Wednesday, August 28, 2019

The sad infighting in our movement

Sadly we seem to fight more amongst ourselves than with feminists these days. The male sexualist movement has split into two factions: one led by me which considers male masturbation pathological or at least maladaptive, and another which does not, led by The Antifeminist.

I wanted to create something positive. Even though we have no hope of affecting policy any time soon, we can at least stand for something true and good, something we can be proud of and celebrate when the rest of the world is hating and criminalizing.

I realize that criminalization is running amok against both male sexuality and masturbation plus paraphernalia, and both deserve to be defended from this onslaught, but only the former meets my "something positive" criterion.

Ideas and practices get adopted because of the social rewards and practical benefits they provide to their adherents. Most people who join a movement don't do so primarily because of their desire to further an agenda. Rather, they do so because they find it socially and practically rewarding, and then the agenda follows as a result of the strength of the group. We must not lose sight of this.

Sex law reform as advocated by us is about as realistic in our lifetime as the 72 virgins promised to jihadists in the afterlife. If that were all Islam had to offer, it would go nowhere. The latter has adherents because they also offer social and practical benefits here and now, like mosques and mentors and friends and so on. We don't have a local support network, but at least I can think of a practice that will make men feel better and be more sexually successful almost as soon as they pick it up. That practice is nofap. I didn't invent it or start the nofap movement, but it so happens to dovetail exactly with our positive aims, so I've embraced it.

The Antifeminist makes much of my supposedly being like a marijuana legalization activist who says pot is evil. What he does not get is that masturbation is not virtually harmless like smoking pot, but much, much worse, like heroin or crack. I used the word anosognosia for a reason. What we can reasonably have for such indisputably harmful things is a "harm reduction" movement, and I do get behind that. This consists of remedies like decriminalization of use and possession, free needles and perhaps prescription drugs for addicts. Such things are worth advocating, but they don't compose a movement celebrating something positive like male sexuality deserves.

It is more harmful to masturbate and be imprisoned than just masturbate, so by all means, I support harm reduction there too. I just want to make it clear that it is harm reduction of dysfunctions secondary to our sexuality rather than male sexualism, which to me represents actual sex and usually sex we can be proud of.

The Antifeminist is also confused about my definition of asexuality and attributes to me the claim that sex which doesn't result in pregnancy is asexual. That is plain false; I've never said that. While I uphold uncontracepted sex as the highest good, I don't claim birth control equals asexuality, though we must admit that the barrier kinds come close, condoms being described even in scientific journals as "mutual masturbation with the same latex device" sometimes. Contrary to what The Antifeminist says, there are contactless crimes that fit my advocacy as well. Grooming and solicitation are certainly sexualist activities when the aim is real sex, and victims of these laws are our people. But those who do silly things like just masturbating to porn or send dick pics are not. They are merely worthy of harm reduction efforts rather than moral praise and inclusion in our brotherhood of egosyntonic male sexuality.

It is important to me to have a pathway of the moral high ground where we lead the way in righteousness. Yes, we are the last handful of humans against a zombie apocalypse. Not really, because there are many more real humans lurking in the shadows -- Epstein's network is proof of that -- but in public discourse, yes, it's just the few of us left. And that makes it all the more important that we uphold healthy sexuality. A wanker is partly like a zombie because he has allowed some of his sexuality to be zombified, and I shall not sink so low nor promote it.

One more thing: can we please ease off on the "Asperger's" accusations? Disagreements about how to run a movement does not equal autism, man. Yes, it takes extreme nonconformism to be a male sexualist, but it doesn't seem to be associated with true disability or diagnosable mental disorders, because we can't even recruit such people in appreciable numbers. The only confirmed case of Asperger's in our movement is Nathan Larson, and he is obviously a lot stranger than I am. I got a clean bill of health even from the hostile psychiatrist who worked for the police when they tried (and failed) to build a case against me (for INCITEMENT, not threats which is another error you make ad nauseam), so it's really retarded to claim you know better.


Anonymous said...

what is the big fucking deal here? both of you sound like women.

eivind doesn't like jerking off because it lowers male power, but doesn't want it illegal. antifeminist doesn't mind jerking off because it's a relief from incel suffering or a way to avoid nasty women if there are no good ones around. both don't want jerking off to be illegal. END OF STORY HERE.

eivind says using AOC laws to criminalize women is obviously retarded, and if they're applying it to women, they are certainly not going to stop applying it to men any time soon. antifeminist says AOC laws criminalizing any adolescent sex is obviously retarded. both don't want adolescent sex criminalized. END OF STORY HERE.

get over it, we need you working together to fry the bigger fish. act like men instead of children, and make up on a joint article or something.

