Thursday, December 30, 2021
If Epstein was a “pedophile” or “sexual abuser” then I would be insulted if you don’t have me pegged as one too, as should all normal men be. That word is a badge of honor the way the antisex bigots use it. Just imagine how perverted you’d have to be to not be attracted to the girls in question (or gay, but they aren’t naturally agecucks either), the youngest of which was 14. In truth, what Epstein was accused of does not even qualify as “ephebophilia,” which ends by 14 years old for most girls. And I don’t think we need that word either because that is just normal male sexuality too, but it goes to show how far out of touch the bigots are with scientific and commonsense truth of what constitutes full sexual maturity (Exhibit1, Exhibit2).
What they did to Epstein they did to me, and all normal men. He is the patron saint of regular male sexuality, and Ghislaine Maxwell is another martyr for sexualism, another victim of the feminist War on Sex who deserves honors for fighting the good fight on a political level too by virtue of all the unmistakably regular men she implicated. There comes a point when you can’t peg us as deviants anymore because we are so obviously normal, and meanwhile we shall be proud of our sexuality no matter how much you try to shame us. Your stance on this verdict is a litmus test on whether you are a good person or a monster.
Jeffrey is my role model, my hero, and Ghislaine is a heroine. The normies secretly long to be in Epstein’s circle, but we male sexualists have the balls to admit it. To all the normies reading this, now is a good chance to repent your denunciation of sexuality and identify as a male sexualist, or simply sexualist because as we can see, feminism persecutes good women too.
Saturday, November 20, 2021
We have gone from believing in the badness of sex because a supernatural power disapproves to believing in the metaphysical badness of sex itself. The only passable justification for criminalizing sex these days is that somebody is a “victim,” but once you invent a victim there is no limit to how far it can be contrived, up to an including blasphemical information that is solemnly prosecuted as if there is any substance to it.
Our sexualist activism is like going back to the ancient world to preach abolitionism. It didn’t even occur to Jesus that slavery was wrong, and similarly no “good” people today see anything wrong with the persecution of sexuality. Such is the enormity of our task. Before we can fight the battle, we need to fight the battle for the battle. The battle for the battle is to make people understand that there is a war on sexuality, that persecuting sex is not inevitable like death and taxes. This is the stage we are at: our battle isn’t even recognized because the normies are in lockstep agreement that sexuality must be persecuted to the max. I am not just an enemy of the state: I am an enemy whose enmity can’t be acknowledged as anything more than crime and craziness because the war on sex is not seen as a war. Politics is simply a contest about who can come up with the most hateful sex laws, with left and right outbidding each other with new ways to lock up more people for more and more sexuality. As long as they can make up some story related to a “victim,” persecution is never opposed in the mainstream. Even most prisoners and sex offender registrants don’t see themselves as enemies of the state because the persecution is so normalized. But what if the public could snap out of the fake victim narrative? In theory, that would help because people don’t believe in religious justifications anymore. Perhaps then they can realize that feminism is the same shit as leiermål in a different wrapping, and more malignant because there isn’t even the slightest exception to the persecution like marriage used to be. Now they just persecute all sexuality indiscriminately.
We need a word like “leiermål” to make sex offenders see themselves as enemies of the state and get everyone to realize there is war on sex going on. A word that obviously means “sex criminalized for the hell of it” or to the benefit of our rulers. Don’t let them make us call it rape and abuse when it isn’t. Coin an English word with the same valence as leiermål and use it to undermine the feminist agenda. (And in Norwegian we can just start saying “leiermål” again, of course.) Let us pull the fake moral rug out of their language with an honest word for their criminalization of sexuality. Suggestions? Perhaps something like “laycase”? ”Sexual misconduct” is already just as meaningless, as is “statutory rape,” but we need something more catchy, one short word which flows well in common usage.
By all accounts the normies were less enthusiastic about criminalization back then. Sex offenders weren't stigmatized. Although it wasn't enough for rebellion, surely it must have helped turn people against the laws that the word so clearly signified oppression rather than the fake victimology our oppressors use these days.
Now I am going to translate and paraphrase some of the Wikipedia article on leiermål to get a flavor of what we are talking about. But we might as well be quoting current laws, because they are practically identical apart from the justification.
Leiermål (from Danish words for lay/intercourse + case) is a bureaucratic (legal and ecclesiastical) term which was used for various kinds of sexual relations outside of marriage. Laycase was especially impactful for women and men of all ages and social classes i Scandinavia in the 1600s and 1700s because of new laws and draconian punishments that were introduced at the time.
Laycase was considered a crime and usually discovered when resulting in pregnancy, but pregnancy was not a precondition for regarding the act as illegal and punishable. Various kinds of laycase had different degrees of severity. There was a distinction between simple whoring and double whoring (see below). In addition to being called whoring, laycase was also referred to by words like intercourse, laying together, sleeping together, sharing a bed, etc.
In the 1600s, state and church had common interest in developing a new set of laws which also regulated sexual conduct and punished violators. Motivation was twofold. They wanted to avoid the wrath of God, but also to regulate and control people.
Criminalization of laycase was a Nordic phenomenon. In other European, Catholic countries, extramarital sex was just as “sinful” as in Norway, but not a crime and therefore did not concern secular authorities. In Sweden, there were laws concerning lägersmål and in Denmark lejermål similar to the Norwegian ones.
These laws were in part based on the Bible, including many Old Testament rules and legal principles from the books of Moses. The laws are therefore characterized by what we would today consider barbaric sentencing, torture and unacceptable definitions of sex crimes and norms for sexuality, plus a stigmatizing concept of humanity [yeah, right, as if feminism isn't equally stigmatizing!].
On 16 October 1617, a decree was issued which made the prohibitions even more restrictive. Both men and women were made criminally responsible and the fines were to be paid to the King. Lawbreakers of both sexes were now to be punished more harshly than before for extramarital affairs. At first, the law was not taken literally, and until 1661 it was mostly men who had to pay fines for their laycases.
It was innovative that laycase represented a violation of both secular and ecclasiastical law, and both men and women therefore had to “atone” to both these “offended” authorities. It was required that violators first confess their sins publicly to priest and congregation in church, and then pay their respective laycase fines. The fines for so-called simple laycase (see below) was 12 riksdaler for men and 6 riksdaler for women.
Whereas few women were punished before 1661, an increasing number were prosecuted and had to atone with fines and corporal punishment (whipping, forced labor, execution) later in the 1660s.
If the accused were unable to pay, which was often the case on part of the woman, they were to be sentenced to a subsidiary penalty. For the authorities, two things were important. Income from the fines were important to the king, and it was of moral importance that the letter of the law was upheld.
There was a difference between the public laws and the norms of the people. Nighttime trysts were common and largely accepted, and betrothal was was recognized as the starting point of sexual relationships. It was relatively common to cohabit before marriage. In the 1500s, intercourse was understood as a binding act which should lead to marriage. If that didn’t ensue, the man was convicted while the woman was considered offended. If the couple got married, any children were considered legitimate and the parents got away with a fine for “too early intercourse.” After 1791 this fine was skipped if the couple got married before birth, and in 1812, first and second-offense simple laycase was decriminalized and the fines abolished, thus leading to a century and a half of respite before feminism reinstituted a worse regime.
