Monday, September 13, 2021

Metaphysical interlude II: the idiotic conundrum again

So I bought Geoffrey Klempner's book and read it on the Kindle app. Actually I got the whole Philosophizer Trilogy since it was the same price, but it's the Idiotic Conundrum that shall concern us here. It's a cool book, but didn't bring me closer to answers than his videos and free writings that I already discussed in my first metaphysical interlude. If you still haven't grasped the conundrum then it would be extremely useful, but for me it mainly served to make me feel confident to dig further into it knowing that if I make progress, I won't simply be replicating his thoughts. He does not present a metaphysical system anyway, spending most of the book lamenting the impossibility of getting an answer and dismissing existing philosophy as "theories" -- until the last couple of pages where he ends on a more optimistic note.

I might not have existed, but someone exactly like me might have existed in my place. What is the ultimate reality that decides if I am me? That is the Question, the Quest (for Klempner, at least), the idiotic conundrum. I shall not become obsessed with this myself, but it does deserve some thought.

Philosophers commonly ponder the nature of identity persistence through time (Ship of Theseus and all that all the way up to contemporary examples), but they rarely if ever bother to ask why I am me NOW! That is the Question. Being skeptical about your persistence through time does not get rid of it. I call it the cosmic serial number. I am one cosmic serial number, but I could have been another. If it does change over my lifetime then I am largely blind to that change, but that's not the hardest question. Materialists actually have more reason to believe it does change, because they deny an ultimate reality that could be far more mysterious than an arrangement of atoms, why not capable of sustaining you over time? Hume famously missed this too, and Descartes invented needless fairy tales that don't explain it either --  a soul "substance" that can't be it and a Cartesian theater that adds nothing. Kant was sort of onto something with his transcendental idealism and noumena but didn't go all the way to the idiotic conundrum, and Nietzsche missed it spectacularly with his eternal return which in this respect amounts to the same as atomistic materialism, which is to say denying the problem altogether.

Only Donald Hoffman comes close to actually explaining it. I have never seen him actually address it, but he lies the groundwork for an explanation in videos like this. Once you get rid of reductionism and the shared hallucination that we call spacetime with physical objects, the alternative might have the properties that we are after -- the network of conscious agents who interface via our shared reality. And you must drop the reductionist path if you accept that this "reality" is an interface. Studying the pixels on your screen doesn't get you closer to understanding how the processor works; the causal power lies on another plane entirely. A sort of idealism plus natural selection gives a better view. We are both so far removed from ultimate reality that we can't measure any truth about the structure of the world with our scientific instruments that only get at the interface, yet also directly plugged in since we immediately feel it.

Or at least can feel ultimate reality if we pay attention. Not just the two of us, Klempner and I. You can, too, unless you are literally a zombie. I know you can because I didn't always or at least not continuously ponder the idiotic conundrum or have a name for it, yet I believe I was conscious then too. Whenever there is consciousness, there is the conundrum whether you are aware of it or not, because someone else might have been having that experience in your place through no distinction that can be observable in this universe. You are therefore uncreated by this universe and something separate.

I had feelings as a child that I now would label as awareness of my cosmic serial number. I didn't regard it as a "conundrum," just marveled at it. I thought this sense of self was simply what it meant to have a self and I still don't think it is an uncommon feeling. What is uncommon is to make an issue out of it. It is slightly more surprising that some actively deny it and become positivists. And come to think of it, it is weird that an entire major religion like Hinduism makes a dogma out of there only being one. Atman the individual self is ultimately identical to the universal also called Atman or sometimes Brahman, they say; this is in the book and I thought so too independently: there is no justification to limit the number to one, just a story they made up. It sounds poetic to say things like we are all waves in the same water of consciousness, but there is no compelling metaphysical justification for it. If I have two glasses of water are they really one because there is one water? No, there is no reason why they can't be separate. Each new glass of water can have a new serial number that can't be written in it but can still be very real. What this reality consists of, this separateness of cosmic serial numbers, is the conundrum.

I guess I am not making any progress either, and that's okay. But now we have some common ground on which to start. You don't need a wall of academic references, just this book to get started having a stab at it. Even though I don't share his despair at not knowing, Klempner's "ring quest" resembles male sexualism in its futility, and as such I can relate. There is no indication that society will give up its belief in the metaphysical badness of sex in my lifetime, unless collapse gets rid of industrial civilization altogether. The normies believe it as firmly as they believed in witches in the thick of the witch-hunts. Ironically, they believe in the metaphysical badness of sex without particularly believing in metaphysical personhood. Now if they had a theory of the idiotic conundrum that also explained how perfectly enjoyable sex can be "abuse" -- at least they would have some internal consistency, but sexual abuse stands out as the only metaphysics they believe in. Without admitting that it is metaphysics, to be sure, instead blaming psychology, but they don't fool me.

I am aware, aware of the gap. Klempner and I share this awareness to the fullest but there are also smatterings here and there. For example in this conversation between David Deutsch and Tyler Cowen. The latter is a "metaphysical agnostic," which means he might be at least half aware. Deutsch calls it "something like physicalism," which doesn't quite get at it. You can believe you need the continuity of your physical body to be you (and hence not survive a Star Trek transporter) without realizing that that body and mind also could have been someone else existing in your place. Which should be the central question of consciousness, but is oddly ignored especially by the academic philosophers who study consciousness. Very odd that something so central can be so marginalized. But then again that's how it is with sexualism too, so I shouldn't be surprised.


Anonymous said...

When Eivind and Jack watch this, they probably want to rush and help the sexual resource and kill the man. Of course, if it had a penis it would be cathartic joy to them.

Anonymous said...

Evind, a few weeks ago you were adament that humans are only alive when fucking, eating, fighting, farting etc, and that pondering over philosophical questions of existence and identity were a waste of time and themselves the actions of a zombie.

Eivind Berge said...

I believe we are happiest when immersed in the world. The real world, not some video game or porn. An obsession with the idiotic conundrum can clearly be bad. Klempner is probably too consumed by it, but at least he had a family first and at 70 years old it's not that much you are missing out on anyway if you do some philosophizing. If you are young and can make a career out of it then there is also nothing wrong with philosophy, but academic philosophers are not much interested in the Question. Perhaps for good reason? The idiotic conundrum prevents full immersion in the world because it makes you doubt the world. When you think of yourself as separate from the world, you can’t get fully into the game that is academic philosophy and enjoy all the hot college girls you came for.

If you think of the world as a stage or virtual reality, it is easy to understand that our “roles” or “avatars” could have been “played” by someone else, but it doesn’t make you a better player to be aware of this issue and wonder what the hell it means. Klempner has discovered a gap in the matrix that we are better off ignoring most of the time. It also doesn’t solve the problem to introduce that extra level, because the consciousness there too has the same conundrum. It seems to be inherent to qualia or consciousness itself, no matter where it is found. Which also makes qualia fundamental building blocks I guess, but we don’t get away from the question that they could have been “belonging” to someone else when we think about it.

Anyway, it does me no good in the immersive game of life to ponder this seemingly unanswerable question, so unless someone will offer me a teaching position or donations come in with requests for this topic or girls become interested in it, I probably won’t be blogging much more on it.

We are supposed to be focused on fitness payoffs -- girls, food, health and safety -- and evolution did a pretty good job tuning us to those. Except with porn, technology has introduced a terrible pitfall, which is why nofap is so important. And then there is another pitfall in philosophy. Philosophers who become aware that what we perceive is mostly or entirely fitness payoffs rather than the true structure of the world have an ironic tendency to become obsessed with what is BEHIND the fitness payoffs. Donald Hoffman has also taken this to an extreme. It is not healthy and I am not recommending it (but at least he is getting famous unlike Klempner and had a good academic career). We are attuned to fitness payoffs for good reasons and will become unhappy if we lose sight of them, for the very same reasons that attuned us to them.

Actually, I don’t believe that whatever is behind the fitness payoffs is more “true.” Frankly it is the other way around. Truth is what is useful to us, and that is what we directly perceive. But the idiotic conundrum is right there in immediate experience if you look for it, so it’s somewhat more worthwhile to pay attention to than the quest that Donald Hoffman is on. And if technology ever progresses to the point that we are faced with whether to use a Star Trek transporter or let a duplicate replace us for life extension or cryonic revival, then it is also a matter of life and death. So it does have some practical implications, but not any time soon and probably never because the pinnacle of civilization is now, shortly followed by collapse.

Eivind Berge said...

Isn't this what Gail was talking about?

The energy crisis is here, now. First we get high prices, but not for long because what's unaffordable is impossible to sustain. The real problem is low prices. When prices get too low for producers, their operation is impossible too.

The only hope right now is to ramp up the fossil fuels again. But now both fossil fuels and renewables are suffering from the too-expensive-to-produce problem, and that means collapse.

Milan Horvath said...

" Vulgarity, stupidity and Quackerism continue to spread their empire over the entire planet. To escape them, some have no other solution than to hang themselves in their New York cell (he alludes to the Epstein case). When is our turn, dear Roland? "
excerpt from article at blog

RIP Roland Jaccard (22.9.1941-20.9.2021)
Writer, journalist, literary critic, psychologist (and good friend of Gabriel Matzneff).

Here are some of his articles.

and many other on his blog , which I tried to archive

I would link translator links, however, it seems that it takes long time for translator to load it, so it is better to translate it via past-copy text. You probably know it, but it is better to translate it to English rather than to local national languages, which gives usually low quality of translation (at least in my case-Czech).

Milan Horvath said...

Eivind, I suppose that reporter, who interviewed you was Silje Ese.
Is it same TV programme as this? Or it is different format now?
I hope so, because this seems to me as parade of nutters.

Eivind Berge said...

No, this is totally different and also the actual interviewer is Martha Antonette Solli, with Silje Ese working on it in the background along with several other new people as well. Lately they told me the title will be "Boys against the world," and googling it now I see they have published an announcement:

Det sies at utenforskap og ensomhet er den største grunnen til radikalisering. I dokumentarserien «Gutter mot verden» kommer vi tett på dem som frivillig eller motvillig søker alternative fellesskap. De som aldri har hatt kjæreste, som stiller spørsmål ved historiebøkene, som ikke stoler på media og som er redd for at hvite nordmenn skal bli en minoritet.

Journalist Martha Antonette setter seg som mål å utfordre både egne fordommer og storsamfunnets tankesett. Vi skal oppleve verden slik den er for dem som ser den fra en annen side, som har andre meninger enn det folk flest aksepterer.

Fire episoder publiseres i NRK TV i november. Se trailer her.

I do not recognize myself in that description aside from having different opinions than most people (and I'm not in the trailer), but maybe it fits some other participants (whom I never met or interacted with in any way). They seem to have an incel there and a white supremacist and someone who questions the male gender role. But my part is not like that, obviously.

Eivind Berge said...

Whether this is also intended as a "parade of nutters" -- well, you can judge for yourself in November. And I can already say that I won't defend all the other contributors from that label... What's your impression so far, Milan?

Male sexualism isn't going to be presented as an equal alternative to the established political parties, you know. It will have to be in something like this we can get attention for now. But I think I did good.

Milan Horvath said...

My impression:

"socially excluded young men finding their meaning of life in radical communities-they are so wrong, but we should give them our understanding instead of disdain"

It is certainly better format, than thing I linked previously.
However, it will depend, how much space, they'll give you and what parts they choose to publish.

Yes, about that attention, you are right- at worst, even bad publicity is publicity- as it could bring some curious readers to your blog.
Then it would be good to think about, what first impression will leave this blog on someone who is stranger to sexualism/sex-positive MRA/civic libertarianism.

Somehow it should be made clear to first-time reader, that Eivind is NOT women-hating
alt-right nutter who believes in Q-anon .
Maybe something like simple graphical expression of political stances would be helpful.
Something like this

Aren't you considering some recommended literature section- is it even possible to implement such thing in Blogger? Not as article, but something accessible from main menu.

BTW:Increased popularity could also increase pressures on Google from various groups to cancel you- and we know that Google is very receptive towards such demands.

Milan Horvath said...

"Somehow it should be made clear to first-time reader, that Eivind is NOT women-hating
alt-right nutter who believes in Q-anon . "

I am not saying that it leaves such impression to me, but I think that ordinary people tend put others in "boxes", so some (easily visible) instant/brief information about your political views could disrupt their prejudices.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for those suggestions, Milan. I will look into how to improve the presentation of this blog for newcomers in November. Not sure about changing the layout, but at least I should post some articles that explain the basics of male sexualism. I think you are right about the tone they are striking too, which is the best we can hope for under the circumstances, and in any event almost any PR is good PR because what have we got to lose?

My blog is not about organizing a flashmob insurrection or anything like that which these fleeting 4chan-like forums are for that others in the documentary are into. We have nothing to hide from anybody including the intelligence agencies and will never ever require any type of login to view content, because the whole point is widest possible dissemination. I am in the long game of the battle of ideas opposing the War on Sex. My type of influence can certainly inspire foot soldiers somewhere along the line, but not at a level I can be punished for. My blog is judicially certified as legal speech (an assurance that is most convincing if I leave it untouched too), but you are right, Google can still try to cancel me because they can cancel anything they want. They can only cancel my presence on this platform, however, not my content or message.

I take the task of curating all the content here extremely seriously. All commenters should know that your efforts won’t be wasted when you post thoughtful comments here because all is backed up and will go up elsewhere if this blog goes down. And I will ensure that the new format will be equally user-friendly, which might take some time, but I will get there and maintain it as long as I live. An admirable role model in this regard (as well as the intellectual seriousness of his writing) is TOC, who is the only one I know of who emerged from cancellation with a better blog than before.

What really will be lost if I become a victim of cancel culture is search-engine visibility, which is a significant loss and the reason I am not in a hurry to move platforms before I have to. Ironically, cancelling me will make me look far more like a violent extremist because then only those kinds of statements will be easily accessible. Readers of my blog have to look hard to find what the media and courts have highlighted so well, and Google can’t cancel newspapers and court rulings that quote me very prominently on what is presumably the biggest reasons to cancel me. So if the idea is that those statements are dangerous then they will be more dangerous that way than drawing readers here to get a more tempered view, indeed one which can save incels from becoming violent as well since I promote nofap.

Milan Horvath said...

I agree with all of you've said.

When you recently posted that link about Dutch activists criminalisation from TOC, I overcame my prejudices and inspected his blog more in detail.
Despite not sharing all of his political views and sexual preferences I must admit that this guy is A CLASS writer/blogger.
Not too much emotional, not vulgar, almost scholarly written.
Only if he had less extreme political/social ends to defend. But it is his struggle.

Milan Horvath said...
Panel discussion with some authors of War on Sex.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks. The War on Sex is on top of our recommended reading list for anyone who thinks there is no need to question the sex laws.

Dom Krauer said...

"When you recently posted that link about Dutch activists criminalisation from TOC, I overcame my prejudices and inspected his blog more in detail.
Despite not sharing all of his political views and sexual preferences I must admit that this guy is A CLASS writer/blogger.
Not too much emotional, not vulgar, almost scholarly written.
Only if he had less extreme political/social ends to defend. But it is his struggle."

The thing is that his activism - let's call it the 'rational paedophile/ephebophile' activism - has been tried for the last 60 years and only borne witness to a growing sexual holocaust against normal male sexuality.

Tom O'Carrol and his peadophile followers did achieve their aim in the end. The feminist white knights did come riding on their steeds, and did allow 'paedophilia' to be seen as normal male sexuality. Unfortunately, the feminists only did this not to 'free paedophiles' but to criminalize and demonize normal male sexuality.

But still Tom and the other rational 'progressive' paedophiles plug on regardless. One day, the feminists will save them - like an autistic Jewish child being herded into the showers of Auschwitz, still believing that the nice Nazis would save him. And now Eivind, trying to defend normal male sexuality, still sees him as an ally. As does Milan Horvarth. After all, it's 100% to do with American Conservatism who even have the power to corrupt feminists who (being light and fluffy women (we're no misogynists here)) really did want to create a society in which their husbands could bang their neighbour's 14 year old nubile daughter without consequence.

If there is any hope it lies in subcultures such as Incels. You are never ever ever going to convince society through rational means that it's ok for men to fuck teenage girls. This is because for a large segement of the population (primarily non-teenage females) this is fundamentally contrary to their fundamental interests in life.

You can blow in the wind with your rational arguments about the age of consent for the next 1,000 years. My strategy - calling out femihags and their motivations was a completely different style of activism. It pulls the rug completely from under the sham of anti-male sex laws. You don't have to bang your head against the wall trying to argue why the age of consent should be 14 or that prostitution legal. You just invalidate all the crap the femihags have been sprouting for the last 150 years. It didn't work, but then one person doing it is worthless, 100 people doing it would be different.

Milan - why have American Conservatives been unable to stop middle-aged 'trans' (wo)men from flashing their cocks in lady's restrooms, yet in one generation the entire world has been convinced of the nonsense that a 17 year old girl is a child and off limits sexually? A simple answer please.

Milan Horvath said...

"And now Eivind, trying to defend normal male sexuality, still sees him as an ally. As does Milan Horvarth."

I do not perceive TOC as an ally, nor enemy.
I just like his style of writing and consider some of his articles as interesting source of information.

"Milan - why have American Conservatives been unable to stop middle-aged 'trans' women from flashing their cocks in lady's restrooms, yet in one generation the entire world has been convinced of the nonsense that a 17 year old girl is a child and off limits sexually? A simple answer please."

If simple answer means one sentence, I do worry, that I will disappoint you.
At start I need to mention, that there is a backlash among feminists against M-F transexuals who want to enjoy female privileges.

IMO there is not one group with some rigid ideology that is causing what is happening now.
I see it as convergence of interests and unfortunate coincidences.
When I am blaming US cultural hegemony, it is not only about some hardcore evangelicals.
It is their sociocultural environment as whole. Relationships between sexes, mating culture, how they perceive justice, their cultural wars springing from the past times. Ability to disguise personal interests as moral issues-I know other cultures do it too, but not with same mastery.
Their urge, to put every tiny aspect of life into the law, inability to divorce law and morality in their minds.
Not being able to see things in shades of grey:
either is something good, and therefore it should be forced up to everyone's throat,
or it is immoral/harmful and it should be eliminated with enormous zeal.
All in all, it is just about more social control.

Again, I do not deny your theory about jealous middle aged women, disguising their inability to cope with ageing and decline of sexual attractiveness- as moral concern and care about welfare of young adult and adolescent girls. One should be definitely cautious about it and I do appreciate your work in this regard, as I was also ignorant to this fact before reading your blog.
Yes, real motivation of moral crusaders including feminists should be called out.
But it doesn't mean, that it couldn't be combined with other arguments
and done in more tactful way.

Problem with incels is: yes you need quantity to start some movement, but unless you want to build a sect, you need some quality too- and with people who are easily distractable to believe in Q-anon, I am not sure whether incels are the best option.
IDK how to say it in English, but I will try:

To be frank, I am not sure what is the best option.

Eivind Berge said...

@Dom Krauer

You talk as if men have no interests, and sadly this is true politically for sexual rights. Men's sexual interests are not even an argument in the mainstream political process so far. I am trying to get men to assert their interests. This approach is complementary to showing that the sex laws are based on bad science about minors' "inability to consent" and such. We should both promote male gender awareness -- male sexualism -- to counterbalance the female sexual trade union that is feminism (but not so maliciously as they have done) and argue rationally, scientifically against the definition of "child" and all that nonsense they use to prop up their agenda. There is no conflict between these approaches and they should both be pursued. The incels do promote their interests by the 100s at least and they are getting nowhere, so clearly that approach is no silver bullet by itself either.

Eivind Berge said...

Oh well, collapse will take its course anyway. Gail's theory is starting to match the territory more and more each day now. This is her latest:

All the "reserves" of natural gas which were supposed to last multiple decades or centuries vanished almost overnight because economists were wrong and Gail was right about the true feasibility of extracting these resources. And this was supposed to be the easy, environmentally friendly part of fossil fuels, meant to balance the grid while we get renewables up and running. But that won't happen, and we aren't getting the renewables either because they suffer from the same unaffordability problem even if they could initially be built on the back of fossil fuels using subsidies that are the only way they can be built.

The UK has a fuel crisis due to lack of drivers, with Boris Johnson talking about sending in the army to supply gas stations. Semiconductor shortage getting worse, power outages in China, and on and on. We may be past the tipping point already where things can only get worse because all the interrelated things needed to fix one problem can't be mustered. Then the whole civilization comes crashing down like the toy dome of Leonardo sticks that Gail compares it to. I both hope it does for the sake of hurting feminism and fear it for obvious reasons.

Things are getting serious now and even if each and every problem in isolation looks like it can be solved, so many new things break all the time that the whole situation keeps getting worse. For example, they can recruit more drivers to the UK, but then maybe the next problem will be lack of spare parts for the trucks or lack of lubricant for their engines or something else we haven't thought of yet but was essential to keep the supply chains running, which in turn hurts something else and speeds up the process of collapse -- which still won't be instantaneous, but that's because we are in the middle of it and can't grasp the historical enormity of the situation yet.

Milan Horvath said...

.....and I forgot to mention that my concern is not only pathologisation of normative male sexuality but also other things that are sacrosanct to me, which present hysteria is damaging:
-freedom of speech, association,freedom to consume information
-proportionality in criminal law
-parental rights/inviolability of family (but in different way that traditionalists see it)
-presumption of innocence/due process
-finality/limitation of punishment:
1. abuse of psychiatry to commit people that are considered sane enough to stand a trial,
after they completed their sentence.
2. creation of public lynching list of "untouchables", with restriction of owner's rights
associated with it (fortunately still only in USA, but in future???? )

My "dream" is to have nice civilised permissive society, something that was near-reality in many mainland west European countries during Cold War period.

