Monday, January 11, 2021

Eulogy on the Norwegian justice system

Two pieces of bad news stand out so far in 2021. The first is President Trump being banned from Twitter and then when conservatives move to Parler to regain some freedom of speech, this proves to be impossible because Parler's app simply gets blocked from downloading by Google and Apple unless Parler conforms to Twitter's censorship standards, which if they refuse and people use the web version instead in great numbers there is a credible threat that the same powers attack the site itself via its host and domain name registrar. We are seeing now that Twitter's and other big leftist social media monopoly is not just a matter of popularity, but will be enforced by whatever it takes when it matters, whenever there is a chance that the herd may slip form their tight intolerant grip. Leftist thought control is far more powerful than I realized, which is quite scary because I already knew they were evil. It is becoming clear that there are no real alternatives where people could be free to express themselves and not have feminists and liberals control the narrative, because those places would be shut down too once they get big enough to matter. I am still here because I have no clout; anyone politically incorrect and popular will be gone.

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.

The turning point came from the so-called "Hemsedal-saken" from 2014-16, which was a high-profile false rape case -- decided to be false only thanks to a jury, and then even through the rare occurrence of the lay judges rebelling against the professionals in the triple-jeopardy retrial without a jury that the system allowed for even back then (which means Norway never truly had a jury, but the need for that second retrial in order to set it aside was a pretty good deterrent against tyranny since it made it difficult to routinely prevent jury nullification). The Hemsedal trial was a classic case of drunken regret-rape and I suppose they could have successfully prosecuted it under the empty category of "negligent rape" even then (introduced by feminists in 2000 as a way to compromise with juries instead of flat-out defining all regretted sex as first-degree rape as in current practice), but since prosecutors got so greedy that they decided to present it to the jury as deliberate rape in order to send the men away for much longer, the jury put its foot down, which with this smoking hot photogenic girl was once too many a jury nullification for a society so hateful to men. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that Andrea Voll Voldum single-handedly destroyed the Norwegian justice system and plunged us all into tyranny, removing the most fundamental legal right from us all and establishing herself as the most evil person in Norwegian history since Vidkun Quisling similarly handed our jury rights over to an evil ideology (that only lasted five years though, unlike the feminists who have no end in sight). This particular accuser doesn't bear all the blame since reform had been brewing for over a decade with the supposedly low conviction rate in rape cases as the main argument (as I noted already in my first blog post in 2007 and then again in 2015), but she was the triggering event that made sure it tipped over in favor of the tyrants, and then she became an activist for abolishing the jury as well until it happened. Society could not accept that this refusal to convict men for vacuous sex crimes anywhere near as much as the feminists wanted is in fact the healthy process of jury nullification, so they abolished that option.

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?


Holocaust69 said...

Anonymous said...

Don't be Nathan Larson! It is stupid to self-sabotage for the purpose of ego, basically the definition of ass burgers. Who would you rather be, a small time nobody who gets busted 80 times and spends his life in jail, or Carlo Gambino?

If you're an outlaw (like we are for not being afraid or ashamed of pursuing hot 13 year old girls), be a fucking good one! Be slippery. Be quiet. Be smart. Plan and execute everything. Do what you need to do to sabotage the system in silence, and give it nothing to hit back at you. You do much more good out of jail than in it.

Most crimes are discovered from people talking about their crimes to others or talking to police. Don't do either and you're already 95% ahead of the pack.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, of course. I am talking about philosophical lawlessness, which applies whether we break laws or not. By abolishing the jury, society has broken the social contract and earned lawless men like me who feel no moral respect for the law whatsoever or any aspect of its enforcement. Some laws still coincide with my values, but the system enforcing them has no legitimacy. A society cannot live with that as a widespread belief. As long as the justice system’s approval rating is 92%, then sure they can live with it, and we need to try to change that rating. We do that by proudly sticking our necks out so the system knows it has enemies, because otherwise it will only ever look like all is well. Or the bravest of us like me and Nathan Larson do, anyway. The problem in Norway goes further than bad laws, so this approach of fundamentally disrespecting the entire justice system is called for. He still has the right to a jury trial where he is charged. One sexualist on the jury can produce a mistrial and block conviction indefinitely. That is a whole other ballgame where the people can put its foot down against bad laws, so the buck ultimately stops with the people -- the fundamental requirement to have a justice system rather than tyranny. With that right removed from Norwegians, we need to assume the philosophy I am describing above, because there is no social contract anymore. A social contract is something that goes away once you stop believing in it, and now we have the mother of all reasons to stop believing in it.

Anonymous said...

The (albeit few, still) comments give me a little bit of hope. Perhaps we aren't as alone as we think we are: there are many who simply don't dare to speak.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, but that "Sex og samfunns helsetilbud for personer som kjøper sex" which works against men who pay for sex under the guise of helping them, makes me sick! They are operating under the assumption that it is a bad thing that must be stopped somehow. Very sinister, like a cop in disguise. They try to brainwash men into thinking they are abusers, and look at the slimy way they put it: "Dersom personer som har kjøpt sex blir møtt med åpenhet og en ikke-dømmende holdning, kan de være trygge på at de kan snakke med oss. Da kan de også reflektere rundt egen adferd." Oh yes, make those sick men "reflect on their own behavior" in a feminist light... Of course, it is only men who have had somewhat of a bad experience who will talk to such a service -- usually because they are worried that they might have caught an STD, and this selection bias creates the false assumption that men only get the idea to buy sex when they are drunk as well, lol. But even in this group, though they may have a slightly reasonable health concern, there is nothing about paying for sex that makes it medically worse, and it is revolting that the state exploits this to fear-monger about prostitution. Casual unprotected sex is equally risky either way, or possibly even less so with a prostitute from what I've heard. The state should simply provide testing and honest health advice, not feminist brainwashing. And how long can we really trust them to be confidential rather than just an extension of the police as well? It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s only matter of time until giving women money for sex becomes a mandatorily reportable offense by the health and counseling services like other sex crimes. If any men who read this are considering seeking such a service, please think twice and know that you can get health care without incriminating yourself or suffering condescending lectures by hateful feminists. Just see your regular doctor or the STD clinic and if they ask, say you had casual sex but don't mention the money.

Eivind Berge said...

That's an idea if we ever have a real men's movement with funding or volunteers: offer a counseling service for anxious men based on sex-positivity rather than feminism. It upsets me that the state exploits this most vulnerable group to spew their hateful propaganda against male sexuality.

If there is a need for such a service, let's do it right. Here is how I would approach a session with one of their typical clients. "So you've had sex with a prostitute and can't remember if you used a condom because you were so drunk? Well, then I can assure you that you probably did use a condom, because the women care much more about that than us men. She probably wouldn't have let you do it without, and the more professional she is, the more likely this is the case. That said, it is unreasonable to be very afraid of unprotected sex and usually worth the risk, unless you have special reason to suspect exposure to disease, and paying for it is not such a reason. If you want to get tested, you can, but you need to know about the downside of screening. As a general rule, don't see a doctor unless you have symptoms. If you request an STD test from the Norwegian health services, they only test for chlamydia and gonorrhea by default, because testing for more does more harm than good given how low the risks are (as with HIV) or how normal they are to live with anyway (as with herpes). And those two are not what you are worried about, is it? If anyone tries to scare you about anything else, it is fear-mongering, and we don't play into that. There is no reason to be more scared of anything at all just because you paid for sex, or feel any shame surrounding this."

Any more concerns, just ask and get the male sexualist perspective.

Eivind Berge said...

Should also point out that chlamydia and gonorrhea will either bother you or resolve on their own within six months to a year at most. If they don't bother you and you don't have a specific reason (other than paying) to get tested, then anxiety is irrational. If you have traveled to some other countries where HIV is prevalent, then it would be a good idea to test for that, but again it's not the act of paying that made it risky. The conflation of moral and criminal condemnation with a health care concern is odious and what those feminist cuntrags are offering is malpractice. It is only tolerated and publicly funded because we live in a feminist hellhole that has institutionalized misandry and antisex bigotry and fake-victimology.

theantifeminist said...

Very sad news - we have lost another one. The solicitor Barbara Hewson has passed away from pancreatic cancer.

She famously called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13 to protect old men from persecution, and called out the nonsense of the Jimmy Savile/Yewtree witchhunts

Seems anybody who speaks out on these matters dies a premature death. I'm beginning to detect a pattern here. More likely to be the stress involved in being sane in an insane world, but we shouldn't rule out the possibility that we are being bumped off. Two or three of my readers (for example 'Eric') disappeared off the face of the Earth after complaining of illness. Nigel Oldfield last year. Angry Harry. Chris Brand was 73 and liked a drink, but even so, he seemed in good health not long before he died. I'm still in my 40's and recently diagnosed with auto-immune disorder which likely mean a painful descent into a premature death.

Anyway, we should strive to somehow keep the memories and arguments of these brave souls online and preserved.

Eivind Berge said...

