I don't know what this bigot wrote in their police tip, whether they simply referenced the YouTube video or made up some lies. Most likely the police will recognize it as bullshit, but I am documenting the origin of this accusation here just in case, so if they act on it it will be clear to all what is going on.
I had another false accusation recently (case dropped already) that was more elaborate including role-playing as me on Skype to another vigilante and producing screenshots of it that they submitted to the police along with a deranged story (more on that in a future blog post). You get used to it as an activist on this subject. Vigilante trolls will constantly try to cancel you or frame you or whatever. However, the more they cry wolf, the more ineffectual their accusations become. So by all means, go ahead and spam the police with false accusations about me if that's what you're into.
Brukeren @mejtex på twitter anklaget meg for påståtte seksuelle overgrep direkte til Kripos via den idiotiske nettjenesten som de har etter at jeg hadde diskutert en såkalt overgrepssak med henne og andre som handlet om en mann som hadde hatt sex med ei jente han var trener for der jenta var 17 år. Jeg opplyste @mejtex om at falsk anklage som det hun åpenbart gjorde seg skyldig i var straffbart hvorpå Kripos selv(på Twitter) påstod at det ikke var straffbart siden anklagen om overgrep ikke var en anmeldelse men et såkalt "tips". Som alle oppegående mennesker forstår, så er politiet en fiende som man må ha ekstrem forakt og hat overfor.
Yeah. What a brilliant way to legalize and facilitate false accusations. That is literally what the Norwegian police have done with their online "tip" service.
Are you planning on taking any legal action against these nerds?
Sexual consent app proposed in Australia in order "to increase conviction rates". However the public is "skeptical". Why is that? In my opinion because such an app would make it difficult for a woman to cry rape after she gave consent in the app. Whenever something new is not in women's interest you can be sure it will not be implemented.
P.S. I stumbled upon this when looking for the story about a paedophilia reporting hotline in Australia. I remember a story a couple of years ago about the hotline being rammed by calls minutes after start.
Any sexual consent app must be committed to storing records for the lifetime of its users, since they may well be needed 50+ years later judging by current trials. We can't expect any business to exist that long, so it should be a public responsibility to maintain such an archive, a national archive of sexual consent for every encounter updated by the day or minute or whatever it takes according to current feminist dogma. That is, if we seriously wanted to protect men from false accusations, which of course won't happen.
Yeah, those anonymous tip hotlines or internet forms get flooded and there are no consequences for false accusations at that point, nothing we can do unless actually charged, and even then most accusers get away with it. They can make up anything against anyone and the state is eager to help them as far as it can. Its only concern is to "improve conviction rates," and well, that might actually happen if you document all the consent, but only because there will be fewer accusations, and that is not something they are interested in.
The idea of a sexual consent document is stupid, but at this point it would probably be a net benefit for men, if one could put up with the nuisance of using it. Men should be aware that everything else is being put in place to convict them for normal sex except the part where they get to defend themselves. We already have extensive records of consent documented on messaging apps, and that evidence is being actively suppressed by the government as supposedly unfair "digital strip searches":
@FreeTheTeens - but she's a feminist! Maybe you can befriend her and ask her not to be so mean? Or perhaps Milan can exercise the demon of American puritanism out of her and turn her into a good European feminist by persuading her to read the 5 volume collection of '19th Century Studies Into Adolescent Sexuality' by professor Wolfbanger?
Maybe Eivind remembers the name of Tom Torero, one of the leading PUAs 5 or 10 years ago. I once called him out on Twitter for his support for feminism and disavowel of the 'misogynist' manosphere. I told him that claiming to be a feminist wont stop them coming for him in the end.
A couple of months ago a middle-aged hag feminist journalist at Newsweek ran a cancel culture hit piece on him, describing him as 'targetting teenage girls' (even though the teenage girls were entirely legal aged). His webhosts, payment processors, YouTube etc. all cancelled him.
Last week he killed himself.
Just finished watching the video with english subtitles. Seems like they wanted to make this an incel thing, instead of a age of consent thing. They never brought that one up. Too controversial for TV I guess xD
That girl that was interviewing you seemed really cool, and open minded. If I talked to her alone, I bet I could convince her of an AoC around 13.
Truthfully don't know why they brought you on when this isn't an incel blog lol. Being an anti feminist has nothing to do with the incel movement. And neither does wanting to lower the AoC. But it should bring more traction to the blog. Good for you for putting yourself out there.
A sad passing of that PUA, but not surprising. Most men would rather kill themselves before saying a bad word against feminism, so hopeless is our movement.
Expert advises daily masturbation
I'll explain nofap again tomorrow, don't have the energy right now. Was in another debate on Discord about the age of consent, four hours nonstop talking. However, I think it will be the last in such an extremely hostile environment because sickos in the audience try everything including tricking you into clicking on IP trackers so they can swat you or whatever. It's funny how they think of themselves as rebels for being oppositional to the government in some minor ways yet they are the biggest feminists and white/blue knights of them all in those far-right forums.
Why do you bother Eivind? I can understand you deciding that a slot on a national TV documentary was a chance to showcase your views, but what do you gain from going on that troll YouTube channel that has 200 subscribers to be ridiculed and worse by a handful of psychopathic goons?
As regards NoFap, the issue is beyond whether it has benefits or not for the individual.
A society that bans porn is going to be more conservative and puritan than a society that does not ban (or 'regulate') porn. Women are going to be more sexually loose (and easier to lay) in a society that allows hardcore porn, than in a society that doesn't (leaving aside the Sexual Trade Union backlash). FFS, this is why feminists hate porn!
This is something that Eivind can't grasp.
Give me just one example of a society in which porn was heavily regulated, and yet was a good place for a sexually liberal man to live in.
Well, for one thing, some of them make great videos. Whether they meant to promote us or make fun, I couldn't have made a better commercial for Fertile Dating myself:
But yeah, arguing about the age of consent there is a futile exercise. There are lots of young people on Discord, and they are even more hopeless than anything I remember. So given that people rarely change their minds past their formative years, the future looks more feminist if anything. They literally believe the nonsense about brain development and how teens supposedly can't consent because their brains are undeveloped until 25. Even the mainstream media has moved on from there, but it remains as a folk belief that will probably take another generation to reverse that hasn't been born yet. It doesn't help to show them links like these either:
As to nofap, it is for the individual that I promote it. Perhaps men should selfishly promote fapping for everyone else to get more girls themselves, but as a leader of male sexualism I believe I should be honest about what is best for the individual. I don't want heavy-handed regulation either, certainly no criminal laws against users. I just feel obliged to tell the truth about how harmful porn and masturbation is to male sexuality.
The point is not so much whether teen brain in underdeveloped or not, but why a sexual relationship should require the cognitive skills from a fully developed brain, as though it involved solving differential equations. If that were the case, creatures like turkeys, koalas and shrimps would have a big problem when it comes to fulfilling their marital duties...
However that may be, I wonder how many of those Discord people would be able to beat Misha Osipov at chess?
"They literally believe the nonsense about brain development and how teens supposedly can't consent because their brains are undeveloped until 25."
Possibly because they are young and can't/don't have sex. Instead of blaming the anti-sex environment or their own failures, they prefer to believe there is a magic age, at 25, when everything will be sorted out chemically.
In the meantime they probably feel disgruntled and envious. In the same way, I'm sure lots of plain or aging muslim women are quite happy with a veil on their face.
"However that may be, I wonder how many of those Discord people would be able to beat Misha Osipov at chess?"