For example those Dutch activists have little common with normal/normative male sexuality, and yet I find their persecution/prosecution deeply disturbing.
That anecdote with Dr. Woodling (I published recently) is also not about male sexuality, yet it is very nauseating.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, I don't necessarily endorse the full extent of TOC's philosophy either, but in a world that has gone insane he stands out as one of very few reasonable people left and perhaps the most articulate one of those. And the Dutch boys too, deviant though they may be come across as highly decent, if somewhat less articulate.

Now it looks like even the US is abandoning the legal right to free speech (the remnant of it that was left provided it was text only) as they are now siccing the pigs on writing prompts:

"A public high school in Hudson, Ohio, has managed a remarkable feat: censoring a college course and — thanks to a mayor’s grandstanding and false claims that a book of writing prompts is “child pornography” — leading police and prosecutors to investigate the class."

It seems they are failing to find enough basis in current laws to convict, but how long will that last? Apparently the writing prompt that triggered this police harassment was simply:

“Describe a time you wanted to orgasm but couldn’t.”

Hmmm, I guess the idea is if a 17-year-old writes something to that prompt then it would by definition be child pornography because it would blaspheme the dogma that minors are incapable of thinking anything along those lines, or anyone at all imagining them having such an experience would do the trick of producing criminal text. Indeed it would already be covered in Norway.

It's a sick world.

Eivind Berge said...

R. Kelly is lynched. I followed news on the trial and it was absolutely nothing, all empty sexual accusations (he wasn't always nice to his girlfriends, but the sex was completely normal and that other controlling behavior wasn't charged plus they could always leave). It is amazing how antisex trumps antiracism and enables application of the overtly racist Mann Act and even reaching so far as to single him out for prosecution for spreading herpes even though it is a harmless disease and millions of people do the same. And all conducted in secrecy:

All a bunch of "Jane Does" accusing, with "evidence" the media couldn't see and even the jury was hidden from view! That's another bizarre twist that is unique to the juggernaut that is the current crimen exceptum. Plus "racketeering" is also a new way to prosecute it, making your whole life criminal. They flip a switch and get license to incriminate everything you touched or did, just because they can invoke a sex-crime association to get the whole thing started which leads to utter condemnation of a man's soul, all while no one resists. Only we male sexualists already know our souls are condemned and feel the commensurate hatred against the government.

The R. Kelly trial is an excellent illustration of how the relation between values are what we call transitive, a concept I incidentally just learned about in this podcast with Sean Carroll:

Americans (at least pretend to) hate racism, but they hate sex even more thanks to the institutionalization of feminism, so all it takes to have a good old lynching is to make a sexual accusation no matter how empty. The same phenomenon was evident in the Hulk Hogan compensation case that I blogged about before.

Jack said...

Ok they want to put R. Kelly in jail for being very successful and very assertive with girls. We know, don't we, that those girls knew what was awaiting them. That's why they chose to go to R. Kelly, a BBC celebrity, and not to beta males like Jack or Eivind.

But maybe that's why while we rightly deplore the criminalisation of male sexuality we shouldn't shed tears over the fate befalling such a guy. I'd like the real super-super-stars, the multi-millionaire soccer players, to be snatched from before their hooligan crowds to be tried and jailed. Messi in jail for priming girls, wouldn't that be great?

For most heterosexual males in the West, sex suppression and interdiction has been in place for how long? 2 decades or more? And those celebrities have done or said nothing to counter the trend. They have been happy to enjoy their private harems while millions of men had no alternative but to go monk.

holocaust22 said...

"I do not recognize myself in that description aside from having different opinions than most people (and I'm not in the trailer), but maybe it fits some other participants (whom I never met or interacted with in any way). They seem to have an incel there and a white supremacist and someone who questions the male gender role. But my part is not like that, obviously"

Why the hell would they lump together an intergenerational activist, who supports relationships with teenagers (something that's beautiful) with an incel and white supremacist. What planet is this.

holocaust22 said...

"Dom Krauer"

"If there is any hope it lies in subcultures like incels"

Why are you so deadset on allying yourself with literal LOSERS? It's bad PR. Liking teenage girls is COOL. Incels are not COOL!

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, I am wondering why they put me in this company. The adage that all PR is good PR does not extend to the incels, especially in light of the most recent attack. The Plymouth shooter killed a three-year-old girl and his own mother, which cannot be good publicity for any kind of movement. But oh well, we are only linked by being "boys against the world" and hopefully viewers will understand that there is no affiliation. The documentary has more contradictions than this too. I do not think the Nazis and crossdressers get along either and there are four episodes so there must be several more subcultures represented.

Eivind Berge said...

I wouldn't be so harsh on male celebrities, Jack. Sure, they should have stood up for our sexuality long before they figure they have to spend a fortune on lawyers who still can't get them out, but we need to band together to have any hope of turning the tide. Blame the men who directly aid and abet feminism, such as police officers and judges and prison guards, but not those who merely lived a carefree existence while the going was good. I do not think we have any hope of convincing society to change, but at least collapse will soon put an end to the "sex abuse" racket because there will be nothing more to loot.

Gail Tverberg put it like this today:

"The more energy per capita, the more “rights” a person can have. Women can’t have very many rights in a society with only a tiny amount of supplemental energy. They need to take care of home and family. The muscle power of men is needed to produce what necessities can be produced for living. There might be a few exceptions among the very rich, such as “Lydia the seller of purple cloth,” but for the most part, a woman’s value comes primarily from having children and raising them.

If we go back to renewable energy only, I expect the shift will have to be in this direction.

And note that by "renewable energy" she just means wood-burning and sailboats and mechanical not electric windmills because we won't have higher tech. No solar panels either after the already produced ones wear out. And of course the population needs to adjust to this new resource base, which means something like a 95-99% die-off over the next few years.

There is a chance collapse will be slower, but either way feminism is going away. I currently assign a 50/50 probability between Gail's rapid collapse scenario and John Michael Greer's catabolic collapse which might take a couple of centuries. Catabolic collapse is already observable, but the question is if some kind of industrial system as a whole can be kept in repair as we descend the energy slope, which he thinks feasible and Gail not. Both agree that all energy that can be dissipated will be, but it might turn out a hell of lot trickier than we imagined to access the rest of our so-called reserves of oil, coal and gas. I will relish the suffering of the feminists when they realize the reserves were illusory and things are falling apart, which will probably be the last thing I relish, but that's how it goes. It would be even more futile to try to change the collapse situation than the current antisex bigotry, so that's not something I will be pursuing. I am done with the denial stage and ready to face collapse.

Anonymous said...

Well I don't know what to make of it. If you asked somebody in the street, they probably wouldn't have a clue what is going on. I agree with the anti-feminist that feminists raised the age of consent from 12 to 16 and banned prostitution in the Victorian and Edwardian eras in order to protect their and women's sexual interests. I agree that modern feminism was triggered by the pill that allowed men to have consequence free pre-marital sex with young females, I agree that it was the Convention on The Rights of FemiHags in the 80's that defined children as anyone under 18 and triggered the constant drip drip of legislation, I agree that 95% of the NSPPC and similar 'child protection' charities are made up of middle-aged feminists, I agree with all of that, BUT. I was reading a letter from a woman in the Times calling for the age of consent to be raised to 30, and the editor of the Times is a man. How on Earth can the anti-feminist explain that???

The anti-feminist says 100 activists should target the 2,000 or so feminists campaigning and making these laws, in a legal way of course, for example simply calling them out on their motives of sexual jealousy and shaming them. That sounds too complicated to me, and it's misogynistic. Holocaust22 says we should get woke and convert to Buddhism. That sounds better. Milan thinks we just need to keep complaining about American Conservatism for another 60 years and eventually it will go away and it will be just like the Summer of Love again. That sounds good. Evind says all we need to do is eliminate the 20 million pigs worldwide, then eliminate the 20 million pigs who would replace them, then eliminate the 20 million pigs who would replace them, and then the 20 million pigs who would replace them. Once we've done that, all that would be required would be to bring about the collapse of modern Inudstrial society and revert to a stone age existence. And once that is achieved, me, Eivind and Jack as alpha males will be getting more nubile totty than even Holocaust22! So long as Mother Earth Gail allows it. And we still keep Tinder, because how on Earth else are we going to get laid with 40 year old black land whales? Bingo! This sounds easy!

But really I don't know what's going on. If you asked anyone in the street, I don't think they know what's going on. This thing has a life of it's own. I'm going to lie down on my back now with my arms outstreatched and just repeat 'ooooohhhhhmmmmm'. I learnt this from Tom O'Caroll's blog. Let's call it ephebophile oooohhhhhmmmmm activism. Because if you ask anyone in the street, they wouldn't have a clue what's going on. Now repeat after me, oooooohhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm.

Eivind Berge said...

I agree that shame works better than logical persuasion. However, at this point we have no power to shame the feminists for their selfish, vindictive antisex agenda because that would require someone with social status that they respect. Currently they can simply cancel anyone at that level who tries. Only if many did it at the same time would it be effective. That means we are back to logical persuasion in order to win over enough men who can possibly shame the feminists.

Eivind Berge said...

See how brilliant the cancellations are now... Anyone with enough social status to matter is instantly pushed down into irrelevance if he tries to call out the feminists on their real agenda. I am not focused on shaming them because I know it would have no effect coming from me or anyone in our movement. We are already so low in any kind of hierarchy that could matter that way that they don't even have to cancel us.

Eivind Berge said...

Now, here's a fine specimen of the protectors that women want more of to save them from sexuality!

"Wayne Couzens, the former police officer who has admitted to the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard, used his police identification and handcuffs to deceive her into getting into his car, prosecutors said Wednesday at a London sentencing hearing.

Everard, a 33-year-old marketing executive, went missing on the evening of March 3 after leaving a friend's house in Clapham, south London. Her remains were found days later in woodland near Ashford, Kent -- more than 50 miles from where she was last seen. Couzens was later arrested at his home in Kent, close to where Everard's body had been found. Prosecutors said in July that Everard and Couzens "were total strangers to each other" before he abducted her from the roadside.

On Wednesday, prosecutor Tom Little told the Old Bailey that Couzens lured Everard into a rental car by "handcuffing her as well as showing her his warrant card." Little also detailed what eyewitnesses to the kidnapping saw, saying they observed Couzens handcuff Everard, who appeared compliant and had her head down. They thought he was an undercover police officer arresting a woman.

Eivind Berge said...

Meanwhile on the collapse front, mainstream news is starting to sound more like Gail's blog every day:

"In an open letter Wednesday to heads of state attending the United Nations General Assembly, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and other industry groups warned of a "global transport system collapse" if governments do not restore freedom of movement to transport workers and give them priority to receive vaccines recognized by the World Health Organization."

Which may be too late. You can't fix a broken supply chain just by "allowing" it. The system was largely self-organized and can't be put back together on command either. You need the right kinds of energy and materials and prices at the right times, all of which has been disrupted. Governments can print money but they can't print resources and have no way to get to complex products like microchips if the system is broken.

Anonymous said...

Who do you think you are appealing to Eivind with your gloating at a possible collapse of civilization? How do you personally see yourself thriving in a Mad Max world? And your long hoped for potential children, who will share your genetic propensity to self-reflect for hours at a time on metaphysical problems concerning personal identity?

Meanwhile, in a corner of the Internet that matters :

'agecuckoldry' seems to be gaining a bit more traction than 'nocebo', or for that matter, 'paedocrite'.

Eivind Berge said...

Yet another way to accuse rape. All the new laws and efforts by feminist prosecutors not enough, so we need to let women have rape trials even when the current system finds no basis for them.

"In 2018, Madison Smith alleged that a classmate attacked her when she was a university student at Bethany College in Kansas. She reported the case as a rape.

The county prosecutor refused to press rape charges, however, saying Ms Smith had merely experienced an "immature" sexual encounter. Her attacker was convicted of assault.

The county attorney's decision prompted Ms Smith, now 23, to use a state law dating back to 1887 to instead call up a "citizen's grand jury". It convened for the first time on Wednesday in what is thought to be the first case of its kind in the US.

A grand jury is usually set up by the officials investigating the case, and determines if there is enough evidence to pursue a prosecution.

This jury, which will meet in secret, will not decide if the accused is guilty or innocent, only if charges should be brought.

So she consented to sex and he got a little too rough, does that make it rape? No, it would at most be assault, but women are now so entitled they can redefine this too to rape, and have men punished twice for the same thing as well.

Eivind Berge said...

Rape charge by petition and citizen's grand jury, what a concept. That is a way to reopen every sexual accusation that has been dropped before trial. Also to upgrade all convictions for lesser offenses to rape. Men who have been accused can never ever be safe but will be pursued unto eternal damnation, so vindictive is feminism.

The only way to stop this juggernaut is collapse of civilization, because men sure are not fighting back. And no, I don't think I will fare better than the average person in collapse. It also seems too late to have children and raise them before collapse, but one has to try. Of course you need survival skills not metaphysics when it happens. It is a bottleneck that I probably won't get through but my children might. In any case, any decent person will gloat when evil feminism runs out of energy, when persecuting sexuality can no longer be the top priority of civilization. It seems peak feminism will be a little later than peak oil because we save the last resources for the rape trials, but it will happen soon. (Peak oil was 2020, peak gas and coal is now and the rest will break within a few years.)

Eivind Berge said...

It's not the only aspect, but I think Jack is right that feminism is also a way for society to get rid of excess males. Particularly men's own participation in our persecution (and even more so by older men) is hard to explain without such a tendency. Compare the current sexual holocaust to how the Italians managed to exterminate 2 million young men in 1915-18 (which also indicates how much worse it can get):

"When I was writing my book on this story, I spent much time reading the Italian newspapers of 1914-1915. It was fascinating and horrifying at the same time: I got the distinct impression of an evil force rising. It seemed to me that I was reading of the return of ancient rituals, rites involving bloody human sacrifices. Especially impressive was the story of a young Catholic intellectual, Giosué Borsi, who became so intoxicated with propaganda that he came to believe that it was God's will that he should kill Austrians. He volunteered, and survived for just a few days in the trenches. Truly, it was as if a malevolent entity was masterminding the whole thing. Maybe evil Chthonic deities do exist? [...] I came to think that there was a reason for the extermination of so many young men. It was because the Italian society wanted to exterminate them. Of course, it was not planned, it was never mentioned and, most likely, it was not even a thought that was entertained by those who pushed so enthusiastically for war. But the human mind functions in subtle ways and very little of what it does is because of some rational chain of concepts. Why do people kill? Most often, they kill what they are afraid of. So, could Italians be afraid of their own young? It could be. I came to think that it was, actually, likely."

An evil force rising, a juggernaut much like the current feminist one that you feel reading today's news. If you aren't sucked in by it yourself, that is, which Ugo Bardi might be because he thinks our reaction to covid is the current threat.

Eivind Berge said...

We should consider the possibility that society wants to exterminate us, in the sense described by Ugo Bardi above. Society subconsciously wants to get rid of something like 1/3 of the younger male population, and is indifferent to how it happens. At some point human sacrifices were in style, at another time trench warfare did the trick, and now it is sexual accusations that are weaponized against men. This is a deeper evil than the feminist trade union because there is absolutely no hope and won't be much sympathy because it is truly meant to happen. If you can get men to kill each other by the millions on the battlefield for essentially no reason, it is piece of cake to encourage sexual accusations to do the same. That way men are also conscripted to hurt each other, and they will gladly carry out those orders while us male sexualists are much rarer than the conscientious objectors to other wars.

Jack said...

"Peak oil was 2020, peak gas and coal is now and the rest will break within a few years."

Eivind, I think you give too much credit to a single doom-saying source. I have bought shares/stocks in substantial amounts these last few years and months, what else can you do these days to prevent your savings from depreciating? In doing so I have discussed with many other stock-buyers, most of whom more knowledgable than I am, eager consumers of financial podcasts and articles. The consensus is that there's no real peak anything. Short-term shortages will be addressed by new investments if need be. The can shall be kicked down the road for the foreseeable future. The climate change warriors are seen as a real danger. They are what communists used to be in the beginning of the twentieth century. In fact they're not unlike the feminists in being bent on destroying essential components of western societies.

One other real danger I see and others don't seem to mind about is the superannuated nuclear power stations in western Europe. Some of those should have been taken off the grid how long ago? 5 or 10 years? Scary.

holocaust22 said...

Lmao, they are talking about 14 year olds so nonchalantly there. I understand more now why you are always talking about the incel community. I didn't know a lot of them disagreed with the AoC? Those guys posting in that thread would be pretty cool if they didn't believe in genetic determinism (blackpill?) and whatever other incel stuff they believe in. I'm not sure if the incel community disagreeing with the AoC is a good thing or a bad thing lol. I've changed my mind about them though, a bit. Definitely free thinkers. Better than normies.

"Holocaust22 says we should get woke and convert to Buddhism."

More on Buddhism, hot teens, old ladies, and tantric sex below ;)

"On a numerological basis twelve- or sixteen-year-old girls are preferred. Only when none can be found does Tsongkhapa recommend the use of a twenty-year-old. There is also a table of correspondences between the various ages and the elements and senses: an 11-year-old represents the air, a 12-year-old fire, a 13-year-old water, a 14-year-old earth, a 15-year-old sound, a 16-year-old the sense of touch, a 17-year-old taste, an 18-year-old shape or form, and a 20-year-old the sense of smell (Naropa, 1994, p. 189).

The rituals should not be performed with women older than this, as they absorb the “occult forces” of the guru. The dangers associated with older mudras are a topic discussed at length. A famous tantric commentator describes 21- to 30-year-olds as “goddesses of wrath” and gives them the following names: The Blackest, the Fattest, the Greedy, the Most Arrogant, the Stringent, the Flashing, the Grudging, the Iron Chain, and the Terrible Eye. 31- to 38-year-olds are considered to be manifestations of malignant spirits and 39- to 46-year-olds as “unlimited manifestations of the demons”. They are called Dog Snout, Sucking Gob, Jackal Face, Tiger Gullet, Garuda Mug, Owl Features, Vulture’s Beak, Pecking Crow (Naropa, 1994, p. 189). These women, according to the text, shriek and scold, menace and curse. In order to get the yogi completely off balance, one of these terrible figures calls out to him in the Kalachakra Tantra, “Human beast, you are to be crushed today”. Then she gnashes her teeth and hisses, “Today I must devour your flesh”, and with trembling tongue she continues, “From your body I will make the drink of blood” (Grünwedel, Kalacakra III, p. 191).

The Vajrayana Buddhist tantras are basically like oldschool, religious, male sexualist blogs. Muahahaha.

Eivind Berge said...

Yay, I see some male sexualist consciousness awakening there at the incel forum:

"Someone who supports feminist pseudo-scientific anti-male shit like "it's wrong for a 20+ guy to get with a 15 yo girl because of power imbalance" shouldn't be welcome in such spaces."


">what age is considered ,,agecuckoldry"?
That can vary. Is more about them thinking it's ok for a younger guy to fuck a young foid but not for an older guy (feminist logic) than about specific ages tbh. But let's just say teens to make it easier.

These are good attitudes, regardless of whatever other views they may hold. The path towards becoming a decent human being goes through rejecting that odious feminist logic.

holocaust22 said...

Someone should try to bring this guy mainlander to the blog here. He's one of the bois. Recruit recruit.

Dom Krauer said...

"Someone should try to bring this guy mainlander to the blog here. He's one of the bois. Recruit recruit."

Yeah, bring him here so we can get him raging about 'wankers' while all four of us persuade him to abandon 'black pill theory' and his misogyny and instead convince him to blame it entirely on American Conservatism, the unstoppable force that can't even stop middle-aged trannies from going into women's restrooms or their hero's statues being torn down in their own country.

No disrespect Holocaust22 (or to Eivind), but in terms of hope of ever changing anything, 10 comments left at that forum would probably be more productive than 10 years posting a thousand comments here. You should try to join and put your link to your video channel there.

Still, there's a special place in hell reserved for the Incels - or 'agecucks' - who still put on the paedocrite performance act and denounce sex with teens. They've taken the black pill and recognized that society is based around the sexual needs of women and a minority of men, and yet they still froth at the mouth defending feminist age of consent laws that halve the pool of potential female mates for them. Bet nearly all of the agecuck incels are American. The only power American Conservatism has left is in castrating any promising anti-feminist counter movements of pro-sex attitudes. They did it to the MRM but they are having less success with the incels.

Eivind Berge said...

Bringing you this entire story so we can document how insane the situation was in 2021. We are not making this shit up here on my blog, in case it becomes some of the last documents to survive to a saner time. On top of all the agecuckery sex has turned into a controlled substance that needs to be expunged even when kids discover it on their own as equal consensual participants by feminist logic itself -- so it wasn't really about that "power imbalance" nonsense either, was it? -- just another excuse on the path to scorched earth against sexuality. If we take this at face value, parents are not frightened by the hysteria but find it "really scary" whenever schools fail to maintain a 100% asexual environment. Just having your daughter go to the same school where a couple of students got sexual is enough to scare the bejesus out of these bigots, whereas derailing a kid's future because she took a picture of herself is just as it should be. The explicit supreme purpose of education and indeed this whole civilization is "to help them stay as innocent as possible."


October 1, 2021 ·4 Comments

ATLANTA (CBS46) — Two metro Atlanta middle school students face disciplinary action for their involvement in a sex incident on school grounds.

Most parents, like Patrisha Mongeon, were disturbed to learn that the students engaged in a sex act and recorded it.

“It’s really scary. My daughter goes here and she’s at the age where these things start happening. I was hoping to wait a little longer before these types of explicit conversations were had in my household,” Mongeon said.

A source tells CBS46 that the two students performed a sex act in a bathroom during school hours. The school district sent the following statement.