Anonymous said...

If I understand it correctly, this guru-style is tool supposed to popularize your struggle.
But problem is, at this moment and current societal atmosphere only very few people are wiling to oppose contemporary discourse (regarding sex policy).
These people are those, who are usually thinking for themselves thus they do not need some kind of religious or sectarian movement, they do not need manual how to live.
They want logic,(unbiased) science, struggle for freedom and common sense.
Just judging by me and few people who I know that just don't 'go with the flow'

Movements like Elam's AVFM and Roosh's admirers are full of this kind of "worshipers" but these people are mostly herd of sheep without any principles looking just for instant gratification. To think, that you will attract this kind of "worshipers" at this point with your opinions is very naïve.

This guru-style together with Tom Grauer's stupid Twitter trolling gives this struggle bitter taste, like it is some movement of mentally ill people.
Maybe I am wrong, and your strategy will work, but it seems quite opposite to this day.
I know that these no-fap and etc. things are your personal way how live, I have also my personal preferences that I am genuinely convinced that can improve my psychical/sexual/mental health, but combine them with struggle for fairer law and liberty would seem a bit unwise to me.

Even that I agree with your opinions only maybe at 50/60%, I appreciate your writing
(and also Antifeminist's BTW).
European(libertine,humanist) branch of antifeminism is needed much more than ever.
I hope that good old Eivind, pissing all those feminists will resurrect.

Regardless of what your direction will bee, Good Luck.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree there is no evidence that I can make it as a lifestyle guru. The apolitical version of nofap does have a following, but for some reason they haven't discovered male sexualism. They do seem made for each other in my view, but maybe I am the only one who appreciates that. I plan to try some more and then maybe focus more on the politics again if there is still no good reaction.

And this infighting is a whole lot of nothing, yeah, when it comes to what kind of laws we want and don't want. It matters for the image of the movement and that lifestyle part that no one but me cares about. The result is a bad taste at the moment and I wish we could get past that, but it is important to me to promote healthy advice, not just oppose bad laws.

The zombie analogy is good, better than intended because what is porn and sexbots etc. except zombies? Who wouldn't want human lovers instead? It is bad enough that the zombies have assimilated the law and politics and every other opinion but our own with their mindless antisex crap.

the antifeminist said...

'Eivind thinks jerking off is bad, but doesn't want it made illegal'. (anonymous)

"What he does not get is that masturbation is not virtually harmless like smoking pot, but much, much worse, like heroin or crack." (Eivind)

I know of no country on the planet in which heroin or crack is legal, even mere possession. And some societies are more liberal in seeing that even though something is bad (a drug) it shouldn't be illegal to use it in your own home.

Whereas feminists have now enshrined the idea - up to the level of the United Nations - that if a form of pornography is bad, then it has to be illegal 100%, because to cut the demand is the only way to cut the supply.

Anonymous complains about the puritan attitudes of Americans, but only the most bat shit insane feminists and femiservatives (i.e Michelle Palin and such) would claim that masturbation is as harmful as heroin.

@Anonymous - whoever you are, you've made some very good points here recently, and for example, I intend to take up your suggestion of having a permanent page on my site to collect examples of how attitudes have changed so quickly (at least in Europe). I'll start that very soon.

However, I'm sad you can't see that this is not just a trivial difference of opinion with Eivind. As you see from his sidebar, he's actually trying to define what 'male sexualism' is (and making the stupid feminist nofap cult an essential part of it). He (like Tom Krauer) is literally pissing on myself - not to mention people like Steve Moxon, as well as the memories of Angry Harry and Chris Brand and others - and my/our efforts over years or decades.

theantifeminist said...

Eivind - stop being a massive egotist and thinking your some kind of messiah. You keep repeating that our cause is hopeless - well stop calling yourself head of a movement then and trying to define it in such a controversial and extreme (and feminist way). If historians in 100 years time look for evidence of a resistance movement to the sexual holocaust, they'll look at your site and think - WTF? This was the leader of the resistance? But he's saying porn is as evil as crack and that masturbation is a sin? He was leading the resistance to feminist puritanism and the millions of men who ended up in gas chambers for being caught by mind readers thinking sexual thoughts about 19 year olds? No wonder they couldn't stop it, LOL!!