Yes, but the feminists take this argument the other way round. Lots of women over the age of consent are raped even though they were willing partners because they are bashful, were tipsy at the time, worried about their exams, had a sick relative, were confused about their feelings etc... and could be put in the same category as minors who are "unable to give informed consent" by (a recent) definition.
"The point is not so much whether teen brain in underdeveloped or not, but why a sexual relationship should require the cognitive skills from a fully developed brain.."
This is a very, very good point. I used to argue this on my blog. For the last 60 years it seems to me, the 'pro-sex community' (or whatever you want to call it) has tried to justify a low age of consent on arguing that young teens are 'more mature than society gives them credit for'. Some even use the feminist mumbo jumbo concept of 'informed consent', another example of how feminists have been allowed to define the debate.
For the most part, sex is just whether it feels good or not. There are no huge consequences for women anymore for 'ill-judged' consent to sex (left holding the baby etc.), not with abortion, a welfare state, contraception and so on. Yet we live in an age which turns the slightest regret over sex into a rape.
We should stop trying to make complex arguments for the age of consent. We should call out the motives of the feminists (sexual bitterness and envy, and a desire to increase their pitiful SMV).
We should stop trying to convince people that adolescents are mature and wise and 'adult'. We should just point out that sex is nothing in an age of abortion, welfare state, the pill, condoms, and slut walks.
Carol Vorderman,61, 'shows off her hour glass figure' (according to a newspaper read chiefly by middle-aged women and which calls Epstein a paedophile in every sentence).
As I was predicting 15 years ago, we are getting to the point where it will be illegal, or at least grounds for suspecting you of paedophilia, if you don't publicly express your attraction towards older women like her.
Of course, if you do, you will still be creep shamed.
To anybody who doesn't know, and who still thinks it's all about American puritanism, or the CIA, or 5G cables, Carol Vorderman was one of the chief instigators of internet driven paedohysteria in the UK back in the early days.
If you can't work it out now, you really are beyond hope. Or are just compromising your principles because you want to get laid and don't wish to appear 'misogynistic'.
I don't recall hearing about Carol Vorderman before, and obviously am not going to start appreciating her "hourglass figure" now even though those pictures make her look much younger. The irony is not lost on me of old women trying to look like teen girls (and being celebrated for it) while men are persecuted for attraction to actual teens.
Prince Andrew stripped of his titles:
Which is to say the royal family officially gets behind the misandry.
I just realized they didn't just import the American concept of "underage," but cheated on the statute of limitations as well:
Giuffre brought her case against Andrew under New York's Child Victims Act, a state law enacted in 2019 which expanded the statute of limitations in child sex abuse cases to give survivors more opportunities to seek justice. An attorney for Giuffre told CNN in August that filing the civil case was to show "all perpetrators of abuse should be held accountable."
Giuffre says she was trafficked by Epstein and forced to have sex with his friends -- including the prince -- at a time when she was underage (17) in the US. She said the assaults happened in London, New York and the US Virgin Islands; that Andrew was aware she was a minor at the time; and that she had been trafficked by Epstein.
And "forced" just means "regrets" now that it is convenient to collect more money. Yet all of society gets behind it, including most men. It's not just a femihag conspiracy, which would be easy compared to this dark force which has completely consumed our culture. It has become "cool" to persecute sexuality (or "based" in current slang). Lately I have been talking to young men who sincerely believe it is cool to be antisex, that men should be imprisoned for sex with 17-year-old girls as if they themselves have no such feelings. Andrew is lucky to only get a civil case because they literally want to destroy us for our healthy sexuality. I wish it were just the feminists, because reality is so much worse.
Maybe we should look more in the direction of something like the Calhoun mouse utopia experiments for an explanation? Behavioral sink? Our young antisex men are "the beautiful ones" of the male mice uninterested in mating?
The only ones left not wanting to destroy human sexuality now are a handful of male sexualists and the teen girls themselves. There are still opportunities to be had as long as we are free, gentlemen, though we might get persecuted later, because plenty of girls are still pretty healthy at the age that matters. Let society destroy itself for the most part, but some of us will carry it forward to the next generation.
The sexual holocaust is slow enough that some of us will live out our natural lifespans before they get to us, but I've given up thinking we can do anything about the persecution. Sexuality is done from the point of view of mainstream society, zero tolerance wherever you shine a light on it. We are living in the dying mouse colony, but it's not a closed system, so there will be survivors. Another irony is there will be more interest in sex (and presumably less persecution) when we hit physical resource shortages. The Limits to Growth model predicts rising deaths and births at the same time. Once again, our only hope is collapse.
Speaking again about intelligence and age, I watched this video from 1999 about a boy that attends college as a 10 year old. It is remarkable that Oprah's main concern seems to be the fact that the boy in the college life will be exposed to speech that is inappropriate for his age...
When children show remarkable capabilities in a subject, we update our estimation of them. We don't expect 10-year-olds to be at the college level, but if they demonstrate proficiency by taking tests then we believe it. Except with these "inappropriate" things... They are somehow beyond measurement in this world.
Because of our cultural belief in the metaphysical badness of sex. Sexuality is by definition irredeemable, except under certain ideal conditions that are so rarefied that hardly any real sex qualifies anymore.
"We should stop trying to convince people that adolescents are mature and wise and 'adult'. We should just point out that sex is nothing in an age of abortion, welfare state, the pill, condoms, and slut walks"
I mean, it's true though. Age is quite literally a social construct after puberty. And adolescence is make believe. Read the psychologist Robert Epsteins book "saving our children from the torment of adolescence.
There's no such thing as a "fully developed" brain. The brain never stops changing. There are very very minor differences that exist in a 13 year olds brain, and a 25 year olds brain. And there's ample evidence showing those minor differences exist because of social influences. Robert also brings to light in his interviews that there are many 13-16 year olds that actually have higher IQs, and better cognitive functioning, than people older than them.
Anyways, the rest of what you're saying is true though. There's nothing wrong with dating someone you have more "power" than. In fact, the entire point of getting power (becoming a rockstar) is because that's what girls are attracted to xD
I have a friend in an armenian ethnic tribe. In her tribe, young girls (way under 18) marry older men, because the maturity of the older man propels her mental develop. So a power imbalance is seen as a good thing.
Why is it seen as good there, and bad here? Because we live in a toxic victimhood culture. And they don't. Power isn't bad. Power doesn't "corrupt". Power is good. You save people with power. You protect your younger girlfriend with power. You teach her things that will benefit her, with power. We need to get rid of victimhood culture. And we do that by making people less insane. People are crazy. They're all on xanax. They all have depression. Because they all jerk off, and spill Qi energy out of their body. They don't know how to meditate (correctly). They don't know how to take care of their minds. They know nothing. So they do everything incorrectly. Fuck themselves up. Log onto twitter. And then fuck up the world.
"Power is good. You save people with power. You protect your younger girlfriend with power. You teach her things that will benefit her, with power."
Right! According to our toxic victimhood culture, everyone is out to abuse and exploit all the time. Love does not exist, no one ever has good intentions, a relationship is a battle like a boxing match or worse, so we need "weight classes" to prevent one from being more powerful than the other (which to make it even more retarded are based on old pseudoscience about brain development). That is the thinking behind making teens off-limits which you must accept, explicitly or implicitly though the antisex bigots won't admit it. Probably says more about their own personality than anything. Somebody with that approach wouldn't be good to date at any age.
Yes, and we know of course that the real abuse of power in all of this is that of older women (feminists) with political power, shoring up their declining sexual market value by introducing law after law restricting male access to young, ripe females.
AF: I don't think the argument was ever that adolescents are particularly mature, only that "adults" really aren't any more mature than teens.
