Sunday, June 11, 2017

More on the female sex offender charade

Humans are a curious mixture of rational and irrational creatures. We are smart enough to operate airlines that almost never crash, yet dumb enough to have a justice system which routinely fails to achieve justice because many of the laws themselves are fundamentally unjust. There is no better example of unjust laws than the sex laws, and because sex is obviously something women have and men and boys want, the pinnacle of insane injustice is to pretend women "abuse" boys by giving them sex. The most famous female victim of feminist sex laws is Mary Kay Letourneau. Hers was the case that raised awareness of the utter insanity of feminism, at least for me, and helped radicalize me into a sworn enemy of the feminist state. Prior to that case, I never imagined that the state could be so absurdly and irrationally cruel as to imprison women for being nice to boys. It was an eye opener to the cruelty of the world and the irrationality of the justice system as well as the intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of feminists.

Now Mary Kay Letourneau is back in the news for getting separated from her former "victim" Vili Fualaau. Which means that their marriage has been amazingly solid by any contemporary standard, even to the point of not needing to deal with custody issues because their kids are all grown up by the time they get divorced. The Mary Kay Letourneau story is a triumph of love over feminism, so compelling that the media has trouble siding with feminist sex-hostility. For example, CNN says:

"Mary Kay Fualaau, formerly Letourneau, was a married 34-year-old teacher and mother of four in Seattle in 1996 when she began an affair with Fualaau, her 13-year-old student. Letourneau gave birth to her young lover's child before she went on to serve more than seven years in prison on charges related to their sexual relationship."

How delightfully put! "Charges related to their sexual relationship," instead of something along the lines of "went to prison for sexually abusing/raping him," which is the usual feminist wording. They even admit that it was a love story rather than an abuse story. I don't know how that subversive tone made it into CNN, because the same cannot be said for most cases these days. The mainstream media usually presents unadulterated feminist sex-hostility with wholehearted hatred, without any room for doubting that they really mean it. I find it deeply disturbing that they have embraced not only the hate, but also the idiocy of pretending that boys can be victims of women's sexuality simply because they are underage, which is so manifestly absurd that it flies in the face of literally all of reality including the experience of the boys themselves. Here is a current case which drives home the full insanity of our feminist legal systems:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4590430/Abuse-victim-says-sex-BBC-DJ-like-drug.html

It starts out with a normal teenage boy who gets lucky with an older woman and of course enjoys it. Then 20 years later, he "attended a child sexual exploitation course and realised what the Wadsworths had done to him was a criminal act." Feminist propaganda is presented as reality even while admitting that the propaganda itself is solely responsible for making the man think he has been abused!

This kind of coverage is deeply disturbing because the fact that the media can get away with it demonstrates that I am surrounded by idiots. A human being who can take this drivel seriously and think it was "abuse" is so far below me intellectually and morally and spiritually that I regard them as absolute dirt. I can think of nothing more apt to make me lose respect for my fellow man, and sadly, these morons are now so commonplace that it is hard to find a sane individual. Thankfully, I count some of these sane people among my readers, so kudos to you, but the rest of society is hopelessly brainwashed by feminist sex-hostility.

And of course they completely control the justice system, which routinely perverts victimless sex into "abuse" simply because someone is underage, and most absurdly of all, imposes the same standards on women even though the boys are in fact the opposite of victims.

This is the stuff of mad nightmares, and it beggars belief that it can exist. I have thought long and hard about why, and reached the conclusion that it can go on all too easily because there is no feedback in the justice system. If people are sent to prison based on absurd laws that have nothing whatsoever to do with reality, how would we know? The scary answer is that we can't. People are labeled as criminals for whatever reason, go to prison and then the narrative of criminality is self-validating and self-perpetuating, reality be damned. Abuse is abuse because it is abuse and offenders are offenders because they are offenders and that is all the proof anyone needs. Unlike air travel, which gives rise to a sense of immediate calamity if airlines operate unsafe planes that don't deliver passengers to their destination, there is no feedback mechanism to tell us that people get convicted based on gobbledygook. Well, none except a few voices of reason like mine crying out in the desert. That is all we have. It is difficult enough to reverse wrongful convictions when someone is factually innocent; when the law itself is out of touch with reality, it is all but impossible. Laws can be based on any crazy ideology or fiction and frequently are, and sadly there is no corrective influence on legislation equivalent to the laws of physics that keep engineers sane. Societies are perfectly capable of persecuting large groups of people for no sensible reason at all, and this can go on for a long time.