Sorry to hear that. Barbara Hewson was indeed one of the few sane ones and I enjoyed her articles in Spiked over the years. In addition to lowering the age of consent she also very importantly called for an end to complainant anonymity in rape cases, which is nasty British travesty. The pattern is alarming but I agree, if anything more than bad luck it is most likely stress that is leading to increased mortality among our activists, because the antisex bigots haven't bumped off their most obvious target Tom O'Carroll yet. He is 75 and appears to be reaching the normal lifespan. It would be hard for our enemies to induce pancreatic cancer or autoimmune disease or the heart disease that got Angry Harry, I think (he was also a smoker). Unless there is some top-secret poison or weapon I've never heard of I don't think that's feasible, and if that's being used then we are dealing with assassins at the highest government levels who could do a better job. It's not like they need to cover their tracks either since almost nobody would miss us.

Holocaust22 said...


Barbara hewson was one of my favorites. Sad news. Lower the age of consent to 13. Free the teens.

Caamib said...

I can probably guess that Holocaust22 isn't the real Holocaust21, who I respect a lot. Aoc being 13 is nonsense. Aoc should simply not exist and that's what Holocaust21 believed in.

Eivind Berge said...

13 is extremely reasonable, at least compared to the madness we have today. Most men should be able to rally around this as it doesn't require any taboo interests. Male sexualism as I promote it is for normal sexuality, and getting the age of consent lowered to 13 (with the possible exception of male homosexuality, which can reasonably be higher) is an absolute requirement for legalizing normal sexuality. Agreeing with this demand is the litmus test to see if a person is able to be rational about sexuality, because once you go higher (or include female "offenders" at any age), all reality-based arguments are gone and it's just a pure witch-hunt or power grab for the feminist sexual trade union.

Anonymous said...

(with the possible exception of male homosexuality, which can reasonably be higher)

So the only option for 13 yo boys will be compulsory pussy?!

Eivind Berge said...

The problem with lowering the age of consent for male homosexuality is that fathers will be pissed. So we need to respect their wishes to some extent.

Caamib said...

"13 is extremely reasonable, at least compared to the madness we have today. Most men should be able to rally around this as it doesn't require any taboo interests. Male sexualism as I promote it is for normal sexuality, and getting the age of consent lowered to 13 (with the possible exception of male homosexuality, which can reasonably be higher) is an absolute requirement for legalizing normal sexuality. Agreeing with this demand is the litmus test to see if a person is able to be rational about sexuality, because once you go higher (or include female "offenders" at any age), all reality-based arguments are gone and it's just a pure witch-hunt or power grab for the feminist sexual trade union."

I'm not too interested in such theoretical debates when the fact is that aoc will just go up and up before society collapses so it's best to just ignore but I'll comment just this once - I used to think like that, just that the aoc should be slightly lower (12). But what I realized by now is that once you set any aoc you've already set up a path to make it higher and higher. It's not a slippery-slope fallacy but an actual slippery-slope you can see everywhere. Spaniards had an aoc of 12 in their Penal Law of 1995, now it's already 16 and will grow even more.

You're approaching this from a wrong perspective. True freedom would just mean aoc should be abolished.

Anonymous said...

Parents are always entitled to forbid a person to contact their children until they have reached the age of 18, regardless of the age of consent.

Anonymous said...

The world is now fascist by Mussolini's definition:

holocaust22 said...


They shouldn't be. The age of adulthood should be lowered to 13. The age of consent should be lowered to 13. The drinking and voting age should also be 13. Parents don't own their teenage daughters. Free the teens.

holocaust22 said...


In my ideal country democracy wouldn't be applied to the age of consent. 13 would be set in stone, and nobody could ever vote to change it. No "power to the people" to oppress teenagers and normal men.

Eivind Berge said...

I disagree with lowering the drinking age. It would undermine our message to be in favor of truly harmful things like that. Letting younger people vote would be a gift to the liberals, which is also not good.

holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

In my country, stores would only be allowed to sell organic beer. Hard liquor wouldn't be sold to anyone, because it makes people violent. Beer is fine though. If we say teenagers can consent to sex, but not alcohol, how does that work.

Eivind Berge said...

It's not that they "can't consent." Selling a product makes use of society's resources and thus deserves to be regulated in society's interest. Hard liquor shouldn't really be sold to adults either, but prohibition is a worse evil. Alcohol shouldn't be overly criminalized for minors either, but it is reasonable to have restrictions on when, where and to whom it can be sold in order to minimize the damage. These restrictions must not be so severe that people don't respect them. Banning alcohol for 18-20-year-olds in the US is pretty much a joke for example since they drink anyway. But note that the enforcement is a joke as well, so the law is not a huge problem unlike for bogus sex crimes.

theantifeminist said...

Keep dreaming Eivind - there will never be a society that considers 17 year olds too immature to drink alcohol, yet mature enough at 13 to have sex with older men. Just as there will NEVER be a society which considers viewing porn to be more harmful than heroin addiction, that DOESN'T lock up thousands of men under anti-porn laws.

However, I wouldn't go to extreme of arguing that 13 year olds are 'adults' either. You might be able to argue that 13 year olds are old enough to drink alcohol, but to vote? To join the army and fight in wars?

Eivind, for somebody who rages against oppressive legal systems you sure are a surprisingly big fan of government regulation. For somebody who recognizes how corrupt governments, politicians, justice systems invariably are, you do have a lot of trust in governments to regulate citizen's lives fairly 'in the interests of society'.

BTW Eivind, I know another 'female sex offender charade' post is probably coming up, but instead of White Knighting for the latest entitled middle-aged American slut teacher caught sucking 14 year old Tyrone's BBC in class while the white incel boys are forced to keep watch, why don't you pen an article on Ghislaine Maxwell? She's a true anti-feminist/Male Sexualist heroine. We should cannonize her and Barbara Hewson. So free of sexual jealousy and so filled with the wish to fulfill the natural sexual needs of her lover, that she risked her liberty in order to bring sexy 17 year old girls into his life. Why not write a piece on her and Barbara Hewson instead of slutty, selfish cougar teachers who likely would see no contradiction in wishing torture on you and us for even suggesting sex with teenage girls isn't wrong (because it's 'different' for women, as even you yourself (God help us) say)?

Eivind Berge said...

Barbara Hewson and Ghislaine Maxwell are indeed heroines, on that we agree. But the rest of your comment is nonsense. You are too mired in the now dominant female supremacism to see that there are alternatives. The normalization of masturbation is a female supremacist, feminist position. Let the men masturbate so they don't bother the women, who themselves suffer no ill effects of it so why should they care? Under patriarchy, you can have a 13-year-old bride and we can have the (non-carcereal) social norm that wanking is odious at the same time, because we care about male interests too. And we won't serve your young bride alcohol either, at least not without your permission. Under for example the Islamic variety of patriarchy we won't serve alcohol to anybody, and I'm okay with that. The important thing is that we resist the evil, hateful antisex bigotry that is feminism. Even our own societies tried alcohol prohibition not too long ago and to this day the drinking age is generally higher than the age of consent, so there is really no link there. In the USA it is higher than adulthood even, at 21, and in Norway you have to be 20 to buy strong liquors.

And no, I don't have much faith in governments. This post has been about my complete disrespect for the "justice" system, for example. But laws and regulations are inevitable in an advanced society and ideally they can be done well. Of course governments are going to regulate something so disruptive to public health and order as alcohol and drugs, and it would be foolish to sell them freely to anyone under 18 or at least 16. That's just common sense that would apply with us in power as well, unlike the female supremacist regulation of sexuality.

holocaust22 said...

Four things here


I'm in the middle of theantifeminist and eivind on the nofap thing.

When I masturbate only twice a week, I experience no ill effects. Following the teachings of traditional medicine, such as ayurveda, masturbating twice a week is fine. However, over-masturbation, ie, masturbating every day, absolutely destroys my mind and body. I become severely depressed, lose all of my energy, lose my passion for life, I get asthma, my body starts to hurt, I can't do heavy exercise like I can when I only masturbate twice a week. It's brutal.

I get eivinds idea that masturbating takes away your desire, and makes you less likely to seek out a girl. But for me, with only twice a week, I still have a massive amount of healthy desire for girls. In fact if I only masturbate twice a week, right after I masturbate, my desire comes back in literally 30 seconds, and I'm back to normal.

The twice a week thing works pretty well for me since I jerk off with asian girls in video calls sometimes, who are in other countries

2. Eivind, would you consider motley crue a male sexualist band? ;)

She's only 15, but she's the reason that I can't sleep. She says to me daddy, can I have some candy, I wanna be your nasty, anytime you want you know you can have me - Motley crue ;)


All I want is to be able to marry a hot 15 year old thai secondary school girl. But I can never do it. The girls I like the most are the girls I can never be with. I have no idea what bad karma I have from a previous life to have been born in this shithole. It completely sucks. But your blog, and theantifeminists blog, are gems in a sea of shit. Glad I found them.


