I currently can't publish comments on my blog, so making a new blog post in order to troubleshoot and see if it is a glitch or censorship (please help by making a comment to see if it gets through). This is the comment I was trying to post, in relation to Amos Yee's latest blog post:
So, Amos is now also in trouble for "inciting racial feelings" and "harassment." Most disconcertingly his views on pedophilia appear to be criminalized in Singapore, which goes to show it is probably the most draconian nation on earth against MAP speech.
So for the 4 new charges I have, 2 of them are for my views on pdfs (1 charge is for the videos I made in 2017. The other is for the blog post I wrote recently). They got me under POHA, the protection against harassment act. My views were apparently so disturbing to some people, someone filed a police report on it, and they considered my words 'harassment'. And so I was charged. To break the law for this, as long as you say something that causes people 'alarm', you have broken the law. The punishment for these charges isn't too much, just a fine that can be converted to about a week or so of a prison sentence each.
Here is a blog post he wrote recently which might be the one he is referring to?
https://www.amosyee.org/14-year-old.htm
It certainly does not "harass" anyone in any reasonable sense. If this is criminal speech in Singapore then they have gone way more insane in their crackdown on speech than the UK and anywhere else I know of and would pretty much make MAP activism illegal there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
From what I understand, Amos Yee was charged for his writings denouncing the way Singapore discriminates against Chinese and other minorities, and not so much for MAP issues.
Now I can comment again. Must have been a bug.
Yes, seems they care more about the racial issues, but Amos says himself that he is also charged for his blog and videos on MAP issues, which is more sinister than the usual "hate speech" prosecutions but thankfully limited to Singapore for now. It would really mess up our speech if anyone could shut is down just for feeling "alarmed."
Although I guess it can only affect me and Amos and about five other people worldwide since no one else wants to risk saying anything that is not politically correct about "sexual abuse" unless they are sure they are speaking anonymously.
Eivind's comment is on point. I would add that I find it worrisome that Amos Yee is apparently being charged with stirring up trouble over MAP-related issues in a country that was not previously especially noted for paedohysteria. Singapore has already suppressed free speech on other topics, but moving to MAP-related issues-and being nearly the first country in the world to do so-is quite worrying. I say "nearly" because I believe in Poland it is now a crime to say that the age of consent should be lowered.
-Anonymous 2
Lesbian debater says that women are never more attractive than when they are 14-15 years old. She's of course correct about that.
https://youtu.be/Oh8sDlUfoqc?t=2275
Yes, women will never be prettier than at 14-15. This is very straightforwardly stated by lesbian activist Tonje Gjevjon at the "Snakk med Silje" podcast there as the obvious fact that it is.
Any thoughts on Lindsay Clancy?
I don’t think women who kill their children in the course of postpartum psychosis are evil. They are victims of a brain disorder and should be excused from criminal responsibility. That’s exactly what the justice system settled on as well except for one juror who blocked an acquittal, and despite a surprising amount of public sentiment in agreement with that insane juror I don’t think it can be reversed to the point that an entire jury will want to convict if there is a retrial either, so women don’t have much to worry about from this kind of persecution. Despite prosecutors trying, thanks to jury trials it’s not really much of concern and feminists should be focused on the female sex offender charade instead which is a massive injustice against women that actually succeeds in filling the prisons with good women.
You’re not off, Eivind. Michael Tracey has been expressing similar sentiments…
https://www.mtracey.net/p/remove-these-foul-creatures
https://www.mtracey.net/p/lindsay-clancy-men
Yeah, Michael Tracey is showing a pattern of sanity here that resonates with me just like he does with Epstein.
On the other hand I am seeing a shocking pattern where men whose judgments I used to respect at least on some things come out with hysterical views that we are “condoning child murder” and risking an epidemic of it by letting Lindsay Clancy get away with it. For example Michael Huemer is a philosopher who can think clearly and intelligently on many things, but now he wrote this blog post:
https://fakenous.substack.com/p/what-is-positive-about-child-murder
The second thing is that, even if some people feel sympathy for Clancy, they *should* be afraid to say so publicly. They should be afraid that large, public demonstrations of support for Lindsay Clancy would be misunderstood as condoning child-murder, or as communicating that homicidal feelings toward children are normal. (Perhaps homicidal feelings toward people who operate leaf blowers in the morning are normal, but not toward your kids. Unless your kids are operating leaf blowers; then all bets are off.)
If we had such a charitable society that no one would have such misunderstandings, that would be one thing. But we don’t, and I don’t think the supporters believe we do. Rather, I think they don’t care or did not consider whether they would be seen as condoning child-murder. This may indicate that condoning child-murder is now more socially acceptable than it has ever been. It’s hard to think of a clearer way in which a culture could be corrupt.