As to the severity, the laws applied to various different kinds of sexual relations. The different kinds were considered more or less severe. Suspects who were found guilty risked very harsh penalties, even execution, for example for repeated offenses. The classification scheme they employed illustrates the peculiar morality of the times and sheds some light on the development of sexual crimes from then up to the current situation with equally deranged laws with a feminist justification.
The following crimes were considered most serious:
· Whoring in the form of one-sided adultery, which is sexual relations between one married and one unmarried person (also called half whoring).
· Double whoring in the form of two-sided adultery, which is sexual relations between two people who are each married to someone else (also called whole whoring).
· Laycase in forbidden connections, which is to say sexual relations between cousins, second cousins or in-laws.
· Incest was defined as sexual relations between persons closely related, up to 3. degree and also including relations by marriage.
· Homosexuality, sexual relations between persons of the same sex.
· Bestiality -- sexual acts which involve animals.
· Sodomy -- a collective term for both homosexuality and bestiality.
Less serious sex crimes (punished by a fine):
· Maidenhood violation, which is to have intercourse with an unmarried woman after a false or invalid promise of marriage. The term and thinking stems from medieval times and is rooted in the idea that unmarried women’s chastity is valuable. [Notice how this one has been turned completely around to the MOST serious sex crime by feminism, using the entirely new justification that age gaps are abuse!]
· Simple laycase, which is intercourse between two unmarried persons (also called loose laycase).
· Too early childbirth, which is to give birth earlier than 7 months after getting married (also called legitimate laycase).
Leiermål was clearly a common and prevalent sin and crime. Two thirds of public confessors in the 1700s were involved in laycase. Church records reveal that more than half of all girls and women who got married were already pregnant.
The penalty for a first offense of so-called simple laycase and other less serious instances was a fine, 6 riksdaler for women and 12 for men. Those who couldn’t pay had to serve a subsidiary prison term. There were many who didn’t have enough money for such big fines, especially women (one year’s pay for a maidservant was commonly one riksdaler).
In 1715, two second cousins were convicted by a court in Western Norway after admitting that they had slept together. She was married to someone else. The sentence required both to confess publicly in church within eight weeks. She also received two years’ forced labor and a fine. He received two years’ forced labor.
In a case from 1736 where a stepfather had impregnated his stepdaughter, both were sentenced to death. He was guilty of both incest and whoring. However, the King took into account that she was young and commuted the death penalties to life in the nearest fortress for him and life in jail for her. [Notice how the feminists have explicitly and unabashedly recriminalized exactly the same thing as one of the worst crimes, with youth being aggravating rather than extenuating!]
In 1761, a 47-year-old widow who had given birth outside of wedlock was sentenced to death because the man she had the child with was a brother of one she had slept with about five years previously and then became pregnant, but the baby was stillborn. This new crime was nonetheless to be considered incest. The father was sentenced to 8 years of forced labor. Evidently the old concept of incest could be stretched almost as far as feminist “sexual abuse.”
The persecution of sexuality outside marriage, and the draconian penalties were meant to uphold the social order. This entailed that the population in prisons and other penal institutions was of a very different character in the 1600s and 1700s than today. The huge fines would also have served the state’s (king’s) revenues well since up to 80% of court cases in some parts of the country were about leiermål. The majority of inmates in the country’s jails, workhouses and fortresses were classified as vagrants and beggars, but the group of laycase offenders was large. The group “women sentenced to death for incest, but pardoned” was considerable. Incest, such as sex with a sibling, cousin, second cousin, parent or other relative, was a serious felony which entailed a risk of capital punishment. If an uncle had a child with a niece, both were to be executed by beheading and then burnt on a bonfire. There was also a considerable number of women and men locked up for repeat offenses of extramarital sex and women who had given birth to babies while trying to conceal it (dølgsmål). (According to Wikipedia,) only ca. 10% av inmates were convicted of crimes that qualify for prison sentences today; however, I dispute this and think the author is in denial about the true malignancy of feminist sex laws. If not under current laws, certainly most of them could be imprisoned under the new concept of “rape” that Norway is about to get which requires the man to prove consent every time.
Women who were sentenced for third time laycase received whippings and men were in such cases either sentenced to death or a combination of jail and confiscation of wealth. For whoring between two people who were each married to someone else (so-called double whoring) the punishment was confiscation of their net worth. Half of the estate was seized for the King's coffers, and the other half remained with the innocent spouse.
For a second offense, married parents were sentenced to banishment from the diocese or county. If they offended a third time, they could expect the death penalty.
Those who were convicted of laycase in forbidden connections, which also includes relation by cousinhood, second cousinhood or marriage, were sentenced to confiscation of property in addition to forced labor for two to four years. If anyone offended a second time in a similar manner, death penalty awaited. Incest leading to birth was punished by death. It was defined not just by having children with a parent or sibling, but also included cousins, second cousins and other relatives, even in-laws.
Those who were sentenced to death could appeal to the King. If they were pardoned, the death penalty was usually commuted to lifelong forced labor.
The harshest penalty was imposed if a married woman and a married man had an extramarital affair. By law, if these sinners did not break off their relationship, the man was to be beheaded and the woman should be tied up in a bag and drowned. Double-sided adultery was thus something akin to how feminism treats age gaps: the very worst offense imaginable and their whole morality in a nutshell.
For a third offense of laycase, the woman was to be whipped publicly and the man beheaded (the ordinance of 1619).
In 1767, the public confession in connection with simple laycase was repealed and the penalty lowered to eight days in jail. For rich people it was possible to buy oneself out of this punishment, but it was expensive: 10 riksdaler, the equivalent to almost 10,000 kroner today. For young servant girls who had an annual wage of 1 daler, it was impossible to pay such a fine. In principle, laycase remained punishable under the Norwegian Penal Code (straffeloven § 379) until 1972, but it was a sleeping law the final decades of its existence.
Which is when feminism picks up and over the course of the next four decades reinstates a worse regime than the height of leiermål, crowned by the abolition of the jury in 2018. We need to wake up to what it really is. Think about it: why should the authorities be more reasonable just because they speak in terms of “victims” rather than biblical admonitions? Both are excuses to control us and further the careers or our oppressors, with added financial incentives for accusers today to make it even worse. The difference is merely that the normies now believe in feminist mythology of “sexual abuse,” “grooming” and all that crap rather than the books of Moses, so the fake victim approach works. It serves the same purpose as the old criminalization including redistribution of wealth, this time to the whole abuse industry rather than the king. Their definition of rape and other sexual abuse is a joke which means nothing more than laycase, so let’s make our language reflect that to at least undermine their moral standing if not yet the violence against us. If we can’t make war against the sex war, let us at least make words. Make them face up to what the conflict is really about. Don’t let them call us misleading names like “far-right extremist” or "misogynist" any more, and the way to make them realize that male sexualism is something entirely different than they imagine is to actually educate them like I am trying to do with this post, because they literally don’t comprehend this, so brainwashed are they with feminist antisex bigotry.
