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:


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
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:

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:

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.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Obscenity laws come roaring back

Traditionally in my culture, up until the mid 20th century, there was a ban on pornography in general. Then we had the Sexual Revolution and a brief period of freedom. Now anti-sex hysteria is manifesting itself again in more pernicious ways than we have seen in hundreds of years, and this includes the return of obscenity laws.

Society figured out that children couldn't handle nudity, so we got child porn laws starting in the 1990s -- and insanely draconian, hateful laws they are.

Society recently figured out that women can't handle nudity either, so now there is a scramble to enact draconian "revenge porn" laws applicable to any situation where women feel bad about the existence of nude images of themselves. When women do something and regret it, it is never their fault; our society has a sick need to blame a man every single time. Analogous to the regret rape laws, now women are to be given laws enabling them to blame a man and have him imprisoned whenever they regret posing nude, or even taking nude pictures of themselves and sharing them.

The now ubiquitous and relentless propaganda in Norway makes this quite explicit:

"Uansett om man selv har posert på et intimt bilde og sendt det til en person man stoler på, eller om man har vært utsatt for bildetyveri eller snikfotografering, så er ekspertene klare i sin tale: Det er aldri offeret sin skyld."

["Whether you have posed for an intimate picture and sent it to a person you trust, or if one has been subjected to image theft or candid photography, the experts all agree: It is never the victim's fault."]

Yes, our scumbag legislators explicitly want to blame and imprison men for women's choices! They don't even attempt to cover it up as anything else.

I can't stomach reading most of the ongoing barrage of propaganda or examining the laws sought (and some places already enacted) in detail, just wanted to exclaim my hatred. I shake and seethe with hatred against our legislators and law enforcers.

Wouldn't it be better to just bring back general obscenity laws on moral grounds than this insane proliferation of criminal laws to protect supposed "victims" defined in ever more expansive and creative ways? Women and children evidently can't handle freedom of expression, so it would be best for all, "victims" and criminals alike, to have widely enforced taboos preventing this "victimization" from readily existing in the first place. If women couldn't pose nude willingly or send nude selfies without running afoul of cultural taboos and hence rarely did so, there could be no revenge porn either. But no, that would not satisfy the feminist establishment's bloodlust against men; it would not satisfy the scumbags in law enforcement who make their living hunting men for their sexuality -- the feminist abuse industry is an insatiable beast that will always come up with more ways to imprison more men no matter what we give them. Feminists want to have their cake and eat it -- total freedom and total criminalization at the same time, violent blue thugs to coming to their rescue whenever they have their regrets or have their feelings hurt about anything at all.

My blood boils with hatred against the authorities which I express to the full extent permissible by law, which is just the tip of the iceberg, being confident that paralepsis is legal in Norway. If anyone wonders how I became so hateful, this is just another example in a long line of malicious propaganda and increasingly hateful laws against men -- and hate breeds hate in healthy men. The sickly and feeble-minded ones become brainwashed manginas and internalize these disgusting sexual taboos themselves, who along with the feminists now form the majority that we are up against.

So in summary, my position on revenge porn (and child porn) is this: We either take the wailing about victimization seriously and enact a blanket ban on obscenity, with cultural norms to go along with it to prevent the basis for this victimization, or we don't take it seriously and get rid of all these laws which single out men to be imprisoned whenever a woman has her feelings hurt. What I cannot accept is this reign of terror where everything is permissible until a woman has any regrets, and then the full force of state violence is brought down on some man or men for that sole reason. Personally I believe victimization by images is complete bullshit, sort of like Voodoo magic and homeopathy combined, but society needs to make up its mind and either stand behind its taboos comprehensively or get rid of them, because it is obscenely unfair to make men shoulder all the responsibility. The current approach does not nothing to prevent victimization, if that's really what it is. No matter how many men you imprison, it is the nature of digital information that it can and will be shared indefinitely once it is released, so the only effect is to expand the feminist police state.

If women and children are really so delicate as feminists claim they are, then perhaps we need to ban all images of children and never allow women to appear in public without a burka and police escort. I am willing to entertain the notion that any transgression of such norms are "abuse," but then you all better get with the program and share responsibility for enforcing these taboos. Then there will be little opportunity for men to become criminals and be imprisoned just for hurting a woman's feelings, and we can all live happily.

Monday, February 08, 2016

Can industrial civilization be saved?

Imagine if humanity realized that collapse was coming and wanted to do something about it. What, if anything, might work? Here is my suggestion.

