, so I have my sights set at eliminating this travesty.

Eivind Berge said...

Given that women officially own their own bodies, the only way to regulate female sexuality is via laws governing "abuse," so it's not surprising that the concept of abuse has gotten unhinged from reality. This is true both of women-as-abused and abusers. When a feminist society cracks down on prostitution, it does so via the Swedish model whereby women are ostensibly protected from abuse but actually just as downtrodden as by other models. When it controls the sexuality of girls and young women, it does so via age of consent and other laws that exaggerate female victimhood. But it doesn't stop there, because there is another loophole through which female sexuality can be controlled under the feminist paradigm: women-as-abusers. One might regard the construction of male victims of women as a byproduct of the inflated abuse concept, given the incidental myth of gender equality, or as a further opportunity to control female sexuality, and I think it is some of both. Feminists never admit either of these reasons, however. They cling to the superstition that women can sexually abuse males.

Another quote from Twitter illustrates how detached from reality they are, by one of the feminists who got me suspended:


"Trying to normalize sexual abuse and rape of children is apparently enough to get you suspended from Twitter, yes."

That is the only way they can see it, because they are TRUE BELIEVERS. We are dealing with a mass psychosis, or religious belief if you will. The myth of sexual abuse is the most surreal aspect of our culture, which is scary and painful to witness by us who haven't internalized it.

tg said...

>The high priestesses today go by titles like psychologist and therapist

Actually, these would be the low priestesses. The medium priests and priestesses go by "journalist," "officer," and "member of parliament." The high priests and priestesses go by "professor." The head of the serpent lies in academia; in America, that would be Harvard-Yale-Princeton; in Britain, Oxford-Cambridge. It is there that the high priests and priestesses gather together to discuss and formulate "abuse" theory. From there, the theory is disseminated globally, to be picked up by low-level apparatchiks such as various self-styled "experts."

It's important to keep that in mind, because for male sexualism to triumph, its ideas need to either penetrate deep into academia, or else, academia has to be so thoroughly discredited as to be rendered irrelevant. Once either of these scenarios transpires, it will be possible to rein in the FBI (in the US) and the NCA (in Britain) to desist from the witch-hunt against normal men, and to abolish vast segments of modern sex-crime legislation.

It must be borne in mind that academia is not a static establishment, but a dynamic one; people join it and leave it regularly. What we aim for is memetic infiltration, to re-shape the cognitive elite's worldview. In this sense, our interests align with those of Neo-Reaction (NRx), the only political movement that has a keen grasp of statal influence structures and where power truly lies. In NRx parlance, to win the war of ideas, one can either slaughter the youth camp (a la Anders Breivik; NRx criticizes this approach, not necessarily on moral grounds, but simply as ineffectual and even counterproductive), or recruit the youth camp (what Curtis Yarvin advocates, and what the alt-right has partially succeeded in doing).

From our perspective, members of the cognitive elite need to be weaned off Feminism and to embrace male sexualism. Whatever tactics are employed to achieved that goal, male sexualism has to survive until 2040 or so - it can only be a long-term project, because the changes we seek to bring about can only occur in a time-frame of decades. If in 2040, it will be not-uncommon for Doctors of Philosophy to advocate our positions, that will count as a success.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for the correction; I agree that academia is probably the most influential driver of abuse hysteria, and your timeline is probably the best we can hope for too, but I leave open the possibility that professors can be discredited rather quickly. After all, Trump got elected even though professors hate him with a vengeance. It probably won't happen so quickly with male sexualism though because of the army of lower priests who also benefit from abuse hysteria, that entire nasty beast that Angry Harry used to call the abuse industry. An industry is what it is, comprising everything from professors and the journals in which they publish, via charities, clinicians, police and judges right down to the humble prison guard who derives his paycheck from locking up sex offenders.

Eivind Berge said...