As we have seen, there was very much an equivalent of the feminist female sex offender charade in our history. However, as loathsome as it was, they never sunk so low as to pretend women can commit rape or sexual abuse. They would certainly want to punish the same women that feminists so gleefully persecute today, but it wold be for laycase rather than the mind-boggling absurdity of pretending female teachers “abuse” their lucky male students and such. If we can accomplish just one little increment in our lifetime, I pray that this is the one we get. It should be the lowest-hanging fruit of the entire War on Sex due to the insane stupidity of it, so is this too much to ask? They don’t have to stop imprisoning the women for this wish to be granted. Just quit adding insult to injury by pretending lucky boys are victims.
Monday, October 25, 2021
She is judged as if we live in an anti-world where all the values are opposite to ours. You might call it a Satanic verdict except even Satanism isn't so deranged when you look into it. There is no rhyme or reason here whatsoever unless you postulate a metaphysical anti-world that is more real than this one and supersedes it.
The normies purport to believe that sex has magical powers that work precisely opposite to what we experience, which is to make people happy. According to feminist dogma which now serves as state religion, the happiness is an illusion and the metaphysical badness is real. The boy has been well coached to maximize payouts, and the world will buy his non-sequitur that his life is ruined by sex because the gaping hole in the logic is filled by the anti-world. It is on the level of "she was a dangerous witch who had to be burnt." Except the superstition is even more deranged because she was an obvious boon to the boy. Yet the superstition that she was "abusing" him seems almost as "true" to our culture as the belief in witches back then.
Now it is belief in the metaphysical badness of sex that is the overarching superstition of our times. I guess this belief is needed to be "well adjusted" and undisturbed by the persecutions. One must believe in a metaphysical sexual soul, an anti-soul or whatever it is that is affected by sexuality in this realm and more real. When a boy goes through all the motions and emotions of enjoying sex in this world, that metaphysical sexual soul is damaged via some gobbledygook mechanism. The feminists can never explain what this mechanism is, but one must believe in it. One must believe that sex damns your metaphysical sexual soul forever if you are under some arbitrary age or meet any other of their infinitely expanding criteria of victimhood. Oh, yes, the feminists will tell you the damage is psychological rather than metaphysical, but that is a lie. There is absolutely nothing in this world that can explain "harm" from winning the ultimate fitness payoff that is sex with a young woman. The feminists believe in the metaphysical badness of sex which must be oversocialized into us whether they admit its metaphysical nature or not.
How do the normies manage to believe in this witchcraft? How do they manage to believe in the anti-world? How do they get past the anti-intellectual, anti-emotional, anti-moral gobbledygook and internalize it? (Which to be fair not all do, but they don't stand up for the innocent victims either.)
I have attempted to answer this in a long series of posts about the female sex offender charade and gotten none closer to understanding. I have only arrived at better words for the madness. The anti-world it is. And the nocebo industry. Monica Young is 100% sexual nocebo.
Monday, September 13, 2021
So I bought Geoffrey Klempner's book and read it on the Kindle app. Actually I got the whole Philosophizer Trilogy since it was the same price, but it's the Idiotic Conundrum that shall concern us here. It's a cool book, but didn't bring me closer to answers than his videos and free writings that I already discussed in my first metaphysical interlude. If you still haven't grasped the conundrum then it would be extremely useful, but for me it mainly served to make me feel confident to dig further into it knowing that if I make progress, I won't simply be replicating his thoughts. He does not present a metaphysical system anyway, spending most of the book lamenting the impossibility of getting an answer and dismissing existing philosophy as "theories" -- until the last couple of pages where he ends on a more optimistic note.
I might not have existed, but someone exactly like me might have existed in my place. What is the ultimate reality that decides if I am me? That is the Question, the Quest (for Klempner, at least), the idiotic conundrum. I shall not become obsessed with this myself, but it does deserve some thought.
Philosophers commonly ponder the nature of identity persistence through time (Ship of Theseus and all that all the way up to contemporary examples), but they rarely if ever bother to ask why I am me NOW! That is the Question. Being skeptical about your persistence through time does not get rid of it. I call it the cosmic serial number. I am one cosmic serial number, but I could have been another. If it does change over my lifetime then I am largely blind to that change, but that's not the hardest question. Materialists actually have more reason to believe it does change, because they deny an ultimate reality that could be far more mysterious than an arrangement of atoms, why not capable of sustaining you over time? Hume famously missed this too, and Descartes invented needless fairy tales that don't explain it either -- a soul "substance" that can't be it and a Cartesian theater that adds nothing. Kant was sort of onto something with his transcendental idealism and noumena but didn't go all the way to the idiotic conundrum, and Nietzsche missed it spectacularly with his eternal return which in this respect amounts to the same as atomistic materialism, which is to say denying the problem altogether.
Only Donald Hoffman comes close to actually explaining it. I have never seen him actually address it, but he lies the groundwork for an explanation in videos like this. Once you get rid of reductionism and the shared hallucination that we call spacetime with physical objects, the alternative might have the properties that we are after -- the network of conscious agents who interface via our shared reality. And you must drop the reductionist path if you accept that this "reality" is an interface. Studying the pixels on your screen doesn't get you closer to understanding how the processor works; the causal power lies on another plane entirely. A sort of idealism plus natural selection gives a better view. We are both so far removed from ultimate reality that we can't measure any truth about the structure of the world with our scientific instruments that only get at the interface, yet also directly plugged in since we immediately feel it.
Or at least can feel ultimate reality if we pay attention. Not just the two of us, Klempner and I. You can, too, unless you are literally a zombie. I know you can because I didn't always or at least not continuously ponder the idiotic conundrum or have a name for it, yet I believe I was conscious then too. Whenever there is consciousness, there is the conundrum whether you are aware of it or not, because someone else might have been having that experience in your place through no distinction that can be observable in this universe. You are therefore uncreated by this universe and something separate.
I had feelings as a child that I now would label as awareness of my cosmic serial number. I didn't regard it as a "conundrum," just marveled at it. I thought this sense of self was simply what it meant to have a self and I still don't think it is an uncommon feeling. What is uncommon is to make an issue out of it. It is slightly more surprising that some actively deny it and become positivists. And come to think of it, it is weird that an entire major religion like Hinduism makes a dogma out of there only being one. Atman the individual self is ultimately identical to the universal also called Atman or sometimes Brahman, they say; this is in the book and I thought so too independently: there is no justification to limit the number to one, just a story they made up. It sounds poetic to say things like we are all waves in the same water of consciousness, but there is no compelling metaphysical justification for it. If I have two glasses of water are they really one because there is one water? No, there is no reason why they can't be separate. Each new glass of water can have a new serial number that can't be written in it but can still be very real. What this reality consists of, this separateness of cosmic serial numbers, is the conundrum.
I guess I am not making any progress either, and that's okay. But now we have some common ground on which to start. You don't need a wall of academic references, just this book to get started having a stab at it. Even though I don't share his despair at not knowing, Klempner's "ring quest" resembles male sexualism in its futility, and as such I can relate. There is no indication that society will give up its belief in the metaphysical badness of sex in my lifetime, unless collapse gets rid of industrial civilization altogether. The normies believe it as firmly as they believed in witches in the thick of the witch-hunts. Ironically, they believe in the metaphysical badness of sex without particularly believing in metaphysical personhood. Now if they had a theory of the idiotic conundrum that also explained how perfectly enjoyable sex can be "abuse" -- at least they would have some internal consistency, but sexual abuse stands out as the only metaphysics they believe in. Without admitting that it is metaphysics, to be sure, instead blaming psychology, but they don't fool me.