This is silly. There is no risk that women will somehow be encouraged to kill their children, nor that society is starting to approve of child murder just because we don’t want to convict Lindsay Clancy as a murderer.
Maybe she is lying about some things like hearing voices for this purpose only, but I think the impulse to kill her children by itself was pretty conclusive evidence of insanity because it is something no sane woman would want to do, at least not in any kind of society we are on the way to. Human sacrifice of children can be a thing, but this is not the path to it.
Women are already encouraged to kill their children by Clancy's pussy pass. I posted the relevant link on the AF's. The murderess in this case if I temember right even used a similar execution method (strangulation)
I heard there was a similar case but we can't conclude it is anything more than statistical noise from one more case. Yes, people go insane sometimes and this is one way. It's not socially generated child murder.
Eivind, you should reach out to Lindsay Clancy and invite her to join Fertile Dating for a second chance at motherhood. You could offer to impregnate her. The controversy would be free publicity for your site and maybe some fertile young liberal women would join Fertile Dating too and even the sexualist movement.
Eivind, I believe the blog post he's being charged with related to MAP issues is this one: http://web.archive.org/web/20260720065241/https://www.amosyee.org/babysex.html
He had to delete it as they threatened to revoke his bail if he didn't.
Please shut up! You are nothing but a despicable, insufferable troll. Instead of trying to mock Eivind like you always do (we know exactly who you are but you shall not be named), perhaps you could learn to be more receptive of other’s perspectives instead of just whining or mimicking for the sake of your own selfish ego?
The fact that even Michael Tracey himself called out the MRA moment on this should tell SOMETHING, which most of you are CLEARY missing.
So let’s get real here, you obviously don’t want the facts or the nuance (or anything reasonable for that matter), you just want to validate the revenge/ “just desserts” fantasy most modern “MRAs” are hungry for whenever a woman is put on trial.
Obviously nothing wrong with that post on free speech grounds, but I can’t categorically get behind what he is arguing. We do not endorse sex with babies and toddlers here either. That would obviously be abuse if understood as penetrative sexual intercourse. But there is something off about this panic against all “sexual acts” as necessarily “exploitative.” For example, does he want to lock up women who engage in the time-honored tradition of fellating little boys to calm them down, such as the Victorians were known for??? That would be crazy. I can generally agree with what he is saying if it is taken with common sense, but not if it is taken literally like the justice system unfortunately has a tendency to do if we program it in this categorical way.
I can’t endorse sex laws based on terms like “sexual acts.” We MUST have some room for interpretation to make it a sensible standard. For example “indecent” is a better word that is still used in some countries. A sexual act can be decent or indecent based on other factors. Amos has fallen into the retarded feminist trap of discarding all the old wisdom of using looser or more nuanced terms in favor of the CSA hoax which postulates that sexuality itself is abusive. This is a lie, and it is never sufficient to define a crime strictly by identifying a “sexual act” and ignoring all other details.
Being the undiscreet sensual persons that we are around here, let us take some solace in what Robert Burton has to say about undiscreet sensual persons in his ANATOMY OF MELANCHOLY:
If fitly match'd be man and wife,
No pleasure's wanting to their life.
But to undiscreet sensual persons, that as brutes are wholly led by sense, it is a feral plague, many times a hell itself, and can give little or no content, being that they are often so irregular and prodigious in their lusts, so diverse in their affections. Uxor nomen dignitatis, non voluptatis, as he said, a wife is a name of honour, not of pleasure: she is fit to bear the office, govern a family, to bring up children, sit at a board's end and carve, as some carnal men think and say; they had rather go to the stews, or have now and then a snatch as they can come by it, borrow of their neighbours, than have wives of their own; except they may, as some princes and great men do, keep as many courtesans as they will themselves, fly out impune, Permolere uxores alienas, that polygamy of Turks, Lex Julia, with Caesar once enforced in Rome, (though Levinus Torrentius and others suspect it) uti uxores quot et quas vellent liceret, that every great man might marry, and keep as many wives as he would, or Irish divorcement were in use: but as it is, 'tis hard and gives not that satisfaction to these carnal men, beastly men as too many are: What still the same, to be tied to one, be she never so fair, never so virtuous, is a thing they may not endure, to love one long. Say thy pleasure, and counterfeit as thou wilt, as Parmeno told Thais, Neque tu uno eris contenta, “one man will never please thee;” nor one woman many men. But as Pan replied to his father Mercury, when he asked whether he was married, Nequaquam pater, amator enim sum &c. “No, father, no, I am a lover still, and cannot be contented with one woman.” Pythias, Echo, Menades, and I know not how many besides, were his mistresses, he might not abide marriage. Varietas delectat, 'tis loathsome and tedious, what one still? which the satirist said of Iberina, is verified in most,
Unus Iberinae vir sufficit? ocyus illud
Extorquebis ut haec oculo contenta sit uno.