Like you, I can remember the early days of the 'men's rights movement'. I can't recall anyone attributing 'leadership' to any one figure, or anyone calling for such a thing. We used to, and rightly still do, call Angry Harry the father of the men's rights movement, because he was the first to blog about men's rights issues and capture an audience (and inspire countless others). It's irrelevant if he was or was not the first to call himself an 'MRA' (I suspect he wasn't).

People didn't even refer to a 'men's rights movement' until there were clearly hundreds of people online discussing what were clearly 'men's rights' issues in a number of newsgroups, blogs, forums, and then on YouTube channels.

As you're very much aware, when Paul Elam started to take on the self-appointed mantel of 'leader', it caused a lot of bad feelings for many. (by the way, I was reading one of your early articles the other day, in which you accuse Paul Elam of literally being a zombie. TBH, that's exactly how I feel about you now).

It's absolutely absurd to even be talking a 'movement', let alone 'leaders' for Christ's sake, at this point. I only do so because Tom Grauer, whoever the fuck he is, has forced this concept out there (just appropriated the 'male sexualist' label from my ten year old 'pro-male sexuality activism') and now you (and him with his Muslim ramblings such as 'we need enfore monogamy, marry girls off at 12 etc) are trying to completely define it in your own loony ways, most of which have little to do with preventing a feminist sexual holocaust of the non-zombies.

BTW, your analogy about Muslims needing mosques etc and not just 72 virgins in heaven is absurd. Do you really think 'male sexualists' are going to get together to 'no fap'? Or do you mean discuss nofap benefits together online? But don't we already have that on places like r/nofap? Whenever I've looked there, I don't see any inkling of nascent 'men's rights' type anti-feminist movement, unsurprising as it's built on feminist junk science and the sexual needs of women.

You have absolutely no sense of the zeitgeist or what is coming around the corner. Yes, if society stood still, of course we have no hope. But fortunately, in 20 years time we'll have sex robots and virtual sex indistinguishable from the real thing. We'll also have at least the first steps to rejuvenation and perpetual youth. You're like a homosexual in the 50's, completely oblivious to the fact that the pill is going to be around the corner, loosening the millenia old link between sex and pregnancy, and thus the logic behind anti-gay laws.

You're the worst possible leader of a resistance movement to feminist anti-male sexuality

theantifeminist said...

I would like to ask Eivind a question - a thought experiment. If femihags were to ever succeed in raising the age of consent to 50 (supposing they wanted it that high), would it still be 'asexual', 'maladaptive', and the like, for a man to prefer masturbating, or looking at porn, to seeking sex with 50+ year old hags?

Anonymous said...

"...Sound like women." Welcome to the mra.

Anonymous said...

"Whereas feminists have now enshrined the idea - up to the level of the United Nations - that if a form of pornography is bad, then it has to be illegal 100%, because to cut the demand is the only way to cut the supply."

The war against CP has shown that this approach is wrong because, being the production illegal, there is no marketplace where supply and demand can meet each other.
On the contrary, every time the police seize existing CP (that could be duplicated and traded for free), they do create a marketplace for new CP, which means that the demand can only be satisfied by using new pornographic actors. This would not happen if private possession and non commercial trading were legal.
If it is true that the music industry has been severely damaged by private file sharing, this must also be true for the porn industry.

Eivind Berge said...

Is masturbation as harmful as heroin? Well, you are obviously not going to OD and die, or wear down your body with injecting impurities and a lifestyle at the bottom of society, but I don’t think I am exaggerating in terms of the subjective risks. Impotence is a real possibility, and I think most men would rate that as nearly as bad. Except it can be helped, which is how nofap started. And there is another aspect to the harm of masturbation which it seems only I am emphasizing, and that is the opportunity cost. While it doesn’t always lead to impotence, fapping always leads to some degree of fecklessness. Nofap can easily make the difference between a misspent youth and a sexually active one because it provides the push you needed to do what it takes, not to mention helping older incels. Imagine if a boy becomes a committed nofapper by age 12, how long will it take him to have sex? Probably it will happen several years earlier than the current average! You have yourself made a similar argument that female “sex offenders” rob boys of pleasures with girls of peak attractiveness during the short time they are socially acceptable to date. While that was a joke, the fact that masturbation really does this is dead serious. It also would help us fight the female sex offender charade since many more underage boys would have sex with older women as well. What better way than nofap to piss off the antisex bigots and harness the sexual power of youth to do what it is meant to? There wouldn’t be enough prisons for all the women they would need to lock up, and they would be forced to admit defeat.