I am aware, aware of the gap. Klempner and I share this awareness to the fullest but there are also smatterings here and there. For example in this conversation between David Deutsch and Tyler Cowen. The latter is a "metaphysical agnostic," which means he might be at least half aware. Deutsch calls it "something like physicalism," which doesn't quite get at it. You can believe you need the continuity of your physical body to be you (and hence not survive a Star Trek transporter) without realizing that that body and mind also could have been someone else existing in your place. Which should be the central question of consciousness, but is oddly ignored especially by the academic philosophers who study consciousness. Very odd that something so central can be so marginalized. But then again that's how it is with sexualism too, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Monday, September 06, 2021
2. Bitcoin is fungible, digital cash. Any obstacle to fungibility is in our heads, so don’t let anyone tell you your coins are tainted.
3. Please run a full node.
4. We shall never hardfork (unless absolutely necessary because something fundamental is broken for example due to quantum computers).
5. HODL as much as you can.
6. Bitcoin is decentralized and independent of any government or company.
7. Bitcoin is a force of nature, stronger than any human power and obviously has no leader.
8. Bitcoin is transcendent, spiritual, platonic.
9. Be a Bitcoin maximalist. Bitcoin is the protocol for digital scarcity and altcoins are shitcoins.
10. There is no credible claim to founding Bitcoin. We are all Satoshi!
Friday, August 13, 2021
100 percent a kissless handholdless hugless virgin unless I count the 1 time I went to a massage parlour and had a happy ending although I wasn’t going there for that legit went for massage but I wasn’t expectingSo that sets the stage and also shows how feckless incels are. Imagine how passive you have to be to not even expect sex from a sex worker, or pursue that avenue more. Let alone the other opportunities that would indeed be available to him, and were by his own admission except he didn’t pursue them vigorously enough, presumably because he was too enfeebled by fapping and yes, maybe some bad luck of a random depression as well or whatever other comorbidities. I don’t know all else he tried, but he should have just stayed away from toxic shamers like that girl on Reddit whom he tried to charm when writing that description of himself, where on top of all the rejection he faced as an incel he also had to contend with idiots claiming 16-year-olds can’t consent (even though they legally can in the UK where he lived) and even the girls themselves jumping on that bandwagon. That forum, Incel Tears, is a place for the most toxic feminists to brag about how much they can hate the weakest men, so it’s exceedingly foolish to hang out there when you are trying to get laid, but still...
I had opportunities with girls when younger but never took them most where around that age 15-18 I regret massively been in male dominated environments my whole life
had girls into me let it slip unfortunately when I was at college when younger now I have no social group and don’t know a single girl and haven’t spoke to one since I was 18 I’m almost 23 now unless you count cashiers at supermarkets, spoke to plenty of men though unfortunately
Now we have a direct link between that sort of shaming, which does indeed suffuse our entire culture to some extent, and a mass shooting. It’s not making the antisex bigots look good, is it? But once again, I don't expect any self-awareness from feminists on this. They will simply double down on the sex-hostility like always. Criminalize and demonize more and more and more of male sexuality and yes, men will mostly publicly take it and live a double life with their sexuality expressed in “illicit” ways, but every once in a while there are exceptions who lash out. It is irrational from a selfish perspective to go on a murder-suicide mission when you can go along to get along like most men do while keeping their inevitable feminist-defined “sexual misconduct” hidden as long as they can, so it either takes extreme altruism or delusions like thinking life is over at 22, with the latter actually being more common -- basically what incel culture is about.
But did Jake also fight for men’s rights, in a way that can help men who figured out how to meet women and only face persecution from the police? Well, mostly not. There are too few like him to matter for that, with most incels being as lethargic in other areas as they are sexually. And to be clear, attacking innocent civilians isn’t a male sexualist value in any case. In my estimation, incel terrorism is a symptom of feminism rather than antifeminist activism per se. But it is still notable, even more so because he did it in a gun-controlled country where it actually means something to resort to this. Americans will go on shooting sprees for no other reason than guns being available, if you listen to the liberals who want to ban then, and frankly I have to concede that’s not far from the truth. Which adds another perverse argument in favor of gun control, so political messages won’t be drowned out by the background noise of constant gunfire.
A society which produces incels like this better do some introspection for their own good, even if he isn’t overtly political. Blaming “mental health” would be a cop-out, as even if he did have mental issues, they don’t only appear random here. One thing society should realize -- which corresponds to the male sexualist agenda -- is that criminalizing more sexuality isn’t going to help, and trying to shame men even more for their attraction to girls at peak nubility isn’t helping either. The absurd feminist demarcation of an absolute line at 18 which is treated like a war zone across which any intimacy attracts the full force of state violence is a great way to give incels the idea that they irreparably missed out when still a virgin in their 20s.
You do indeed miss out on something big if you can never experience teenage love; so much is true. Where the incels go wrong is in thinking that can only happen as a teenager yourself. If you are like Jake, please consider a different route. I would advise getting on board with male sexualism, which is to say read my blog and a few like-minded communities. I have written a post “How to not be incel” that is a good starting point. If you do follow all that (which is merely one incredibly simple step otherwise known as nofap), and hopefully but not necessarily pick up the rest of male sexualist ideology and philosophy as well, I guarantee you will discover that you are not incel but rather a late bloomer. You will also realize that the true monsters of this world are the police when operating on feminist ideology. Your mission then becomes firstly to grab life by the pussy and secondly to oppose the feminist sex laws specifically, rather than making short shrift of yourself.
Tuesday, August 10, 2021
However, global warming is third:
And of course there are lots of headlines about covid, mostly urging us to get vaccinated:
Ironically there is far more opposition to actually protective health measures than hateful feminism. We can now conclude that a men’s movement will play no role whatsoever in what happens next because we have seen what happens when antisex persecution goes to infinity. Before there is any opposition, people simply quit associating the persecution with sex, as if a juggernaut prevents their brains not only from thinking sex-positive thoughts, but from discerning any limits to sex-hostility as well. Julian Assange is still in prison because of sexual accusations that were not only ridiculous and false but also dropped, and the whole thing occasions zero antifeminism, putting my naive hopes from years ago to shame. Craig Murray is in prison for uttering a jigsaw piece that along with other pieces spoken by others might identify a sex-accuser in a trial where the accused was acquitted, yet this is not enough to evoke any antifeminism. It is that hopeless. Yes, people will criticize some of this persecution, but only once they stop associating it with sex. The underlying feminism and sex laws are never questioned even in the most strident dissidence:
They simply can't bring themselves to blame feminism no matter how bad it gets, because everyone is down with the program that sexuality must be persecuted to the max, in every kaleidoscopic infinite recursive way. When it hits some of their friends then they can make a modest protest, but only while carefully avoiding any criticism of the elephant in the room, never saying a bad word about feminism. Clearly, collapse is for the best because humanity couldn’t tolerate sexuality, which is to say we couldn't tolerate ourselves, like a social autoimmune disease turning all police against us. All technological advances and all resource consumption converge on persecuting sexuality, until there is zero tolerance left. There is already zero tolerance by law; whenever you shine a light on sexuality, you always find criminality. All that remains is for technology and law enforcement to get around to incarcerating us all, with technology eagerly devoting every last advance to the cause and even charging users a premium for the privilege of being at the cutting edge of surveillance if they are dumb enough to use Apple products.
