The ritualistic aspects of "predator hunting"

Well, if this is not the peak of so-called predator hunting I don't know what will be. Perhaps they can push the age gap down to two years and still pull it off, but it's already eating into even what otherwise sickeningly hateful normies who would gladly burn a man like me at the stake deem to be acceptable for themselves. The Guardian writes that

Hansen’s final target is an 18-year-old called Hunter, planning to meet a 15-year-old, an age difference that wouldn’t be illegal in certain states. They run with it anyway (“I hope we’re not ruining his life,” one of the producers says, offhand, during lunch) and we get to meet Hunter’s parents in the aftermath, a life ruined just before graduation. “I just don’t know how the worst day of my life could be something that people are getting snacks for,” his mother says.'

It's amazing how "predator hunting" has taken off, huh? As if it's up for grabs for any thug to give themselves license to harass and beat up men for being men. I shall say a few words about the phenomenon.

The Aztecs used to sacrifice people, lots of people including children. I am sure that did not mean you could grab any random child and kill them, say your neighbor's just because you felt like it. Children (and adults) to be sacrificed had to be selected via some kind of ritual. The chosen ones were no more "deserving" or "guilty" of something than anyone else; they were simply victims of a ritual. Which reportedly sometimes consisted of their parents offering them up for sacrifice, or having the misfortune to be captured in military strife, but that is still a ritual or happenstance rather than having some intrinsic badness which ought to be expunged from society.

Shirley Jackson's short story The Lottery gives a fictional account of how selection for modern ritual human sacrifice might work. It is a scary story because it is so believable that people will act that way, which is supported not just by history but the present reality of "predator hunting."

Current society is convinced that whoever is ritually identified as a "predator," or to make it as simple as possible for increasingly lazy hunters who get in on this cottage industry now commonly called a "pred," deserves to be stoned or some equally violent or socially excluding equivalent. I'm fascinated that a ritual which does nothing to actually set you apart nevertheless earns you that damning label. It's perfectly normal to be attracted to the teenage decoys they tend to use, so normal that you can be diagnosed with sexually hypoactive desire disorder if you are NOT attracted to them, and still the ritual is "valid" to society. Now in maximum fairness to the pred hunters you might still argue that it is the propensity to break the law when seeing an opportunity, rather than any sexual deviance, that is being "tested" in the ritual. But then why does this particular law have privileged status to justify treating hypothetical lawbreaking as a real crime? This is absurd when we know the crime would be victimless if it were real. It would be far more relevant to legitimate social interests to have sting operations on just about any other law. For example one might pose as accountants who offered to help you cheat on your taxes. Why is that not ritualistically accepted? The ritual only works for sex-exceptionalism. I have no doubt the majority of men could be incriminated this way if they were made to believe they could get away with it, and if not sex with a jailbait girl then I am sure there is something criminal to tempt everybody if we were all presented with whatever is most tempting to us individually. In "fairness" perhaps we all should be so tested, except there would be no society left to protect from the criminals when we are all criminals.

It is literally a lottery. Even more fascinating, experience tells me that I can proudly admit to the same propensity to disrespect the sex laws if given an opportunity which is believable to me, and nothing happens because it fails to satisfy the ritualistic manner in which society starts believing you are a "pred." No matter how clearly I put it here it just isn't "real" enough to society that I am just like their "predators." You cannot incriminate yourself this way, but men don't know this, so they are terrified to self-identify or speak out against the witch-hunt and therefore miss out on the best way to undermine it.

I gather that the most effective rituals are not perceived by their participants as rituals, but rather some kind of direct "truth" or "magic" or "justice." I imagine the Aztecs were not heavily into cultural anthropology, and though we do have that academic discipline these days, most normies do not observe "pred hunting" with the mindset of an anthropologist such as I do now (I did actually take a class in it at college, which helps). Instead they go about it as primitively as the Aztecs. I am writing this with the hope that readers might take on a more academic view.

This could cut both ways. If the normies realize that Eivind is in every morally relevant way exactly like the "preds" whom they believe in hunting (if not much worse since I am a lifelong activist at this), they might decide to hunt me too. But I am willing to take that risk because I care so much about activism and am even tempted by the idea of reverse stings. More logically, however, the normies should realize that they are "preds" themselves too, and that the phenomenon of "pred hunting" is part of a more general kind of ritual -- human sacrifice -- that we really do want to consign to the dustbin of history because it inflicts cruelty for no good reason.