“Atlanta Public Schools became aware recently of a video showing two Howard Middle School students engaged in a consensual sex act on school grounds. The students have been disciplined in accordance with the district’s code of conduct.”

“Well, I think it’s irresponsible from the people that are supposed to supervise these kids and where their location is at all times,” Parent Dan Villouta said.

APS went on to say, “Additionally, students have been warned that any sharing of the video will result in harsh disciplinary action as well. APS will continue to provide safe and secure learning and working environments for its students and staff.

“It can derail their future, just by talking about it and just by sharing it,” Mongeon said. “We definitely will be having a conversation later. It’s just the on-going struggle we have with our children as parents to help them stay as innocent as possible.”

The only silver lining is that one out of four comments is not taken in by the madness:

"So sad. Will this be lifetime registration for all these middle school students who shared the cp video and the 3 that participated in making the video? Does production and distribution of cp get even longer sentences than possession? Did these students have any clue that this simple act could be the end of any hope of a productive life in the USA? Do they and their parents even realize that yet?"

How can a society not see the madness of destroying a child's life because of some innocent play, all in the name of "keeping them innocent"??? This twisted irony is simply rationalized as how one must deal with sexuality, because belief in the metaphysical badness of sex is the supreme religion. Much like honor can justify killing who a normal person would love in some societies, the need to keep children "innocent" trumps everything under feminism.

Eivind Berge said...

Keeping children innocent is this culture's utility function. It is curious how "innocence" includes suppressing sexual tendencies that clearly emerge from the children themselves, even long after they are in fact sexually mature. In a similar vein I could say I had my cat spayed to keep her innocent. Except that's the wrong word because I actually corrupted her nature for my own convenience, since I didn't want to deal with her going in to heat and having kittens. And that's what we do to children as well: we corrupt their nature and call it innocence out of convenience for feminists and some parents.

There is another good comment at that story now:

"Sadly, each child involved could easily be convicted registered as sex offenders. (Can you even imagine how mandated “S.O. treatment/therapy” would permanently scar these kids??) And because their offenses involved a minor (including themselves), they could each be doomed to having an IML unique identifier passport."

Milan Horvath said...

I am not sure whether it is intended as irony or they are serious?

"So glad there’s a registry that protects kids from doing things like this."

"Wait…. When did a sex act by anyone under the age of consent become “consensual”? Something smells fishy in Seattle. Put these two hooligans on the list they are both guilty of statutory rape and compelling a sex act by a minor."

Eivind Berge said...

Might actually be irony since they are commenting on a site trying to limit the damage of the sex offender registry. But even there they can only focus on the worst excesses, not on the substance of the War on Sex. About that organization:

"Our Mission Statement
The Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws (ACSOL) is dedicated to protecting the Constitution by restoring the civil rights of people listed on the public registries and their families. In order to achieve that objective, ACSOL will educate and litigate as well as support or oppose legislation.

We Believe
No sexual abuse is ever acceptable.
Sex offense laws and policies should be based on sound research and common sense, not fear, panic or paranoia.
Current laws and policies that paint all people convicted of a sex offense with one broad brush are counter-productive, wasteful, and cause needless harm.
Each offense must be judged on its own merits with a punishment that fits the crime and does not waste taxpayer dollars.
The public sex offense registry and residency restriction laws do not protect children but instead ostracize and dehumanize individuals and their families.
Money spent on purely punitive measures would be better used for prevention, healing, and rehabilitation.
We do not now nor have we ever had a relationship with the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)

Milan Horvath said...

I've already saw few webs of these rational sex offence law organisations.
Yeah,it seems, they are just trying to mitigate most blatant absurdities of this moral crusade, but have nothing against it as principle.

This beforehand distancing from Nambla(I don't see it first time), should mean what?
That we live in society where everyone who disagrees with ever more irrational and disproportionate sexual criminal laws must be inherently a paedophile/paedoactivist ?
Unfortunately, moral crusaders successfully use such slander against any opposition.
And then we could end up in funny situation when only people who are not afraid of such label are those who are proud of it, which is understandably not very helpful.

About a year..or two ago I was watching some presentation from some female presenter at NARSOL or RSOL...or maybe it was this ACSOL?

She was talking about criminalisation of young adolescents and prepubescent children, when it comes to sexual/explorative activity with peers.

Instead of calling for abolition of such stupid laws, as
(unless there is violence or coercion) there is hardly any harm or even "power imbalance", she was calling for more education for youngsters/children to learn them, to not engage in intimacies with peers (private parts should stay private..etc)
And somehow, she even compared it to situation with car safety child seats.

Now, there is a question if this is their genuine opinion or they are just "careful" to not upset general public.

If someone wants to neuter his "kittens" I don't mind it, but I want my "kittens"
(when/if I will have them) to have a healthy and happy kittenhood, without irrational restrictions.
And this is what I am criticising, every little aspect of personal/family life is increasingly controlled.
State won't let you do with it's "property" whatever you want.

I read somewhere, that there was some psychological research which attributed sexual repression in early age (between peers) to increased aggressivity and sexual problems in adulthood.
Now, I am not sure if it was done by J.W. Prescott ??? Too lazy to watch it now....

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, they be like "Please don't put our kids on the registry if we don't manage to repress all their sexuality until 18, but we don't mean to allow it and swear we're not NAMBLA!"

So timid that they need to affirm allegiance to all the definitions of sexual abuse in the first sentence, and then that weird disclaimer that came out of nowhere. Seriously, what is the point of "activism" if you have nothing substantial to say? If I were given to conspiratorial thinking I would call it controlled opposition. All they do is give the abuse industry an imaginary adversary so they can get more funding and have harmless "debates."

Anonymous said...

Don't know if you have been following the case of uber pig Wayne Couzens - a serving London police officer who used his Covid powers of arrest while in uniform to handcuff a lone female, then drove her 80 miles to rape and murder her before burning her body.

He had been caught flashing numerous times and his colleagues nicknamed him 'the rapist', but was never investigated. 16 police officers are under investigation for offences such as sharing jokes with Couzens on WhatsApp about raping and murdering women.

These are the pigs who will arrest you for downloading a pic of a 17 year old in a skimpy bikini or for chatting to a woman you don't know in the street.

Jack said...

So they're criminalising underage boys now. Maybe that's not such bad news from our own purely tactical point of view. Underage boys (and girls of course) have got away with too much for too long compared to old farts like me. What good is it to me that underage boys and girls are allowed to have orgies as long as no over-18 joins in?

This crusade against heterosexual adult men contains a fair component of lookism and ageism. The more demographics they go after the more they risk a broad-based backlash.

Milan Horvath said...

I sometimes also hope that this circus will reach point, when it will trigger a strong backlash, but I am not very optimistic about that.

When this crusade started in 80/90's (or precisely it's another wave), people were persuaded,that it is necessary because sexual murderers are lurking in the white vans and so...
It would be probably not so popular if they were told, that:
We will be policing every step you make in your personal/family life and we will ruin your children's life if they will do what is natural to them, but in conflict with our orthodoxies.

Speaking about persecution of youth/children, it reminds me another "juicy" story
I read in book "Uncle Sam's Sexualhölle erobert die Welt", this one is not even about sex:

This persecution of children, which is now completely common in the USA, suddenly became conscious to the European public when in August 1999 ten-year-old Raoul, the son of the Swiss-American couple Beverly and Andreas Wüthrich, (in addition to be an American, also - luckily in the misfortune - was a Swiss Passport holder), was arrested in Colorado.

Because he wanted to help his five-year-old sister pee, he was reported by a vicious neighbour for "rape" and then dragged out of bed by the police, late at night in his parents' house and chained in handcuffs and ankle cuffs.
At police station, there where two policemen secretly interrogating him for hours until four o'clock at night, without informing his parents and without any assistance, in order to extract a "confession" from him - after which they threw him in prison.
From that moment on, while the public prosecutor's office was fanatically tinkering with an indictment of "serious incest", little Raoul was subjected to the most appalling abuse that is common in US prisons:
On the second day, Raoul had faced one of the greatest and most brutal.
He was beaten until he could not get up and lay unconscious.
The guards who observed the action through the window upstairs in the gallery did nothing to prevent it. On the contrary, the latter raged its own sexual sadism on the defenceless little boy: After every visit, the imprisoned Raoul soon reported his despair to his own parents who were struggling for his release, he had to strip himself completely naked, and the guards would have the most fun examining everything about him. This embarrassing ordeal even went so far that there were always several of these "virtuous" guards who looked into his anus with torches and gloves and touched him. They also didn't stop at plucking and squeezing the front of the genitals. He felt most repulsed when one of the guards even put a finger in his anus. Apparently the guards enjoyed hearing the boy's whimpering, at least they always cracked jokes about it.

I wonder how it was covered by media then?
If someone would collect various witnesses from victims of this crusade it could be an interesting documentary.
Our oh-so moral media, however it seems doesn't care about such trivialities.

Anonymous said...

Those police should be shot dead at their homes in front of their families!

Anonymous said...

It should be a justifiable homicide to kill your ex boss if you were fired from there as a result of any cancel culture action.

Eivind Berge said...

"According to Attorney General Mark Speakman it is all “very simple”. Consent now has to be communicated by the other party “saying or doing something." Subtle interpretation of long-established codes is not enough to let the accused off the hook. “A reasonable step has to be an act or something said to ascertain the complainant's consent."

That’s it, you see. Most people don’t seek consent before and during lovemaking and nor do they have any interest in doing so. But that means we are all now prospective complainants or alleged perpetrators. [...]

The new sexual consent laws are all about encouraging women to rewrite the history of their sexual relationships in order to find more men guilty of sexual assault. These laws wilfully ignore women’s own ambiguity and confusion which means men face a lethal guessing game.

Bettina Arndt on enthusiastic consent laws:

Men don't resist these laws but one old Australian woman does. Go figure.

Milan Horvath said...

"Men don't resist these laws but one old Australian woman does. Go figure."
It is really good.
That's also why I think that it should be war between (civic)libertarians/libertines and totalitarians/prudes,rather than war between sexes.

If someone have problem to read body language and other subtle nuances, dating could be a difficult experience.
Many boys raised in this toxic and confusing environment (full of contradictory signs) have already problem to start relationship with opposite sex, but now with such "nice" laws it will gain another level.
Maybe they think, that we have not enough nutters shooting people in streets ?

But girls are also raised in such toxic environment, where they are taught from very early age that everyone wants to hurt them, everyone wants to take advantage of them.
Raised to be paranoid and feel trauma from things that are normally (at worst) slightly unpleasant .
I wonder if all of those celebrities (falsely) claiming to be abused/raped in past do this knowingly and willfully or, that they genuinely believe it (as many of them were previously treated by various "therapists")

All in all-There is no winner in War of Sexes/War on Sex, except some mentally unbalanced nutters and sleazy opportunists.

holocaust22 said...

So I've been reading about the CCP and religion. Basically, the religious sects that the CCP allow to exist are religious sects that swear allegiance to the CCP. And the illegal religious sects are any sects not under the control of the CCP. One of the methods the propaganda department in the CCP uses to take care of sects they consider a threat, is to accuse the leaders of "taking advantage" of women. Which gets me thinking. Is it possible the powers that be, in the west, are cultivating abuse hysteria, and paedohysteria, as a means to destroy their political opponents, and any group they consider a threat? And did westerners learn this from the CCP, or the other way around.

"Official reports focus particularly on the exploitative nature of
sects in an attempt to deny them any genuine mass base,
often using standard formulae to accuse sect leaders of
extorting money from adherents and sexually taking
advantage of women believers (zhapian qiancai, jianxu funu).
In this respect the `Heroes of Ling' report follows a
well-established path, whereby all attention is paid to the
corrupting influence of the main culprits and none to the
motives of those they have `led astray"

Dom Krauer said...

"Men don't resist these laws but one old Australian woman does. Go figure."

That's great, because it's thousands of old women who are lobbying for and making these laws.

Women face far less dangers in speaking out than men do. And men can't speak for women anyway. The whole Sexual Holocaust is built upon the lie that teen girls can't consent to sex. Eivind and Milan Horvarth can write 10,000 word treatises on why teen girls can consent to sex, but at the end of the day, if billions of women are saying ' I couldn't consent to sex when I was 14 so there', there's not much you can say against that as a man, except call them out for being jealous bitter old hags who are lying.

But like Holocaust22, you're impressed by one woman out of a billion speaking up, when the crime is that millions of women aren't speaking up and calling bullshit on it all.

Eivind should also realize from our experience of the 'lovely looking sheilas' taking over the MRM that women get far more attention both from their opponents and their own side. Remember back in the day and even a hag could get 20 x the views if she made a YouTube video.

Unfortunately it is a sex war, however much you and Milan don't want to face up to it. But you can continue blowing in the wind with your rational open-minded appeals for another 60 years, while the incels on the other hand, eventually become a problem that society can't ignore and they get listened to.

"I wonder if all of those celebrities (falsely) claiming to be abused/raped in past do this knowingly and willfully or, that they genuinely believe it (as many of them were previously treated by various "therapists")"

They don't need therapists, they just need to look in the mirror and compare themselves to when they were young and got all this 'unwanted' attention. It's a cope for their loss of sexual power.

The problem is, you, Eivind, and all the others for the last 60 years are appealing to rationality, when it's entirely rational for the vast majority of women to tell themselves (and the world) that sex is harmful for young girls, prostitutes, pornstars, good looking women etc. etc.

Eivind Berge said...

The police are after me again, so if I disappear you know why. I have done nothing; it's just harassment or whatever they imagine. My lawyer is already on it.

Eivind Berge said...

Update: it's actually not so serious. Even the police seem to think it's bullshit which is why they aren't acting on it beyond maybe calling me in for interrogation at some point -- no arrest or anything now. But there is some kind if accusation; they won't say what but I have a theory. The only thing I can think of recently that may have led to a police report is this twitter debate:

Just the usual female sex offender charade nonsense, arguing with fake MRAs (Hannah Wallen and her disciples), but you know how it is: anyone who disagrees with the sex laws must be a pedo and reported/banned/cancelled/imprisoned. They also managed to get me a warning on Twitter but not banned this time.

So unless Norway has passed Dutch-style laws against "advocating pedophilia" without me noticing, I have nothing to worry about from this.

Eivind Berge said...

Here's the tweet that Twitter made me delete in that thread, which is all they accomplished by reporting:

Hi Fertile Dating,
Your account, @fertiledating has been locked for violating the Twitter Rules.
Specifically for:
Violating our rules against hateful conduct.
You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.
Fertile Dating
@Judith_Char @deprtehdargon @octaroona @dooberdo @TradutorBastard @Oneiorosgrip @JohnDavisJDLLM @JustKidding4747 @3EPKAJI0 @redpillPA @Midnight2Ride Yeah, because in truth they are lucky, so you want to punish women for being nice to boys. It is poignantly sad and ironic since you participate in the subjugation of women and for deranged reasons too that serve nothing but an industry that creates problems for its own sake.

Eivind Berge said...

But it won't be long until we really are imprisoned for that line of argument, will it? Already happening in the Netherlands.

Thanks for linking to that document about the CCP, Holocaust22. It's not as simple as Dom Krauer says, much more multifaceted. The persecution serves several purposes beyond cementing female sexual power, and sometimes not even that at all. When it turns women against themselves in the female sex offender charade it seems to have devolved into pure superstition. There is no "purpose" to it beyond a psychotic belief for its own sake in that ultimate distillation.

Milan Horvath said...

They didn't let you know what concrete post is problematic for them ?
Or what law was supposedly breached? That is pretty weird.
Regarding those posts I didn't see anything so offensive
(however-as you know, I don't agree with you on this)
Not that I would agree with those imbeciles there lobbying for "equal injustice"

What is weird in case of Holland- it seems, that they didn't passed some specific laws.
I suppose, they banned their political movement on same base on which neo-nazi groups are banned (against public morals and human dignity and bla bla bla).
And present prosecution is for circumventing this ban.
Basically it seems to me, that they used new interpretation of old laws, which is even more horrifying.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know those details yet. Don't know if the police will even think there is a problem or just drop it. What appears to have happened is that some report has come in from abroad, and during the routing to my local police I was alerted since they wanted to know my current address (as if this wasn't easily accessible to them, but whatever). Which itself indicated they don't take it very seriously or else they wouldn't have given me this early warning that there is an investigation, which enabled me to call my lawyer immediately. He pressed them for what is going on and will try to get more info tomorrow when whatever this case is has reached the local police. I don't talk to them myself, of course, and as much as I like to debate the female sex offender charade, police interrogations are not the place for it (I will invite them to have a public debate instead if this topic is of interest to them -- or else they get it in court).

I am not worried unless they actually put prestige into pursuing this, in which case it is horrifying because they might well bend old laws in new ways here too as you suggest.

Eivind Berge said...

I understand where you are coming from when you want to make this something other than a sex war, Milan, but the female sex offender charade is another reason why that can't work. We absolutely need different laws for men and women even under the most sensible system because the sexes are different.

Milan Horvath said...

Equality before law is another thing that is sacrosanct to me, which means no positive nor negative discrimination.
Only thing that men only could do to women, when we are speaking about sexual violence is making her pregnant with rapist. But we don't need a special law for that as it is aggravating circumstance.

You are for relatively low AOC, so we can skip discussion about non-violent adult-adolescent encounters.

First I need to mention, that I do not consider sexuality as thing that should be viewed as commodity (at least by law)
Yes sex can be bought, everything can be bought.
But prostitution should be considered as marginal thing, not as role model for law.

Not, to say that such thinking is great source of arguments for feminists:
I was too young,
I was bidding too low, because I didn't knew ....he deceived me.
Instead of: it was pleasurable for both, it's past already....C' est la Vie

Someone could use argument- that there are many of female prostitutes, yet little of male gigolos-it is IMO because of our anatomy: spreading legs and using some lubricant is much more easy, than to induce yourself an erection in front of unattractive person.

And now to violence/abuse:

a) Some unattractive man will attack a woman penetrate her forcibly and leave.
(without making her pregnant)
b) Some unattractive woman will attack man (using weapon) penetrate him forcibly using some object and leave.

a)Some adult woman will force prepubescent boy to perform a oral sex on her.
b)Some adult man will force prepubescent girl to same.

All perpetrators feel sexual arousal,joy when performing such act, all victims feel humiliation, fear, and trauma. For me it is same thing. I know that male as perpetrator is more common, but that doesn't mean we should have different laws.

If you will define a rape as penile-vaginal intercourse only, then yes it is problematic for woman to rape a man, but I don't see a reason for such distinction as motives and consequences are not different.

There was a case, when female inmates of juvenile detention centre raped warden by using drugs and matches into urethra as substitute of erection.

Present-day setting is a sociocultural construct for me, yes it is springing from past-time reality (problematic contraceptive measures, no possibility of paternity testing...etc)
But this reality don't exist any more, so I consider such behaviour maladaptive.

There are, some differences though, but not so significant, we should have different law for one or another.
I am almost 99% sure that I won't persuade you on this issue, as you won't persuade me.

BTW: Do you know this French film from 70's ?

Milan Horvath said...

And some excerpt from The "untouchable"

...Does it, then, have something to do with girl power? Is there a continuing sense among young women that only by severely restricting their favours can they maintain their allure and force men into bidding highly for them? I do not mean literally a virginity auction, although these are not unknown: one was memorably depicted in the film Pretty Baby, which saw the sale of a 12-year-old’s maidenhead to the highest bidder. Rather than that scenario of a powerless child callously commodified by uncaring men, I am thinking more of heartless women cruelly leading guys on, mercilessly “prick teasing” them in endless competition against each other!
Is this inevitable, this feminine cruelty? Does it start with the winsomeness of the cute little girl, instinctively able to wrap her dad around her little finger, as the saying goes, or indeed any other adoring adult? Is it ordained inescapably in the depths of our evolved psychology that girls will bewitch and tease, but often not deliver?
Or are there cultures in which the girls do not tease, and prioritize gaining sexual pleasure and experience over losing their virginity? Even in our own culture girls may well be sexually enthusiastic and liberal with their favours until they catch up with how they are supposed to behave......

Eivind Berge said...

No, that's the first I hear of that movie, which looks cute! “Get Out Your Handkerchiefs: A worried husband finds a lover for his depressed wife, but she falls in love with a bullied thirteen-year-old math prodigy and wants to have the boy’s baby.” Just a comedic love story of what the feminists and courts (even French law) now call women raping boys? If so, I am surprised it is still accessible, but maybe so obscure that they don't bother cancelling it yet?

As to your wanting gender-neutral laws, we are in complete disagreement on this. Equality before the law presupposes that we are dealing with comparable situations in the first place, which we are not. This is the one thing tradition got right: only men can rape (and also no statutory abuse by females before feminist corruption of sex laws).

Unless you want to completely eliminate the crime of rape. That I am OK with. Then we just have generic assault and violence, judged on a case-by-case basis, and sure enough the courts will judge that it is much more aggravated when we are talking about what I mean by rape, and might just decide that female sexual coercion is trivial like they did for all of history, so it could work out fairly. But that’s a nonstarter as far as human culture goes. Having a crime of rape that is considered especially heinous just because of the sexual aspect itself is too entrenched to ever be let go of, and has been so long as laws existed. The best we can do is make the definition sensible again. Sensible humans do not hold that the mere fact of a woman sexually “violating” a man constitutes a heinous crime, so the proper legal concept is simple assault if it is to be prosecuted at all (or aggravated by worse violence/injury if applicable, but never the sexual violation itself).

Real rape is so serious that the name (and sentencing range) is not out of place even if the victim dies. “Rape” subsumes all other crimes one can do to a person in the course of a violent assault, and you would have to be absolutely bonkers to claim it does the same to female offenders. If a man claims to have been “raped” by a woman -- and perhaps it really did involve some serious torture where he feared for his life and got seriously injured -- then he would have to call it by another name to get the proper sympathy, even from you, Milan! Think about that. You are trivializing really serious female violence when you insist on calling it by a name which is perceived as a joke. Think about the concept of subsumption and how the most serious aspect of a crime is what it is reasonably called.