I got banned from twitter. I'm on gab right now, the twitter free speech alternative. So far, I can say whatever I want. I'm calling people faggots. Saying 14 year olds are hot. And talking about lowering the age of consent. No ban hammer. It's a male sexualist paradise. We can do whatever we want there, without getting banned. I've been spreading around the hashtag #malesexualism, and the paedocrite meme. Probably made at least 2000+ people aware of paedocrite meme at this point.

holocaust22 said...

If we get a few people together, and raid twitch, gab, and youtube, we can drown out the antis. We need more internet trolls.

Anonymous said...

Man skulle tro at det var 1. april, men nej, det er sandt:

Eivind Berge said...

Wow! So you got both further corruption of rape law in Denmark and a new app to prove consent. It's tragicomic. But we can look at it this way to try and find something positive: for the fist time since the marital rape exemption was abolished in the 1970s or so, women now have a sort of duty to have sex, if they use that app. And the man has something to use as evidence against false accusations. But of course it is ridiculous that sex needs to proceed via an app and formalized consent, which will anyway be skipped most of the time, so the only thing that really changes is that women have yet another broader rape law to use against men, now reduced to the formality of not using an app or providing a signature somehow. And of course women can claim that they were coerced into providing that digital consent same as they can claim they were coerced into sex without it, so nothing really changes there. The reversal of the burden of proof to the man to prove consent is a huge change, however, truly the feminist utopia and hell for men.

Eivind Berge said...

When "rape" is reduced to skipping the formality of a signature, women have lost the right to call it serious. It is then on the level of a parking ticket in terms of culpability, and any deserved punishment is likewise limited. But they will still try to make it out as a serious crime, won't they, and actually punish men for the lack of a signature as if it were rape? And still no men's movement is fighting back in Denmark either?

Anonymous said...

This might be of interest to Eivind:

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, that is highly consistent with my positions and I've made most of those arguments before. But this includes a turn of phrase that is new to me:

"An interesting idea about the evolution of human rape has been put forward by Alexander and Noonan (1979). These authors note that although some anthropologists like Desmond Morris talk about extended receptivity in the human female compared with other primates, it is really more true to describe women as continuously ‘non-receptive.’ In order to support their strategy of selective mate choice and long-term intimate bonding with particular men, they have evolved a concealed time of ovulation in a form that is like a permanent non-heat. The effect of this is not only to distribute copulations across the cycle, thus promoting bonding and marriage, but also, unfortunately, to encourage pirate copulations – or rape. Since a woman’s receptiveness is not highly correlated with ovulation (fertility), there is less reason for the human male to restrict mating to receptive, consenting females. Non-receptive women can still get pregnant, so their protests are, genetically speaking, irrelevant."

Yes, "continually non-receptive" is really a more fitting description of the effects of concealed ovulation -- quite the opposite of how we usually describe it -- because women are so selective. You have to be bonkers or a feminist to think men feel the same way and hence women can rape men too. And I've often said that feminists' making that claim trivializes real rape, but they don't care and evidently it doesn't stop them from imposing any punishments they want either. Diluting the definition of rape down to the absence of a consent signature doesn't even stop them. We are at reductio ad absurdum now, and feminism is stronger and less opposed than ever.

Anonymous said...
A great speech by Barbara Hewson, entitled "Rape hysteria rhetoric from Victorianism to Feminism"

theantifeminist said...

Yet another study finds that gender is the biggest predictor of negative attitudes towards prostitution. Eivind is one of the few 'male sexualists' who can at least see that feminists are the enemy, but even he can't accept that feminists only have power because they are an expression of the general female will.

Anonymous said...

The current definition of "rape" is a joke. Rape is only a property crime. Women love dominant men, and get off on having their will crushed by a man overcome with passion.

Each new law passed against "rape" is just another shit test that women use to have a better orgasm. Then, not only can they have a better orgasm with a man who disobeys their will, they can also raise their ego by blackmailing the man or sending him to jail with crocodile tears. I have dated a few girls who wanted me to rape them without asking; I never did it because I didn't want to give them that power over me. So I masturbated instead. It was worth it Eivind! haha.

I like that this Holocaust22 guy is trolling Gab. I might try that again, but last time I checked, they were blocking "pro pedophilia" accounts, so I hope you get more success than others. And as for 15 year old Thai schoolgirls, why not 13? She will get to 15 quicker than you know!

Holocaust22 said...

The communist party of the uk demands the abolishment of the age of consent directly on their website

Abolish age-of-consent laws. We recognise the right of individuals to enter into the sexual relations they choose, provided this does not conflict with the rights of others.

Eivind Berge said...

Fantastic. It's good that they note that "Youth are used as cheap labour, sexually policed and blamed for social decay" -- so refreshing that they call out the excessive policing of sexuality instead of painting minors as infinite victims and demanding more of it. I am not sure if this is a good enough reason to become a communist, but compared to the current tyranny I would vote for them. They even want to decriminalize prostitution:

"Communists demand: Decriminalisation of all consensual sexual practices. End police and state harassment.... Decriminalisation of prostitution so as to remove it from criminal control. For the self-organisation of prostitutes to improve their conditions. Prostitutes to be provided with special healthcare and other services to reduce the dangers they confront. Measures must be put in place to give prostitutes wider social opportunities."

And this is great:

"Defend and extend the jury system. Anyone charged with an offence that carries the possibility of a prison sentence can elect for a jury trial."

There was a risk that covid be used as an excuse to weaken the jury, but this was actually rejected in Britain:

A "wartime" jury system would have reduced the number of jurors from twelve to seven, which is still a real independent jury and not the hybrid system of five laymen and two professional judges to keep them in check that Norwegians accepted without a fight or any kind crisis excuse other than the need to convict more "rapists." So even though the UK is a hysterical antisex hellhole in many ways and they have some peculiar horrendous forms of oppression such as no freedom of speech, the jury remains strong there. They won't get any more sexual freedom by law any time soon (communists are what? 1% of the population?), but the laws can be sabotaged by individual male sexualists and communists whenever they serve on juries.

Eivind Berge said...

Holocaust22 wrote:

"When I masturbate only twice a week, I experience no ill effects."

So you think you are a functional masturbator? I take issue with this claim because there is no way it won't have an ill effect on you. You may not notice the effect, but it is there. The ill effects of masturbation are both quantitative and qualitative. How often do you have sex? Even if that is still at a decent level, you will enjoy it less. The fact that men can so easily be in denial of the negative effects of masturbation tells me that we need a strong social norm against it.

Low-level masturbation is kind of like air pollution. You may not notice the ill effects until it is too late. Invisible particles enter your bloodstream through the lungs and cause damage, eventually leading to a stroke or heart attack or blindness:

I bet you didn't know about that connection. Well, masturbation also makes you blind, to the beauty of women, and needs to be condemned so you know to save yourself before it is too late and you have suffered evolutionary death because you failed to mate while you were in the game. The blindness and death caused by masturbation are arguably even worse than the mundane kinds.

Eivind Berge said...

Sad, insane, infuriating news in the female sex offender charade:

"A married UK teacher facing trial over accusations of sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old boy has been found guilty of the crime.

On Thursday, Kandice Barber 35, has been found guilty of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, the BBC reports.

In September, Barber was convicted of sexual communication with a child after it was found she had sent the boy topless pictures and other lewd images, including video of herself masturbating.

But the jury hadn’t been able to come to a decision about whether sex had actually occurred, which is why a retrial was ordered.

On Thursday, that trial came to a conclusion - finding the woman guilty.

According to The Sun, her husband Daniel lashed out, saying “it’s a joke” as his wife’s verdict was handed down.

What indeed should have been a joke is the feminist reality we are living in. They really are this deranged and evil. The progression of antisex bigotry isn’t missing a beat because of covid either, which to me proves the pandemic is also a joke. At the height of their lockdowns the BBC is at it promoting what is still the number one priority of British society, how to punish more sexuality and especially women:

Female child sex abuse 'remains taboo' while victims struggle

Victims of female child sexual abusers face "enormous stigma and shame", according to police and charities.

Figures from BBC Radio 4's File on 4 show there were over 10,400 reports of this type of abuse from 2015 to 2019 - equivalent to an average of 40 a week.

Experts say there is still a "lack of understanding" about the extent of such abuse.

The UK government said it would not allow "any safe space for sex offenders to operate - male or female".

Between 2015 and 2019, the numbers of reported cases of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse to police in England and Wales rose from 1,249 to 2,297 - an increase of 84%.