To get some idea of how much it takes to reverse misbegotten laws, look at the War on Drugs. It is still going strong despite droves of sensible people pointing out that it does more harm than good. And the few changes that have been made are marginal and incremental, like legalization of cannabis in a few US states after a tedious battle against a monstrous drug war. There is not nearly as much opposition to meaningless and draconian sex laws, so that gives us some idea of how far away the Men's Rights Movement is from achieving any progress. We are doomed to walk among idiots who think underage sex is "abuse" and that even women can be sex offenders in a society which does its level best to reify those lies, but I for one am on a mission to at least make them feel my contempt and disrespect for them as people. I seethe and roil and shake with hatred against all the dimwits who have internalized the antisexual norms of our times, and this is not a figure of speech, it is literally how I am every day. I have to exercise great restraint to even keep my words legal, as the record shows.

Saturday, April 08, 2017

One in four Norwegian men are childless thanks to feminism

When I started out blogging for men's rights a decade ago, feminism was still commonly claimed to lead to more sexual freedom. However, it was obvious to me that this freedom only applied to women and alpha males, and feminism in fact led to more male sexual losers, which was one of my two big reasons for becoming an antifeminist (the other one being the hateful feminist sex laws). This dismal trend has now become an established fact supported by the official statistics and reported in mainstream newspapers. We have reached the point where almost one in four men are childless at 45 and probably never will have children, and not because they don't want to, but primarily because women are picky by nature and feminism empowers them to be more picky.
Tidligere i vår kom nye tall fra Statistisk sentralbyrå som bekrefter tendensen. Blant menn født i 1950, var det 14,8 prosent som ikke hadde barn ved fylte 45 år. For menn født i 1971 var det 23,7 prosent som var barnløse ved samme alder. Samtidig var 29,5 prosent av menn født i 1976 barnløse ved fylte førti; opp fra 16,3 prosent i 1950. Tilsvarende tall for kvinner ved 45 års alder er henholdsvis 8,4 og 15, 2 prosent – også økende, men ikke på langt nær like voldsomt. I befolkningen som sådan er nesten hver fjerde mann i Norge barnløs det året han fyller 45.
Back in 2009 I pointed out that rape is equality. My intention was not to promote rape, but I do think we should make society choose between forced equality for both sexes or for neither (and it doesn't need to be rape either, but some kind of subsidy or affirmative action to help male sexual losers). Remarkably, men have simply accepted forced equality for women while neglecting to claim it for themselves, so here we are in the present situation with so many male sexual and reproductive losers that wouldn't have existed without feminism and its coercive measures to empower women at the expense of men.

I no longer think the male losers will rebel. By all accounts, the vast majority simply accept their lot. But at least now they can easily inform themselves about the cause of their situation simply by reading the mainstream media. That is progress, as far as it goes.

Saturday, April 01, 2017

Angry Harry on free will

The late great MRA Angry Harry did a podcast back in 2014 on free will which I didn't notice until now. It is highly recommended by me:

https://youtu.be/U0aSbIflAqM

So what do I think, do we have free will? Let's see. I definitely have a will, at least. I know that I am free to act in accordance with my will, within the limits of my willpower and physical constraints. My will appears to be determined, but so what? I can't want something I don't want, but I can want everything I want. So there is no problem, except willpower, which is a separate issue.

You want your decisions to be determined by the person that you are, because that is how you are most likely to make the best possible decisions for yourself. No one is better qualified than you to know what you want. The person that you are was determined by your genetics and the environment that you were born into, none of which you had a say in (you obviously can't design your own creation because you have to exist in the first place before you can do anything). As Angry Harry Points out, if there is such a thing as a soul, you didn't choose it either, and if God is responsible for your existence, then that is also beyond your control.