I deeply regret my own misspent youth, and I don't care what you think, I will provide the recipe for avoiding that. I don't need to belabor nofap all the time, but now it is there for boys and men who want to read it and avoid similar mistakes, and that is a good thing for male sexualism.

To answer your thought experiment right away as well: Yes, masturbation would still be maladaptive if the age of consent were 50, and just maybe with the help of nofap we could muster enough political force to do something about it at that point? Because men sure as hell are not reacting to any of the feminist antisex laws without nofap!

Eivind Berge said...

Masturbation is a great enabler of the feminist war on sex, in addition to being of negative value to a man's life. It makes men docile and complacent with prohibitions on real sex and then provides an additional avenue of persecution, an easier one because pornography leaves more forensic evidence than most sexual encounters. All told it is just such a horrible mess that I can't imagine having any other attitude to than the one I am promoting, when you really think about it.

I am absolutely appalled that any kind of information can be criminal to possess or share noncommercially (unless you have sworn secrecy as in dealing with state secrets or medical records). But this is a separate concern than male sexualism, having to do with freedom of speech. I have expressed in as strong words as I know how my disagreement with child porn laws:

And that is as good as it's going to get from me. See how we can resist the bad laws without invoking the need to fap to porn because it's supposedly good for our sexuality? We don't need to lie, just be sensible people. Governments are also starting to criminalize other kinds of information, like New Zealand and I think the UK is doing with terrorist propaganda. This is also an appalling attack on free speech and it should be addressed along with child porn on those grounds. I am fully on board with the fight for free speech, but it isn't a male sexualist issue, at least not until they come after my ideological statements.

Governments don't trust us to let our curiosity and imagination run free anymore because they think it will either make us child abusers or terrorists. Regarding the former, reality runs in the OPPOSITE direction, lol, and the latter is ridiculous and far too oppressive as well. Once again, I am appalled and frightened by these laws, but it is possible to oppose them and be reasonable about sexuality at the same time.

Milan Horvath said...


I would be pleased if you will do that(writing about changes in Europe).
I myself am considering creating something like that in future, but my situation is not allowing me doing it properly at this point.
BTW It's a shame that you have disabled comments on your site.

To prevent identity confusion, I will stop commenting anonymously. My recent comments were:

Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:20:00 PM ("We need better role models")
Saturday, August 24, 2019 1:43:00 PM ("The faces of evil")
Saturday, August 24, 2019 12:52:00 AM ("The faces of evil")
Wednesday, August 28, 2019 9:27:00 PM ("The sad infighting in our movement")

Eivind Berge said...

Welcome out of anonymity, Milan. Using our real names is the way to go in my opinion.

I see now that The Antifeminist has made a post of male sexualist pillars:

And while I agree with most of this, making nofap out to be a "cult" that we oppose is obviously not something I can accept. I can understand not making nofap one of the pillars, but this is going too far in the opposite direction. Looks like there really will have to be two separate movements then.

Milan Horvath said...

What to say? C'est la vie. Fortunately at this stage it is not big problem.
Big problem it would be, when real official organisation would struggle with such problems.
Anyway I hope that in future some antipuritan movement will emerge as I consider myself rather as antipuritan and libertine-libertarian than concentrated exclusively on male issues, although we share many common goals I will enjoy your future law-politics part of work and also antifeminist's.
Stubbornness is necessary prerequisite to do this type of activism, unfortunately it is sometimes counter-productive.

Maybe it is off-topic, but discussion about possession laws reminded me another aspect of harmfulness of this law.
Putting aside that crimininalising noncomercial viewing of any material
(whether it is Al-Shabaab propaganda or CP) is putting us to (1939-1945) when consuming certain information can earn you bullet in head and also fact that such legislative is doing exact opposite than it was intended(reduce sexual abuse).

Another problem I see with this, is that it is:

.easily abusable by police forces (not only by them), I know few cases from my region, where some politicians and state managers were eliminated this way.
Sometimes by very laughable claims(CP on floppy disks, even when dude had only modern PC without FDD)

.as there is still possibility of anonymous internet connection(although gradually decreasing) and available encryption-only careless or stupid "perpetrators" will be catched.
This fact is abused by politicians and various lobbies to enforce cryptography ban(password disclosure law in UK) and eliminate possibility of anon. connection (data retention law,compulsory WIFI locking etc).