'Tis not one man will serve her by her will,
As soon she'll have one eye as one man still.
As capable of any impression as materia prima itself, that still desires new forms, like the sea their affections ebb and flow. Husband is a cloak for some to hide their villainy; once married she may fly out at her pleasure, the name of husband is a sanctuary to make all good. Eo ventum (saith Seneca) ut nulla virum habeat, nisi ut irritet adulterum. They are right and straight, as true Trojans as mine host's daughter, that Spanish wench in Ariosto, as good wives as Messalina. Many men are as constant in their choice, and as good husbands as Nero himself, they must have their pleasure of all they see, and are in a word far more fickle than any woman.
For either they be full of jealousy,
Or masterfull, or loven novelty.
Good men have often ill wives, as bad as Xanthippe was to Socrates, Elevora to St. Lewis, Isabella to our Edward the Second; and good wives are as often matched to ill husbands, as Mariamne to Herod, Serena to Diocletian, Theodora to Theophilus, and Thyra to Gurmunde. But I will say nothing of dissolute and bad husbands, of bachelors and their vices; their good qualities are a fitter subject for a just volume, too well known already in every village, town and city, they need no blazon; and lest I should mar any matches, or dishearten loving maids, for this present I will let them pass.
Being that men and women are so irreligious, depraved by nature, so wandering in their affections, so brutish, so subject to disagreement, so unobservant of marriage rites, what shall I say? If thou beest such a one, or thou light on such a wife, what concord can there be, what hope of agreement? 'tis not conjugium but conjurgium, as the Reed and Fern in the Emblem, averse and opposite in nature: 'tis twenty to one thou wilt not marry to thy contentment: but as in a lottery forty blanks were drawn commonly for one prize, out of a multitude you shall hardly choose a good one: a small ease hence then, little comfort,
Nec integrum unquam transiges laetus diem.
If he or she be such a one,
Thou hadst much better be alone.
I can’t really disagree with this. None of us obligate polyamorists are married, are we?
I did not know the story of Mariamne and Herod, had to look it up. Now that's an interesting way to make a woman fall out of love:
Mariamne I was the Hasmonean princess and favorite wife of Herod the Great, who had her executed in 29 BCE.
Relationship and Marriage
• Political alliance: Herod married Mariamne in 37 BCE to unite his family with the royal Hasmonean (Maccabean) dynasty and gain local legitimacy.
• Family tension: Herod deeply loved her, but he also systematically executed her male relatives—including her grandfather, brother Aristobulus III, and uncle—out of fear of rival claimants to the throne.
• Secret orders: Before leaving on political trips, Herod twice left instructions with confidants to execute Mariamne if he did not return, ensuring no other man would have her; Mariamne discovered these fatal "insurance policies," which destroyed her love for him.
Downfall and Execution
• False charges: Urged by his jealous sister Salome, Herod accused Mariamne of plotting against him and committing adultery.
• Trial and death: A tribunal of Herod's chosen judges condemned her, and she was executed in 29 BCE at around 28 years of age.
• Aftermath: Her death plunged Herod into deep remorse and marked the beginning of his physical and mental decline.
At this point Eivind, you agree much less with pro-male interests, and much more with sex positive feminism.
Congratulations.
anon69
A high-profile CSA conviction starts falling apart:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/07/us/jerry-sandusky-hearing-trial-appeal
I remember thinking how insane this was when it was going on in 2012, and now one of the “victims” has recanted and explained the methods used by prosecutors to gain convictions (as if the $109 million paid to accusers wasn't enough incentive to tell exactly what the abuse industry wants to hear):
In their earlier petition for a new trial, Sandusky defense attorneys said lead prosecutor Joseph McGettigan relied on the heavily debated theory that the trauma of abuse can cause memories to be repressed by sexual assault victims.
“I was told – both directly and indirectly – that trauma may have fragmented my memory, and that I could safely affirm details I did not fully recall,” Rittmeyer said in his affidavit. “I was assured this was common and even expected.”
Rittmeyer never had any formal therapy sessions to recover repressed memories, he said in his affidavit, but later discovered “many accusers, like myself, were encouraged to reconstruct traumatic narratives despite significant memory gaps.”
At the trial in 2012, Rittmeyer testified he and Sandusky had oral sex multiple times at The Second Mile, a program he had been referred to while in foster care. He testified Sandusky threatened that Rittmeyer would never see his family again if he told anyone.
Although he denies he committed any deliberate perjury, Rittmeyer now says he was “induced” to say on the witness stand what prosecutors wanted.
