Sunday, June 26, 2022

Skepticism vs. ideological possession

Here is a reminder that we don't need to conduct any new studies to debunk false sexual abuse of the sort claimed to lead to trauma despite being consensual and physically harmless. We don't even need the old studies, because they never presented any real evidence to begin with. All we need is plain critical thinking the way it always should be applied to something new. Forget all the propaganda: just treat CSA as a new claim and see what happens. Angry Harry already made this point some twenty years ago when he came up with the idea of "tea abuse." Suppose some people claimed that that having a parent who drank tea when they were children was a later cause of major depression, illness, suicide and psychological dysfunction. Do we need studies to refute this? No, skepticism is enough, at least until someone presents extraordinary evidence for the claim, with the burden of proof clearly resting on them.

There are times when something new really is harmful. Leaded gasoline is a great example, which we luckily figured out and got rid of within 50-100 years, and really should have thought better of from the beginning as it was hardly a secret that lead is toxic. Tea has been consumed long enough that we can rest easy though. And as to sex, we have eons of experience against feminist claims taken out of thin air in the past century alone with no evidence to back them up:

We just need hard-nosed skepticism to refute the feminist claims of CSA. The fact that girls are evolved to reach full reproductive competence at 11-13 years of age (along with the psychosocial maturation necessary to function as an adult in a primitive society), and did so in the Old Stone Age as well as now (only interrupted by periods of poor nutrition in between), sets the bar of skepticism astronomically high to any claim that sex with teenagers is inherently abusive. That skepticism is lacking because of ideological possession, but it is nothing more than what a rational person would apply to either a newly discovered/reputed toxin such as tea or a supernatural claim. All we need to do is cut through the ideology and special-interest politics benefiting old hags and jealous parents and their entourage of parasites in the abuse industry -- in a word, feminism -- and all the "abuse" goes away too, retaining no more force than tea abuse. So what if society has gotten more complicated in other ways recently? You might as well claim we need a degree in quantum physics in order to not be traumatized by taking a shit, so removed from real biology and mentality is our contrivance of "child sexual abuse" -- nothing more than a superstitious excuse to punish whatever you want.

Society is ideologically possessed as if by an evil antisex demon, and I as a man am only trying to defend ourselves against the mad injustice. Look at the ethereal nonsense "sexual abuse" has become, of both children and women and men too, a complete farce that puts the Malleus Maleficarum to shame in the bullshitting olympics of the ages. Look at the latest permutation of "rape" in the feminist state of Norway, which has lost literally ALL the substance traditionally associated with that concept and now consists of sheer nonsense, where perfectly willing girls are even "raped" by charging you money for sex, and the bigger the luxury prostitution the bigger the offense because offering a girl money is defined as a sort of violence used to get her to sleep with you (it is really bad game to pay girls so much, which as we can see makes them treat you like shit, plus he was a sometime wanker too, but he did nothing morally wrong and comes off as a role model on balance, finding ways to swim in premium pussy at the tender age of 19 when many of us were still incels). Supposedly 24 girls have been "raped" with exactly zero grounding in any real rape or abuse... One does wonder, do the normies really, REALLY read this and think OMG A HORRIBLE SERIAL RAPIST or are they able to see through the bullshit on some level and realize that this is just a ridiculously generous sugar daddy, even more silly because he is young enough to go on regular dates with these girls without raising an eyebrow?

Tiltale: Ung mann betalte unge jenter store beløp for voldtekter

En ung mann fra Østfold er tiltalt for voldtekt av i alt 24 jenter. 13 av jentene skal ha fått betaling for overgrepene, hvorav én fikk 300.000 kroner.

Mannen var i slutten av tenårene da han i løpet av et års tid mellom høsten 2019 og høsten 2020 skal ha gjennomført alle overgrepene.

Mannen fra Østfold er tiltalt for voldtekter av i alt 24 jenter under 18 år i løpet av denne perioden. De yngste jentene var kun 13 år da overgrepene startet, og for flere av jentene skjedde overgrepene gjentatte ganger.

Overgrepene besto ifølge tiltalen både av fysiske overgrep og overgrep via nett.

Den unge mannen er også tiltalt for å ha betalt 13 av barna for overgrepene. Flere av dem skal ha fått svært store beløp.

 En av jentene skal i alt ha fått utbetalt 300.000 kroner over en periode på noen måneder, samt sigaretter, snus og alkohol, mens en annen skal ha fått 143.000 kroner.

Mannen skal også ha betalt tre unge kvinner over 18 år for sex.

I tillegg er mannen tiltalt for å ha betalt en av de unge kvinnene 90.000 kroner for at hun ikke skulle kontakte politiet og fortelle at hun følte seg plaget av ham og presset til å ha sex med ham mot betaling.

Det er satt av tolv rettsdager til saken som skal starte 19. september. (NTB)

No, as far as I can tell the normies still don't care how absurd, how hateful, how senseless this is, how empty the accusations (including the retarded idea that girls can be "abused" over the Internet, as if there is any sexual value in wanking), because they are functional morons in relation to everything to do with sex crimes, impervious to any more reason than existed in the darkest witch-hunts. What passes as justice is indistinguishable from witch-doctoring, it is witch-doctoring, and no true believer is even going to read this post or anything else approaching a critical analysis of "sexual abuse" because they are so smug or complacent in their true belief that they think they don't have to. What's next, is holding hands and dancing with a 17-year-old sexual abuse too? Oh wait, that already happened, astonishingly even pioneered by a female "offender" on male "victim," and people are immunized from speaking up because they are conditioned to view ALL of sexuality including all flirting and "grooming" and lack of humorless draconian "safeguarding" and boys getting lucky with the slightest scrap of affection from women as abuse. Are you feeling uneasy yet if you followed those links and admitted a flash of consciousness, or still a normie? Normies cannot spot the intolerance because their mass psychosis dictates that all persecution of sexuality must be for good reasons, so I bet you don't feel it unless you are one of my regular readers or perhaps coming in from the MAP movement who are our only extant kin.

It hit me anew how isolated I am when my grandma died recently and because of the situation I didn't attend the funeral. How profoundly I don't belong, how I have severed all connection not just with society at large but my former family by my activism and the normie reaction to it (though I certainly still hope to start my own family!). As antisex bigotry marches on laying ever greater swathes of sexuality waste it strikes me that the only effect of our activism at this point is to destroy our own families too. They will feel the hate, but they won't pause to try to make sense of it from our point of view, coasting along in the smug conviction that feminism is always right and there can't possibly be anything wrong with the sex laws. When yesterday's sugar daddy is today's rapist, just to name the latest escalation which should shock the bejesus out of any decent person, they don't give a flying fuck about the redefinition of our normal sexuality into criminality, as if it has always been that way and there is nothing to see here. Sometimes I feel it is still worth doing activism just so our families can feel there is something wrong, even if they can't comprehend that it is not me who has gone insane. They will never allow themselves to hear a single rational argument, sticking exclusively to feminist propaganda, with journal articles by Rind et al. also off limits and my blog at best relayed and distorted though the news media where it is simply dismissed as "extremism." They will only ever think that I am sick or at best ideologically possessed, even though it is society who is both and still on its way to ever more extreme feminism.

I shall complete this post printing what I also wrote in Norwegian on Facebook about not going to my grandmother's funeral. For reference, this is the first post I wrote about my family's betrayal: "Why I have repudiated my family," which I now follow up with an update ten years later, the first notably sad consequence since I really did mean to go to that funeral and was even asked to be a pallbearer. But I didn't, and with that I lost the final gathering of that side of the family, which I hear was grand with lots of relatives coming in from Sogn and Sunnfjord to give her a worthy sendoff. It was the end of a whole generation, the one which experienced World War II. It was quite sad to miss the funeral, but at least it gave me the impetus to write this yet another futile attempt to explain that us sexualists are not doing it to be mean or anything like that, but because we are deeply morally convinced and intellectually sure of our activism. Rather than sick violent misogynists we are near-pacifist conscientious objectors to a senseless antisex war which hurts us all, even if your only feel for it is that a family member no longer considers you family (and of course you care nothing about the men in prison).


I dag begraves min farmor, Dorthea Berge (født 1926). Jeg skal ikke i begravelsen. Jeg skulle gjerne gått i begravelsen, men naturligvis vil min far være der, og det ble for stressende. Jeg har unngått min far siden 2012 fordi han da samarbeidet med politiet mens jeg ble arrestert og fengslet for min mannsaktivisme. Og ikke på en naiv tilgivelig måte heller hvor man snakker godt om en person uten å vite at det er dumt å snakke med politiet i det hele tatt, men ondsinnet hvor han tok deres side og fortalte alt han visste i den tro at det kunne hjelpe til å få meg dømt. Det hadde slett ingen effekt da jeg ble blankt frifunnet av Gulating lagmannsrett, og saken til overmål var så grunnløs at jeg senere fikk erstatning for urettmessig straffeforfølgelse i en sivil sak som jeg reiste, men det var ikke takket være pappa at det endte godt for meg, som altså valgte purkejævelens side i straffesaken -- en avgjørelse han må leve og dø med, for det innebærer et endelig brudd, fra HANS side.

Selvsagt, men jeg skal forklare hvorfor i tilfelle noen fremdeles ikke skjønner tegningen. Og han ser ikke ut til å forstå alvoret selv, da han nylig presterte å formidle gjennom NRK i "Gutter mot verden" at «det ikke var meningen å bryte kontakten» med meg. Det var et vanvittig flåsete utsagn som impliserer at jeg burde late som ingenting har skjedd og fremdeles ha kontakt. Det går naturligvis ikke, for hva ville det sagt om meg om jeg gikk med på det?

Det ville være den ultimate ydmykelsen, en fraskrivelse av egen aktivisme som om jeg skulle "innrømme" at politiet hadde rett -- ikke bare i å ville dømme meg som de altså heller ikke hadde loven med seg på (uten at det hadde spilt noen rolle) -- men at feminismen har moralsk rett i å lage de sedelighetslovene vi har. Jeg er mannsaktivist på ære og samvittighet, eller det jeg nå kaller seksualist. Det er moralsk overbevisning det dreier seg om, samvittighetsnekt mot krigen mot seksualitet. Jeg blogget med overlegg og mente hvert ord jeg skrev, som er summen av all min livserfaring og nå altså har blitt postmeditert i ti år til uten at jeg har endret mening. Å late som ingenting har skjedd etter sviket fra familien vil være å "innrømme" at vi egentlig er på samme side og feminismen har rett. Det vil aldri skje fordi krigen mot seksualitet er en høyst reell konflikt og jeg er en av de få som kjemper på seksualiteten sin side.

Å være seksualist kan sammenlignes med å reise tilbake til antikken og være mot slaveriet da ingen, ikke engang Jesus, hadde noen moralske motforestillinger mot å holde slaver. I den forstand er pappa et produkt av sin tid, hvor hele samfunnet nå mener at seksualiteten skal straffeforfølges maksimalt og det ikke er mulig å finne på en sedelighetslov som går for langt i hva den rammer, kort sagt at feminismen har alltid rett. MEN, at han tok politiet sin side kan ikke bortforklares så enkelt heller, for det er ikke noe man gjør mot familiemedlemmer, full stopp. Han ville aldri gjort det mot de andre barna, uansett hva de var anklaget for (og jeg var altså bare anklaget for blogging som ble hevdet å være oppvigling men slett ikke var det heller i lovens forstand). Det blir gaslighting å late som denne normen ikke eksisterer heller, noe den gjør ikke bare i og med at han fikk klar beskjed i avhør om at han ikke hadde plikt til å si noe som helst (som ingen har til politiet, men forskjellen er at retten ikke tvinge deg til å vitne heller), men at terrorlovgivningen til og med inneholder et unntak for straff for familiemedlemmer som skjuler en terrorist etter de verste terroranslag (§ 137), langt, langt verre enn blogging.

Hvis jeg skulle kunne forsone meg med hva han gjorde... Hva ville det si om forskjellen på mine søsken og meg? Det ville si at jeg ikke fortjener den lojaliteten som normale mennesker har til sine familiemedlemmer, og dette skal jeg liksom akseptere? Det vil være en selvutsletting av hele mitt menneskeverd. Det ville sagt at jeg ikke HAR noen venner, og enda verre (da han også mente jeg var "syk"), ikke har evnen til å ta moralske valg, som altså skal overprøves av politi og rettsvesen, til syvende og sist med mitt samtykke om jeg hadde gitt avkall på at det var noen reell konflikt mellom pappa og meg. Det er evnen til å ta moralske valg som definerer en person. Det er det som skiller oss fra dyrene. Hvis ikke mine meninger blir tatt på moralsk alvor og jeg skulle akseptere det så har jeg gitt avkall på menneskeverd, og det er ikke aktuelt. Mennesker holdes ansvarlig på godt og vondt, og hvis du mener jeg er ond så må du innse at det er en reell konflikt, ikke tro du kan "rette" på min moral med annet enn ikkevoldelige argumenter.

Menmen, jeg fikk besøkt farmor på kort tid før hun døde, og det får være nok. Hun var 96 år og har vært dement de ti siste. Det var absolutt hennes tid, men trist at familien ikke går overens nok til jeg kan gå i begravelsen. Enda et vondt resultat av feminismen. Det koker ned til at pappa og jeg har verdier som helt grunnleggende ikke går overens, da han er feminist (eller normie, som nå er det samme) og jeg er seksualist. Det går an å være politisk uenig i en familie, men ikke bruke vold til å tvinge meninger på andre, som han altså prøvde seg på da han samarbeidet med politiet. Om det skulle lykkes så ville det endt som i 1984 eller snarere filmen Brazil... Det ville ikke vært noe igjen av meg, for en slik hjernevasking kan bare utføres over mitt lik. Du kan ikke trylle frem en Eivind som ikke mener meningene sine og heller blir feminist, for den personen eksisterer ikke, samme hvor mye makt du bruker.


Anonymous said...

Flott å se at du tar opp saken med 19-åringen som jeg nevnte i e. kommentar her for noen dager siden. Ser ut som politiet prøver å ytterligere utvide voldtektsbegrepet uten å involvere lovgiver i første omgang. Lykkes de ikke vil de nok gå til lovgiver og presentere det som et problem at slike menn ikke blir dømt for slik å få endret loven. Det er et kvalmende og skremmende
angrep på oss menn. Gamle som unge, alle skal tydeligvis tilintetgjøres av politiet. Politiets selvoppfattede aller viktigste oppgave er åpenbart å håndheve feminisme, her illustrert ved at de håndhever sexkjøp som voldtekt. Dette er en politistat.

Eivind, igjen takk for at du taler den korrekte og fornuftige sides sak!

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, it is frightening how they find new ways to shock every time we thought it got as bad as it can. Now paying for sex = rape (under 18 for now apparently), which certainly fits the most radical feminist agenda that all sex is rape, but this escalation is led by the police, not politicians, which means the people don't even have a say in it all the way up to conviction which doesn't happen by jury anymore either. The only good thing I can say at this point is that I'm glad I don't live in the UK, where you don't even have the right to remain silent and the ABSENCE of evidence will get you jailed:

A computer worker whose encryption skills blocked police from checking if his hard drive contained child abuse images has been locked up... Now he has been sentenced to 15 months behind bars at Newcastle Crown Court. Longley must abide by a sexual harm prevention order for 15 years, which the judge made "for the protection of the public"...