Another heartbreaking case of the female sex offender charade:


The high priests will have us believe that the boy became emotionally disturbed and suicidal several years after sex with a woman because of the sex, and most people are such gullible buffoons that they find this plausible, or at least enough people to keep the charade going. My faith in humanity is very, very low after reading about these cases. The female sex offender charade needs to be put on this list, because that's exactly how baseless it is:


But no, the high priests have people in thrall to their delusion that there is a real connection between pleasurable sex and whatever problems one has in life later, and that even a kiss on the lips is harmful. If there is a causal relationship, they would be the ones causing it by their evil hysteria.

Eivind Berge said...

This is what keeps me up at night. Wondering how people can be so dimwitted in the head as to think there is a mechanism of causation between their twisted concept of "sexual abuse" in these cases and psychological harm, other than self-fulfilling hysteria or iatrogenesis at most. Can any true believer articulate how that mechanism is supposed to work? Of course they can't, because it is pure gibberish, though they seem to satisfy their own feeble minds by thinking "inability to consent" explains it. That is not an explanation, but an imposition on reality, and in the case of boys enjoying sex with women altogether absurd because the boys have received value rather than given it up at every level of analysis from immediate gratification to the evolutionary meaning of life.

Eivind Berge said...

Here is how it really works. In the case I just referred to, where a nice 44-year-old woman named Su Hyon Dillon is a victim of the female sex offender charade, the "abuse" is an incidentaloma. She and the boy have a sexual relationship in 2014-15 when the boy is 11, which is perfectly happy and consensual in very way. Four years later, in 2019 when the boy is 15, he is depressed like anyone including teenagers sometimes get for no particular reason, and sees a therapist. The therapist incidentally discovers that he has had sex that the witch doctors consider "abuse," an irrelevant fact that now takes on enormous weight and makes both the boy and the woman victims of medical investigative technology, so the same acronym as for physical incidentalomas applies: VOMIT.

Like this:


VOMIT = victim of medical investigative technology. That is the true mechanism of the female sex offender charade, and a great deal of "sexual abuse" by males as well. So whenever the media spews "abuse," recognize their VOMIT for what it is.

Real medical science has the integrity to recognize its own VOMIT, or at least tries to as attested by that journal article, but psychologists and psychiatrists unfortunately operate on the level of sorcery, so be very afraid of them. Male sexualism is our only hope against this madness.

Eivind Berge said...

Here's another article about the same case with a little more details:


"Dillon is accused of having sex with the boy multiple times, including during a team lacrosse trip to San Diego. The victim said Dillon often walked around her house in her underpants, and also gave him $200 for his birthday."

It is so sad that an altogether pleasant woman is made out to be an abuser. That the sex should constitute abuse is EXACTLY as absurd as if we should pretend the $200 birthday gift would constitute financial abuse or exploitation! Both the sex and the money are objectively and subjectively valuable gifts to the boy and cannot be turned into the opposite except by an evil delusion. Sadly we are living in a world where that delusion is institutionalized for sex.

Sexual exploitation can be an issue with men in relation to girls and boys because male sexuality is so extremely less valuable and more problematic, but with women and boys, people need to forget all the crap about "inability to consent" because it's obviously not necessary to have a high level of informed consent to receive something clearly valuable! How could we get into this mess without stopping to consider if the thing consented to could possibly be bad when women are accused? Like I said, this keeps me up at night. It's 2 AM and I can't process how humans can be so irrational.

Anonymous said...

If they were to made a research on the subject, I'm quite sure they would discover a significant correlation between the amount of financial compensation that so-called "victims" are entitled to and the amount of harm they develop later in life. In other words, being harmed offers good value for money!

Eivind Berge said...

If medical science worked the same way as the abuse industry, anyone who questioned the methods of cancer screening and treatment would be dismissed as “normalizing cancer” and that would be the end of discussion, ensuring that no progress could be made and no old entrenched mistakes could be corrected. To their credit, doctors are relatively open to admitting, based on new evidence, that their definitions of disease were wrong and that treatments formerly prescribed actually caused harm. For example, it is no longer recommended that women hysterically check their breasts for possible cancer, because we now know that this leads to overtreatment and the needless disfiguring of women. If the old misguided definitions of what needed screening and treatment were set in dogma like the sex laws with hateful sanctions against those who disagreed and suppression of new evidence, the harm would be obvious.