In any case, here I am and I take ownership of the person that I am and I want my will to be determined by it. I am therefore at peace with determinism. Your will is determined the only way you should want it to be determined, if you are a healthy human (and yes, that is a big caveat, but letting others mess with your will is fraught with extreme danger even if you are what is considered insane). Any other causation of your will would make it less rather than more free, or at least less of what you want it to be.

I agree with Angry Harry that wrongdoers (including feminists) still need to be punished even if they have no free will, because punishment is one of the best ways to influence behavior. The same applies to political activism. Maybe they couldn't have acted differently, but they and others will act differently in the future if we acknowledge personal responsibility. I also agree that perhaps we should have some more compassion with wrongdoers, particularly when they bear a heavy price. They have less reason to proudly take ownership of their soul or essence than I have, because it led to such disastrous results for them and others. Nevertheless, the lack of free will does not excuse their actions, and they should still be punished, but perhaps punishments should be more limited. Arguably there should be no death penalty or life in prison, at least if the person is willing to be rehabilitated.

Now I want to delve a little deeper into the metaphysics of free will, because it is by no means settled if it exists or if the hardcore determinist position is true. The fact that we feel free to make decisions cannot be so easily dismissed. Why did evolution give us the feeling of free will if it doesn't do anything? After all, it would be redundant to have an awareness or even the illusion of free will if it can't influence behavior, so it would not be maintained through natural selection. One possible answer is that your will definitely does do something important for behavior, but it may still not be free in the philosophical sense which demands indeterminism (which, as I have shown, is an unreasonable position to take). If philosophical zombies were possible and easy, nature would have made them instead of us. I believe zombies are possible given unlimited computation -- the path artificial intelligence is currently taking seems to lead there -- but the fact that we are conscious, including conscious of our own decision-making, shows that it is easier to make sentient creatures with the feeling of free will, at least with the resources that biology has to work with. Our emotions and experience of will are shortcuts to what would otherwise require unrealistic amounts of computation. But why is this so? That is the hard problem of consciousness, I guess, and I don't know.

Another possible answer is that consciousness is a necessary result of some forms of information processing -- the kinds optimized by biology, at least -- and free will is a necessary aspect of consciousness, particularly when we need to make plans about the future. Perhaps you can't have consciousness which takes the future into account without the feeling of free will (and if you only live in the moment, the issue can't arise in the first place). It has been proven that no being can predict his next action, which means that we all have free will from our subjective point of view. And that perspective is the only one which really matters most of the time. In that case, free will is a happy accident of biology and logic.

So I am mostly a compatibilist, while open to the possibility that there is something more to free will that we don't understand. I am living proof that people can choose to go radically against their environment without being insane or otherwise highly unusual, since I refused to internalize the sexual taboos of my culture and instead became a men's rights activist. To me it feels like I made a choice, and you have that choice too, if you are reading this. Even if determinism is ultimately true, you now have enough information to reject the feminist sex laws. I made a moral choice based on thinking about how the world ought to be versus how it is. Not some Utopian vision, mind you, just a strong desire to repeal certain profoundly unjust laws. We know this is humanly possible, because these laws were created by humans in the first place, most of them very recently.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

The saga continues: Appeal to the Supreme Court

I won my compensation case in the Gulating court of appeals, but the government has still not given up. They have appealed to the Supreme Court of Norway. As we await the Supreme Court's decision on whether or not they are going to hear the case, I will now share the new documents in the case so everyone can read the arguments.

Here is the notice of appeal from the government, and here is my lawyer's reply. The government lawyer has also written a short response to that reply, which can be found found here.

The quotes by me in the appeal notice reflect my character perfectly. That is exactly the kind of dissident I am. But it is legal to say those things; indeed they are pretty tame as far as inflammatory speech goes. To rise to the level of criminal incitement in Norway, statements must not only be published with malicious intent, which I most assuredly possess, but also be immediately likely to trigger the commission of specific criminal acts. This is conveyed by the crucial word "iverksette" (carry out) in the law.