Eivind Berge said...

Now to the commodity question. My conceptualization of rape isn’t based on that, nor does it preclude girls from being sexually enthusiastic and liberal with their favors by free choice. If you just commodify it then rape could be reduced to the loss of the going rate for sex, which is not at all what I am arguing. Sure, that’s one way to show that the loss is much less for men, but it doesn’t begin to capture magnitude of the difference and certainly not the actual harm of real rape (including male homosexual rape even though men hardly think of themselves as a commodity that way). I recognize that female choice is important and linked to deep feelings of traumatization (likely specific adaptations that merit a special category of rape) when it is taken from them by literal force, to which there is no equivalent when men are forced by women. The fact that we have removed pregnancy from the equation (which is not always true either and relies on technology that may soon go away if we collapse) does not change the psychology, which is the true reason to have a crime of rape. You are being a social constructionist, which is what feminists also claim yet they never managed to make the mentality of the sexes equal. Your considering certain aspects of female psychology maladaptive does not make them go away, nor do you get to invent equal ones for males.

We don’t get around having a sex-specific crime of rape both so that female violence can be taken seriously when it is serious, not be reduced to a joke, and so that women aren't punished unfairly for trifles either. Trust what your gut instinct tells you when you hear “women raping men,” because it is attuned to what is reasonable. My first association is a joke, but then again it might be serious aside from the corrupted language, in which case the victim would have been taken seriously quicker by describing it as something that does, in fact, elicit sympathy at first glance (such as sexual torture or whatever to emphasize that the violence is the problem -- anything that does not put the emphasis on sex itself merely because it was unwanted, as if that is a big deal, which you inevitably do if you call it rape).

Milan Horvath said...

Thing is-with psychological trauma, that it is very problematic to quantify it objectively.
Unlike in case of physical trauma, it is highly dependable on values and customs of culture in which victim is living. It is prone to manipulation by people who want to achieve certain goals, either ideological or personal.

What my gut is telling me is highly dependable on environment I was raised in.
Which changes in place and time.
We now live in world, where sexual violence(committed on women and children) is putted on pedestal of severity, while other types of violence even those lethal are trivialised by our(their) culture.

Fact, that we find violence against men funny, is given by cultural environment in
which we are living.
(I do not endorse all views of this channel)
Feminism (or it's Anglo-Saxon branch which is now dominant) is not about equality, so it is logical they didn't achieved it as it was not a desired goal for them.
And even if, they alone don't rule the world, there are other powerful ideological groups.
Also I am not saying that natural mentality is equal, but I think it is not so dissimilar to have different laws.

Only way to objectively disprove my theory, would be an experiment, which could be(rightly) considered unethical.
"Raise representative sample of children of both sexes in isolated, equal,strictly rational environment, then commit same type of sexual abuse/violence against both sexes, and then examine them by objective,ideology-free researcher."

Unlike you, I consider myself a civic libertarian/anti-prude rather than MRA, so I can't judge.
But does this sounds to you like MRA:
"Men should get harsher punishment for same acts than women." ?
I don't like misogyny, but this sounds like opposite extreme of it.

Eivind Berge said...

Human psychology is a thing of wonder. We are highly sensitive to social status and can detect lots of subtle signals about most things to do with survival and reproduction, but somehow evolution is too crude to detect the fact that women bear children at a maximum rate of one per year or so while men have basically unlimited sperm, and let that have an imprint on our psychology? Absent different social programming, you seriously believe our minds place close enough to equal value on a few hours of sperm production and an entire pregnancy and lactation? That beggars belief and no evidence supports it. Nordic feminist societies are approximations of the experiment your propose, yet sexual mentality won’t budge. Indeed, sex differences are bigger when the sexes are less constrained since then we are more free to follow our instincts. What you are saying is just as absurd as claiming the only reason men prefer youth is due to social conditioning, or else 80-year-old women would be just as attractive as teen girls, because evolution couldn’t possibly have equipped us with a clear preference. Evolutionary psychology can just pack up and leave it all to the social constructionists?

I don’t find violence against men funny. You are right there are jokes about it, but humor can also be a way to cope with something horrific (or signal a desire to hurt some other group), but that’s not the kind of humor I am talking about with female-on-male “rape,” which is funny because it is absurd. Men don’t find prison rape jokes funny in that way, and no man ever suggested that women should free to chop off penises. As soon as they imagine themselves on the receiving end, all of that ceases to be funny. Once again your experiment fails, and I think we have more than enough evidence to extrapolate it to a randomized controlled trial. You might as well demand an RCT to check if parachutes work too, which hasn't been done either except as a joke to prove we don't need one.

Eivind Berge said...

This is how your line of argument works for parachutes :)

The parachute and the healthy cohort effect
One of the major weaknesses of observational data is the possibility of bias, including selection bias and reporting bias, which can be obviated largely by using randomised controlled trials. The relevance to parachute use is that individuals jumping from aircraft without the help of a parachute are likely to have a high prevalence of pre-existing psychiatric morbidity. Individuals who use parachutes are likely to have less psychiatric morbidity and may also differ in key demographic factors, such as income and cigarette use. It follows, therefore, that the apparent protective effect of parachutes may be merely an example of the “healthy cohort” effect. Observational studies typically use multivariate analytical approaches, using maximum likelihood based modelling methods to try to adjust estimates of relative risk for these biases. Distasteful as these statistical adjustments are for the cognoscenti of evidence based medicine, no such analyses exist for assessing the presumed effects of the parachute.

The medicalisation of free fall
It is often said that doctors are interfering monsters obsessed with disease and power, who will not be satisfied until they control every aspect of our lives (Journal of Social Science, pick a volume). It might be argued that the pressure exerted on individuals to use parachutes is yet another example of a natural, life enhancing experience being turned into a situation of fear and dependency. The widespread use of the parachute may just be another example of doctors' obsession with disease prevention and their misplaced belief in unproved technology to provide effective protection against occasional adverse events.

Eivind Berge said...

Gail's verdict on our future:

"I don’t think that there is any way at all that intermittent renewables can be made to power our economy. Carbon taxes can’t fix the problem. Wind, solar, and hydro are all extenders of the fossil fuel system, as is nuclear. Without fossil fuels, we lose all of them. In theory, if the problem were 100 years away, there might be something we could come up with, but our problem is a here and now problem."

Eivind Berge said...

Now the police called and told me what the charges are. I am supposed to have threatened to share a pornographic video of somebody, some kind of revenge porn? LOL! Complete fiction, not even my tweets they are after though chances are somebody got the idea to accuse me from that thread.

They ask if I want to tell my side of the story, but I am thinking it is best to let them decide if they want to go to court without my input and if they do I get the bonus of exposing the false accusers in court as well as more attention for myself, but will consult with my lawyer before deciding.

Eivind Berge said...

It is a strong principle that you should never talk to police, even if 100% innocent. Even though it feels like nothing can go wrong, reality is different...

If nothing else, it enables the false accusers to adapt their story or come up with something else when they see I have proof positive they are lying. Plus there is the fun in getting more attention for our movement and to shame the accusers if they actually take this nonsense to court. So I will probably refuse interrogation. I don't even know who accused me yet. Probably somebody I never even met.

Eivind Berge said...

I was expecting to fall victim to the sexual holocaust sooner or later if we didn’t collapse first. However, with all the criminalization of sexuality I wasn’t expecting it to be something entirely made up like this, but some sort of empty accusation. I am a nofapper... I have no interest in “threatening” to share porn, but that is so stereotypical of the time, isn’t it? It’s like taken out of the NXIVM sex cult case, R. Kelly or any number of stupid accusations going on that don’t even address actual sex and would be exceedingly foolish for the man to do on so many levels, but I guess this is the first thing that pops into an accuser’s head nowadays -- the flipside of the wanker’s delusion that he is getting sexual value from porn is equally removed from the real thing, so now women are primarily “abused” through porn as well.

Remember last time we were targeted there were impersonations and such including threats from fake cops and it was really nasty, but it didn’t go so far as making actual police reports. If they can lie about this, they can lie about anything, so better get this into court quick to publicly expose them as false accusers before they decide they were raped too, and recruit more accusers etc. By talking to police now I would facilitate that and I am not going to make that mistake. Let their accusation be fresh and naïve the first time I hear it so I can spontaneously rebut it with truth, not have it adapted to all the times I don’t have alibi for and so on, which is mainly what innocent men earn from talking to the police. They care NOTHING about discovering that you are innocent, only to find something they can twist into using for their case, and as we saw in the classic video I linked to above ALL accused will offer something like that if they talk prematurely. Perhaps it’s even ill-advised to blog about this lest they get better ideas, but at least it is on public record here!

Eivind Berge said...

Could it be that someone has impersonated ME this time, threatened some girl, who really believes I did it? All such crazy possibilities are open.

Oldcel said...

What a C***. After accusing the R&B singer who made her famous in the 'Blurred Lines' video of 'groping' her, now she's claiming she was 'sexualized'. What an effing whore. As if the whore wasn't sexualizing young girls by appearing in rapey pop videos naked. And she's saying this now because she's aging and can't get modelling work and has a book to sell. How can you and Milan read stuff like this day after day and not come to the conclusion that 90% of foids are effing evil?

And what about this for an effing mangina?

Sorry to read about your legal problems Eivind. Sounds like the pigs don't have anything on you, but it would be ironic I think if your life was ruined by evil women on Twatter as a result of white knighting whores for their right to suck off 13 year old black Tyrones in class.

Can't think of anything more cucked than that.

Oldcel said...

"Real rape is so serious that the name (and sentencing range) is not out of place even if the victim dies. “Rape” subsumes all other crimes one can do to a person in the course of a violent assault, and you would have to be absolutely bonkers to claim it does the same to female offenders. If a man claims to have been “raped” by a woman -- and perhaps it really did involve some serious torture where he feared for his life and got seriously injured -- then he would have to call it by another name to get the proper sympathy, even from you, Milan! Think about that. You are trivializing really serious female violence when you insist on calling it by a name which is perceived as a joke."

What the hell are you talking about here Eivind? Are you agreeing with feminists that rape is worse than torture and murder?

And you wonder why literally NOBODY takes you seriously after 15 years.

Oldcel said...

"Could it be that someone has impersonated ME this time, threatened some girl, who really believes I did it? All such crazy possibilities are open."

Sounds bizarre. It's likely either the pigs playing mind games on you, or the same person (TakeDownMRAs) who posted child porn on your blog and was making various false accusations under different handles.

Eivind Berge said...

Are you agreeing with feminists that rape is worse than torture and murder?

What I am saying is we have these occasional news stories where rape victims die (especially common in India for some reason). Okay, that is clearly a heinous crime, no argument there. And they have the death penalty for rape, so no need to raise it. Though I personally would call it murder, it works well enough to call it rape and use that law. That’s all I agree with when I say the crime of rape can subsume all other violent crimes. What we need to do is remove all the unreasonable applications and not let them call it rape when it’s simply regretted sex or lesser coercion or a female accused. Of course even real rape is rarely as bad as torture and murder, but it CAN be; it’s not too jarring to call it rape when those things happen in a rape, but very bizarre to call female violence rape, in which case if it is really bad you don’t get that point across because the listener is too busy laughing.

Like this:

Cause of death was inserting a rod, so technically not rape by my definition, but my point was the heinousness conveyed by the word is not too lacking and we don’t really need to quibble about the legal application in these cases. But if a woman had inserted a rod and killed a man… you NEED a different word to do the man justice.

Oldcel said...

OK, so you agree with feminists that porn is evil, and you agree with feminists that rape (for women) is worse than murder.


Eivind Berge said...

Not what I said, read it again. And I believe porn is evil to men because it prevents male sexual fulfillment. Feminists don’t believe that; they believe porn constitutes male sexual fulfillment and hence is exploitative of women, which are two sides of the same wanker’s delusion.

Milan Horvath said...

Okay, why don't make it more complicated, if it could be simpler........
Briefly, do you think, that males should be punished more severely for similar violent acts that are breaching bodily integrity and have sexual/sexualised motivation?
Lets use my example
a) Some unattractive man will attack a woman penetrate her forcibly and leave.
(without making her pregnant)
b) Some unattractive woman will attack man (using weapon) penetrate him forcibly using some object and leave.
a)Some adult woman will force prepubescent boy to perform a oral sex on her.
b)Some adult man will force prepubescent girl to same.

When someone is claiming, that rape is fate worse than death (I am not saying that you are),
I will ask him/her a question:
Hypothetically, if you (or your life partner or child to make it more severe) were kidnapped, and kidnapper let you choose between:
1. bullet in the head
2. severing spinal cord
3. pouring hot oil/acid over body
4. amputation of one limb
5. forceful anal/vaginal penetration without causing any lasting physical damage

What you would choose?
I must say that, am not much into bum-love, but I am sure I would hand him a pack of lube and tell: "Here you go Sir"
I would do the same if it was my girlfriend or child (provided that there will be no lasting physical injury and no other option).

Absolutely BTW: I am against death penalty and against any of YEE-HAW justice.
Insofar as there is no fatality-no life sentence,
if there is no LASTING SEVERE physical damage- no longer sentence than 10/15 years(adult/child victim).
If there is no significant damage at all- suspended sentence(or decriminalisation if possible).
Those people who are lobbying for life sentence(or God forbid death penalty) for
sex offenders are IMO heavy idiots, putting possible victims at higher risk of being murdered
(not even mentioning disproportionality in law).

And back to that equal law- I am not saying that everything about sex/gender is social construct,there are natural differences, but how we perceive sexuality is significantly affected by sociocultural environment we live in.

.comparing my arguments with experiments with parachute is a misleading and little bit arrogant
you cannot know how sexes are coping with consequences of sexual violence based entirely on their roles in reproduction.
.Scandinavian societies are far from ideal of equality (despite they think they are)and even if, they are not isolated from outer world/culture.

I am commenting here for relax, not because I want to argue or fight.
As this is not real movement, there is no reason for that.
If you believe that it is "different for girls" or that practising "NOFAP"
is helpful for sexual/mental health.....what to say....
I respect your opinion, despite not sharing it.......

Eivind Berge said...

I disagree that rape can be performed with an object. Especially when women do it, the last thing you think about is that she is having "sex" with you and that is the problem. The real problem is of course that objects can cause serious pain and harm. So you force it into a comical category that makes it sound much LESS severe than it is by calling it rape. But usually, when actual sex and with no serious injuries, the problem with insisting on calling it "rape" is to punish women far more than they deserve, which is misogyny that I can't get behind. Remember that sentencing guidelines often have minimums!

You don't respect the ontological status of human categories enough. There is a great quote by Heisenberg which I think applicable, on the relationship of ordinary language to reality compared to scientific language:

"One of the most important features of the development and the analysis of modern physics is the experience that the concepts of natural language, vaguely defined as they are, seem to be more stable in the expansion of knowledge than the precise terms of scientific language, derived as an idealization from only limited groups of phenomena. This is in fact not surprising since the concepts of natural language are formed by the immediate connection with reality; they represent reality. It is true that they are not very well defined and may therefore also undergo changes in the course of the centuries, just as reality itself did, but they never lose the immediate connection with reality. On the other hand, the scientific concepts are idealizations; they are derived from experience obtained by refined experimental tools, and are precisely defined through axioms and definitions. Only through these precise definitions is it possible to connect the concepts with a mathematical scheme and to derive mathematically the infinite variety of possible phenomena in this field. But through this process of idealization and precise definition the immediate connection with reality is lost. The concepts still correspond very closely to reality in that part of nature which had been the object of the research. But the correspondence may be lost in other parts containing other groups of phenomena."

You seem to think you can treat "rape" like scientific language and use an exact, logical, gender-equal definition, but that's not how such basic human concepts work.

I certainly agree that rape is not a fate worse than death (by most women's own accounts too), but there is something to its special status that we should respect since all cultures tell us it is very serious. It is more than the sum of the parts that you reduce it to, and you can't transfer it to female offenders.

Regarding the difference between these:

a)Some adult woman will force prepubescent boy to perform a oral sex on her.
b)Some adult man will force prepubescent girl to same.

That's sexual abuse (not rape) on the girl. On the boy, it is generic child abuse where the sexual aspect is non-aggravating. Or if it is experienced as no more distressing than other chores I don't see a greater problem with it, at least not so far as I can fathom yet with all my thinking on this.

Milan Horvath said...

I didn't say that second example is rape-it is sexual abuse, and to that word "force" in bold-
Yes same example without force would be another question, for which I have no easy answers as it would be very problematic/complicated thing even in most permissive society I could imagine.

Calling non-penetrative forceful acts- rape, same as statutory rape and even non-penetrative non-violent acts is American bullshit (unfortunately successfully exported around the world.

And to that you don't consider it as sexual abuse in case of boy as victim/female as perpetrator....well, I think that I have said what I wanted to say....
I have mine opinion, you have yours.....

@ Oldcel
When something immoral is made tolerable, people will use and abuse it.
Writing rape-sobbing books at middle age is now a must-be fashion for immoral famous women.(probably started by one unnamed black landwhale in 80's)
Cowardice,hypocrisy, fake morality and many opportunist interests made it possible.

People sometimes tend to see a moral authority in celebrities, while in fact they are just non-sexual prostitutes.....literally they are making feel-good for money
(and frequently price doesn't match quality as in case of real prostitutes).
Hypothetically, even if STU theory is 100% cause of present-day problems it is same fault of men as of women, as their (our) cowardice and selfishness allowed it.
Not gallantry nor kindness but selfishness and cowardice.

Eivind Berge said...

Let’s say you build a sentient robot. Can the robot be sexually abused? Well, that depends on whether it has a sexuality and what this sexuality is like. Otherwise, you are projecting something on it that is not there. If the robot can feel pain but has no notion of sexuality, all you can do is generic abuse and the rest is projection. That thought experiment should sensitize you to the possibility that you might be projecting. Boys have a sexuality that enables them to be abused by men; that I agree with. But not by women, all of which is a projection of this particular cultural moment in the same way we also (more or less) believe things about transsexuals that previous generations would find funny. I am “stuck” in the old reality. Perhaps you haven’t gone all the way with the trans thinking yet, but you sure have soaked up the gender-fluidity of sexual abuse, which to me makes even less sense than the most extreme claims regarding trans rights. Apparently it is now a slur to speak of biological males and females:

Men can have cervices, women can have penises, we are told. Heisenberg says reality changes over time, which is pretty wild. And perhaps it really does change in these ways, but it would take more to convince me on the very greatest novelties such as women “sexually abusing” males -- unless of course they are trans -- hmm, I guess it is a package deal.

Oldcel said...

"Hypothetically, even if STU theory is 100% cause of present-day problems it is same fault of men as of women, as their (our) cowardice and selfishness allowed it.
Not gallantry nor kindness but selfishness and cowardice."

That's a completely meaningless statement, or rather an empty rationalization of your (gallant) refusal to hold women accountable for the Sexual Holocaust.

It's the equivalent of a Jew in Nazi Germany pointing out that the death camps are equally the fault of Jews for allowing it to happen, so we shouldn't hold Nazis or Germans any more accountable.

TBH, the extreme White Knightism of yourself and Eivind is far more misogynistic than the incels that so offend you. It's really is as though you don't see women as people at all, regarding them not capable of being active agents and responsible for the harm they commit. More like animals than humans. For example, we might say of a rat infestation that it's the fault of other humans for allowing it (leaving rubbish out in the street etc.), rather than the rats, who are mindless animals and just being rats. But normally, when humans are actually committing the harm, we blame them. Unless they are women in the case of you and Eivind (and it has to be said, the whole pointless and irrelevant 'anti-sex hysteria' movement).

Furthermore, it can be applied to the dumb 'American Conservatism' thesis just as equally. If somehow, hypothetically (we're talking crazy parallel universe here) that the same American Conservatives who have been laughably unable to stop drag queens with names like 'Flowjob' teaching primary school children about sex, or their own President from being cancelled from social media, have somehow been able to convince the world (from Japan to India to France) that sex with teenagers is the worst perversion and crime in the world, then...

I would honestly kill myself with shame that we allowed such pathetic losers (modern American Conservatives) to actually do this.

I said a couple of days ago that the only force that American Conservatism has left in the world is to neuter sub cultures such as the Men's Rights Movement. Actually, you're another example of it. Like other anti-sex hysteria commentators, you can't get American Conservatism out of your head, thus blinded to the obvious reality of the medusa monster staring you in the face who is the real principle enemy. You once said it would be better if we just ignored Americans when it came to forming a resistance movement. How about we ignore Americans 100%, including their irrelevant Conservative whackos as the bogeyman for our plight?

Anyway, you're irrelvent, I'm irrelevant, Eivind is irrelevant. As I wrote five years ago or so - 'if there is any hope, it lies with the incels'.

Oldcel said...

@Milan - I read the other day that a poll in the UK had found stark gender differences in attitudes to porn, especially the supposed dangers of BDSM porn and the like (which is in the news because of the killing of Sarah Everard by a pig who allegedly was into rough sex porn movies).

Something like 35% of men agreed that such rough sex movies were dangerous and influenced male behaviour towards women, whereas it was 80% for women.

This entirely mirrors polls that have been given over the years asking about attitudes towards prostitution and even sex robots.

Consider also that a large percentage of the men who agree that porn is dangerous to women, or oppose prostitution and sex robots are only 'following the female line'. If women say something is harmful to them, a large percentage of men will blindly believe them.

Sexual morality is determined by women. If you don't like the sexual morality of today's world, then treat women as culpable agents and blame women.