TBH our best strategy at this point is doxing and ruining the lives of people who do what those Discord retards tried to pull on Eivind, as well as scumfuck feminist journalists and academics who spew agecuck bullshit. Rational arguments have never worked on agecucks and they're not about to start listening to reason now. The only thing they understand is being smacked the fuck down hard. I look forward to every YouTube "predator hunter" group having their names and addresses leaked online along with any embarrassing and/or illegal details about them. What they did to Eivind (or tried to) shouldn't go unanswered. We've let psychotic vigilante shit nuggets like Chris Hansen abuse us for far too long and frankly I'm surprised nobody who got caught by Chris Hansen ever just pulled a gun and blew him the fuck away since their lives are basically over.
It would seem to me that now is the best moment to start pushing aggressively due to having read several recent articles saying that the traffic to incel websites has increased by as much as 500% during the pandemic because of the lockdowns leading more men to recognize their situation. There's actually a good deal of overlap between the cause of the incels and the cause of age of consent reduction and anti-feminism. A side effect of high age of consent artificially raising the dating market value of aging spinsters is that getting laid in general is less accessible because the spinsters now have more access to high-value men than they otherwise would and don't feel the need to bother with their looksmatch. Women used the political power base they got from raising the age of consent to then severely restrict prostitution as well, at least in Anglo countries. Men who could easily have gotten laid before feminist clown world have now been cast down into inceldom. We have the same set of enemies as incels and it's natural to court them as allies.
Yo Eivind, I'm getting a "warning, this website may not be secure" message before I enter. I have to click on "Advanced" and enter anyways.
That is beyond my control, but yes, I see Google is not using SSL for viewing my blog (they are for posting comments though). Should be no problem anyway, just your browser being whiny.
"There's actually a good deal of overlap between the cause of the incels and the cause of age of consent reduction and anti-feminism"
Yes, of course there is a huge overlap, that is why the incels is the sole corner of the 'manosophere' to not just refuse to outright conedemn age of consent debate as 'paedophilia apologism', but to 100% embrace it and agree with our views here (and to be frank, even go beyond them).
You would think that Eivind would at least notice that fact, after what is it - nearly 2 decades now of being told by virtually everybody associated with the manosphere that he is a paedophile apologist crank, a fake MRA etc. It also happens that that corner (the incels) has managed to make more noise than the MRAs, the Red Pillers, etc put together (even without the rare and random killings attributed rightly or wrongly to incels, which I condemn). But alas.... incels is a bad look for Eivind and his efforts to get laid. He's an alpha male chad, it probably actually says so on a badge on his summer cardigan.
I can understand somebody like FreeTheTeens not being able to see the link, as somebody (like most of Eivind's readers) having no relation the MRM or even the manosphere, and apparently wandered in here via a link on an aspie MAP pro feminist blog, with butterflys and rainbows as their Wordpress theme background.
The principle reason for the overlap is that the high feminist age of consent effectively reduces by a half the potential mates for the average male, including the most prime females (at least where the age of consent is as high as 18). And yes, that means that older women, and actually above all younger women, have far more choice than otherwise, given they have far less competition.
I've always said, the principle benefcators of feminist sexual trade unioninsm is not the hags themselves (although the hags get rid of a lot of spite and envy), but younger women. It's the 20 year old women, 25 year old women, who benefit principally from the 25 year old men not being allowed to choose teenage girls (which was the historic norm).
Plus, I don't believe many teenage girls have fully formed their 'chad' detectors yet, and are more willing to give sex to a beta or somebody under 6 ft (in the latter case, if only because they themselves are shorter than 18+ women).
If the 'informed consent' regarding teenage girls has any meaning to it, all it means is that teenage girls are less likely to know their true sexual market value, and so will (horror of horrors) sometimes fall in love with or give sympathy sex to a beta or somebody below their own (sky high) SMV. 'Informed consent' really assumes that all women, including teenage girls, are prostitues seeking their highest possible price for sex.
I've been trying to contact Paul Elam over the Angry Harry website. I've contacted somebody who knows him, hopefully he will reply with some info.
Bad news for Eivind - David Chalmers agrees on the obvious point that a truly Matrix style virtual reality is indistinguishable from reality would be a true reality.
To go back to the point I was making about porn culture and whether on the whole it is good or bad for male sexuality.
Why should I give a sh** if some saddoes are (genuinely) addicted to porn, who otherwise could perhaps be having real sex with a HB7 or even a HB8 rather than masturbating?
As Jack would say, all that matters to me is that there is more pussy available for me (as well as other male sexualists). It seems to me to be a mirroring of Paul Elam style feminist victim culture imposed on men. We're not here to 'save' men from porn addiction. We're here to stop feminists putting men in prison for nonsense sex crimes.
And on the whole, as I said, a culture which is tolerant of porn is also going to be tolerant of a hook ups, sex before marriage, polyarmoury etc. If you want to see what a society looks like that regards porn 'as worse than heroin' then go to taliban controlled Afghanistan and try to hook up with the first cutie you see. You'll be missing your head before the day is out.
And yes, if porn ever becomes indistinguishable from the real thing (probably 200 years away), then it wouldn't matter if anynoe spent their entire lives having only virtual sex. I would rather have (indistinguishable from the real thing) virtual sex with a HB10 than real sex with a HB7.
I can see possibly that the availability of porn tubes may lead many a man to decide to stay in and wank rather than go through the effort of visiting a nightclub in the (small) chance he will get lucky and get laid. But the idea that masturbating once or twice a week prevents you from going on Tinder, or joining a 'fertile dating' site to bang insemination seeking HB10s, is slightly absurd it seems to me.
Even if our entire world is a simulation in some sense (which I doubt, though I am open to some kind of idealism), we don’t know how to simulate new consciousnesses within it. The only way to create new persons is sexual reproduction, which makes that whole business so special. Our sexual feelings are not necessarily for reproduction but certainly for interpersonal use only, with anything else being self-deception and abuse, hijacking and waste and pathology. As a leader of male sexualism I have a moral obligation to not be selfish. Much like it would be unethical for a doctor to sell placebo, I should lose my license to practice ideology if I recommended porn. Porn and masturbation can’t possibly have sexual value because it doesn’t bring you closer to girls; it drives you farther apart from them. Our ideology would be hollow if we didn’t acknowledge this and tried to help the porn addicts, and not just the addicts but to promote a general healthy lifestyle where you make the best choices to have a good sex life. And yes, this includes denouncing that weekly masturbation which may well prevent you from meeting the love of your life because you didn’t make the effort the one time she would have come your way. The average man only has sex with approximately ten women in a lifetime, so these opportunities are incredibly costly, far too valuable to waste even 10% or 1% of. A day of the week lost to habitual fapping can easily knock out 14% of your sex life, which means one or two women less over a lifetime, a highly significant opportunity cost even if you don’t notice it because you think such self-abuse is normal. As male sexualists we are here to say no to the self-abusive attitude, in addition to fighting sex-hostile laws of course. Self-help and political help goes hand in hand in the philosophy of male sexualism.
Let’s look at the “reality” of VR which Chalmers promotes:
On the point of philosophy, Chalmers argues that even today’s virtual worlds are “real”. A conversation in VR is a real conversation, he says. The objects in the virtual worlds are real too, he asserts, just made of bits instead of quarks and electrons. As virtual worlds become rich and convincing we will build virtual societies, take on virtual jobs, and have motivations, desires and goals that play out in those environments. “Most of the factors that make life meaningful are going to be there in virtual worlds,” he says. “There’s no good reason to think that life in VR will be meaningless or valueless.”
