There is the War on Sex, and then there is misogyny for its own sake on top of it. This travesty is so disturbing that it's very difficult to write about, but I can't let this sad fate go without a post. Monica Young is another victim of the most bizarre witch-hunt of all times:
She is judged as if we live in an anti-world where all the values are opposite to ours. You might call it a Satanic verdict except even Satanism isn't so deranged when you look into it. There is no rhyme or reason here whatsoever unless you postulate a metaphysical anti-world that is more real than this one and supersedes it.
The normies purport to believe that sex has magical powers that work precisely opposite to what we experience, which is to make people happy. According to feminist dogma which now serves as state religion, the happiness is an illusion and the metaphysical badness is real. The boy has been well coached to maximize payouts, and the world will buy his non-sequitur that his life is ruined by sex because the gaping hole in the logic is filled by the anti-world. It is on the level of "she was a dangerous witch who had to be burnt." Except the superstition is even more deranged because she was an obvious boon to the boy. Yet the superstition that she was "abusing" him seems almost as "true" to our culture as the belief in witches back then.
Now it is belief in the metaphysical badness of sex that is the overarching superstition of our times. I guess this belief is needed to be "well adjusted" and undisturbed by the persecutions. One must believe in a metaphysical sexual soul, an anti-soul or whatever it is that is affected by sexuality in this realm and more real. When a boy goes through all the motions and emotions of enjoying sex in this world, that metaphysical sexual soul is damaged via some gobbledygook mechanism. The feminists can never explain what this mechanism is, but one must believe in it. One must believe that sex damns your metaphysical sexual soul forever if you are under some arbitrary age or meet any other of their infinitely expanding criteria of victimhood. Oh, yes, the feminists will tell you the damage is psychological rather than metaphysical, but that is a lie. There is absolutely nothing in this world that can explain "harm" from winning the ultimate fitness payoff that is sex with a young woman. The feminists believe in the metaphysical badness of sex which must be oversocialized into us whether they admit its metaphysical nature or not.
How do the normies manage to believe in this witchcraft? How do they manage to believe in the anti-world? How do they get past the anti-intellectual, anti-emotional, anti-moral gobbledygook and internalize it? (Which to be fair not all do, but they don't stand up for the innocent victims either.)
I have attempted to answer this in a long series of posts about the female sex offender charade and gotten none closer to understanding. I have only arrived at better words for the madness. The anti-world it is. And the nocebo industry. Monica Young is 100% sexual nocebo.
Monday, October 25, 2021
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Eivind, do you remember the bizarre case of Gayle Newland, the woman who posed as a man to seduce another woman?
Something I find hard to believe in this case is how the "victim" could be so gullible. She let herself be blindfolded, then penetrated by a dildo instead of a penis? It was voodoo justice, again.
Yeah, that was a very disturbing case too. I didn't know the system even dragged her through a second trial after the first one failed and ended up with six years that she actually has to serve for this complete nonsense. It is the most ironically bizarre "rape" trial in history where the absence of a penis (and by deception rather than any violence) constitutes the violation. Nothing but voodoo justice on so many levels. But infinite gullibility and absurdity is par for the course with sex crimes, with only us few irrelevant sexualists speaking reason.
Come to think of it, that case should be extremely offensive to transsexuals. It implies they are always abusers when not being completely honest about their biological sex. So how come it didn't create a bigger stir that way and maybe some useful activism for a change?
The voodoo is actually made explicit by the judge in the Gayle Newland trial:
The judge said the offences demonstrate: “An extraordinary degree of cunning and a chilling desire on your part to manipulate and control the lives of others... It is difficult to conceive of a deceit so degrading or a deceit so damaging to the victim on its discovery.”
It is the discovery of information that is believed to be damaging. And yes, that would be the only thing that can cause harm when the whole thing was otherwise consensual, but here it is absurdly exaggerated, should not be a crime at all. Under a sensible justice system this is firmly in the risks you should have to accept if you want to date at all. It is insane to legislate all the deception people use to develop relationships, or really any of it unless it qualifies as some other independently criminal fraud like a financial scam. Romantic partners should not come with a warranty secured by the state that they are everything they tell you or else all the intimacy was sexual abuse.
Yet another installment in the steady drip of legislation to punish more sexuality, and in this case help more false accusations too by cutting off the most likely way a man can prove he had consensual sex:
Rape victims [actually accusers!] will be given a legal right to refuse to hand over their phones to police under new laws to end “digital strip searches” that have been blamed for plummeting conviction rates.
Excerpt from "The Pattern of Sexual Politics" by Harris Mirkin
In sexual politics definitions
are characteristically vague, so that statistics from the mildest activities can be blended with images from the most atrocious.
6 and 13 year olds are grouped in the same category (‘‘child’’) and
images of intergenerational sex acts that take place with pubescents
and post-puberty teens are routinely projected back onto very young
In the same way as adolescents are merged with little children, all
sexual activity is equated with violent or coerced sexual activity.
Issues of control in the sexual area are treated differently from those in
other areas. Pubescents and adolescents are usually thought of as hard
to control, and attempts to mold their behavior and initiate them into
legal and enjoyable adult activities are considered valuable. However,
in the sexual area these assumptions are reversed. It is asserted that
they are easily controlled, and they are conceptualized as little
children who have no sexual desire of their own and can only be passive
victims. According to the dominant formulas the youths are always
seduced. They are never considered partners or initiators or willing
participants even if they are hustlers.
It is only legitimate to coerce pubescents and teens not to have sex.
It is argued that they cannot give consent, that they cannot enjoy sex
even if they think that they do, and that they suffer physical and
psychological harm even if they are not aware of it. Contradictory
symptoms (like heightened or reduced sexual desire) are attributed to
childhood sexual experiences. All future evils will be attributed to past
experiences of child abuse, while all future good things that are done
will be attributed to overcoming the effects of child abuse, incest or
The female sex offender charade is misogyny because it is unnecessary. The feminists could have just left it at the traditional wisdom that sexual abuse is something males do to females. They did not have to target women at all with their hateful sex laws, and indeed did not for the first century after starting to drive up the age of consent (not until the 1970s did the first women get prosecuted for such as far as I know). If women still didn’t get prosecuted today, the only ones that would have complained would be fake MRAs like Hannah Wallen, which is to say feminists, which proves my point that the feminists could have dispensed with their misogyny.