Judge Penny Moreland told him: "I regard it as a reasonable inference from your refusal to co-operate with the investigation by facilitating the decryption that you had something to hide upon it.

"It's important the sentence I impose today reinforces the message that failing to co-operate with an investigation into indecent images of children will not result in a lesser penalty than the offence."

The judge said there must be a sentence of "general deterrence" for offending by such failure to co-operate and added: "Appropriate punishment can only be achieved by an immediate custodial sentence."

The AF said...

Good article Eivind. One thing I don't see MAPs nor 'anti-sex hysteria rationalists' doing is stressing the fact that the victim label is harmful, and indisputably so. I mean, they may mention that the harm in most teen-adult sex relationships is the result of the societal reaction, but it seems more as a way of explaining the harm, rather than throwing the 'child abuser' allegation back into the faces of the feminists (not that MAPS even tend to recognize that feminsts are the ones doing it).

You're correct - Angry Harry was brilliant at this with his tea abuse analogy.

Feminists are the abusers, and clearly attributing a foul motive to their actions - sexual bitterness and jealousy - amplifies the force of pointing it out.

Sorry to read that your grandma died recently. My mother passed away this year. Very difficult thing to get over, even if it was 'her time' to go.

Anonymous said...

Jeg kondolerer for din bedstemors død. Måske skulle du have trykt en annonce i avisen, hvor du udtrykte din kærlighed for den afdøde og samtidig forklarede hvorfor du ikke kunne deltage i begravelsen. Du kan faktisk stadig gøre det.
Ingvild, Ragnhild, Arne, Johanne, Eirik... Har du virkelig så mange søskende?

Eivind Berge said...

Nei, har bare tre søsken. Det er alle barnebarna som er listet der.

Anonymous said...

Ghislaine Maxwell sentenced to 20 years. Tells the court that meeting Epstein was the biggest regret in her life and that he 'fooled her'.

Reminds me of the ending of 1984, where Winston's lover denounces him after weeks of torture in the Ministry of Truth.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, they broke her. After literal torture, never forget that. And now 20 more years of it yet she is unable to speak up but instead denounces even herself in what is probably the last moment of free speech in her life before being sent back to the torture chamber. It enforces the "truth" we are supposed to believe, that this is sex with actual victims rather than the willing escorts they were, quite effectively on the entire mainstream. Very depressingly reported here too:

"Jeffrey Epstein should have been here before all of you," Maxwell said at the podium, her legs shackled. "It is not about Epstein, ultimately. It is for me to be sentenced." Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, acknowledged that she had been convicted in the sex trafficking scheme but stopped short of taking responsibility. "I am sorry for the pain that you've experienced," Maxwell said. "I hope my conviction ... brings you closure."

They need "closure" after tea abuse. It is that empty, but this is the state religion, enforced by all the violence and propaganda and social pressure of this civilization. It is a rare person who can withstand that. Nathan Larson is one such true hero, about the only one I can name who is still living and passed the ordeals. I hear he still has his integrity in federal prison and is preaching sexualism to other prisoners.

This is why it so profoundly important to never give in to more subtle pressure either like my family trying to pretend they were always right. That, too, is part of the civilizational antisex agenda. I promise to maintain my integrity. I will never believe in the sexual equivalent of tea abuse like the morons around me, or come across as thus brainwashed in any way.

Eivind Berge said...

They are also jailing men for what they admit is nothing.

Jailing Hall for 12 months, Judge Stephen Earl said the terms of the order would have been explained to him in great detail and he would have been told about the importance of keeping to the conditions.

He told the defendant: "The reality is that there's one very simple condition that applies to you - you can't be around children under the age of 17. It's as simple as that. There are no grey areas, unless you have consent of the people who are caring for those children.

Judge Earl further said this case was about the risk posed to children and "not just nothing actually happened".

He added: "Unfortunately, it's the protection of society's weakest members that this order is for.

Oh, 16-year-old girls are among society's weakest members, are they? Teen girls are at the height of their sexual power and still somehow "weakest."

How can men believe this shit?

Jack said...

Ghislaine Maxwell, what a show of hypocrisy:

Anonymous said...

Theres no hypocrisy from Ghislaine Maxwell. She has been tough as hell and have gone through more torture than you can ever imagine! Shes probably still enduring pure hell, the poor pretty woman. There is nothing wrong with wanting to try and shave a few years off your unjust sentence.

Eivind Berge said...

And now R. Kelly: 30 years in prison for the meta-crime of racketeering (which makes your whole "enterprise" i.e. life criminal) mainly based on Mann Act violations long past the statute of limitations in themselves. That racist law from the Black Code, left over from the Jim Crow era when its purpose was to prevent Black men from taking White women from the South to the North, made fresh and politically correct again in a new feminist "sex trafficking" wrapping. Feminism trumps BLM so much that all the racism is completely ignored and of course the misandry is celebrated.

For a while it looked like #Metoo had triggered a backlash, but it just keeps getting worse. Weinstein also lost his appeal. Cosby got out of prison but he too lost a civil case just now about sex with a 16-year-old in the 70s:

Eivind Berge said...

I might be wrong about the statute of limitations, but everything else I just said is true. Plus at least one of the "victims" don't even agree with that narrative:

Joycelyn Savage, who was considered a victim of Kelly's by prosecutors, also remains a supporter.

"Robert and I are deeply in love and it breaks my heart that the government has created a narrative that I'm a victim," Savage wrote. "I'm a grown woman, and can speak for myself which is why I wanted to provide this letter to the court."

In her letter, Savage revealed she is now engaged to Kelly.

Sexual abuse is the state religion. Even R. Kelly himself is held to be a victim of it including the female sex offender charade.

Kelly was repeatedly sexually abused beginning when he was a 6 or 7-year-old boy, his attorney wrote, saying he was abused by his older sister and also a landlord, at times on a "weekly basis."

Sorrentino said in her letter Kelly's childhood sexual abuse may have contributed to his "hypersexuality," or difficulty controlling sexual urges, and believes it was a factor in his criminal convictions.

While Kelly was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child, Sorrentino refused to diagnose Kelly with pedophilia because he told her his "sexual behavior has never involved prepubescent individuals," she said.

Faith, another woman who testified at Kelly's trial, countered that defense argument Wednesday in her victim impact statement, saying her own father had also been sexually abused as a child but "never molested me."

It explains everything and nothing and contradictory things. Makes you "hypersexual" or frigid (with the former word describing normal male sexuality), leads to becoming an abuser yourself, except it also doesn't. Whatever you want to explain, sexual abuse is always the cause, except when it comes to punishment then everything is due to free will anyway even if you were abused. Superstition is the state of the art in the justice system, with no hope of being influenced by rationality at all. There is no pathway to making any of this evidence-based, because there is simply no feedback in that direction. On the contrary, the more insane verdicts the more profit they make for a whole slew of accusers and parasites.

Anonymous said...

I have been reading 1984 again as I do every year. Of course, many people observe how accurately it has predicted trends in our present society, but few point out the resonance with today's anti-sex establishment.

And of course, the 'normies' don't even see that there is an anti-sex culture today. How could it be when we've just had a month of LBGTQ+ flags waved in our faces everywhere we go?

Well actually, I believe Orwell would explain the obsession with gay and trans rights too. It's an attempt to kill the normal sex instinct in both men and women. Not so much by 'turning men gay'. More I believe, the blurring of the distinction between male and female through the transgender agenda. We live in a clown world where it's not only a huge legal risk to even have sex with a female, but it's also a possibility that the 'female' may have a dick.

Anonymous said...

This is clear incitement to violence. In the USA and GB, it seems 'sex offenders' have absolutely no human rights.

Eivind Berge said...

All the normies have to do is imagine the "victims" were 30 years old. They don't work themselves into such a frenzy for older women getting paid for sex. The difference when a 16-year-old does it is tea abuse. 14-year-old too, which is the youngest Epstein was ever credibly accused of. It is complete nonsense and superstition to think there was any real abuse going on.

In this case you also have envy of the rich mixed into it in a time of imminent collapse, so we have literally an entire culture of hate. When they see Prince Andrew with a 16-year-old, they get jealous, and unlike his wealth and social status with the help of radical feminism they can do something about the girl! Hurrah, finally a way to attack the rich which they would have done anyway without the moronic excuse of contrived sex abuse. They care nothing about how braindead the logic is because they are ready to pick up the pitchforks now anyway.

Jeff Bezos knows not to compound the pitchforks with sexual envy. He is publicly dating a 52-year-old, which makes us pity him.

Eivind Berge said...

Look at the comments!

There is some hope that people will snap out of the female sex offender charade judging by the ratio of comments like these. Like a flashback to an uncensored Internet:

Garrett Stubbs
Replying to @msbagnall811 and @nypost
Yes, the kid is a legend, and the woman a hero. We should be making statues of her, not charging her with a crime.

Nick Harrow
there is a clear double standard but as a boy who grew up older women were the dream. so 14 or 15 if the kid wanted it i dont see it as a problem. my dad would just give me a high five if this was me.

Jimmy Wade
Damn, well there is a 14 year old boy out there smiling.

This just in, the boy is said to have a sprained arm from all the high fives from his boys.

Either dude bragged or someone knew and was hating on bruh.

Journal Of Truth
She’s 45, hot and looks way younger, no 14 year old boy would ever complain about this. He likely bragged to his friends and his parents complained.

Patrick Bateman
Most of these comments are from men because men understand how important it is for boys that age to have sex. Only positives will comes from him banging a hot woman like this.
There IS a double standard but that double standard is based on biology

Eivind Berge said...

That was in response to the persecution of Savannah Daisley in Australia, another sad case of feminism hurting women too.

Savannah Daisley, 45, faced Waverley Local Court in Sydney on Tuesday on child sex abuse allegations, with Judge Jaqueline Milledge denying her bail over the “quite disturbing” allegations.

The glamorous mother of two, who is the daughter of famed Aussie horse breeder Ross Daisley, strongly denies the accusations and intends to plead not guilty.

Cops claim an unbridled Daisley molested the minor four times before 5 p.m. on May 20 last year. It’s unclear whether the pair were known to each other prior to the alleged acts.

Daisley’s defense lawyer cried neigh — arguing that the accusations against his socialite client were made “in spite,” and that it was an “oath vs. oath” case.

However, prosecutor Daniel Richardson claims evidence, straight from the horse’s mouth, exists: He said a police officer told him about a recording of a tawdry phone call made by the heiress, in which she allegedly admits to kissing the teen.

But if they don't censor comments, it will be clear that the female sex offender charade is pure misogyny because only women want to hurt other women for this, so maybe there is hope.

Anonymous said...

They actually arrested Savannah Daisley and put her in jail and denied her bail meaning she is still in there?!

I dont blame anyone who is seeing the police and judges as the real enemies of normal human life.

Freetheteens69 said...

@eivind berge

Garrett Stubbs
Replying to @msbagnall811 and @nypost
Yes, the kid is a legend, and the woman a hero. We should be making statues of her, not charging her with a crime.

Awesome. I wish these dorks would say the same thing about 14 year old girls with older guys though.

Freetheteens69 said...

"They need "closure" after tea abuse. It is that empty, but this is the state religion, enforced by all the violence and propaganda and social pressure of this civilization. It is a rare person who can withstand that. Nathan Larson is one such true hero, about the only one I can name who is still living and passed the ordeals. I hear he still has his integrity in federal prison and is preaching sexualism to other prisoners"

Bro, I love you. But Nathan Larson is a sociopath who made his ex wife commit suicide. And is on record saying he loves to manipulate people. Dude is completely bad PR.

Freetheteens69 said...

We should support people in wholesome intergenerational relationships like Zhang Muyi and Akami Miki. It would be great if we could actually find girls who have been with their husbands since they were around 13, and do online interviews with them for the blog or something.

The AF said...

"Awesome. I wish these dorks would say the same thing about 14 year old girls with older guys though."

Of course they wouldn't, they'd be calling for men who have sex with 14 year old girls to be skinned alive, dismembered, whatever their imaginations can come up with.

Eivind doesn't have a problem with that though, as long as women go back to getting the pussy pass while creating laws that put men in prison for so much as saying hello to a teen girl.

Anonymous said...


"made his ex wife commit suicide" seems like an extremely biased way to describe it.

She chose the suicide, right? Or did he urge her or coerce her to do it? Because if it was the former and not the latter, he didn't make her commit suicide.

Eivind Berge said...

I do not know that Nathan did anything really bad. That he "made his ex-wife commit suicide" is only a rumor I am hearing now with no backing. "Manipulating people" could refer to bad people like cops. All I know for sure is his accomplishments in activism and what he got arrested for, which was quite admirable. The law says "kidnapping" but reality is a girl willingly ran away with him. Nathan Larson is not a wanker like Amos Yee (who only went for porn and ditched all his principles in prison), but a genuine male sexualist.

Anonymous said...

The Maxwell case is full of questions. The Epstein case was already closed over a decade ago, so why was Maxwell (or even Epstein) prosecuted a second time? What really happened to Epstein? Who has the DVD with all the blackmail videos the FBI took from Epstein's house? How are the organizers prosecuted, without any clients prosecuted? What is the relevance of the Mossad connection with Maxwell and Epstein?

And finally - why was Maxwell missing for years while she was publicly wanted for questioning by the FBI, then out of nowhere she shows up in the USA to be easily arrested? Why would she not hide in Israel, where she would not be extradited? Does that make any sense at all, especially for someone who is worldly and experienced in these kinds of legal issues? Who would return to the USA under such circumstances?

No one would is the obvious answer. I believe the "Ghislaine Maxwell" story is completely fabricated. Possibly at one time these people existed, but the current story is all fake, probably involving actors, and obviously designed to increase the state power agenda.

This Colombian-American man was recently destroyed by the USA extraterritorial PROTECT Act (passed by feminist-Republicans Mike Pence and Oren Hatch) for having sex with 14 and 16 year old women in his native Colombia, where it is legal (which he explained to the USA Federal Court to no avail). When he returned to the USA, they threw him in prison for 15 years anyway. Imagine the complete insanity of this law?

Again, they caught him because he sent instant messages that acknowledged the ages of the women and that he wanted to have sex with them: "Law enforcement authorities recovered Movant’s instant messaging chats with one of the (still underage) victims from his June 2013 trip. In those chats, Movant sought to arrange another sexual encounter with her and one of her friends."

Do not ever discuss sex in instant messages. Treat your phone as an evidence collecting device for the disgusting feminist state.

Anonymous said...

This funny video showed up in my YouTube feed last night. I am a darts fan. 13 year old Russian girl playing darts, bet you haven't seen that before. But the amusing thing is in the first minute of the video when she comes on to the stage and kisses the cheek of the announcer, and the announcer clearly looks like he's exploding his wad in his pants. Some of the comments below the video are interesting too.

Funnily enough, darts seems to produce its fair share of 'sex offenders'. The greatest ever darts player Phil Taylor has a conviction for indecent assault, and another former world champion was recently jailed for groping a 16 year old.

And another multiple world champion Eric Bristow made some controversial comments about 'sex abuse victims' shortly before he died :

The AF said...

@FreeTheTeen trying to explain to Eivind that something is a bad PR move, is like trying to explain to Putin that invading Ukraine and bombing shopping malls is a bad PR move.

Of course, Putin doesn't care, he is safe in his bunker and everybody around him is a yes man.It's the ordinary Russians who will have to live with world-wide hate and fear for the next 50 years just as the Germans after Hitler did.