Yes, a conversation in VR is real. We’ve known how to do that for thousands of years, with letters. If all you want from girls is conversations then you will be happy in VR. Men who climaxed just from talking to girls would have removed themselves from the gene pool, so the healthy male does not act so stupidly. Until this new nonsense came to serve as an evolutionary trap, which we must take conscious action to avoid and denounce. Masturbation was kept at a harmless level because we realized it is meaningless and valueless until new technology now messes with men’s perceptions and beliefs. So they need to be reminded that all this new technology boils down to (at best) conversations plus masturbation. Conversation isn’t worthless, but it needs to be recognized as the first step on the road to sex rather than the endpoint.
Eivind, I remember my physics teacher explaining to me when I was about 12, how we never really touch each a physical object (including another human), it's simply a chain of events starting from the repelling of forces between atoms in our skins (which never 'touch') and ending in the firing of neurons in our brains. The sensation of 'touching' exists entirely in our brains. Our world is already a shared virtual reality. A matrix style virtual reality would be no different. You keep on using the 'evolutionary' argument, and now devote your life to having children, and yet you deny that you are an evolutionary reductionist. You should be against contraception as much as you are against masturbation. You should also be against women wearing makeup and the like as they are sending false sexual signals, not to mention you should be against PUAs and the like.
Anyway, back to important stuff. Russia is not only voting to make mandatory life sentences for anyone 'abusing' a person under 18, but they are discussing giving 'offenders' mandatory hard labour. So very firmly on the road to a real, physical sexual holocaust in Russia, and no doubt the rest of Europe and the world wont be far behind. Is there any single prediction that I ever made that isn't coming true?
I recall hearing a story about Allen Ginsberg getting arrested for 1 day in cuba for protesting against the governments treatment of homosexuals or something. Some guy from Russia said to him wow holy shit? one day? We get life.
Russia has always been a shit hole. Like what an absolute garbage can. What do you expect lol. They massacred 9 million people in their own country just 100 years ago.
On the flip side, was just talking to one of my thai friends. Told her I made a fat guy angry on twitter for saying 14 year olds were hot. She said whats wrong with that? People date 14 year olds in Thailand all the time.
PS: I triggered that fat anarchist anti so much talking about hot 14 year olds. He said he was going to jihad me. And got my account banned. But I'm still somehow able to check my twitter even though I'm banned (can't post I don't think) so I went ahead and reported his jihad tweet. Checked his account ten minutes later and saw it got taken down lmao. Twitter really doesn't take sides. One anti down. Get fucked boi.
Russian politics and leaders have always been shit, but 20 years ago it was a male sexualist paradise. Russian girls are the most beautiful in the world by a long way.
20 years or 15 years ago maybe, the age of consent was 14 and even the age of consent for porn was 14. Even just 5 years ago, there was still no 'posession' laws for any type of pornography.
Maybe somebody will explain it in terms of anglo-saxon puritanism? I still lol at the people who used to say - 'but Spanish are different, they are not uptight Anglo puritans, the age of consent is 13 there....Dutch are different..age of consent is 12... French are different...age of consent is 15....Russia is different...age of consent is 14...Thailand is different..age of consent is 14 etc.etc.
If Thailand does have currently liberal laws and attitudes, all it's likely to mean is that feminsits NGOs will switch all their attention there, shame them for being 'pedo paradises' etc, and in ten years time the age of consent will be 18 with mandatory life terms in rat infested prisons.
Also, what strikes me about this Russian lurch from being very liberal on teen sex to the most draconian in the world is how guys like Milan and the failed 70 year 'rational sex positive' movement will explain it. After all, I kept reading for the last 30 years the 'blame it all on American puritanism' crowd claiming that paedohysteria was linked to society liberalizing homosexuality. The theory went that society needs some sexual bogeyman, and as homosexuality was legalized and even protected in the USA and Europe, society found 'paedophilia' to take its place. Well that doesn't really explain Russia, does it?
Vitalik Buterin, Russian co-founder of Ethereum, who once publicly called for posession of cp to be legal, has suggested that children be born in synthetic wombs.
In response to an Elon Musk Tweet correctly pointing out that over-population is not a problem compared to the looming threat of global population collapse.
Women have well and truly destroyed the world. They can't even now perform their basic function of reproducing the next generation. In Russia, whose population is predicted to halve in the next 30 years, making it truly the 'Upper Volga with missiles', women casually perform over a million abortions (child murders) each year. But Russian leaders are so dense, they prefer to lock up men in concentration camps to die doing hard slave labour for kissing a 17 year old girl or some crap.
There might be a very simple quantitative relationship between paedohysteria and soaring childlessness. The less of a commodity there is, the higher its price. In a Society where less children are born, the few that are born become immensely valuable. Children have become a rare (and hot) commodity like cocaine, a commodity over which everyone fights bitterly.
Sex-tourists in Thailand don't fuck 14-year olds. The high payers can fuck attractive 21- to 29-year olds (visiting guests under 21 are not allowed in hotels and condos). The rest settle for MILFs with mommy bodies or drink beer and play snooker instead of chasing pussy.
But the population in Thailand is not declining is it ?
"over-population is not a problem"
Yes it is because it brims over in childless western countries and replaces the populations there.
2,5 billion people in 1950, 7,5 in 2015…
Thailand has one of the lowest birth rates in Asia, well below population replacement level. The population may be growing slightly, but will likely start crashing very soon as the older generation dies off.
@Jack Yes - I remember reading that somewhere before, it makes sense and is likely a big part in it.
Though I think the Sexual Trade Union relationship is more round about.
Contraception/abortion (less children) --> free sex market --> feminist sex trade union forms to restrict free sex market.
Lower birth rates/aging societies, also of course mean that there is a higher ratio of older women to young women, so older women - the hags - have even mroe political and economic power over younger women than they normally do.
Here's one for Eivind : https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10418997/Woman-35-groomed-highly-vulnerable-teenage-boy-jailed-five-years.html
Beware Eivind, now women who sleep with "sperm donors" are having buyer's remorse:
The mother in this case alleges she was deceived by the donor who purported to be Japanese while he was Chinese. How the hell could a Japanese woman not tell whether the man was one of her own kind?
"The woman, in her thirties, who lives in Tokyo with her husband and first-born child, had sex with the sperm donor ten times due to conceive a second child, after it came to light her husband had a hereditary disease, according to the Tokyo Shimbun"
What the fuck? xD
"There might be a very simple quantitative relationship between paedohysteria and soaring childlessness. The less of a commodity there is, the higher its price. In a Society where less children are born, the few that are born become immensely valuable. Children have become a rare (and hot) commodity like cocaine, a commodity over which everyone fights bitterly"
It's the exact opposite. You can log onto facebook and talk to hundreds of 14 year olds if you wanted to. When our ancestors lived in villages they never had access to this many young girls.
Meet the latest female "sex offender":
And her "victim":
Lol! Have they taken the clownery too far now even for the most absurdly feministic subculture that is YouTube and TikTok? I mean, just look at her Instagram and see how much sympathy you can feel for the "victim."
Regarding the demographic argument for increasing paedohysteria, today I am watching this:
What I get so far is that children comprised 40-65% of the population in prehistoric societies. That alone tells me they can't have been a hallowed victim class.
Prof April Nowell, University of Victoria on "Growing Up in the Ice Age: Were children drivers of human cultural evolution?"