Sadly it is not so simple. Perhaps the need to find scapegoats and someone to hate is too deep-seated to give up. There is a twisted logic to the ritual as well. By necessity, when everyone is eligible and there are also no volunteers or none permitted, only a ritual can set you apart as a sacrificial victim. The simplest ritual for this purpose is a lottery, with the current method being only slightly more complex, requiring some crude trial which really only tests the victim's gullibility -- typically whether you believe you are being seduced by a 15-year-old girl and not entrapped by the most revolting scum society can come up with -- but it does do the trick of convincing the normies that we have identified a witch or pedo or pred or however the latest slang goes (the latter being so new it still feels like parody to me, but it gets millions of views and full support in the mainstream). Isn't it amazing how an empty ritual, which is so simple to concoct that any self-selected group with no higher qualifications than being bored teenagers or failed gangsters or whatever can set it up on a whim, can take on such significance that all the normies fall in line with their "judgment"? A minimalistic ritual it is, but you DO need a ritual. A mere fact of the matter will not suffice. Those decoys despite being completely fake are "hyper-real" that way, thanks to the ritual magic, far more consequential to the public's opinion of you than carrying on relationships with real minors.

Self-sacrifice may be permitted in some types of human sacrifice, but only if you believe in the rationale for the ritual or plead guilty without coercion (if coerced as in a plea-bargain, it can get you sacrificed but it ain't self-sacrifice). When the ritual is supposed to hunt "evil" people as now, and I disbelieve that the accusation amounts to evil, it becomes inefficacious to point out that I am just like the "preds" who are otherwise hunted on the same level of factual evidence. This is also how I read Shirley Jackson's story (but not the Aztec kind of sacrifice, which was not so much about scapegoating as satisfying incredibly greedy gods with all they had). When scapegoating is the idea, you get the same ticket to the lottery as everyone else (in practice the odds are probably somewhat adjusted according to social status though, but not necessarily to the better for those on top). If someone offered to be a martyr to spare the others, the ritual would feel ineffective and the gesture would be declined, particularly if the martyr doubted the necessity of the sacrifice (or if not prevented, martyrdom would be hidden and lied about as in the case of Nathan Larson, who despite making the ultimate sacrifice failed to get the point across to the normies that he was engaging in civil disobedience).

I submit that if a "pred hunter" group or even Chris Hansen himself were to attack me now based on my blog, they would be met with social disapproval (and prosecution if they got violent) because it is out of line with the ritual. The entire spectacle that they get away with against so many non-activist men is fed by the ritual rather than what we actually are (since we are the same apart from the activism); that's how empty and contemptible the whole idea of "predator hunting" is.

While this realization won't put an end to the insane vigilantism we are seeing now, it can be used by other non-normies to protect themselves somewhat. As a rule, remember that if you don't hide, they don't hunt you, because there is no sport or ritual magic or whatever the hell it is supposed to accomplish in hunting those of us who proudly identify as what the normies claim to be this exceptional social menace that we need to bring back human sacrifice to combat. Perhaps there is some logic here too, since the menace is supposed to be silently lurking everywhere, which is integral to the "hunt." An open activist is so far removed from this script that he is ignored, at least until he qualifies for the more formal rituals employed by the police and "justice" system, who largely operate in the same superstitious way on this topic but with higher standards of "evidence" (in Norway at least; this is not true in the US where cops are so systemically corrupt that they employ the same stings as the vigilantes). And that kind of process, too, is less likely to be forthcoming when you don't act like a scaredy normie who is terrified of the ritual because he believes in it.

The takehome that I want my anonymous readers to get from this post is that you fear the wrong thing when you are afraid to sign your real name to comments. You need to be ritually identified to be in danger. To “be” a pedo or now “pred” is largely meaningless, and if you only like pubescent children or teenagers, which is to have a normative sexuality which cannot be diagnosed with a deviance, it is completely meaningless. I don’t fear the ritual either -- I’m itching to mess with the hunters in a reverse sting -- but if you are going to fear something, then fear the ritual, not admitting the fact of being who you are.

Those who pass as predator hunters are empowered by society with its current superstitions to ritualistically identify "predators," but remember that the ritual is governed by stricter rules than it seems and therefore your fear of speaking out against the predator hunters is unfounded. The "justice" system also ritualistically identifies predators via convictions or coerced pleas. Sex offender registries are a refined level of ritualistic identification, though curiously less hyper-real than sting operations. The media calling someone a predator based on accusation alone sometimes works and sometimes not. But what I have found does not work at all is to self-identify as honestly having the substantial qualities of a "predator." Stating an opinion as on a blog like I am doing now or in any kind of publication where you yourself get credit is not a ritual in this sense, and cannot be picked up by those other shamanistic institutions to brand you a predator or witch. I believe I have thus identified a general rule of witch-hunts: you cannot accuse yourself, at least not of the hypothetical crimes which now incriminate an endless stream of "predators." I challenge anyone to prove me wrong if you think I am wrong, but I have never seen self-identification lead to dire consequences and most often it has positive effects.

As an activist against antisex-hysteria I am here to mock the "pred hunting" ritual, the underlying CSA-hoax dogma, the laws and the normies who believe in all this. To our long list of ways to mock and undermine them we can now add talking about the ritualistic aspects that the normies would rather not see that way. They need a ritual to prop up their persecution of imaginary predators which deflates when you pay attention to how it really works, so take note and try to encourage more anthropological thinking on this as opposed to full immersion in the beliefs.