Thursday, July 15, 2021
I thought I should write a post explaining why Bitcoin is so appealing those who get it, or my opinion anyway of what the essence is of this almost religious feeling. I believe bitcoin is a metaphysical level-up from anything having to do with wealth that came before. If this distinction is lost on you, bitcoin is just another investment to you like penny stock #234,234 or a new kind of tulip, but if you do get it, oh boy is this a whole other ballgame! For the first time, humans can store wealth as a pure abstraction. Bitcoin is nothing less than the link between platonic heaven and finance, access to which is a divine superpower.
Platonic heaven contains all possible ideas including all cryptocurrencies. Ideas are cheap and don't accomplish any of this on their own. Maybe someone had a vague idea of "digital cash" before, but it couldn't be implemented properly and certainly not be reliably transacted with, so there was no real link between ideas and money, no solid reliable gateway from one realm to the other. In order to understand how different and fundamentally poorer the world was before bitcoin, we need to consider the best one could do in that direction.
When I was a kid, we thought it would be grand to have a Swiss bank account that the authorities couldn't touch. Even if that had been successful, little did I know that something (then) unimaginably better would come along which makes bank accounts sound like a joke. And of course, a bank balance is merely a debt to you. Better than debt is cash in hand, but that isn't platonic either and at the mercy of governments. We did have something better than fiat too, but commodities such as gold or art are mere physical possessions that can be physically seized, plus they aren't very liquid when you want to transact with their value.
The closest you came to having value in abstract form before bitcoin was intellectual property, if you managed to write a good book or something. Ideas could in a sense be traded, but it was awfully complicated and depended on copyright laws and enforcement by brute force. So you had a Rube Goldberg machine that some people could use to "mine" and resell abstract value, rather than a sure link between ideas and finance. Espionage might also qualify, and expertise. You could sell certain kinds of secrets, but again, it was an extremely hazardous or exclusive business.
I should also mention social status. By belonging to the right group, you can have favors done to you. A gift economy works sort of like a blockchain where wealth is stored in the idea that you deserve it. But again, the link is extremely fuzzy compared to the hard mathematics and self-enforcing consensus of bitcoin.
It took the invention of Nakamoto consensus and the miracle that it caught on as a trusted asset to establish the link I am talking about. So here we are, with a whole other metaphysical level of wealth that you can obtain, hold and transact with as if it were physical possessions, only better and safer. There are also shitcoins, but they only derive some fleeting value from your ability to scam people into thinking they are not superfluous, so pay them no heed other than ways to get more bitcoin.
In slightly less lofty terms, the power of bitcoin lies in its permissionlessness, which is really the same thing as pure abstraction, abstracted from anything but pure freedom. I need nobody's permission to make a new private key which controls an address that nobody needs permission to send to. How different this is from anything that came before is mind-boggling, but perhaps a good majority of people are so accustomed to asking permission for everything they do that they don't even consider this possibility.
Sunday, July 04, 2021
The Norwegian sex laws are chapter 26 of the penal code, which is divided into 30 sections numbered from § 291 to § 320, often with multiple subsections. There being so many statutes should already tell you something is seriously wrong. Many or most of these we probably want to discard altogether, but let's analyze them one by one to be sure. Those who feel we need to do away with ALL the sex laws, even the very concept of a sex law, can adopt René Guyon's manifesto from 1951. Which I am not unopposed to, because everything that really deserves to be covered would then be punishable by other existing laws, for example as assault instead of the aggravated kind we call rape, but it is probably more realistic to have a formal and not too extreme alternative to the current sex laws, for the same reasons mentioned in my intro here.
I will start with the rape law, § 291, which of course is the most important one and the one which has been most egregiously reformed by feminists in recent years, from classic rape to the universal excuse for women to regret sex that it is today (there is also an absolute rape age law now that we will get to later, in addition to an age of consent that I suspect we will have some disagreements with). By the time we get done with this series I am sure it have been reformed again to explicitly include simple lack of consent as an independent criterion for all women (which is the way it is already practiced anyway), but for now the rape law says this:
Med fengsel inntil 10 år straffes den som
a) skaffer seg seksuell omgang ved vold eller truende atferd,
b) har seksuell omgang med noen som er bevisstløs eller av andre grunner ute av stand til å motsette seg handlingen, eller
c) ved vold eller truende atferd får noen til å ha seksuell omgang med en annen, eller til å utføre handlinger som svarer til seksuell omgang med seg selv.
Up to 10 years in prison is the punishment for someone who
a) obtains sexual relations by violence or threatening conduct,
b) has sexual relations with someone who is unconscious or for other reasons unable to resist the act, or
c) by violence or threatening conduct gets someone to have sexual relations with someone else, or to carry out acts which correspond to sexual relations with themselves.
Now to the means by which that sexual intercourse is accomplished in order for a rape to occur, and this is the biggest crux of all of feminism and men's rights activism and sexual politics in the modern world. The most radical feminist position is that lack of consent be enough, or even lack of enthusiastic consent. Norwegian law does not go that far (yet), but it goes very much too far, enabling literally all kinds of coerced sex to be called rape, no matter how trivial the coercion. I can't emphasize enough that we need to raise the threshold of coercion back up to the level of serious violence or threats. The single most important issue in all of men's rights activism is to revert "truende atferd/threatening conduct" to something like the old "ved å fremkalle frykt for noens live eller helse/by causing fear of someone's life or health" which was in the definition up to the year 2000, the corruption of which was what really radicalized me into an MRA. The new subsection c, unconsciousness, also has no place here. If consciousness is forced by violence then it already follows from subsection a, or else it has no place in rape law (but may be appropriate for lesser offenses that we shall get to later), where it indeed was absent until the devastating feminist reform in 2000.
My draft proposal for a reasonable rape law is:
Med fengsel inntil 10 år straffes den som
a) skaffer seg samleie ved vold eller å fremkalle frykt for noens liv eller helse, eller
b) skaffer noen andre samleie ved vold eller å fremkalle frykt for noens live eller helse.
Up to 10 years in prison is the punishment for someone who
a) obtains sexual intercourse by violence or causing fear of someone's life or health, or
b) obtains sexual intercourse for someone else by violence or causing serious fear of life or health.
There also needs to be a marriage exemption and of course no primary perpetrator can be female (unless they are trans), so cis women can only commit b.
If anyone has better ideas, just propose them in the comments and I will take everything into account before we arrive at our manifesto. To me it is astonishing that most men are not upset by the evolution of feminist rape law. To them, most of the time, these are just words in books they don't read. My special sensitivity to laws before they affect me personally explains how I could be extremely radicalized by something they don't even notice, which is why it is so hard to get a Men's Movement going.
Wednesday, June 02, 2021
Just a quick note to relay the sad news that Gary Wilson has died. He was the founder of the nofap movement, not a male sexualist per se but a public health advocate who helped millions of men including myself understand that porn/masturbation is bad for us. I consider nofap to be the self-help branch of male sexualism and have incorporated it into our ideology. Thanks for making our philosophy complete, Gary.