“I was led to believe that failing to testify in the manner prosecutors expected would allow a dangerous man to escape justice,” he wrote. “I internalized their version of events to the point of confusion between memory, suggestion, and expectation.”
Now extrapolate this to an entire industry across a civilization for half a century and counting and you get an idea of the scale of the CSA hoax. Additionally, Sandusky appears to be a victim of the extra demonology cranked up for gay men since he got 30-60 years where a straight man would probably get half.
AI Response:
"Robert Cialdini's book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion discusses this exact concept.
The Werther Effect: In the chapter on Social Proof, Cialdini explores how media reports about suicides lead to a dramatic spike in copycat suicides and fatal accidents (car and plane crashes) shortly after the news airs or is published.
Imitation by Similarity: People are heavily influenced to copy the actions of others when they perceive those individuals as similar to themselves. When a publicized act is featured prominently on the news, vulnerable people identify with the person in the story, making them far more likely to imitate the behavior."
anon69
This is the supposed copycat case:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/06/us/illinois-corie-walsh-child-death
An Illinois mother had become “very invested” in the high-profile Lindsay Clancy murder trial before prosecutors say she killed her 2-year-old son on Tuesday, according to witnesses cited in court documents.
Corie Walsh, a 40-year-old resident of Frankfort, was charged with first-degree murder after prosecutors allege she fatally strangled her son, Barrett Walsh, according to a complaint filed on Friday and obtained by CNN affiliate WLS....
Walsh’s attorney, Andrea Lyon, told CNN Walsh had been in a mental health crisis.
“This is a tragedy, for the Walsh family all of whom are mourning the loss of this child,” Lyon said Friday. “It is also a tragedy in that [Corie] herself was experiencing a psychotic episode at the time this happened. It is our hope that through a thorough presentation and investigation of the facts, that all of us will come to see this heartbreak for what it is.”
Why should I believe prosecutors over the defense here? We know prosecutors are oh so trustworthy in light of how they handle CSA, right? Why not accept that this other child killer was in a mental health crisis independent of the Lindsay Clancy trial and was liable to do something stupid anyway. Sure, methods can be influenced by the news and for a tiny few it can be enough to push them over the edge and commit murder or suicide if they are already very mentally unwell, but there is no cause for alarm here, just statistical noise with no impact on the big picture.
Eivind, I am not sure if you are reading what Amos said the same way as me. The way I read it is as a slightly troll post to basically double down on his position that consensual acts at any age are fine while appearing not to. He's basically saying under his idea of abolishing the age of consent that the age of consent would effectively be three because no kid has ever consented below that age (according to his evidence - or lack of) - whilst still allowing for the hypothetical possibility that a child under three (maybe a baby born as mature as an adult like Stewie from Family Guy) could consent.
Of course whether the lack of evidence of children under three consenting is accurate is another thing. As you point out women (or men haha) fellating little boys does no harm. The reason there's a lack of evidence of that in his mind is he's going off testimonials of people who had underage relationships. However, long-term memories don't start to form until about 4 or so as a consequence anyone with a relationship below 4 wouldn't remember it...!
Okay, maybe Amos is trolling when he presents himself as a more moderate MAP than he used to be. Anyway, we would be nitpicking if we take issue with him. The main thing is firstly to be able to have the debate in the first place that Singapore is ominously shutting down. And then there are so few people willing to take a public stand that even sex with 17-year-olds should be legal that Amos deserves the utmost respect, never mind that we might not agree 100%.
Remember those 163 "missing" children who were "recovered" in Florida?
This is what Maggie McNeill has to say about them:
https://maggiemcneill.com/2026/09/05/in-the-news-1669/
It's been 4 years since this cop fad died out, long enough for Americans to forget:
Florida [copaganda] officials [claim] a statewide ["]operation["] has helped find dozens of...children [and teenagers whose records the state had misplaced, or who were living with someone other than the court-assigned custodial parent or guardian]. Florida [psychopath-] General James Uthmeier [claimed] 163 children were ["]recovered[", but in reality few were actually children and none were actually]...missing...Officials...[also tested a new euphemism for jails used to cage young people the State has decided to brand "]human trafficking[" victims, namely]...["]designated recovery hubs["]...
These “missing child operations” were innovated in Georgia in September 2020 after the pandemic made actual “stings” much more difficult, and became popular with cop shops all over the US for about two years. They're constructed by combining a few arrests of sex workers and clients with mass arrests of teens in foster care and shelters and pretending they’re related.
So we didn't dismiss it as bullshit quickly enough! It's even further from the truth than minors staying longer with their boyfriends than their parents liked. As I concluded in the end, it was a COMPLETE fabrication to make fodder for the abuse industry as none were missing at all.
When I read this, I picture females eager to give another female the pussy pass:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/lindsay-clancy-juror-says-holdout-213940918.html
Immunity for murder, that's what it is. One man in the jury saw murder for what it is.
𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴, 𝘐 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴…
I wouldn’t be so keen on that assumption, Jack. I sincerely doubt it’s a deliberate “pussy pass” since juries don’t work like that (or shouldn’t work like that regardless).
Look at the 9-3 verdict in Harvey Weinstein’s most recent rape trial in New York. The only three who voted guilty were all men. Every SINGLE woman a part of that particular jury panel voted Not Guilty.
https://nypost.com/2026/05/15/us-news/judge-declares-mistrial-in-harvey-weinsteins-third-nyc-sex-crimes-trial/
A lot of that was decided on the insufficient evidence, numerous inconsistencies/contradictions, the prosecution’s inability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt —on top of the fact that the relationship between Jessica Mann (the accuser) and Harvey Weinstein continued well after the “rape”.
You’re acting like a hidden feminist monolith infiltrated the Clancy jury, which really isn’t there so to speak.
Just because one man happened to dissent, he suddenly has a greater sense of clarity than the rest?
I mean, are we just gonna ignore the two other men who voted guilty, right?
Seriously, that’s what it all boils down to? A simple “pussy pass”? Quite a short-sighted view to have, don’t you think?
*correction: Voted *Not* guilty by reason of insanity.
As a female pedo there is a genuine problem with actual mysogny in the map movement. I was trying to respond to a particular commenter on the last post but it wont let me, but these are my views with a lot of men in the community since alot of men in the community unfortunatly have these views.
Funny how I see so many men complaining about how male sexuality is demonized by females and that females are too paranoid about being viewed sexually by males, but males also admit that they think women are dumber and that billions of women and girls should loose basic human rights just so that they can get their dicks wet.
If this is genuinely how male pedos feel about little girls and women than it makes complete sense that society trusts female pedos a billion times more than male pedos and that male pedos should be dealt with as swiftly and violently as possible for the safety of little girls.
I guess the problem with male pedos isnt the pedophillia, but the male. Absolutely ridiculous. So many male “problems”, especially with the female gender, you guys have brought upon yourselves, and every day males make it harder and harder for females to sympathize with them.
“How come female pedos are treated so much better in society and trusted so much more than male pedos” OH JEEZ?! I really dont know?! Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that males have proven time and time and time and time again that they care more about getting laid then the rights and autonomy of the people they are getting laid with?? Hmmm?? /sarcasm.
I have a problem with the dumbification of minors, the paranoia, the government overreach, and the desexuliazation of minors as well, not to mention I do find little girls hot, so im in no means anti pedo.
And obviously, not all men are like this, not all male pedos are like this, but I have seen too many male pedos with the “women are the enemy and should loose their rights” sentiment on map spaces, and for the men who feel this way, us women have zero reason to defend you or feel bad when you face the consequences of your own actions.
This also means that women are well within their rights to use any means possible, no matter how lethal, to protect girls from genuinely misogynistic male pedos who think they are dumb and shouldnt have rights. (Oh, and even when women had less rights there still was an aoc for girls and paranoia about female sexual purity, so I dont understand why anon69 thinks that taking away womens rights well take away the aoc and the attitudes towards it)
“How come there are so little female pedos joining the map movement and supporting male pedos?” If we think little girls are hot, and you, as a male pedo, think little girls are hot and think they are also dumb and shouldnt have rights, us women have no part of this movement.
Thanks to our female pedophile commenter for sharing your perspective. It carries weight because if this is how you feel then I believe that’s how lots of women would tend to react to our movement even if they had no problem with pedophilia per se: “I guess the problem with male pedos isn’t the pedophilia, but the male.” I can’t entirely dismiss this view except to say I am trying to be an exception myself, which may or may not always succeed, and indeed I have already distanced myself from some of our spaces because they are downright misogynistic in my view too, especially on the female sex offender charade and now also on postpartum psychosis.
I watched this video with Sam Harris, who as usual is a clown in my opinion, but this one has a funny ending where he gets owned by a woman after his self-righteous, harebrained spiel about how we should “cure” psychopaths instead of punishing them with prison like we do now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmEl2KlgEFo
She points out that we don’t have to wait to discover a “cure” for criminal behavior because we already know it is almost entirely a function of testosterone, for which a cure is already known called castration. She also points out that society simply ignores this piece of information. Instead we label bad behavior in these roundabout ways like calling pedophilia bad even though the problem is just masculinity. There is nothing wrong with pedophilia, male or female, but men are 20 times more likely to be genuinely badly behaved at it if we go by the usual proportion of 20 times more men than women in prison for everything. So in this case society does not even bother to make a distinction between good and bad pedophiles at all, except possibly female ones.