This is what the incels get right. Society is determined by the sexual needs of women. All the incels need now is to take it a step further and take the green pill. Society is determined primarily by the sexual needs of the Becky's - the overwhelming mass of average SMV women - not the Stacys. A world of open free sexual market competition does not necessarily lead to incels - it's the rigging of the sexual market by the Becky's that leads to restricted sexual opportunities for lower tier men.

Oldcel said...

At least if Eivind does go to prison (0% chance), he will be going to a holiday camp rather than the prisons in most of the rest of the world. Eivind will probably even still be able to blog from his cell, like Galley did.

Eivind Berge said...

No argument that Norway doesn't have one of the least harsh prison systems, but you still can't get online. Gally was out awaiting trial when we heard from him. The only way I would be able to blog from prison is to write letters that someone will post for me (will ask for volunteers if it comes to that!). I am unsure if these can be electronic messages or the pen and paper you had to use last I checked.

Yeah, Russia is hell in comparison and so is the US. Even southern Europe and the UK seem considerably worse.

Eivind Berge said...

Sexual morality is determined by women and enforced by men. In the rat example, it would be as if people (men) turned their towns into rat paradises while refusing to vote for a different policy. We have rat food dispensers in every city -- police stations where women can go and make their sexual complaints that are taken seriously no matter how absurd and also amplified to the best of the system's ability in a sexual holocaust until the entire economy is devoted to producing rat food.

The latest trend is "racketeering," a meta-crime that turns our entire lives into a sex-crime enterprise, so that everything we ever did, said or touched is criminal along with all our associates too. Keith Raniere, R. Kelly and now Peter Nygard:

"Nygard is being charged for crimes “arising out of a decades-long pattern of criminal conduct involving at least dozens of victims in the United States, the Bahamas, and Canada, among other locations.”

The document adds that Nygard used the influence of his international clothing design, manufacturing, and supply business, Nygard Group, to “recruit and maintain adult and minor-aged female victims” for the sexual gratification of Nygard and his friends and business associates.

Notice the move into meta-crimes, another frightening exacerbation. We don't only have empty, victimless and false charges, but a whole other lever of criminality arising from a multiplier effect of the former, a "pattern" in bullshit enabling more bullshit crimes and all too real persecution.

Eivind Berge said...

And men will still be committed to producing rat food right up until starving to death themselves, because that is clearly our nature. Yes, I blame men AT LEAST as much as women.

Milan Horvath said...

No I do not consider women as child-like angelic creatures that are not culpable for their actions.
What I meant by that "empty statement" was that also many men were helping this idiocy to spread without opposition because they had short term benefits from it, or that they didn't want to lose existing ones. I didn't say that women are blameless.

That comparison with Jews would be accurate if Jews would constitute 50% of Germany's population and represent majority in politics.

As for my "dumb thesis" I repeatedly explained that it is not only about some republicans/conservatives but about American (or Anglophone) influence as whole, but you are still using same counterarguments with trannies and evangelicals.
When I am using word puritanism I am not talking about Mike Pence or so...
but something like this
(I know, Ian Bland is an aspie, because......Steve Moxon and so...)
And yes, it is fault of all of us, that we let themselves get culturally colonised by such nasty,prudish, hypocritical and gynocentric society.
Most social networks, video hosting , movies, web search ,ideological NGO's where they are from?
Aren't they culturally influencing their users, aren't they forcing their morals up to us?
I would be glad to ignore them, but it won't make their influence disappear.

Regarding INCELS, they don't offend me, but whenever I watched their forums, it was either alt-right shit or some 'sperg babble.
Although I am admitting, that maybe I was unfair to them, and was too hurry in judgment.
Some people there seem to be decent.

Eivind Berge said...

Men don't have a sexual morality, and women have nothing but a sexual morality. The more political power women get, the more they impose their sexual morality at the cost of everything else.

Men's sexual thinking is simply: if the coast looks clear then fuck, and rise in hierarchies so you can get the most opportunities, but never give any thought to making society as a whole more conducive to male sexual interests. Men don't give a damn if their bread and butter and sexual opportunities as they are come from working for the sexual holocaust. And when accused themselves even under laws that just cropped up under their noses, myopia still prevents attention to the big picture. This even goes for male legislators who helped craft the very same laws, so what hope is there that the average Joe will rise up?

I would love to be proven wrong, but this is the society I observe.

holocaust22 said...

"I read the other day that a poll in the UK had found stark gender differences in attitudes to porn, especially the supposed dangers of BDSM porn and the like

Something like 35% of men agreed that such rough sex movies were dangerous and influenced male behavior towards women, whereas it was 80% for women"

Uhhhh, isn't that a good thing? Do you want your gf to be a BDSM slut that wants dudes to rape her? lol.

Eivind Berge said...

Amazingly, Boris Johnson says no to a new sex crime:

"Boris Johnson has infuriated the home secretary by overruling attempts to make public sexual harassment a crime.... Johnson announced last week that he did not support any new law on tackling violence against women, claiming there is “abundant” existing legislation. This caused disquiet throughout the Home Office."

Yeah, no shit there is already abundant legislation, but they will probably get this new law too. Which incidentally is the same type of universal "sexual harassment" law that Norway already has and as far as I can tell the current false accusation against me would be prosecuted under:§298

§ 298. Seksuelt krenkende atferd offentlig eller uten samtykke
Med bot eller fengsel inntil 1 år straffes den som i ord eller handling utviser seksuelt krenkende eller annen uanstendig atferd

a) på offentlig sted, eller
b) i nærvær av eller overfor noen som ikke har samtykket i det.

Any kind of sexual or "indecent" words or gesture towards anyone anywhere is a crime unless you get consent first, which criminalizes all flirting or pickup attempts since the act of asking for consent is itself harassment unless there is consent first, etc. In public it seems to be covered even WITH consent in Norway.

Anonymous said...

The age of consent in China is 14, and the CCP is very anti-feminist compared to any Western nation. Their male "conservatives" have not cracked to feminist pressure to raise the consent age, unlike the gay American male conservatives. Additionally, the Chinese consent law is more of a suggestion than the American hard ceiling that results in strict liability and decades in prison. China will continue to spread its influence in the world as America destroys itself and its allies with the fake coronavirus pandemic hoax. Peak oil is also bullshit, look it up - they've been claiming it for years just like climate change, it's all bullshit. Maybe when China owns a majority of the world, these terrible Western feminist laws will become a thing of the past, and we will have a better society to live in. I think it is a real possibility.

For now, Eivind and everyone else, stay out of jail and wait until after all these hoaxes shake out, and consider moving to countries with better cultures. It should be about 4-8 more years before the West finishes with its collapse.

Eivind Berge said...

I am afraid China is not in much better shape than the rest of the world. They are already rationing electricity and having to shut down factories that rely on it, so the same energy crisis is hitting there too. It is not just peak oil, but peak net energy from all sources (including renewables, which are merely fossil fuel extenders). Also hitting debt limits, which is another manifestation of the same problem. According to Gail, China will collapse along with the Western world or shortly thereafter, and I pretty much believe this. It is plausible that we are underestimating them and they can carry on with some sort of industrial system on their own for a while, but I don't see China as any sort of realistic refuge for Westerners. They have way more people than they can sustain already.

MIlan Horvath said...

Excerpt from the book: Moral panic, written by Phillip Jenkins in 1998
(More about paedohysteria as whole, rather than adult-adolescent issues, but IMO interesting.)

Fears about satanic and ritualistic abuse provide another striking index of the dissemination of American ideas in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the Netherlands. By the early 1990s, the emerging American focus on abuse by clergy was being emulated in these nations as well as Britain, Ireland, and Australia. The independent Canadian discovery of "pedophile priests" shows that panics were partly a response to local conditions, but emerging perceptions of local problems were shaped and interpreted by American experts and delegations, American academic journals and professional texts, and omnipresent American popular culture.
Japan and other countries, that were slow or reluctant to accept imported American norms in these matters, were increasingly subjected to intense international pressure.

The dissemination of ideas from the United Stares reflected the overwhelming power of the nation's media and the vast scale of its academics establishment, but American views would not have been so influential had they not resonated in the constituencies in other nations. These ideas about the sexual abuse of children spread because they appealed to local audiences, which had been conditioned by social circumstances very similar to those in the United States.
These included similar demographic cycles, dramatic increases in the status and economic independence of women, declines in two-parent nuclear families, the growth of political feminism, and heightened sensitivity to sexual violence. These other countries had also had their wartime social disruption, followed by their respective baby booms, and had their own not dissimilar recollections of radicalism during the 1960's and 1970s...............

....Moral issues have been medicalized and institutionalized, producing a huge constituency with an overwhelming interest in keeping these issues the center of public concern. The psychiatric establishment has a powerful interest not only in ensuring that "their" problems continue to be viewed as threatening, and likely to respond only to the medical solutions that they market, but also in continuing to bring other issues into their orbit.
This does much to explain the constant generation of new syndromes and diagnoses, from recovered memory and multiple personalities to sexualized children....

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that's pretty insightful. American influence is big and it's not all feminism either. The psychiatric establishment is an organism of its own that bears part of the blame. Formerly moral issues have been falsely medicalized, which is how we get all this absurd "abuse" which is then further expanded into the female sex offender charade as well. The vastly expanded concept of "sexual abuse" is a lifelong psychiatric condition that is inflicted by perpetrators, so by viewing it that way they kill two birds with one stone supplying bodies for both the punishment and therapy industries (with sex offender registration for good measure, ensuring that anyone who falls into either of these categories is damaged for life). It is a juggernaut that wants to consume whatever it can with very few opposing forces.

Anonymous said...

Gail is a retard and you can take this post as a guarantee that China will not collapse from a fake energy crisis. The fake "energy crisis" they are having now is completely man-made due to "climate change" measures which is of course another man made hoax problem, like the fake pandemic. Your own country Norway demonstrates this by removing all fake pandemic measures, and everything is the same. All China needs to do is say fuck the UN and bring factories back online, which they are doing. As for a "debt ceiling" there is none because governments print their own money. There could be higher inflation, but that's it.

The West is run by feminist faggot retards who cannot compete with China, which is lucky for us because the Chinese don't believe in extreme female power. This is why I say just survive the self imposed Western implosion, and maybe something good happens afterwards.

Eivind Berge said...

Watch this and see if you still feel the same:

Chris Martenson was much less extreme then Gail, but now he is starting to sound like her too. Take note of the astonishing increase in the money supply and debt in the past fifteen months. Governments can print money but not resources. They can pick inflation or debt defaults and either way we are screwed. Only miraculous growth in real resources could prevent disaster, but that's not possible anymore due to depletion. The energy density of renewables are a joke compared to what is needed and they can't be produced anyway.

Also maybe watch this about Lebanon losing power:

And consider how hard it will be to make technological progress or ramp up energy of any kind when the whole world is like that. You can't innovate from darkness. That's what it looks like when we are still barely collapsing, but way past the tipping point where anything could be done, and it will be very rapid from there. The time to do something about what is coming was fifty years ago.

Oldcel Grauer said...

@Milan - let it go. We need a clean break not only from the American Conservatives, but also the 'anti-sex hysteria' American bloggers and commentators who are so obsessed with American Conservatism to the point of ignoring the clear and evident role of 'secular' feminism.

The Satanic abuse hysteria imported from the USA probably had a negative effect in Europe as far as succussfully importing their puritan shit here. In the UK, it led to the massive Cleveland sex abuse scandal, which in turn led to some actual rational reflection on 'sex abuse' hysteria, especially the crazy American kind. This all pre-dated the actual real onset of paedohysteria in the UK. and then later Europe. In any event, the writing was already on the wall with the Convention On The Rights Of The Child which was passed by the UN in the 80's and which was lobbied for by European feminist/femiservative groups such as the German hag led ECPAT, and which successfully defined a child worlwide as an U18 and 'child porn' as the mere image even of a U18 'looking' person (even fictional). Thankfully, the female hag leader of ECPAT was unable to get her wish for the UN to agree on a worldwide age of consent of 18, thanks largely to resistance from South American nations and a few others. Things would have been even worse if the German hag ECPAT leader had been successful. The goal of feminist hags since the feminist hag social purity movement of the late Victorian era would have finally been achieved. The End of History (of the Sex War).

Let's take a brief look at Japan sir. As late as the 2,000s, every Japanse apartment was regurlarly getting flyers pushed through their letter boxes advertising legal 'child porn' (or rather teen porn with the age of consent for porn set at 13), that every rail station had vending machines with real used panties of real 14 year old schoolgirls (this was not an urban myth) for middle-aged businessmen to relieve themselves with on the way home on the train, or for every telphone booth to be stacked with the cards of eager 14 year old girls looking to be sponsored by middle-aged buisnessmen?

Now Milan, I want you to bang your head against the wall for a few minutes, get the evil Satanic spirits of American Conservatism out of your breainwashed head, and then answer the following simple question.

Do you honestly think, that Japan has gone from what I described above, to a state where suspected 'paedophiles' have been beaten to death and police are called if a 16 year old girl is asked for directions in the street, in the space of little more than 10 years, because of American Conservatism rather than the growing influence of feminism in Japan?

Jesus Chirst. So now we know why American Conservatives have been so patheticly unable to stop tranny rights or gay marriage or their President and saviour getting cancelled - they were busy in Japan getting schoolgirl panty vending machines banned!

Oldcel Grauer said...

"And consider how hard it will be to make technological progress or ramp up energy of any kind when the whole world is like that. You can't innovate from darkness. That's what it looks like when we are still barely collapsing, but way past the tipping point where anything could be done, and it will be very rapid from there. The time to do something about what is coming was fifty years ago."

You come across as a real loon with stuff like this Eivind. It's the language of complete and utter defeat.

I'd bet too that if the day comes why you do look out of your window and see smoke rising from buildings, no electricity or running water, and chanting, looting mobs armed with machetes rampaging through the street, you'll be absolutely shi***g yourself rather than feeling joy at the feminists finally being smited. What are you going to do? Call out your window and offer to discuss the David Chalmers qualia problem with them over a nice cup of (cold) tea?

Oldcel Grauer said...

The pigs in the UK are really being exposed as corrupt as hell and the evil monsters that they are.

Milan Horvath said...

"Do you honestly think, that Japan has gone from what I described above, to a state where suspected 'paedophiles' have been beaten to death and police are called if a 16 year old girl is asked for directions in the street, in the space of little more than 10 years, because of American Conservatism rather than the growing influence of feminism in Japan?"

Do I speak Martian, or is my knowledge of English really that bad?
I was reading some older debates, and since I am commenting here (for 2 years) I was always explaining that when I am blaming USA, I don't mean some conservative Christians only, but American environment as whole, including feminism .

Read it again, where he is talking about conservatives....republicans.... evangelicals only?

......were shaped and interpreted by American experts and delegations, American academic journals and professional texts, and omnipresent American popular culture.
Japan and other countries, that were slow or reluctant to accept imported American norms in these matters, were increasingly subjected to intense international pressure....

. Phillip Jenkins
is not some blogger, he is a professor of history, and far from anti sex-hysteria.
I don't adore or respect him,as he is a coward "normie", but this book seems to be informative.

.I am not saying, that without USA (and possibly UK) mainland Europe or Japan would be like a
fairy-tale. There will probably be some paedo or sex-hysteria, but I really doubt that it will be of same magnitude of zealousness and irrationality as it is now.

Things that are now considered suspicious and seriously discussed(and have absolutely nothing to do with sexual competition),in past they wouldn't be problem even for hardcore arch-conservatives in Europe,but now they are.
Yet they were not broadly acceptable in USA since long time ago.

.I don't know who when led ECPAT, but (by official sources) it was founded by New Zealander Ronald O' Grady who was probably evangelical and maybe know what...a hypocritical kind person.
In this organisation it was mixture of paedocrites,feminists,femiservatives, evangelicals and various opportunists(in vast majority, people from USA,and other English-speaking countries).

.Do you know that situation-When you have a girlfriend and you get along with her pretty well, but she have (frequently single)female friend who is giving her various advices about how relationship should be?
That doesn't mean there would be any problems in your relationship without her, but..........................

Milan Horvath said...

Speaking about UN convention of rights of the child. Here's excerpt from Uncle Sam's SH edW.

This children's rights convention was originally proposed in the early 1980s by Poland, which at that time still belonged to Comecon, to certify certain basic social rights of children, e.g. to education, social welfare, care against neglect, medical care, etc.
The USA had already declared in 1983 that they would not accede to the convention (which they actually haven't done to this day), but nevertheless worked cheerfully on its formulation so that afterwards, according to the official brazen reason, the other participating states would have "a better agreement." What was noticeable about the negotiation of this children's rights convention during the 1980s was a veritable symbiosis of the government delegations and numerous NGO delegations: the NGOs were raised to their own NGO group during the negotiations, their proposed amendments were printed out in the same way before the meetings and sent to all government delegations distributed like the official government documents themselves, and every Thursday evening of the session, the diplomats and the NGO functionaries who were paid for by somebody else, had dinner at the Swedish NGO Rädda Barnen, where people crouched loosely on the floor in jeans and sneakers and chatted about the agreement while spooning up the allegedly non-governmental Swedish pea soup. With the support of the USA and NGOs controlled by it, two fundamental regulations were included in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, namely on the one hand the fatal definition of the "child" as any person under the age of 18, and on the other hand a vague article against the "sexual exploitation" of children, which Poland's original proposal did not contain at all. The term "sexual exploitation" is not defined in this Art. 34, but rather, according to its pulpy wording, is intended to include, among other things, any "induction" of "children" to "illegal sexual acts" - in fact, the one discussed above was included in the title for the first time of the American Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977, feminist/old-conservative propaganda term of sexual exploitation has now been incorporated into a major international agreement. So it was all about including a basic programmatic norm in an international treaty that was as solemn as possible, on which one has been able to rely again and again since then - in particular to justify the inhumane extension of sexual immaturity to young people up to their 18th birthday. Finally, with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a UN body, the "Committee on the Rights of the Child", was created for the first time in particular about the status of their sexual criminal law. The Convention, which was ready for signature in November 1989, is today one of the international treaties with most of the accession countries in the world.
All UN member states have ratified it, only two not: firstly, because it has no functioning government anyway(Somalia), and secondly, because despite everything they are suspicious of "children's rights", the USA.

Milan Horvath said...

that link with Jenkins is incorrect, it should be

Eivind Berge said...

Very interesting history. This contrived definition of "child" up to 18 has had a most astonishing impact. I has been reified, and along with the equally absurd (and circular) definition of "sexual exploitation" it is poison. How can the USA be the biggest pusher of this nonsense without even ratifying the convention that established it? They just wanted an excuse to force everyone else? There may be other aspects of the "children's rights" they truly don't wan't (probably the good parts), but I don't see what is holding them back on the sexual stuff.

Why didn't it occur to the UN to at least have some kind of intermediate category like "youth"? All asexual and by definition exploited by sex up to 18 is the most cartoonish nonsense they could have come up with -- aside from raising the age even further.

Milan Horvath said...

To be fair and objective, I must say that this book was written by some German
liberal/Reichist branch of communists so it should be taken with some reservations,as its publishing house is producing weird things otherwise, except books by this author (Max Roth).

However when I tried to fact-check historical things mentioned there it always seemed to be correct (except that commie babble of course). And every claim in this book is sourced at the end of the book.

When it comes to reason why US didn't ratified it, I suppose that it was because of their criminal justice. I know, that much more punitive nations than US ratified it, but maybe they are not so serious about what they are signing or so....

.....Because some senators believe it would impinge on American sovereignty.....
Yeah, you don't say, but what about our sovereignty....

Milan Horvath said...

...about that case of harassment of father by police in Norway, I linked above(they are).
I actually think, that such people deserve what they got.....

“I still thought it was a strange assessment of the situation, but it is better to call the police once too many times than once too little,” writes Wigtil. But while the father still thought the situation would clear up quickly, the police want to see his phone, the pictures and the messages first - later they go to the man's home, confiscate his cell phone and interrogate him and the child's mother.

With this attitude, in few years police will have a van equipped with PPG lab(peter-meter),
and they will be doing random controls in the streets:

Picture of 17 yo girl--arousal activity-- a paedophile --castration/civil commitment !!!!
Picture of tranny Flowjob--no arousal activity--hate crime-- arrest/re-education!!!!

And of course we should also think of poor victims as it shouldn't be so
There will be a van with gynochair operated by Dr. Woodling and his famous glass tubes -doing some compulsory controls in kindergartens/elementary schools.

bbbbecause "Think of the children"
What a nice and safe world...... sorry about trying to be funny, but what should I do?

Eivind Berge said...

I see. He just thinks he should have personally been judged differently but sees nothing wrong with the general hysteria, nothing wrong with calling the police on every father and daughter who is out at the beach or wherever because you can't be too careful. Even when he is still under investigation that is the attitude, and I doubt a conviction would help either because everyone thinks he is special aside from us few activists. Especially unlucky or especially innocent, never just a normal man being targeted for doing normal things.

Eivind Berge said...

So I'm refusing police interrogation due to general principle, but I gleaned some more information now when they called and asked about it again. I am supposed to have used the dating site Victoria Milan to chat with a woman who sent "me" a nude video, whereupon I shall have tried to extort more videos from her by threatening to share it. I have never used that site, but it looks like someone might have been impersonating me. Also I am thinking it might not be political after all since this is a site for people who want to cheat on their partners. Maybe some married man simply picked my identity because he didn't want to use his own, and his motivation is just that he is a pathetic wanker?

Either way, it is absurd.

Eivind Berge said...

The police should investigate how the impersonator paid for his membership at Victoria Milan. I am pretty sure it is impossible to chat with a real woman there before you pay a huge amount (true for most dating sites except my own and especially at a sleazy one like that!), so check his credit card or bank information and there's your culprit in this case. Unless the woman is lying, so check her account too!