Look at the excellent list of contradictions and absurdities in the sex laws provided by Milan above. What’s one more “double standard” in all that? Except this isn’t really a double standard because the sexes are in fact different, due to the huge asymmetry in cost of reproduction. If anything, it would make the War on Sex seem less insane because we wouldn’t have so spectacularly absurd cases of fake abuse being prosecuted. Sex with young women is the very ultimate fitness display for males, so making it out to be “abuse” is so mind-bogglingly absurd that I cannot for the life of me comprehend how the justice system can retain its spell through these cases.
To be clear, most “sexual abuse” of girls as defined today is also fake. But at least it is rooted in the different sexual market values of girls and boys. The so-called double standard makes sense insofar as you want to save your daughters for marriage. In practice now they will be sluts first anyway, so we ramped up all the hysteria for very little. It hardly matters if a girl starts sleeping around at 14 or 18 if she isn’t going to marry until her late 20s or 30s anyway, but at least there is an iota of method to the madness, unlike the female sex offender charade which HURTS boys’ sexual market value by depriving them of experiences that make them more attractive.
The War on Sex is oppression of men and something more sinister against women. We have to use words like psychotic witch-hunt based on insane superstitions, and even those fail to plumb the depths of evil that is the female sex offender charade.
The female sex offender charade raises serious concerns about whether other people are conscious or zombies. If they can’t see the fitness display of a boy getting lucky with a very attractive woman, then what can they see or feel? Can they feel anything at all or is it just darkness inside? Are they mere automata or simulated nonplayer characters reading from a script of political correctness? This should be the very most obvious sensual perception a human can have -- certainly if you have a functional sexuality or ability to empathize with one. Certain qualia are so fundamental to the human condition that you can’t do without and still seem to be human. Believers in the female sex offender charade don’t seem human to me.
"The female sex offender charade is misogyny because it is unnecessary. The feminists could have just left it at the traditional wisdom that sexual abuse is something males do to females. They did not have to target women at all with their hateful sex laws, and indeed did not for the first century after starting to drive up the age of consent (not until the 1970s did the first women get prosecuted for such as far as I know). If women still didn’t get prosecuted today, the only ones that would have complained would be fake MRAs like Hannah Wallen, which is to say feminists, which proves my point that the feminists could have dispensed with their misogyny."
So feminists hate themselves? It's nothing to do simply as these rare cases of female sex offenders being collateral damage in their eyes to the all-important goal of raising average female sexual value (which high age of consent laws do)?
And who gives a $hit anyway? MRAs? Certainly MRAs are complete tossers for their 'equal injustice' attitudes, but do you honestly believe anybody except you gets angry about feminist laws trapping the occasional female slut who thought she would get the pussy pass for sucking Chad off in class? Would incels, the only angry subcululture online after 15 years of the Manosphere to accept our position on the age of consent, get upset at this case? Err...no.
See Eivind, even if you are given a prime spot on Norwegian TV every single evening for the next 10 years to sprout off on wankers, the female sex offender charade, and peak oil, you'd still only have 4 followers on YouTube at the end of it.
"The War on Sex is oppression of men and something more sinister against women"
Well said leader of the female sexualist movement.
To accept the female sex offender charade you have to be not just sick in the head or evil, but empty in the head. Since it is an intimate negation of what it means to be human, I care about this on a deeper level than simple oppression and overexaggerated victimhood due to power politics such as that of the female sexual trade union. Both are important, but this is an unexplained phenomenon of human stupidity that deserves more attention as such. Female sex offenders are the UFOs of the human mind, except so much darker because they hint at zombiehood if anything I have words for.
Every drooling retard understands that pussy is good for boys, yet “highly intelligent” judges purport not to!?! If William Faulkner had portrayed the idiot Benjy in The Sound and the Fury as one of these “victims” of female sex offenders whose life is ruined at first sexual contact rather than a horny boy who had to be castrated to spare women, he would not have won the Nobel Prize for literature because it would have been too unbelievable. Yet these empty-headed judges literally get away with portraying male sexuality that way, and the charade continues on the fourth decade now. WHAT is going on?! I honestly don’t get it. How can people get THAT lied to and still not demand justice? And no, it can’t be dismissed as simply collateral damage of feminism either because that doesn’t explain the lack of an uprising for justice from the rest of us.
"The lack of an uprising from any of us" is not so amazing. Take the war on drugs. Millions of people serving long jail sentences for what? For victimless crimes (more victimless than sexual crimes since the only person really "responsible" is more often than not the drug consumer who decides to take drugs). You get sentenced for a crime you commit on yourself. Yet Society has condoned this goulag and charade ever since it started.
In the 14th century people got harshly punished for idiocies like denying the Trinity. Did the inquisition judges or the public really believe denying the Trinity was such a serious crime? Not any more - but no any less - than Today's judges believe that heterosexual sex is intrinsically evil.
When this particular madness is over, humans will think of other serious crimes with which to jail people (preferably men, as usual). Like denying there's such a thing as black people. Only using the word "black" as applicable to anyone online or face-to-face will be punishable by years behind bars.
Or religious blasphemy will get reintroduced as Muslims take over. Who knows.
Eivind, I don't want to change your opinion(that "it is different for girls"), but with all what is happening around us, do you really see (relatively mild when compared to males)persecution of few female teachers as a priority?
It is your blog, so do as you wish- but isn't there really nothing more worthy of attention than this?
I think we give attention to men at the same time. Your excellent comments help a lot, and I already mentioned laws getting worse for men in this thread. There is no conflict of interest here; writing about the female sex offender charade also bolsters the case against unfair sex laws for men.