Unfortunately the video ends before Sam Harris gets to respond, because I would have liked to see if he still wants to “cure” crime instead of having the usual threat of punishments, in which case I think it is only fitting that he should go first before imposing the cure on all of us.
Yeah, we do know that the cause of most bad behavior is males, but I would like to push back some here against the female pedophile like I do against Sam Harris, because it just comes with the territory that you can’t have masculinity without a certain amount of violence and misbehavior, and without masculinity you don’t get to have a civilization either or anyone to defend you from groups who don’t want to be castrated. So while I agree there is too much misogyny in MAP spaces, be careful with going too far at simply blaming men and wishing to imprison or otherwise get rid of us all.
Two things:
1) This will be the last comment I make on Eivind Berge's blog, as you (Eivind) support this mentally ill piece of shit "female pedophile," and you have become a complete waste and embarrassment no longer worth anyone's time.
2) To the mentally ill piece of shit "female pedophile" - fuck you, and your mentally ill gibberish. I will add, your mentally ill desire to have sex with toddlers has a very high chance of being dealt with swiftly, violently, and lethally.
anon69
If you can’t get along with a female pedophile, then how do you expect girls to like you? Because I would think they have similar reactions to your views on women’s rights. I guess you rely on anonymity and don’t express how you really feel about women where they can see who you are. That leaves a gap I would be uncomfortable with myself. I prefer to have opinions that I can stand for everywhere. If your views scare women and girls away who have no problem with pedophilia, then maybe there is something wrong with those views.
"She points out that we don’t have to wait to discover a “cure” for criminal behavior because we already know it is almost entirely a function of testosterone". Some BS indeed!
She didn’t suggest “treating” men for being men; only Sam Harris did that!
It is possible to both acknowledge the cause of most criminal behavior and not want to do something so radical about it. This is what society has settled on, with the only exception being for some sex offenders who can legally be castrated, but even that isn’t implemented at scale. Of course anything like this is worth resisting with total war.
I think if we are honest it becomes intuitive how much of our criminal and rebellious streak is caused by being men. I feel my masculinity is the wellspring not just of liking girls and breaking the sex laws but also obviously of my radicalization against society. To seethe and roil and shake for a lifetime with homicidal hatred against law enforcement... this is testosterone speaking, sublimated into rebellion against the sex laws. I am, to be sure, almost unique among men too, but other men will find other ways to be transgressive because they are men. In the end, maleness does indeed explain at least 95% of criminal behavior, for evil but also good since we can also rebel to change society for the good like I am trying to do.
Women don’t have anything like it, noting to motivate them to rebellion or crime to anything near the same degree. Even the most rebellious women against social norms, like our rare female pedophile here, can only really come up with a vague idea that men are bad as opposed to the all-consuming rage that I feel, and I would guess, and this is just a guess, that her fear of the consequences even outweighs her desire to break the sex laws, in stark contrast to men with lots of testosterone who therefore value sex more than life itself.
Let me now write a comment directed at Sam Harris. I imagine he would object that he didn’t mean it like that. He only wants to cure “bad” male behavior and not maleness itself, like men who can be diagnosed with some sort of psychopathology. I don’t think this makes sense either. At best it can get rid of some repeat offenders, but there’s an awful lot of crime performed by someone without a prior conviction or diagnosis or reason to diagnose them, and then there is all the unprosecuted crime like all the CSA and Epstein panic that Sam Harris also believes in. Since almost everyone associated with Epstein has escaped prosecution yet they are believed to be infinitely bad, how could we “cure” this sort of thing without preemptively castrating all men, preferably before puberty for full effect? This is the inescapable moral bankruptcy of Sam Harris’s philosophy, and notice that it is not even a woman putting forth this position: it is another man being bad! Men are the roguest of philosophers just like we are the worst of all kinds of criminals. Women are instead seen moderating bad male impulses here as always.
Even feminist rape trials work like this as we saw with Weinstein and also in Norway before we lost the jury. Male jurors more often vote to convict while women rein them in, and now in Norway we have the horrific situation where judging is male-dominated and there is no independent jury where women get to exercise restraint, ensuring more frequent hateful convictions against male sexuality.
It is inescapable that men are bad, but we can’t get entirely rid of them either.
"Even feminist rape trials work like this as we saw with Weinstein and also in Norway before we lost the jury. Male jurors more often vote to convict while women rein them in, and now in Norway we have the horrific situation where judging is male-dominated and there is no independent jury where women get to exercise restraint, ensuring more frequent hateful convictions against male sexuality."
Eivind, are you on mushrooms? Or is it just cannabis?
Which part of this are you denying? There was a study reaching this conclusion Norway while we had the jury, not just anecdotes although I suppose you can consider the Weinstein trial an anecdote. I believe it is a robust trend based on all the evidence I am aware of.