Anonymous said...

Why didn't it occur to the UN to at least have some kind of intermediate category like "youth"? All asexual and by definition exploited by sex up to 18 is the most cartoonish nonsense they could have come up with -- aside from raising the age even further.

When the European Commission proposed a prohibition on sale and possess of CP twenty years ago or so, the initial proposal concerned children younger than 14 years, but the text was later amended by the European Parliament, and the aged was raised to 18 years.
In other words, we must thank democracy (and the feminists who exploit it) for the hysteria and panic that we have today.

Eivind Berge said...

Now my lawyer is demanding the case documents from the police so we can get to the bottom of exactly what I am accused of by whom. He suggests it is most likely men who have been blackmailed by whoever is impersonating me, and yes, that makes most sense since such sites are basically just scams of men anyway with hardly any real females (same concept as Ashley Madison), but we'll see. Maybe they made a fake female account at Victoria Milan and tried to blackmail cheating husbands after getting video that would expose them? A business model which makes sense as a criminal enterprise if it is money they are after, as it would be a target rich environment of men vulnerable to that sort of thing. But then why would the victims think the female profile was actually me??? The whole thing is a bizarre mess, but thankfully even the cops are not taking my involvement too seriously. I am not charged, just a suspect, and it shouldn't take much investigation to realize I have nothing to do with this.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, the whole Victoria Milan is a scam with no women. Just read the reviews:

Fake, juks og svindel
Fake, fake, fake
En hel haug med falske profiler hvis eneste funksjon er å få deg til å registrere kontoer på andre nettsider.
Prøvde å registrere ett medlemskap til 149.- og ble loppet for 1796.-

Perhaps they are suspecting me of operating the site itself? Who needs blackmailers on a site like that, lol!

I operate an honest dating site, thank you very much., which of course is domain-registered in my name and could possibly be a source of contact information spoofed by scammers.

Milan Horvath said...

I am curious if complaint was filled by local or foreigner, male or female....we will see.
Is there in Norway also anonymity for adult complainants as is for UK ?

Eivind Berge said...

Great info on our more usual kind of false accusations:

When the mainstream media says "sex slave" this is the underlying reality (which they know and distort deliberately to make teen girls always into helpless victims):

"Philip Guderyon, an ex-boyfriend of Virginia who would drive her to Epstein’s Pal Beach, Florida, mansion told the New York Daily News: “She was like the head b***h. She’d have like nine or 10 girls she used to bring to him.”

“She never looked like she was being held captive” he added. “She and the other girls would walk out of there smiling, with their little bathing suits on, like they had just come from the beach.

“She’d have like $4,000. And then I’d take them all to the mall and they’d get their nails done.”

Guderyon also said while making thousands of dollars from the relationship, she would buy fancy clothes and drive around in Epstein’s Mercedes.

Crystal Figueroa, whose brother dated Roberts in the early 2000s, told the Daily News Virginia would ask if she knew anyone ‘slutty’ so they could be sent to Epstein.

By 2001, despite now insisting to the press that she was essentially being held captive as a ‘sex slave’ by Epstein during that year, she was in fact sharing a Palm Beach apartment with yet another boyfriend, Anthony Valladares.

Speaking to the Daily News, Valladares said that during this period, Virginia bragged about going to the ‘millionaire’s house’ only for a day or two at a time, before returning with cash.

Eivind Berge said...

I have no idea who filed a complaint yet, and no, there is no anonymity for accusers in Norway (not children either). I will not hesitate to tell unless perhaps the accuser is a victim too and whoever tried to pin it on me remains unknown.

But judging by the reviews, I would be astonished if a woman is accusing because there are basically none active, just fakes and scams against men.

Eivind Berge said...

Another insightful review:

1 stjerne: dårlig
8. mar. 2021

Vil gerne have givet NUL stjerner, men det var ikke muligt.

På 1½ mdr. er jeg nok blevet kontaktet af ca. 100 kvinder, som alle har været fake profiler, som enten spørger efter ens e-mail adresse eller forsøger at få dig til at følge et link soo . gd / xxx.
Må derfor konstatere at Victoriamilan består 99% af Bots/phishing eller fake profiler. Totalt spild af penge.

Ved ikke om det er muligt at anmelde dette et sted?

If there are any real women in there, they are less than 1% of the interactions men experience. And on top of all those fakes they get blackmailed too.

But the thing is, people want to be deceived. They don't want to use an honest dating site like mine. Or maybe they just don't know about it yet. If it doesn't take off after the documentary in November then I must conclude this assessment is correct.

Milan Horvath said...

Well, I would rather be living in some liberal/permissive autocratic regime,than in totalitarian democracy(tyranny of majority), but problem is:
.nothing like that exists
.if something like it would be created somehow-it is questionable how long it will stay permissive

What critical mass of "normies" will vote for/demand, depends on how they are programmed by educational system, media, cinematography.
IMO democracy, wouldn't be that bad if there would be real plurality of thoughts/opinions allowed.
But you probably know that statement: "If voting could actually change anything it would be illegal."

Also "question" is whether all laws we have now, were really demanded by population or, if they are just tolerated by it.
I tend to believe, that some ordinary bloke, if properly informed(and not manipulated) is much more easygoing than we would expect.

There is interesting phenomenon in international politics -I call "there ought be no alternative".
Which is to eradicate any plurality in law systems (within the world), when it comes to certain issues.
That is IMO purpose of most of these international conventions.
One example:
We have two democratic countries,
country Repressania is leading tough, nasty war on soft drugs, they are giving life sentences for it's possession and so.....they are saying to people: We must do that, because our kids will have serious health problems otherwise, and eventually they will switch to hard drugs and our country will turn into junkieland and bla bla bla........
But there is a country called Permisslaand, where possession and production for personal needs is legal, it is safe and developed country, public finances are spent on better things.
People from Repressania could point to Permissland and ask their politicians: Why they didn't turn into junkieland ? It is necessary this war on drugs?

Same with sexual criminal law, privacy/surveillance, and many other things....

Milan Horvath said...

As I've said, I do not endorse everything, this book(Uncle Sam's SH) stands for, but IMO there are interesting thoughts and information.

At best, it could be astonishing at what speed and urgency this is being pushed forward, because the Europeans are by no means rebellious towards the juggernaut, but rather submit to its demands and mostly unreasonable demands.
For the illustration, Herman Melville's novel "Taipi" offers a very suitable comparative example:
Let Europe in particular, with its still high standard of living and comparatively constitutional and liberal sexual criminal law untouched for a long time as an "island of personal freedoms", which would still be today in comparison to the US states even without the paedohysteria with the corresponding tightening of the law.
Which would not only be one for Europeans a certain amount of backing and strengthening in order to look more firmly in the eye and also to counteract the spread of the American influence on their own continent, but it would mainly be for Americans who have enough money to travel,
regularly good object lesson that it can be done without Megan's law, that not only children with serenity and without persecution hysteria are much better, but simply everyone.
This could well result in thoughtfulness, an incentive to strive for better, rebellion in one's own center, crystallization points of socio-political reflection and debate at the universities or even between officers. A mad world of cruel oppression and disenfranchisement, as we know it from the European Middle Ages, simply works better without the possibility of comparison, be it the Arab world that was more advanced back then up to the Crusades, be it the Renaissance, be it today, as long as it still exists , a Europe with good cuisine, with wide beaches for sunbathing without streaks and for naked children building their sand castles with enough space for everyone, with undisturbed young lovers and with general ease in personal interaction and even with sexual temptations. One likes to be seduced by it, just as Herman Melville once did in the Taipi by the sexual permissiveness and basic composure of a Polynesian indigenous people. That is why this Europe in the new Imperium Americanum should disappear as quickly as possible from the scene and thus also from the perception of its own US citizens, who travel, read, reflect...

Anonymous said...

Milan is right and Antifeminist is wrong.

You don't understand how American Christian Conservatives are completely infested with save the children feminism for decades now, and their influence on the world. Did you ever look up the PROTECT Act? That is the foundational law for criminalization of basically everything with teen women, applied to the world. It was written by American Christian Conservatives. During Trump, more men were arrested for prostitution in one year than in all EIGHT years of the Obama disaster. The 19th amendment itself was passed by Christian Conservatives in Tennessee!

Of course the left wing feminists are horrible nightmares. But the Christian Conservative feminists are even worse because 1) they hold the same views and 2) they have proven to be far more effective in pushing their anti-teen sex agenda on the entire world. What if the American Conservatives pushed back against the feminists who wanted the PROTECT Act passed instead of actually writing and passing the fucking law? What if they prevented women from voting instead of disgustingly cucking and actually giving them the right to vote? What if they said Epstein's behavior was totally normal and his former whores are now just old and out of control, instead of shrieking hysterically about "child trafficking" and "pedophilia"? You know there is an absolutely insane obsession with ending non-existent "child trafficking" in southern conservative states, right? It almost took out Matt Gaetz from his own party when he flew his 17 year old girlfriend into Florida, and he only survived the scandal because he pretended like no normal man would ever want to fuck a 17 year old! EVERYTHING BAD was ultimately DECIDED and DONE by Christian Conservatives, of course with the encouragement of left wing feminists. Go look at conviction rates and prison sentences given for sex crimes in so called red conservative states - you will see that rates are higher and sentences are longer compared to left wing blue states (which are certainly no utopia either, but the point stands).

The bottom line is like what Milan says - the entire mainstream culture coming out of America is completely fucked up from the right to the left, and the right has been far more effective in actually getting things done for the feminist agenda of destroying male sexuality. Go check out Mike Pence and Tom Cotton - these faggots are worse than your loudest shrieking fat red haired dyke because they actually destroy lives on a massive scale through their political power for decades - the dyke is easier to ignore and she can't do shit except annoy people.

The fact is these American Christian "Conservative" Feminists fly under the radar, and do far more damage. They need to be identified along with the fat red haired dykes.

Anonymous said...

Who cares, I don't really care about the USA and it's fucked up politics. You're missing two points. Milan claims to be speaking about Europe and has actually said he wants discussion of sex and the age of consent to be free of American influence. Secondly, for Christ's sake, a Christian femiservative is just as much a feminist as vegan LBGT supporting 'secular' feminist. Why don't you experts actually go back and read how these laws were set in the first place by the Social Purity Movement 'Christian' women/suffragettes, who everybody agrees ( I mean feminists and objecive historians of feminism and the period) were the pre-cursers of modern femnists? It's women controlling male sexuality to preserve their SMV. That's the point. Conservatism or feminism is just a flag of convenience to these hags.

You're absolutely fooling yourselves if you think that if the USA didnt' exist, then the age of consent would be 12 or whatever in Europe and paedohysteria wouldn't exist.

Meanwhile, Diego Maradona is being given the Epstein treatment posthumously.

I didn't realize that the age of consent in Argentina is now 18. I'm sure it was 13 only a few years ago. Shows that the Sexual Trade Union always goes for the weakest link in the chain. Netherlands 12 to 16, Spain 13 to 16, India 12 to 18, Japan moving from 13 to 18.

BTW Milan, something I forgot to mention about the 'Satanic Abuse' hysterias of the 80's. It was very much the demonization of the father and even the mother. It was family sex abuse. It was absolutely completely different to the modern 'sex predator' paedohysteria that has resulted in these raises in the age of consent laws, grooming laws, insane 'child porn' laws etc. I remember writing a post about the subject and why it explained a little the fact that father's rights activists were happy to go along with feminist paedohysteria. They were happy that the bogeyman had been shifted from themselves to the 'paedophile/predator'.

Anonymous said...

BTW, I discovered that the incel term 'agecuck' was actually invented by (apparently) 'Oogenhand'. Eivind may remember him as a former commentator on our blogs.

The notorious Tom Grauer is also active in incel and 'blackpill' forums it appears.

Eivind Berge said...

Maradona's "sex trafficking" was 20 years ago when he was 40 and the girl 16. Hard do believe she was underage by the standards of the day. Anyway, clearly alpha status has been reduced to a matter of the duration you can get away with having a nubile lover. All men are hunted, but if you are the absolute top dog in a field and lucky you might get away with it until you die of natural causes first.

Anonymous said...

Briefly speaking as regards Britain.

The raising of the age of consent was successfully lobbied for in the 1880's by the Social Purity Movement suffragettes such as Emmeline Pankhurst. (I say successfully, but they only managed to raise it from 12 to 13 and then 16, rather than the 21 they hoped for). The same women who were campaigning to have the vote for women and are recognized as the first wave of feminism. At that time, British cultural influence was greater than little America. These early British feminists were influencing other countries, including the USA who had similar female dominated Social Purity Movements also campaigning for both the vote and for a rise in the age of consent.

Modern paedohysteria in Europe began with the murder of Sarah Payne by a psychopath (real paedophile) in the early 90's which led to the UK setting up the first sex offenders registry in Europe (the USA did beat them to it by several years). Most of the UK's vicious anti-sex laws came from the left-wing feminist government of Tony Blair (Blair's Babes ewwwwww....), signed by the (literally) blind David Blunkett. All these laws such as child porn posession, online grooming then fed their way into Europe, confirmed by a EU directive in the early 2000s.

I did quite a bit of research on the make up of the top positions of the NSPCC, the biggest UK child 'protection' charity, and whose legal demands have been implemented not only in the UK, but now everywhere in Europe. I found that over 80% were hardcore left-wing feminists (actually having shitty university degrees in 'domestic violence' etc.).

Paedohysteria in Europe was inevtiable with the internet and the (potentially) easy access and distribution of child porn (or teen porn, which is the threat to femihags), and easy online dating etc. You saw in the 1990s, early 2000's in Japan what it would have been like in Europe without these laws.

I"m not saying there hasn't been American influences. For example, the USA demanded that the Netherlands raise their minimum age for porn to 18 as the Netherlands were effectively flooding the USA via the Internet with the idea of sex with 16 year olds through their 'Channel 17' studios (which was also legal in the UK and all of Europe at the time).

But none of this changes the fact that the impetus for these laws comes from women, whether Conservative women (and their male useful idiots) or feminist women (and their male useful idiots).

It's noticeable that after Blair went, after doing what the vagina vote wanted and making their pussies safe from the menace of younger competition, that Labour has not come close to winning another General Election in the UK since.

I also note that the incels don't seem to have this fixation about American Conservatism. They recognize that it is the foid (woman) who determines the sexual morality of society. They actually don't mention feminists a lot. In my opinion, they disregard feminists a little too much, even if I agree that feminists are just pursuing the general will of women as a whole.

Note also (in some rare good news) that the Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson has refused to make 'misogyny' a crime in the UK, much to the disgust of both his femiservative Pakistani Home Secretary (Priti Patel) and the opposition socialist Labour party.

Milan Horvath said...

At start, I need to say that I do not see much difference between left and right
(and especially in EN speaking countries), when it comes to personal freedoms.
For me, it is like wanting to spend a nice normal, romantic night with girl, but she instead of it offer you to chose between (urethral)sounding and arse fisting.
And then, people around you are seriously arguing what is better.

(not necessarily contradicting, just complementing)
.Regarding Tony Blair, it is widely acknowledged that New Labour was as "left" as Benito Mussolini was
(same with Gerhard Schröder's SPD or any other of those "leftie" parties after 1990).
I am not considering myself left, just saying...

.Real hysteria in mainland Europe started around 1995 with atrocities committed by
Marc Dutroux* in Belgium(Sarah Payne was murdered in 2000) and then exploitation of this tragic (but rare) event by media and lobby groups .
Such things were already happening before,
without consequent hysteria and unfortunately will happen in future regardless of it.
But things significantly started to move on (regarding laws)much earlier at around 1990, which was started by activity of media, various "independent" NGO's, and international bodies.

.Regarding British influence in past: Well, yes UK maybe influenced America,
but I suppose that without USA we will be today hardly using English language as
"lingua franca".
So to be precise next time, I should refer to Anglo-Saxon culture which is spread by US
(and sometimes by UK-within European political structures).

.If there would be no paedohysteria without USA(or UK) is hard to say now, but I guess:
Yes it could be, but far not so nasty and surreal.
How would I say it......there are natural traits and interests, but they can be amplified by certain sociocultural environment: customs, religion, economics etc..
When you still had your web online, you had a blog called Anglobitch in your blogroll,
I absolutely do not endorse everything what he is saying there but there is an essence of what I am trying to say.

"The Anglo-American brand of feminism that arose in the late Sixties is, in fact, largely responsible for the social decline of the Anglosphere. This is quite different from the constructive 'partnership' forms of feminism that prevail (prevailed I would say) in Continental Europe. Anglo-Saxon feminism is characterized by regressive, sexually puritanical values and by a double standard that allows Anglo-American women to retain their privileges while exercising a broad range of 'rights'. This allows women to retain traditional values where it suits them (Paying the Bill, Divorce and custody settlements) but conveniently adopt feminist rhetoric "

Again, only essence.....there are many,many things I disagree with him.
There are selfish female interests, and I perceive them as an element of juggernaut,
the significant one, but just element not chief cause.
There is IMO no chief cause but rather aggregation of various causes and interests.

*Interesting thing is, that Dutroux is frequently referred as a paedophile by media
(despite forensic psychiatrists concluded that he's not), instead of serial murderer.
Burying two teenage girls alive and letting another two little girls die
from hunger in basement?
pheew what a petty crime, but that sexual element there......hmm.........

Anonymous said...

Oh the cathartic joy. Oh the redemptive spiritual cleansing I feel watching this.

anonymous said...

".Real hysteria in mainland Europe started around 1995 with atrocities committed by
Marc Dutroux* in Belgium(Sarah Payne was murdered in 2000) and then exploitation of this tragic (but rare) event by media and lobby groups .
Such things were already happening before,
without consequent hysteria and unfortunately will happen in future regardless of it."

Well you said it. You still need to explain why the hysteria started after this particular horrible murder. Why were two cases of child murders in the UK and Belgium, both independent triggers for paedohysteria over a short space of time, when such very rare murders unfortunately happened before and will always happen? Isn't it more likely something else was going on in the 90's that these two murders just happened to be convenient for exploiting by feminist NGOs? (namely, the Internet).

You clearly think American Conservatism is the chief cause. I wonder if you honestly think all this will be gone if you can 'defeat' American Conservatism. You think the left-wing feminists will be happy with low age of consents, prostitution, porn etc? You think the feminists who dominate the British and European NGOs pushing for these laws, using feminist arguments (abuse of power blah blah blah blah) will just decide enough is enough and go home to their cats and their lesbian lovers?

And why has American Conservatism been so successful now, when it's seemingly weaker than ever before? So 1950's family values America couldn't export it's puritanism to Europe, but the 21st century version can? The same version so hopeless in preventing gay marriage or tranny rights or #MeToo or Cancel Culture?

I agree with a lot of what Rookh (Anglo Bitch) writes, and he agrees with a lot of what I say (in fact, he once said I was the only comparable intellect to his in the manosphere or some such), but I think there comes a time when you have to stop blaming everything on anglo-saxon puritanism, or at least it doesn't really help any more. The fact is, that even in his country of ancestry or origin (India) is now as puritanical and paedohysteric as any on Earth. France now appears worse even than the UK. In the Netherlands teenage gangs are regularly hunting down suspected 'paedos' and killing them. In Spain you get 20 years for any sexual contact with a 15 year old. We just saw that the age of consent in Argentina is 18. In Russia men ar eregularly beaten to death by mobs as suspected pedos, and you get over a decade in prison for merely asking for pictures from an underage girl
All these things have come about because of feminist lobbying and feminist arguments.

At what point do you have the courage to blame feminism? Even now, you seek to distinguish 'anglo-american' feminism from 'European' feminism. When I see those aging feminist cunts accusing French celebrities of 'abusing' them when they were 14 or 15, I don't see much of a difference. I just see bitter, jealous, old femihags. They are the enemy. I don't understand any merit in explaining them away as the long and tortured result of influence from 'American Conservatism' or 'Anglo-American feminism'.

Milan - it might be useful for you to investigate the idea of the 'genetic fallacy'.

Jack said...

There's a bad case of an incel being brought before the highest criminal court in Belgium just for lashing out at women online. The article below is in French, I didn't find anything in English. This case would deserve some publicity:

Apparently the guy only posted threats at women after getting badly threatened himself. This article is a hit-piece, as usual. In another article I read the public prosecution said "because this is about sexism and misogyny, the case had to be referred straight to the highest criminal court ("court d'assise = old bailey") and not to the court hearing normal felonies. This is absolutely sick.

Meanwhile here comes "stealthing", another turn of the screw against heterosexually active men:

Male Fapulist said...

Eivind, you will never succeed in stopping wankers. I don't care if you and your feminist anti-fap allies send out your pig friends to arrest every one of us. We will never stop wanking. We will never surrender!

Anonymous said...

@Jack - I guess women can still lie about being on the pill though... (then demand the man pay child support for the next 18 years).

holocaust22 said...

"Meanwhile here comes "stealthing", another turn of the screw against heterosexually active men:"

Uhhh, removing a condom secretly is an attack on normal hetrosexual men? If you secretly remove a condom, and risk getting a girl pregnant that doesn't want to get pregnant, that's fucked up? lol

freetheteens69 said...

"There's a bad case of an incel being brought before the highest criminal court in Belgium just for lashing out at women online. The article below is in French, I didn't find anything in English. This case would deserve some publicity:"

This dude was saying he was going to become the next elliot rogers. Wow, wonder why people got freaked out.

PS. Holocaust22 here. Changing my name lel

Eivind Berge said...

Stealthing should not be a crime. Lots of things people do to their romantic partners are "fucked up" without deserving to be a crime. Women lie about their fertility too. And worse they commit paternity fraud, yet there is no crime for it. Before we should give any kind of consideration to criminalizing condom removal, women need to catch up on these other things, but I don't think we should go down that path at all. We need to radically cut back on crimes, not expand them.