Abstract: It is estimated that in prehistoric societies children comprised at least forty to sixty-five percent of the population, yet by default, our ancestral landscapes are peopled by adults who hunt, gather, fish, knap tools and make art. But these adults were also parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles who had to make space physically, emotionally, intellectually, and cognitively for the infants, children and adolescents around them. The economic, social, and political roles of Palaeolithic children are often understudied because they are assumed to be unknowable or negligible. Drawing on the most recent data from the cognitive sciences and from the ethnographic, fossil, archaeological, and primate records, this talk challenges these assumptions. By rendering the “invisible” children visible, a new understanding will be gained not only of the contributions that children have made to the biological and cultural entities we are today but also of the Palaeolithic period as whole.
"It's the exact opposite. You can log onto facebook and talk to hundreds of 14 year olds if you wanted to. When our ancestors lived in villages they never had access to this many young girls."
You're right that the increasing ease of access to young females as a result of technology has created paedohysteria (primarily, the Sexual Trade Union backlash), but I wouldn't say it's the opposite of what Jack is claiming.
The parents of those 14 year old girls most often only have one teenage daughter, so she's even more of their 'precious princess' than before. Also, don't forget that while there are thousands of hot teen girls on social media, there are tens of thousands of thirsty males aged 12 to 90 who would love to message them.
But yes, you make a good point, in that it always comes down to the fundamental truth that paedohysteria and anti-sex hysteria is driven by the forever easing of access to young unmarried females that is the result of constant technological progress. This is 99% of what paedohysteria is. The other 1%, well that's the reduced birth rate, the CIA, 'the nocebo overresponse of the social autoimmune system', the illumanati, 5G wifis emitting dark matter radiation at the behest of Soros etc. Of course, this 1% is what interests most people here and elsewhere.
And it's not just the ease of access to teens in general, it's ease of access to the hottest teens. Our ancestors would fight over the 'prettiest girl in the village'. Now anyone can follow the Instagram feed of the prettiest girl in Russia' etc.
I don't know about "ease of access to the hottest teens". Are those social media addicted girls at all into meeting men? They might be the female equivalent to the porn-addicted male. If there were no OAC witch-hunt, wouldn't we be just a few among tens of thousand men messaging the same girl (and getting no reply most of the time). Of course, virtual sex would be the answer, but we're back to porn again.
"A society that bans porn is going to be more conservative and puritan than a society that does not ban (or 'regulate') porn."
Demonstrably untrue. China does not allow porn, yet their girls are far more feminine and unempowered, along with a 14 year old age of consent and basically legal prostitution. A healthy society that isn't made up of wankers doesn't need porn because the real women can be laid with far less of a headache.
"The point is not so much whether teen brain in underdeveloped or not, but why a sexual relationship should require the cognitive skills from a fully developed brain?"
Feminists use this argument as a smoke screen. The smoke is cleared when you ask them if the crime of rape is now defined as when you didn't get enough for your pussy because you weren't smart enough at the time. Remember to always re-frame the argument through the lens of amateur prostitution (or sexual trade union), because that's the society we have - women control access to sex based on their receipt of your resources of attention and money, that is the definition of prostitution, except amateur prostitutes are far worse than professionals because amateurs steal your time and money and are under no obligation to have sex with you in return.
"Plus, I don't believe many teenage girls have fully formed their 'chad' detectors yet, and are more willing to give sex to a beta or somebody under 6 ft"
This kind of thinking needs to stop. Women don't care about looks unless it makes a man popular - they want valuable attention (anything that makes them feel good), money, and most importantly, dominance. A short man with a taller girl will demonstrate psychological dominance over his woman every time. This means passing shit tests. In fact, that is the definition of alpha to a woman's brain, much more than any physical characteristics or societal status. Passing shit tests is the female equivalent of what we think about perfect breasts or a pair of sexy young legs.
But all of this is becoming irrelevant anyway because women are more terrified than ever to have sex, let alone with someone outside their immediate social circle, at least in the US due to coronavirus hysteria, sex trafficking hysteria, and ultra-empowerment where they must control all variables of sexual selection. It is a truly sick situation. Personally, I've learned how to successfully deal with illegal brothels, and they are picking up the slack nicely. I've hit on and bedded young women regularly with PUA techniques for years and see these negative trends occurring, which is depressing. I can't imagine it's the same all over the world, but it might be.
"I don't know about "ease of access to the hottest teens". Are those social media addicted girls at all into meeting men?"
Yes, I see your point. But if it wasn't for feminist laws, then these girls would certainly be meeting men for money etc. They would also be doing a lot more than TikTok stupid dancing on their webcams. Of course it's always going to result in xxxxx amount of thirsty men chasing x amount of hot teens. The point is that it always lowers the average female SMV, which is why feminists regulate it and create 'paedohysteria' and hysterias over 'sex trafficking', 'grooming' and all the other things.
But yes, I see that social media attention is making hot girls less likely to meet men in real life. However, the point of 'FreeTheTeenss is undoubtedly valid. If you took away all the feminist laws, even of just the last 20 odd years, it would surely be much easier to meet (actually hook up with) teens these days. I'm sure part of the reason 'pua' took off in the early 2000s was because everybody was carrying smartphones, and it was just too easy to ask 10 random hot girls in the street and get at least a lead that could then be followed through texting, email, or social media. 30 years ago you had to ask a girl in the street to write down her effing phone number or her home address, and good luck in getting that day 2. Your only chance was to go to nightclubs and hope to take a girl home directly.
""A society that bans porn is going to be more conservative and puritan than a society that does not ban (or 'regulate') porn."
Demonstrably untrue. China does not allow porn, yet their girls are far more feminine and unempowered, along with a 14 year old age of consent and basically legal prostitution. A healthy society that isn't made up of wankers doesn't need porn because the real women can be laid with far less of a headache."
Yes, China does actually raid the homes of tens of thousands of men for looking what is even legal in the West. It's up to you and Eivind to think whether thats a good thing for men, if you are really part of the 0.1% of men who never look at porn.
China also has no or little feminism or religion. Maybe you should go to Shanghai or somewhere else in China and try your PUA skills on the young women and report back. I have to say that I have never once seen a PUA YouTuber or blogger claim to have been on a jaunt to China, or even expressed any desire to.
I hope there is something in Chinese culture that really is pro-male sexuality, but I fear that we could read the newspapers tomorrow and see that the age of consent there has been raised to 18 with mandatory death penalty for 'paedophiles'.
Not sure if this was already posted here. The other week, a 'father's rights protester', presumably A Voice For Men reader, attacked a sculpture by the British artist Eric Gill, who has been 'cancelled' as an alleged sex abuser for having sex with his daughters.
Not sure whether Eric Gill was an abuser or not, but the mind boggles why a father's rights activist would want to feed into the feminist hysteria over child sex abuse, particularly by a father. But then the Men's rights/father's rights crowd lost the plot quite a few years ago.
I came across the following allegory today and perhaps a real anecdote which was so good I had to share it. As men and male sexualists the feminists hunt us like that rat, but some of us are still here, which is an accomplishment to be proud of, gentlemen:
"When I was in my thirties and living in the country, I had to kill a rat that had gotten into the children's bedroom. Rats are hard to kill. I set a trap for it. In the night it got into the trap, and the next morning, when I got up, it heard me coming, and it screamed. I took the trap out with a pitchfork and sprung the trap and let the rat go out in the pasture, and it came out of the trap and its neck was broken. I took the pitchfork and drove the tines into the rat, and it STILL didn't die. Here was this rat, it had tried only to come in and get food, it was poisoned, its neck was broken, it was stabbed and it was still alive. At that point I simply went crazy with horror. I ran in and filled a tub with water and drowned it. And I buried it and I took the St. Christopher medal that I wore and buried that with the rat. And the soul of that rat I carry on me from then on, as a question and as a problem about the condition of living creatures on this world. The rat had come into the house to get food. That is all it was motivated to do.