I don't know if Eivind doesn't care or if it's something else. He is safe, he doesn't seem to mind Norwegian prisons at all, and they are like holiday camps. Identifying with a headcase like Larson, claiming to be his leader, and even calling his running off with a 12 year old child 'activism' seems like an act of defiance to him.

And remember, if we all get raped hard in prison or lynched because of Eivind, it's worth it for his noble white knighting cause of defending the pussy pass and double standard.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for great comments, Anonymouses. That dart video is priceless. And the USA extraterritorial PROTECT Act is indeed insane. But I think you are underestimating the evil since you feel the need to bring in other conspiracies than run-of-the-mill feminism to explain Epstein/Maxwell. I guess we have forgotten how implausible this persecution seemed just a couple years ago, because we got used to this new level of injustice already? Remember that she was only the girlfriend of a “sex trafficker ” who himself seemed to be safe due to the statute of limitations and closed prior cases. The legal system is just a thin veneer for a lynch mob where no due process matters as they can innovate as they please, but I am not sure celebrities realize this yet. Look at Kevin Spacey now facing the sick joke that is UK “justice” willingly. They probably think the system is mostly fair and since they did nothing wrong they are willing to prove it. They don’t know that normal sexual behavior has been redefined into criminality, and since they have just been behaving normally like everyone else in their circles, why should they flee? We may also be overestimating how easy that is anyway, since all countries go along with the witch-hunts.

Eivind Berge said...

@AF: If any of us are lynched, it will be because of the label, not because of the details of whom we support. Everything to do with minors all they way up to holding hands with a 17-year-old is lumped together as "pedo" for them, and then the rest of sexuality is rape or sexual assault or harassment anyway. There is zero tolerance for sexuality in this culture and if we stand up to any part of the persecution then we have labeled ourselves as the worst enemy of the state. Might as well get used to it and not think you can be some kind of tolerated dissident or associate of anyone who opposes or breaks the sex laws. That's what Ghislaine Maxwell thought too until she was sentenced to 20 years for nothing, and all the still "innocent" people they will come for next.

Anonymous said...

"Of course, Putin doesn't care, he is safe in his bunker and everybody around him is a yes man.It's the ordinary Russians who will have to live with world-wide hate and fear for the next 50 years just as the Germans after Hitler did."

AF has made some very incorrect statements, such as "older men can't get teen girls", but this statement is probably the most incorrect one ever. At the moment, most of the world is fine with Russians. And when the Russians and Chinese complete their re-alignment of the world, they will in fact be the new leaders.

"The legal system is just a thin veneer for a lynch mob where no due process matters as they can innovate as they please"

This is a good comment, and reflects the fact that the English speaking populations themselves have become totally deranged. America and England, the places where this disgusting feminist hate emanates from, are full of miserable, boring, unhealthy losers.

The PROTECT Act is the main vehicle that exports this deranged feminism to non-English speaking countries. It works like this: the Act allows the USA to pay a foreign government to set up cooperative law enforcement offices and NGO's (unofficial arms of the USA government) in the foreign country. The foreign country then allows the USA government to find and prosecute USA citizens that have "illegal sex" with foreign teen girls, mostly by running entrapment operations where sex is discussed in digital messages. When the USA citizen victim of this entrapment operation is caught, everyone gets paid by the US Treasury - the foreign girls who had sex and their families, the foreign government and its police, the NGO's and their agents, and the USA police and courts.

It is a dirty and international feminist money-making scam perpetuated by the USA and this insane law. Ironically, anyone can see it is true racketeering, unlike the hoax racketeering that they charged R Kelly with. The foreigners learn the scam and work to repeat it since they make money from it, in the process changing the culture of the foreign country that tolerates this corrupt practice. Without this law, feminism can be confined to the USA again. Perhaps a collapse of the USA will disallow funding for this criminal operation as well.

Anonymous said...

Så du denne Eivind?

Eivind Berge said...

So the Norwegian state wants to put sugar daddies in prison for 12 to 14 months and the Supreme Court is set to (most likely) confirm this practice.

I have nothing to do in this society. It is pure, unadulterated, mutual hatred. The state hates our guts so much for being men that they might as well put us in prison from birth.

Eivind Berge said...

Let me be clear on something here: one year in prison for sugardating is a life sentence. It is a death sentence. It is not surmountable, because men are incorrigible on this which cuts away our very souls, certainly when you get a little older and have no other way to be with young women. What to do when the meaning of life is criminalized? If you commit suicide you save the state the expense of incarcerating you. That is their goal anyway: you have absolutely no business in this society that would be a life worth living, all of which is criminalized. Life is not worth living thanks to the feminist sex laws. But let’s not let them have their way for free. Which means men break the sex laws, of course, but then it is the job of the police to ruin our lives, and whether they succeed is only a matter of resources. We are criminal souls just for being men, just for existing in any state that wouldn't be a posthumous existence anyway.

I already wrote about this in my nihilist post, and now it got even worse. It hits so many men that... will some kind of antifeminism finally take off? Well, of course not. Not if past performance is any indication. Men will be lambs to the slaughter. Let me just be clear though that what the AF says about Norwegian prisons being “like holiday camps” completely misses the point. That is something only a wanker would say who does not care about life. It does not matter what prisons are like, or how “short” the sentence when they are ready to imprison you once you start living again. The regime is a totalitarian hell, a complete criminalization of everything that makes life worth living for men. Let me be very clear on this. Whether they put you away for life or even execute you on the first offense is beside the point when it is only a matter of resources before they recapture you, and the feminist state prioritizes this with infinite resources.

Once again, our only hope is collapse, and Gail offers some hope:

I hope the central banks keep raising interest rates to hasten feminism's demise. They don't know how energy works, so they are stupid enough to take this self-destructive course.

Anonymous said...

Gail is literally a retard. Russia has an enormous amount of cheap energy. We've literally been over this decades ago.

The real hope is that Russia and China move quickly to unseat the US alliance.

Eivind Berge said...

Look at what is happening in Sri Lanka right now. Peak oil is here, just not evenly distributed yet. See how well they can make and enforce feminist sex laws right now and you get an idea of the future of feminism.

Eivind Berge said...

I am saddened by the death of Shinzo Abe. He was a sexualist. But we don't need sexualists to defeat feminism because collapse will take care of it.

Power vacuum in the UK. They will collapse too before long, even if they prop up a worse feminist in the short term.

See how crises are getting more and more common? John Michael Greer has called the end of the industrial age too now:

He thinks it will be much slower than Gail, but I think she is more right.

Eivind Berge said...

Gail Tverberg is the prophetess of doom with no hope. When society has criminalized our souls for being men, doom is our only hope. That way we at least get to see the feminists and normies who didn’t bother to oppose them suffer along with us on our way out. But JMG actually explains the fundamental reason why feminism can’t last better this week:

The earth’s daily budget of sunlight is immense, but it’s also frustratingly diffuse. Hard thermodynamic limits restrict what humans can do with it, because you have to use energy—lots of it—to concentrate energy. That’s why plants can only store a tiny fraction of the sunlight that falls on them, and it’s also why attempts to run modern industrial societies entirely on sun and wind have worked so poorly. You can run a complex, literate, creative society on current solar input—all other human civilizations have done exactly that—but you can’t run the kind of complex society we have today, with the kind of extravagantly energy-wasting technology we consider essential. That requires something else.

Feminism is another extravagance of industrial civilization. The notions that “minors can’t consent” until they are 18 or 25 and women are “raped” without resisting are luxury beliefs that are part and parcel of such extravagance. When the energy is no longer there to hunt down and imprison so many men just to suit feminist luxury beliefs, society will have to compromise on those beliefs.

The fact that plants store energy so slowly should make it intuitive why industrial civilization is doomed without fossil fuels. Why do plants capture so little of the sunlight shining on them in real time? After all, they have had billions of years to evolve more efficient cells, and whoever could do so and store the extra energy in biomass would surely be extremely competitive. It turns out that the maximum overall photosynthetic efficiency is 3 to 6% of total solar radiation. Industrial civilization can make pretty efficient solar panels, as high as 40% or more, but not when you factor in the machinery needed to make them. Which also includes schools and shipping and maintenance and mining and recycling and apparently feminist beliefs too because they creep into every society at this level. Once you look at everything needed to have efficient energy harvesters AND make more copies of those, all of which plants can pack into single cells but we need huge infrastructure for, our society becomes as inefficient as plants. Windmills are no better either, which means we are back at the renewable level with organic farming and wood and wind which does not sustain industry. Even if we could still make solar panels, they would make us no richer than a society relying on wood, which means they won’t get made at all and we even lose the knowledge that went into our high technologies.

What really nails feminism though, if the technology ceiling of the future isn’t enough, is the overshoot we are in. Billions must die in at least relatively rapid order, and I don’t see how any society could prioritize feminist antisex bigotry through that. I am sorry that this is the best hope we have, but it is something. And all things considered I am not sorry, because I have arrived at the conclusion that it would be worse if society could be sustained at a prosperous, technologically advanced level, but would have to be a feminist hellscape of the kind Norway has created which even persecutes us for paying for sex. Human nature being what it is, and especially female nature, and given enough resources there appears to be no way around a psychotic feminist state which poisons our whole existence with its hateful ideology and the terror of laws which we cannot possibly obey while having meaningful lives, until it literally destroys us with its police and prisons. And once again, it does not matter if those prisons are not the worst imaginable because there is no meaning in such an existence for men who are egosyntonic about our normal, healthy sexuality.

Anonymous said...

Back to male sexualism - interesting defence of R Kelly by another black musician.

Eivind Berge said...

Yup, it's even more dangerous to be a Black man with money than a man in general, and don't expect BLM to stand up for you either because they too are spellbound by antisex bigotry. Recall that Elvis began dating Priscilla at age 14 and the different reaction to that and R. Kelly marrying Aaliyah at 15 is not just more hateful feminism now but racism too. I am sure they could have gotten Elvis for Mann Act violations as well.

They were at in 1959 against Chuck Berry for example:

In December 1959, Berry was arrested under the Mann Act after questionable allegations that he had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old Apache waitress, Janice Escalante, whom he had transported over state lines to work as a hat check girl at his club. After an initial two-week trial in March 1960, Berry was convicted, fined $5,000, and sentenced to five years in prison.

Now with more virulent feminism this has increased to 30 years in prison for R. Kelly, but the racism is the same until they cancel Elvis too.

Anonymous said...

Sri Lanka is collapsing because of the situation they put themselves in when they responded to the Coronavirus Hoax (the flu hysteria) by destroying their economy, along with every other nation both in the West and aligned with the West. It has nothing to do with running out of oil, at all, in the slightest. It is obviously the consequence of self-inflicted Great Reset policies, which I'm sure you know about.

Obviously Russia and China exist and are doing great because they are sovereign nations who refused most of the Great Reset agenda and did not intentionally destroy their economies. Hence, they are under attack by the Great Reset alliance of Western countries. Is there any evidence, at all, that Russia and China are running out of energy? Obviously the answer is no.

However, it is interesting that even if you believe in completely retarded and unproven "peak oil" which again was a hysteria people went through and came out of at least a decade ago (remember Mike Ruppert?), the effect of countries imploding from self-imposed Great Reset policies does indeed make feminist laws difficult to pass, and even more important, it makes feminist laws more difficult to export. Whenever you hear Vladimir Putin say "we are getting rid of the unipolar world to create a multi-polar world" you can read what he says as "we will allow each country to set their own internal policies", which should give us all great hope, because part of that means more anti-feminist countries will be allowed to exist.

Anonymous said...

@Previous poster-good on you, whoever you are.

Anonymous said...

Ble utestengt fra

Her er begrunnelsen:

Begrunnelse for utestengelsen: Et samlet mod team er enig i at påstaden din om at menn ønsker secx med 13-14 år gamle jenter er for grov. Det er under seksuell lavalder, da er man barn. Du får derfor en 3dagers skrivesperre. /MOD

Brukernavnet ditt har blitt utestengt.

Eivind Berge said...

That's hilarious moderation not so much for the bigotry which is everywhere but the logic: men cannot desire sex with anyone under the age of consent? These morons let the law govern their feelings too and believe other men are similarly remote-controlled?

Eivind Berge said...

It's not that long since the entire culture took it for granted that 13-year-olds are sexy. Read this description of Brooke Shields from 1978:

"She's been playing the prepubescent vamp since she was eight... By day she was the face that sold, at night she was the princess of wet dreams. Her torrid freshness became an underground legend among the talent set. Producers literally held their breaths, waiting for the remarkable Brooke Shields to reach a reasonable age of fuckability, not yet legal but oh, so sweet. Welcome to the end of innocence, Brooke."

This was published in a mainstream magazine (High Times), and now 44 years later men are so docile even in their imagination that they must pretend the age of fuckability is governed by law?

1978 is the year I was born, and I still have that mindset. For reasons that are not entirely clear, I did not fall in line with the normies when we went off the rails with erotophobia.

Anonymous said...

Beklager, utestengelsen var fra Absurd moderering
"Barn" i straffeloven er vel uansett opp til 18 år, Så strengt tatt er det lov lig å knulle barn så lenge barnet er over 16 år hvis man tar straffeloven på kornet.

Eivind Berge said...

How did an obvious truth turn into a taboo and in Norway a speechcrime too? The movie “Pretty Baby” is presumably still legal, having been grandfathered in. But it couldn’t be made today and even writing something like that review can be criminal in Norway, though the law is hardly needed since sex-negative moderators zealously police any dissent long before it gets into erotic descriptions anyway. You will be lucky to get a dry ideological statement critical of age of consent past the censors in any mainstream forum.

When I grew up I was aware of the age of consent, but it carried no moral force, nor was it presumed to be a description of reality. I remember listening to the radio when I was maybe 7 or 8 about some men sentenced to a combined few years for sex with a 13-year-old girl. Maybe 5 men sentenced to 3 years altogether or something like that -- the details are sketchy but the message is not. I distinctly recall the reporter emphasizing that the girl had suffered no psychological harm. At that point I was a normie -- not yet aware enough to question the sex laws any more than a child will question why we are supposed to drive on the left or right side of the road -- but not thinking they meant anything more than something like traffic rules either. As far as I can recall, my culture simply did not convey the message that young teenage girls are illegal because they “can’t consent,” aren’t really attractive to men or some such nonsense. Both my inner voice and the voice of the culture ran like that “Pretty Baby” review, at least until I was well into my 20s.

Then something weird happened because it was like the entire culture absorbed the new taboo more or less overnight, with all generations equally affected. It’s not like my Generation X born in the 1970s still generally say they feel like that review which bluntly calls 13-year-old girls jailbait rather than the “abused children” we are now supposed to regard them as. No, the erotophobia affects even my parents’ generation, the Baby Boomers born in the 50s, who will parrot the fake abuse in unison with the Millennials too, all of them indoctrinating the kids growing up today to the point that they put “Minors DNI” in their profiles the moment they turn 18 because they are scared shitless of interacting with the new lepers.

But somehow I resisted. From the standpoint of adaptability and flexibility which are instrumental virtues needed to attain goals, such resistance can be said to be maladaptive since we now get cancelled from society. I get that. But I don’t for a moment believe men’s sexual drive has changed. It has just gone under the surface. It has turned into what can properly be described as creepy: pretending you don't look at 13-14-year-old girls with desire and faking all your interactions with them as not sexually charged. Openly stating the truth like I do is not creepy, but no wonder a creepy vibe is so common now. The mandated demeanor is awkward at best and always deceptive, always poisoned with the knowledge that the slightest flirt makes you a criminal, which you must dodge like a bullet when coming from the girls and suppress in your own mind because thoughts are not supposed to exist either.