Can you even point to an anecdote in the other direction? Show me a jury trial where the women wanted to convict a man as a rapist and the men not.
Here you are Eivind, another woman is going to get the pussy pass for murder:
https://michiganchronicle.com/black-mom-gets-new-trial-after-same-judge-in-lindsay-clancy-case-excluded-mental-health-records/
The US was the only Western country where pleading insanity hardly ever got a man or a woman off the hook (In eg France or the UK a woman who murders males is not even put on trial). Now the US is ushering in a new era.
I don't see a woman getting off the hook there. I see a woman who has been imprisoned since 2018 and currently serving life without parole potentially getting a new trial where her insanity defense can be considered.
Even if she is found not guilty in that new trial she spent eight years in prison, which is almost as much as murder deserves if you had a system that has not gone insane with retributive justice. Perhaps it is also true that she experienced "a psychotic state completely untethered from reality" when she killed her sons? That claim deserves a fair hearing and seems more likely than not to me on the face of it, because again, why would a sane mother want to kill her own children?
"Why would a sane mother kill her own children"? As you say Eivind, you hit the nail on the head, because this is exactly how women get off the hook: women who murder their own children are PER DEFINITION insane and should not be jailed.
And, of course, why would a sane girlfriend murder her boyfriend? Women cannot be murderesses and be sane, because, you see, they have no testosterone according to the media (this is medically false but never mind). So having no testosterone, only insanity can make them guilty of murder.
I know women have some testosterone and they are capable of some aggression and murder and other evil using what we call free will. But when they kill their own children, I would say not by definition but my first guess is it was probably insanity. When all the facts also indicate insanity rather than deliberate choice, why should we doubt it? The circumstances in these cases are so bizarre plus there is usually self-harm as well in ways that don't fit with being in touch with reality.
Insanity so what? You murder, you go to jail, period. Sane or insane. You've campaigned against the CSA hoax, the consent hoax. What about the insanity hoax (aka the psychiatric racket)? In my view people who kill because they're insane should be put down like mad dogs. Contrary to people who kill for money or revenge, people who kill out of insanity are unrecoverable.
Eivind, do you think that a fetus can be sexually abused?
I have campaigned against psychiatry too, but that’s when it is used for coercion. Nobody should be defined as criminally insane against their will if they want to take responsibility, and nobody should be coerced into psychiatric treatment, ever! I also don’t believe in “mental illness” as a real category. That’s metaphysically incoherent because it presupposes an alternative person who does not exist, at least not in a way that would be compatible with personal identity as I see it. If anybody calls me insane and tries to forcibly change me then I shall treat it like attempted murder and defend myself accordingly. But maladaptive mental states certainly exist. Maybe it even makes sense to call them disorders. I believe there is such a disorder as being out of touch with reality, and I believe this should be a valid defense when used voluntarily in a criminal trial. Postpartum depression is most often a temporary condition as far as I know, so yes, these women are recoverable.
What to do with the incorrigibly insane who want to keep murdering is an interesting question. It does make sense to give them the insanity defense if they want it, but it does not make sense to let them loose to do it again, so I guess they should be offered a choice between prison and psychiatry, which would then be the ONLY kind involuntary psychiatric commitment that I condone.
"Can a fetus be sexually abused?" I assume this as a troll question which does not deserve an answer. Instead I take the opportunity to remind everyone that trolling is not allowed.
This blog is for sincere speech. Sincere speech is usually somewhat emotionally demanding and sometimes even imprisonable as has happened to me and most leading figures in the MAP movement, but it is nonetheless what we practice around here, so if you can't take the heat, you won't get published. I get that it's easier to joke and mess around, but that's a waste of time in my opinion.
In the case of the Clancy women, I'm not even sure "insanity" was assumed. Depression is no insanity, it is at best a mood disorder. And this infuriates me, that a mood disorder (being in low spirits) should be a license to kill if you're a woman. Find me a single instance of a man getting away with murder because he was suffering from depression when he killed. This is quite apart from the fact that the act itself should be punished, regardless of the state of mind of the criminal.
It is possible that equivalent situations for men are being overlooked. I can't think of a direct male equivalent to postpartum depression, but there could be something where men are just as objectively driven by depression to kill. And if so, they would deserve to have the insanity defense available as well.
https://people.com/kim-zolciak-kroy-biermann-son-kj-was-on-court-supervision-sex-with-underage-relative-12116324
At 15 KJ is too young to be diagnosed as a pedophile, but he's not too young for all this apparently:
KJ is currently facing charges of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, aggravated sodomy, false imprisonment and three counts of sexual battery against a child under the age of 16, according to court records viewed by PEOPLE.
