Thursday, July 15, 2021

Journal of Metaphysical Bitcoin Research, Volume 1, Issue 1

I thought I should write a post explaining why Bitcoin is so appealing those who get it, or my opinion anyway of what the essence is of this almost religious feeling. I believe bitcoin is a metaphysical level-up from anything having to do with wealth that came before. If this distinction is lost on you, bitcoin is just another investment to you like penny stock #234,234 or a new kind of tulip, but if you do get it, oh boy is this a whole other ballgame! For the first time, humans can store wealth as a pure abstraction. Bitcoin is nothing less than the link between platonic heaven and finance, access to which is a divine superpower.

Platonic heaven contains all possible ideas including all cryptocurrencies. Ideas are cheap and don't accomplish any of this on their own. Maybe someone had a vague idea of "digital cash" before, but it couldn't be implemented properly and certainly not be reliably transacted with, so there was no real link between ideas and money, no solid reliable gateway from one realm to the other. In order to understand how different and fundamentally poorer the world was before bitcoin, we need to consider the best one could do in that direction.

When I was a kid, we thought it would be grand to have a Swiss bank account that the authorities couldn't touch. Even if that had been successful, little did I know that something (then) unimaginably better would come along which makes bank accounts sound like a joke. And of course, a bank balance is merely a debt to you. Better than debt is cash in hand, but that isn't platonic either and at the mercy of governments. We did have something better than fiat too, but commodities such as gold or art are mere physical possessions that can be physically seized, plus they aren't very liquid when you want to transact with their value.

The closest you came to having value in abstract form before bitcoin was intellectual property, if you managed to write a good book or something. Ideas could in a sense be traded, but it was awfully complicated and depended on copyright laws and enforcement by brute force. So you had a Rube Goldberg machine that some people could use to "mine" and resell abstract value, rather than a sure link between ideas and finance. Espionage might also qualify, and expertise. You could sell certain kinds of secrets, but again, it was an extremely hazardous or exclusive business.

I should also mention social status. By belonging to the right group, you can have favors done to you. A gift economy works sort of like a blockchain where wealth is stored in the idea that you deserve it. But again, the link is extremely fuzzy compared to the hard mathematics and self-enforcing consensus of bitcoin.

It took the invention of Nakamoto consensus and the miracle that it caught on as a trusted asset to establish the link I am talking about. So here we are, with a whole other metaphysical level of wealth that you can obtain, hold and transact with as if it were physical possessions, only better and safer. There are also shitcoins, but they only derive some fleeting value from your ability to scam people into thinking they are not superfluous, so pay them no heed other than ways to get more bitcoin.

In slightly less lofty terms, the power of bitcoin lies in its permissionlessness, which is really the same thing as pure abstraction, abstracted from anything but pure freedom. I need nobody's permission to make a new private key which controls an address that nobody needs permission to send to. How different this is from anything that came before is mind-boggling, but perhaps a good majority of people are so accustomed to asking permission for everything they do that they don't even consider this possibility.


Anonymous said...

Bitcoin is completely incorporated into the system and compromised through regulation. It is surveillance garbage.

In your dream of your Swiss bank account, did that include telling everyone how much money you have in your account and the entire transaction history in and out of your bank account? Because that's what Bitcoin is. Your pseudonym is destroyed the moment you pay for anything attached to your name, or deal in any way with an official exchange. L2 "solutions" offer no real improvement, every move in Bitcoin is transparent and recorded forever.

Fees make Bitcoin prohibitively expensive to use as digital currency, so you'll never buy groceries with it unless you want to pay a huge premium for no reason.

When miners are not rewarded anymore with coins for mining in a few decades, the network will either be completely hacked from no security or extremely expensive to use from fees to make it secure, far more expensive than fees to wire money, or fees to use CBDC's.

There is no fungibility in Bitcoin, so it is far more alike to owning a piece of real estate than currency. If the government wants to take your Bitcoin, it is simple. If the government wants to prevent exchanges from accepting your Bitcoin, it is simple. If the government marks your Bitcoin as tainted from anything you or previous owners of that Bitcoin did with it, it is simple. All of these things will destroy the value of your Bitcoin because you cannot use it or transfer it. If you don't believe me, simply look up the Bitcoin wallets that contain coins from previous hacks of exchanges. All of the coins are still there because they can't be used, making them worthless.

Coin washing services are prohibitively expensive, mostly illegal, time consuming, and require a higher level of technical knowledge where if you screw up even once, the whole process for privacy is ruined. Also, many exchanges and governments are now marking washed Bitcoins as suspicious and preventing their use.

There is only one virtual currency that is fungible, private, and the most popular in its class, like using digital cash or gold: that is Monero. It's really that simple at this point. It cannot be shut down because companies and governments cannot see how much anyone has, or the details of any transaction. It has survived multiple de-listings, the fees to use it are pocket change, and it can be bought on decentralized exchanges so they can't stop its growth. The only criticism I can think of at this point is that Monero payments are not instant, which will slow down its everyday use. But there are e-commerce privacy projects built on Monero tech like Zano that fix this problem, making Monero the ultimate store of value, the Swiss bank account, while its children are like the Swiss bank debit card. This is the future, Bitcoin is completely obsolete and dangerous, just ask Ross Ulbricht.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, bitcoin is pseudonymous not anonymous. Once they know what you have, government taking your bitcoin might be as "simple" as torturing you, but that is still profoundly different than them controlling the asset.

Bitcoin is above all a reality grounder, and we need that. We need the public ledger so we know we are on the same page, not just about bitcoin but really anything digital you want to prove the existence of. You can construct various private networks backed by bitcoin reserves, but ultimately we need transactions at the ground level to be public so we can be absolutely sure there is no cheating or fractional reserve nonsense going on. This transparency is a good thing and loss of fungibility is only in your head, not in the blockchain. Any miner or merchant or trader can keep a blacklist if they want, but we don't need them as they can't enforce it for all. And coin mixing isn't any more illegal than other transactions that don't involve fiat, lol. The day you can't legally do things like CoinJoin they have banned bitcoin, but it will still survive. If you think you can't break KYC today without breaking the law then you are deferential to laws that don't exist yet anywhere as far as I know (though I know there are proposals in the US to make some of those transactions reportable -- which is fundamentally unenforceable and should be met with laughter).

As to the fees and blocksize limit, I used to agree with you during the scaling wars, but now I see it was great wisdom to keep blocks small and it doesn't really prevent scaling in other ways. You can't have a blockchain that is used for every little purchase without constructing the Tower of Babel, and you know how that ends. By avoiding this fate Bitcoin is out of reach of governments forever, always censorship resistant. If you buy a 1TB microSD card today you can keep a full archival Bitcoin node on it for another five years; that's how accessible running a full node is and will always be just taking into account modest advances in hardware. The biggest hard drives commonly sold today can already hold a century of blockchain. And fees will support mining when no new coins are made -- in fact they are almost enough already.

Monero might have a niche for a while but ultimately it is garbage. Will be bloated too if widely used; I don't know if it has a limit but that's a fundamental tradeoff you just don't get around and Bitcoin's Lightning Network and those kinds of solutions are as good as it gets for mass adoption.

Eivind Berge said...