I only expressed a general desire for rebellion against the state, and gave my moral support to all activists against feminist sex laws, from the humblest blogger like myself up to and including violent activists. This is not a pragmatic exhortation to carry out violent insurrection (which would presuppose having fighters at my beck and call ready to actually do so), but rather the expression of moral values in favor of insurrection. It is advocacy, but not incitement. It is also not very effective, but if anybody is ever convinced by my blog to attack the feminist police state, then that is the sort of danger society must tolerate, because the alternative would be to abolish freedom of speech as we know it. If the spirit behind one's statements is supposed to be enough to put one in prison, then we have tyranny. It is impossible for me to speak my mind without conveying my belligerent message against the feminist state, because that sentiment is integral to the core of my being. But mere political sentiment is not criminalized. Note also that one is free to incite the commission of criminal acts in private conversations (including small groups) and correspondence with impunity. So what is the difference? There is no difference in character between someone who incites privately only and one who does so publicly. The malicious intent is the same, but the law only applies to the latter. There is only a pragmatic difference in how likely the incitement is to lead to criminal actions, and the law is only applicable when that risk crosses a certain threshold, conveyed by "publicly" and "carry out."

I want to emphasize that I am every bit as hateful against the state as the sort of person that the incitement law (then § 140 but now replaced by § 183) was meant to put in prison. But it is my right to be politically hateful and express it in the manner that I have done. This is exactly the sort of speech that freedom of speech is meant to protect -- you don't get to convict me for my opinions and feelings. And the principle of legality dictates that laws need to specify what is illegal in a clear and understandable way, so this can't suddenly change at the whim of prosecutors.

The Gulating court of appeals agrees with me that the kind of rhetorics for which I was prosecuted is protected speech. The most interesting question to be decided by the current appeal is whether that definition will stand or be overturned somehow by the Supreme Court. In particular, what is the difference between publicly encouraging or advocating criminal acts (which is legal) and publicly inciting someone to carry them out (which is illegal)? I have a pretty good idea about where the line goes now, since my blog can be used as an example of legal speech (especially this post and comments, where my allegedly worst quotes appear in context), but it is an open question what the Supreme Court will do when they apply their political creativity. We are therefore entering dangerous territory if they take the case, and everyone in Norway who cares about freedom of speech should pay attention.

Update 2017-01-31: I won the appeal too! The case is not going to the Supreme Court, and so my victory is final.

Monday, December 19, 2016

My soul is criminal

We live in ever more hateful times. This ongoing prosecution, in which a suspended policeman is charged with the newly invented crime of reading erotic short stories, pushes the envelope of feminist sex-hostility another notch forward and inspired the following essay from me.

When words are criminal, so are thoughts. Whether thoughts are written down or not makes no moral difference, and any words that sexualize a minor are criminal. My opinions on "child" sexuality (referring to anyone under 18) are fundamentally criminal, and only technical and resource limitations (mind reading technology is not there yet) prevents the state from convicting and imprisoning me. Notice that the law covers every medium of thought currently accessible to the police, and if they could read our thoughts directly, they would surely do so and base their prosecution on it.

This is the feeling the Norwegian child porn law gives rise to. I fundamentally do not fit in. I seethe with roiling hatred against the state, and the hatred is mutual, because the spirit of the law means I belong in prison and not in society. This conflict cannot be resolved, because it is fundamental, unequivocal, mutual hatred. When all is said and done, we hate each other, society and I.

Let us meditate on what this means, and face the horror of the law. Whether you have any interest in breaking it or not, the atmosphere it creates is true horror. I don't particularly care about the specific short stories that incriminated this policeman, but I care very much about freedom of speech and thought. The Norwegian legislature has decided that your mind is meant to exist in a prison of criminality, shuddering in fear of thinking unclean thoughts, reading or hearing unclean words or, horror of horrors, seeing unclean images. The scumbags in law enforcement will even target their own for perceiving unclean information, for that is how fucking seriously this society takes mind control. This society has decided that not even thoughts are free, with all the horrifying consequences that entails, because we worship the mythical innocence of the child above all other considerations. An innocence which is entirely specious, but that doesn't matter, because it is the idea of childish innocence that these laws are meant to protect, and explicitly so since they also apply to fiction.