If this is not relevant, you'll tell me."
Let us fill the feminists with horror as they realize that we shall never give up, that sexuality will flourish no matter how hard they try to kill it with criminalization and other traps and ruses, plus if they do it won’t make them happy anyway. Right now they are at it at my dating site pretending to be “underage” girls too, but they get nowhere as usual.
Even before Covid China was not very accessible. A thriving sex-tourism scene developed in Chomping (near Shenzhen) in the first decade. The Chinese government suppressed it at the stroke of a pen (closed everything from one day to the next) in the run-up to the 2008 olympics.
Now that China is again inaccessible to the outside World, expect it to nurture fairy tales of permissiveness with a vengeance.
Before covid Thailand was being overrun by Chinese tourists, among which a deplorably increasing number of high-paying sex-tourists.
I know a few people who have done some PUA stuff in China. They were fine and had a good time, of course they were well behaved but also got laid. It's not impossible to go, you just have to apply for a visa. Of course, now my brothel girls say the quarantine is 45 days... sex everywhere has been damaged by this flu hysteria.
Maybe offtopic, however I wonder what you, Eivind, think about the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine?
This press conference with Putin might be of interest:
Yes, Putin sounds reasonable there. Why does NATO have to expand and push those missiles closer to Russia? Backing off on that isn't even mentioned as an option in our media coverage, it seems. But anyway, I don't think there will be a large war. Nobody has the resources for it anymore, with the possible exception of Russia. Biden sending a few thousand troops is just theatre. If Russia really wants, they can probably have Ukraine, but I don't think that will happen either. The trend is for empires to break up rather than form and conflicts are fought in other ways than traditional wars. Energy, finance, hacking are more important.
The latest weapons are also overhyped, including Russia's. Perhaps with the exception of full-scale nuclear war there is not that much they can do. Here is an eye opener on hypersonic weapons for example explained by Sabine Hossenfelder:
Makes you think what else is hype, doesn't it? Looks like modern weapons have run into physical limits and any further technology only serves to funnel money into the industry. They won't tell you this because they like the cold war situation just fine and that will continue until we collapse by other means, I think. Gail Tverberg does not think war will be a major ingredient in collapse either, because we don't have the energy.
In other news, feminism suffered a considerable backlash in Norway today:
Which is the result of appealing this verdict:
Which at the height of #Metoo a couple years ago expanded the concept of "rape" enormously to mean nothing more than age gaps or the man being popular, and now basically all of that has been reversed, at least until they get around to reforming the rape law once more. Even without a jury he was acquitted of most charges and the remaining one only gave one year in prison rather than thirteen and a half in the old verdict. Eight out of nine rape accusers did not have their stories defined as rape in the appeals court, and this is extremely significant because this was not about facts but pure politics. It was never about "believing" the women (whose testimony was never in dispute), but how far we are going to go in redefining normal sexuality to rape; whether we are going to let women regret literally everything and call it rape, which has fortunately met a wall now at least temporarily.
Thanks for posting Drevdal's verdict. This whole case was total bullshit and a conspiracy among nine women that the first court went along with for political reasons at the height of #Metoo. Even the charge of statutorily "abusing" a 15-year-old (by licking her pussy) was as borderline as you can get (a few days before reaching the age of consent) and not perceived as abuse until persuaded by an evil psychologist six years later:
C forklarte i retten at hun opprinnelig ikke så på hendelsen på nachspielet som et overgrep, men mer som en ubehagelig opplevelse som hun helst ville glemme. Hun har tenkt at hun var ung og dum og måtte ta ansvaret selv. Hun gikk til behandling hos psykolog i en annen sammenheng, og høsten 2017 fortalte hun psykologen om hendelsen. Psykologen sa at dette var et overgrep. C fortalte deretter foreldrene sine om hendelsen. Hun fryktet at foreldrene ville avvise henne, men de oppfordret henne i stedet til å gå til politiet. Hun tok kontakt med politiet og innga anmeldelse 5. november 2017. Hun ble avhørt 13. november 2017.
And now the appeals court has concluded that this memory might be confused with something that happened after she turned 16 when they definitely had a sexual relationship, so he is acquitted on this.
The other women claim to have been "asleep" or "too intoxicated to resist" at some point during various encounters -- the minimal current definition of "rape." Never any violence alleged, yet for this the first court wanted to give him 13 and a half years, turning the absolute minimum criterion of "abuse" into heinous crimes because that's how much they hate men. It is all reduced to one year and one "victim" now, because they can't let the feminism go completely. He also has to pay some of the "victims" that he is not sentenced for "raping."
Notice that this former "child" girl didn't see a psychologist for anything to do with the "abuse," which only came to light incidentally years later, whereupon the psychologist took it upon herself to instill hate. Therapists should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity for creating "abuse" where none was perceived -- or at the very least it should be condemned as unethical and they should be barred from practicing.
It was a psychological incidentaloma where any "harm" was entirely caused by the psychologist, for which the fake victim was temporarily awarded 120,000 kr in damages. So that's the going rate for licking 15-year-old pussy in Norway -- about thirteen thousand dollars, sure must be tempting -- all the more respect to those who resist the abuse industry's hateful brainwashing and incentives and refrain from accusing, which is still the vast majority.
I wonder if this can be turned on the abuse industry...
I don't have 13,000 dollars, so I can't pay the compensation, but I think the state will step in and pay the "victims." So... I could strike a deal with girls where we plan this as their revenue source for me licking their pussies and more :)
Leverage the abuse industry itself to get sex. We can plan to wait until I've had a good run before accusing too, after which I don't much care what happens because I've had enough pussy for twenty lifetimes. Aren't I smart or what? <3
It is genius! Leverage the abuse industry to get not just pussy but the most premium pussy! Turn their energy on themselves for precisely the opposite purpose. Why didn't I think of this before?
As a disclaimer this is written as a joke, but I would literally do it if it were feasible. Hmm...
I really cannot think of a way to cuck them harder than this... Imagine all the feminist agecucks who have to pay taxes so I can have the pussy they are trying to suppress... We could get maybe 100 "victims" together before accusing, which makes 1.3 million dollars. I can take great care to help them prepare all the evidence they need, upon which I don't even have to be alive for their successful compensation claims. Sure, 1.3 million is nothing by American standards, which are up to $490 million for a single "abuser" now:
But by Norwegian standards, it would be excellent.
And about that article... another high hysteria mark, now to include NFL players too! "HAIL TO THE VICTIMS!" like it says on that man's shirt. At this point they should just rebrand universities to sexual abuse awareness camps since that's all they do anyway. Accusations pay your way, so don't worry about tuition or getting a job later.
It is another one of those belatedly defined abuse cases:
Vaughn said it took years for him to even recognize what had happened to him as abuse, and that in communities of color, "for men to even discuss their abuse is seen as a weakness. In those communities, you're forced to be tough and strong."
And look, they even got the college president:
Schlissel -- who was fired this month from his position as President following an anonymous complaint suggesting that he "may have been involved in an inappropriate relationship with a University employee" -- has apologized for Anderson's "tragic misconduct," and said in a statement that the university is committed to resolving victims' claims.
An "anonymous complaint" that he "may have" been involved in an "inappropriate relationship"... The horror! The tragedy! We clearly need to funnel all of society's resources to the victims, but who says we can't have some more fun along the way?
I recall the "one in four" statistic from my own college days which was invented by Mary Koss, but by fudging the definitions and categories some more the feminists are now up to a 65.1% victim rate! Hurrah! All hail our new ruling class!