Yes, it *IS* different for girls. Of course not so different that they deserve the current laws to “protect” them, but different enough that WOMEN DON’T DESERVE TO BE PROSECUTED AS SEXUAL ABUSERS, not in principle and it is in some sense worse when they are. A draconian, unjustified sex law applied to men is doubly unfair to women (or by some debatable quantity, but there IS a significant difference). I seriously don't see how we can be honest about sexuality and what kind of sex crimes are merited without also acknowledging this. Also, it should be the lowest-hanging fruit, a way to gauge if we have any influence at all. If people can’t even bring themselves to call for freeing an innocent angel like Monica Young, we have absolutely no hope of changing anyone’s mind about society’s violence against male sexuality.
Perhaps the ethics become clearer when we consider the loss to society of imprisoning an innocent or victimlessly accused person. When done to a man, it is sad for him and his loved ones. When done to a woman, it is also sad for society as a whole or at least a much larger group. It hurts boys and men in general when attractive young women like Monica are removed from their dating pool! Do you not see the problem here, the unique problem with the female sex offender charade? Monica is only 24 and sometimes they even do it to teen girls, for God's sake! Wake up and see how horrific that is beyond the simple fact of persecuting an innocent person! It is a full-blown travesty for the violence done to men by opportunity cost alone when only prison guards can possibly enjoy her.
I don't know what cost removing from the sex market a 24 year old female teacher who prefers sucking off 14 year old Chads in class has on my own sexual life. I suppose if the age of consent was 14, then you could argue she was freeing up the 14 year old girls to potentially have sex with me/older guys instead of the chad, or maybe with an incel in her class instead of the chad.
In terms of the boy, he is in the only brief time of his life when he is not only surrounded by prime teen pu$$y, but it's entirely legal (or at least he wont get prosecuted) for having sex with them. Yet he is wasting his time having sex with a 24 year old slut who has probably already had 100 dicks inside her.
This kind of story makes me rage more. A male teacher in the US of A is in trouble for having his high school girl students perform sexy lap dances for him and the other teachers. He will probably get 50 years in prison on some 'indecency' charge, and get raped by other inmates multiple times. The girls will be slut shamed, I mean given victim labels and forced to undergo therapy. Then they will probably sue the teacher when they are 30 for causing them 'life-long trauma'.
"I suppose if the age of consent was 14, then you could argue she was freeing up the 14 year old girls to potentially have sex with me/older guys instead of the chad, or maybe with an incel in her class instead of the chad."
Yes! Good point! See, there is endless damage done by the female sex offender charade to male sexuality as well as the female victim.
You also have a lesser point about the boy's opportunity cost of maybe not pursuing young teenage girls while he has a chance, but get back to me when you accept the much stronger opportunity cost of porn and masturbation as a problem first. Anyway, that is his choice and problem if any, while removing hot women from our dating pool is a societal atrocity. We should certainly ban masturbation long before we ban female teachers from having sex with their pupils if you are concerned about young Chads not living up to their sexual potential.
I don't like prohibitions though. What we really need to do is recommend nofap (perhaps also raise awareness about the short window boys can pursue prime teen pussy) and end the female sex offender charade.
What gets me about "normal" society in general is the way they make such a big deal out of "objectifying" another person where sex and sexual desires are concerned
...while eternally ignoring the worst type of objectification there is: the way advertisers, commercial companies/industries, and the pharmaceutical industries casually regard the average citizen as being little more than "mindless consumers", easily tricked and cajoled into parting with their money and finances when presented with "desirable goods" or "quick-fix" solutions to any problems/issues they may be presently dealing with.
Why would you use an anti-male, meaningless, and feminist word of misogyny? The state hates heterosexual sex, and prosecutes men more often because men have to make the first move on women most of the time because we are more brave and have more testosterone. When a generous slut does it, she gets a lighter punishment because she's a female. Is that unfair to females, to get arrested 1% of the time and get a 10x less harsh sentence? Obviously not, using the word misogyny is as dumb as the female sex offender charade.
However, female sex offenders are the UFOs of the human mind is a great comment. It is just completely fake and made up hysterical bullshit, in line with all the rest of the anti male, anti heterosexual sex bullshit.
I have a friend who was recently caught in the feminist net for relations with a young teen girl. His life is over now, and all because he resides in the Western world. It makes me sad, but it's just another example of what can happen by living in a Western country as a normal, healthy man.
Here we have the USA in the thirties, before they got corrupted by "progress":
Very cute. Yeah, we get as much "abuse" as we ask for. Just change the definitions and it will exist. Somebody has to say no to creating problems out of nothing.
Eivind mentioned the opportunity loss for males whenever a female offender gets put away. But is there a real loss? Only if we naively assume that such female offenders are nymphomaniacs and that their promiscuity was what got them into trouble. However, with women's sexuality you can seldom derive A from B.
In a rape case the courts are no longer allowed to bring in the female victim's sex life. But in a hot teacher case, since the courts are mandated to find the female offender guilty, surely they would bring in the latter's promiscuous lifestyle if there was one. From what we read of such cases the women involved don't get blamed for whoring or fucking-around. I wouldn't be surprised if they were just more often than not frigid weirdos, in which case their getting put away does not even represent an opportunity loss for us males.
In the opening chapter of Houellebecq's novel "Whatever", a female employee improvises an embarrassing strip-tease in front of colleagues during a birthday drink. Houellebecq writes "this was all the more dumb since that girl was known to sleep with no one". There's women's sexual freedom for you. A sham most of the time.
Regarding Monica Young, it's interesting to look at the comments on Youtube:
Half the comments are in the spirit of Eivind's crusade, the other half is more in traditional MRA style ie pointing out "if it had been a man he would have got double the sentence".
Not sure if it belongs here, I am just watching Years an Years series and.....I do not know... watch it(whole video)..................
People don't give a fuck that their children are practically raised/brainwashed by few Californian oligarchs since very early age.....until they realise, that there are OBSCENITIES!!!
Also every incompetent twat could win, if he/she will trigger certain societal orthodoxies.
What Eivind ignores (surprising for an evopsy reductionist) is that 25 YO+ women chasing 14 year old boys IS PERVERSE and unnatural (unlike older men and teen girls). Even a 14 year old Chad or Tyrone (who these boys usually are) can't provide for or protect an older woman, even less so in a more primitive world.