All I am saying is Bitcoin is metaphysically perfect, totally balanced in everything from privacy to blocksize to money supply, and the only base level blockchain we need. I am not claiming it will necessarily get easier to use or the exchange rate will go up. Both could be badly hurt by government crackdowns (already happening in China right now, which also shows how resilient it is with miners relocating and not much disruption even to the price). It really doesn't mix with government or fit in this world; it's too good to be true that Bitcoin will be tolerated and we will get more freedom. Of course governments will fight something so anarchistic. Instead we are moving towards the surveillance of every penny (or digital currencies they impose), and if you can't prove everything is legal and taxed then it will be considered money laundering and blocked from use anywhere. It won't help you that the origin is a Monero transaction either whose trace stops there, because burden of proof is on you. Perhaps neither can be used for most things, but bitcoin is simply as good as it gets, can at least be used to transact with other freedom-loving people for things that don't impact the fiat economy too much, at which point they can stop you of course. As far as I'm concerned, every bitcoin is fungible and I think it’s nonsense that anything is sitting there unspent because it is "worthless" due to taint. More likely they lost the keys or didn’t feel like spending it yet. Why wouldn’t they at least do some of their own mixing and sell it on the street or something? CoinJoin is trustless, I've heard, but haven't looked at the details, and fees at commercial mixers aren't too outrageous.

And it will always ground your reality. Everything else can be fake news, but you know your node keeps the real blockchain with all its implications for the people transacting on it. That alone is enough reason to run a node even if you don’t have any bitcoin (which is pretty much my situation). Try it, and you will notice that reality is a lot less relative than you have been led to believe. As much as I would like to view the blockchain in a way that I have 1000 bitcoins in my wallet right now, I can't, and the assurance of knowing what is real or not is worth all the fiat wealth in the world.

Anonymous said...

Nothing to do with bitcoins, but interesting anyway:

Eivind Berge said...

Good to see that French judges don't take their antisex bigotry so seriously on the personal level. Men really do live a double life, but sadly it doesn't carry the least bit over to politics -- unless anyone can show there was anything different about the rulings of this judge in sex cases? I bet there wasn't, and that shows how absurdly hopeless it is. I see he was even a prosecutor before he became a judge, and his wife was a judge too.

Eivind Berge said...

Even his defense is a cliché of the abuse industry, that he had been exposed to abuse himself, so absolutely nothing changes:

"His lawyer Pauline Neveu said that Bailly was suffering from PTSD relating to a trial in 2007 of rapist and serial killer Pierre Bodein, when Bailly had been chief prosecutor."

But I bet he and his wife are genuinely into the activities they were advertising and went well beyond "fantasies." They might even beat these charges based on the cyclical abuse excuse and carry on, as judges too, where they will be fully on board with the absolute rape age law.

Anonymous said...

We know that women initiate the vast majority of divorces, and under the hollow pretext of "the benefit of the child," child support payments are extracted from men and given to women as rewards for destroying their former families. Should male sexualism address this issue -- which is of vital importance in most MRA circles -- and should it propose a significant reduction of, or even the complete abolition of, child support? More broadly, should the principle of "the best interests of the child" reign supreme at all, and should "women and children first!" be the cornerstone of any public policy guidelines; or is it a great contravention of justice to have these romantical and gynocentric dogmas inextricably entrenched as domestic policy?

Eivind Berge said...

Those are good questions which I haven't thought trough, but it seems pretty clear that child support needs to be reduced. Exactly how is food for thought for manifesto writing, though I consider finalizing our sex laws a higher priority.

On topic, Malaysia is literally steamrollering bitcoin miners:

That's pretty wild government crackdown, but the beauty of Bitcoin is it adapts. If in ten years mining power is a hundred times more than today or 99% has been steamrollered, security will be equal. Actually that method is a great way to ensure that no one has unused mining power with which to attack the network, so governments are shooting themselves in the foot if they think destroying miners will work. If they were smart, they would stockpile miners for a 51% attack, except that too would be futile because they don't have enough resources and any damage will be transient anyway, would only mean you have to wait a few more blocks before you can be confident your transaction is irreversible. Your private keys are always safe from such attacks, for those who don't understand how they work; there is absolutely no way to "hack" bitcoin. Except possibly by advanced quantum computers, but those too can be defeated by never reusing an address you have spent from, which is already recommended as best practice anyway.

A good read for those who are interested in how quantum computing might affect bitcoin:

I don't much believe quantum computers will mature, but it's good to be prepared.

Jack said...

Big problem with Bitcoins in Europe, the moment you convert some into euros, your bank terminates your account. Scoundrel banks.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, but you can afford to lose some bank accounts. Think of them as disposable until you have one left. Can use to prolong the time you can use an account because the money will be coming from private individuals. The bank will investigate, but by the time they get around to establishing it was for bitcoin you are done with that bank anyway.

Anonymous said...

lol they control bitcoin entirely, that's what it means when they prevent you from using it because you're blacklisted. KYC is totally enforced and people have gone to jail for fraud and tax evasion, Mr. laughs. What planet do you live on? If you think the government is a threat, armed gangs also show up for your bitcoin when you pay the wrong guy and he looks at how much bitcoin you have. Many examples already of all of this, I'm not doing the work for you.

Monero is auditable. There is no question about anything.

Do you understand that if fees are $2000 per transaction to move your Bitcoin, people will just use CBDC's or wire transfers?

Lightning network changes nothing. If you're gonna ignore all the bodies in the street, you will have to learn the hard way that privacy is the most valuable asset. You've been warned.

Eivind Berge said...

It doesn't matter how good Monero is when it's not the cryptocurrency that humanity is adopting. Monero is currently altcoin number 26 with a market cap of 3.5 billion dollars, which is one half per cent of Bitcoin's value. You can have as good privacy as you want with bitcoin if you work at it, and it gets even better now with Taproot and other advances. If you are worried that someone will see how much you have then simply mix your coins before paying and pay from small inputs. That is a ludicrous concern since it is so easy to get around. How unimaginative can you be? You are comparing to idiot users only who don't even take the basic precaution of using a new address for every transaction, which has been encouraged since the beginning for privacy reasons and does a pretty good job at it. I know plenty of people are careless and will fall victim to thugs from the government or otherwise, but that's just how it is. Monero isn't going to be number one no matter how much you or I wish it would be, so we simply have to adapt to reality if we want to be part of the real thing. I have no interest in supporting an obscure altcoin -- been there, done that already when I mined Zcash from day one and nothing good came of it despite that having even better privacy features than Monero.

Your fee estimates are wildly exaggerated too. I think the most it has been was briefly up to $20 for a standard transaction if you wanted very fast confirmation, and now it's back down to almost nothing with the mempool clearing out daily lately. Even if fees should rise very high, that's just what needs to happen to prevent a tragedy of the commons. We can't have people backing up their files in the blockchain and things like that. Remember that every new node needs to download all transactions, and once this is only feasible in a data center, privacy is gone. Monero doesn't have a problem with bloat only because it's so unpopular, and if the solution isn't fees if you eventually get there then you don't care about privacy after all.

Anonymous said...

So your argument boils down to Monero isn't as popular so everything else doesn't matter. Not very smart. You're also wrong - subaddresses all lead back to the main address, and privacy doesn't exist on taproot and lightning network, it's only a facade that is and has been easily defeated. Zcash has worse privacy features than Monero, Zcash is not even private by default. Coin mixing is both an extra hassle that requires care, it taints your coins, and it costs money to use, every time you want to do it. Of course the transaction fees haven't gone above $20, miners are still being rewarded with coins, which will end in only a few decades, then you will have the problems I outlined above.

You have no argument to refute any of my points. I don't care if you support Monero or not. Choose a different coin if you think something is better, but the unaddressed problems with Bitcoin seriously jeopardize its medium-term longevity.

Eivind Berge said...