Another thing that is alarming me how this whole agenda is totally destroying European relaxed attitude towards non-sexual nudity(besides many other things).
This is goal, that even hardcore conservative nutters did not achieved in past.
Their fault was that they concentrated on adult population.
These are doing it smartly, changing upcoming generation instead of contemporary, under pretense of.............

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, we don't have an organization so it doesn't really matter at this point. His claim that I am being ridiculous for calling myself a leader is more reasonable than his other points of contention. It is not to be taken too seriously and I don't take myself too seriously as such either. We got into the habit with Tom Grauer when it looked like it would have more meaning to speak of a leader, but then we reverted to the old disorganized state again and the term stuck. I am serious about our ideas though and I really don't want to promote masturbation.

The Antifeminist seems to literally believe that sexbots will liberate men from feminism because so many men will turn away from women that they will lose power. That is an extreme masturbatory agenda that rightly deserves to be called a different movement. It is also unrealistic because I think we are heading into a new AI winter at this point, not having "sex robots and virtual sex indistinguishable from the real thing" in 20 years. To be indistinguishable from the real thing, robots will have to be thinking, feeling persons! Or does he not discern those properties in women? If not, then sure, I can see that he would be content with masturbation, and again that is not what I am about.

I suggest he names his movement the transhuman sexualist movement to distinguish it for ours. We aren't exactly enemies either, so I wish you luck.

Milan Horvath said...

Men are just much less "agreeable" beings than women. Sometimes helpful attribute, sometimes not.

I consider sex bots as high-tech wanking, whether someone thinks it is good or not.
Regarding AI and all this stuff I worry, that we are landing into very nasty totality.
Even cruelest rulers did not had today's possibility of controlling human population.
In past, some of human rights were won illegal way, with today's technology everything is traceable and preventable.

Eivind Berge said...

High-tech wanking can eliminate the neurological damage caused by current porn, if it gets sufficiently indistinguishable from sex that it doesn't train males to be aroused by the wrong stimuli and not aroused by the real thing. However, the opportunity cost of pursuing fake sex rather than real would remain. So then I can no longer speak of clinical pathologies like impotence, but masturbation will still be against my values. Conscious robots would raise additional considerations, but those are pure science fiction to which there is no known pathway from existing technology.

Even if you disbelieve or don't suffer from the sexual dysfunctions that motivated the nofap movement and still bring most fans into it, you can't deny that the opportunity cost of porn/masturbation is real, and here we are at the crux of my disagreement with the pro-porn faction of the Men's Movement. I don't see how this can be resolved without going our separate ways.

Human-Stupidity said...

Hi Eivind, hi Antifeminist (who years ago blocked me but now got tired to see any comments). It is sad that the movement is in such disunited quibbles, in the face of the otherwise anti-sexual men's rights movement.
You are all welcome to comment on My opinions have not changed, I sympathize with you, but
1) I have said all I had to say regarding sexuality and its prohibition
2) I have moved on, from "gender equality"and women quota nonsense to racial equality and racial quota nonsense, from sex law overreach to immigration lawlessness. \
3) unfortunately, the immigration conservatives are mostly religious sex moralists, and the pro sex liberation movement tends to be leftist (?) and abhors "racism". "Racism" nowadays includes truth about race differences in crime and IQ. So if I continue focusing on both sex liberation, men's rights and race realism, on all these topics, then 99.9% of humanity will disagree with me.
4) still enlightens me when I visit the site(unfortunately mostly deleted). But equally enlightening about immigration, quota hazards and race pandering is That is the only site that debunked the "Hidden Figures" hoax movie about the alleged female math geniuses
Can't you guys just get along!!?

Eivind Berge said...

Hello Human-Stupidity, good to hear from you again! I agree that you occasionally have some good points regarding immigration and race, but I am saddened by your focus and zealotry on this. In my view, antisex persecution and related stupidity are much much more important issues, and though we have said most of what there is to say regarding how insane it is, the legal situation has only kept deteriorating. We need to keep fighting for sexual liberation and find arguments that work better! There are so many people concerned with race anyway (plus immigration has actually been shut off at the moment!), so why bother with this?