But Eivind is pitching to be a sort of Paul Elam of the alternative MRM. 'Justice for Men and Boys' (giving boys the right to fuck hot female teachers). Although lets be honest, he just has some cringeworthy White Knight obession with the tiny number of perverted females who chase physically immature boys, and trys to rationalize it as being part of our cause.
His argument is also at odds with other beliefs of his. For example, his approval of the importing of millions of sex starved horny Muslim young males into Europe. Not sure how that increases sexual opportunity for native male Europeans like us (leaving aside how the crude behaviour of the migrants gives feminists an excuse to bring in further draconian anti-sex laws to 'protect women').
@Jack again - have you read Houellbecq's last novel (Serotonin)? How do you interpret the ending where he rants about the death of Western Civilization, with stuff like 'Thomas Mann would have lost his marbles for a lolita'?
Is he being a peadocrite? Calling everybody a paedocrite? Making some point about civilization being an artificial sham and everything coming down to sex in the end?
Every Houellebecq novel gets harder and harder for me to read than the last. It took me about 5 weeks to read Serotonin. I'm just re-reading it, about half-way through and it's as much a struggle as before, although it does come alive in the last 1/3 or so.
Scorched Earth policy on Epstein continues : https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59117084
At least Prince Andrew is coming out fighting : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10150801/RICHARD-KAY-biggest-gamble-Prince-Andrews-life-save-sink-him.html
No, there is nothing "perverse" about 25-year-old+ women chasing 14-year-old boys, and certainly not from the boys' perspective. Sure, it is suboptimal for most women if they also need a provider, but even in a primitive setting there is lots of infidelity and opportunism going on. Males don't have an evolutionary reason to avoid mating if the offspring is less likely to survive, since our cost of reproduction is so low anyway, and women can benefit from some genetic diversity too. Raising those children can also be more of a group effort than cuckoldry; no need for perversion of any kind.
Such pairings will not and perhaps should not be the norm, but we certainly don't need laws to restrict them since women's preferences take care of that anyway. Inventing laws to prevent boys from having a little extracurricular fun is unspeakably evil, especially when the ostensible purpose of those laws is to save boys from "abuse." While persecuting female sexuality is nothing new, the contrast between the expressed purpose and reality is unprecedented in the female sex offender charade. I wouldn't be so obsessed with this if they had left it at criminalization due to "sin" or some such older justification. Then we could speak of equal injustice and fight it as such rather than a perverse misogynistic category on its own. To be clear: it is the laws that are perverse, not the relationships that they criminalize. I can't believe you are trying to find some sort of justification for them.
The only remotely valid argument we have against young boys getting together with older women is opportunity cost of the boy not living up to his sexual potential with prime pussy, but that is dwarfed by masturbation and porn these days. At menopause it could be significant, but if the boy was going to be a wanker or incel, it doesn't matter then either, plus it shouldn't be the state's right to legislate such personal value judgments.
I'm not trying to find a justification for them. I'm just pointing out your contradictary positions (again). I find it hard to believe that a woman can judge a 14 year old's reproductive fitness as well as she can a physical adult.
I don't think there should be laws against teachers having sex with students (over the age of consent), although there is a case to be made that it should be a disciplinary affair, given that it could lead to favoritism.
Let go of the obsession Eivind. A handful of women teachers are jailed for sex with boys because if they weren't, it would make it too obvious that the real reason for thousands of men being jailed for sex with girls was an attack on male sexuality.
Feminists are not 'misogynistic'. They are not 'controlling female sexuality' ffs, because despite your fantasies, most women don't go for pubescent boys (unlike men and teen girls). Feminists just don't give a F about a small number of sluts getting jailed over it. Paedohysteria raises the SMV of the average woman. The average woman has no interest in fucking 14 year old boys in class. It happens that (partly because of MRAs) feminists find that imposing the victim lable on 'lucky boys' serves to reaffirm and validate the whole abuse industry (the target of which is men having sex with teenage girls). It also 'controls the opposition' (MRAs) and actually gets them on board with the whole abuse charade.
The problem is that with your focus on the female sex offender charade, and absolute cluelessness as to why it happens, you totally cloud the real issue for perspective sympathisers - the feminist war on male sexuality. FFS, MRAs have enough trouble understanding how feminists locking up men for having sex with younger females is a men's rights issue, but you think their primary concern should be the injustice of a few women being locked up by feminists under the same laws.
You can make a case that the female sex offender charade is a matter of unintended consequences and collateral damage -- until you consider why no one besides me is speaking up. Why is there no grownup in the room who can cut though the nonsense? Judges would have this role in a sane world, or really police long before it goes that far if not legislators. If judges are human and have any common sense at all, they should be able to put their foot down and throw out these cases. Juries should too when judges fail. In light of the absence of any responsible person saying stop at any level, witnessing this phenomenon is to face the void -- the utter rudderlessness of human civilization -- which is profoundly disturbing because if they can be this irrational, then any witch-hunt or holocaust can crop up at any time and good men will do nothing to stop it. That’s why I can’t let it go, because it feels like living in a madhouse and if I didn't speak out then I would be mad too. But of course I also campaign against persecution of male sexuality. There is no conflict between this and our regular activism as male sexualists and MRAs, just this extra dimension of meaninglessness to the persecution of women in the female sex offender charade.
Also, this is nonsense: "I find it hard to believe that a woman can judge a 14 year old's reproductive fitness as well as she can a physical adult." Huh? You don't think boys already assert their dominance by that age (just look at crime statistics)? And in any case, why this compassion with women’s optimal reproductive strategy all of a sudden? It is not our place to second-guess women’s mate selection, at least not before we are willing to do the same for ourselves. Men get LESS THAN ZERO reproductive fitness out of porn and masturbation, yet you don’t care. And even if we could demonstrate clearly maladaptive behavior (like we indeed can with fapping), punishing someone for making bad personal choices is perverse. Remember, the female sex offender charade is “justified” by the boys being the supposed “victims,” which means we must attack it on those terms first.