I need to do some introspection as to how I managed to resist the antisex taboo unlike most others in my cohort. Could it be that they are smarter? They fake it so that they can fuck more young girls without suspicion from law enforcement? Well, that’s one theory, but I should have more to say :)

Eivind Berge said...

I left out the best line from that movie review:

"She's a sweet temptation to all but blind men and eunuchs."

Next time a man claims not to be attracted to 13-year-olds, we should ask him what kind of handicap he has. Is he a eunuch? I wouldn't want to insult the blind by asking about his eyesight though, because they just need to use their other senses to feel attracted.

I also found a new article which is properly outraged the way one is supposed to be now:

A magazine article, in which a then-12-year-old Brooke Shields is described as "a sultry mix of all-American virgin and nascent whore" has this week resurfaced on social media, sparking outrage.

The article, which was published by High Times in February 1978, is overtly sexual in its descriptions of Shields, who at the time was two months away from the release of her movie Pretty Baby, in which she portrayed a prostituted child.

In the opening paragraph, the writer, bylined as Ed Dwyer, said: "The most perfect nymphette in all creation has been found—in America. Her name is Brooke Shields. Brooke's hair is elegant brown and clean, her skin pale and puritan, her eyes sinfully blue and her lean body just starting to curve into womanhood....

But amazingly, it also includes some refreshing quotes by Brooke Shields herself, who managed to retain the old mindset from the 70s much like I did:

While her late mother, Teri Shields, had commissioned the nude shoot while guiding her through the early stages of her career, the star said that she wasn't damaged by her experiences, which included a role in the film Blue Lagoon when she was 14.

"Not when you grow up in New York," she responded. "I mean, it just takes five minutes to see—on the old 42nd Street—what prostitution was. And also I was very sequestered from all of it in my real life.

"I was a virgin till I was 22, so it was all pretend in my mind. I was an actress. I didn't suffer privately about it."

Addressing the issue of how it might be more widely damaging in culture, the star added: "I think it's been done since the dawn of time, and I think it's going to keep going on.

"There's something incredibly seductive about youth... I think it just has different forms and it's how you survive it, and whether you choose to be victimised by it. It's not in my nature to be a victim."

Eivind Berge said...

We can subvert! Turn the antisex terminology around against the feminists like this:

Make memes if nothing else, do what we can.

Anonymous said...

"The mandated demeanor is awkward at best and always deceptive, always poisoned with the knowledge that the slightest flirt makes you a criminal, which you must dodge like a bullet when coming from the girls and suppress in your own mind because thoughts are not supposed to exist either."

A fine commentary.

I think all generations changed because of the growth$$ of the abuse industry scam combined with the jealousy of the boomer generation getting old and ugly, and the millennial generation's lack of sexual success due to low self-esteem.

Eivind Berge said...

Have we reached yet another level in the redefinition of male sexuality to abuse? Against Tim Westwood, in addition to all the usual age of consent crap and the over 16 but covered by the unwritten rule that 18 is the real age of consent...

Other women say they experienced predatory sexual encounters when they were young adults. One woman who worked for the DJ when she was 18 in 2003 alleges that he took advantage of his position as her boss and a much older man to have sex with her. Another described two sexual encounters with the DJ after they met in 2019 as “uncomfortable”, because she was 19 and the DJ was in his 60s and older than her parents.

Women can simply look back, call the age gap "uncomfortable," and it becomes abuse for no other reason?

The most recent allegation dates to 2020. Elizabeth* says she met Westwood in a nightclub in East Sussex in 2019 and that over the course of 2020 they had two sexual encounters, which she says were “uncomfortable”. She says she felt under pressure to drink, and notes that the DJ was older than her parents. She alleges that when she told Westwood she was about to turn 20, he replied: “I wish I’d had more time to fuck you when you were a teenager.”

So the mere fact that he likes teens makes him a predator? Yeah, we knew that's the feminist line, but the real question is why men still don't assert their right to be men?

Eivind Berge said...

I had a conversation With Samantha Geimer on Twitter. She is Roman Polanski's supposed "victim." So there we have it from the horse's mouth, folks. 13-year-old girls can consent to sex and did not get traumatized in the 70s when society thought so too, until feminists created problems. She even had to correct my friend there for making it sound worse than it was even though he is quite the sexualist himself! It was NOT an assault, not rape, not sexual abuse, merely illegal and therefore "wrong" in only that sense.

Fertile Dating
In the 1970s, unlawful intercourse was just that. It wasn't traumatizing or any of that nonsense pretended today. But they had other prosecutorial misconduct apparently in this case.
Roman Polanski case transcripts should be unsealed, says DA
Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón announced Tuesday that he will no longer object to unsealing transcripts related to director Roman Polanski's decades-old sexual assault case.

John Parker Meadows
Not sure Sam would agree it was not at all traumatizing. Maybe that the trial proceedings both exacerbated the distress felt from the original assault & was even more traumatizing in itself.
Quote Tweet
Samantha Jane Geimer
· May 5, 2018
Our Justice system matters, the truth matters, corruption in a DAs office matters, corrupt judges matter, the rule of law matters, innocent until proven guilty matters, I know there is a lot going on these days but it's my place to take a stand.
Fertile Dating

Replying to
Well, perhaps she can tell us. My guess is if it was an assault then the plea bargain hides that fact, because the conviction is for consensual sex.
9:59 PM · Jul 13, 2022

Samantha Jane Geimer
Replying to
No, I was underage. Unlawful sex with a minor. Consent was never an issue.

John Parker Meadows
Replying to
She was drugged for starters

Samantha Jane Geimer
I put the pill in my own mouth, I knew what is was. You don't have to make it sound worse than it was for fun.

John Parker Meadows
Sorry, admittedly I didn't recall that particular detail. & Sorry if I'm not "keeping faith", not sure you wanted to respond

Samantha Jane Geimer
I'm just letting the truth be known. We don't have to exaggerate what happened to me to make it wrong.

John Parker Meadows
What can I say; sometimes I'm an idiot. 💁‍♂️

Samantha Jane Geimer
nah! I wrote a whole book and still the story gets out all wrong.

Anonymous said...

"We don't have to exaggerate what happened to me to make it wrong."

Still repeating the feminist line that it was wrong, while at the same time saying it was fun and wanted. Because why not? She gets money and prizes for doing so.

Basically, we need Russia and China to win quickly, then countries with cultures that have a more rational approach to sex, like in South America or East Asia, will be allowed to exist the way they are now.

The AF said...

Yes, in a way she is worse than the average 'victim', in that she knows that it wasn't traumatic, she knows that the legal case and all the ballyhoo afterwards was far more traumatic than what Polanski did, and yet she still wants the statutory rape laws that enabled it all to be maintained. But I don't know if it's about getting prizes and money. If it was about that, she could have played up to the victim role more than she has, instead she's even clearly stating that she was not drugged by Polanski.

It's more about the fact that 1 in a million 50+ women will vote for letting their husbands leave them to fuck ripe teens. People seem to have a blind spot about this in the 'anti-sex hysteria' community, unlike the incel community. But honestly, however hard a concept it is to understand - turkeys do not vote for Christmas and never will.

Anonymous said...

Boxing legend Big George Foreman the latest successful American black man to be accused.

Eivind Berge said...

Yeah, sadly her latest tweet indicates she can't see beyond the baseline brainwashing of our culture: that "sex with a minor" is somehow a self-evident "wrong," with no further justification needed and unassailable by any argument to the contrary.

Rebel Without The Self-destructive Tendencies
What is "wrong" there?

Samantha Jane Geimer
Replying to
Sex with a minor at the very least? How can you not understand that

Eivind Berge said...

I see George Foreman is another man with too much money for his own safety these days:

The 73-year-old said his accusers have been trying to get "millions of dollars" from him and his family for the last six months.

"They are falsely claiming that I sexually abused them over 45 years ago in the 1970s," Foreman's statement read.

We have created a society where it's so easy to accuse and do serious damage that if you are rich and/or famous, it is only a matter of time. Might still live out your life you are lucky, but all are headed in that direction.

There was great wisdom in statute of limitations. The psychotic belief in the infinite badness of sex overrides all wisdom.

Newgon calls it sexceptionalism:

Sexceptionalism is the treatment of sexuality as an area of special interest, particularly with respect to laws against consensual/voluntary "sex acts" (queer sexuality). Scholars have questioned why, for example an array of sex laws are required when existing laws against assault could be used. Some have concluded that this form of antisexual exceptionalism has evolved as a convenient tool to distract the populace and service elite interests by creating divisions and culturally contentious narratives. In this sense, restrictions on sexual expression have infected the state/public life as the influence of religion and cultural/family values has slowly waned.


Alfred Kinsey:

"It is ordinarily said that criminal law is designed to protect property and to protect persons, and if society’s only interest in controlling sex behavior were to protect persons, then the criminal codes concerned with assault and battery should provide adequate protection. The fact that there is a body of sex laws which are apart from the laws protecting persons is evidence of their distinct function, namely that of protecting custom."

Scott De Orio:

"The sex-specific nature of sex crime law enshrines the assumption that sex is something that is uniquely harmful, rather than a key aspect of human flourishing, [and] contributes to the stigmatization and demonization of sex itself as well as to the repression of benign sexual variation. “Sex” is not a synonym for “harm,” and the law should not treat it as such."

Yeah. Sex from decades ago should be no more accusable than what the ordinary laws against assault and battery would provide for. Nothing in the 1970s short of murder should have any legal relevance today as a fresh accusation.

Eivind Berge said...

A good read about the depths of sexceptionalism, including a series of new sadistic ways that still managed to shock me because I didn't know it had gone that far yet:

Emily Horowitz, June 3, 2022

Some states, such as Florida, require that [sex offenders form other states] visiting for even just a few days register with local officials and are then listed on that state registry for life.

Since 2016, those with sex-offense convictions are issued passports with a special mark and must notify the government of any international trips. Travel becomes gravely challenging and often impossible, even for those with work or family abroad.

In Oklahoma, driving licenses are branded with the words “sex offender.” One person I spoke to says he routinely avoids interactions or purchasing products requiring identification.

Some states, such as North Carolina, have presence restrictions mandating that those with sex-offense convictions avoid “child safety zones” where “minors frequently congregate,” including libraries, recreation parks, and swimming pools. Laws restricting presence are worded loosely, enhancing the fear among those affected that they may inadvertently be in violation.

Residency restrictions that require those on registries to live specified distances from schools and places where children congregate make many communities, particularly high-density cities, completely off-limits. Some home associations build small parks for the sole purpose of triggering these restrictions.

And none of this is based on any evidence that it makes women and children safer even if you believe that sex equals harm. Any additional punishment for sex offenders is simply self-justifying just by being that, to our culture. So psychotically do we believe that sex is harm that it is out of the question to even think about balancing the harms and benefits of any new sadistic measure against those labeled sex offenders, or ways to label new ones.

Anonymous said...

Just read this about Ron Jeremy on Wikipedia:

On March 17, 2022, Jeremy's trial was suspended pending a mental health examination, after Jeremy was reported to be "incoherent" and unable to recognise his own lawyer[65] and was subsequently transferred to a mental health.

I dont know if people actually understand how bad this is.
No doubt it is hell.

Eivind Berge said...

I understand. Both prison conditions over there and the surreal nightmare of this case can make any man go insane. What a clusterfuck redefinition of his whole life to sexual abuse which now hits him like a machine gun salvo. He needs to fight 24 trials, any one of which can ruin the rest of his life if there is anything left. And even in all this there is a special level of presumed badness reserved for minors, lol, beyond the infinite badness of sex itself which justifies dredging up every regret that any woman can think of from four decades.

In the defense motion, Jeremy’s attorneys argued that due to the sheer number and breadth of the allegations against him, Jeremy would need to have separate trials to address the individual facts of each case: “the sheer fact that Mr. Hyatt will have to defend himself against 24 accusers and 25 incidents that took place over the course of nearly 40 years will necessarily mean that his defense to every charge will not be the same,” the motion reads.

Jeremy’s attorneys were particularly concerned about the accounts of two accusers who were underage at the time of the alleged assault, including a then-15-year-old woman who has accused Jeremy of allegedly digitally penetrating her at a rave, and a then-17-year-old who alleged Jeremy raped her in her bedroom. “Hearing that Mr. Hyatt had allegedly assaulted minor victims would make it hard for the jurors in this case to judge him fairly on the allegations that did not involve minors,” the motion reads.

Eivind Berge said...

Now If I were Ron Jeremy and could think clearly I would go for just one trial. Also I would tell his lawyers to forget the assumption that the jury will be normies who enter into a catatonic hysteria once they see the number 17. With such morons there is no hope anyway. His only hope is to get a jury who get the impression that he is victim of a witch-hunt, and then realize the only way they can help is to acquit him of everything, even if a few of the women seem convincing. He will probably get 20 years on a single count anyway, so it's all or nothing. Having 20 trials guarantees that he will lose some of them and die in prison.

Apparently his lawyers are only thinking about creating more work for themselves so they can milk him too along with all the accusers. This is how men end up completely butchered for the abuse industry.

I came across a interesting article today about intergenerational sexual jealousy among men. It seems even fathers are happy to sacrifice their sons out of jealousy of young pussy, so what hope is there to mount a Men's Moment? It's not just old hags who won't vote for sexualist Christmas. Old men will sacrifice the young too, and vice versa.

Sexual jealousy and civilization
by Anthony M. Ludovici
(with summaries in French and German)

The International Journal of Sexology 3, 1949–50, pp. 76–84, 154–162.

Those of us who fought in the First World War and experienced the lethal drudgery of trench warfare with its terrible toll of young lives, were sometimes shocked, when on leave, to hear how complacently and with what suspicious fortitude the older men at home could speak of "sacrificing" their sons. Quite ordinary, decent and respected citizens would without flinching enumerate their family losses and patriotically protest that even if they had had a dozen sons they would readily have "given" them all to win the war.

On one occasion, in a train travelling to London early in 1917, when the appalling and largely futile losses of the Somme battles were fully known, I had the uncomfortable feeling that there was more than mere fortitude in the boasts of one of these war-bereaved fathers, and, when he finished recounting his acts of vicarious sacrifice, I quickly interposed: "Yes! I shall never cease to deplore that my father is too old for combatant service. I should so willingly have sacrificed him to win the war." An awkward silence followed. Then one or two of my more alert subaltern friends burst out laughing and I saw the bereaved stranger stare at me with an expression of mortal loathing.

Evidently he had not pondered, as I had done, the highly venerable tradition to which he had unwittingly shown himself loyal and true — the tradition of the blithe sacrifice of sons by their fathers. That this tradition argues a quite unconscious hoary and deeply repressed jealousy of the young male in the hearts of his seniors throughout human history and pre-history, is a fact which to this day is neither widely recognized nor, if recognized, readily admitted. Sign-posts in plenty, however, point unmistakably to it....

With another signpost being men's willingness to sacrifice other men on the altar of feminism too.

Oh well... I am just about old enough to not be conscripted and young enough to fully enjoy young women, so if there is going to be a Great War in my lifetime... better bring it on now.

Anonymous said...