Yet this is precisely how the abuse industry operates. It boggles the mind that they are allowed to destroy lives based on definitions that cannot be questioned and were never evidence-based in the first place. Any decent person ought to be very upset if he understands how so-called “sexual abuse” is handled in our culture, so anyone who does not share my outrage is either more or less willfully blind or a bad person.

I have thought a little more about the role of academia, and want to revise my evaluation somewhat because they are not all against us. Evolutionary psychology is on my side and does not contrive fake abuse nor female offenders, but they have no political impact and are reviled by the rest of academia. There are occasional breaths of fresh air in the otherwise feminist-dominated humanistic literature on sexuality as well. Just look how our friend Tom O'Carroll managed to publish this reasonable piece in the mainstream journal Sexuality & Culture:


Some astute ethical reasoning there, and even more impressively I marvel at how he managed to sneak it past the censors. He should teach a course in rhetorics for political dissenters in an era with no free speech, because I know of no others who can get away with it so well.

tg said...

Off topic: one reason that sinister is strictly illegal is to prevent men from ideologically radicalizing against the criminalization of normal male sexuality, that is, to prevent men from becoming male sexualists. Today, the public's exposure to sinister pixels is extremely limited, so those who find it are usually those determined to do so, who are naturally prone to hold non-Feminist views about the matter. The issue is that TPTB seek to prevent regular, normie men from being exposed to documentation of young sexuality, because exposure to documentation of young sexuality -- and the ability to communicate the contents of that documentation effectively -- is certain to lead masses of ideologically-unaffiliated men to embrace male sexualist positions.

I would say that those who can, without risking getting on the law enforcement agencies' bad side, gain access to sinister pixels, should do so for the purpose of internalizing the reality of young sexuality. It is political Kryptonite as it completely dismantles the false narratives put forth by the Feminist beast. And that is precisely why they strive so hard to banish it from the view of regular, normie men. If it were possible to somehow expose millions of men to sinister pixels, that would increase the likelihood of there occurring a mass political awakening. By the way, I'm not making a new point here; merely repeating one that for some time I haven't thought about.

Eivind Berge said...

Or they can take this course, which does not involve sinister pixels but does manage to convey the sinister ideas you are talking about:


The truth is out there, regardless of how much feminists, the law, and as that link shows, conservatives want to suppress it.

Eivind Berge said...

For the record to avoid any misunderstanding, I advise all male sexualists to NOT view sinister pixels if that is illegal in your country. Do not make it that easy for the authorities to silence us. We need all men's rights activists to keep our activities legal so we can remain free for the greatest impact. Tom's advice is applicable, as he said, where there is no legal hazard, but even then it is not advisable to view ANY kind of porn except perhaps for educational purposes, because of everything I have said about nofap.

But learning the truth is another matter and they still can't prevent us from thinking for ourselves based on the information legally available. Thinking back to our own childhoods also goes a long way, if we can be honest about what it was really like. I refuse to believe that people have forgotten to the extent that political correctness rings genuinely true to anyone but the most deluded. And then we need to stand up for the truth, in ways that are both legal and preferably avoids censorship too.

Eivind Berge said...

One of the things that happen when there is suppression of speech is that political dissenters find refuge in more oblique language, such as allegory. Here is my humble little first attempt to write one on this subject:

This is a story of a world much like ours, except their taboos are different. They lack some of our taboos and have others that would shock us. Most notably, they have a taboo against wetizing water. Since the laws of physics and human nature are the same, water is just as wet in their world as in ours, but they have to be very careful not to express this truth in any medium of representation, on pain of draconian punishment.

Pictures or descriptions of a flat ocean surface are OK, but letting on that the water has a fluid or slippery nature, for example by depicting waves or people swimming or standing in the rain, is a grave criminal matter.

It is legal to use water for hygienic purposes from birth, to bathe and even swim from the age of 16 in most countries, sometimes as young as 12, but representations of these acts are strictly forbidden. Under some extremely limited circumstances, people are allowed to depict or talk about their wetness experiences after the age of 18, but that too is subject to intense taboos with multiple kinds of arbitrary boundaries, the slightest transgression of which will get you into big trouble.