No, I am not contradicting myself at all, not on a milder level either. I never got into micromanaging sexual preferences on behalf of someone else. Masturbation is a HUGE male flaw which combined with high-tech porn leads to outright pathological behavior. It is nobody else’s business who you like or if women like 14-year-old boys or whatever, but replacing sexuality with porn is a social problem that we need to address at least by warning against it. I would be ashamed to call myself a sexualist if I didn’t, because asexuality can’t possibly be a sexualist value.
"I don't think there should be laws against teachers having sex with students (over the age of consent.)"
The age of consent should NEVER apply to women! It is absurd to apply that concept to them at all! Female sexuality simply lacks any kind “harm potential” or “negative value” that needs to be addressed that way. Once you cross that line and pretend such concepts can be equal, you are guilty of the female sex offender charade, which is an abomination that no decent person can tolerate. As to arguments to do with favoritism and discipline -- yes, those are another matter that could be used to justify a no-sex-with-teacher policy from the school’s perspective. As long as they don’t rise to the level of criminal law, I am not terribly concerned with such rules, though I wouldn’t institute them myself if I were in charge and they really do create an air of killjoy intolerance even if the worst consequence is the teacher gets fired.
"You can make a case that the female sex offender charade is a matter of unintended consequences and collateral damage -- until you consider why no one besides me is speaking up"
Maybe because everybody else can either
a / go along with the feminist abuse narrative about unequal relationships being intrinsically victimizing.
b/ realize that a is pants, and that it is merely collateral damage that serves feminist's purpose. For every 1 female that is locked up for sex with teens, at least 100 men are.
Yes porn can be a sexualist value. Just as looking at gay porn is part of gay sexuality. Just as Michaelangelo's David is part of gay sexuality.
According to you incels aren't just incels, they are asexual? Even the ones who end up killing people out of frustration at never being able to get laid?
There is nothing wrong with Michelangelo’s David or any other art as long as it stays art. Once you start fapping to it, however, it becomes pornography and cannot be a sexualist value anymore. Art which celebrates sexuality is good, but if it hijacks or derails your sexuality into masturbation or other paraphilias then it is sinister. It is not pornography in itself that is the problem (as the saying goes among nofappers: “pornography does not exist”), but what you do with it. One man’s art can be another’s pornography, and only the latter is sick.
Incels are not asexual if they seek sex. However, if they let porn and masturbation serve as a replacement, then they are asexual.
Take a look at this:
"Totalitarianism cannot be defeated through compliance. Compliance
only emboldens regimes of power. Totalitarian terror is let loose when
opposition has died down and the rulers are no longer afraid. Compliance
feeds totalitarians and never leads to normality. Resistance is
essential to counter the rise of totalitarian rule.
Parallel societies offer pockets of freedom that nurture ideologies of
resistance and form the basis of a new society. They can be societies
oriented around technology, economy, education or culture.
With DAOs and DeFi we can bring to life the democratic nation where
multiple cultures, ethnicities and political formations coexist with a
We need a male sexualist DAO.
Only men can rape.
All men are rapists.
Porn is sick.
Rape is worse for women than murder.
The primary victims of paedohysteria and feminist anti-sex laws are women.
'It's different for girls'.
Feminism is misogynistic.
Our goal should be the destruction of civilization.
I wonder why this 'male sexualism' thing doesn't seem to be gaining traction?
"However, if they let porn and masturbation serve as a replacement, then they are asexual."
A replacement for what? The type of 40 year old 400lb black land whales that you'd be happy to land on Tinder?
Who cares about fapping, and all of this other stuff. Just bring your blog back up, so I can link it all over the internet when I'm trolling. Talk about the AoC, and drop the brown people/fapping/women should be imprisoned for having 17 year old bfs stuff. The only thing that matters is hot 13 year olds.
But even without a name change? What about the 'TheFeministAntiAmericanCoservative'? Or maybe 'TheAntiFapper'?
'FreeBritneyZamora'? What about 'SimpsForTheRightOfWomenToFuckYoungChadsWhileWeGetAnallyRapedInPrison'? I like that one.
Look, another example of feminists being our friends. 'Beauty Is Diversity'.
Evind, what about the argument that porn helps turn young women into sluts (I mean 'porn culture')?
For evey young male porn addict who is turned off chasing 'real' women, there is probably at least one prim young woman who becomes a slut (due to 'porn culture'). So really, porn likely doesn't 'reduce sexual opportunities for men'. And in any case, why the F should I care about a small number of male losers who do develop a real porn addiction and end up preferring any sex with women?
See, that's the thing with you and Holocaust22. Everything is black and white. Nobody is saying that porn should be a replacement for women, but if men prefer to look at hot pics of HB10 women than chase 40 year old landwhales, that's fair enough. I'm not 'asexual' if I don't spend all day chasing plain janes who would mostly reject me anyway, and prefer just to fap off now and again or see a prostitute. You don't understand the meaning of the word. Asexual means 'without sexual attraction'.
Oh and I've never said that women should be jailed for having sex with 17 year olds. What I object to is you and Eivind obsessing over the right of sluts to fuck little chads in class while they force the incels to guard the doors for them, while at the same time claiming that men who have sex with 17 year old girls without their father's consent are 'predators' and 'ruining the girl's marriage prospects' etc.
This is supposed to be a men's rights movement, not a whores rights movement.
Porn culture? You mean OnlyFans and otherwise selling nudes? A whole bunch of exploitation of men. Porn culture teaches girls that they can get paid for “sex work” without the sex. Sure, some girls who start out that way also end up having sex, but it would be better for men if we never gave them that lucrative alternative. All statistics show men had more sex before “porn culture.”
Also, what makes you think you are only missing out on sex with middle-aged women? That's a false, limiting, rationalizing belief because your mind is warped by porn. I myself never hooked up with anyone older than 22 on Tinder.
As to DAOs and DeFi (aside from perhaps individual opportunities to make money), none of that will help sexualism any more than other “sex cults” that also get prosecuted. We need to face the fact that we are enemies of the state and there is zero tolerance for alternative ideas of sexual freedom, no matter how we package it. Also, I believe altcoins are a passing fad much like AOL was to the Internet. Bitcoin is the future of crypto, the protocol for digital scarcity, and anything worthwhile must be built on top of it rather than Ethereum (although the latter is admittedly strong right now -- I just don’t think it will last).