Oh, yes, appeal to taboo: a sure way to win every argument and always be right, because anyone who disagrees is just saying so because it is "taboo" to say what the enlightened feminists say. It is a logical fallacy that keeps on giving, in the third decade now since the charade started -- have you ever seen a propaganda piece about female sex offenders that didn’t claim it was taboo? Claiming your agenda is taboo is a way to signal that those who disagree are automatons who haven't thought it through for themselves and don't have a valid opinion. I am always dismissed as such by the mainstream no matter how much I think this through. That way they are still right even when society overwhelmingly disagrees, which it still does in normal individual attitudes like Kandice Barber's husband's -- but now that most of that disagreement is silenced or hidden away in obscure forums like this -- and at best quoted in short outbursts that we are meant to understand as deranged -- it is even more ridiculous to call the dominant narrative a taboo. They even manage to suck in the juries in the charade -- I wonder how exactly that happens, must be some kind of mob mentality, unreasonable deference to authority and peer pressure to obey and uphold the law no matter how insane it is, but I maintain that juries are still the closest thing we come to a lifeline against tyranny, including antisex bigotry. Juries will participate in witch-hunts when they are going full-force like antisex does now, but the professionals are even more scary. said...

That will not stop people from going crazy trying to get you deplatformed and sending death threats.

The vintologi bible isn't that radical when it comes to freedoms for teens but people still go crazy over it.

Eivind Berge said...

Looks like a cool project, thanks for pointing us to it.

theantifeminist said...

"So you think you are a functional masturbator? I take issue with this claim because there is no way it won't have an ill effect on you. You may not notice the effect, but it is there. The ill effects of masturbation are both quantitative and qualitative. How often do you have sex? Even if that is still at a decent level, you will enjoy it less. The fact that men can so easily be in denial of the negative effects of masturbation tells me that we need a strong social norm against it."

When I read stuff like this (followed by yet another heart breaking White Knight outpouring over some slut wrongly assuming the pussy pass would cover her sucking an underage chad), I really start to agree that Paula Elam was right when he called you a loon. At least that you're some kind of troll determined not to let us be taken seriously by anybody ever.

How often do you have sex Eivind? Face it, you're left with getting lucky on Tinder with a HB5 who would look repulsive without her makeup on. Like most of us at our age are. No disprespect Eivind, but why would a hot looking women on Tinder choose you or me, even for a 30 minute fling, rather than the thousands of younger, hotter, richer men she could meet within minutes of swiping right? Not to mention the hundreds of simps sending her DMs in her social media accounts 24 hours a day?
As for 'going blind', I must have masturbated over 10,000 times in my life. Believe me Eivind, I doubt if there are many men on this Earth who are as sensitive to real female sexual beauty than myself. That's real sexual beauty. Not the HB5 skanks that you get turned on by and are so thirsty to lay. I honestly can't believe that a man who finds the average woman attractive and lay worthy, even the average young woman, can be sensitive to real and rare HB9 and HB10 beauty. You need to put your smartphone down and lay off chasing HB5s on Tinder 24/7 and fap a few times to an 18 year old Russian HB10.

"we need a strong social norm against it". So you want a society that utterly demonizes and criminalizes male masturbation even more than feminists do and ends up locking up even more men to be anally raped (we're talking about the real world Eivind, not your hypothetical world where you are the dictator of the milky way galaxy)? An this is Men's Rights/Male Sexualism? Meanwhile, you white knight over and over entitled whores banging young boys when those boys should be seizing the opportunity to legally fuck their HB10 age peers? And you wonder why nobody ever took you seriously in the MRM (and before you say nobody took me seriously either, I had the support of Angry Harry, Bernard Chapin, even Paul Elam for a time, lol..etc etc).

Eivind Berge said...

So, it's HB10 or 9 or nothing to you? That proves my point right there. You are truly blind to female beauty, because it is maladaptive to be so picky and if you didn't masturbate and use porn you would notice and love the average women. Normal male sexuality is to be at least somewhat attracted to pretty much all fertile-age women, and middle-aged men like us should be absolutely ecstatic to get a teen or 20-something, even if she would be considered an HB5 in her age class. This is also realistic and you would find ways to meet them like I am doing if masturbation hadn't messed you up. Then you would also appreciate social shame against wanking which helps save men from your fate. Of course we don't want to jail anyone for it, but we need to tell the truth about masturbation. Perhaps you will die childless and alone without realizing this, but it is the healthy male sexualist/MRA view I am taking.

Eivind Berge said...

Finally some heartwarming news!

Anonymous said...

Even more great news, even though the matter is quite a different one. It seems that Gabriel Matzneff has moved to the counter-attack:

Eivind Berge said...

Excellent! Good to see that Matzneff is not a complete pushover either. That 84-year-old male sexualist can fight back at least intellectually. "Vanessavirus" is a cool name for it too.

Anonymous said...

You are not the only one, Eivind. Read this comment:

Anonymous said...

More about the female sex offender charade:

"Younger boys (14 and under) with women (mean ages: 13.37 and 24.27, respectively; mean age difference: 10.90 years), compared to men with peer-aged women (mean ages: 21.76 and 21.58, respectively; mean age difference: 0.18 years), enjoyed the coitus a great deal (the top scale value) significantly more often (63 % vs. 44 %) and had emotionally negative reactions no more often (15 % vs. 12 %)."

Eivind Berge said...

Indeed, it is such an obvious fact that young boys enjoy sex with women and have a richer life than men who missed out on such experiences. Everything from common sense to science tells us so. How the authorities can try to deny this, present the diametric opposite claim that the lucky boys are "victims," and get away with it in the "justice" system and media is the most bizarre travesty ever. Though persecution of the nice women involved is so far at the level of a relatively sporadic witch-hunt, nowhere else has the distance between reality and political/criminal pretense been greater.

Eivind Berge said...

The same data show girls aren't harmed either. But there is a sex difference. "Assumptions of characteristic trauma or aversiveness in minor–adult first coitus, as well as gender equivalence in response, were contradicted." It is important to be honest about both these facts. It is a silly and sadly very destructive myth that minors are necessarily traumatized or can't enjoy sex with adults, but for boys with women there is an additional dimension of getting lucky, that when denied also adds another layer of injustice and absurdity. I wonder how so many people manage to convince themselves that minor–adult sex is intrinsically traumatic or aversive, and then that the usual mating market reality that sex is a female resource is inapplicable as well? That's two deranged beliefs piled on top of another, though I guess the latter sort of follows from the former if you are gullible enough to accept it, and then it's just a matter of setting aside your common sense in favor of that overarching myth. That myth is supposed to work as a metaphysical belief that replaces reality once you are indoctrinated, whereupon you are only allowed to see minors as cartoon characters that can only play some incredibly simplistic, one-dimensional roles. In order to be a well-adjusted person in this society you must accept this script for how minors are supposed to feel and react, that they always have an aversive experience whenever they encounter adult sexuality in any form whatsoever. As is so often the case, when they deviate from the script it must be dismissed as unreal. It doesn't matter if the minor is actively seeking sex and displaying all the signs of enjoying it because the metaphysical layer is the only true reality to the politically correct dimwits and brainwashees. This is the dominant religion of our times, the only one that actually enforces its dogmas and taboos in my society.

Holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

Do you know how to get in touch with Gabriel Matzneff? An email or something.

Eivind Berge said...

No, I don't have his contact info. Googling a bit now I realized the charges against him are even more evil and grotesque than I knew.

I didn't know he was charged with the speechcrime of "promoting" pedophilia. But it doesn't even stop there, because anti-pedophilia organizations are made out to be "victims" in the case! So this is already at two meta-levels above "sexualizing children" which I thought was the limit of criminalization so far. It's not "sexual abuse" (as those allegations involving actual minors presumably would be past the statute of limitations or not illegal at the time), not grooming, not porn, not even just expressing an opinion but supposedly damaging others who express opinions against pedophilia! These nastiest bigots in the world, the pedo hunters, are allowed to be "victims" in the case! The extent of the antisex bigotry here makes my head spin, and it's reality already! Or is being prosecuted at any rate and will be the situation in France if he is convicted. So France is already miles beyond any other country I know of, even the UK where "corrupting the public morals" like TOC was convicted of sort of comes close, but is not quite this. Also everyone he has worked with is implicated, in the manner of scorched-earth against anyone who is associated in any fashion with a sexualist like we have seen with Epstein.

"Mr. Matzneff, who has been in hiding in the Italian Riviera and did not appear in court, was accused of defending and justifying pedophilia through his many books and public appearances, according to the case filed by l’Ange Bleu, an anti-pedophilia organization. The court set September 2021 as the start of the trial, which will scrutinize not only the author’s actions but also those of the French elite who published his books, promoted his career and even helped him evade justice. [...] L’Ange Bleu is using a special legal procedure to force Mr. Matzneff to stand trial, arguing that its interests as an organization devoted to fighting pedophilia were damaged by Mr. Matzneff’s longstanding promotion of pedophilia. If convicted in that case, Mr. Matzneff, 83, could face up to five years in prison."

Might as well throw the whole French elite in prison, then. This is truly a revolution against sexuality and it is amazing that the feminists are getting away with it, that no one except this old man fights back at all. Can you imagine five years in prison just for expressing an opinion against the height of bigotry? Not even the state, but the charities. If the most extreme antisex bigots have that kind of power, we are already in hell and all anyone with the slightest bit of disagreement can do is wait to be purged. If France is any indication, look forward to a future where the nastiest feminist you can think of, such as David Futrelle perhaps, can have you put on trial and locked up for "damaging his work" by speaking against it... Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse because the imagination for what can be a crime is exhausted, here we go again. And really, all that legal pretense is superfluous because it is all brute tyranny anyway with zero tolerance for any wrongthinker at this point.