Please consider becoming a men's rights activist again focused on ending the criminalization of our normal and healthy sexuality -- a male sexualist in our current terminology. said...

Germany still seems to ship in busloads and planeloads of untested refugees.But, in general, it is interesting how suddenly border closures are possible.
In the US, Latin immigrants are more sex positive regarding "underage" consensual sex. But, explain such an issue to the likes of Ann Coulter, who considers sexual restraint as much a part of US culture as non littering and non-graffitying. And Leftist open border zealots, if they find one defense of child porn or underage sexuality, that is enough to totally discredit the entire site and disregard absolutely everything it says. See the Rind study's uniquely totally unanimous condemnation by US congress and senate. It is very much an uphill struggle in the US. Regarding central American immigrants, there also is a conflation of consensual and non-consensual/violent underage sexuality.
Then there is the unhealthy perverted indoctrination of children about normality of 50 genders and families with 2 fathers and exotic sex practices. Plus biological males competing against women in track and field, and even fighting sports.
In Germany there are problems with the liberation of prostitution and Eastern European crime rings that threaten girls and families in their homelands, bring them over under false pretexts and take most of their money. The green open border mafia is repentant about their plans, in the 70ies (?) to totally remove all age of consent laws, which later backfired. Muslims in Rotherham are very sex positive (/sarcasm) about infidel underage girls (this is a very sarcastic comment, because it involves some consensual, manipulative sex, and lots of heinous non-consensual violent sex). And marriages prophet style at 6 or 9 years of age really might not be with fully informed and capable consent.
It is simply totally impossible to be strongly sex positive and race realistic and immigration critical. There is one person in the world that agrees with all these issues, it but his emphasis is not on the sexuality issues. (Refugees in Europe) said...

Honesty, and scientific honesty, is the one overarching principle that unites all these issues.
This article mentions only the race issues. It could be re-written with focus on Rind study, or, more wisely, focus on normal post-pubertal sexuality issues. Maybe Eivind or the antifeminist can do this laudable endeavor.
The antifeminist is quite aware that all sex liberation will end once Islam becomes more and more powerful. The freedom of wearing sexy clothes and swim suits has already ended in large parts of Europe. I am waiting for the first jihadists bombings of godless sex parlors.
------------- citing above article
The Age of Enlightenment advanced quality of life through technological revolution in STEM 1. Our ideologically flawed Social Sciences (political sciences, journalism) are in need of such enlightenment to bring an end to disastrous policy decisions based on factually false theories2. Truth, honesty, sincerity is the way, says SINCERITY.NET. Forbidden Truths and dogmatical lies have permeated and destroyed our entire social sciences 3

True Speech is Forbidden, True Facts are Taboo. #DeCriminalizeTrueSpeech: When reporting crimes, it is not permissible to [truthfully] refer to the suspect’s religious, ethnic or other minority membership {GUIDELINE 12.1. by the German Press Council} 4

Scientific Honesty & integrity compromised by PC Antiracist dogma:
Truthfulness in science should be an iron law, not a vague aspiration. One’s personal faith must not interfere with the pursuit of truth

Fool me twice, shame on me!: Scientists, newspapers, politicians caught lying red handed should lose all credibility forever.

theantifeminist said...


Hi HS, I can't remember specifically banning you. Maybe I did, but I stopped allowing comments all-together at a certain point a couple of years ago (at least) for two reasons -

1/ Readers were just using the comments facility to spew their own aspie bull theories on feminism and anti-sex hysteria, with often no regard whatsoever for the points and arguments I'd made in the article they were supposed to be commenting on. I maintain that if just 100 of us were able to keep it simple and shout 'jealous femihags' from the rooftops, then we would have slowed the pace of anti-sex legislation and even built a movement. But we're an army of a dozen or so aspies, each with their own 'a finer analysis is needed' mindest.
Also paedocrisy from people like the German commentator ('Inclined Reader' I think was his username) who claimed my posting tributes to the 16 year old Russian iceskater who the entire male population of the world were in love with at the time was 'creepy' etc. Other commentators making very inflammatory language and such and not having any concern that I would be the one to carry the can if it caused any trouble.

2/ The death threats and trolling from the child porn loving paedocrite trolls from 'SomethingAwful' forums and the anti-MRA Twitter guy 'TakeDownMRAs' (who is British and would be in prison now if Eivind had reported him).

I did actually try to institute comments with registration, but nobody could be bothered to register. Eivind discovered the same thing.

theantifeminist said...