No, my arguments don't boil down to popularity. Bitcoin is superior in every way except not offering good privacy by default. And anyway, yes, we have to work with what we have. The correct approach, given that Bitcoin will remain dominant, is to think that every improvement can be a soft fork at most (which requires consensus, of course), or realistically anything you can build yourself on top of it. Using your imagination for anything beyond that (or messing with other coins) is a waste of time. Once you internalize that limitation and begin to ponder the possibilities, you realize that Bitcoin is really limitless as it is. It is a force of nature that we can forge in limitless ways, but we can't change its fundamental protocol any more than a goldsmith can change the atomic number of gold -- because then it wouldn't be gold he is working with and it would be pointless to even consider it. And it is a damn good thing that these things can't change, because imagine having to deal with the laws of physics (or bitcoin protocol) not being constant! Bitcoin fell down from the sky much like the periodic table and we have to take it as we found it. If a coin has a known creator or is still open to hard forks (like Ethereum for example, which is a complete joke centralized around Vitalik Buterin) then that's a sure sign it's not worthy of our attention because it won't have these immutable properties that also give it lasting value.

If you think bitcoin has "subaddresses" and then you don't understand how it works and I suggest you educate yourself before coming back to discuss it. Here's a hint: with hierarchical deterministic wallets (that are optional; you can create all addresses randomly if you want) they all lead back to the same SEED, but no one can tell that they originate from the same seed or wallet without knowing the seed. The seed has nothing at all to do with the blockchain, where all addresses look random to an observer. If by "subaddress" you mean sending to another address that you also own, that looks just like any other transaction and can't be traced either if you mix it well. Perhaps you are confused because Monero really does have subaddresses as part of the protocol if I understand it correctly, which I don't like philosophically and makes it fundamentally inferior. The point of HD wallets is simply so they only need to be backed up once; they have NOTHING to do with the protocol and don't hurt your privacy in the slightest as long as you keep the seed secret. Every address is a "main address" -- there is simply no such thing as subdivisions and "main address" is not even a word either because all addresses are created equal. Methinks you have been duped by propagandists for Monero and not bothered taking a good look at Bitcoin. Every day I learn something more about bitcoin, for example by following the discussion on the Core devs mailing list, and that's how you should spend your time in this space instead of barking up the wrong trees. And the more I learn, the more magnificent I realize it is and how misguided altcoins are.

Eivind Berge said...

Here we go with the most horrific implication of the UK's anonymity for sex accusers that I alluded to earlier: when naming the accused implies who the accuser is, men are simply disappeared. Except in this case there is word of an arrest, but the man seems entirely gagged from talking about his own case.

"An English Premier League club has suspended a member of its first team squad after he was arrested on suspicion of child sex offenses. The player, who has not been named for legal reasons, was arrested on Friday and has been released on police bail. CNN has not named the club to avoid identifying the player."

So, yet another depth of hell, and the scale is unknown because non-celebrities will simply disappear without even this notice. CNN can't even name his football club, so monstrous is the taboo power of the crimen exceptum! And when you can't talk about your own case, obviously this impedes your defense to the limited arena of a secret trial, a small stage tightly controlled by feminism instead of the whole world that you of course should have the right to speak to and influence politically about such laws and verdicts.

I am guessing the football player got accused by his daughter? Because sex abuse trumps literally every other consideration in the world, we will never know except by gossip and the criminal speech it would be to name her and now also the accused or anything leading to him. This is by far the most scary situation feminism has accomplished yet, very hard to surpass this unless they start sending death squads to execute men on the spot.

Eivind Berge said...

It is astonishing that the British (and Australians do the same thing) tolerate such an absurdly draconian law that you simply get disappeared and gagged and barred from defending yourself outside a secret trial, all in the name of protecting the identity of a sex accuser. Absolutely horrifying, evil and insane. Yeah, only summary execution upon accusation remains now; all other rights that can be removed have been, and they will gladly scorch the whole earth to defend the most minuscule insult against an accuser such as naming her, even if only to prove her accusation false.

A juggernaut, indeed. Just imagine applying this standard to other crimes... "A man was arrested on accusation of financial crime today, working for a company we cannot name for legal reasons..." wouldn't fly, would it, but for a "sex offense" people don't even notice there is anything amiss with preventing the man from speaking or being spoken about for life, or whatever remains of it in prison after he has been so absurdly denied the right to defend himself.

Eivind Berge said...

It isn't just for sex crimes that prosecution has gotten out of hand...

12 years for chatting about terrorism that nothing came of and maintaining a forum, but get this, no criminal intent! ("Men han er fornøyd med gjennomslag på mye av jussen, og at han har manglet subjektiv skyld for noe av det han er tiltalt for.") So just inadvertently talking about terrorism with someone who had such plans is enough to get you 12 years now, in Norway. This is beyond absurd and just sheer terror against citizens. Extremely frightening, but then again perhaps they selectively persecute Muslims now and don't give a damn what they actually did or intended. Looks like the gloves really came off on that front, unless we are seeing a general trend towards a draconian society no matter what the crime is. And sometimes I feel that's the case. For example the UK is building four new mega-prisons as we speak:

"If all the prisons are successfully built, a total of 13,360 new prison places will have been created, massively expanding the prison system."

And they are in a hurry too, weirdly linking more punishment to boosting the economy:

"Now the programme is being pushed through faster as part of a spending package to ‘boost the economy’ following the impact of the coronavirus. A new government taskforce has been created called ‘Project Speed’ led by the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak to make the construction happen faster."

I doubt they will have enough sex offenders to fill them all, so gotta branch out into punishing everything harder and harder and invent new crimes left and right.

Eivind Berge said...

More about what this chatting “terrorist” actually did here:

He basically just supported the Islamist movement, didn’t get involved with actual terrorism or terrorists at least not deliberately.

Another disturbing verdict:

What is so fucked up about this is there was no actual plan.

Etter bevisførselen er retten ikke i tvil om at X, på tross av sin unge alder, hadde tatt en bevisst beslutning om å gjennomføre en terrorhandling, selv om planene ikke hadde materialisert seg i en konkret plan, skriver tingrettsdommer Ingvild Boe Hornburg.

Which the law says is a requirement, not just the intent:§131

Den som har forsett om å fullbyrde et lovbrudd som nevnt i første ledd eller § 132, og foretar handlinger som legger til rette for og peker mot gjennomføringen, straffes for forsøk.

Judging by that conviction, however, it now looks like the mere intent to carry out “jihad” or whatever at that level of vagueness is enough and you don’t have to do anything to prepare for it or even come up with a plan, with 11 years being the normative punishment for this plain intent -- which is really just a state of mind, literally thoughtcrime (the 16-year-old boy got five years due to being a juvenile). The courts are not following their own laws. Either I was white-privileged or Christian-privileged to not get that treatment, or the climate has changed to where punishment is now a psychotic process where whoever they don’t like gets convicted. Which is pretty much what we expected from abolishing the jury…

The world has gone insane, and in light of these verdicts I need to advise that my blog is probably not a reliable example of what you can get away with today. Luckily I have tons of precedence for it being legal plus these new laws can't be retroactive... in theory, anyway. As we can see, there is good reason to be a nihilist about laws and just regard the “justice” system as a gang of thugs who do whatever they want. So yes, anonymity is probably the best strategy for self-preservation. Or conversely it also helps to be a celebrity and preferably go all out as a political entertainer like I do. Being somewhere in between is most dangerous. Once you become a target, you are much more vulnerable without the media being your friend. I can’t believe they aren’t problematizing these verdicts and am certain they would if it happened to me, including giving me ample room to speak. Why aren’t these activists for Islam wanting to show their faces in the news, anyway? That alone proves they are not only not terrorists, but not even serious activists of any sort. We’ve had a few respectable ones too such as Mulla Krekar, but these two unfairly convicted newcomers are adding nothing to the cause they were fantasizing about, just setting precedence for more draconian punishments. God help us if the courts are also going to use it against ethnic Norwegians.