Sex with a minor at the very least? How can you not understand that"

These wastes of life need to be held accountable for this garbage. The response should be "do you have any explanation besides hysterical nonsense and jealousy you old hag?"

Also look at the US states that hold the most hysterical and draconian laws - they are now the most red states. Christian feminists are rocket fuel on the fire compared to blue haired feminists, who appear tame in comparison.

If you are in the USA, the best thing to do is to leave as soon as possible before they get their hands on you, which is more likely every day as the sex hysteria grows and is fed by more money and feminism.

Eivind Berge said...

A few more memorable quotes from Ludovici's paper on intergenerational sexual jealousy.

The crucifixion of Jesus explained:

Indeed, if we closely scrutinize this myth of an omnipotent deity choosing the cruel death of his only son in order to effect an end susceptible of achievement by any number of other means, it is hardly possible not to infer that there must be high probability for any theory which postulates the existence, from the very dawn of human history and even before that, of a deep and shamefully repressed jealousy of the young, on the part of the older male, and that its root is sexual.

A sexualist heaven for old men:

In certain primitive cultures this jealousy appears blatantly and shamelessly as a feature of the sexual life of the people. We are told, for instance, that in some Australian tribes the senior males are so powerful and sexually acquisitive that young men, quite unable to obtain females of their own generation, are compelled to consort with their seniors' rejected hags.

And and a complete knockout on the feminist lie that adolescents aren't ready for sex, albeit blaming it primarily on the jealousy of old men (which makes sense in 1949 actually, since feminism injected much more female jealousy later):

But when we examine the so-called "advanced" cultures which have culminated in the production of present-day civilization, one fact, of great importance, strikes us, and that is not only the universal traditional restrictions placed upon the sexual opportunities of both sexes during adolescence and early adulthood but also, and above all, the traditional belief (or superstition if you will) prevailing in civilised countries that adolescent and young males and females "are not ready for sex-expression" ("ready" being understood here in its psycho-physical and not in its economic sense); or that they are not in prime condition for sex-expression; or (even more benighted!) that they do not need sex-expression.

The way this is taken for granted, the complacency with which the mature of every generation, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, have regarded it as so much a commonplace as never to question it, and have come to look on all phenomena which conflict with it as aberrant or morbid, has in these countries lent so much force and weight to the convention of total adolescent sex-abstinence, that the adolescents themselves, despite the compelling evidence of their own impulses, accept it as a natural fact, and therefore tend individually to interpret their nonconformity vis-à-vis of the convention as peculiar to themselves and consequently as something both abnormal and shameful.

What can be the explanation of this convention? For it is quite inconsistent with the biological facts.... I submit that the whole tradition of sexual restrictions affecting adolescents, the whole of the present tacit assumption alleging the lack of any adolescent need of sexual expression, and the whole of the absence of any regular or regularized provision for a sexual outlet among adolescents in our society, is now little more than a quite unconscious but deeply approving acquiescence, on the part of mature moderns, in an attitude, probably in its more intensified form about three centuries old now, which has its roots in the jealousy with which senior males, and to some extent senior females also regard their most formidable competitors in the field of carnal pastimes.

We know that this jealousy has always existed, and that it has probably acted, throughout the centuries of historical times, as a means of steadily postponing sexual expression in young people, or otherwise limiting it. In fact we can hardly account for the neurosis which is civilization unless we assume that some form of curtailment of sexual opportunity started man off on the gradual creation of his present complex environment.

Eivind Berge said...

I wrote a comment in Norwegian for Discord that I also feel like posting here:

La oss snakke litt om sjalusi. I dag har jeg lest en spennende artikkel om seksuell sjalusi på tvers av generasjonene. Det forklarer ganske mye, inkludert konflikter vi ser her inne. Hvis menn får bestemme 100%, altså eldre menn med mest makt, så blir samfunnet slik: “In some Australian tribes the senior males are so powerful and sexually acquisitive that young men, quite unable to obtain females of their own generation, are compelled to consort with their seniors' rejected hags.” Hvis derimot modne feminister får bestemme alt, slik vi faktisk har det nå at deres sjalusi er utslagsgivende for lover og regler, så blir unge jenter reservert for gutter på same alder som feministene ikke er interessert i uansett, med straff for eldre menn som prøver seg på dem, som man attpåtil feilaktig kaller pedofile for å gjøre det ekstra skummelt. Dette er skikkelig flott for fjortisgutter som får ha jentene under 16 eller 18 for seg selv, men så snart de kommer over lavalderen eller maks 18 blir de "pedoer" selv også for sine høyst naturlige lyster. De burde tenke seg om om det er verdt et par år med spesialbeskyttelse for så lett å bli kriminell resten av livet. Kanskje det ikke er så lurt å støtte feminismen likevel. Jeg selv går inn for en mellomting mellom de mannssjåvinistiske eller feministiske utopiene jeg har skissert nå. Her kan dere lese artikkelen også om dere er interessert:

Anonymous said...

I modsætning til de nuværende bortskemte feminister var de tidligere feminister (fra 1970'erne) sexvenlige og ikke dømmesyge. Så problemet er ikke feminismen i sig selv, men derimod den nærmest ubegrænset magt, som feminister bliver tillagt i dag. Det er på denne måde at feminister er blevet omdannet til fængselsfeminister.

The AF said...

@Norwegian anonymous - I ran your comment through Google Translate, and would like to answer it, because it's false.

The problem is with feminism. For a start, you ignore the feminists of the previous 100 years and more before the 'nice' feminists of the 1970s.

The feminsts of the 1970's simply didn't have a clue what was going on with the sexual revolution (triggered largely out of nowhere by the contraceptive pill). Yes, they actually thought it was a good thing at the time. Now they realize it wasn't (for women, especially themselves as they got older).

And of course there were the same feminists in the 70's as there are now (and previously), although we liked to call them 'radical feminists'.

The 60's and 70's were a unique episode in social history. In terms of 'nice feminists', it was sort of a snowball effect for a while. The pill gave (it seemed) young women sexual freedom (but it actually gave men sexual freedom), which enabled or forced them to pursue education and enter the workforce. So there was a sudden influx of young educated women at university, and then with independent financial power. This was a once in human history event - the number of educated, financially independent young women actually swamped the number of educated, financially independent older women. This was magnified by this being the baby boomer generation, and a demographic imbalance towards younger people. And all these empowered young women were being told they were now free, and could have sex without reproduction, and that this was great.

Then these young feminists became older, after being pumped and dumped numerous times, and by the time they were turning into hags, the Internet had come along which enabled any man, on Earth to hook up with any young female on Earth, and failiing that, to fap off to a near infinite quantity of spank bank material.

Yes, the problem is feminism, or at least feminists ARE our enemy.

Yea, sure, if you could rearrange society to the unique social conditions of the 60's, with the average age of an empowered feminists to be 25 instead of 55, then great, you would probably get a much softer style of feminism.

You're like a Jew claiming that white nationalists are not the enemy because some white nationalists in history weren't so tough on the Jews as the Nazis were.

Sadly, we will never get the 'intellectual' anti-sex hysteria community, that looks to 1950's academic journals on sexology for truth and consolation, to accept the obvious fact that feminists are the enemy. The 'MAPs' and paedophiles fall into this category too.

On one extreme you have the incels, with their total misogyny and rage. At least though, they can clearly see that feminists are the enemy, and the obvious truth of female sexual jealousy and sexual trade unionism. On the other extreme, are the anti-sex hysteria thinkers, such as Milan Horvarth, who are convinced it's all due to some vague puritanical force, likely spreading from the backward US of A. If only feminists would read their 1950's journals on sexology, they would become nice again.

The need is for something in the middle ground. That's obviously our place, a real men's rights voice that tackles the feminist war on normal male sexuality.

Eivind Berge said...

It is not quite so clear-cut who our enemy is. In a larger sense than the latest, most extreme laws which are clearly driven by feminazis, jealously to the young comes from both sexes. As Ludovici points out, the male sexual peak is at age 16 or 17. Too bad for us middle-aged men that we can't repress teenage boy sexuality without doing the same to girls... unless there is a war, lol.

The AF said...

That's absolute nonsense. Male sexual peak might be at 16 or 17 for a homosexual pederast sexologist in the 1950's, but if we're talking about what age women find attractive in males, it is not 16 or 17 - much as you'd like to believe it to be the case as regards your femalesexoffendercharadist cause.

It makes NO SENSE from an evo psy point of view to believe that women, who primarily look to resources from male sexual partners, would find 16 year olds most attractive.

Eivind Berge said...

We are not talking about the most attractive age to the opposite sex. That is indeed much later than 16 in males, but peak sexual performance is not:

In a book recently published in America, entitled Sexual Behaviour in the Male, the authors, Drs. Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin, have, to the astonishment of the whole civilized world of adults, shown that, in the male, "the maximum sexual frequencies (total outlets) occur in the teens. Frequencies then drop gradually but steadily to old age." (Chapter VII). And they add: "in our society as it is, the highest point of sexual performance is, in actuality, somewhere around 16 or 17 years of age. It is not later . . . the peak capacity occurs in the fast growing years prior to adolescence: but the peak of actual performance is in the middle or later teens." (Ibid.)

They point out that these facts will cause surprise as "general opinion would probably have placed it [the peak of sexual performance] in the middle twenties or later." Included among those who hold this erroneous view, they mention "even physicians and biologists". (Ibid.)

Thus, they conclude quite truly, society, (i.e., modern Western society) "fails to recognize that the teen-age boys are potentially more capable and often more active (sexually) than their 35 year old fathers". (Ibid.)

Why does society fail in this respect? It cannot be due to ignorance, for every mature male has been an adolescent and knows the facts. Probably every normal mature male in our society, moreover, has some bitter memory, either of conscience alone, or else of a more public nature connected with his school or family life, in which his elders' tacit but arbitrary denial of his sexual appetite when it was at its peak, figures as the cause of some shameful or deplorable incident.

Hence teenage boys will be our fiercest competitors if we let them, both for teen girls and older women, and so the jealousy of older men have kept them somewhat restrained through the ages -- quite independently of feminism.

I am reconsidering my evangelism of nofap to young men in light of this realization. Perhaps nofap should be more like esoteric sexualist knowledge imparted at age 40 as initiation into the elder ranks of our activist fraternity. There is no reason to keep it secret, however, since they will rarely gain the wisdom to implement it sooner anyway. Nofap can be an open secret that we don't really want teenage boys to use because then they will be fucking teen girls six times a day while we get none.

Also, just think how retarded our society is for considering the sexual peak to occur in childhood. Girls' peak attractiveness and boys' peak performance occur when they are "children."

Freetheteens69 said...

"jealously to the young comes from both sexes"

Actually I'd say it's the other way around for men. If the AoC was lowered to 13 we would easily steal bitches off middle schoolers/high schoolers lol. Young girls like older men way more than guys in their own age group. I'm of the opinion that younger girl + older man is actually what nature intended. Western society is just so unnatural and bizarre right now that nobody can see it.

Anonymous said...

Additionally, AF underestimates the effect that male jealousy has on implementation of feminist laws. You cannot ignore that conservative, masculine-focused US states have the harshest "age of consent" punishments, and that Republicans created the majority of the worst sex laws in operation today (at least in the USA). Yes, the female sexual trade union is a big driver of the age hoax, but it is complemented by the jealous male trade union - men who are angry and bitter, they think if they have to suffer with their old horrible hag who owns their life, then why should someone else get a pass?

There is also a big thought right now among trad right wing men that the only real men are the ones who marry a woman in their age group and have children with her. They are blind to the fact that modern marriage is not trad "marriage" in any sense of the word, and they tend to regard their wives as their mothers. The few who are aware that "marriage" is a feminist trap simply choose to accept it and work within it, becoming kept and controlled, jaded men in the process, for the sake of raising children. Then they are surprised when their kids want to become homosexual trannies, or when their wives resent them for being weak.

I guess my point is that an understanding of the female sexual trade union theory is inconsequential without an additional understanding of the male jealousy union theory.

I GIVE UP said...

Oh look, a class full of stunningly beautiful American conservative girls are demanding that feminists stop selling school uniforms in sex shops. Wonder why the male sexual trade union that only Anonymous knows about aren't calling for schoolboy uniforms to be stopped, so that middle-aged women will no longer sexually harass boys?

Eivind Berge said...

That's really funny. I would counter that perhaps instead the schools should quit dressing girls up so sexy, if they don't want them to be admired in those outfits. I doubt the attraction is somehow a contagion flowing from sex shops to schoolgirls, rather than (at best) the other way around.

Anonymous said...

Women who want to ban a dress in a shop is nothing compared to creating an entire sex abuse industry industrial complex that spans across the world and puts men in prison for decades, you dolt. Conservative men did that - the PROTECT Act, Southern sex laws and punishments, etc etc, all far worse than what any fat woman ever complained about.

Anonymous said...

Bill and Hillary Clinton played a major role in introducing the PROTECT Act.
It is of course true that conservative males have also done their bit. Laws and punishments in Southern/Red States appear to be as harsh as in liberal States-which is worse is an interesting question. There may be so little difference as to be academic, I don't know.
In the UK Daily Mail, there's a story about strippers in Edinburgh being banned "for their own good"
and in the Australian edition of that rag, today's top story is this- .
With the school uniform story, it seems to be all about clothes and the taking off thereof. You'd think it was a coordinated theme or talking point for the masses.

The AF said...

Top story in the Daily Menopausal British Woman - Kate Moss 'traumatised' by being asked to remove her bra in a photoshoot when she was 15, then topless for Cavin Klein at 17. Like day follows night, and no amount of lack of 'American Conservatism' will ever change it.

The Anonymous retard (the first one) who thinks it's all Conservative men ignores all the female dominated lobbying groups that lead to these laws. Yes, a Conservative male may end up voting it into being, looking primarily at his female Conservative voter base that decides whether he gets re-elected. In any case, it was the Social Purity feminists in both the USA and Europe that raised the age of consent in the first place and invented the idea that young girls needed protection from older 'predators'. Were there no male 'Conservatives' in positions of power in the USA before the Victorian era? Seemed pretty happy with brothels being full of 12 year old girls back then until the social purity mob turned up.

We really need to split the movement in two. Ideally, we should ban Americans. Let them sort out their 'American Conservatism' on their own blogs and such. Milan Horvarth can join them, because in his heart and soul, he is an American. I know for sure in Europe it's a feminist problem. For fuck's sake, even the whole vocabulary ('grooming' etc) are feminist constructs based on feminist ideology over 'power differentials' and 'patriarchy'. Let's fight feminists in Europe and leave the yanks with their MAP blogs to fight their American Conservative paedocrites. See if Anonymous (the first one) and FreeTheBeans can persuade non-binary SJW pride flag waving things to embrace MAPs, while we fight feminists and defend normal male sexuality in Europe. Better still, hopefully Russia will launch 1,000 ICBMs at America sometime soon and leave Europe intact.

BTW, how freaking hard is it for you to summon up the courage to choose a handle so we can distinguish you 'Anonymous' people? You're commenting on a blog where the owner uses his real identity. Show some respect and at least choose a handle for your comment, even if it's a one off one.

The AF said...

I would suggest to that anonymous retard, that if you look at that photo of the feminist schoolgirls trying to get 'sexy' schooluniforms banned, and not realize instantly that the fight is against feminists, and also, what is the motivation behind feminism, then you are a truly autistic mentally retarded utter fuckwit.!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpeg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/feminism-class.jpeg

The AF said...