Male sexualism is a great name for our movement with no change required. A terse, no-nonsense way to say we are on the side of sexuality. Not porn or masturbation, but real sexuality. You are welcome to run a blog promoting a more inclusive definition, however, and frankly I don't see what's holding you back. I think the “incel terrorist” scare is over for now so you won't be sucked into that kind of crackdown. The worst that will happen is vigilante trolls attack us like just happened to me, but the cops already dropped that nonsense, the details of which will write up when I get around to it so we can have a good laugh. The more they cry wolf, the more difficult it gets to frame us, so I’m actually glad they went so far as to make false accusations to the police this time.
"Of all sexual activities, masturbation is the safest":
Obviously an antisex-bigoted government is going to propagandize for masturbation and try to pass it off as a “sexual” activity; what could be more feminist than that? And yes, it is “safe” to stay away from sex, but then you also miss out on the meaning of life. What a cruel irony that many men actually internalize these lies exactly as the government intends and think they are getting sexual value out of suppressing their sexuality, and then on yet another level of persecution get further preyed on by feminist “sex” laws for this too if they masturbate to unapproved fantasies, all while being told and believing that it is women who are oppressed!
My bad, I should not have called masturbation “safe” even with scare quotes. That shows I am still not entirely immune to the brainwashing myself either! Masturbation is actually an extreme health hazard, because the impotence it often leads to is a serious health problem, up there with cancer and HIV. Men certainly should rationally fear impotence more than all other STDs, so unless you are in the midst of an AIDS epidemic and gay, masturbation is actually the MOST DANGEROUS “sexual” activity! The only reason why it’s not seen that way is because the feminists have succeeded in brainwashing men to devalue their sexuality. Think about that! Let it sink in how fucked up and misandrist it is to call something which entails an extreme risk of erectile dysfunction “safe”! That’s like calling the most extreme kinds of female genital mutilation safe, or even worse because men also get fertility problems in addition to the loss of sexual enjoyment and wankers fail to develop proper sexual relationships!
"As to DAOs and DeFi (aside from perhaps individual opportunities to make money), none of that will help sexualism any more than other “sex cults” that also get prosecuted."
Incorrect. DAOs are unstoppable because they are minted on the blockchain - they cannot be removed no matter how you attack them, which is the whole point, they are permissionless. And if it's built with already existing privacy tech like cryptonote, it will get massive support because it will be anonymous.
Imagine launching a DAO that has reducing the age of consent of sex and porn as its stated goals burned into the blockchain, and rewards users who troll online like Holocaust22 with lolitacoin. People would buy in and it would be a huge success.
For the purposes of trolling and activism by whatever publicity we can get, I agree there should be a sexualist DAO. Go for it if you have the skills; just don’t confuse that blockchain with serious crypto, which is only Bitcoin. Suppose a sexualist DAO got famous with the news screaming that Ethereum is used to promote what the mainstream considers sexual abuse. Would they hardfork like they did in 2016 when the original DAO didn’t go to plan? It would anyway be lots of fun for us, but given the strength of feminism there is a good chance the entire network would reject us, and unlike with Bitcoin they can really do it too because Ethereum is not truly censorship-resistant money.
Or do you run a full Ethereum node yourself like we can easily do with Bitcoin? Last I tried that five or six years ago it was already unwieldy, with blocks coming in every 14 seconds or so. Back then I actually solo-mined blocks and unfortunately sold all my eth for something like 10 dollars apiece. Of course I should have hung onto them until now they are $4500, but I still don’t believe in it. Perhaps it has a role for big centralized finance, but it’s not the people’s money because users can’t enforce the consensus rules when it’s impractical to run a full node at home. Now they are even going to shard into 64 blockchains and apparently scale so big that I don’t see how it can fit in a typical PC. By all means troll that crap, but don’t buy into the ethos because it has no ethos that is agreeable to us or any freedom-loving people. They said “code is law” and then hardforked anyway when they didn’t like a DAO, so what’s to stop them from doing it again? The only place that matters where code is really law is Bitcoin, and you are the master of that code when you compile and run your own node, which is not just some lofty ideal but eminently practical to do. That way users can veto hard forks and even activate soft forks against miners’ will if need be, whereas with Ethereum you are at the mercy of whatever Vitalik decides.
Another episode of the series: "This is Amerika":
I see. This is the torture they boasted:
“After handcuffing him and escorting him to the medical clinic, the guards claimed he tried to pull away from them en route; when Corrections Officer Christopher Coy failed to leg sweep him, he tackled Fletcher to the ground.
Fletcher told them his neck hurt and he couldn't move his legs, so they picked him up, face down, and carried him the rest of the way. The nurse deemed he was okay and sent him back to the segregation unit.
Still handcuffed and face down, the guards carried him by his arms and legs, dropping him a number of times on his face on the way back, before leaving him on a bed in a suicide watch cell, his arms hanging limply over the side. Cameras along the route were reportedly inoperable that day.
Unable to drink himself, he asked for water; guards poured some on his face, some of it going up his nose.
The acting captain checked on him around 2:30 AM and was told by Fletcher he couldn't move, but no action was taken. It wasn't until a psychologist visited his cell shortly before 10 AM that medical help was summoned. He was taken to Ohio State Wexner Medical Center to undergo emergency spinal surgery; but Fletcher had been left quadriplegic.”
For this “crime”:
“Fletcher had been serving a two year sentence for pandering sexually-oriented material involving minors. His defense team claim the offense involved a consensual video the then-18-year-old made with a girlfriend a couple of years his junior.”
This is how much society hates normal male sexuality, gentlemen. It is no accident, but done fully deliberately because the normies truly believe in feminism. We can only hate back, and probably not a good idea to be captured alive by such a system, certainly in the US, which is in a class of its own of antisex bigotry and cruelty even for the ostensibly lightest sentences. Indeed it seems more humane to get the usual lifetime imprisonment there so the guards don’t feel so impelled to make it worse.