This society is incapable of being rational about "child" sexuality, because as soon as a sexual reference is made to anyone under 18, or even according to the law someone who merely appears to be under 18 (as in acting), and even a fictional one, all expression is forbidden and the only possible response is state-enforced violence. If the law is to be taken seriously, we must burn most books and imprison all men and throw our cultural heritage out the window. If a man keeps as much as a diary or a scrap sheet of paper where anyone under 18 is sexualized in any form, he must be surveillanced, hunted down and imprisoned. It is surreal that I am damn near the only one who hasn't internalized the charade, who speaks up against it, who feels seething hatred in the opposite direction than everyone else, whose hatred is directed squarely at me and anyone who transgresses their moronic taboos. Usually the transgressor will himself have internalized the taboos, so the most he will do is claim he "didn't do it" while obsequiously parroting the same sex-hostility.

There are very few living people I respect. It is almost impossible to find a person whose mind has not been captured by these taboos. Nearly everyone supports or at least condones child porn laws, probably more than 99 people out of 100, and if you are one of them I disrespect your puny intellect and hate your guts. You gullible fool who don't understand the monstrosity you enable, at best, or odious creep who has actually internalized the sex-hostility! I know some of you have thought these matters through as carefully as I have, and chosen the other side. In that case I have no illusions of convincing you otherwise, because I know we fundamentally hate each other and it is not based on any misunderstanding.

I ponder the law and realize that my soul is criminal. My country fundamentally wants to imprison me for who I am, a normal man, and other men don't want to stand up against it even though they are just as much targeted themselves. I do not fit in, and don't want to fit into this sick society. I had to pinch myself to check that I am not having a nightmare, because this is so batshit crazy that I didn't seriously expect it to be enforced, even though I knew the law has been intending it for years. As far as I can tell, the dystopia is real. I am literally living in a country where the police can and will persecute you for reading or writing fictional stories. And worse, I am just about the only one who sees anything wrong with it. It is deeply disturbing, and breaks down certain barriers that I thought would protect us. I have never been so scared of the government as I am now, because this is not only hateful, it is absurd. When I was arrested and accused of incitement, there was at least some logic to the prosecution's case, some potentially real evil they were investigating, but this is entirely unaccountable. When the government is capable of persecuting you for the content of your library and personal records/drafts -- including fiction, for God's sake! -- is there any refuge left? Is there any limit to what they might decide next? And when they even target one of their own for such an absurdly victimless reason, what makes you think you are safe?

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Sex Difference Explained by Steve Moxon

I have been getting some stupid comments lately claiming that "Evo psych hasn't been taken seriously since around 2009." Well, that is nonsense, of course, and as luck would have it, now there is a brand new publication on the subject by Steve Moxon. An entire monograph, in fact, written from an MRA point of view and with an up-to-date bibliography:

Sex Difference Explained: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors
Abstract

This is a ‘layman’s guide’ – for, the interested rather than the merely general reader – to recent major scientific insights that together reveal a comprehensive, holistic understanding of the sexes: what actually distinguishes them and why. A much needed overview drawing together hitherto disparate topics outlining how several principles mutually relate; it’s a simplified distillation and update of the several topics that are the subject of other review papers, which provide more detailed and precise accounts and further sources.

No prior knowledge is assumed, so any other than common-knowledge scientific terms are either explained or replaced with less formal terms (where they are not too imprecise). Notably, instead of the formal, easily confused terms intra-sexual / inter-sexual, the terms within-sex / between-sex (or same-sex / cross-sex) are used. The word 'sociality', is also used despite its unfamiliarity; because it's useful shorthand for social system / dynamics. The term gender (sic) is specifically avoided - other than in 'scare' quotes since it is an ideological rather than scientific term.
And the blurb:
In SEX DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED: From DNA to Society – Purging Gene Copy Errors, Steve Moxon argues that all major aspects of male-female human sociality necessarily stem from biological principles; which all arise in solving the core problem faced by all life-forms: the relentless build-up of mistakes in the repeated copying of genes. The 'genetic filtering' to deal with this is the function of the male: why males came into being, and why men so fiercely compete with one another to form a hierarchy.

The female contribution is carefully to choose only the most dominant/prestigious males, cross-checking that indeed they do possess the best gene sets. This ensures genetic mutations and other errors that would seriously compromise reproduction are purged from the local gene pool.