I've been pondering of late again, the possible reasons why we find it so difficult to kickstart any kind of meaningful movement against feminism and anti-sex hysteria.

I think one major problem is the fact that the Internet has given every idiot with an opinion the chance to express it.

In previous times, 'leaders' would emerge through a more rigorous form of natural selection - such as being intelligent or competent enough to have their works published, even if just in the form, for example, of a newspaper editorial (I believe that's how Marx got started). At the same time, proto-movements would have to meet up in real life, and with face-to-face communication being what it is, naturally the dominant and natural leader/s would emerge in such situations over time.

Now, it has to be conducted online. Of course, the Internet can be a marvellous boon for political agitation. But in our case, with the utter stigma and universal brainwashing of society to turn against any reasonable discussion of these matters, we're sort of left with the worst of both worlds. There is no traditional route for publication anymore of such radical views as ours, and even being public online is difficult or impossible. Eivind can do so primarily because he lives in one of the few countries in the world where it's possible. Unfortunately, no disrespect to him, but he is not a leader of men.

So all we have is a small number of commentators on his blog and a few other blogs, every single one with their own opinion, an inability to defer to the wisdom or superior intellect of others, every single one believing they have 'sussed it'.

This can be contrasted with the incel community, who would appear to face the same problems, being about as stigmatized today as ours is, or nearly, and yet while disagreements are there between them, memes such as the 'stacy' and 'chad', and the narrative of sexual hierarchy, the universal acceptance that feminism is the enemy etc, all quickly became agreed upon and adopted. Perhaps it's because the incel community is much bigger and active than ours. There needs to be a critical mass. Also perhaps, because of their recognition of 'hierarchies' being at the root of their sexual problems, they are reluctant to look to 'leaders' and learn to trust each other in a form of intellectual communism. Once a truth becomes accepted, nobody tries to challenge it in any major way, and if anybody did, it would mean that person was trying to set himself up as a 'alpha leader', and that is obviously frowned upon among incels.

Anonymous said...

Elsker hvordan trans-aktivisme blandet med politisk korrekthet er i full gang med å skape splid blant feministene. De som skal ha den til en hver tid korrekte meningen, hvilket nå å støtte alt trans, har nå en stor del av feministene mot seg. Samtidig er de politisk korrekte tvounget til å støtte motbydelige og voldelige sexl-fetisher og porno, idet dette også ligger under LGBT+ paraplyen.

Anonymous said...

De politisk korrekte har foretaget så store ændringer i den senere tid, så jeg tror at kirkeministrene skal overveje en ændring af Genesis-bogen:
"...og til sidst skabte Gud mennesket, og Han skabte det som mand, som kvinde og som fifty-fifty..."

Jack said...

Here is a female sex-offender who may get less sympathy from Eivind as she looks more like a butch lesbian than the iconic hot teacher:

Eivind Berge said...

I don't care how she looks. It is insane.

In sentencing her, Skiles told Hubble that she violated her position of trust as a teacher and took advantage of a student. Any feelings she developed for the teen, or vice versa, were irrelevant, Skiles said.

Yes, feelings are irrelevant because it is the metaphysical abstraction layer that counts, where sex is infinitely bad regardless of what happens in this world on everything from the physical to the psychological level. That pure feminist fiction is the only relevant thing about sexuality.

I wonder how they managed to mess up the boy's life like they claim? The metaphysical sex rays even poisoned the whole community if we are to believe this...

“We feel that words alone cannot put into context the detrimental effects this woman’s decisions have had on ourselves, the siblings, the school district, our community, her own son and family, but most importantly, the victim himself,” the victim’s mother wrote in her statement. “The physical and psychological effects by themselves are distressing, sadly apparent, and we fear long-lasting.”

The mother said that her son suffered weight loss and side effects from antidepressant medication. After being an honor student, he failed classes, lost his job, and lost friends. She quit her job so her son wouldn’t be left alone.

“We’ve seen a vibrant teen boy fall into the deepest pits of despair, to the point of wanting to take his own life,” the mother wrote.

Right... these are totally plausible effects of a happy consensual sexual relationship... if you are a normie moron. Just as plausible as tea abuse.

We live in imbecilic times that can't end soon enough through collapse due to declining per capita energy availability. The second law of thermodynamics will prevail in the end and smite the antisex bigots.

Freetheteens69 said...

@theantifeminist "I've been pondering of late again, the possible reasons why we find it so difficult to kickstart any kind of meaningful movement against feminism and anti-sex hysteria"

How about because none of us are actually FRIENDS? lol. Come drink with me in a discord call, and lets play World of Warcraft or something.

Anonymous said...

AF makes a good point about US Conservative candidates wanting to appeal to their female Conservative voter base; that very well is the case. He also makes a good distinction that the feminist problem in Europe comes from the left while the feminist problem in the US comes from the right.

What he ignores is that Europe is beholden to the US, and in the US, male feminist Conservatives like Mike Pence make the laws that enable feminism to flourish internationally. Talk to someone from Tennessee about having sex with a 15 year old girl, try it; he will kill you with his legal gun, then be absolved in court. You and I would much rather have that conversation with a liberal US or European feminist every time, where you are likely to encounter outrage and argumentation at most, and an open mind at best. There is no open mind in the Conservative US.

Anonymous said...

That is a good comment about being friends. Maybe we should set up a poker or checkers game room with a chat window. Can title it something innocuous so it doesn't get banned, like Anti-Hoax

The AF said...

I can see Eivind coming out as a fully fledged feminist before too long. His 20 year journey will have come full circle. Starting off as an 'MRA', finally thanks to FreeTheBeans and Anonymous and Anonymous, his education will have been complete, he will have seen the light and learnt to love Big Sister.

A feminist MAP fighting bravely to destroy the scourge of American Conservatism, standing shoulder to shoulder with trans activists, pro-choice campaigners, and pansexualists, who will surely embrace the female sex offender charade as an equally worthy social justice cause.

Eivind Berge said...

There is nothing remotely feminist about my views, so that won't happen. In good news, this is the most mainstream statement so far that they have gone too far in criminalizing sexuality:

My son’s innocent teenage fumblings saw him branded a rapist, hounded out of school and left sobbing in emotional agony, his anonymous mother reveals... I have sons — I am too scared to say how many in case it helps identify my family — and throughout their young lives they have routinely been told by their young female friends that they ‘hate men’ and that ‘all men are rapists’. So fevered has the atmosphere among young women become that today something as innocent as a male tapping you on the shoulder can be construed as assault... Aged 13, in 2019, my son was just starting to get interested in girls. He got involved in flirtations with a few girls and one sent him a topless photo by phone (this is a shockingly common practice among early teens). With another girl there was saucy texting and some mutual touching... What followed was a merciless campaign of intimidation and bullying. My son was called a ‘rapist’, a ‘nonce’ and told he should be castrated. He was urged to kill himself on a daily basis. He was attacked by a mob in the playground and one boy threatened to stab him. We brought all this to the school’s attention, but it failed to act — too terrified to defend a boy who now had a reputation as a sexual predator.

Yup, that's what you get for redefining all of sexuality into rape. We can see how this is consistent with jealousy from both sexes as we make boys terrified of girls and girls high on their power to accuse. Who wants to stand up for teenage "nonces" when that would provide zero benefit for older men? We need principled sexualism for all, not just frame it in terms of female jealousy. Both sexes feel jealousy and we need to rise above it.

And a cute story about a woman who figures out how much hotter teen girls are:

As a teenager my looks felt like a superpower. I wasn’t model quality, but from the age of 14, I realised that my appearance was valued by society, and I let it define me... Fast forward 12 years. At 30, I’d had a baby, forged a career in PR and survived some big relationship break-ups. My appearance wasn’t what it was but there was still some validation up for grabs... Two more children later and I’m happily married, aged 44... Gone are the wide-eyed stares and general approval. I get those dopamine hits elsewhere – at work, with my kids, husband and friends. But the loss of validation is tough.

She should be the stereotypical villain to the AF, but at least there she is not calling for harsher sex laws. Our enemy isn't that simplistic. It is an entire zeitgeist that has come down with insane antisex bigotry and if you want to talk about jealousy, both sexes are guilty.

The AF said...

Jack said : "Here is a female sex-offender who may get less sympathy from Eivind as she looks more like a butch lesbian than the iconic hot teacher:"

Eivind probably considers her a HB10.

I can honestly see some teenage boys being mildly traumatized in later life by having sex with such beasts when they were in school. I mean, we all know how horny we were at that age, we would bang anything, and then coupled with the desire to lose virginity etc. Plus the possibility it could lead to the boy developing a fetish for older women, which is a perverted and highly maladaptive fetish whatever Eivind would like to believe - a million times more harmful than fapping to pictures of young women.

Not saying it would be hugely traumatic or even illegal, but a 13 year old boy seduced into having sex with his ugly, fat middle-aged female teacher is probably a 100 X more negative event for him than a 13 year old girl having sex with a middle-aged male teacher who supports and cares for her. Despite what Eivind, feminists, and normies want to believe.

I imagine Eivind probably considers those freaks on the Spanish 'every woman is beach ready' ad poster to be HB10s as well...

Eivind Berge said...

Absolute nonsense. Unless you count simple opportunity cost where you actually had better options and regret not having gone for them instead, there is absolutely no traumatization to young boys from sex with older women. Nor is there any risk of developing a fetish for old women (which would be a paraphilia bad for you much like true pedophilia if exclusively directed at postmenopausal women, but flatly doesn’t happen this way or hardly ever for any reason as far as I can tell since I have yet to meet a gerontophile and even the feminist true believers in the female sex offender charade do not tout this effect). I vividly recall that boys crave variety and fantasize about everything from teens to grannies, where opportunities with any one of them will never detract from enjoyment of any other. In fact it works the other way, where satisfaction with one type of woman will temporarily make him more inclined to pursue different ones in age or appearance (the Coolidge effect). Teenage boys who got lucky with a mature woman at 13 will also be more likely to get teen girls before their peers due to the upper hand provided by experience and preselection. Side note on youthful craving for ALL kinds of women including grannies: I found this subsided by middle age and am now exclusively focused on young women with good fertility, as if my body is throwing everything at a last-ditch effort at reproduction with no error margin for fruitless dalliances. Additionally, the intensity of my attraction to girls in their teens and early 20s is at least as strong as ever, and my enjoyment of them now downright mystical in no small measure due to nofap.

You have still understood nothing when you can say something so insane as sex with old women is “a million times more harmful than fapping to pictures of young women.” The badness of pornography consists of the fakeness of it, period. Aside from possibly revealing paraphilias you are already suffering from, the content is irrelevant, and if you think the content matters then you are suffering from a variant of the wanker’s delusion or its feminist flipside that the content supposedly can matter negatively too. Just like a digital image of a gold bar is no more financially valuable than an image of a turd, there can never be any sexual value in an image of the hottest young women, which is equal to images of grannies as well. All porn is worthless, and you are deluding yourself with the wanker’s delusion, while also in denial of the sexual value of real sex with less attractive women. If nothing else, they can be stepping stones for young boys, while ensuring healthy sexual development and even provide some tolerance to fapping because if you also had real sex while young, your brain will be more resistant to developing in the maladaptive ways of boys who only had porn and end up with all kinds of dysfunctions when they much belatedly attempt sex. It is IGNORANT, HARMFUL ADVICE to claim boys should prefer fapping to teen porn over sex with the least attractive women.

Eivind Berge said...

While sadly late, I also got started with predominantly older women (in their 30s to 50s while I was in my 20s). And now, I just got lucky with a 17-year-old girl! That is super alpha territory at my age and only possible because I am a nofapper. You wankers don’t even think it’s possible, so resigned are you to the loser mindset. But it is. You just have to be PREPARED (by nofap and the right mindset) and ask them for dates when you can. Don’t let fear or doubt stop you. Remember Shakespeare’s words “Our doubts are traitors And make us lose the good we oft might win By fearing to attempt.” Some girls will say yes -- this one even said why not tonight? when I asked about tomorrow. Then later ask them to go home with you, and some girls will say yes to that too (once you get that far, most of them will in my experience). Teen girls know they are hot, but some don’t know HOW hot. This one took me aback by being self-conscious of her sweatiness after a hot summer day. She did not know that only makes her hotter to men who TRULY love girls. If you think girls are equal to porn, you wouldn’t know either. Amused that I enjoyed her so much like that, she asked what she smelled like and I said chemistry. It is the taste, feel and smell of the proverbial chemistry that goes into that magical connection with and enjoyment of beautiful women. Porn has no chemistry and no connection, just a dumbass who thinks it is all about having orgasms. It also has no poetry. You wouldn’t be inspired to write a paean like this to any of the porn stars because deep down you know there is no value in it. All you can do is whine and come up with silly justifications for missing out on the meaning of life.

Eivind Berge said...

On a more humorous but also slightly sad note even though it is a luxury problem, I often find that I have to lower the teen girls’ expectations about sex with an older man. Because they are so enthusiastic about doing it multiple times in different positions, you would think they are used to partners who are practically multiorgasmic? This one wanted to ride me and do doggie style right after we had done missionary plus she suggested anal (which I’m not into at all, but you’d be surprised how often they ask). Sorry girls, we probably have to cuddle for an hour before I can go again, but that doesn’t mean I love you any less.

And here we are back to what you miss out on by fapping and resultant inceldom. I don’t know what sex could have been like as a teenager because I didn’t have it. But I can imagine what it would be like to have opportunities and the right nofapping mindset along with the sexual performance peak which we have seen Kinsey found at age 16-17 plus the practice rounds which some lucky boys get much earlier with older women. With that in mind, you realize sexual jealousy of the younger generation is also a male phenomenon and I shouldn’t help them TOO readily. If you read my blog so far, I think you all deserve this wisdom though. I am the real deal, so new young male readers can take my word for this or study Gary Wilson and all my own writings on nofap -- I don’t care, since it is only for your own good. I can tell you that sex is vastly underrated by this society. They hyperexaggerate all the negative aspects they can dream up including tons of completely fictional ones but then don’t mention the positives. They tell you you might as well masturbate, so little do they value sex. They don’t care if you have sex or tell you how wonderful it is the way I am doing it. You are supposed to be monogamous with a same-age partner or else masturbate. No one will tell you about the joys of living sexual life to the fullest because they are too jealous of those who do or numbed by masturbation to know about it. See how the culture lies to you about everything from fake sexual abuse to the fake value of and denied harm of masturbation and porn, for which they only make some nonsensical exceptions that serve women. The culture is not your friend.

Nonetheless I am still able to hook up with legal teen girls despite all the hate against masculinity and sexuality, so yeah, sometimes we should just celebrate the joy too. Nofap is self-help which is about the joy of life and incidentally a fuck-you to feminism at the same time.

Anonymous said...

Eivind you are an inspiration.

The AF is just a loser.

Anonymous said...

"Amused that I enjoyed her so much like that, she asked what she smelled like and I said chemistry."

Nice one. Seems like Norwegian girls are more generous than other Western girls. Most Anglosphere girls and Southern European women have terrible, greedy attitudes.

Jack said...

On a different but relevant note, Roy Baumeister came up with something very like the sexual trade-union theory in a 2002 paper entitled "Cultural suppression of female sexuality":

The view that men suppress female sexuality received hardly any support and is flatly contradicted by some findings. Instead, the evidence favors the view that women have worked to stifle each other's sexuality because sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage.