Eivind Berge said...

Only one person in the comments there is sensible:

Hallvard Theodor Skullerud Thomas • for 21 dager siden
"Hadde tatt en bevisst beslutning om å gjennomføre en terrorhandling, selv om planene ikke hadde materialisert seg i en konkret plan, skriver tingrettsdommer Ingvild Boe Hornburg." Temmelig tåkete planer gutten hadde, og temmelig svak argumentasjon fra samme tingrettsdommer for å gjøre onde tanker til terrorisme, spør du meg. Blir jeg mordplanlegger av å fantasere om å skyte bileieren som rappet parkeringsplassen jeg holdt på å rygge inn på? Samme sak.

That is indeed what they have done, criminalized evil thoughts as an "attempt" to carry them out (which they didn't even try in my case whose only charge was incitement). Presumably this verdict might well get overturned since the law doesn't apply to just thoughtcrime if you pay attention to what it actually says, except the defense is so feckless they aren't even sure they want to appeal. Which reminds me I was preternaturally lucky with my lawyer Henrik Birkeland too out of all the fools I could have had.

The rest on that Resett site are blinded by racism and Islamophobia much like the typical conservative is with the sex laws. Can't these people think through what it means to have so hateful laws apply to all of us?

Eivind Berge said...

The Norwegian secret police released a new report on “right extremism” today which might be of interest.

Oddly, this is the first time I see the word “metapolitics.” I would have thought there is no such thing. This is how they define it:

Metapolitikk har blitt en sentral strategi for flere høyreekstreme miljøer som har en langsiktig målsetning om samfunnsendring. Metapolitikkens strategi er å påvirke befolkningen kulturelt og intellektuelt i den hensikt å skape oppslutning i befolkningen om å motvirke multikulturalisme. Metapolitikken bruker demokratiske prosesser for å fremme illiberale og antidemokratiske verdier. Således utgjør strategien en trussel mot det liberale demokratiets sentrale verdier som kulturelt og religiøst mangfold.

It is contrasted with accelerationism, where these poles are seen as two directions of right-extremist strategy. I don’t particularly agree that metapolitics is different from politics, and in any case I identify with neither and don’t fit into any of the categories discussed in that document. Male sexualism is not even on the radar, or even MRAs though incels are. While I am not exactly aspiring to have our movement labeled “extremist” with all the crap that entails of surveillance, our complete absence from the briefings of intelligence agencies is nonetheless another disappointing sign that the feminist sex laws are 100% secure. The only kinds of antifeminism they can think of must conform to one of two stereotypes or both: white supremacists who want traditional gender roles and hate gays, or incels who are pissed off that they can’t get laid without really bothering to oppose the sex laws either. So in conclusion, another depressing piece of evidence that the antisex juggernaut reigns supreme, consuming even the minds of whatever “extremists” the government considers a threat. What existed of the manosphere that the mainstream noticed when we thought we were getting a movement going ten to twenty years ago has disintegrated and been replaced by those dumb stereotypes that don't challenge what feminism is all about, the criminalization of sexuality.

As to metapolitics, I looked it up and agree it is a valid concept by the entirely different Wikipedia definition:

Metapolitics (sometimes written meta-politics) is metalinguistic talk about politics; a political dialogue about politics itself. In this mode, metapolitics takes on various forms of inquiry, appropriating to itself another way toward the discourse of politics and the political. It assumes a self-conscious role of mediating the analytic, synthetic, and normative language of political inquiry and politics itself.

But the way the police use "metapolitics" is just to disparage nonviolent, democratic politics that they don't agree with, lol.

Eivind Berge said...

Holy shit, the secrecy surrounding sex accusers is not just a British phenomenon anymore, plus goes beyond not being allowed to name them to not even getting to know who they are. Imagine serving 120 years in prison and not being told who your "victims" are! It is already reality.

A federal judge ruled that 21 people should receive a total of $3.46 million in restitution from Keith Raniere, the founder of Nxivm, for being victims of his racketeering, sex trafficking and forced labor crimes... "I don't know who the victims are. I don't know what they are asking," Raniere said... Many of the victims' identities were not revealed, as they were also mentioned in trial with pseudonyms.

So we hit another level already just when I thought it was unimaginable. This is beyond Kafkaesque. How are you supposed to defend yourself without knowing who is accusing you? Wouldn't that be rather indispensable information if this had anything to do with justice? Of course we know men are not supposed to be able to defend themselves when sexuality is in the picture, and the juggernaut ensures almost no one sees a problem with that either.

Eivind Berge said...

The juggernaut (thanks to a commenter for supplying it) is the best conceptualization of antisex bigotry I can think of for now. It needs a post of its own sometime. The juggernaut is a personification of a phenomenon so surreal it defies conventional political terms like special interest groups or injustice as we have known it before. “Miscarriage of justice” doesn't capture it either, because these accusations tend to be more empty than false. Only witch-hunts come close. The juggernaut is what takes over in one of those and shuts down rational thinking, to be replaced by either supernatural thinking or no thinking at all, which is basically what is going on now. Maybe the juggernaut is more or less always there and the only change is what happens to be the crimen exceptum that triggers it. Right now it is sexual offenses. The slightest reference to sexuality will do, like the mere initials of the accused sex cult leader mentioned above juxtaposed with a woman. As soon as a connection with sexuality is established, any and all legal principles go out the window and most bystanders are mentally paralyzed as well, from thinking anything at all is wrong with the persecution. It is simply seen as normal to impose unlimited punishment on anyone accused and unlimited compensation to “victims,” who don’t even need to identify themselves. It has long been a cliché that they should not have to testify because then they would be “revictimized,” but now that avenue too has been taken to its ultimate conclusion. With 120-year sentences the punishment of incarceration has also been exhausted, and of course any assets belonging to the accused are drained. There is still room for the juggernaut to grow, though, by reverting to even more brutal kinds “justice,” and I fear we haven’t seen the worst yet.

So that’s the best I can do to describe it, but if anyone has a better metaphor or whatever we need, please tell us.

Eivind Berge said...

An astonishingly draconian proposal against bitcoin here:

"Cryptocurrency exchanges could be forced to collect the details of people sending and receiving crypto under new rules proposed by the European Commission... In practice, this means that a service provider exchanging crypto on behalf of a customer would have to record their name, address, date of birth and account number, as well as the name of the intended recipient of the transfer. Anonymous crypto-asset wallets would also be banned under the new law – just as anonymous bank accounts already are – in an effort to make transactions using Bitcoin and other cryptos fully traceable."

They can't stop anonymity outside of exchanges, but it will make it harder to trade and depress the price. It is unclear to me whether banning "anonymous crypto-asset wallets" refers non-custodial wallets too. If so, it would be hilarious and of course unenforceable.

Eivind Berge said...

If you can remember twelve words, you can hold the seed to a secure bitcoin wallet in your head. Such brainwallets will be a thoughtcrime under this proposal unless you reveal any bitcoin in them. With that, government seeks to colonize and control this platonic realm which just opened up. That didn't take long, did it? (if the worst I fear here is actually what they are trying to do -- if just for exchanges and custodial wallets then much less bad).