Eivind Berge said...

Stealthing is a good example of something that works both ways unlike rape, if you are going to make a crime out of it. Women are not evolved to be okay with sex only to be traumatized if there is an ejaculation. They broadly go together. To make this a sexual consent issue with accordingly harsh punishment is completely unacceptable. At most it could be a sort of reproductive (and health risk) fraud, but then women are just as culpable for their own stealthy fertility and incomplete health screenings. We just need to stop criminalizing every last detail of people's sex lives. Stealthing is already regulated via child support, and that is enough.

Eivind Berge said...

The global supply chain nightmare is about to get worse:

And yet Gail is a kook for predicting any of this? The pandemic is just a random detail in the bigger picture of collapse, and I am afraid she called it (only by a 5 year delay or so).

Milan Horvath said...

"At what point do you have the courage to blame feminism? Even now, you seek to distinguish 'anglo-american' feminism from 'European' feminism. When I see those ageing feminist cunts accusing French celebrities of 'abusing' them when they were 14 or 15, I don't see much of a difference. I just see bitter, jealous, old femihags. They are the enemy. I don't understand any merit in explaining them away as the long and tortured result of influence from 'American Conservatism' or 'Anglo-American feminism'."

.I am blaming feminism- just not exclusively
When it comes to what Rookh is calling "European feminism"(not my words,nor sure if it could be called feminism) it is dead, what is now dominant in mainland Europe and around the world is
Anglo-Saxon/American branch.
And Gabriel Matzneff's case (Vanessa Springora) and many other phenomena you are describing are proof of that.

.I know that speaking about origins of present-day puritanism doesn't make it automatically disappear, I just want truth to prevail (at least what I consider to be truth).
Yes, it would be desirable to do something with it, rather than to just pointing finger at Americans.

My idea is: "It's irrational, it is hurting whole society, nobody is going to win this war,
we are just making our short time given us on Earth less enjoyable, people who are keeping it alive, are doing it out of their selfish/fanatical immoral motives.........and yes it is also a foreign element in our region, which originates in society that is pretty much successful in many fields, but it's not worth of following when it comes to human relationships.

Your idea seems to be: Older women are just bitter,calculating selfish cunts
(which is true to some extent).

Regardless of who actually might be right, which idea you think is more easily marketable to broader public ?
Even if I would change my mind, and start to think that female nature is 99% cause of what is happening: How should I sell such idea to other people than incels/MGTOWs or divorcees?
It is problematic to live with someone of whom you should think is an naturally insidious being.

Even feminists(except very few extremist ones) are producing things like
"good men project"... something like: "it's a bad culture that is amplifying wrong natural impulses in men".............. instead of openly saying that "men are genetically wrong",
(what they actually think may be different, but they know such thing would be non-marketable to general society).

.As for genetical fallacy, it depends if you mean genetical or cultural/historical "prejudices"?
I am not saying, that Anglo-Saxon/American people in general are somehow genetically predisposed to prudishness,white-knightism or misandry(that would be pretty stupid),
rather it is their cultural and historical experience what have made this environment what it is now.

Eivind Berge said...

So there has been a terror attack in Norway, curiously with bow and arrow, five dead two injured.

I guess this qualifies as our second worst terrorist incident as I recall. No clear info on identity or motive yet, but rumor says Islamist, possibly a Norwegian convert rather than an immigrant.

So much for gun control when you can still buy bow and arrows; we just forgot how deadly they are because no one seems to have used them to kill people since the Viking Age. I guess we will have to ban or license those too now.

I agree with Milan that we don't need to overemphasize the femihag angle and not deny it either. Here's a terrific read with full free text I came across today to remind us that there are plenty of other drives to criminalize sexuality!

When men can sit around and come up with something as bizarre as "demoniality" and make a problem out of it along with a host of other unnecessary sex crimes, you realize men also have a fallen nature in this regard.

"In his well-known late seventeenth-century manuscript De Daemonialitate et incubis et succubis (unearthed in 1872; abstracted in Sinistrari, 1700: 251, 273–7), Italian Franciscan priest Ludovico Maria Sinistrari elaborately argued for the distinction between bestiality and ‘demoniality’ (sexual congress with demons), arguing that ‘each has its peculiar and distinct disgrace, repugnant to chastity and human generation’ (p. 274). This extended an already longstanding classification debate, with terminological distinctions, for example between sodomia bestialis, sod. diabolica, sod. eiusdem sexus and sod. diversi sexus (Polman, 1659: 370). Mid-sixteenth-century law tracts had already distinguished three kinds of sodomitical crime: venereal abuse of one’s own body, with another body either of the same or opposite sex, or with animals (de Damhouder, 1554: 351ff). Here, sex with the dead (congressus cum mortua) was ‘practically’ (pene) sodomitical, sex with infidels ‘somewhat’ (quadantenus) sodomitical."

Eivind Berge said...

I see that California has already made stealthing "sexual assault." Holy shit, this is hateful! Also removed the marital rape exemption, which I thought was done a long time ago but apparently there was some remnant of it left.

"California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law Thursday making the state the first to prohibit "stealthing," or removing a condom during intercourse without a partner's verbal consent.

The new law makes the removal of a condom without consent a sexual assault, and affirms that the practice "causes long-term physical and emotional harms to its victims," according to State Assemb. Cristina Garcia, a Democrat and author of the bill.

Garcia, a longtime proponent of the law, said reports of stealthing were increasing among women and gay men. She said she hopes other states follow with similar legislation making clear that "stealthing is not just immoral but illegal."

Garcia also authored Assembly Bill 1171, which Newsom also signed, to eliminate the "spousal rape exception" and "ensure that 'spousal rape' is treated and punished, as seriously as the rape of a non-spouse," according to the assemblywoman.

Getting worse every day. Really, collapse can not come soon enough, and I hope California gets hit early. Their water and energy situation is not good, so chances are this will happen.

Anonymous said...

The last update on the situation in the Netherlands:

Anonymous said...

And now we have a woman guilty of harassement:

Milan Horvath said...

Good article, I was always adoring Holland for it's personal freedom attitudes.
Many,many years ago, when I've read first time some article about scandalous paedo-party in NL, instead of feeling anger (what was surely intention of the author) I've said to myself: Even such unpopular people can have a political party in Holland,
what a truly liberal country, where they take freedom of speech and democracy seriously!!!
It is sad, what had become of this country.

My favourite parts:
..In practice, the Netherlands is a fusion of power system, in which the power-hungry CoE/EU-puppets of the executive and legislative branches have made the judiciary branch its bitch. As a result, both the Dutch Public Prosecution Service and the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ignore basic human rights on instruction. That is on top of the Constitution of the Netherlands disallowing constitutional review, per its Article 120. In fact, the judiciary branch is such a well-trained pet, that it will anticipate its masters' wants and needs....

...The vast majority of Dutch citizens want me to be convicted, even those who have no idea what I'm on trial for. They could not care less whether or not basic human rights apply to me. I'm a minority, so they want me to just shut the fuck up. Our people do not value human rights, merely weaponize these rights for personal gain.... This should be the people's battle, but "First they came ..." has no meaning to them....

....Mainstream media in this country, including public service broadcaster NOS, do not care about facts. Neither commercial nor public news media provide any kind of fact-based investigative journalism, unless it serves their benefactors. Mainstream media in this country are lying propaganda machines; its employees lowlife scum.....

I do not see it first time, when interpretation of the existing law is done to be in accordance with "higher interests", when it comes to paedohysteria.
When ends justifies means.
In Czech Rep., there was a case of naturist group who was publishing videos from their meetings(which included minors).
At start there was some report from FBI sent to "Prague".
Then investigation for child pornography offences started, but it was rejected because material was examined by renowned Czech sexologists and concluded as non-pornographic.
Then indictment was changed to "sexual coercion", which is relatively new law that was forced to us from the EU , and was officially intended to prevent blackmailing or coercing someone to perform other sexual acts via internet.
However, there was some amendment (again demanded by EU) that it should include not only coercion but also dependence of "victim" on "perpetrator".
While videos were not considered by judiciary as CP, parents going with their children to naturist events, where they were instructed (but not forced) to undress was considered as sexual or sexualised activity. Children and youth were traumatised by various examinations, parents were threatened with custody removal if not cooperating-,then they got suspended sentences, and organiser(convinced naturist) got 3 years custodial sentence.

...As I've said, it would be really irony of fate if these people
(and maybe people with even less extreme political ends-for example like us) will find only place to freely express their political views in USA(where they will not arrest you for speech directly, but instead of it, they could plant some sinister data to your PC-and then lock you forever)

Milan Horvath said...

Regarding of that "stealthing"(geez...they must have fancy term for everything), this is very good example of inability to divorce law and morality.
(seems that, especially when females are affected)
Everything previously considered just immoral, must now be incorporated into law and enforced with fervour.

As was already mentioned here -what about men who have became fathers by deception.
Should they be forced to pay alimony? And especially in jurisdictions where not paying alimony is a crime, yes in 21-st century we have a prison sentence for what is basically a debt.
Argument, that children would starve otherwise is invalid in any welfare state,
also when single mother will decide that she don't want to care about her child, she can get rid of it without any problems or any obligation to pay alimony for it. Is that fair?

If I remember it correctly, Julian Assange's horrible sexual crime was this "stealthing".

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, stealthing was Assange's "rape." When you read the actual description, that was all there was to it. It was dropped as too ridiculous, but with a specific offense men won't be so lucky. Not that Assange was lucky -- he is still in prison!

Women have stealth built into their biology. Concealed ovulation keeps men in the dark about their fertility by design. With the invention of the condom, we can have equality, except of course men are criminalized. If we wanted to moralize like the feminists do we could say women are inherently bad for much of the same, plus of course they can lie in equally consequential ways or more if they pin fatherhood on the wrong man, but men simply put up with one-sided criminalization for all of this.

Dom 'oldcel' Krauer said...

"Regardless of who actually might be right, which idea you think is more easily marketable to broader public ?
Even if I would change my mind, and start to think that female nature is 99% cause of what is happening: How should I sell such idea to other people than incels/MGTOWs or divorcees?
It is problematic to live with someone of whom you should think is an naturally insidious being."

Well good luck Milan on selling your idea of letting husbands fuck their 14 year old nubile neighbour's daugthers without any legal restrictions. I'm sure that will continue to go down well with the 51% of the vote that determines the result of every election and social policy in the 21st century. I would write a longer answer but I've already given my reasons and Eivind 'Free Speech' Berge appears to have either banned me or is not approving some comments.

So good luck! But however much you dismiss the incels as a bunch of misgonyist losers, it's youthful subcultures like that that are the answer, not failed and aging 'rationalist liberals' appealing to five readers on a blog whose author's goal is the collapse of civilization, and who can't agree on anything except that age of consent laws are too strict.

Eivind Berge said...

No, I don't believe anything is cut off in moderation on this subject.

Jack said...

There's an uptick of court cases against men in Belgium, I think following the passing of a new law not too long ago. Journalist Bart de Pauw is now standing for trial:

The trial is now going on and is not yet mentioned in this Wikipedia article. All he did was stubbornly and repeatedly text and message women he worked with. Articles mentioned he kept messaging them to the tune of "my little mouse". Big deal! It seems rude or sexual-laden language is not even necessary anymore for a man to be charged with online sexual harassment. Couldn't those women simply block him?

At the same time a girl who was drunk and accepted a ride from guys in Bastogne complained of rape. The charge is "rape" although it is not even sure any sex took place. No report of this in English:

I fear we are now entering a phase where such cases against men become so common throughout Europe the international press in English can non longer keep track of them.

Dom 'oldcel' Krauer said...

@Milan - I probably come across as overly harsh, and from your POV, overly obsessed with femihags.

I don't think rational fair-minded appealing to the public is going to get very far. That is unless perhaps society does change quite radically due to some technological change or change of 'leadership'. I do think the former is quite likely to happen at some point in the next 50 - 100 years. Certainly, a society in which, for example, aging has been abolished and the IQs of the average person raised to Einstein levels, may very well be open to rational persuasion. However, I wouldn't count on it, and probably the femihags will have demanded that the 'pedo gene' (ie. the natural male preference for youthful females) will be genetically engineered out of all men and their offspring before then, or they will simply have put us all in concentration camps.

Of course there is room for two approaches. Perhaps the best is in fact that the youthful subcultures such as the incels make the noise, while the rationalist bloggers do the logical persuasion? This seems to me a bit like how the trannies have managed to get so far. You have a lot of really 'extreme' tranny activists making the noise, but you also have the fair-minded 'progressive' rational trans rights people. Of course, trannies couldn't have done anything without being adopted by the gay rights community and then falling under the protection of 'hate speech' laws and cancel culture. Even feminists have to bow down to them now.

Still, just saying that in your case, you like to say that we need a European movement that is free of American influence, and yet it seems to me that in your continued focus on American Puritanism, that you are in fact another example of a European influenced by retarded American culture. At some point surely also, the genetic fallacy comes into play. It is femihags making these laws in Europe today under feminist theories of 'abuse' and 'power differentials' (sometimes as 'femiservatives'), so they are the principle enemy here.

Eivind Berge said...

As a sexualist I take sexuality's side against whoever wants to criminalize it unreasonably, whether they be feminists or demonologists or whatever. Right now, feminists supply the paradigm almost 100%. Nobody believes in demons and everybody believes in "abuse" -- even the Pope doesn't speak of "sin" as the justification, but he sure wants the age of consent to be 18. It isn't just femihags driving this even if they supply the "theory," which never meant much anyway as history shows we can easily have the same oppression under a different justification. The Norwegian "leiermål" of the 16-1700s was literally as bad as feminism!

Clearly they needed sexualists just as much back then.

Eivind Berge said...

Another way to look at the current antisex bigotry, as puritanism in bite-sized chunks:

Puritans realized long ago that nobody is buying their “sex is evil” bill of goods any longer, so they’ve broken it up into bite-sized chunks to more easily cram it down the gullets of the Great Unwashed. These bites include “porn is evil”, “pragmatic sex is evil”, “sex between people more than a few years apart is evil”, “sex a woman later regrets is retroactively evil”, “kink is evil”, “any sex trans people desire is evil”, “any sexual thoughts occurring even one minute before the thinker turns 18 are both evil and unnatural”, “wanting more or different sex than a monogamous partner is evil”, and many others. And as each of these was accepted into the popular consciousness, the puritans worked to expand it like driving a wedge into a log, until laws and policies nobody would’ve agreed to if presented up front are suddenly a fact.

Well put by Maggie McNeill there. Hardly anybody admits to accepting the whole package deal that sex is evil or even sex outside marriage is evil -- no, it needs to be broken down into those categories, usually justified by somebody being "abused." Which of course is the feminist ideology, but it gets all too readily accepted by men too. They just can't seem to grasp how they contradict their own imagined sex-positivity that way. How long until people will be forced to admit to themselves that they are, in fact, supporting one gigantic agenda of "sex is evil"?

Milan Horvath said...

Yes, Maggie is making sometimes very interesting points,however it's shame that she regressed into plastering her blog with faces of policemen with shaming and demands for higher punishments*.
Also that Prostasia foundation(she is/was? member) is just pig with tolerance of tolerance for that.....war with.....we must do something....

I am no fan of police, but as I have said, I don't like "YEE-HAW" justice, I know, that she has good reason for it, but anyway......

Milan Horvath said...


.I've repeatedly said that commenting here is more of a relax than trying to influence someone. I don't know how numerous audience is on this blog(Eivind can see it in stats),I hope that it is more than 5, but I suppose it is not some significant number.
In past I used to comment everywhere possible(where I saw issues of my interest), but it is unbelievably exhausting to argue with dumb people who are repeatedly spewing out their orthodoxies mixed with bile and insults. And it became more and more problematic as major social media improved their opinion engineering with shadow-banning and cancelling. And many major newspapers (at least in my country) started to demand your real identity with ID scan, which prevents me from making multiple identities, and is exposing myself to various risks.

.as it can be noticeable from my comments, my interests are not limited to persecution of adult-adolescent encounters or men rights issues,
for me sexual hysteria is much more broader issue having negative impact on many aspects of human life...e.g. proportionality in criminal law, freedom of information/speech, parenting/upbringing..........

.what exactly is making me influenced by American retarded culture? I am not playing their identity politics as I've explained many..many....many times, I have problems with American influence en bloc..,,is that making me influenced?
Is someone who is antifascist influenced by fascism? When I will ignore it, it won't disappear...when I will continue writing about it, it won't disappear either......

.as I have said previously, I was little bit unfair to incels, there are some bright and decent beings (who had just unluck for various reasons),
but generally, I am not sure what to sell them or what to expect from them.
But there is nothing to lose..... maybe it is worth trying, I will think about it.......

.yes there is room for both approaches, it is even better to fight on more fronts

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, all of Maggie’s reasonable views on sex melt away as soon as a cop is accused. Then she finds every accusation and abuse definition credible and even wants to amplify the punishment some more due to her own very bad experiences with cops. It is unfortunate that she can’t be principled about it, especially depressing coming from such a big activist because that means anything other than selfish promotion of ideology must be very, very rare (I believe I am one of the exceptions -- I’m no fan of the police either but I don’t turn into a feminist when they are accused of sex crimes). Also unfortunate that she mixes porn into the antisex agenda as if porn is good for sex-positivity. The feminists believe that the metaphysical badness of sex transfers over to porn, which is equally deluded as the wanker who thinks he is getting sexual enjoyment. Since nofappers know that none of the goodness of sex is reducible to information or masturbation (which in fact makes men impotent and feckless), we reject the entire narrative that porn is bad because it is or promotes sex or “sexualizes” minors. Porn is bad for the diametrically opposite reason that it detracts from sexuality, but none of the antisex bigots oppose porn on those grounds. If they came to view porn in the same way I do, they would promote it so more men can abuse themselves and have less sex. As such, their delusion is useful to us, but it also does immense harm when men are locked up for “crimes” that only hurt themselves.

Eivind Berge said...

As to the size of our audience, I won’t claim it is large here at the moment, but today NRK offered me (and other participants) to talk to a psychologist to prepare us for the public attention to their upcoming documentary on Boys Against the World. I said not needed as it’s not my first rodeo, but it’s encouraging that they are so confident it will be a hit :-)

Anonymous said...

What do they mean "talk to a psychologist"? Do they believe that you need therapy?

Eivind Berge said...

No, they mean the attention can be a bit overwhelming (not so much to me as some others who are not used to it). Of course, this is also related to the fact that they are portraying dissidents whom society hates to varying degrees, but we can tell they really believe in the show.

I am an entertainer. I welcome the attention, but I can understand that the others might benefit from some psychological training to get into that mindset.

Milan Horvath said...

First part agreement, second part less.
What IMO detracts young people from contact sexuality is sex-hostile environment,
"psychological castration" in childhood and culture that endorses war between sexes, not pornography.

Only negative aspects I can imagine are:
.everything too much is not good
.learning bad habits, or maybe exaggerated expectations (mostly for inexperienced)

As for that "revolutionary November", any new ideas with blog improvement?
Or it will be a surprise?

Eivind Berge said...

Porn desexualizes young boys and is indeed a tremendous problem (depending on how much they use it, but there is no safe dose once they start masturbating to it). You don't believe it because you are unaware how vulnerable the male nervous system is to this evolutionarily novel stimuli. Porn hijacks their brains and messes up their sexuality, all in the direction of desexualization (including paraphilias, which masturbation itself should always be considered as in my opinion), exactly the opposite of what the antisex bigots imagine. Porn brings males further apart from females and provides a fake target for their sexual efforts like a jewel beetle mating with a beer bottle. But the damage does not end there, because it also tends to make them impotent when they later attempt real sex -- which is then also much delayed, causing them to lose valuable years where they could have been sexually active and really enjoyed good sex if not for the poison that is porn and masturbation.

I am still figuring out how to improve the blog for November. Realistically it will be a couple of posts with at least one suited as an introduction to male sexualism as a whole. The radical idea that we take sexuality's side is really hard for people to wrap their minds around, so how do I actually get that point across? The normies don't even realize there is a war on sex, which is why we risk seeming belligerent for no reason. Many will read "take sexuality's side" as "hate women," "deprive women of their rights" and so on, so this is a huge challenge.

Anonymous said...

If you do go to prison, will you still maintain your NoFap routine in there?

Sorry to point out your contradictions again Eivind, but recently you (and Milan later) tried to absolve women of any blame in the sex war by suggesting it was our fault for 'letting them' (in your case, you explicitly mentioned giving them the vote). Now you're appealing to the 'normies' by denying you want to 'deprive women of their rights'. Presumably you mean their right to bang 13 year old boys in class? Most normies would assume the right to vote to be a more fundamental 'women's right'. Just saying.

Eivind don't let the Americans sway you into becoming pro-feminist and obsessed with their retarded politics and morality.

We are Europeans. We need a European secular movement that resists the feminist criminalization of male sexuality in Europe. Holocaust22 and Milan already have a pathetic American 'anti-sex hysteria' movement that never blames feminism, and in fact sees feminists as potential allies.

"The normies don't even realize there is a war on sex, which is why we risk seeming belligerent for no reason."

FFS Eivind. The reason the normies don't even realize there is a war on sex is because of white knights like Holocaust22, Milan, and ...YOU, refusing to accept women (or even feminists) can be to blame. Honestly - can't you learn something from the Incel movement? The one place online that has truly abandoned any pretence of White Knightism and avoidance of 'misogyny' is the one place online which has accepted there is a war on male sexuality that includes the sham of paedohysteria. You must be able to see a connection in that?

Anonymous said...