The overall survey found that the 33 schools surveyed, more than half of undergraduate women (59.2%) and transgender, genderqueer, and non-binary students (65.1%) reported experiencing at least one harassing behavior.
"I speak to a lot of students, many of them feel like with the assaults that have happened to them, that the university has not been able to deal with it properly," Charlie Kolean, chairman of Michigan Students Against Sexual Assault told CNN.
"Typically, a case will not be criminally referred. And additionally, a lot of survivors from assault, they don't want to go through the university's process reporting the assault, because it is fairly arduous," he added.
Emma Sandberg, a former student and founder of activism group Roe v. Rape told CNN: "Overall, it is very difficult to be a survivor at U of M. The sexual assault prevention center doesn't provide any real resources, university leadership has engaged in sexual misconduct themselves, and those who go through the all-consuming Title IX process are traumatized by it and rarely receive justice, support, or validation.
It’s an interesting thought experiment how a “sex abuse” trial would play out if it was clear the “victim” girls deliberately had sex to collect damages from the state in cooperation with the accused man -- that he simply paid them with evidence that the abuse industry inadvertently has made valuable, in effect making him the next Epstein without being rich -- oh, the irony! A highly pragmatic way to have a mutually beneficial relationship, with even built-in money laundering as the loot is tax-free in Norway. Since the rules are so clear, your confederatesses almost certainly would be paid, but how would “moral” values be affected after that? Would the authorities feel cucked and try to change the rules to prevent this from happening again? Would the media coverage and verdicts on the “abuse” still read like sincere declarations of innocent victimhood, with “underage” girls always and by definition pure as the driven snow? Most likely it would be dismissed as another “grooming” scheme in which the girls bear zero responsibility no matter how enthusiastic. But somehow I think the cucks would be left with a bitter taste in their mouths, because the man got exactly what he wanted at their expense and the girls laugh all the way to the bank too. Not enough to change mores and ascribe agency to young teen girls, but enough to mock the feminists so it stings, and such a bright example for other men and girls to follow until society does wise up.
How does my esteemed sexualist readership think this would be received?
What do we think of your latest cunning plan? Well, as with your other big tactical ideas (such as 'voluntarilly registering as sex offenders'), err... you go first Eivind.
The possible (perhaps overhyped/engineered) Russia - Ukraine war was mentioned. One outcome is likely to be millions of single young Ukrainian women moving to the West. Obviously, the same feminist Left who opened their arms to millions of single young Syrian men will be demanding we halt this wave of refugees, probably under the pretence that they will be 'trafficked' into prostitution etc.
Another possible outcome is (leaving aside the issue of mass migration of refugees) a huge imbalance in the young male/female ratio, possibly of both nations.
I believe Ukraine has 'tightened' its laws recently, just as Russia has (mandatory life sentences for 'paedophiles' etc). When I was in Kyiv a few years ago, I regularly saw girls who looked as young as 12 with 40 year old Turkish tourists. I remember I sat down on a bench in the main street and within a couple of minutes two pretty teenage girls who must have been about 14 sat next to me, and kept brushing their hair with their hands, looking at me. Obviously I didn't want any part of it, even if the laws at the time were relaxed. A couple of minutes later, two middle-aged Turkish sex tourists stopped as they passed by and offered to buy the girls a meal, which they readily accepted, went off with the Turkish men, and as they did so looked back at me in dissapointment that I hadn't made the same offer.
Still, unlike most Western countries, Ukraian girls still start university at 17, so whatever the law says, they feel as though they are adults at 17.
My self-registration scheme is also a great idea, but it requires collective action to be effective. This is totally the opposite because it helps the first man who tries it achieve his ultimate goal (and to a lesser extent affect politics too, while the former was pure political signaling). I have nothing less than discovered a zero-day exploit in the feminist AI. Its designers thought they were clever for making the system pay for accusations. The explicit purpose is to persecute more sex, and to increase false accusations is a feature they don’t mind or even intended too, but they did not foresee that the same rewards can also pay for REAL sex that hasn’t happened yet and thus serve as an incentive for male sexualist goals rather than feminist ones!
This is extremely powerful stuff, downright kryptonite against the feminist state. For a broke suicidal incel it would be a no-brainer to let the state pay so he can have sex. He can go from empty hands to a sure promise of $13,000 for licking a pussy just by invoking this simple exploit. And who knows, maybe the girl wouldn’t even want to accuse and be a girlfriend instead.
Now I am going to address something the AF just said in the previous thread, that you are not a “real alpha” if you use such cunning schemes to get laid. That’s not a fair statement, is it? I mean it is honestly philosophically flawed: I'm not kidding or asking for validation because alphas don’t care about that; we simply live life by the pussy. Loopholes are part of the world and will always be because no complex system is perfect and new exploits are created even by efforts to close the old. Hackers still get credit for exploiting weaknesses in systems, which is indeed the only way they can hack, contrary to their mythos which is supernatural if you know how computers work. The sexual equivalent is the same. Alpha is as alpha does, i.e. have sex with hot girls, and the less obvious pathways to that are equally valid. Yes, they are “cunning” if you examine the details and demystify them, but so what? There is beauty and power in spotting weaknesses that others assume don’t exist, and having the balls to exploit them, and some girls will be attracted to that.
I leveraged an attack by the police into compensation money and ongoing fame, so I know a thing or two about exploits against the feminist state. Such weaknesses are very real and the only unexploitable system I have ever encountered is Bitcoin. Bitcoin is divine for having no flaws, a gateway to the platonic realm as I have written previously, but mortal systems always have bugs, some of which can work in your favor.
Scorched earth against sexuality makes yet another leap: not even historic "sex abuse" but historic concealment of "sex abuse":
Hillsong Church founder Brian Houston said on Sunday he is stepping down from all ministry responsibilities to prepare to "vigorously defend" against Australian police charges that he concealed sex abuse of a young man in the 1970s.
In August, the 67-year-old Houston was charged with concealing child sex abuse by his late father, Frank Houston, an allegation he strenuously denied....
The police said last year that Houston knew information relating to the sexual abuse of a young male in the 1970s and failed to bring it to the attention of police.
That's it. Allegedly knowing about "sex abuse" but failing to report it 50 years ago is now enough to get charged. I don't think it can ever reach a point where they will concede it has gone too far. The normies sincerely want to destroy the world over sexuality and will get their wish unless we collapse first by other means.
Not just everything we did, but also everything we didn't do, which is to say every thought in our heads since the 1970s (or earlier if you are older) that can be construed as a sex crime must be prosecuted. Do these people stop to wonder how many people would be left in the world, if their project were successful, who is still not a sex offender? At this point we might as well prosecute everybody for original sin, because there is no difference. The entire world is incriminated in sexual abuse. To wrap my mind around the sense of priority that must go into thinking it is acceptable to prosecute an alleged ignoring of sexual abuse in the 1970s, as if all the historical accusations of sexual acts weren't enough... this is what we today expend resources on... this is what we ruin people's lives for, or what is left of them in old age, when any supposed "victims" are also old. And the normies think this is normal. It is normal to have such an absurd belief in the badness of sex that this is expected police predation. It is unthinkable that a witness to a murder would be prosecuted in 2021 for failing to come forward in the 1970s, and highly unlikely for contemporary murder witnesses for that matter. But for "sex abuse," anything goes. This is even a family member he was supposed to have turned in back then, his own father. Do Australians not have protections from having to testify against family? Or is this yet another exception for sex?