I would like to know your position on Eivind's NoFap/anti-porn position. Do you at least see that it's mindbogglingly stupid to adopt such a position when such laws are used to lock up increasing thousands of normal men as 'sex offenders'?

I also agree with you largely about the immigration issues. Eivind doesn't have any truck with Third World immigration, particularly the Muslim kind. Do you see Islam as being anti male sexuality or pro male sexuality?

And I also believe that the 'politically incorrect' side of political spectrum was our best hope, not the LBGT left-wing feminist that Eivind's pedo allies still cling to.

You can see that with the likes of Milo (before he was smashed by the puritan American manosphere pedocrites), Steve Moxon, Chris Brand, Angry Harry etc etc. The problem is Americans are so uniformly puritanical assholes, Democrat or Republican. With the Internet being what it is, American way of puritanical thinking will dominate any online movement, and certainly any English language driven movement, whether the MRM or the alt-right.

Eivind Berge said...

The worst thing about those who are concerned with immigration and Islamist issues, aside from racism, is acceptance of sex-hostility and feminist sex laws. These people never saw a sex law they don't like, because the sex laws are a great way to demonize and punish men from other cultures. Since I know the feminists are so full of shit, I frankly don’t know if there is any truth to their persecution of Muslim “grooming gangs” either. There is no way to not abuse “underage” girls with sexuality in that deranged worldview, so no matter how respectful you are, no matter how consensual, everything will be abuse to them. And “grooming” legally means nothing more than talking to underage girls anyway. Our default assumption must therefore be that nothing is abuse until we can see so without the hateful lens of feminist sex-hostility which twists our entire sexuality into abuse and predation. Until I see otherwise for myself, I must assume immigrant men are fellow victims of the feminist sex laws. And even if some of them are really bad, the sex laws are a much more fundamental problem. I would rather see this society burn than side with the sex-persecutors in any way.

It's not that I categorically accept immigration and think it can never be bad. But the priorities of those who oppose it are messed up. Here you come right out and admit that you are going to ignore the persecution of our sexuality if it helps you raise awareness of immigrant lawlessness. That I can never go along with.

Eivind Berge said...

Regarding pornography “offenses” where men are locked up after no contact with any female -- I agree this is persecution and we should oppose it, but we must also consider the implications of the lack of any sexual benefit to the man. A sexualist movement cannot treat persecution for empty (or downright self-harming) offenses the same as persecution for our healthy and good sexuality. There has to be implications for our activism, and my nofap position is my way of expressing these here. What would really be mindbogglingly stupid is to give the impression that pornography benefits us instead of making it clear that if men are going to get persecuted for our sexuality, then we better damn well derive some sexual value first in order for that to be true, and any persecution which falsely claims to crack down on our sexuality better be called out on that falsehood! There is such a thing as persecution under false pretenses, and that should be dealt with differently than persecution of our healthy nature.

Please consider how you would deal with persecution under false pretenses differently than a genuine conflict of interests. There has to be a difference here if we are honest, and if porn is really harmful rather than beneficial to our sexual aims like I believe.

Eivind Berge said...

Perhaps an analogy to so-called hate crimes can make it clearer. Whether you agree with hate crime legislation or not, at least you can see the point why people think the systematic hate against a group makes such crimes worse. And just like there are hate crimes, there are also hate laws when hateful people get to make the laws, like feminists now do. For example, the age of consent is a hate law against men. It targets our healthy sexuality in a way that actually and systematically hurts us. Contrast this to the pornography laws. They may claim the purpose is to criminalize the sexual exploitation of girls and women, but in actual fact they do no such thing because the true victims of pornography are men. The pornography laws are therefore a random act of evil rather than a hate law against our sexuality. And to the extent that the pornography laws have any systemic effect at all, they help promote male sexuality rather than hurt it since they might help men not masturbate and fuck real girls instead.

From an activist standpoint, hate laws are a very different beast than random acts of evil, and do not deserve to be treated the same way. It does a disservice to the fight against true oppression our sexuality to conflate it with evils that are not in that category -- and please note this does not mean I dispute that they are evils! Just because an oppressor claims a sort of persecution is for a specified purpose does not make it true. The feminists can rave all day long about how men need to be locked up because images in their possession “exploit women and children,” but that doesn’t make it true, and men of integrity do not go along with that charade any more than we go along with the female sex offender charade (which also constitutes persecution under false pretenses).