Pair-bonding serves to exclude lower-ranked, whilst allowing access by still higher-ranked males; and to provide a serial father of children, thereby in effect projecting forward in time a woman's peak fertility, compensating for her deteriorating store of eggs, and consequent declining fertility and attractiveness.

With men tied to a hierarchy, women evolved to 'marry out' to avoid in-breeding. In preparation for this, girls have a very different social organisation, rehearsing for when later they have to make close bonds with non-kin, stranger-females for mutual child-care. This explains why female grouping is so tight and exclusionary, whereas males group all-inclusively.

Moxon sees the underlying sex dichotomy as being perfectly complementary, with the sexes of equal importance in what amounts to a symbiosis.

The book is not only available from Amazon in paperback and Kindle editions, but also open-access, with the full text downloadable at New Male Studies Publishing.

I will start reading it now and then post a review, and I encourage you all to do the same.

Norwegian readers should also check out this article by Terje Bongard:

Det menneskelige grunnfjell: Følelser som tilpasninger til et førhistorisk liv

And if anyone wants to argue that evolutionary psychology is wrong, please state some actual arguments, because it is plainly false that is not taken seriously by the scientific community.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

The verdict

I won! The Gulating Court of Appeal has awarded me NOK 37,100 in compensation for wrongful imprisonment when I was accused of incitement in 2012. The full ruling is available here and highly recommended reading for all Norwegians, especially those who still feel I should have been convicted for expressing my political views here on this blog. The judges have considered my most offensive quotes for which the police tried to prosecute me, and opined that they didn't violate the law then and still don't after the legal reforms that many people mistakenly believe would have ensured my conviction for saying similar things now.

As anyone who reads the verdict is forced to admit, the criminal concept of incitement simply does not apply to my kind of rhetorics. And that is no accident either, because I had no intention of breaking the law when I wrote my blog posts and comments, certainly not in such a stupid manner as the accusations would have it. When it comes to expressing political disagreements, even very hateful and rebellious ones, freedom of speech is actually quite strong in Norway, so why would I do something like that? Unless you are incredibly rhetorically inept, there is no need to resort to criminal speech in order to get your point across. What you can't do is to publicly exhort specific people to carry out specific criminal acts, but you can glorify and generally advocate criminal behavior. It is not enough to wish to do harm; you have to actually break the law to be punished. The content of my character is admittedly such that I am the worst Norwegian enemy of the state since Quisling, because that is the extent of my hatred of feminist sex laws. Be that as it may, I am still legally protected from prosecution for incitement unless I commit incitement the way it is legally defined, which I don't.

I always thought people who make threats are some of the silliest criminals. Threats are a huge liability while causing almost no damage. Incitement is slightly more intelligent, and arguably a far more serious crime since the sky is the limit in terms of potential harm, but certainly not needed when freedom of speech is tolerably strong. So I always take great care not to run afoul of threat or incitement laws. Those who would like to see me punished are frustrated by the fact that I can be every bit as hateful as the silly people who make threats or incitement, if not more so, while remaining on the right side of the law. Whether you like it or not, that is how it is. You don't get to punish me for my opinions, only for actual crimes that I am too smart to commit. And let's get real, would you really want to live in a country where people can be punished for their character rather than their actions? To take an analogy everyone can understand, imagine if speed limits were based on how fast one wanted to drive instead of the actual speed. Just like you can't be fined for wanting to drive over the speed limit unless you actually do, it is of course legal to adjust one's behavior according to the law when it comes to speech crimes such as incitement as well. And that is what I have done, even if I may have evil intentions in my heart. The judges in the Gulating Court of Appeals are sane enough to acknowledge this fact, even if the lower court and much of the populace isn't. They even assert that my behavior was not only legal, but also not suspicious, which means the cops acted unreasonably and I am entitled to compensation for an attempted prosecution which shouldn't have happened.