"Pussy cartel" is another concept similar to the sexual trade-union:

Eivind Berge said...

Right. Baumeister is good, but surely not the whole story of sexual suppression. The pussy cartel has simply received more academic study than the male equivalent. All we have is that essay by Ludovici as far as I know. And what a refreshing read it is! So shockingly honest. If we are to believe current culture, men are happy with their 50-year-old wives and don’t envy their sons all that much for the girls they get, but reality on the ground is probably closer to how Ludovici puts it. I see he was a conservative intellectual heavy-hitter in the early 20th century:

But then fell out of favor because he had supported Hitler in 1936. That was a bummer but shouldn’t detract from his unrelated works. Could have happened to the best of us, I guess. Kind of like saying Putin is all right for a Russian which we might have said as late as 2021, but we can’t say that anymore and I won’t, now that he is a clear enemy.

Jack said...

The above-link I supplied lead only to the abstract. Here's a link to the full text of Baumeister's meta-analysis:

The AF said...

So there's a male pussy cartel that's as powerful as the female pussy cartel (feminism), and it's primarily motivated into stopping schoolboys having sex with middle-aged teachers?

Or are you saying that the 'male pussy cartel' is responsible for high age of consent as a means to stop boys having sex with prime age teen girls? In that case, how do you explain that most countries in the world (and even most States of the USA) have 'romeo and juliet' exceptions for sex between teens? In any case, why would middle-aged men spite themselves by making it illegal to fuck teen girls just so they can stop teen boys (or middle-aged women) having sex with teen girls?

I hope it's true that you are banging (legal) teen pussy and HB10s Eivind, but honestly, your writings of late appear to suggest you are losing your marbles.

The AF said...

When men try to apparently limit the sexual opportunities of other males, for example in raging against 'pedos' and supporting anti-sex laws, I think it's much more of a case of the male 'cheater detection mode' rather than female type sexual jealousy.

Men have evolved highly tuned 'cheater detection' principles of justice, in everything from sex to financial fair play and so on. When a man rages against a percieved 'pedo', he's doing so more from a basis of - 'that guy isn't playing by the rules'. 'It's not fair that he could get away with fucking prime JB pussy when we are not allowed to (or not prepared to risk breaking the law)'. Men seemed completely happy with the sexual hedonism of the 1960's, or the 19th century (until the feminist 'social purity movement' showed up), or Anicent Rome etc (where the rules were in place to protect the virginity of citizen's daughters - they had no problem allowing each other to bang young slave girls etc).

One good counter-example to the belief that men are just as jealous bitches as women and orgainze themselves into pussy cartels (or 'penis cartels') is the fact that males overwhelmingly in Europe have supported the import of millions of young Third World males, including blacks, who will compete with them for local pussy (and outcompete them in the case of young African black men).

Contrast this with the Ukrainian refugee crise, and feminists screeching within minuts of Putin's tanks crossing the border how Ukrainian girls and women will be 'trafficked' into Europe. yes, there are right-wing men opposed to mass immigration, but that's mainly due to genuine concerns about the Islamisation of the continent etc.

Eivind thinks that men are creating these age of consent laws because they are worried their wives will run off with a 14 year old boy, despite there being not the slightest reason to be found in Evo Psy for such a thing to occur. Yet at the same time, those same men are happy to let Europe be flooded by horny young black men who have actually come here primiarly to fuck their wives and daughters.

Oh, and Eivind, when you copy other people's ideas show them respect. For example, you embrace the incel's use of the term 'normies' yet you call them wankers and losers. You deny I'm even a 'male sexualist', yet now you are embracing my 'sexual trade union theory' and trying absurdly to develop a 'male sexual trade union theory along side it (while of course terming it always 'cartel' to deny me the slightest credit).

Freetheteens69 said...


"Oh, and Eivind, when you copy other people's ideas show them respect. For example, you embrace the incel's use of the term 'normies' yet you call them wankers and losers"

Uhhh, what? Normie was originally a word used in a 1987 movie called the garbage pail kids way before the incel movement was a thing. Then in the early 2000s it was spread by 4chan and urban dictionary, again, way before anyone knew what an "incel" was. Incels have nothing to do with the word normie lol. It's just a word nonconformists use to describe ordinary boring people.

The AF said...

4Chan are/were mostly incels before incels were a thing.

So you're saying (per Wikipedia) a film that was a box-office bomb and regarded as one of the worst movies ever made popularized the term 'normie'? Eviind only started using it a year or so ago after I'd been linking to threads.

Jack said...

This author came up with an interesting theory explaining why so many people in Society have poor dating success. The theory is called "Evolutionary mismatch hypothesis". The evolutionary mismatch has to do with modern Society as opposed to traditional Society but it has nothing to do with pornography or masturbation:

Eivind Berge said...

A wanker is like a ship with no course and no captain drifting aimlessly and bumping into random obstacles (porn). It will almost never reach a worthwhile destination because it has none plotted. The same ship on a purposeful course will reach its destination, barring some extreme disaster like a hurricane. Men who know their destination is pussy are this second ship. It doesn't matter how convincing a "theory" you dream up to explain the former ship's useless voyage. You might even insist the lack of a captain and course is not a "cause" of anything, and you would be right in some sense, as it is unclear what causation even means. Being focused on the goal -- and removing all the useless drifting to nowhere -- just plain works, and that is all ye need to know. Nofap.

Eivind Berge said...

Lots of good memes here if anybody wants to do some easy activism.

Spread them everywhere possible. This is the lowest-effort activism one can do, with no risk to your personal reputation for those who are worried about that if you use anonymous accounts on Twitter and such.

Anonymous said...

@Jack - thanks for that link, it looks interesting.

However, I do think that masturbation and porn can affect dating performance.

Yesterday morning I spent 30 minutes very slowly wanking, while watching some high quality porn featuring 18 and 19 year old babes. I was edging myself - every time I felt close to ejaculation, I'd stop shuffling, and just focus on the porn.

Then I went outdoors for a walk (without ejaculating) feeling as horny as a bull let loose in a cow field. I approached 6 babes in one hour, and got two Instagrams and 1 phone number.

And they were all babes. The two Instagrams were 17 and 18, and the number I got was a 21 year old HB9.

The good thing about this method is that it makes you horny, but because you've been watching high quality porn featuring HB9s and 10s, you don't drop your standards like Eivind does with his NoFap.

Yes, I went home proud with myself and finished my wank, as I had a right too. Mission accomplished.

Eivind Berge said...

No, no, no. You are rationalizing. Like an alcoholic who convinces himself to have one more drink indefinitely. Doesn't matter how "good reason" you have, because you should have quit long ago. Even if it's a good idea to wait before contacting the girls you just met (is that old three-day rule before calling after you got a number still in effect, and does it even apply to Instagram?), haven't you been approaching someone before that you could be talking to right then? Why not? You would have had sex instead of wanking if you were doing it right, or AT LEAST some girls to talk to in the time you think you have left over to waste. See how it ruins your sex life without you even noticing? Because this is literal insanity. To an observer it's blatantly obvious. The only "mission" you accomplished is in the pathological addiction sense, and those platonic interactions with girls only served to convince you it's okay to be a wanker, lol.

Anonymous said...

"Lets build up enough courage to approach hot real girls and have their Onlyfans that we pay money for so we can masturbate by ourselves". Sick stupid guys!

Anonymous said...

How do you know I'm not having sex? Wanking over the social media pics of the girls I just got leads from is a reward, and visualizing sex with them motivates me to follow up those leads.

Plus, you're full of hot air. If you want to gain more than 6 followers on YouTube Eivind, why don't you post a little video clip of you with one of the HB10's that you're supposedly banging? Or why not a video of you approaching girls instead of training for the next Bergen marathon (what's your best 5K time btw? I'll admit, you looked quite fit talking to the camera while jogging, even if you were jogging slowly). People might actually start to take you seriously if you posted some evidence of the success you claim you are having with NoFap.

Eivind Berge said...

I have 18:46 on 5K, but couldn't do that now. Would be over 20.

You are still in denial. You lose motivation from wanking and edging makes the brain damage worse. It is true that some wankers still manage to have some sex, but they would always be better off without the porn and masturbation. They forget to compare to THEMSELVES and their own potential, which is the true opportunity cost here. You are anesthetizing your own desire for these girls by seeing them naked before getting them naked, especially with the fake "reward" which does nothing but dull your pursuit and performance should you ever get them, which won't happen because you are not seriously goal-directed.

Freetheteens69 said...

"Plus, you're full of hot air. If you want to gain more than 6 followers on YouTube Eivind, why don't you post a little video clip of you with one of the HB10's that you're supposedly banging?"

Do you understand what you just said? One, it's illegal in Norway to publicly publish someones picture without their permission. Two, this is a controversial blog. Sharing someones private photo here that you're fucking would be incredibly rude lol.

Anonymous said...

@FreeTheTeebs - Why can't he do so with the consent of the girls? BTW, I said on his YouTube channel not here. Surely they know who they are fucking? They're not going to Google his name before they get into bed with him? Possibly dangerous for Eivind if he is banging these girls and THEN they discover his public MAP activism. Especially if he is impregnating them.

Anyway, fantastic news for you and Eivind and the other NoFap MAPs. Your femiservative NGO allies behind the campaign against PornHub are now targetting (legal) teen porn.

Anonymous said...

Twitter is fascist.

Anonymous said...

That twitter post is from 2019 and no one cared about it at that time, let's not create problems where there are none.

An interesting thing has happened since I stopped masturbating to porn - of course I am rip roaring ready for any sex that I can get, but I also think about sex far less, and obsess about getting it far less as well. By removing the pornography stimulus, my brain forgets about sex more often and allows me to focus on other activities I enjoy. It has made life more unexpectedly more pleasurable in this way.

Anonymous said...

What are you talking about? It's a hashtag started this month by the NGO that brought down PornHub.

Eivind Berge said...

#Endteenporn so that you can actually have sex with teens and not waste another precious moment of your sexual life? I am down with that sentiment.

Mad respect for this male sexualist activist who went down like a modern Socrates:

Killed himself in court by drinking poison to avoid serving an unjust sentence for consensual sex with a 14-year-old girl, youth sex worker. The ultimate nonviolent way to spite the feminists. However, I wonder how many have to do that before men get sympathy for our cause? Would probably take a whole genocide, which we are getting already only less spectacularly. If you are going to be a lamb to the slaughter anyway, it is better to time your death to make a statement which for a day raises above the background noise of violence against men for our healthy normal sexuality. Kudos and RIP, Edward Leclair. The Men's Movement thank you for your service. Rest assured your time with that girl alone made your life more meaningful than an infinitude of wankers. #Endteenporn, indeed.

Anonymous said...

My comment
Twitter is fascist"
was about the new suspension of Eivind/F.Ds Twitter-account.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Twitter is fascist. Obviously not for suppressing teen porn, which they have plenty of, but for banning reasonable political views about what really matters.

Eivind Berge said...

I have been practicing my iambic pentameter and sonnet-writing skills today, composing an ode to our new hero. Take this as sonnet number negative 100 by me... after another 99 practice sonnets I may be ready too write my Sonnet #1 and then I plan to go on writing a few. Poetry shall be my new direction of activism and art.

He was a modern Socrates you see;
His wisdom was for men to emulate.
A male sexualist who went for the teen
Girls and would never ever masturbate.
And so he earned the hate of feminists
Who rule this world with odious sex laws.
He was put on trial by those fascists
For them to seize another in their jaws.
But this was not another docile lamb
They so expect. Oh no, he was a man
Of dignity and grace, who them outran
And made a mockery of punishment.
And so he drank the hemlock in the dock,
His death a shining beacon on the clock.

Anonymous said...

She is mad about a TikTok video that "humanizes" pedophiles:

Anonymous said...

God Bless Edward Leclair.

Here are some interesting quotes from the New York Times article about him:

"Mr. Leclair’s lawyer, Mike Howard, said, “I think he made the decision to do what he did at the last moment,” when he realized that he could face up to 100 years in prison, which was a likely outcome given the seriousness of the charges and the conservative nature of the county."

This man had sex with a 14 year old girl 5 times. Hey AF, what's that again about how Conservatives are not the real feminist threat to men?

“Not only did the offense traumatize the victim, and, you know, having to testify at the trial,” she said. “But then to have this happen, it’s like re-victimizing her all over again with his actions.”

Obviously, the only "trauma" that occurred was perpetrated by the state psychologists and the court system's fake sex abuse industrial complex. The hag prosecutor had no problem telling the usual lie that conservatives love to hear.

"Nearly all the jurors began to cry. Some believed that they had essentially driven a man to kill himself because of their verdict, he said. The judge was concerned that they would feel guilty — that they would feel guilty like this was their fault,” Mr. Howard said."


When prosecutors told the victim what had happened, it “deeply impacted her,” Ms. Beck said. Mr. Leclair’s manner of death also had a haunting quality for the victim, Ms. Beck said: He would often tell the girl, “If you ever tell somebody, I’m going to kill myself." "It’s a way to re-victimize somebody,” Ms. Beck said. “And that’s exactly what happened.”

All lawyers are disgusting pieces of shit, but female hag prosecutors are particularly odious. Note that the girl was still in love with Leclair, and in that moment, she realized she killed someone she loved, that this was no longer a little game she was playing.

Fuck them all. God bless Saint Leclair.

Eivind Berge said...

Amen to that. Yeah, the jurors are guilty of driving this man to death. Which is the fucking point of the prosecution. The only difference is it was supposed to happen in slow motion so they could look the other way and pretend it was "justice." Edward Leclair made an awesome statement with very little cost to himself since his life was over anyway -- I would say positive benefit as the sentence can easily be a fate worse than death.

Anonymous said...

They cry crocodile tears because, as jurors, they could simply have acquitted him.
As for American judges, they arrogantly believe that they live in the fairest legal system in the world and that everything they decide is completely justified... until they get a taste for it themselves:

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that sounds like standard treatment of prisoners... "unjustly labeled a sex offender... transferred from prison to prison without explanation... forced to spend long stints in solitary — once for 43 consecutive days... DeGuerin likened Kent's treatment to 'torture.'" If judges don't want it for themselves they should quit imposing it on others.

And juries must nullify, nullify, nullify. It's a no-brainer. 100 years in prison under torturous conditions for a victimless crime and you still want to convict? What kind of ethics could support that? Only blind bootlicking. The Milgram experiments have failed to replicate well under laboratory conditions, but that's because they don't measure up to the ritualistic authority of the "justice" system. In court you get almost perfect obedience to sadism, as demonstrated time and again under real-life conditions.

FreeTheTeens69 said...

Just went to war for 5 hours with like 40 old lady fuckers on the new game Tower Of Fantasy all by myself. While the anti feminist is still sitting here arguing about female sex offenders or whatever. Hey AF, why don't you be a bro, help your activist friends, and come actually do something with me.

Anonymous said...

Full Interview - Daria Platonova on Christian Feminism

Anonymous said...

For those unaware, Darya Platonova (aka Darya Aleksandrovna Dugina) was killed in an bomb attack in her car a couple of days ago:

Eivind Berge said...

Taking the female sex offender charade to yet another level:

A female pedophile, who's incarcerated for raping two underage boys she met online, posted TikTok videos asking for pen pals - and officials say there's nothing they can do to stop her.

Miriah Vanlith, 43, is serving a 10-year sentence behind bars at the South Idaho Correctional Institution, near Boise, for raping a 14 and 17-year-old in 2018, and enticing children over the internet, Idaho inmate public records state.