The abuse industry is eating itself up attacking the children they claim to protect. We are used to this by now and it just continues with no hope for improvement and no self-awareness of how absurd it is.
Are you surprised about this Eivind? I am not:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/who-is-paula-devlin-lindsay-clancy-juror-under-fire-over-turning-point-comment-saying-the-quiet-part-out-loud-101789368514205.html
" ... the mostly female jury in the trial saw the case as a “turning point” to improve outcomes for other women amid discussions of postpartum psychosis".
Improve what outcomes for other women? Probably all outcomes (for other women), not just postpartum outcomes.
Well, there aren’t that many criminal outcomes for women to work with besides postpartum disturbances, because again, criminality is mostly driven by testosterone. And if by improving outcomes for other women they mean the fate of female “sex offenders” then I couldn’t agree more, because they are fake criminals too.
What is left after those two categories of female criminals? I actually had a girlfriend once who was an ex-con. Her crime for which she had been imprisoned for about a year or two was check forgery, a typical female crime, non-violent and not all that harmful. So what do we really need harsh justice for where women are offenders? False accusations are a good candidate as long as “sexual abuse” is so insanely inflated and there might be some other marginal areas, but in general a “tough on crime” attitude against women is misplaced. It is also incompatible with the rest of our views to suddenly be fans of police and prosecutors and retributive justice just because a woman is accused or ground up by the system. I think the justice system is overwhelmingly too heavy-handed across almost everything it does, and I don’t want to undermine my own position with inconsistency.
https://www.wsmv.com/2024/03/21/maegan-hall-former-officer-center-la-vergne-sex-scandal-reaches-500k-settlement-after-dismissing-lawsuit/
The usual “groomed for sexual exploitation” phooey.
Marlene Emilie Lyngstad, the director who made a short film called “Norwegian Offspring” based on me is getting ready to premiere her first feature film, called “Cute”:
https://www.filmskolen.dk/nyheder/for-debuten-marlene-lyngstad
Last time I talked to her she said she was working on something to do with a virtuous pedophile, and it looks like she followed through on that although he does do roleplay with a “Lolita” woman, which I guess is one step up from the VirPeds. So maybe it’s not quite the horrible piece of anti-pedo propaganda I was expecting, but from what I read here and the trailer I am not overly impressed either.
Anyway, it sure is a parable of our times. We all long for Lolita (including the feminist haters who claim otherwise) but can only put a faint shadow of the real story on screen these days, with an adult actress of course.
I have never been one for roleplay, but I don’t have anything against it either, so it might be an OK film unless it is ruined by too much sanctimonious preaching about how immoral it would be to do the real thing, which is what my prejudice tells me it will be.
Here is the trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1D5HckQ408
Here is the page for “Cute” at the San Sebastian Film Festival along with a synopsis of the plot:
https://www.sansebastianfestival.com/2026/sections_and_films/new_directors/7/741016/in
Troubled by forbidden feelings for his seven-year-old stepdaughter, Richard decides to leave his girlfriend. He retreats to his childhood home to renovate ahead of its sale, but his self-imposed exile is disrupted by the childlike presence of his mother's caregiver, Stella. He soon discovers her double life as a Lolita camgirl, and the two develop a transgressive surrogate father-daughter relationship. Their constructed reality begins to unravel when the stepdaughter he left behind reaches out.
Okay, he prefers a seven-year-old and is thus a literal pedophile rather than a hebe- or ephebophile, and I guess it is a little bit ballsy to make a movie about that. But I don’t like this obsession with pedophiles being “troubled.” In the trailer he is shown asking a doctor for some sort of libido depressant. This is so lame because unless you subscribe to the self-hate of the VirPeds or the pathologizing of the DSM, why in heaven’s name should a pedophile be more “troubled” and less able to control himself than other men who also can’t get the vast majority of females they desire? Why are ephebophiles (that is, normal men) not troubled by their jailbait attraction? Why are not even the incels said to be troubled? It is assumed that pedos have a demon inside their head who is competing with their free will, in other words that they are necessarily ego-dystonic, which I suppose is exactly what the normies think and all the cruel attempts to “treat” them assume.
I don’t think there is any reason to assume pedos have less self-control than anyone else. We don’t have to assume you want to break the law either to dismiss this nonsense; there is a middle ground between sex offender and VirPed where you are just like anyone else in unrequited or impossible love rather than especially “troubled.” Perhaps someone with a prepubescent age of attraction can put it better than me and say exactly what is wrong with the view that you must be disordered while the rest of us are not in a similar situation. I think either we are all “troubled” if we can’t have sex with anyone we like, or nobody is unless they have a problem with impulse control that is unrelated to age of attraction.
I adapted these last two comments into a new blog post:
https://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2026/09/norwegian-offspring-gets-cute-sequel.html
Post a Comment