What’s so scary is they are actually enforcing cultural norms. That’s why they boast, because they have reason to according to those norms. That the quadriplegic got compensated is a fluke; mostly they get away with it and did here too without any criminal charges. Notice the complete irrelevance of the emptiness of the “crime” they avenged: even the news article says “convicted child sex offender” because the label is the only thing that matters and you get it for anything sex-related at all. It doesn’t matter that there were neither children nor sex involved: it is the belief in the metaphysical badness of sex that counts. In the feminist way, with its invention of the fiction of the “minor” which equals “child,” and then all the symbolic ways “children” are damaged by sexuality up to and including the pure blasphemy of stating the contrary. The first violation of this taboo no matter how minuscule leads to infinite damnation, and if the laws haven’t caught up yet then vigilantes must do the job.
Notice how this man who got horribly tortured and crippled is never once referred to as a victim. He is introduced as a “convicted child sex offender” even though his conviction bears no relation to anything of the kind and if you read between the lines you get the impression that the real tragedy is the state has to pay him. Meanwhile, the first association with sex automatically makes all girls “victims” in the media.
Of course, the normies who back these norms hate their own sexuality too because they are no different, but that doesn’t stop them either. Feminism is so successful that it has turned humanity on itself for our sexuality. We cannot tolerate ourselves but must persecute the sexuality out of us, which will never succeed, so you get these travesties as long as civilization has the energy to conduct them. It really does make something like the Irish Potato Famine look welcome:
And luckily it is near too:
See, it’s not just Gail saying that anymore. Ugo Bardi is there openly talking about exterminations in our near future, whether by famine or more direct means. Gail was the most extreme of the old Oil Drum crew, but the others get more like her every day because it turns out she was most right.
And meet these psychos who enforce the same cultural norms Norwegian style...
A bit more subdued, but just as evil...
I can’t get past the institutionalized hatred that is revealed by the case of the paralyzed sex offender. It shows so clearly that being a sadistic monster to male sexuality is the norm. Unlimited cruelty for anything to do with sex is most often celebrated and at worst tolerated with no further consequences. Getting just as much money you need for lifelong disability is hardly consequences -- why no criminal charges!? When someone can admit this and not be changed with a crime...
"the dude I broke his nose is now paralyzed with a broken neck, and they say his face looks like he had been dropped and dragged through concrete, LMAO... It feels good to know that I played a small part in paralyzing a cho, LMAO... we also water boarded him LMAO... I broke a dudes nose today, yeah this was not reported, there was way too much blood so I mopped it up."
The evidence is right there in the psycho feminist’s own words just as credible as the digital evidence they routinely use to charge harmless men for sexting or image possession, so when they don’t give a damn it is unmistakable that the prosecutor is in on it and the whole system is evil. When the victim is still defined as a “child sex offender” who surely deserved all that simply because he made a consensual video with his 16-year-old girlfriend, you know the system hates men with a malice that won’t go away with any sort of deliberation. They know what they are doing and fully intend to continue. What kind of value system can possibly justify criminal charges for a victimless sex crime twice removed from reality but NOT the brutal, crippling torture of a helpless prisoner, because the sex is somehow inexplicably, metaphysically so bad that he loses all human rights -- literally everything except the burden of health care that society still grudgingly bears for these nonpersons who have received the sex offender label? These are literally the values that society holds. Feminism is the most horrifying ideology that has ever existed, not because it is most evil in terms of the tortures it will inflict but because it targets a group with no ability to fight back. It exploits men’s (and a select few women’s) inability to resist the redefinition of our sexuality (plus symbolic extras as are employed here) into abuse. When other groups are redefined into Untermenschen or whatever, they know to fight back. They may not always be successful, but they have warriors. Men as a group and normal heterosexual people in general simply do nothing to resist the redefinition of our sexuality into criminality, so there is no hope until this civilization itself burns out.
Ugo Bardi’s latest blog post is about the impossibility of stopping a propaganda state before it collapses.
“Is there any hope to stop the evil machine? It looks difficult, even impossible. So far, propaganda has been stopped only by the complete collapse of the governments that created it, as it happened in Italy and in Germany. Are there better ways? Maybe. Propaganda has been with us for more than a century: it has changed, it has morphed into different forms. But one thing remains central: propaganda exists because there exists a centralized control of the information flow in society (we call it the "media"). As long as this control exists, propaganda will remain with us, all-powerful as it is.
But, right now, the Internet has created a gigantic system of information flow that escapes central control -- so far, at least. As long as we can bypass the media we are immune (within limits) from propaganda. Otherwise, the only way to get rid of it is collapse.”
We can indeed be thankful for the Internet, without which you wouldn’t even be reading this, but it isn’t helping against the sex war. Notice how the antisex propaganda is just as pervasive as Nazi methods of control. Even though feminism is “only” about sexuality and does not encompass all other areas of society plus quite as much imperialism as the Nazis did, our rulers certainly don’t tolerate any alternative sexual activity and very little alternative speech. The sex laws are backed by absolute violence and all the mainstream media are in lockstep agreement with feminism.
It was new to me what the Nazis did to the White Rose group, which Ugo says did not upset the Germans all that much, because they were as heavily propagandized as we are against sex offenders:
“The White Rose (German: Weiße Rose) was a non-violent, intellectual resistance group in Nazi Germany led by a group of students from the University of Munich, including Sophie Scholl, Hans Scholl and Alexander Schmorell. The group conducted an anonymous leaflet and graffiti campaign that called for active opposition to the Nazi regime. Their activities started in Munich on 27 June 1942, and ended with the arrest of the core group by the Gestapo on 18 February 1943. They, as well as other members and supporters of the group who carried on distributing the pamphlets, faced show trials by the Nazi People's Court (Volksgerichtshof), and many of them were sentenced to death or imprisonment.
Hans and Sophie Scholl, as well as Christoph Probst were executed by guillotine four days after their arrest, on 22 February 1943. During the trial, Sophie interrupted the judge multiple times. No defendants were given any opportunity to speak.”