But despite her serious crimes - which saw her contact victims on Snapchat and Facebook - she made a brazen return to social media July 8, with a TikTok clip begging for 'male or female' penpals.

I suppose the idea here is that by the voodoo power of the metaphysical badness of sex this aged milf will "groom" teenage boys into sending her love letters to prison (which their 17-year-old brains are obviously too immature to prevent or understand anything about, being completely spellbound by the sex rays emanating from the mere announcement that she would like a pen pal), thereby (and despite heavy censorship of all communication) being sexually abused by the same voodoo. Prison clearly can't contain these witches sufficiently; we need to burn them at the stake immediately upon conviction or better yet at first accusation to make sure they can't ever communicate again and contaminate the world with their minor-friendly sexuality. A letter or a smoke signal or even a private sexual thought in their heads while locked up in a dungeon is too much for this world to bear, against which the full force of feminist antisex bigotry will be mustered and intensified until not a single bit of intergenerational sexual information remains in the world.

Anonymous said...

Why "female pedophile"? Was she sexually involved with the son of the 17-year old?

Eivind Berge said...

Mind-boggling, isn't it? We take for granted that terrorists and serial killers can write and receive letters in prison -- even if you are the Unabomber who used letters to commit terrorism. It is a human right that (as long as you are not directly planning crimes) is not taken away unless you are executed. It is also well known that the most violent men receive the most fan mail, none of whom have ever triggered this kind of hysteria. Actual rapists and killers receiving letters from female admirers -- no problem -- and frankly even male pedophiles doing the same. But as soon as you have a female "pedophile" (defined as loosely as you can) there is outrage simply because she says she would like to have pen pals. It is reported that she asked for "'male or female' pen pals" -- oh the horror of horrors, they managed to find a sexual undertone however faint to paint her as worse than the worst male criminals! It is astonishing that no one sees anything wrong with either the antisex or the misogyny because THIS IS FEMINISM. This is literally the witch-hunt that his civilization including most especially feminism sincerely wants and it still hasn't peaked.

As always, only Gail Tverberg knows the remedy, and her new post does a fine job explaining:

No politician wants to tell us the real story of fossil fuel depletion. The real story is that we are already running short of oil, coal and natural gas because the direct and indirect costs of extraction are reaching a point where the selling price of food and other basic necessities needs to be unacceptably high to make the overall economic system work. At the same time, wind and solar and other “clean energy” sources are nowhere nearly able to substitute for the quantity of fossil fuels being lost.

This unfortunate energy story is essentially a physics problem. Energy per capita and, in fact, resources per capita, must stay high enough for an economy’s growing population. When this does not happen, history shows that civilizations tend to collapse.

Politicians cannot possibly admit that today’s world economy is headed for collapse, in a way similar to that of prior civilizations. Instead, they need to provide the illusion that they are in charge. The self-organizing system somehow leads politicians to put forward reasons why the changes ahead might be desirable (to avert climate change), or at least temporary (because of sanctions against Russia)....

Read the whole thing, and you will understand. You will become collapse-aware. With the hopelessness that our civilization is facing comes the silver lining that feminism is facing the same hopelessness, and it won't take long either.

The AF said...

Yeah, let's hope for the end of civilization and the suffering and deaths of billions just because a middle-aged bag doesn't get the pussy pass for geting teen boys drunk and fucking them, and then being allowed to have an army of simps on TikTok. I guess you think she should be allowed an OnlyFans account too?

In Eivind we trust. Mother Nature Goddess Gail has the answer. One day..

Meanwhile, Male Sexualists get more angry over stuff like this :

Anonymous said...

The AF is a guy that licks male ass and takes cum facials because he hates woman and girls as proxy for feminists and police. Most girls dont believe in feminism.

Anonymous said...

This article may be of interest:

Anonymous said...

Girls believe in feminism the moment they need to use it to avoid taking responsibility for anything they don't like.

Eivind, once again, your peak oil retardation is over a decade late, it is a clear hoax that has been going on since the 70's. Look it up and stop being dumb already. If you want to cheerlead, it should be for the Russians and the Chinese who are containing the hideous feminist beast known as the USA. That is a real thing and that is happening now.

Anonymous said...

By the way, Marthijn Uittenbogaard's Twitter account was suspended after he was hoaxed by a feminist NGO in Mexico at the request of the Netherlands government,and therefore, the US government (which tells the Netherlands what to do). His account is very obscure, they must really hate him. There is a total war on heterosexual sex being perpetrated at the highest levels of Western government.

Uittenbogaard is a professional activist and intellectual who posted thought-provoking testimony, studies, and advocacy for sexual relationships with those under 18. Usually, they leave gay activists alone because they want homosexual pedophilia, but Uittenbogaard was targeted because he questioned the illegality of heterosexual relationships with those under 18, which is precisely what the feminists do not want. He did so with a high level of academic charisma and reasonableness, which made him that much more of a threat.

He has been a steadfast intellectual despite receiving much torture, I hope he will continue to be unbreakable.

FreeTheTeens69 said...

@anonymous "Why "female pedophile"? Was she sexually involved with the son of the 17-year old?"

the word pedophile in popular culture is an ad hom attack for anyone that likes younger girls. Like faggot is an ad hom for a gay person. A 25 year old dating a 20 year old is a "pedophile" in mainstream culture. Don't bother trying to explain to antis the technical definition of pedophilia. Just say you're a member of the pedo mafia. And ask them if they have a hot little sister.

The AF said...

Our friend Milan wont like this. American tennis fans outraged that the father and coach of a 16 year old Czech girl patted her bottom gently after she won a tough match at the US Open. They are demanding he be investigated for sexual assualt of a minor.

Anonymous said...

They already put the dad and coach on trial, the video is here:

Eivind, care to make a blog post on this trial?

Eivind Berge said...

Most sex crime trials are indeed idiocracy. They just have a veneer of sophisticated language to hide the fact that they concern empty "abuse."

I'll be blogging more, just a little busy with the movie I am acting in (which takes many months to produce).

Jack said...

In my roamings through the internet, I came across this:

It is a rare sex-positive, anti-hysteria article in the otherwise heavily censored Wikipedia.

Eivind Berge said...

Looks like a positive movie, although they messed up the definition of hebephilia:

The film's tagline is "Eighteen Is Just A Number", expressing its principal claim that all men are hebephiles, which it defines as attraction to teenagers. The film argues that society needs to make a distinction between this and true pedophilia—a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

The hebe stage is just puberty, which most teens and nearly all girls are already done with before they enter their teens. But it doesn't matter what you call it: attraction to teenagers is most definitely normal and healthy. Attraction to pubescents is also normal, but PREFERENTIAL attraction to them is slightly atypical and the only thing properly called hebephilia. If the age of consent were 12 or 13 like the male sexualists advocate, hebephiles would be mostly unsatisfied, so they need to resort to the MAP movement for activism.

The AF said...

@Jack - The men's rights activists wont like that. Typical misandry to suggest that 'all men are paedophiles'. Of course, they absurdly reject the idea that men like teens, like the paedocrite cowards they are, instead of fighting the disgusting feminist inflation and exploitation of the paedophile slur to include normal male sexuality (to shore up their own declining and pathetic SMV).

Then again, the aspie MAPs wont like it either. They want to feel 'special', remain a 'minority'. I mean, if society can embrace trannies, surely they can embrace MAPS? All they need to do is to wave teir MAP multi-colored rainbow flag, and leave #LoveIsLove hashtags on Twitter (before their accounts are banned) and feminists and SJWs will soon come round to reason and embrace them with pure love and acceptance.

@Eivind - I was looking at the aspie MAP flag you want us to embrace. Is each color supposed to represent a different precise 'bophile'. For example, pink for ohebopphiles who prefer girls of 14 years 2 months, and cyan for uhebophiles who have a preference for girls of 14 years 6 months, and purple for ubybophiles who prefer girls of 14 years 9 months etc etc?

Then again, if the woke crowd can embrace the idea of 72 different genders, I guess MAPS can embrace the idea of 72 different shades of hebophilia.

The AF said...

@Eivind - Have you thought about the success of trans activism and anything in their approach we can learn from it (beyond waving multi-colored flags and trying to become embraced by the gay and lesbian community)?

You may have read that a trans activist has single-handedly brought down KiwiFarms, one of the biggest and infamous forums online (and I think a source of some of the attacks on us here - there were certainly a few threads about you on there).

She has been accused of 'paedophilia', but it hasn't stopped her. Here is how she responds, by getting her teeth into the bones of her accuser and shouting back 'paedocrite!'. Sounds familiar?

"the type of person to accuse someone of pedophilia without any actual evidence is also the type of person that has a harddrive in their computer that would land them in jail"

MAPNOFAP: "Oh Eivind, calling somebody a paedocrite is a terrible, terrible thing to say to someone. It makes them feel bad. A better word would be 'pedonazi'"

Anonymous said...

Snake oil for the 21st century:

Anonymous said...

Hei Eivind. En prest er pågrepet og fengslet i to uker for å ha betalt en 14 år gammel jente for et nakenbilde. Dette i din hjemby. Dette er sjokkerende.

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, hatet mot vår seksualitet er sjokkerende, når man først får øynene opp for hva som foregår. Det stikker så ufattelig dypt at det er normalisert som en kontinuerlig heksejakt som mesteparten av befolkningen stiller seg 100% bak, inkludert menn. Jeg hørte nylig om en annen prest som nesten tok selvmord fordi han var straffeforfulgt for et kjærlighetsforhold til en (voksen) kvinne i menigheten, det feministene definerer som "misbruk av stilling." Alt hatet er fullstendig villet og ønsket politikk. Nå det først går opp for en at dette er systematisk, strukturelt i vår kultur, så begynner man å eitre av et så diabolsk hat tilbake mot myndighetene at jeg har ikke ord, men dessverre er det ytterst få menn som kommer til den erkjennelsen, så vi kan bare håpe på kollaps av hele sivilisasjonen slik som Gail Tverberg får mer og mer rett i for å bli kvitt faenskapen.

Eivind Berge said...

Sedelighetslovene representerer samfunnets fordømmelse av maskuliniteten. Her også bare for tanken på maskulinitet. At det går an å varetektsfengsle for en så riv ruskende likegyldig "fornærmelse" er enda en eskalering. Det er så bisart hvordan forfølgelsen av seksualitet sprer seg som en kreftsvulst inn i stadig fjernere territorium. All sex er for lengst kriminalisert, men nå er det tanken på seksualitet de skal til livs. Og det gjør de med enda mer vold enn tidligere, da det nå er mennenes digitale liv som skal heksejages for tegn på seksualitet, i tillegg at at de selvfølgelig skal bures inne før noe som helst har skjedd.

Det er ironisk at fengselsfeminismen fortrinnsvis går etter onanister som ødelegger for sin egen seksualitet, men likevel er hatet skrekkinngytende. Det er ren og skjær terror å "leve" under et sånt regime. Jeg har ingen interesse for nakenbilder (tvert imot da jeg er nofapper), men vi vet aldri hvordan de vil slå til neste gang. Som sexpositiv blogger er jeg veldig mye mer brysom for feministene enn de stakkarslige onanistene. Så det er surrealistisk at de ikke har tatt knekken på meg enda. Når vi først er inne i symbolsk kriminalitet er det en glipp av feministene at jeg som støtter seksualiteten i ord fremdeles går fri mens menn som hemmer sin egen seksualitet ved å erstatte den med symboler blir buret inne (menn som attpåtil støtter feminismen i ord). Det er en helt absurd glipp av feministstaten at de prioriterer sine voldsressurser slik, og hvor lenge vil det vare?

Hvis de hadde noe å tenke med, så hadde de tatt meg FØRST. Men så har vi jo også her å gjøre med noe umenneskelig. Systemet er en kunstig intelligens, som er PROGRAMMERT av mennesker med feministisk ideologi, men det har ingen bevissthet, annet enn individuelle politiadvokater som neppe er bevisst på krigen mot seksualitet som en distinkt agenda. De prøver bare å maksimere den straffen de kan få ut av gjeldende lover, ved å tøye dem mer og mer kreativt, men slik lovene er skrevet for øyeblikket så har man altså dette absurde fokuset på seksuelle fantasier som det mest fruktbare målet for voldsmakten. Jeg bare venter på at de også skal definere ideologi som barneporno, hvorpå jeg også blir utslettet.

Anonymous said...

Du har helt rett Eivind. Forsøk på å oppnå kontakt med kvinner er for øvrig også noe som etterforskes med stor vilje av politiet i disse dager. Da med begrunnelse i straffebestemmelsen "hensynsløs atferd". Det er dessverre ikke bare porno politi og påtalemyndighet har sitt fokus på, men absolutt
all mannlig seksualitet.

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, det er altså ikke bare sedelighetslovene som brukes til å ramme seksualiteten. På toppen av det hele får andre bestemmelser utvidet betydning når de kan brukes til å dømme noen som kanskje hadde en seksuell hensikt. Da får politiet blod på tann, vet du.

Anonymous said...

Another interesting blog by Tom O'Carroll:

Anonymous said...

I thought O'Carroll's latest article was pretty good-the survey from Hell for normies.
Another link that may be of interest about a mangina comedian named Kurtis Conner- .

Jeffrey said...

I've been informed that Nathan Larson died on Sunday September 18th, one day before his 42nd birthday. He'd been on a hunger strike for months and was being held in a prison hospital. I've not yet been able to confirm this news from official sources, but the person from whom it originates was a good friend of his and an administrator on his forum. This same person has just uploaded a 20-page handwritten manifesto by Nathan in which he explains why he chose to risk chose to risk so much to pursue a relationship with a young girl.

The manifesto begins with the following paragraph:  “As the government seems to be putting forth a misleading narrative that I sought to sexually exploit a young girl using coercion or deception, I feel it is time to correct the record.“

Here is the link to the complete manifesto:

It's important to remember that Nathan was not quite the monster or psychopath that the media has made him out to be. Granted, he has posted fantasies on the internet that would make the Marquis de Sade smile, but those posts were not indicative of how he acted in real life. To quote his own words, "When people go over the top, there’s a grain of truth to what they say." (source:

The girl that he "kidnapped" told one of her friends that she had fallen in love with him (source:, and there is no evidence whatsoever that he used coercion or threats to convince her to leave her parental home with him

Claims that he drove his ex-wife Augustine to suicide are highly doubtful, considering that she killed herself shortly after "Child Protective Services" removed her daughter from her custody indefinitely. It's much more likely that sadness about losing custody over her daughter is what motivated her suicide. In the end, both her and Nathan lost as a result of her misguided attempt to be granted sole custody. 

" Augustine took her own life on June 8, 2015, shortly after the Department of Human Services removed her child based on an anonymous tip claiming that she had mental health issues preventing her from safely caring for the child. Augustine denied this, but was unable to persuade the court to release the child from state custody. The child is currently in the care of August's parents." (source:

Claims that Nathan violently raped Augustine also seem to be false. She had a rape kink and they had an agreed-upon safe-word.  While Nathan has admitted that he ignored the safe-word on at least one occasion, it doesn't seem to be the case that he ever used physical violence against her.  It  took her weeks to decide that what happened was "rape". (source:

Eivind Berge said...

Sad news, but also good activism! Thanks for that message, Jeffrey. RIP Nathan Larson: you are a sexualist hero and martyr.