Does France have juries, by the way? If the people have that right and have any common sense left, now is the time to use it and nullify all the antisex bigotry.

Eivind Berge said...

I wonder if France is supposed to be a democracy? What should be the age of consent is a political question. If one cannot promote a different view than the anti-pedophilia organizations without facing five years in prison, then that's just mind-boggling. This is not more of the same, but a whole new level of oppression. Media aren't reporting it as the completed antisex revolution it is because they are in on it, pretending instead it is "justice" at work, but make no mistake, this is the definition of a totalitarian feminist dictatorship. Criminalizing dissenting views would be called a dictatorship anywhere else, but because antisex bigotry is the water we swim in it doesn't get noticed in our countries. There is literally no limit to the travesties they can get away with.

Eivind Berge said...

A verdict showing the dissonance of the new "absolute rape age" of 14 in Norway at work.

"En 19 år gammel mann er dømt til fengsel i fire år og åtte måneder etter flere samleier med en jente fra hun var 13 år. Jenta sa alt skjedde frivillig."

The antisex bigots of the former justice system are doing their level best to rewrite reality. The girl doesn't think she has been raped even after the system is through with her, but the court is clinging to hope that she may come to see it differently later and get on board with the antisex hate. They even assert that she is likely to get traumatized in due course -- a preposterous claim with no plausible mechanism other than society going out of its way to harm her even more than they did with this trial, and even that is too far-fetched at this point.

"Retten skriver at den fornærmede kan se helt annerledes på opplevelsen med tiden, selv om hun for retten forklarte at alt skjedde frivillig. – Skadevirkningene er potensielt store på sikt for fornærmede, skriver retten i den enstemmige dommen."

Do these bigots think we are so stupid that we think they have that power over reality? It is one thing to outlaw sex as by age of consent, but this attempt to dictate reality and change the actual event to something it wasn't requires a level of mind control and docility that I used to think people wouldn't allow. Now I know that they mostly do, but still, the article calls it a "special" rape verdict, indicating that the charade isn't entirely convincing to the mainstream either.

Can any of those witch-doctors please explain how that belated traumatization which supposedly justifies treating it this way is supposed to work? Do they have an explanation that does not involve further brainwashing that the parents, police and justice system failed to accomplish with this girl, or is pure superstition sufficient because we are unabashedly at a medieval, pre-scientific level with sexuality?

Anonymous said...

Hvis skadevirkningerne er potentielt store, så skulle manden være blevet idømt 4 år og otte måneders potentielt fængsel...

Eivind Berge said...

The feminists got everything they asked for. The only thing remaining in Norway is reversing the burden of proof for the man to prove consent like Sweden and Denmark already got. But I wonder how they can live with the fakeness of it all. The news is now filled with fake and empty rape, and we go through all the motions of sending men to prison for nothing. The words get written in the verdicts and media and men don't fight back, except that hero who took on the FBI and Matzneff writing his Vanessavirus book. And actually I just read about two women who died in a backlash against a rape case:

But by and large, there is no backlash against feminism. They got everything they wished for and antisex is still society's top priority even in a pandemic. How does it feel though, to have won on false pretenses? How does it feel to have criminalized all the sex you care to regret and even what girls don't regret and be able to call it rape no matter how far from the truth that is? Does this really not feel like a hollow victory? And aren't you afraid that one day men will wake up and seek revenge in more than these totally negligible numbers?

Anonymous said...

I don't think men are prone to revenge in the same manner as women. Women are nice when they are taken individually, but when they stick together they can turn into a greater evil than Nazis.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, men get real, hard time for "potential" sexual harm. I do think, thought, that such potential is mostly realized when there is also a potential reward to be claimed. You have no shortage of older women claiming to be traumatized by childhood experiences when there is potential compensation, but this matter already having been settled, I doubt the girl will see much benefit in claiming to be traumatized later. And it certainly did not need to be settled this way. Simply having no age of consent or absolute rape age would have done the same trick.

Eivind Berge said...

Retten legger til grunn at en "voldtekt" var frivillig.

"– Selv om det var frivillig fra fornærmedes side, som retten legger til grunn, er det definert som voldtekt etter loven, skriver domstolen som senere legger til at straffebestemmelsen bygger på den forutsetningen at mindreårige ikke kan gi samtykke til seksuelt samkvem."

I had to commemorate that with the full quote because it is so bizarre. You can now officially be voluntarily raped in Norway -- and it is not statutory rape, but what they consider to be real, literal rape. We have devolved into complete absurdity. Is this the bottom, peak feminism -- or can they take it further still?

Anonymous said...

Don't you have a Constitutional Court or something alike in Norway?
I mean, people cannot be convicted of rape when there is no rape - not even according to the victim. That would be a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence.

Anonymous said...

Man kan da ikke dømme for voldtægt på grund af en handling som ikke indebærer vold.
Ellers kunne man sige: "Den som kører på en cykel uden lys om natten, dømmes for voldtægt" - og det ville ikke være mindre logisk.

Eivind Berge said...

We have a Supreme Court but they are on board with this. Antisex bigotry is the state religion and the only thing that counts to the authorities (who now reign supreme without even those pesky juries to deal with -- who might well have reversed this verdict) is their fake reality where you can indeed be consensually raped or a married bachelor or whatever it takes to put a man (or woman) in prison for any sex crime anyone cares to dream up. It is a feeling of total and complete hate between society and sexuality where sadly so few of us resist at all. My soul is criminal, because I am one of the few remaining egosyntonic men.

Eivind Berge said...

"Den som kører på en cykel uden lys om natten, dømmes for voldtægt" - og det ville ikke være mindre logisk.

Indeed! They think they can arbitrarily make up reality to be whatever they want. That is how the sex laws work. Legislators feel no obligation to respect reality whatsoever when sexuality is involved because they have carte blanche to define the concepts as they want and remove whatever due process they want and impose unlimited punishment, because sex is understood to be so horrible that the most infinitesimal sexual violation as defined by any illogic you care to use is a fate worse than death.

Anonymous said...

As for Matzneff: According to media reports, he is going to release/present his book on 15 february. How and where this will happen is not clear, but I assume that in connection with such an event it will be explained how to buy the book.

Eivind Berge said...

Will it only be available in French? Presumably any translator would be complicit in "promoting pedophilia" as well and victimizing those poor feminists who've managed to make five years in prison a credible threat for disagreeing with them. I am guessing he won't have a publisher either, but can still release the book by himself. Translators who have no intention of ever visiting France might also be up for the job. Personally I don't think I will ever go there, seeing how it's devolved into an even worse feminist hellhole than Scandinavia.

Anonymous said...

Liberté - Egalité - Fraternité!

Anonymous said...

Hvis den dengang 13-årige pige går hen og udvikler traumer, vil det sandsynligvis være fordi hun føler sig skyldig i den lange fængselsstraf som hendes ven, som hun stadig elsker, blev idømt på grund af hende. Og så vil myndighederne sikkert råbe "Bingo" og påstå at traumerne skyldes de orgasmer som hun oplevede som 13-årig.

Engang imellem hører man om regeringsmedlemmer som deltager i mindehøjtideligheder om Holocaust. Men hvad er det mest nobelt: at klynke mens man lægger en krans for ofrene for Holocaust 100 år senere, eller bekæmpe holocausterne mens de foregår?

Anonymous said...

That wrongthink "crime" that Matzneff is accused of is truly horrifying; a big step forward in the feminist holocaust. It can't be long now that they criminalize age-gap relationships and raise the age of consent to something even more absurd. This ride will continue because nothing stops it so far.

I was looking through USA statutory rape convictions and feeling angry already, seeing men convicted of "crimes" and going to jail for a decade or more on complete bullshit of "sex with a willing teenager". At least in Europe, punishments are nowhere near America.

In general, if you have sex with a girl of any age, you must remember this rule - NEVER ADMIT TO HAVING SEX. Not to your friends, not to your parents, not to your priest, not even to her herself. All the men who were arrested admitted to sex in recorded phone calls (sometimes even the girl herself wore a wire for police, absolute attention whore cunts) or text messages. It is very hard for police to get a conviction without an admission of sex.

It might feel weird if the girl starts talking about sex with you and you tell her you don't know what she's talking about. But it will feel much more weird spending 10 years in jail and having your life ruined and demonized by a system that only wants to destroy a man. So, tell her she's silly, you never had sex, give her a smile, and ask her out and bang her again! Just never admit to sex, ever, and of course don't allow any witnesses to you having sex. Everything private, wear a condom.

You must understand that heterosexual sex is illegal by default, and proceed accordingly. I don't want to see anyone open-minded enough to read this site go to jail.