And so they live their lives, in hypocrisy and fear and suspicion. Although nobody can articulate a coherent justification for the taboo, most people have internalized it and a significant group make their living hunting and punishing those who wetize water. It is believed that society would unravel without this taboo and aggressive enforcement, so the police state is pretty much left to do whatever it pleases.

There is just a minuscule movement of dissenters called the male wetualists (all of them male because as in our world, women are too conformist to join such a radical movement). They are walking on eggshells because their very ideology wetizes water, so they live at risk of censorship or worse every time they open their mouths. One of them had the idea to write an allegory about a parallel world with a shocking taboo against sexualizing minors in much the same way as their taboo against wetizing water, and that gained a few more followers and made some people think, but the taboo persisted.

This can be done much better, but it goes to show the potential of fiction as a less dangerous form of dissent. I wish we had male sexualists writers who could do something like Orwell's 1984 or Animal Farm.

tg said...

A few days I ago, I wrote that I'm surprised that Heartiste, who is on our side and immensely popular, is still up.

Guess what?


Eivind Berge said...

Oh, wow...

The purges have really begun. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it's still a shock to see the big ones go. I have been reading Roissy (which was his original name) for over ten years, and though he was anything but politically correct and even started pushing an agenda that I myself don't agree with in recent years (white nationalism), he never threatened anybody and should definitely be protected by freedom of speech. But there is sadly no such thing on the major platforms anymore.

Be careful out there, and more allegorical or whatever it takes to stay visible.

John said...

Same with these often dangerous conlonoscopies.now recommended for everyone over 50.ha,the average age of colon cancer diagnosis is 72.they are not risk free.

John said...

They banned you Eivind and you were very moderate in your comments.twitter is over unless you're attempting to increase ones 'brand'and or you're a celebrity or "saving" the world from men as Kelly(pig) Ellis does.
So, the new hot hashtag is...drumroll...
#sexstrike !
Yes, allysa milano, the washed up actress turned #metoo activist is behind this work of art.
I don't get any anyway, but now it just might be a little harder for men to get any.

Eivind Berge said...

Laura Loomer is also banned:


And she did something cool:

"MUST WATCH: #LauraLoomer went to Twitter CEO @jack Dorsey’s house last night and projected the names of all banned conservatives onto his wall, making his wall her own social media wall.

Twitter banned her livestream of the protest while she was at Jack’s house. #StopTheBias"

But it doesn't help. I am thinking we need at least two versions of all the social media, one for leftists (the existing versions) and one for conservatives, because the left simply can't be trusted to moderate conservatives fairly. Male sexualists probably would be banned from both of them because they both hate sex, but it would be an improvement for freedom of speech if the right could also have a voice. This idea should be implemented right now and there are so many of us ready to join that there would be a good network effect. Somebody please make a conservative Twitter clone, which is most sorely needed, as well as a Facebook, Instagram and blogging platform. It was an illusion that liberals and conservatives could be on the same platforms, because they hate each other too much and the left does not respect freedom of speech. Perhaps neither does the right, but it doesn't matter when the left already got their platforms.

tg said...

Maybe something good will come out of Heartiste's ban. I suspect that WordPress' pretext has something to do with Heartsite's views about teenage sexuality, specifically his defense of Roy Moore, and various posts in the same vein; moreover, his blog contained some images of young teenagers in sexy poses, which is always risky nowadays. Point is, perhaps there'll occur a mini-awakening to the war against male sexuality when people realize that Heartiste was banned for "pedophilia" or "child abuse" or whatever. I'm not holding my breath about this one, but it's possible.

Eivind Berge said...

I was impressed when Heartiste defended Roy Moore as a sexually normal man. That was downright male sexualist, even though it was more an aside to other politics, and a long time ago so I thought the censors had let it slide. If WordPress wants to pretend the ban is not partisan politics and for things Americans definitely consider free speech, however, I wouldn't be surprised if they drag up some "child exploitation" excuse, which would be a nice wake-up call to men. But I think we are past pretending conservatives don't get banned just for being conservatives at this point, so they probably won't bother. The latest wave of bans don't really have reasons that resemble rule violations, including mine.