Also note that the Social Purity Movement/Suffragettes (99% women) raised the age of consent to 12 to 16 in the Uk 3 or 4 decades before they successfully won the vote. Likewise in the USA and a number of other Anglo-Sphere countries. You can learn two lessons from this :

1/ Even depriving women of the vote wont be enough.
2/ For the first feminists, raising the age of consent and banning prostitution was more important to them than winning the vote. In fact, gaining the franchise was openly seen by many of them as a means to securing their (sexual) aims.

@Milan. I replied to your comment about Rookh (Anglo-Bitch) a couple of days ago but I don't think it was posted. So I'll rephrase it more briefly. I have a lot of respect for Rookh and his thesis, but you can accuse him just of easily of being 'obsessed' with anglo puritanism as I am with femihags. Two important criticisms of his outlook (which has much merit). Firstly, the genetic fallacy. Secondly, correlation and causation. All these sex hysteria laws started with the English and Americans in the late 19th century, yes. These were also the two most industrialized nations on Earth. Sexual Trade Union theory explains first wave feminism as much as a result of industrialization as much as inherent puritanism.

I wont do it here at length, but you can also argue that the British have not been historically 'sexually repressed'. At times, we were notorious as the most sexually liberal (or 'degenerate') in Europe. In early Victorian times London was the prostitution capital of Europe, with something like a majority of young girls engaged in the sex trade. Or the Restoration period, when we kicked out the puritans to the USA, and everything was permissable (read the diary of Samuel Pepys if you think there is some kind of innate sexual puritanism in the British soul). Catholics are not always known for their sexual liberalism are they (unless it's priests banging young boys)?

Anonymous said...

American Conservatism strikes again - Spain's socialist PM vows to abolish prostitution.

Milan Horvath said...

American Conservatism strikes again - Spain's socialist PM vows to abolish prostitution.
No, not American conservatism but, Anglo/American influence, which is now well established in Spain, in this case in the form of (anglo)feminism and rescue industry.

-conflating forced prostitution with voluntary
-moralising babble about poverty- why he won't help those women to find a better job instead- it's like moralising about child prostitution in South Asia, and yet none of those moral guardians gives a fuck about working conditions and child labour in local factories there operated by western companies.

Eivind Berge said...

Looks like feminism to me.

In 2019, Mr Sanchez's party published a pledge in its election manifesto to outlaw prostitution, in what was seen as a move to attract more female voters.

The manifesto called prostitution "one of the cruellest aspects of the feminisation of poverty and one of the worst forms of violence against women".

So obviously they are going to "abolish" it the feminist way too, which by the statistics from the same article means criminalizing up to 39% of Spanish men to "end demand."

Milan Horvath said...

"At times, we were notorious as the most sexually liberal (or 'degenerate') in Europe. In early Victorian times London was the prostitution capital of Europe, with something like a majority of young girls engaged in the sex trade."

Question is, whether prostitution was really so prevalent in London when compared to rest of Europe's capitals, or it was more intensely perceived as problem and inflated by those who then made chronicles.
Another question is, whether occurrence of prostitution is a marker of un-repressed sexual morals or quite opposite.

Speaking of causality and correlation, it is hard to say today, if there would be same development, let's say in France if they would be first industrialised nation.
I am not sure about that.
There were another significant factors which influenced development in Britain,
dissimilar to those in e.g. France.

As for Catholics,they are IMO "libertine cuties" when compared to most American protestant denominations.
Seems that when they are adopting some prudish imbecility, it is out of cowardice/convenience rather than some zealous initiative on their own.

"But as Michelangelo’s artistic career developed, the Catholic Church’s crackdown on “lasciviousness” of all kinds also intensified. This had everything to do with accusations of corruption against the church being made by the Protestant Reformation and its leader Martin Luther. Fearful of losing its flock, the Vatican began ordering reforms across the church—including censorship of nudity in art. "

But that is just my impression I am not an historian to be well-founded to discuss it.

For me it is enough to compare between criminal laws of certain countries at same time before 30-40 years. There was long period, when many mainland countries were already industrialised and yet didn't adopted such insanely prudish attitude.
What has changed recently, was that world is more interconnected now, while certain language and culture is clearly dominating it.

Milan Horvath said...

" why he won't help those women to find a better job instead- it's like moralising about child prostitution in South Asia, and yet none of those moral guardians gives a fuck about working conditions and child labour in local factories there operated by western companies. "

To clarify it: Not that I would endorse child prostitution, or that I would believe that Spanish women are selling their bodies mostly out of despair.
When there is a choice between many hours of hard work and few hours of selling your body, choosing prostitution is not sign of despair.

Eivind Berge said...

Sure, but women are not granted agency to make that evaluation, because society has already decided for them that sex is infinitely bad. There's the belief in the metaphysical badness of sex again that is the keystone to this civilization's morality ever since feminism took hold. There is no higher power than the badness of sex as we officially see it as a culture.

With supposed sexual victimization even by images there is infinite gullibility, which makes for a contrast shock when someone tries it with something else...

Vanessa Bryant's civil lawsuit against Los Angeles County claims photos of the January 2020 crash were shared by county fire and sheriff's department employees in settings irrelevant to the investigation, including at a bar. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in September 2020, seeks undisclosed damages, claiming civil rights violations, negligence, emotional distress and violation of privacy.

A "central tenet" of the county's defense is the "severe emotional and mental injuries were not caused by any conduct of Defendants, but rather by the tragic helicopter crash and resulting deaths of their loved ones," the court filing says. The county argues the plaintiffs "cannot be suffering distress from accident site photos that they have never seen and that were never publicly disseminated."

What, images don't have voodoo power when not sexual??? What's so special about sexuality to make it so?

Milan Horvath said...

Yes of course that argument with YP/CP(or maybe other sexual content in future):
"Every time it is watched, person portrayed in it is being victimised"- is absurd and laughable,
they have to invent it because myth, that non-commercial consumers are supplying demand was refuted.
In most jurisdictions you cannot prosecute people for just being immoral or deviant,
and this is smart obfuscation. Not first time, when they're using this trick.

The virtue of the Miller Law, in
the eyes of its proponents, was in criminalizing such acts of “social menace”
that would not have been captured by existing criminal law but ­were newly
understood as indicative of dangerous sexual psychopathy. ​

BTW: For some boys, who have issues with addressing opposite sex(sexually), prostitute could be way, how to break some barriers.But since these new nice laws will be in force, solution will be probably medication and psychobabble- something like those cretins were telling you, when you started blogging "life is not only about sex"....and so

Anonymous said...


"According to Jad Adams,

The number of prostitutes in Victorian London confounded and astonished foreigners. Flora Tristan, a French woman writing in 1840, recounted a summer visit to Waterloo Road where. "in every window and doorway women were laughing and joking with their protectors. Half dressed, some of them naked to the waist, they were a revolting sight. . . . In Prostitution and the Victorians, Trevor Fisher examines the extraordinarily high level of tolerance which early and middle Victorian society had for prostitutes, from the Pretty Horse-breakers riding in Hyde Park for the benefit of the gentry, to the street whores working in alleyways. . . For most of the nineteenth century, the prevailing establishment view was of prostitution as a necessary evil; many argued that no government restrictions should be placed on the way in which a person wished to sell their [sic] labour. . . . A vociferous puritan minority led an ultimately victorious assault on these laissez faire attitudes, basing a large part of their campaign on the claim that prostitutes were not willingly selling their services, but were enslaved."

Eivind Berge said...

Even the church ran brothels in London:

"The modern Christian church does not condone prostitution and would never consider getting involved with it. However, in 12th century England, a borough of London known as Southwark had eighteen licensed brothels with about one thousand prostitutes employed therein! All of these brothels were run by the church and brought in large sums of money for building churches and other ecclesiastical duties.

All the brothels were in Bankside, an area of Southwark, and the brothels themselves were called the “Bankside stews.” There are two theories on how the brothels came to have this name. First, the ponds on the Bishop’s land bred fish for the bishop to eat and were called “stew-ponds”. This led to the phrase “visiting the stews” becoming laden with innuendo. The other theory is that the name comes from the Norman French word Estuwes which means stove. This refers to the stoves used in the bathhouses to produce steam. The brothel keeper came to be known as a “stewholder” and the women that worked there were known as “Winchester Geese” named after the Bishop of Windsor that presided over the area.

Something went horribly wrong between then and now. Yes, feminism is evil, but why did men let feminism win? You are right it doesn't even take women voting, because now the Vatican is doing it too. That makes men even more pushovers.

Domcel Krauer said...

And yet there is still some hope, at least in France.

Holocaust22 and Milan wont be happy, but Eric Zemmour 'far-right journalist' (for the BBC, anyone who criticizes Muslims, feminists, and trannies is further right than Hitler) has announced he will run against Macron in the Presidential elections.

Zemmour has been supported by Michel Houellebecq in the past.

A few years ago he signed a petition against the French criminalization of clients of prostitutes.

I'd like to hear Jack's opinion on this and on whether he thinks Zemmour could win.

Jack said...

If Zemmour makes it to the last round in the presidential election, the same will happen as with Jean-Marie Lepen a decade ago. The whole mainstream political spectrum will rally and call for a massive vote against Zemmour to "save democracy".

Zemmour started as an anti-feminist, he then switched to being mainly anti-muslim, anti-immigration. He may have felt anti-feminism was too narrow to win him a broad audience.

Milan Horvath said...

Holocaust22 and Milan wont be happy, but Eric Zemmour 'far-right journalist' ...

I am civic libertarian, whoever will do politics, that will be for abolishing
irrational and moralistic restrictions is my favourite.
As an occasional reader of, I knew about Zemmour long time, before world media started to write about him, I am neutral about him personally, but I don't see much hope in trad-politics(as whole).

Speaking of right-journalists, there are people like Élisabeth Lévy and Alain Finkielkraut in this scene, who are kinda sympathetic to me, and then we have there these "cute" fellas like this

Unfortunately this episode of L'Heure des pros is not available on YT.
But I found short excerpt-transcript from it here, I will try to find it eventually.

Elisabeth Lévy remarks (10:52): “The President met his wife at what age? 15, 14 years old… ”

Elisabeth Lévy (11:31): "About David Hamilton I have doubts" ...

And there, you have to see and hear Pascal Praud: "You do not have the right to question the testimony of Flavie Flament…. "
add:you don't know what she's gone through(if I remember it correctly)

If I remember this whole episode correctly it was debate about absolute rape age
(wrongly interpreted by media as age of consent), proposed by our beloved Marlène Schiappa.
There was much worse things than this blogger mentioned in transcript, such as calling for public sex offender registry, raising sentences and sooo......
É.Lévy was somehow defending adult-adolescent encounters, referring to history and so, but she was absolutely unpopular within members of discussion board consisting of 6? people.

If some (trad/alt?)-right politician wins, what attitudes will prevail, those of Mme.Lévy, or those of Ms.Praud....what do you think?

But we will see.....I hope that I will be pleasantly surprised by Zemmour's politics, if he wins(which I doubt).

freetheteens69 said...

@milan horvath

Are you french? Can you actually legally date a 15 year old in france?

freetheteens69 said...

@milan horvath

The only reason America wants to arrest Roman Polanski for sleeping with that 13 year old is because of American hysteria - Frédéric Mitterrand.

Imagine being born in a country where your cultural minister says this publicly. Lucky.

freetheteens69 said...


"The reason the normies don't even realize there is a war on sex is because of white knights like Holocaust22, Milan, and ...YOU"

Yeah look at white knight mr holocaust22 here. My posts are so feminist white knight I might as well be Andrea Dworkins son lmao.

I guess the criteria for being anti feminist is that we have to support women going to prison for 200 years for sleeping with 17 year olds. According to theantifeminist.

Milan Horvath said...

No I am Czech.
When it comes to dating 15 years olds, I suppose that it is technically legal
(as in my country-we have AOC 15 too), but I think, there are some provisions in most of EU about underage prostitution(under 18), which includes not only straightforward payment for sex, but it could be also various "gifts" or paying in restaurant.
So technically it is legal, but it could be problematic.
How much often it is really enforced this way is unknown to me.

Yes, France could be a paradise-but only if you have this

BTW: According to new law in France, any sexual encounter(with age difference more than 5years) between adult and person under 15 years is considered as rape, also any encounter between person with authority(eg.teacher or coach.....or 25 year old camp leader??) and person under 18 is considered as rape.
I hope, I am correctly informed about this, and not spreading disinformation.......or frankly I hope this is just nightmare and I will wake up soon.....

Eivind Berge said...

I think the absolute rape age in France only extends to under 15 so far, and the rest is a lesser form of "abuse." The absolute rape age was misreported as age of consent in the media, but this other thing really is age of consent, which for most intents and purposes is 18 unless you are almost as young yourself. Even if there are seeming exceptions if you are not in any position of authority, don't spend any money on her etc., you have to understand that the hatred is so strong that it's not realistic to have a normal relationship. Europe is definitely not some kind paradise even if you still think you can fit all these exceptions (which I don't think you can -- they will always twist it into some kind of criminal category if it comes to light).

Eivind Berge said...

Just a quick update on my false accusations. It's a hilarious story having to do with vigilante trolls, but for tactical reasons I shall say no more at present. We are going to let them dig themselves further in first :)

Milan Horvath said...

Few IMO interesting articles from retired criminal law professor at Kiel university
Monika Frommel.
Novo-argumente is German sister of Spiked! Again I don't agree with absolutely everything she says, but I think it is very interesting, but unfortunately long.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks! Judging by the first one so far these are excellent articles. I see German feminists are at it expanding rape law to Swedish levels. They are not satisfied until anything claimed to be without a woman's consent is "rape," except if there is money involved, in which case consent isn't good enough either. And they have already taken blasphemy law to yet another level with a "ban on the use of image material by naked young people (Section 201a StGB - an offense below the threshold of youth pornography)." Remoralization of criminal law, indeed, except they can't admit to either moralism nor power politics, so everything is under the guise of protecting "victims."

Milan Horvath said...

"Again I don't agree with absolutely everything she says"
It was badly formulated, I mean I do not endorse everything she says, but in general I agree with her. I hope it was not misunderstood.

Milan Horvath said... reminded me another story........
that 201a StGB, is product of affair Edathy.
Around 2013-2014 there was big uproar in Europe and North America about commercial nudist videos containing minors
(and even real naturists were persecuted because of this-I mentioned it earlier).
Some producers in Canada and Ukraine/Romania??? was arrested, and Canadian authorities informed local police forces around the world about customers.
One of customers was German MP for SPD, Sebastian Edathy.
But in Germany mere nudity wasn't (IMO rightly) considered as pornography.
Funny fact is, that while buying such material wasn't criminal offence at the time in Germany, police got search warrant for his house and computers based on premise, that if someone is buying such material he could also possess illegal pornographic material.
Later he was pressured to plead guilty, under suspicious circumstances.

Way how police/investigating judge proceeded, could be comparable to searching alcoholic's house for illicit drugs, on premise that alcohol abusers could also consume other illegal substances.

But it seems that when it comes to sexual criminal law nobody gives a fuck about constitutional principles.
Because they can get away with that, as nobody would raise an objection and media are usually complicit to it.

Actually, Monika Frommel's first article at NOVO was about it.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the crimen exceptum nature of antisex bigotry ensures that there are no rules. The end of cracking down on sexuality justifies any and all means. No principle of justice can ever stand in the way of a prosecution for sex crimes, or the expansion of sex crimes and erosion of due process, because the War on Sex is sanctified over all other considerations to this sick culture. We can only hope for collapse to put us out of the misery.

As a teaser to how collapse will play out we can look to Lebanon already. They have found a solution to the energy crisis:

A very temporary solution, the true meaning of "renewables" because such are the only ones we get: cutting down all the trees. And then what? That's when the antisex bigots will start to suffer.

Domcel Krauer said...

"Under S.B. 315, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail, to employ 18- to 20-year-olds at any sexually oriented business."

Remember when some anti-feminist loon was predicting this 10 years ago? And don't think they will stop there. Eventually 25 or more will be the cut off point. After all, psychologists and neurologists increasingly argue that 'adolescence' lasts from the start of puberty to the mid twenties or beyond.

So does the 'ephebophile' community now regard any Texan man who finds 20 year old 'children' attractive an 'ephebophile'?

@Holocaust22 - You have claimed here before that feminists are our friends. It takes a lot for me to forgive that, but you're doing well currently. Keep up the good work.

Milan Horvath said...

It is nothing new, I think that Amsterdam limited prostitution to 21 few years ago???

It is interesting that there are double standards (not only in US) when it comes to age limits.
Not only those regarding prostitution.

Some comments there are really retarded, and some are really this

Jack said...

Novo-argumente has a lot of interesting contributions. It shows that this site is not the only one arguing against the madness. Alas, at the same time it shows how little weight rationality carries these days.

If you're looking for some light reading about sex, I recommend Jenna Jameson's "How to make love like a pornstar" (written with the help of someone else but, I think, broadly accurate, from what I've known of Jenna since she became one of my regular fapping material). The book is written from anything but a whining victimhood #Metoo angle. It shows how awfully privileged and empowered (to use a favourite feminist word) a sexy teenager can be. It is, in fact, a book about the sexploitation of the adult male.

Jenna lied about her age in order to be able to start as a showgirl when she was only 17.

Milan Horvath said...

" Alas, at the same time it shows how little weight rationality carries these days."
I agree.... and not only when it comes to sexual issues....

As for that prostitution/pornography/sugarbabying, yes..I don't want to moralise, but it would be interesting to ask a question: Actually, who is exploited?-someone who earns a decent monthly wage in few hours, or someone who spends such wage within few hours for "human warmth".
(borrowing on is free)

Jack said...

A good site for downloading books is z-library. No idea how long they're going to be allowed to operate. I also downloaded "Ron Jeremy: The hardest working Man in Showbiz".

Anonymous said...

This is evil:

Milan Horvath said...

Thanks Jack, that z-library is outstanding.
I found there some scholar texts and books, I wanted to find for a long time.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that wheelchair case is evil. Man in wheelchair accused of "abuse of position" because personal assistant had sex out of fear of losing her job: «utnytte at hun var økonomisk avhengig av ansettelsesforholdet». Oh, so she couldn't quit and get another job or free money from the state? This prosecution is pure evil, showing once again that antisex trumps all other considerations. Women are entitled to never ever lift a finger to avoid sex themselves but can simply accuse and accuse and have society be complicit in destroying the man regardless of the consequences. How can it not be clear yet that men need to fight, that we need a movement that takes sexuality's side?

Also more evil in the case against Gaute Drevdal, which is now in appeal trial:

"– De involverte er stort sett enig om hendelsesforløpet. Sex skjer i ruspåvirket tilstand i festsammenheng. Men det er ingen som har påstått at tiltalte har gjort noe mot en uttalt vilje, sier Holmen.

– Det man skal finne ut av er hva som skjedde i tiltaltes hode. Kan man utelukke at Drevdal oppfattet fornærmede dit hen at de fornærmede var delaktig i seksuell omgang?

Imagine construing all those "rapes" and 13 years in prison based on not even any of the women saying no. All because the man being considerably older:

"– Vi mener at tiltalte har en modus med seksuell omgang med sovende jenter betydelig yngre enn ham selv, sier koordinerende bistandsadvokat Anne Kristine Bohinen i retten."

They were supposedly asleep during some of the sex, and yet they kept sleeping with him and never indicated anything wrong with it until this witch-hunt many years later. The sleep part is just an excuse to get him for the age gap. This is how much society hates you, gentlemen. Make no mistake about it, we have criminal souls from the point of view of society. We are incorrigible, intrinsic sex offenders just for existing, and of course should hate society back in equal measure. Giving up our nature is NOT an option!!!

Anonymous said...

The pigs in Norway are prosecuting a wheelchair bound and handicapped man for having sex with two of his assistants that he hired. They are calling it abuse even though the women had been willing. They are making a point out of the fact that the women were considerably younger than him.
The norwegian feminist pigs are even more evil than what I imagined.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, indeed. I just commented on that. Is it sinking in with normal men now how much society hates us for our sexuality?

Anonymous said...

We can't say for sure if the USA didn't exist that pedohysteria would not exist - however, we can say for certain that the push in Western allied countries toward feminism is a direct result of the insistence of the USA.

And of course feminists would still exist without conservatives, the point is conservative traitors opened the gates to the feminists. The feminists could not accomplish anything on their own because they had no power to directly change the law - conservative cucks changed the law at the insistence of the feminists. Traitors get the rope before enemies.

I would point to antifeminist's own example of Texas - who do you think is in charge in Texas, the conservatives or the liberals? Maybe in Europe the feminists are led by the liberals, but in the USA, it's always been puritan conservative feminists leaders, and they export this anti-male culture to the world.

Now that the USA is declining in influence on the world, we can hope that China will push back (which has a more sane rape law in general, bans feminists from social media, and keeps a current AOC of 14). Also, talk to any slant-eye Asian in general about sexual consent at young ages, and you will find they are far more tolerant and open about it.

Stealthing in theory is fucked up, but that is not the problem. The problem is in the proof, which in Western feminist countries now comes down to "believe all women". It simply becomes another way for her to lie and fuck over your life if she sees fit, and for the government to enter your personal life accordingly.

And if you think USA "free speech freedom" will protect you if you talk about "pedophilia" in the USA, I would say definitely, definitely never try that. I guarantee you will not be alive for very long. Go to a place with "no free speech freedom" like Cambodia instead, and you can talk about "pedophilia" all day long with no one really bothering you at all.

Eivind Berge said...

It is mind-boggling how little "danger" women have to be in in order to be "abused." Same with Drevdal (where it is even made out to be literal rape), and now the wheelchair-bound man. No, they can't simply say no or be responsible for their actions if they choose to have sex, even with the immense safety net of welfare in Norway -- we have to prosecute a man as a sex offender. The feminist state must have its pound of flesh, for which the motivation is now reduced to a simple age gap with no minors in sight either. We are already in hell and can only look forward to collapse.