To put it into perspective... In the Norwegian Penal Code there is an exception for those who don't report even the worst possible terrorist acts committed by a family member, like something Breivik did after the fact and even harboring the terrorist:
§ 137. Medvirkning til unndragning fra straff for terrorhandlinger
Med fengsel inntil 6 år straffes den som transporterer, skjuler eller på annen måte medvirker til at noen som har begått en straffbar handling som nevnt i §§ 131, 134, 135 eller §§ 138 til 144, unndrar seg strafforfølgningen eller en idømt straff.
Den som har gitt bistand som nevnt i første ledd til en av sine nærmeste, straffes ikke.
Presumably the Australians have something similar for everything except sex, or would have if they have ever been a remotely civilized country. But not sex anymore, because that is the crimen exceptum. The lightest sexual touch (or communication or representation or thought) is worse than the worst terrorist act. Our culture is literally that fucked up.
Den som har gitt bistand som nevnt i første ledd til en av sine nærmeste, straffes ikke."
Straffes ikke, men måske kan vedkommende blive dømt alligevel uden idømmelse af straf?
No, I take that as can't be charged either (or theoretically the cops might try, but the charges would have to be dismissed without a trial). What is the point of charging or trying somebody who can't be sentenced to any punishment whatsoever? I believe it is *legal* to hide a terrorist you are closely related to or who is your significant other.
I think there are some laws in some countries that prohibit some things without punishing them. I seem to recall abortion in Germany or something at some point. But that is different. I believe what we are talking about here is legal because there are strong moral reasons for having them be legal (unlike things like abortion -- which isn't a moral good like family loyalty, but for which punishment is also bad).
Also the age of consent is almost like you suggest harboring a terrorist would be for family (where they don't punish people close in age or development even though they can't resist making it technically illegal), but that's because it is a crimen exceptum due to antisex hysteria. That sort of thinking has not caught up with terrorism, which is still considered nothing compared to sex crimes.
To illustrate the difference, the Norwegian age of consent law doesn't even mention an exception for close in age (they just apply it discretionarily):
But the child pornography law does:
Straffen kan falle bort for den som tar og besitter et bilde av en person mellom 16 og 18 år, dersom denne har gitt sitt samtykke og de to er omtrent jevnbyrdige i alder og utvikling.
"The punishment may not be imposed" is a very different way to put it; a hysterical need to make it clear that it is still illegal for a 17-year-old to possess a lewd picture of another 17-year-old who consented to it, unlike hiding a family member who committed mass murder. And under 16 there is no stated exemption. May = may not, so there is no absolute rule either, unlike the categorical statement about terrorism.
It's over for malesexualistcels - incels.is bring in new rules banning 'discussion of paedophilia'. https://incels.is/threads/new-incels-is-rule-announcement-regulation-of-child-erotica-and-discussion-of-paedophilia.351198/
Agecucked paedocrites not having it all their own way though. Here is one example of the anger it's caused :
"For this website to become more cucked than 4chan... Never thought I'd see the day, "blackpill" my ass, keep on sucking on feminism's cock.
Well then, guess I'll be taking my leave soon enough because fuck, I've got principles."
Maybe we could invite them all here? Except Eivind and FreeTheTeens will call them losers, wankers, and misogynists.
Oh well, there is at least one free speaker left in academia:
Stephen Kershnar of Fredonia State University tells it as it is. Incredibly refreshing to encounter total honesty about sex in an age of hysterical lying and censorship.
Full interview with Stephen Kershnar:
Brain in a Vat
Sexual Taboos | Stephen Kershnar
492 views · Jan 30, 2022
Should there be an age of consent? Is it wrong to fantasize about someone against their will? Is it wrong to lust after someone because of their race?
A very courageous philosopher. I see from his other publications that he is a bit of a contrarian thinker, perhaps playing 'devils advocate' to argue for unpopular positions - such as the legalization of torture, or that military veterans do not 'deserve our gratitude'. Perhaps this will protect him a little from the cancel mob, but it doesn't look like it, maybe even make it more likely he will be silenced. Might be a good idea to order his book from Amazon or elsewhere if you can, before it gets pulled.
TBH, I don't think it matters much if the occasional 'feminist' (Judith Levine) or academic publishes a pro male sexuality work, unless in the unlikely event it inspires others to do the same, which becomes ever more unlikely given the times and with cancel culture on top of it. They will make an example of this guy.
I really think the incels free speech issue is far more fundamental. The only hope currently is for an 'aggressive' subculture such as the incels to abandon age cuckoldry and paedocrisy, which is what they largely did, but now outside forces appear to be quashing it. It would seem that incels.is recently was taken over by a new management (very possibly the feds themselves), and they really want to neuter the anti age of consent mentality that has taken hold there. Lol, it's probably more important to the Feds and the establishment to stamp out the incel 'agecuck' meme than it is to stamp out the incel violence.
Unfortunately the Kershnar video has now been "removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines." We are left with this little discussion:
Where the channel hosts defend having him on, but they sound half-hearted and perhaps scared, as if it was just an academic exercise to them and not expressing real views. It comes down to a faithful declaration that our society's dogmatic belief can't possibly be wrong, despite giving zero reasons for it. With this subject you can evidently demolish ALL the arguments (at least briefly until censorship strikes) and still be left with a strong conviction that it is "wrong" and should she criminalized, even among professional philosophers. It is utterly resistant to rational thinking, which cannot ever be allowed to guide policy as far as the normies are concerned, and it doesn't matter if they lose all the debates because they must have their religious belief in the metaphysical badness of sex and the state violence to back it up.
So yes, probably a good idea to buy his book before that is gone too.
Sorry it was out of stock at that link, but here it is:
Normie reviews are so predictable, lol:
1.0 out of 5 stars
It doesn't deserve a star
Reviewed in the United States on February 2, 2022
I don't even need to purchase it to write a review. The description was all I needed. Disgusting.
That is indeed how they will and do handle this subject when they get a chance, including the laws, which don't need to be based on any sensible value system or truth whatsoever.
Kershnar's university is not standing up for him, to say the least:
President freaks out and assigns professor to "duties that do not include his physical presence on campus and [he] will not have contact with students." A bizarre reaction to pedohysteria given that children don't attend university, until you realize that propaganda is integral to feminist power. Have to shield students from contrary views so they can be properly brainwashed with antisex bigotry.
A funny blog about it:
Every few years, it seems, someone new will learn of the work of philosopher Stephen Kershnar (SUNY Fredonia), share their shock, amusement, or outrage about it on social media, and cause a brief spike in amazed, angry, or humorous commentary about it. Then people move on and tend to forget about it… until someone new learns of it and just has to share it. Call it the Kershnar Cycle.
Kershnar Cycles, like hurricanes, come in varying strengths. Typically they’re initiated by a philosopher and their reach does not extend much beyond other philosophers, and so they’re mild. This time, however, it’s more severe, as the cycle appears to have been initiated by a very popular social media account, @LibsofTikTok, which shared a selectively edited video of an interview with Kershnar, titles of some of his articles, and called for him to be fired.
The Academic Freedom Alliance supports him:
Twitter is cracking down on violent antis. Get fucked
PS: Eivind and theantifeminist, there's a group of people raiding twitter, mass reporting antis, and defending stephen kershner. They are giving us free twitter accounts they buy every time we get banned. They gave me one, and there's a discord if you want to join.
I remember I sat down on a bench in the main street and within a couple of minutes two pretty teenage girls who must have been about 14 sat next to me, and kept brushing their hair with their hands, looking at me. Obviously I didn't want any part of it, even if the laws at the time were relaxed."
I didn't realize the antifeminist was gay, now it makes sense why he deleted his website!
The USA would put you in jail for a million years for taking up their offer, but the UK would not, and you passed?
Post a Comment