Bitcoin is ideas, thoughts, speech, and shouldn't be subject to such restrictions :(

I suppose being so well trained to ask permission for every breath they take, most people won't miss brainwallets or any kind of private wallets because they didn't know they existed, didn't notice humans briefly had permissionless money with the ability to put wealth in Plato's heaven and right to do it anonymously too. So there will be no meaningful opposition to this law.

Eivind Berge said...

Here’s how to make a brainwallet while you still can do so legally, or one easy way I THINK you can trust (not recommended for very serious amounts though; use an airgapped computer to generate the seed for that which you destroy or at least secure erase afterwards). 1. Download the app Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet. 2. Commit to memory the twelve words it gives to back up your wallet. 3. Write down one or more receiving addresses so you or anyone you give an address to can put bitcoin into your head. 4. DELETE the app without writing down the backup information anywhere, as it’s not a true brainwallet unless no physical/electronic copy of the seed or private keys exists. Now you can put any amount of bitcoin on the address(es) you wrote down (preferably in a manner which doesn’t require KYC, which should still be accessible), and if you ever want to spend from them, for example install Mycelium again and restore the wallet from your brain, whereby your private keys will be regenerated in the same order you wrote their addresses down and your balance will appear. Bitcoin in a brainwallet will die with you if you don’t spend them, so you can even take them with you, either through cryopreservation or to the afterlife where the platonic nature of bitcoin can shine once again.

I think brainwallets will be super sexy with this new law, because who doesn’t want to commit a thoughtcrime? Not that I recommend committing crimes; of course we declare all the contents of our mind to the government in compliance with all AML regulations :)

Anonymous said...

Cryptocurrency is spiritual, a gift from God - that's pretty cool.

The Keith Raniere case is nuts, a bunch of jealous old women and a man who lost control of them all in the midst of the feminist juggernaut system. The UK and Norway systems becoming more insane is a direct result of the American cancer system continuing to spread. Let's hope China and Russia can repel the U.S. long enough to force its collapse.

Eivind, do you still have an active Monero address for donations?

Eivind Berge said...



Eivind Berge said...

I am all synced now and I see that I received a very generous donation, thanks!

Eivind Berge said...

Monero is much more fun when you have a balance of it. Will never beat bitcoin, but definitely worth using, yeah. I wonder how the EU is planning to make Monero traceable?

Anonymous said...

You're welcome, you put your name out there and say there is everything right with attraction to young teen girls, and everything wrong with feminist hoaxes. That deserves some cash. If antifeminist would start up again, he'd get some too of course.

Monero is the best. They won't be able to trace even a single Monero transaction without dedicating months of resources and manpower, which is what makes it so great.

Eivind Berge said...

Is "racketeering" the new sex crime? Also serving as the American version of historical abuse? It happened to Raniere and now R. Kelly:

"One of the alleged bribes discussed in the filing involved paying a state worker $500 to create an ID card to make a 15-year-old girl identified only as "Jane Doe 1" appear to be 18 years old at the time of her wedding to Kelly in August 1994. A source familiar with the matter confirmed to CNN that Jane Doe 1 is the late singer Aaliyah, who married Kelly that year. Prosecutors said in the filing that the marriage application, license and certificate all show the girl was 15 years old when she married Kelly on August 31, 1994."

Looks like they can't charge this under the sex laws since there is no direct evidence of sex as the possible accuser has died and it's probably past the statute of limitations for that anyway, but the hysterical witch-hunt against underage sex is so overwhelming that they can't help themselves even if it happened three decades ago; it is pursued just because a girl was 15 and charged for alleged bribes. That way they don't need an accuser because they can just pursue these technicalities indirectly as a pure numerological superstition, with sex increasingly in the background as they mostly prosecute pornography and racketeering.

And of course:

"Prosecutors also ask for multiple victims to be able to testify under pseudonyms to protect their safety and well-being."

Another man about to be destroyed for incredibly tenuous sex crimes mostly far removed from sex. Also accused of abusing boys, but who knows how much of this is true? When a man is publicly defined as a sexual abuser, the floodgates of false accusations are opened. When Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court the FBI got 4,500 tips but none credible enough to stop him:

It could have easily turned into a trial with 100 anonymous accusers instead, which is clearly the path forward.

holocaust22 said...

You should check out the new blizzard entertainment "sexual harassment' scandal. A lot of this just seems to be guys flirting with girls.

holocaust22 said...

This will be the scandal that turns every workplace into nazi germany.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the workplace is scorched earth in the war on sex. Always amazed me that men never fought back against the "sexual harassment" hysteria and let it develop into an absolute taboo on all references to sexuality in the workplace and increasingly everywhere else too. The only place remaining now where flirting is acceptable is if the woman has pre-approved you on a dating app.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone knows whats really going on. I know I don't. The Antifeminist's Sexual Trade Union theory explains a lot, but I think this all has a life of it's own now. He makes the point that every single person who signed the 2004 Convention of Femihags that outlawed everything were women. But the photographer was a man! How does he explain that?

Jack says we should avoid calling feminists bad names and instead every policeman on the planet is our primary foe. Eivind agrees but thinks we need to bring about the collapse of modern civilization as well (except for bitcoin) so that we can get all the pussy as alpha males. Holocaust22 thinks we need to convert to Buddhism. This all makes a lot of sense, but I don't think anybody really knows what's going on.

I think we really need to just lie on the floor and put our hands up helplessly like a dog exposing its belly. Yes that's what we should do. Because I don't think anyone knows what's really going on. I know I don't.

Now I'm just going to lie on the floor and meekly stretch my arms out. Because I don't think anyone knows what's going on.

Anonymous said...

It's not all bad in France.

Eivind Berge said...

That's staggering, but sadly not a political uprising against antisex bigotry, just private revenge against HR managers. Granted, I do associate HR with imposition of sexual harassment policies and they are stereotypically feminists, but I don't endorse this manner of fighting back because they are too far removed from the politics or enforcement that really matters, and anyway it looks like this man was merely upset for losing his job, not even aware of the larger sex war. Frankly this looks like senseless killings of pretty much innocent victims.

There is increasing strife, but not for reasons that agree with us. I am amused by the emergence of a whole new class of oppressed people now that France and other countries are making life difficult for the unvaccinated, but where were they when men needed a movement for our sexuality? Now they get to feel a little bit of what it's like when society decides to criminalize you just for doing normal things, but unfortunately it isn't going to be unifying in the right directions.

Eivind Berge said...

Here we go again with young women campaigning for more sex crimes:

"Sisters who are fighting to make public sexual harassment a criminal offence have argued acts like wolf-whistling need to be taken more seriously as a form of gender based violence.

Maya and Gemma Tutton, of Brighton, who are behind the Our Streets Now campaign, claim they have both been subjected to sexual harassment in broad daylight, and that they receive distressing testimonies every day from young girls reporting similar experiences.

Gemma, now 16, told how she was just 11-years-old when it first happened to her, and it's the only thing she remembers from that period of her life.

It was this incident that inspired Gemma and 21-year-old Maya to set up their campaign - and their petition to make public sexual harassment a criminal offence in the UK now has nearly 449,000 signatures.

Yes, of course, men will give them everything they want as usual.

Anonymous said...

This should be mass violated. Whenever a guy gets arrested for public sexual harassment there should be riots. I can't get laid is the new I can't breathe!

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, but what are the odds men will protest at all? Seems the male sexualist movement has already maxed out any opposition that men are capable of, which is not even enough to get a handful of people to march in the streets. We are long past the point where it is impossible to have a sexuality without being a criminal, and men simply choose to ignore it until they get arrested.