Saturday, April 17, 2021
Where others see another name on a list of targets we are accustomed to the police state putting out, I see a monumental step in the evolution of evil. Whereas previously women have only been entrapped under the "vice" paradigm of antisex bigotry for which no feminism is needed, or at most the "trafficking" that feminists have upgraded it to, this is the first time I have seen a successful entrapment of a woman because the persecutors are ostensibly protecting children from sexuality and hence doing it under the "victim" paradigm. I am not positively sure it is a woman, just going by the name, so forgive me if it is a transsexual or boy named Jessica, but what I am about to say applies to the point in history when women are also subjected to this kind of evil. It may have started a little earlier or later than this, but can't be far away the way things are going now.
Her name is Jessica Mihalovits:
"Jessica Mihalovits, 39, Mesa: Aggravated Luring of a Minor for Sexual Exploitation and Attempted Sex Conduct with a Minor."
"It’s like fishing. You put the bait out; the fish will come," Phoenix Police Commander Jim Gallagher told reporters after that sting ended.
Yes, that's what we are used to for men, and men are so worthless that nobody cares anymore, but we should not let this monster get away with pretending it's just another day in the feminist police state when they employ the same evil methodology against women. We should all be appalled at this escalation and women should be concerned for their safety. The female catch is 1 out of 34 (about 3%) here, but nothing prevents them form ramping this up because all conceptual barriers have been broken down.
And notice the Orwellian name of the crime here as lying monsters lure you into incriminating yourself for "luring a [fake] minor." Once you have accepted entrapment as a valid police method, there is a temptation for everyone. It's just a matter of exploiting your biggest weakness. Since they have so little intrinsic interest in it, the most viable way to entrap women into attempted sex with a minor is to offer money for it, which for all I know is what the pigs have done here already.
Using entrapment, it is just a matter of resources to have whatever level of crime and punishment is politically expedient, all while pretending it is "justice" at work rather than an outright holocaust. Only the delusional belief that sex is the greatest evil prevents cops from using this method for all other crimes as well. They get away with it because the culture doesn't protest, because no principles of justice are demanded for "sex crimes," with no limit to the triviality or absurdity or fakery involved to thus construe them. For now, we who see this antisex bigotry for what it is can only chronicle the evolution of evil. Nothing will change any time soon except for the worse, and my hope for this post is simply that historians will have something contemporary to look back on that wasn't as deranged as the rest of the culture when they write the history of feminist antisex persecutions and particularly the female sex offender charade. I am not sure if we have such sources for other historical witch-hunts -- someone who didn't go along with the mass-psychosis at the time it was ongoing -- and would appreciate if readers could point me to sources if there is a precedent for what I am doing.
Tuesday, April 13, 2021
"sudo apt-get install libboost-all-dev"
Then get Berkeley DB:
"sudo apt-get install libdb++-dev"
"sudo apt-get install libdb-dev"
Some optional port mapping libraries that I recommend you get in order to make your node more easily reachable:
"sudo apt install libminiupnpc-dev libnatpmp-dev"
You also need:
"sudo apt-get install build-essential libtool autotools-dev automake pkg-config bsdmainutils python3"
"sudo apt-get install libevent-dev libboost-dev libboost-system-dev libboost-filesystem-dev libboost-test-dev"
"sudo apt install libsqlite3-dev"
"sudo apt-get install libzmq3-dev"
"sudo apt-get install libqt5gui5 libqt5core5a libqt5dbus5 qttools5-dev qttools5-dev-tools"
Get Git if you don't have it already:
"sudo apt-get install git"
Stand in your source code directory such as "scr" (make one if you don't have it with "mkdir scr", then go there using "cd scr") and clone bitcoin into it:
"git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.git"
Now you need to switch to your new bitcoin directory (type "cd bitcoin" for that) and check out the current version, ignoring the warning about detached head:
"git checkout v23.0"
Issue this command:
The distributed binaries are stuck with an old version of Berkeley DB for compatibility, but we are going to screw that since we don't need them anymore and configure with the latest (don't worry, your node will still accept your old wallet files, just can't necessarily go the other way):
Now we are ready to compile, which takes anywhere from minutes to several hours depending on your system, but this should work on very old hardware and even 32-bit:
Then install it:
"sudo make install"
And that's it, you got the power! (You can delete your scr directory now if you want, which will free up 5 gigabytes.) Type "bitcoin-qt" anywhere in a terminal to start the GUI or "bitcoind" for the daemon (then talk to it with bitcoin-cli) and enjoy your node. Be patient for it to synchronize though, which will take days to months depending on your system resources. Once you have compiled it yourself you never go back, so kiss the Core team's releases goodbye -- or SPV or God forbid, custodial wallets -- and if this was helpful, as you move your coins from shady soon-to-be-hacked-or-outlawed places to your own personally compiled node, remember that I have a bitcoin donation address. Especially if you are an old bitcoiner who never bothered to run your own node before, the potential losses this can save you from are enormous.
This is beyond the scope of what I wanted to cover here and much easier to find information about elsewhere, but of course you want to optimize your bitcoin.conf file which is kept in your bitcoin data directory (/home/.bitcoin by default) to work best on your system. Say, if you want to prune or not (or must due to low disk space since nearly 400 gigabytes is currently needed for a full archival node, growing by some 300 megabytes every day, so if you don't have that might as well set something like prune=550 right away, which results in the smallest possible node, keeping only 550 megabytes of blocks), how big your mempool and how much memory to give the UTXO cache and so on -- for which I recommend this guide to familiarize yourself with all the settings:
And if you think your hardware is too weak, you are probably wrong. Sure it is nicest to have at least an SSD and a CPU no older than Sandy Bridge or so (beyond which there is no significant improvement in user experience), but it's a testament to the awesome power of bitcoin that you can comfortably run a fully consensus-rules-enforcing, validating-of-every-single-transaction and usually even archival node of the greatest payment network in the world on weaker hardware than you feel you need for office work or web browsing. Mind-boggling, but true. So if you have a decades-old laptop or something lying around that you didn't think was useful anymore, this is a great way to breathe life into it, after first installing Linux of course. It works wonderfully on as little as two gigabytes of RAM and ten gigabytes extra disk space just using the default settings plus pruning, and you can have as little as 1 GB RAM if you make some adjustments. Having a weak CPU is just a matter of patience for your node to sync, and then that either won't break a sweat during constant use; forget about turning your node off ever, which is a nuisance having to resync every time you turn it back on. And one last thing: don't forget to encrypt your wallet (which is easily done in the GUI) and/or your hard drive using LUKS with a strong password (easily done when setting up Linux) and back up your wallet file before putting large amounts of bitcoin in it, plus have a reasonably strong user password so your node won't get hijacked while running unattended. You can also run your node over Tor or at least broadcast your transactions that way if you feel extra paranoid. But first it is most important to play around with all the settings and learn how nodes work so you never again will be dependent on anyone else's and you will be impervious to any and all attempts at censorship by governments. It is too late to mine your own bitcoin, but it is most assuredly not too late -- and by incontrovertible design NEVER will be too late -- to run your own full node to be completely in control of whatever bitcoin you obtain by any means.