Eivind Berge said...

They only need her word to get you convicted, so never admitting to sex will not keep you safe, but sure it will reduce their chances. It is also very sad to let the antisex persecutions poison our personal relationships, and for this reason I can't get entirely behind never talking about your sexual experiences with girls (don't do it unless you really feel you can trust her, however). I also don't agree with wearing a condom.

When accused, usually men talk to say it was consensual, because a sane justice system would either find you not guilty for that or at least make it a greatly reduced crime. But as we have seen with the absolute rape age that is also creeping upward, it is now often beside the point to what kind of "crime" and punishment you get whether the girl was willing, so for that matter you might as well stay silent. Even so, it helps for activism to have the man's story on record as well to make it clearer that "rape" is now an empty concept. So, how much you should talk also depends on how altruistically inclined you are.

Just never, ever talk to the police -- that always applies. Or to a "court" that tries you without the right to a jury (though this one gets into idealism again).

theantifeminist said...

"Yes, men get real, hard time for "potential" sexual harm. I do think, thought, that such potential is mostly realized when there is also a potential reward to be claimed. You have no shortage of older women claiming to be traumatized by childhood experiences when there is potential compensation, but this matter already having been settled, I doubt the girl will see much benefit in claiming to be traumatized later. And it certainly did not need to be settled this way. Simply having no age of consent or absolute rape age would have done the same trick."

No. Women will always cry rape/abuse/paedophilia when older, over experiences they fully enjoyed and consented in when younger, because this retrospective reframing forms the whole basis of paedohysteria and current laws. And paedohysteria and current laws benefit these older women in the sexual market place, or at least soothes their bitterness and provide an outlet for their jealous rage.

Financial motivation is only a small part of it.

For somebody who appears to be so widely read in evolutionary psychology, you seem to have a blind spot for the obvious fact that virtually every breath, thought, and move of a woman is about sexually restraining her better looking rivals. Any 'Male Sexualist' movement wont get very far until we take the pussy hat blinders off and see women for what they are - red in tooth and claw. And that's WOMEN not a tiny cabal of witches called feminists who have mysteriously turned society upside down in one generation all on their own.

As for Gabriel Matzneff, it's good to see he is fighting back. Presumably, despite being openly pro male sexuality, he has never once identified as a MAP or 'ephebophile'. Then again, why should he have, given that until 12 months or so ago, few honest Frenchmen would have disputed the sexual attractiveness of adolescent girls?

You're right Eivind, this legal action by a money making child abuse industry outfit for 'harming their interests' takes the anti-sex revolution to new heights of absurdity and femi-fascism. Do the 'progressive MAPs' here honestly not see any connection between the 'Scorched Earth' tactics (as brilliantly articulated by yourself) employed against him and his associates (and likewise against Epstein) and left-wing WOKE cancel culture?

Further, does the sudden and radical transformation of France from a beacon of light in the anti-sex world to one of its worst manifestations, have nothing to do with the rapidly changing demographics there? Or are we going to continue forever more blaming it on 'Anglo-Saxon puritanism'?

Btw, France isn't the only country to have insane laws against 'promoting paedophilia'. Canada also does, and it was used by the cretin 'Kloo2Yoo' at reddit r/mensrights as a reason to ban any discussion of the age of consent etc. there. The UK is currently drawing up a law against 'extremist thought' that will likely cover both Islamist terrorist propaganda and any rational debate over the age of consent.

theantifeminist said...

I wonder if Jack, one of your readers and formerly a long-time reader of mine, would be able to get hold of the forthcoming book by Matzneff, and translate at least some of it for us? He speaks or writes fluent English (better than mine actually - he was always correcting my spelling, lol). Or maybe some of his previous books, that now seem impossible to get hold of even in French?

I wonder also if God Forbid, Michael Houellebecq might be in danger of this fascist French law? His books certainly do honestly portray the sexual attractiveness of young girls, as well as the joys of sex tourism.

Eivind Berge said...

TheAntifeminhist wrote:

"For somebody who appears to be so widely read in evolutionary psychology, you seem to have a blind spot for the obvious fact that virtually every breath, thought, and move of a woman is about sexually restraining her better looking rivals. Any 'Male Sexualist' movement wont get very far until we take the pussy hat blinders off and see women for what they are - red in tooth and claw. And that's WOMEN not a tiny cabal of witches called feminists who have mysteriously turned society upside down in one generation all on their own."

This is true in the same sense that it is male nature to go raping and pillaging. Sure, if society is arranged such that men have that option, a good many will go for it. The current system is the female supremacist equivalent, where they are actively encouraged by the state to accuse every lover they had as a minor and any sex they regret for any reason later as well and increasingly any kind of sexual advance whatsoever. We cannot blame this on women as a group and claim they are all bad. That’s just misogyny which I don’t stand for.

We know it’s perfectly possible to have a society that does not encourage the worst in either men or women. The fact that society now serves the very worst of female nature, exactly as bad as if men were encouraged to go raping and pillaging and to keep sex slaves, is something we must blame on the larger political climate in which men are also complicit. So please, let’s tone down this hate against women while at the same time acknowledging that female sexual trade unionism is a factor. I don't deny that, but it is not hopeless if only men would stand up for themselves. Back before the "underage" antisex hysteria and the hyperinflated definition of "rape," women did not spend their lives obsessing over how they could use those experiences against men and to get rich any more than men spent their lives conspiring how to obtain literal sex slaves. It is possible and desirable to have a society where the worst in each sex is kept in check and channeled into healthy competition instead of using brute violence that women now do to men via the state and men have at times done to women as well.

theantifeminist said...

"We know it’s perfectly possible to have a society that does not encourage the worst in either men or women."

No, unfortunately we don't. We have no idea whether we can have a post-pill society which does not end up encouraging the worst in women and being thoroughly anti-male sexuality as ours is.

We have no example on Earth of it now. Even Japan is lost. In just five decades since the historic invention of the female contraceptive pill which created an unparalleled free sexual market, every society on Earth is now anti-male sexuality and 'encourages the worst in women', and the only ones that aren't are Muslim countries which are not truly 'post-pill', and where both male and female sexual lives are controlled by the State (save for the Arab billionaire clans in control who can do anything they like).

Evolutionary psychology and the evidence of the last five decades strongly suggests that anti-sex feminism is an inherent backlash against any truly free sexual market (which as I said, was only ever possible in the entire history of mankind in the 1960's with the invention of the first female contraceptive pill).

And I'm not claiming this is a radical new idea on my part. If you read Lionel Tiger, Neil Lyndon and others, they have a similar view in blaming the pill for creating a feminist backlash. I believe Angry Harry shared this belief as well, although of course he (rightly) did stress the financial motives of the abuse industry in inflating it.

I also disagree with the comparison made between a supposed male propensity to rape and the clear female propensity for reframing regretted sex as rape and abuse. Perhaps males have an inclination to rape as far as women of another group is concerned, but it's debatable if we're all hardwired to have rapist thoughts regarding females of our 'in-group'. It's probably equally true anyway that women would have a propensity to 'submit' to a conquering out-group, as it would further their genes, so not exactly 'rape' in the old sense if we're talking raiding Vikings taking back young English maidens to Norway on their longships.

Rape isn't 'bringing out the worst in men'. It's an abnormal desire for some men (although perhaps evolutionary beneficial for some men who would be incels in any era of history - thankfully they have Pornhub today). Regretted sex, sexual jealousy of an almost supernatural kind, isn't an evolutionary abnormal trait shared by a minority of women - it's the absolute norm, and sadly, likely to be expressed in any society in which women have to sexually compete with younger or more attractive women.

A final thought - whether feminism has any merits or not, it certainly wouldn't have succeeded in any meaningful way if it hadn't been a movement of anger directed against men and (supposed) male control over the bodies and minds of women. We can surely learn from them... even the MAPs.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't think women's nature is so bleak, nor the pill so significant. Contraception mostly changes how many babies they have, not how they behave or feel. Women have been able to put up with a good bit of sexual freedom for men before. For example they had to tolerate the existence of prostitution before feminism, and it wasn't the end of the world for them. Now they try to legislate it away because they have that luxury, but it's an idiotic failing of men that we allow it. Perhaps democracy truly isn't compatible with sexual freedom though, and giving the vote to women was a huge mistake, but I left democracy mentally behind over ten years ago anyway and realized the path forward for men is civil war. Since that's not happening, I know all is lost for now, but it isn't because women are inherently bad. If you really hate them so much -- well, then I understand where your support of porn and masturbation is coming from -- but I and the rest of us male sexualists still love women, don't we?

Anonymous said...

They do not only need "her word", they need her accusation that you raped her PLUS evidence that sex occurred. I work in this field. Do not give them that evidence. This is how all men go down, and it is the easiest thing to prevent.