Step 1: Admit that we have a problem with collapse! (Read Our Finite World.)

Step 2: Form a world government. Declare a summit, form a world alliance and neutralize all resistance immediately. If any major nuclear powers resist, our civilization will probably end right here, but let's assume they understood the gravity of collapse and went along. Perhaps not all minor countries need to participate -- the rest can be left to their own devices as long as they don't threaten anti-collapse efforts.

Step 3: With intertribal warfare ended, humanity shall declare war on collapse. Realize that collapse is more formidable and destructive than any other foe, so we need to set aside our cultural differences. What we are facing is just as bad as if an asteroid were on a collision course.

Step 4: Conscript people to fight in the anti-collapse army. For example, conscript Gail Tverberg as chief systems theorist and Keith Henson as chief engineer.

Step 5: Anti-collapse forces should control a minimum of all needed ingredients to have an industrial civilization, using violence to enforce operation (but preferably not more than needed). The goal is to allow the system to scale down without losing maximum complexity, so smart people need to figure out what we absolutely need to preserve and leave the rest alone.

Step 6: Free trade can still exist, but the anti-collapse army must be able to commandeer all resources as needed in order to preserve complexity. Pick some companies more or less randomly in every industry and see to it that they don't fail, and do the same throughout their entire supply lines. The entire oil industry might as well be nationalized immediately since it will never be profitable again anyway. Countries can also keep their laws and customs as long as they don't interfere with the war on collapse.

Step 7: Adopt more sustainable practices going forward. We need to lower our expectations and tolerate the fact that there will be many losers who will perish. Perhaps only soldiers in the anti-collapse army will have adequate nutrition and a good quality of life, but that's OK as long as we maintain maximum complexity. Stop population growth! All while keeping technological progress or at least not losing our ability to manufacture any amenity that we have now, the preservation of which is the whole point of the war effort to begin with. Nothing lasts forever, but if collapse is delayed beyond our lifetime, consider this plan successful.

There is no single dictator who can make this plan happen. It doesn't need happen democratically either, but a lot of important people need to understand collapse and desire to do something about it to put the plan in motion. It is a truism in doomer circles that our economy must grow or die, but I wonder if that is really true if something like this plan were implemented. It might be impossible for social reasons, but I can't see any thermodynamic reasons for why it can't work.

One might object that this will be some horrible dystopia comparable to the worst communist regimes in history, but I have my doubts. If collapse is really imminent due to resource depletion, there won't be enough resources to oppress people for frivolous reasons, so the only way industrial civilization can live on is if it is concerned with self-preservation rather than insane and wasteful projects of oppression. Having a police state micro-manage people's behavior complete with mass incarceration will be beyond the power of our civilization going forward. There will be exceptions, but I think most people would simply be left to fend for themselves or starve rather than be oppressed by the state, and that is no worse than what would happen during collapse anyway. The question is only if we want to use our remaining resources to preserve our technological capabilities and a good life for at least some people instead of letting collapse happen without a fight.

Monday, January 18, 2016

A Bitcoin postmortem

Two weeks into 2016, the Norwegian stock market is down 12% and the oil price has fallen below $30 a barrel. As Chris Martenson puts it, the deflation monster has arrived. And the one thing that could offer us some hope in the face of deflationary collapse, Bitcoin XT, has failed to gain enough support to impose bigger blocks on the blockchain. The Bitcoin network is already close to maxed out at the current blocksize, so it is not going to get much better than this. Now the best we can hope for is 2MB blocks if Bitcoin Classic is able to gain consensus, but that is far too little to offer any realistic alternative to the fiat banking system. This means Bitcoin is fated to die on the vine, and industrial civilization will sink with the financial system which is now at the end of its rope.

So, what went wrong? The one-megabyte blocksize limit was just a stopgap measure instituted by Satoshi to prevent spam transactions in Bitcoin's early days. It should have been removed or greatly increased by now, but that didn't happen because the limit is being exploited by people who either have a completely different vision of the purpose of Bitcoin than the peer-to-peer payment network it is meant to be or want to cripple the network for their own conflicting interests (Blockstream), all of whom are oblivious to the coming collapse. The Lighting Network under development by Blockstream is unappealing in many ways and would still fail to scale Bitcoin sufficiently without bigger blocks. Another partial solution is a possible soft fork known as segregated witness, but that only gives us an effective blocksize of 1.7 MB. Mike Hearn has written the most detailed and accurate account of what went wrong, concluding that the Bitcoin experiment has failed, and sadly I have to agree.