Tuesday, February 23, 2021
But what else do men do with this situation other than breaking the law? What do we do politically and activistically? Approaches to activism range from terrorist to nihilist, via quisling therapy and hard determinist therapy that I have written about before. Now that we have lost the jury I am ready for full-fledged nihilism. Because it is not given that we even have to believe in the law’s existence, and things somewhat improve if we deny that.
The violence behind it can’t be denied, but beyond that there is no necessary reality to the law. You don’t have to believe that the law carries any more significance than the growl of a tiger before it eats you. You would be well advised to heed it as a warning, but it has no causal power and certainly no moral force. This removes any moral agency of legislators or law enforcement from the picture and helps you deal with the law in purely pragmatic terms, with zero respect for its normativity. You don’t even have to believe in its language. Law is then one type of signs that some people use to justify violence to themselves and others. What the signs “mean,” if there even is such a thing as meaning, can be discounted. This is one way to try to make life worth living in an environment of total criminality -- simply don’t believe in the law and evaluate the violent agents who "enforce" it as predators instead.
I have previously said we should self-register as sex offenders. Now, let’s mock the antisex bigots further by asserting and internalizing that men can’t have meaningful lives without being sex offenders. It is a powerful realization which pulls the rug out from under the feminists and reduces all their shaming attempts to ashes! Maggie McNeill says 50% of men have paid for sex at least once, which alone makes that many sex offenders. A commenter once told me he had “no skin in the game” regarding the criminalization of men who pay for sex. But did he think through what happens when he gets so old that the only way to be with a young woman is to pay? Then he will surely realize that obeying the law is not an option, that the purpose of the police is to destroy your life -- the implications of which are very profoundly hateful indeed. This hatred must be dealt with by some kind of radicalism, and here I am at long last proposing nihilism. This way you avoid taking the poison pill of hate which mainly hurts yourself like I did for way too many years, and you avoid provoking the monsters unduly at the same time as disrespecting them maximally.
Simply breaking the law without publicly talking about it, like most men do, is also a radical position if you think about it. It is to be a legal nihilist without verbalizing it. There is no way around some kind of radicalism, because the feminists have criminalized our very nature, and failing to express that nature, for the weak men who still mean to obey the law, is also a kind of radicalism (albeit a very retarded one).
In the Robert Kraft prostitution sting, police used a fake bomb threat in order to install cameras. Yes, the cops resorted to literal terrorism just to uncover one unauthorized handjob, and then they had to drop that charge as well. I do not believe the conspiracy theories claiming 9/11 was an inside job, but that’s because there was no antisexual motive to make them credible. If the authorities had had any reason to believe they could uncover as much as an unauthorized massage by going through with all that destruction, then they would, because that is how much this society hates sexuality.
Monday, January 11, 2021
But I think conservative Americans will fend for themselves before long as we have seen the beginnings of at the Capitol, so I'm not so worried about them. More enduringly bad news is this: Norwegian courts have a 92% approval rating, up from 83% in 2019. While it is possible to interpret the slight dip that year as a response to the abolishment of the jury in 2018, Norwegians certainly got over that fast and care nothing now. In other words I am surrounded by evil people who don't care for the most basic principle of justice: the right to an independent jury of your peers when accused of a serious crime. On top of fundamentally not sharing society's sexual morality, I see now that it is utterly hopeless to even have a justice system worthy of the name -- that's how isolated I am. Forgive them not, for they know what they are doing and want it that way.
Our liberties are under constant onslaught from tyranny, so if we wanted to keep them, our opposition also would need to be constant. Thomas Jefferson famously said it best: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." The right to trial by jury is, like the US constitution which also upholds it, one of those documents that periodically need to be drenched in blood if we are to keep them. When Norway’s jury system’s number came up for renewal against the ongoing feminist-driven attrition of our liberties which finally won out on this issue in 2018, I was the only one ready to defend it with my life, but because I had no one to fight alongside, I and what little patriot manure I could have offered up succumbed to cowardice.
This means verdicts are henceforth determined by the government rather than the people, with professional judges as the real deciders. The remaining majority of lay judges (five out of seven) is a sham when they have to justify their verdict, which means they will be pressured into forgoing jury nullification. This is the absolute worst thing that can happen to justice.
Looking at people superficially and aside from the coronavirus it seems life goes on in Norway. But it doesn’t really, not if you care about justice. The single most important aspect of democracy is the right to jury trials by your peers who don’t have to provide a justification for their verdicts. This is more important than elections because jurors who don’t need to justify their decisions are more powerful than a dictator, even, whose laws can then be overridden by the people (assuming he respects juries, but if he doesn’t then we don’t have a jury so that’s not the situation we are talking about). This is what happened to the extreme feminist rape law reform between 2000 and 2018, from the hyperinflated definition of "rape" was introduced until feminists managed to abolish the jury so they can fully enforce it (including some new innovative interpretations that weren't even imagined in 2000 like the ones used to convict Gaute Drevdal in 2020).
I cannot stress enough how crucially important it is that the jury be not just of your peers, but also not required to justify its verdict. Because this lack of a public justification is what enables jury nullification. When the lay judges (who theoretically could still nullify under the new hybrid system) are forced to justify their decision, they can't simply say the reason is they disagree with the law, so they would all need to coordinate a lie which is also prevented by them not being an independent group deliberating apart from the professional judges all the way up until handing in their verdict. What we have now is 99% as bad as having no laymen involved at all, and I hope the profound lack of justice sinks in when you ponder these implications. Norway literally doesn't have a justice system anymore and all verdicts are morally null and void.
The best litmus test for whether a person is justice-minded or tyranny-minded is how they feel about jury nullification. If they feel jury nullification is wrong because the law is above morality (or perhaps they can't distinguish law from morality), then they love tyrants, which sadly describes most Norwegians and explains how the jury was abolished without resistance. I am old enough to have heard it said that the jury is supposed to judge the law as much as the man, but the current crop of Norwegians tend to get offended by that idea because they are so obsequious to authority.
If Norwegians had mounded a resistance, this is definitely something I would have been willing to join unto death. Sometimes I feel that people in places like Syria or Afghanistan, even ISIS when that was going on, have a better life. There may be more war, but they fight for what they believe in. We have peace but moral decrepitude, or if our hearts are pure like mine we have the inescapable feeling of being a coward. There is, however, some comic relief to the current situation of people being too cowardly to oppose draconian social restrictions over a barely lethal virus, but that's another story, made even more comical by the fact that the commies are the only ones who oppose it. Yes, the most freedom-loving people in Norway right now are the communists, but they too failed to defend the jury and of course support all the antisex crap.
Can a democracy decide to abolish democracy? Because that is what Norway has done. The right to trial by a jury of your peers which does not need to provide a justification for its verdict is the most fundamental aspect of a democracy, far more important than elections, even. A dictator in every other way, but who respects juries would be better than what we have now. Every day I feel the moral pain and hatred against the authorities from living like this. I feel a civil war would be inevitable if there were even a tiny minority with moral integrity left. If there is one democratic principle obviously worth killing and dying for, it is the right to jury trials. On top of that comes the sex laws that have redefined our normal sexuality into rape and abuse and may also be worth deadly resistance, but this is so much more fundamental. Back when we had a jury, many of the empty rape accusations were in fact nullified, which is why we lost the jury because feminists have the power now and they couldn't tolerate nullification.