If you have the power to lead, then simply existing and expressing your sentiments is enough, and if you don't, then no amount of incitement will make a difference for your cause. Criminal incitement is therefore a fool's errand, and I have no use for it. It is also a pointless prohibition which is rarely ever used anyway, at least not successfully. You have to choose -- either have arbitrary arrests and disappearances of unpopular influencers, or tolerate hateful opinions in public discourse, because it is the nature of language that hatred and rebelliousness can always be conveyed without breaking any law that isn't vague enough to be a travesty of justice. I am glad that Norway has chosen the latter option for now.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Finally going to trial

After several delays, my compensation suit for wrongful imprisonment for expressing my heartfelt political views is finally going to the court of appeal (Gulating lagmannsrett) on Thursday, October 13th.

I have blogged about it before all the delays, so I won't repeat all that.

Everyone is invited, and here are the details for those in Bergen who can make it:

Domstol:

Gulating lagmannsrett
Rettsmøtetype: Ankeforhandling
Saksnr: 15-026859ASD-GULA/AVD2
Sakstype: Ankesum under 125.000,-
Saken gjelder: Krav om oppreisningserstatning
Parter: Eivind Berge - Justis og Beredskapsdepartementet
Advokater: Henrik Birkeland - Jørgen Aandal Vangsnes
Rettens formann: Voll, Rune
Start- sluttdato: 13.10.2016 - 13.10.2016
DatoTidSalAdresse
13.10.201609:00 - 15:00Bergen, Gulatings plass 1, 2. etg, rettssal 2 B

Saturday, October 01, 2016

The Men's Movement has lost

The world has changed beyond my most dystopian nightmares. False rape has now been fully institutionalized. Ever since I started blogging, feminist corruption of rape law has been the most important issue, and now it has reached a level where women are literally handed a blank check to accuse rape for any sex that they have any bad feelings about whatsoever. The new panacea for accusing rape is called "emotional control," which of course is an element of all relationships. Men in feminist countries should be very afraid of relationships, because they all by definition involve some degree of emotional control. The fact that Norwegian law has reached this point is spectacularly evinced by the case against Julio Kopseng, who got convicted and sentenced to 21 years of preventative detention -- which means up to life in prison and is the maximum punishment under Norwegian law -- based on relationships redefined as rape. One woman claims he "raped" her hundreds of times, but she didn't bother to leave him. Yes, women are now fully empowered to regret entire relationships and redefine them as rape. A recent example from the UK also makes this clear. When this is now rape, not just in feminist theory but in practice, it has gone so far that my imagination fails me beyond this point: A woman "said she submitted to his unwanted sexual advances after he threatened to leave her if she did not have sex with him," and for that Ryan Kennedy is convicted as a rapist.

When the justice system goes along with these kinds of charades and presents them as rape with a straight face, and there is hardly anyone who even questions the underlying legal definitions, then it is time to declare complete defeat for the Men's Movement. We have lost completely and are left only with the rage in our hearts -- the few of us who still care, that is. Feminists have been granted everything they asked for and more, or shortly will be, to the tune of cheering manginas crowding out any real opposition from MRAs.

Ryan Kennedy and Julio Kopseng may well be assholes and narcissists, but these women CHOSE to be in relationships with them. They CHOSE to submit again and again, by their own admission, because they valued the relationships above not having sex. And for this they are now legally entitled to have a man convicted as a rapist because they feel bad about THEIR OWN decisions. When women find it worthwhile to stay with jerks for whatever reason, that is their CHOICE. It is not the men's fault that women are attracted to them, unless you believe women are like small children who are incapable of making their own decisions. Which is how the law now defines them. A man is such a worthless piece of shit under feminist justice that he goes to jail for women's choices. If you think this is justice, then you are a scumbag and a mangina and I hate your guts.

The feminist police state ensures that women can have their cake and eat it. Then can enjoy whatever it is that attracts them to bad boys and have state-enforced revenge for any emotional discomfort, too, even if it didn't rise to the level of making them want to get out of the relationship. This is so unspeakably unjust that I don't have words strong enough for the hatred in my heart against feminist rape law reform and all the manginas who enable and enforce it. If men don't revolt against this kind of "justice" system, they never will. The institutionalized hatred against men is now perpetrated all the way out in the open without any attempt to make up a remotely plausible rape story, because none is needed -- we simply get an explicit admission that women can submit to sex for their own selfish reasons and regret it later and have it redefined as rape with the full cooperation of the legal system. Feminists have won completely and the Men's Rights Movement is utterly and completely irrelevant. We are just a handful of men still speaking the voice of reason while the world has gone insane. I keep the flame of antifeminist hatred burning in my heart in the hope that I one day might inspire other men to feel the same way and fight back, but I realize that the chance of that happening is practically zero. The feminists and manginas have already inherited the earth.