That is pretty much what the sex war is coming to as well. In the Netherlands they already have everything but the guillotine. Sadly it does not look like such a machine can be stopped without destroying the whole state, unless people somehow magically embrace alternative views found on the Internet. But what do they actually do here? Well, the vast majority, if they stray from state propaganda at all, simply seek out alternative ways to promote the same War on Sex with added conspiratorial flavor such as QAnon, which more than outweighs any kind of sexualist movement.
That Ugo Bardi’s blog is interesting. Someone posted this video in discussion.
I think it is interesting debate about mass formation, unfortunately very long.
It is primarily about COVID measures but I think it could be applied on other issues.
Regarding that case of GBH committed against inmate, I am appalled that there were no criminal charges pressed against guards.
I am observing in my region, that there is now much more tolerance towards police violence and abuse, when compared with early post-revolutionary years.
People think that violence could be used towards "inadaptable" citizens to establish an order.
"If you behave properly you shouldn't be worried about it"
I am sincerely hoping that "uncle Niemöller" is waiting for such people.
It should be no surprise that media and culture are playing big role in this .
It is shame that this phenomenon is being noticed only because of American identity/racial wars.
Good video, thanks. I was not familiar with mass formation. An interesting concept that may well explain some things. I would not have guessed that people felt more anxiety before the pandemic and less during all the lockdowns and other excessive measures because their "loose" anxiety found an outlet. I wonder where they will direct it next. Sex offenders are always a suitable target, and they didn't seem to get much less of if during covid either, but it could have been worse. Hopefully there will be more distractions soon until collapse deals feminism its deathblow.
What he said about role of rituals is also very interesting. The more meaningless the ritual, the better it works to foster group cohesion. The female sex offender charade is the ultimate meaningless ritual, and what he said about accepting meaningless punishment as sacrifice also finds its ultimate expression in this. Yes, the same mechanism that made Russians accept Stalin's purges can plausibly also be carried so far as the female sex offender charade; I can believe that. Because people are so keen to belong to the feminist state with all its deranged ideology and superstitions, they do not protest its absurdity or injustice. And then mass formation can focus their spare anxiety on the new-found boogeyman which now also includes women.
Female sex offenders are bogeywomen, because feminists told us we gotta have bogey-equality. It is a remarkable accomplishment to make them scary. That requires suppression of all reasonable comments from the mainstream on a level that only a well-oiled high-tech propaganda machine can achieve. Most impressive are the show trials that we pretend not to be for show and ritual. Putting a mythological creature on trial must necessarily be a meaningless ritual, but those rituals serve a purpose, I realize now. Only the most dimwitted buffoons think that purpose is “justice,” or to “protect” boys from female sexuality, but there is a purpose I have been missing -- that of group cohesion. The thing about rituals is they must be presented as some kind of truth. When a sacrificial victim such as Monica Young is put on display by the high priests and media of our culture, they can’t literally admit what they are doing, because then the ritual wouldn’t work.
I, too, have some experience with rituals and have felt their power. I used to love communion as a kid, a fine way for Christians to bond. When a feminist court says “this woman is a sexual abuser,” they mean it at the same level that we drink the blood of Jesus in church. It would be out of place to point out it’s not literally true. If you want to belong to the group, you better go along with its meaningless rituals, and that’s how feminism does female sex offenders. It would all be good fun like the Eucharist if they didn’t hurt real people, but that harm is worth it to the group. Only because I am an outcast or pathologically morally sensitive do I feel differently.
The prison guard that paralyzed that 21 year old, I found his facebook lol.
And his grandmas facebook
I think I'll let his grandma know what a piece of shit he is
Here's the wife
Where are my lolita occultists? Anyone up for a black magic ritual? ;)
Sorry I've been lazy with updates, but I'm working on the next post and meanwhile here is another one by Gail:
The only place we get realistic information about how bad the world economic situation really is.
And November 29th is the big day for TV, so I aim to have another post up by then too which should introduce male sexualism to newbies. Most people haven't even heard of it any more than people in antiquity had heard of the abolitionist movement against slavery, so that is a big task. They mostly dismiss antifeminists as angry losers or crazy or evil, not realizing that the only definition of feminism that is relevant to us is the excessive criminalization of sexuality. The very idea that sexuality can be excessively criminalized is just about unthinkable to the normies, so we need to think of ways to make that case in very clear terms.
To refine that definition... feminism is the excessive criminalization of sexuality based on hyperinflated victimhood. There are of course other ways to go overboard with the criminalization, and right now I am working on a post on one of those. That is leiermål, which was a bizarre Nordic way to make crimes in the 17th and 18th centuries out of what feminists now do so well with their justification (plus much more since there is no protection for sex within marriage either anymore, all of which is rape if the woman regrets it). Leiermål is so obviously sex criminalized for the hell of it that English doesn't even a word for it, since you never went that far prior to feminism. It is my hope that we can get some more people to see how evil feminism is by using a word more like "leiermål" than the "rape" and "abuse" they want us to call it. I shall propose "laycase" and if anyone has better suggestions, please tell me.
If we systematically started referring to men like Epstein and R. Kelly as convicted of laycase -- which is literally what it is rather than the fake abuse feminists will have it -- it would be harder to demonize us. The violence might still persist though since they had it back then too when the law was honest. They even had a female sex offender charade without the charade since they called it leiermål rather than pretending women were sexual abusers, so if we get back to the honest justification, you will be spared my rants about the unique evil of the female sex offender charade. If nothing else, can society at least be more honest about its infliction of gratuitous violence against sexuality? Why do we need to put up with lies too?
C/mom FreeTheTeens. So a nice young man gets put away as a sex offender for taking a video of himself having sex with his girlfriend who is two years younger. Probably got raped a few times in the showers before the prison guards throw him on to his head leaving him paralyzed for life.
The real evil is some whore being put in a cushy women's prison for cheating on her husband while she sucks off 13 year old Tyrone, making the incel kids guard the doors in case another teacher comes by.
Here's the wife"
The freaky looknig wife looks quite young. I wonder how old he/she was when they started dating?
And what does Amnesty International do against this background?
They support feminists, I suppose...
Post a Comment