And worse still, what I see as an obvious reason for civil war, most people around me don't even see as a conflict! In doesn't enter their consciousness as they go about their daily lives -- and usually not even when they are put on trial -- that we no longer have a justice system. That is how profoundly out of touch with society I am, because I cannot be in touch with a society that is out of touch with justice. How does one live like this, assuming one doesn't want to be a lone wolf martyr? I know of no one else at this level of misfit aside from convicted terrorists, and in Norway we only have one who even comes close, except he doesn't because he isn't ideologically coherent. I am the the one solitary living dead -- or at least in the 8% who disapproves of the courts, though I suspect most of them too do so for far less fundamental reasons like factually false accusations instead of empty ones, so I am truly alone as far as I can see aside from my very few commenters.
I am not like other people because the fact that my sexuality has been criminalized makes me want to retaliate and sabotage society ever since I was a teenager, but then it got worse and we lost the jury too. I feel as strongly about this and am as morally convinced as, say, the resistance fighters during WWII. I am truly a quisling in reverse. I have no business in society because I don’t share its morality. Yet, here I am, and with violence off the table I need to make the best of it -- that is, manage my hatred (or sublimate it) and at least make my ideological position known. But even that is now a hollow undertaking because with the justice system replaced by total tyranny, is there any point in arguing about laws at all? I feel our attitude instead should be one of total criminality -- the outlaw and lawless and beyond, self-identifying as the homo sacer -- since the state has abolished the foundation of justice and ensured that we cannot, by definition, get a fair trial. This is how we have long felt with regard to the sex laws, to be sure, but now that conclusion is inescapably total.
What remains, then, is blogging therapy for ourselves and manifesto-writing for future generations in case a justice is restored at some point -- after a bloody civil war (unlikely) or collapse and dark ages (more likely). The jury system we had was imperfect in that it allowed for double jeopardy if the professional judges disagreed with the jury, didn't require a unanimous jury and and was only for crimes that could get you eight years or more, but it was better than nothing. Now we have nothing. It is a horrible, unbearable situation, made even more unbearable by its 92% approval rating which means there is no hope of any real resistance in my lifetime.
The only thing we can do about it now is to come up with an ideology for what to do when accused of a crime with no right to a jury, with no justice system that we can acknowledge as legitimate at all. I mean practically, how do you plead? We can't honor them with either a "not guilty" or "guilty" plea (which funnily means the government has removed the basis of terrorism too, since that requires a "guilty" mindset but we cannot deign to take criminal responsibility under this system if we are morally aware and consistent). We can only plead contempt, except that is also too much respect when the courts have zero legitimacy. So now is the time think and have a response ready if ever faced with that decision.
Of course we argue our cases in the media like before, with added emphasis on the lack of a legitimate justice system since there is no jury. But what do we do in court? One option is to make it clear you completely disrespect the justice system but nonetheless let your lawyer handle everything based on what he thinks is best, with the exception that you just never testify. Let him enter pleas for you and do whatever he thinks is in your best interest except you never address the court yourself. It doesn't matter if the charges are completely fabricated -- saying you didn't do the crime would be showing the justice system too much respect when it fundamentally disrespects the people.
I am torn between that option and an even more extreme one. It would be most morally pure to have NOTHING to do with the justice system. This can and should (since terrorism is too respectful; though self-defense is still noble) be an entirely nonviolent posture. Don't give them time of day in any fashion. Since they are morally beneath us, we act as if they don't exist. Of course they will still cart us off to prison by way of the courts when accused, but we don't need to cooperate whatsoever. Say nothing except to address the media and public in court, and don't acknowledge a lawyer's power to act on your behalf either. But I feel this isn't realistic for most since the need for a lawyer's assistance at that point is so overwhelming, especially if you are in remand custody, and I probably wouldn't be able to go through with it myself, so I don't necessarily recommend it. Letting your lawyer present evidence and arguments within the framework of the law might be okay as long as you make it clear you don't personally respect the legitimacy of that framework. As such, the outcome probably won't be much different than it would have been with a general "remain silent" strategy that most criminals employ anyway (or actually, the typical Norwegian strategy is "say some bullshit" that the court doesn't believe anyway, which is also ill-advised), so you don't lose much while retaining most of your moral superiority.
Remember, we still prosecute our cases in the media and by self-publishing information about our cases which is a still uncurtailed right in Norway unlike some other countries (yes, there are other ways to implement tyranny almost as bad as abolishing the jury -- preventing you from speaking out in the media while the case in ongoing like they do in British-influenced countries is one and coercing plea bargains like they do in the US is another -- for example, Cardinal Pell had a jury but he had a secret trial, which is another kind of tyranny to achieve the same end as the Norwegian one, so egregious that I honestly don't know which is worse), and now it is more important than ever that you don't let them anonymize you like Norwegian media frequently tries, because with the jury gone this is your only chance to appeal to the people. With the right to free speech about your case removed (such as enforced anonymity for accusers or secret trials or gag orders or sub judice as an offense) you would have one sort of tyranny piled on top of another, making Norway the absolute world leader, and thankfully we aren't quite there yet. But still, anonymity as far as it goes is a way to enforce the narrative and make it look like the dominant moral norms aren't resisted by real people in Norway. Convicts then become nameless "perpetrators" who need not concern us at the human level as moral and political agents. Any accused person who agrees to anonymity in the media is implicitly endorsing the moral basis of the laws under which he is charged -- even if he disputes the specific facts and pleads innocent that way. I can't emphasize enough that you must never let the media portray you as nameless and faceless when accused of a crime (and of course not grant anonymity to accusers either if you can help it, but for God's sake not for yourself either!), because then you are part of the problem. Luckily that shit doesn't work on me and the first thing I said to the media when I was prosecuted in 2012 was "Full name and picture!" In Norway it is normalized that almost only terrorists and accused inciters like me proudly show their faces in the media (since these crimes would otherwise be pointless to begin with), or if they are already so famous that anonymity would be impossible they are also publicized, but really this is just as important for others and especially sex offenders, so we can better mock the immoral values behind the sick feminist antisex laws. Any mainstream article about the sex laws assumes that no normal person would disagree -- think about that and realize how important it is to prove it wrong, which is also a very low-hanging fruit in terms of activism.
And when we don't have a jury, it doesn't really matter how you defend yourself (beyond what is immediately obvious to your lawyer), because tyranny will decide anyway. The most important thing then becomes to make an ideological statement, to at least undermine the fake moral legitimacy of the courts that sadly 92% of the population accept. Please comment to help work out a strategy of how to best preserve our dignity by refusing to play along with a sham justice system. How to best look out for our remaining rights while not pretending that they had the right to remove the others including jury trials? Should we even have a lawyer represent us when accused in such a fundamentally evil system? You should never talk to the police anyway even with full jury rights, so this doesn't change that. What is new is how to deal with the situation where the courts are completely illegitimate because there is no chance that your case can ever end up before a jury, and I am at loss for more answers than I have given here. These are really only rudimentary thoughts, since the situation is so new, and while foreseen for some fifteen years, I have been in denial about about actual dealing with because it is so ghastly. We must now treat the Norwegian "justice" system the same as North Korea or "negotiating" with terrorists or as accused terrorists held at Gitmo in order to deprive them of rights, who also don't get jury trials just like the Norwegians -- and how does one do that?