Anonymous said...

"Our Streets Now"? Since when have feminists obtained the deed of ownership for all the public spaces in the town?

Anonymous said...

Minors must be protected from pornography, so minors must go to jail because of pornography:

Eivind Berge said...

I see, "Those convicted, including minors, would face a prison term of “not less than a year,” police said in the statement." These are familiar tactics from the U.S., but this is the first time I've heard Germany taking it that far. So, just seeing a pornographic picture is more harmful to minors than a year in prison? Despite the supposed problem with this pornography being that it depicts minors -- quite a double standard to prosecute them for pictures of things they are mostly not (yet) prosecuted for doing in person.

It is scorched earth again. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater as they try to purge the earth of sexuality. It all boils down to enforcing prohibition on the idea that minors can be sexual, which is blasphemy and must be rooted out at any cost.

And that harassment, yes, don't the streets belong to men too? No, only women's rules will apply. They came for the workplace and schools and now the rest too. The idea is women are entitled to go through life without any unwanted sexual advance anywhere. Or any kind of sexual reference such as overhearing a joke is "harassment" too. Scorched earth, everywhere, zero tolerance for sexuality (unless they enjoy it, then it can continue until they change their minds, often long after the fact; "harassment" is very dependent on how good looking the man is).

Sadly men can only meet this as a group by leading a double life where we publicly pretend to go along with the antisex bigotry, even enforce it for others, and then at the end of the day go home to for example swinging with your 12-year-old daughter like that French judge referenced earlier in this thread. Hypocrisy is the norm.

Eivind Berge said...

Jailing minors for looking at indecent pictures is only a matter of degree different from something like this:

Girl, 17, ‘beaten to death by relatives and hung from a bridge’ for wearing jeans during a religious ritual in India
Indian teen Neha Paswan was beaten to death by her grandfather and her uncles
Paswan, 17, was found hanging from a bridge in northern state of Uttar Pradesh
Her family had frequently complained of her her 'inappropriate' western clothes

Well, maybe the West isn't such a good role model after all. The only difference is we use slightly more humane methods of restoring "honor" for the time being. The concept of honor killing fully aligns with Western feminist values.

Eivind Berge said...

A clarification on the news which sounded like the EU intending to ban anonymous cryptocurrency wallets such as bitcoin brainwallets. No, it was not quite so bad, only applies to custodial wallets. It would of course be against the bitcoin ethos to try to break its pseudonymity by the violence of the law, but then again the bitcoin ethos tells us to get out of custodial wallets as soon as possible, so we have nothing to worry about this time around.

The statement from McGuinness is straight-up FUD. Rather than a ban on crypto wallets, the E.U. rules would impose tighter but defensible rules on money service providers, such as exchanges or custody services. Either McGuinness and her communications team misspoke out of genuine ignorance when describing the new rules to the public, or they knowingly obfuscated as a way to misdirect public perception.

In short, the ban would impact the crypto equivalent of Swiss bank accounts, not the use of crypto as cash. So if you’re willing and able to self-custody (which you should really be doing anyway), you can still hold and spend crypto anonymously (unless you do commit a crime, then that anonymity probably won’t last long).

“Banning anonymous wallets” would be a truly terrifying goal, because nearly every cryptocurrency wallet is anonymous by default, in the same sense that every web browser is anonymous by default. Wallets like MyCrypto, Exodus and Electrum are software, available for download worldwide. The notion of “banning anonymous crypto wallets,” in other words, implies an utterly draconian crackdown involving raids on server farms hosting wallet code, SWAT teams battering down the doors of DeFi degens’ basement apartments, and developers on trial for helping people move data around.

Anonymous said...

Those two sisters petitioning for the harassment law in the UK should be beaten to death and hung on London Bridge.

Eivind Berge said...

As a result of all recent evil and seeing how even very young women push for it I am pondering another conceptualization of antisex bigotry which is more aligned with TheAntifeminist’s view than the behemoth. Not saying this is my official view as leader of male sexualism, but it’s worth throwing out there for consideration.

Enter the concept of original sin. According to Christian doctrine, man’s nature is fallen and woman is the primary culprit. In the male sexualist reading, what Eve really discovered there in the Garden of Eden was her temptation and power to criminalize sexuality, which Adam was too weak to resist.

Men are also capable of great evil when the wrong individual gets to be powerful, like Hitler and Stalin and Mao and so on, but we do not have a systematic tendency to oppress the other sex like women do with our sexuality. As such, the biblical myth of how sin came into the world anticipates our ideology and may well be considered a canonical origin story as good as any for the antisex behemoth as it is also called.

Eivind Berge said...

Young people tend to live in the moment as if they are immortal and ageless. That's how they take so many risks and just want to have fun without thinking about the consequences too much. Planning for the future is a small factor, I think, but the shit test is big. Women select for worthy men by raising the bar, and criminalization is a great way to do that. The only men who can possibly make a move on them in public under this new law will be criminals, which probably excites them more than all the unwanted attention feels like harassment. Define all advances as harassment and all sex as rape and only the true alphas remain.

The very idea that teen girls can come up with such a campaign proves how privileged they are. Nobody really oppressed would presume to be able to criminalize large swathes of male sexuality, on top of all feminists already accomplished. But this is a realistic entitlement to them in this day and age, so powerful are they.

Anonymous said...

Today's young women and girls support stuff like this because are brainwashed by popular culture images that most men are unwanted.

They just spent all day in university gender studies courses when she was on a tube and some old guy flirted her.

Female celebrities have a huge influence on girls. Also their mothers are probably highly feminist. The culture shift is intergenerational.

It's just like how the residential schools in Canada destroyed the old indigenous culture over many generations, today's western establishment is doing the same thing with changing gender roles and wants to do so worldwide.

Eivind Berge said...

Is China now the world leader in feminism? It appears they have diluted the definition of rape as much if not more than us:

"Chinese-Canadian pop star Kris Wu has been detained by Beijing police on suspicion of rape after allegedly "repeatedly seducing young women into having sex," police said in a statement Saturday night.

The case against Wu, 30 -- whose Chinese name is Wu Yifan -- is still under investigation, police in the Chaoyang district of the Chinese capital said.

The allegations first emerged last month on Weibo, a Chinese social media platform, when a woman posting under the verified handle "Du Meizhu" alleged she was sexually assaulted when she was a student at the Communication University of China in Beijing. She said she was 17 at the time of the alleged assault.

So, "repeatedly seducing young women into having sex" is now rape too. Unclear if this is statutory or they are claiming absolute rape, in which case this would be the highest absolute rape age in the world.

holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

The AoC is 14 in mainland china. I think what he's being arrested for is having sex with girls that were unconscious, ie passed out drunk.

Eivind Berge said...

When the tentacles of antisex bigotry now snares Craig Murray for "jigsaw identification" of sexual accusers,

the behemoth is so strong that even his supporters can't see the real problem and act as if there is nothing wrong with the sex laws themselves including this one. Additional political motivations also exist, but for God's sake can't you see the feminism and call it out for once? It is horrifying:

"In fact, the legal basis of “jigsaw identification” – one could argue the whole point of it – is that it accrues dangerous powers to the state. It gives permission for the legal establishment to arbitrarily decide which piece of the supposed jigsaw is to be counted as identification. If the BBC’s Kirsty Wark includes a piece of the jigsaw, it does not count as identification in the eyes of the court. If Murray or another independent journalist offers a different piece of the jigsaw, it does count. The obvious ease with which this principle can be abused by the establishment to oppress and silence dissident journalists should not need underscoring."