If you talk to the police, you will not be a hero, you will be thrown in jail and forgotten. You will be a hero if you do what I recommend and fuck young pussy safely, then talk anonymously about it online to inspire others :)

Regret rape is simply a way for a woman to get more attention because she thinks she didn't get quantity and/or quality for her pussy. A man "raping" a woman is a fake crime because all women get off on dominance, of which rape is the peak, which is why they all have orgasms when "raped" and fantasize about it subconsciously. Essentially, rape is a property crime made trivial by contraception.

Male feminists, mostly those who would call themselves "conservatives", are responsible for gynocentrism because these men make the laws. The woke left makes the culture ripe for the change, and the "conservative" male feminists make it reality. Mike Pence, Tom Cotton, etc. The right wing is full of violent, Puritan pedocrites.

Eivind Berge said...

What you say is slightly more true in the US. Norwegian courts do not give a damn about evidence that sex occurred as long as the accuser is "credible" to them, and neither does the British system. Of course don't talk to the police. Talk to the media, talk in court if you have a jury, and self-publish all information about your case under your full name including of course naming your accuser (though this will martyr you in the UK), is my advice on how to be a male sexualist hero.

theantifeminist said...

"I refuse to see women in that way".

In that case, you are openly basing your world view on emotion and not reason then. Or to be more precise, your dick. Amazing that you will use an extremely reductionist and literal view of evolutionary psychology to condemn every man on Earth for wanking, as well as viewing them as predators who want to rape every female they see, yet you can't bring yourself to view your sweet and fluffy sexual resources - women - as equally evolutionary and selfish gene driven animals.

Well, there's a mountain of evolutionary psychology theory and even experiments, to explain why most men - including you - have the pussy blinders on when it comes to female agency.

Eivind Berge said...

Female sexual jealousy is a powerful force, but doesn't need to run society. There are polygamous societies even today, and what we had before feminism was a mixture of monogamy and tolerance, for example by not persecuting the sex trade or having unreasonable definitions of rape. I don't deny that when given a choice and led by the old hags who rise to political power, women as a group will impose hateful antisex feminism, but there is no reason why men need to do their bidding. It is commonly assumed that law enforcement is guiltless because they are just following orders, but I don't see it that way. I think they are just as evil and guilty as the Nazis and it is morally right to resist them by any and all means. I see it as a civil war between men because men are perpetrating most of the violence against sexuality, which is sadly a one-way track at this time. I jumped for joy when that hero took a stand against the FBI, but such resistance is years between. Our resistance wouldn't even have to be violent if only enough men would be conscientious objectors to the sex laws! This can be promoted and carried out even in a democracy!

Maybe you should notice who is actually perpetrating the violence against us instead of blaming female nature? And also that kind of bitterness seems to have destroyed your ability to have meaningful personal relationships with women and is an ingredient in your pathological defense of porn and masturbation. Altogether a very unhealthy view. Yes, people can be evil in lots of ways under the right circumstances, but paying too much attention to that makes you completely isolated. If you only believe in selfishness, then you might be right in some sense, but it is better to have the ability to love. I don't strive for hyper-rationality in this area because it is so depressing and may even be wrong. You said yourself Ghislaine Maxwell is a true anti-feminist/male sexualist heroine, so there you go, not all women are like that, and you are not going to find the exceptions by retreating into your lonely pornotopia.

Anonymous said...

Threads like this one are hilarious when the "victims" say they enjoyed the "abuse" yet they can't accept they liked something that is considered so negative. So of course they blame all their life problems on the acceptable boogie man of "abuse", they feel guilty for liking something that society says is bad, etc. These testimonies so obviously destroy the abuse industry/puritan conservative narrative, and prove the abuse industry/puritan conservatives are simply the abusers, creating needless misery for everyone.

I was "abused" as a pre-pubescent and I enjoyed it, I wanted it to happen again. As an adult, I have no attraction to pre-pubescents myself, and chose a different path in life for different reasons, but I have no guilt over this, nor do I believe I was "abused", nor would I condemn "abusers" morally, although I would discourage some behavior for other practical reasons. I experimented, enjoyed, moved on, and appreciate other things. It's almost like I'm an adult who accepts responsibility for my life...

My favorite reply to that poor confused victim of the abuse industry in the thread above is this: "It is normal, God made this thing called sex for pleasure it is sacred for adults consensually." LOL. Yes, remember when God made sex pleasurable, but also stipulated that it is only sacred when done under the modern legal concept of consensual adult behavior?

People are retarded and getting dumber by the day.

Eivind Berge said...

Well said! Yes, so much of the abuse industry is about creating problems for their own sake out of something that might otherwise be harmless or positive. We are unable to subject sexuality to a rational cost-benefit analysis because it is taboo to question the current attitudes and restrictions unless the aim is to make them even more draconian. The dogmas and moral prohibitions involved muddy the waters so completely that no light can be shone on the subject and the witch-doctors are allowed to impose “treatments” and punishments at will.

And people don’t have to be unintelligent to fall for it, because they compartmentalize. Antisex is a religion, where reason doesn’t apply, though they may be highly intelligent in other ways, kind you like you can have brilliant scientists in their fields who also believe in Creationism. So the same people who will carefully weigh the evidence for benefit versus harm of, say, a COVID vaccine, will accept unlimited measures to crack down on underage sexuality without ever admitting that the “cure” might be worse than the disease or considering whether there even was a disease to begin with.

With COVID I do believe there is a disease, and I’ve yet to hear anyone say they enjoy it like they do sex, though many are asymptomatic. So, sure, give us the vaccine unless it is really harmful. There are some tendencies to hysteria there too, though, not just with the measures but lately with punishments too. The UK is now up to threatening with ten years in prison just for lying about which countries you have visited before arriving there. That’s pushing it into the territory of antisex legislation, though in my view it would be a relief if society could pick something like this to be unreasonably draconian about instead of sex.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the UK imprisoned a man, a brilliant one by the way, for an indefinite period only because he refused to adhere to the dominant narrative. He died of COVID in jail a couple of week ago; the whole story can be read on Tom O'Carrol's blog here:

I wonder where the organizations for "human rights" are in cases like this?

theantifeminist said...

Looks like Steven Freeman at least knew who the enemy were, unlike Tom O'Caroll and Eivind Berge.

"He became a bit of an angry old man, with biting observations of the ever-shrinking room for dissent by those with “one penis too many”. Bure, the sex-offender re-education camp where he was caged for his last nine years, run almost entirely by women, with a few men in junior roles, will certainly have confirmed his anti-feminism."

BTW. Eivind...lucky boy?

Anonymous said...

The experience of the "Anonymous" above is far from uncommon. In fact, according to the Finnish study below, which is relatively new (2017) and based on a big sample (more than 11,000 respondents):

"Only 16% (n = 35) of the children who reported having sexual experiences with a person at least five years older assessed the experience as constituting sexual abuse. A little over half of the respondents (51%) had not experienced the incident as sexual abuse"


"Of all the children who had sexual experiences with a person at least five years older, 34% evaluated the experience as positive and 27% as insignificant".

This means that only 39% evaluated the experience as negative, and this is even more noteworthy given the fact that the results of the study do not differentiate between wanted and unwanted contacts and if force, intimidation or blackmail was reported or not.

Link to the study:

Eivind Berge said...

And that study is even more impressive in the context of a culture consumed by antisex bigotry. It is encouraging that the propaganda falls far short of instilling the knee-jerk reaction it wants that all that be considered abuse. There is clearly an extreme distortion between what people's actual experiences are and what gets reported in the mainstream media, where ONLY the "abuse" perspective is permitted.

The Antifeminist referred to the case of the latest victim of the female sex offender charade, 52-year-old Tedria Fluellen jailed for 14 years for sex with a teenage male student and asked if the boy was lucky. This woman is admittedly not the hottest female "sex offender," and I am certainly not looking for postmenopausal women now, but as a teen boy, sure I would have been thrilled. If the boy was actually coerced, then I agree he wasn't lucky, though I would have classified it as generic abuse rather than "sexual abuse" worthy of such extreme punishment. There is nothing in the story to convince me he was unwilling, however. Just the usual distortion where any sequence of events whatsoever gets twisted into "abuse," and there is no description of force here. So he probably felt lucky too. So what if he had told his family that he was gay? She gave him the opportunity to experience a woman and he went for it. "Police said the boy said Fluellen told him 'you don’t have to be gay' shortly before or after they had sex" -- okay, that doesn't sound very threatening. Where is the abuse in this? Apparently he wasn't altogether gay anyway and the woman is completely innocent. 14 years for an empty sex crime is par for the course now even to women.

theantifeminist said...

I remember covering the conviction of Steven Freeman on my site, and of all the madness I've seen since, it still stands out. Perhaps, looking back, we will say it represented peak paedohysteria. A man effectively jailed for life for possessing drawings. Or perhaps we will look back, especially with his death in prison, as the real start of the feminist sexual holocaust against men?