John said...

Exactly so I don't know why you persist.it HAS be that old lack of free will so I can't fault you for it.
if it were a conscious decision to try to change the worlds mind about these issues,you'd say NO I'm wasting my time and life long ago but especially now that everyone has been banned/deplatformmed!?
of course I do the same thing I'm now commenting on YouTube.
I told myself NOT to do that!
And it's a disaster naturally but I feel compelled to address stupidity by these mostly right wingers who know NOTHING of history.
im lucky I'm not a teacher they'd be throwing rocks and everything I said is FACT NOT "opinion".
to be anti u.s imperialism is no fun.these dumb fucks don't even know what that is!? I mean it's happening right now, provoking,sanctioning Russia,and Iran,they were targeted decades ago,Venezuela,where America is busy starving them to death and trying to stage an out in the open coup! and these fools actually believe it's a failure of socialism.
I'm going to stop commenting like NOW.i don't want to be banned from youtube for being a "troll" or some such shit.

John said...

Oh joy! I just endured another cops pulling me over,looking to make money or an arrest or both situation.
This time, it was for the tint on my FRONT window.
well I told the road bandits I didn't put it on there even though I did.
Anyway, no ticket just a 'warning'.
but after they took my license they were back there a LONG time and that's usually not good news.
So "you're free to go" but asked if I would consent to a vehicle search.
I said no of course but if they really want in? They'll get in.
This is the fifth time I've been pulled over in the last 16 months, no citatations were issued.
Welcome to police state America!
roosh is coming to Florida and I will be in attendance.
unlike almost all 'mras' I'm not scared to meet in person and there will be a dinner afterwords.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, there is always something they can harass your for, if not arrest and convict. I hope Roosh makes it all the way to Florida without getting caught up in something. He is actually not banned from Twitter yet, but I see he auto-deletes his own tweets after 30 days so there is less for the censors to work with.

Is this the most ridiculous reason for a ban yet?


A psychiatry PhD banned for stating his professional opinion that "Transsexualism and milder forms of gender dysphoria are types of mental disorder, which may leave the individual with average or even above-average functioning in unrelated areas of life."

This is supposedly "hateful conduct," same rule they used against me. But really, by now it is very clear that the actual rule is "be politically correct," or else they can ban anyone at all.

John said...

Oh yeah,that is ridiculous.but you can't suggest being transgender is any kind of mental disorder.even though I agree, it's yet another "no no"!
You either get attacked for your views, like you were, and or get banned.
Fun times on the internet!
Yes I hope roosh makes it down here, one never knows anymore.

John said...

So,I was deliberating whether or not to put a picture of MY face on Facebook.
But I was like wait a second.
And I checked all TWO of my messages for the first time and... voila!
Two different bitches from the old,old days on Twitter!
"Hey you sob, stop threatening women on Twitter"
is how they both pretty much went.
now think about this.
I haven't been on Twitter in well over a YEAR and the "threats" I allegedly made were from 2016 according to queen cunt Kelly.
So, I "decided" not only to not put my mug up there, but also to change a couple letters in my name.
So,I have to hide on(from) the internet,and also must avoid(hide) from the police constantly scanning(fun way to drive btw)for pigs,and I MUST avoid/hide from females.
I gotta get the fuck out of this bullshit "free country".
but the world rightfully despises Americans.
maybe Costa Rica I guess but I'm not feeling it.

Eivind Berge said...

I see that The Antifeminist has written another one of his usual pessimistic rants against me and the version of male sexualism that I stand for:


Male sexualism is a mess because he makes it into a mess with his support for fapping and other virtual sex. What he wants should be termed an asexualist movement because he is not advocating sex! I should write a longer reply and will probably make a new post of it, but suffice it to say now that I disagree with most of this and there is even an ugly factual error, that I said it would be a good thing if in the future we could implant false memories into incels' brains of having had plentiful sex -- that's an abhorrent idea and I've said nothing else.