And what makes this possible is men including Murray himself going along with the hateful feminist demands in the first place and never opposing them!

Eivind Berge said...

"The AoC is 14 in mainland china. I think what he's being arrested for is having sex with girls that were unconscious, ie passed out drunk."

Oh, that other kind of fake rape that covers everything when they can't use the age of consent. Then China is just as feminist as I suspected.

Eivind Berge said...

The expansion of anonymity for sexual accusers into jigsaws is profoundly disturbing, as if that concept could get any worse. We have already been seeing it when the media has been afraid to name details such as a football player's team and the apparent disappearance at an unknown scale of men accused by family members, but this takes it to another nightmarish level where mentioning literally any fact about a sex trial can get you imprisoned. And the most nightmarish aspect of all is that nobody is able to perceive anything wrong with the concept itself of anonymity, or any other antisex law or its ramifications, thanks to the proverbial behemoth. They are only able to blame and criticize side issues at best like the political prejudice and ulterior motives of the prosecution or judge, never the legal feminism or any kind of antisex bigotry itself, because all are in agreement that sex is a deserved crimen exceptum which invalidates any and all principles of justice, the worst thing imaginable that must be persecuted at all costs.

Eivind Berge said...

To provide some more background on how Craig Murray was convicted (apart from the antisex bigotry which concerns us), I reproduce here a comment from Gail's blog:

"Minority of One says:

August 2, 2021 at 10:01 am

I don’t get the impression that Craig has understood what is going on re Covid. He took the vaxxine himself and recommended others do the same if I remember correctly. Some of my CV19 posts on his blog got deleted (by the moderator) and whilst there are a few posters who understand and have tried to promote CV19 debate / knowledge on Craig’s blog, they are far outnumbered by hostile posters who are pro-vaccine. I gave up posting on CV19 there.

I would say his two main crimes, the ones that got him put in jail, were turning up to the court cases of Julian Assange and Alex Salmond, and reporting the proceedings in detail, something which no member of the MSM ever did. Craig’s reporting made it clear that both court cases were beyond farce. In the case of Alex Salmond, 10 women (the ‘victims’) said Alex Salmond committed sexual crimes against them, all except one sexual assault. Craig reported that for all alleged crimes, there were other witnesses who gave evidence, mostly female, that contradicted the statements of the alleged victims (none of which was reported in the MSM).

The jury of 9 women and 3 men believed the witnesses for the defence (Alex), thus implying most/all the accusers were less than truthful. In accordance with Scot’s law, all the identities of the accusers remain confidential. Craig new them, he saw and heard them all in court, they were apparently all close associates of Nicola Sturgeon (our great leader), as was the judge in both Alex Salmond and Craig’s court cases, same person, Lady Dorrian. Alex’s court case had a jury (not guilty), Craig’s did not (guilty).

Craig made it clear in his blog that he thought all the accusers with one possible exception were lying, and Nicola Sturgeon was behind the conspiracy – to prevent Alex Salmond from ever returning to Scottish politics.

Julian Assange, Alex and Craig were all falsely accused of sexual assault and they are now all criminals in the public’s mind – mission accomplished.

As usual, there is sadly no blaming feminism even by the more intelligent commentators, nothing about the antisex-bigoted structural injustice enabling such persecutions :(

It should be self-evident that all facts about a trial should be open to publicity, and no sane system would put these ridiculous accusations on trial in the first place because there would be a reasonable definition of rape and other sex crimes (if any).

Anonymous said...

China is definitely not feminist. I suspect the translation of "repeatedly seduced women" is not exactly correct.

You need evidence of physical force or drugs for a rape charge in China, it's more about a physical assault with sex than it is a violation of consent which can be hoaxed easily, as we've seen in the West.

holocaust22 said...

@eivind berge

Yo, eivind, the age of consent is 16 in your country right? And all of europe is 14-16? Do you consider europe better than america in terms of intergenerational relationships.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, so it is definitely better here than in your most insane jurisdictions such as California which has 18 or New York's 17. And allover we still have less harsh punishments so your other states are also worse off, though we are catching up. But there are so many other laws they can use besides age of consent, and so much hate, really zero tolerance to sexuality as soon as it comes to light. If anyone still has sex, at any age, that's just because they didn't get caught or accused yet in one way or another, and in very rare cases because there are what feminists would consider "loopholes" in the law that will be closed soon, for example by the new expansion of rape law that Norway is working on.

Eivind Berge said...

As to China, I can see how CNN wouldn't see anything wrong with the definition of rape being translated as "seducing women," and so wouldn't fact-check it any further, since that's exactly how they want it to be and are used to from feminist countries. So you may be right that it's not quite so bad in China yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are catching up.

Eivind Berge said...

When they can't use the age of consent in Norway because the girl is over 16, they can practically always use § 295:§295

It covers most realistic situations where you can get into contact with 16 and 17-year olds. Of course being a teacher and all such formal position are covered, but also every kind of friendship ("tillitsforhold") is included, and for good measure, thanks to the latest expansion in 2016, the age of consent is 18 if the girl is "in a particularly vulnerable life situation," which I am sure the feminist state will claim 100% of the time if the man is considerably older. It is really unthinkable that a court will find that a minor wasn't "vulnerable," as that's the cornerstone in feminist ideology and the religion of our times.

You have to understand there is literally zero tolerance for sex; that's the official position the laws amount to and the reality we need to own as male sexualists so we know what we are fighting -- our souls are criminal, so our hatred of the authorities will be what follows from that! The new definition of rape will cover every situation at any age so the only "loophole" left will be if she doesn't accuse you -- but they have plenty of other laws for that such as if you paid her and I am sure these will be expanded in the next round so you can never get away with sex in any circumstance whatsoever.

Eivind Berge said...

And still, nobody will take the side of sexuality. Not openly. They will live a double life, to be sure, but there will be no political opposition to the sex laws beyond my irrelevant voice, not enough to elect a single sex-positive representative, or even have one on the ballot for any party.

Eivind Berge said...

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only one in Norway who considers sexuality integral to my identity and morality? Because if others did, they would hate the laws too. This impression is strengthened by what Rolf Degen tweeted today:

"Morals, more so than memories, are perceived to be at the heart of self and identity.... The effect has been replicated [across age groups] as well as across cultures, such that Buddhist monks in India also rate moral changes as most core to identity. In fact, we know of only one group of individuals in which the moral self effect does not appear to replicate -- in psychopaths."

Referring to this article about the moral self:

This resonates totally with me. I am my moral and political values more than anything, which can only be overcome by death. Any attempt by others to change them in me, for example by psychiatric coercion, will be murder. Moral degradation is literally a matter of life or death because our opinions and the person are one and the same. This is also why it is so profoundly important to have the right to legal sanity in criminal trials (though I respect an insanity defense if the accused wants it and really seems insane).

It also fits with my preferred philosophical definition of personhood as one who is morally accountable (and yes, this is really as bad as it sounds for the criminally insane; I offered my solution in this post), and I am glad studies bear this out. Only psychopaths don't have this strong moral compass. Which ironically makes psychiatric coercion against psychopaths in order to give them a better sense of morality more morally permissible than against the rest of us... but I still don't condone it.

The question is, how does this not resonate with most other men (psychopaths excluded, as the double life comes easy to them) regarding the sex laws? Either sex is not a strong part of their identity or they just don't care that much about having to present a fake facade to a sex-hostile, all-criminalizing feminist society.

Eivind Berge said...

Here is Bill Gates living the double life when he says he regrets his time with Epstein:

"It was a huge mistake to spend time with him, to give him the credibility of being there," Gates said.