Further evidence of how feckless we are is the degeneration of many former men's sites into white supremacism and other nonsense -- the so-called alt-right. For example, the blogger formerly known as Roissy in DC, now called Chateau Heartiste, when he isn't busy pushing racism or fat shaming women, promotes the feminist definition of rape. He has literally internalized feminist slogans about sex without consent as his normative definition of rape. Men like Ryan Kennedy and Julio Kopseng would be convicted under that definition, and we could all be, but he doesn't care. I left the following modest comment, but nobody paid attention to it:
This is a disappointing post which basically confuses feminist slogans with the law and doesn’t even question whether they should be the law.

Simply saying no to sex, no matter how sincerely, does not make it rape by any reasonable definition, and indeed not even legally so except in the most extreme feminist jurisdictions (such as the UK since the Sexual Offenses Act of 2003, but not most of the US or Scandinavia, for example). Contrary to feminist slogans, most jurisdictions still require an element of coercion or unconsciousness. Verbal resistance is not enough to make it rape, because rape isn’t defined in relation to consent at all, but as sex accomplished by coercion. After all the feminist reforms to rape law, that coercion can be very trivial indeed, such as threatening to break up a relationship, but sex against a woman’s will does still not constitute rape in itself. Rape is sex *accomplished* by force, not just sex without consent. This conceptual distinction is very important, at least in theory. Rape law has been corrupted, but it hasn’t been corrupted to the extent indicated by CH in most countries including his own. Instead of embracing a definition of rape more extreme than feminists have yet managed to receive, men should be fighting for the restoration of the traditional definition which necessitated force or threats at the level of serious violence to make it rape.
I must conclude that even in the former manosphere, most men are not seriously opposed to feminism anymore. What Roissy is doing is the equivalent of letting feminists win by walkover, and that sums up the current sorry state of the Men's Movement.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

The insidious power of metaphors

Thanks to the hateful campaign to demonize Brock Turner as a rapist, I think I better understand how sexual hysterias work. Firstly, it needs to be pointed out that Brock Turner is not actually a rapist, even by the legal definition in California:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/stanford-rape-case-brock-turner-victims-statement-a7074246.html

He is guilty of digital penetration, and not even a violent one at that; just taking advantage of the woman's intoxicated state. So why are people so absurdly hysterical about this minor sexual assault? Why do they demand to punish it as if it were rape? I disagree that it should be criminal at all, since the woman got drunk willingly and went along with it, but even if you agree with the law, it was far removed from rape.

I think people react to the metaphor rather than reality. Feminist propaganda has been so successful that "sexual assault" is now synonymous with "rape" in the mind of the mob, and so rape is all they can see in their imagination. It was recently shown that the meaning of words are stored in the same place in the brain across individuals:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v532/n7600/abs/nature17637.html

Feminists have managed to hijack the semantic mapping of "rape" and meld it with "sexual assault," so now all it takes to create mass hysteria is to accuse sexual assault. This is also how statutory rape works, and how feminists have even managed the absurd feat of creating the concept of female rapists and female sex offenders. These are all about metaphors, and metaphors are all you need to create lynch mobs and criminal convictions alike, after legal reforms which are also based on metaphors rather than reality.

Because the meanings of words have so extreme consequences when they are enshrined in criminal law, and even when they aren't, it is important not to let the metaphors get out of hand. One thing we need to make absolutely clear is that rape can only be performed with a penis. A real penis. Brock Turner didn't use his penis -- just his fingers -- and women by definition don't have penises so they can't be rapists. If you don't see this, then you are in thrall of metaphors rather than reality and need to break the spell. And we need to turn back the feminist legal reforms which have already so unreasonably expanded the definition of rape in many jurisdiction.