Note to any progressive 'MAPs' here - Steven Freeman was jailed under a law created by 'New Labour', given an indeterminate sentence that was created by 'New Labour' (and repealed by the Conservative party), and to his death defiantly proclaimed the truth - that there was nothing wrong with being attracted to young teenagers, and there was no 'crime' in owning drawings of teenagers, and that the reason why he was in prison was because of feminists and women. He should be your martyr. Amazing that a homosexual can see this but so few heterosexual male sexualists can. Presumably it's because they have pussy blinders on.

Eivind - the boy in that teacher/student sex case was 16 (the age of consent being 17 in that State). The family were furious with the punishment (16 years), and told reporters she should have been given life.

As regards that study, yes - given that it didn't differentiate between truly exploitative sex and so on, and the fact it was conducted in the present age of therapeutic and media brainwashing of the 'victim', it counts as overwhelming evidence against the abuse industry. There have been many similar studies showing the same thing, especially from the 70's and 80's. I'm surprised the academics and everybody involved in publishing the study haven't all been cancelled.

Anonymous said...

@ the antifeminist:

As you can read in the linked paper, the respondents in that study were school children from 6th and 9th grade that answered the questions anonymously. Therefore, therapeutic and media brainwashing of the 'victims' could not take place.

Eivind Berge said...

I have the utmost respect and sympathy for Steven Freeman. I wasn't familiar with his case (or had forgotten, though that seems unlikely since it is so grotesque), so I didn't rush to write an obituary, but I see now that he is a true hero. I don't think it is necessarily fruitful to have a sympathy contest, but the tragedy of his martyrdom easily rivals the female sex offender charade, I agree.

I am just absolutely appalled that they do this to both men and women. We live in a hateful world with monsters in charge who can't be reasoned with and don't understand reason because they literally believe in the reality of "abuse" that can't be discerned as such via any mode of human understanding, just pure gibberish.

While it may be true that young and pretty women have more of a functional (unofficial) pussy pass than Tedria Fluellen for example, it doesn't matter to the dominant narrative how attractive the woman is nor how much the boy enjoys her. Of course, it would also be evil to punish old women for being uglier than the "appropriate" lovers for teenage boys, but at least that is a discernible concept in the real world. If the antisex bigots cared about such opportunity cost to a boy's sex life in the short window when it is socially acceptable to have underage girlfriends, they would also warn against masturbation like I am doing, which they don't. Even I don't claim masturbation is traumatizing, however, just ill-advised since it cuts into the good things you could have had.

According to the antisex bigots, a smoking hot 20-year-old girl would be equally "abusing" her blissful underage lovers as a 50-year-old, and if she gets a lighter sentence then that's a failing of the system rather then built into the feminist worldview. What they believe in can therefore be reduced to black magic by age difference. That's all there is to it, black magic which is present at 17 with a lover a few years older and then mysteriously disappears at 18 even with lovers many decades older. It is a mind-bogglingly empty concept considering how influential it is in shaping persecutions and proves that belief in witchcraft is still very much with us. It's so bizarre to ponder that nothing can invalidate it to the minds of the believers -- no matter how much the boy enjoys sex, he is still "abused" and likely will be traumatized. I wonder if the witchcraft accusations we know from history even went that far? I mean if an accused witch was supposedly casting spells and whatnot, if no one ever noticed any bad effects after decades had passed, would they still believe in potential trauma for life? I seriously doubt it. Antisex bigotry really does seem to take the cake as far any superstition ever, and targeting women is the absolute pinnacle of human stupidity.

Eivind Berge said...

"The respondents in that study were school children from 6th and 9th grade that answered the questions anonymously. Therefore, therapeutic and media brainwashing of the 'victims' could not take place."

I disagree with this statement. They would at least have been exposed to some sort of "catch a predator" show on TV or the Internet (and a steady stream of news stories about the same), parents are a big influence and some of those will be hysterical, and sex education in school would certainly be slanted that way. Even the kids themselves will propagate cultural myths among peers, and I'm amazed this one doesn't have better impact considering how much energy is devoted to promoting it.

theantifeminist said...

"As you can read in the linked paper, the respondents in that study were school children from 6th and 9th grade that answered the questions anonymously. Therefore, therapeutic and media brainwashing of the 'victims' could not take place."

Agreed - the abuse industry couldn't get their hands on at least all of these youngsters, but as far as brainwashing goes, it begins basically from birth. This is the first generation on Earth reared from birth in extreme paedohysteria.

Eivind Berge said...

Nope, I don’t see the relevance of drawings to nofap since I doubt they serve to promote masturbation in any significant way. Steven Freeman was an artist and art collector, the issue here is artistic expression and child porn legislation used in that capacity is a pure blasphemy law, meaning to obliterate the very idea that “underage” sex can be anything other than rape and abuse. Steven Freeman did through art what Gabriel Matzneff does through literature and we do by ideological activism -- celebrate sexual freedom and joy. The feminist antisex state wants to crack down on all of us. It was simply easiest for them to criminalize “porn” first, which now includes drawings and texts even though nobody ever masturbates to such, then they came for those they can accuse of “promoting” illegal sex as they do to Matzneff, and we would be next in line just for advocating legal reform. They might expand the scope of these other criminal concepts some more or create a new one to get us too because morally and conceptually there is absolutely no difference between our work and that of these other men. We are all dead men walking whom society cannot tolerate anymore, all facing a death penalty with varying degrees of completion. With some luck we can live out our natural lives before it progresses so far, but that is inexorably where society is headed.

Anonymous said...

"Eivind - the boy in that teacher/student sex case was 16 (the age of consent being 17 in that State). The family were furious with the punishment (16 years), and told reporters she should have been given life."

That is completely and totally absolutely bonkers insane, the UK/USA deserves everything that's coming to it, unfortunately it has also trapped a few good people inside as it goes down.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes. But why are we such a small fellowship who can see that it is bonkers?! Or will shout it out, anyway. I know many more can see that the emperor is naked, but they remain silent. And there is absolutely no hope for male sexuality when this is what they do to women who are nice to boys. An older man with a young teen girl is just a normal relationship, but the women are doing boys a very obvious favor, yet it gets twisted into the most heinous crime and people accept this as "justice"? Reversing these convictions should be the very lowest-hanging fruit of sexualist reform. At least the totally beautiful female "sex offenders" such as Brittany Zamora and Jennifer Fichter should be extremely low-hanging fruit and ought to even convince some women that feminism is hateful to them, yet they are still locked up for 20+ years. I have nothing to offer but total despair and words that will stand to prove that at least someone cared while these persecutions were ongoing. Unless they manage to cancel the Internet Archive as well.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

"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."

I had no idea about this and I completely agree with you! I read lawyer James Kalb at Catholic World Report every month, and I'm sure he would agree with you. You might contact him to get some ideas.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

By the way, according to James Kalb's latest essay, current rule is dependent upon a weak people, and the best way to have a weak people is to have weak men, so I think that current feminist laws and court system is more a tool to keep men weak, for our rulers to keep on ruling. What do you think?

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know if it occurs to them and it's a conscious strategy, but it certainly serves feminism to have weak men. Maybe they just accidentally discovered how to accomplish this by playing victims all the time and exploiting men's tendency to white-knight and lack of solidarity for other men's sexual rights. Will check out James Kalb, thanks for the tip.

theantifeminist said...

"By the way, according to James Kalb's latest essay, current rule is dependent upon a weak people, and the best way to have a weak people is to have weak men, so I think that current feminist laws and court system is more a tool to keep men weak, "

Interesting. I haven't yet read the essay, but does it accept that feminists are in control? Or is it yet another argument claiming that feminists are tolerated by the elite (men) because they are useful (in this case, it keeps the mass of men weak and easier to control)?

If the former, we still have to understand how and why feminists got into control. If the latter, it doesn't really explain how paedohysteria and #MeToo of the last few years has been directed against powerful men more than anyone else.

Also, why do feminists everywhere want Third world men, including or above all Muslim men, flooding their societies if it's about keeping men weak?

Eivind Berge said...

Another disturbing instance of hateful antisex persecution:

A teenage girl was rescued from the clutches of a 22-year-old man who had allegedly lured her to a Florida motel room where they had sex, according to an incident report and newly released body camera footage....

Authorities said the girl, who was wearing only a T-shirt and underwear at the time, thanked James for saving her and said she couldn’t believe she didn’t recognize Thompson as a “pedophile,” according to an incident report obtained by The Post.

“He seemed so nice,” the young victim told James, adding that the pair had sex after meeting Thompson online.

So let me get this straight: the two of them had sex, but only after being "rescued" by busybodies and cops who stalk them does she realize it was "pedophilia"? He only "seemed" nice but the technicality of a law changes that? It doesn't say her age, but we can infer something like 16 or 17 since they are so obsessed with asking the man's age to make sure they can legally persecute him for probably being just barely over the age difference that can be allowed. The cop threatens "I am going to lose my mind" if he doesn't state his age immediately.

A case of successful brainwashing, but given how much pressure is put on girls to conform to this victim role as violent thugs barge in to scare the crap out of them, can we blame them?