Yes, Bill, I'm sure you didn't really mean to be involved with that sort of thing, and didn't enjoy every minute of it, lol. Because that's the lies men tell in public.

Eivind Berge said...

The late John McAfee once tweeted that Bill Gates makes Mark Zuckerberg look like a sex god, that all these accusations are a joke; but I am not so sure. I think we underestimated Bill Gates, and he would be a male sexualist if only he aligned his public persona with his private one.

Eivind Berge said...

Here we go again a level up in tyranny:

"Apple unveiled plans to scan U.S. iPhones for images of child sexual abuse, drawing applause from child protection groups but raising concern among some security researchers that the system could be misused by governments looking to surveil their citizens.

Apple said its messaging app will use on-device machine learning to warn about sensitive content without making private communications readable by the company. The tool Apple calls “neuralMatch” will detect known images of child sexual abuse without decrypting people's messages. If it finds a match, the image will be reviewed by a human who can notify law enforcement if necessary.

But researchers say the tool could be put to other purposes such as government surveillance of dissidents or protesters.

LOL, isn't it cute to include these vague concerns to make it look like the descent into hell is some kind of debate with reasonable people looking out for the worst consequences?

"Matthew Green of Johns Hopkins, a top cryptography researcher, was concerned that it could be used to frame innocent people by sending them harmless but malicious images designed to appear as matches for child porn, fooling Apple’s algorithm and alerting law enforcement -- essentially framing people. “Researchers have been able to do this pretty easily,” he said."

Yeah, no shit, but that won't stop the antisex bigots from prevailing, will it? This is only opposed by pushovers, as always.

Eivind Berge said...

Antisex bigotry eats the world, and of course any other kind other tyranny can piggyback on it to get whatever they want. They have found the deactivation switch to all human resistance: simply say you are fighting sexual abuse, and anything goes. Notice the the most insistent resistance that is still left can't bring themselves to say that privacy is a sacrosanct human right that must be permitted even if people might share some indecent pictures now and then. Nope, the only thing they can think of is how people can be framed with fake child porn. That's the best they can do, because of course persecuting people for such images is more important than privacy. That is the morality of our times. Never mind that we nofappers actually avoid porn for diametrically opposite reasons than what the antisex bigots imagine they are fighting, lol.

Now it remains to be seen if anybody has privacy as part of their moral selves, or this will truly be lost without resistance. Not really lost, but quietly relegated to open source. I am so glad I never used any of the Apple bigots' products and never will.

Eivind Berge said...

I wonder if there comes a point where, if not the worst bigots then at least their useful idiots who don't resist will think the technology works too well? Is there such a thing as antisex technology working too well? Say, if they mandate brain implants that scan for indecent thoughts and promptly fry the associated brain tissue? Would that be too efficient or just another wonderful win for feminism? The difference is only a matter of degree, and a rather small one since our digital selves are literally an extension of our minds.

It's all a charade anyway where we pretend to be asexual, so people don't really want the technology to work too well. They just want to be able to say they want it and virtue signal how great it is when "perverts" get arrested. The question is whether there is any mechanism to stop it before it eats their brains, and sadly I don't see one. Transhumanists used to worry about a paperclip maximizer eating the world, but clearly how it really ends is antisex bigotry eating all of us.

Eivind Berge said...

More on the Apple spyware:

It is parodic and bizarre that they claim this is compatible with privacy, but that's what the juggernaut will do to you. Constant spying is "privacy" because anything sexual is blacked out from the concept of privacy -- sex is exempt from every principle of fairness and justice and what it means to be human because it is the crimen exceptum. Sex exists in a parallel universe with no rights, and must be rooted out of this one, leaving a shadow of anything human which is then still called by the same words in such astonishing doublethink.

They say they use hashes to match photos on your phone to "known abuse images," but it's actually far more invasive, able to analyze the content and pick up altered images, plus they force antisex-metadata onto your photos. And not just Apple but the hateful feminist NGOs will be your overlords, so get used to begging them to be able to use your phone and try to justify your existence if they have flagged you by "mistake":

"Apple also said a device will create a doubly-encrypted "safety voucher" -- a packet of information sent to servers -- that's encoded on photos. Once there are a certain number of flagged safety vouchers, Apple's review team will be alerted. It'll then decrypt the voucher, disable the user's account and alert National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which can inform law enforcement. Those who think their accounts have been mistakenly flagged can file an appeal to have it reinstated."


"The announcement is part of a greater push around child safety from the company. Apple said Thursday a new communication tool will also warn users under age 18 when they're about to send or receive a message with an explicit image. The tool, which has to be turned on in Family Sharing, uses on-device machine learning to analyze image attachments and determine if a photo is sexually explicit."

We live in the Antisex Matrix, or the fools who use Apple do. This is a chance to hurt their bottom line though and I hope for a big boycott. There are obviously hundreds of millions of Apple users if not 100% who will be made uncomfortable by this, but will they finally take action? If not throw your iPhone away at once, at least never buy another one? Because next time you buy one of their products, it will be well known that the upgraded hardware is in no small measure there to improve the antisex processing, and you are paying for it... I wonder if the antisex bigots will embrace this as a new virtue signal or feel offended that they can't be trusted? Is it virtuous to have to pay for extra transistors to make sure you are asexual or have they finally gone too far now? "Look at me, I am such a big feminist that I got the most expensive iPhone which even predicts my thoughts and alerts law enforcement before I can think anything sexual about a minor!" It's a little weird how they don't make provisions for politically correct people to not necessarily have to be surveilled -- which could be judged by some standard equally bullshitty as the rest -- but that's how malicious this juggernaut is.

holocaust22 said...


Eivind, you should upload your stuff to freespeechtube as a backup. We can say anything we want there without getting banned. And I think freespeechtube is the best we've got so far. If we can market for the website, and bring massive amounts of people there, we can start getting the message out. It's going to become like the youtube of people that disagree with the age of consent laws.

Anonymous said...

Rick Beato said it best:

Let's flash mob every Apple store and demand they start supporting legalized adult with kid sex interaction.

Eivind Berge said...

The sex war is ramping further up with the R. Kelly "trial" to be held in an empty courtroom:

"In an unusual move for a trial of this magnitude, the public and media will be unable to watch in person. At a final pretrial hearing Tuesday, US District Judge Ann Donnelly described the unusual setup of the courtroom for trial, saying witnesses would testify from the jury box and jurors would be spread out among the gallery where media and members of the public generally sit. Donnelly reiterated that media and members of the public would only be able to view the trial from a video feed in a separate "overflow" room and that they would likely be unable to see evidence as it's presented at trial."

So are men going to just accept going to prison based on "evidence" hidden from the public??? Still not waking up, eh?

Eivind Berge said...

More proof that China has fallen to feminism, if not legally yet then certainly in corporate culture:

"The male leader even entered my hotel room four times that night with condom and assaulted me!!!! When I typed the lines above, I couldn't control myself, and I broke into tears. I never thought that I would have such an experience," she wrote. "When I think about it now, it just feels like a nightmare, one that makes you terrified, scared, helpless, helpless nightmare!"

Okay, it didn't occur to you to not keep letting him in if you didn't want it? You had your own hotel room which presumably can be locked. This is nothing but drunken consent redefined to rape as per hateful feminist dogma.

"The accused has not been charged with any crime. In the memo to employees on Monday, Zhang said the employee confessed to "intimate acts" with a woman who was inebriated, violating company policy."

So Chinese company policy is already feminist with the law probably soon to follow.