The Bitcoin exchange rate may go up in the short term and especially in the early stages of stock market collapse, but don't be fooled. Bitcoin will crash when it runs into major disruption thanks to the crippling blocksize limit, and if that doesn't kill it, the fallout from the ensuing forking attempts and escalated blocksize wars certainly will. There will be no useful alternative left standing as we enter the next global financial crisis, which may well put and end to our entire civilization. The more I learn about blocksize, the clearer it becomes that the blocksize war is a clash of two fundamentally irreconcilable ideologies. Either path will lead to the death of Bitcoin in the eyes of the opposing side. Each side has different definitions of centralization and success, so no amount of technical argument can resolve the controversy. The small-blockers are the new Luddites, and this time they are winning.

We had our one and only chance to bootstrap a decentralized digital currency for the world, an undisputed measure of value that everyone can use even when the banks shut down, and we failed. Now civilization will collapse due to low commodity prices and there will be no way to save it. Now there is no hope of any alternative payment system reaching sufficient adoption to keep the machine that is industrial civilization running after deflationary collapse has run its course.

Collapse is the sort of thing that sneaks up on us slowly and then suddenly. It looks like the slow part is almost over now.

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Free Jennifer Fichter!

A case has been brought to my attention which illustrates the depths of insanity of the American justice system and feminist sex-hostility. The female sex offender charade, which was invented by feminists in the second half of the 20th century AD, is the most irrational of all human endeavors, and the case of Jennifer Fichter is at the cutting edge of this madness. This disturbing case makes my blood boil more than ever before with the hormones of hate and aggression against the state and the feminist ideologues responsible for this kind of injustice. These hate hormones give rise to very unpleasant and unhealthy physical effects that make it difficult to write about the subject, but I pulled myself together over the weekend and wrote this essay because the case is so egregious that it cannot be ignored. Jennifer Fichter is a teacher from Florida who has been sentenced to 22 years in prison for sex with 17-year-old boys. If this travesty does not make you want to fight back against the state, then you are a monster.

Are Americans really so primitive in their heads and indoctrinated by feminism that they actually believe there is a victim in this case, or is there something else going on? Whatever the purpose of this sort of prosecution may be, it has clearly nothing whatsoever to do with justice. It is pure, unadulterated insanity -- a manifestation of irrational sexual taboos and nothing else. Or just an excuse to lock people up. Even Americans, weaned as they are on feminist anti-sex hysteria, are not quite so brainwashed that the average person really buys into this charade, which is why there is a Facebook campaign to free Jennifer Fichter. But as noted in my last blog post, Facebook is so evil that Jennifer will be banned from using it after she gets released, so it is a bad platform to conduct activism on. If she had merely been a murderer or committed some other crime unencumbered by sexual taboos, she would have been free to use Facebook, but it is their policy to exclude even victimless sex offenders. Still, as long as we can get our message out to more people while also warning them about the bizarre moral depravity of Facebook, I am all for doing so, so please join the group if you are on Facebook.

The entire notion that women can be sex offenders is based on fundamental ignorance about human sexuality. Science and common sense both tell us that sex is a female resource, and every aspect of our lives outside the justice system and feminist theory still conforms to this fact, but astonishingly, this obvious truth is successfully denied by the law and its enforcers. It all got started as willful ignorance when feminists denied sex differences in order to achieve certain ends, and then the mythology of gender equality took on a life of its own in feeble and evil minds, begetting ever more absurd manifestations, such as this one in the justice system. Feminists said women are equal in order to get them into desirable positions, and then gullible fools internalized this claim and took it as a general rule, applying it to situations where it is neither good for women nor compatible with human nature. Thus a venal tactic became institutionalized as a lie which went on to bear monstrous fruits. While it is true that some women can perform most jobs as well as a man, it is absurd to think that women's sexual acts are equally harmful as a man's. Yet this is literally what the justice system has been convinced of thanks to feminism. In Jennifer Fichter's case, the acts (consensual relationship with 17-year-olds) would not be harmful even if they were committed by a man, so it is doubly absurd. It takes a very special kind of dimwit to take the female sex offender charade seriously, one who has had all common sense oversocialized out of her (and yes, believers are mostly female, with men being far less gullible because of course we know from personal experience that female sexuality is something we want rather than fear). Prosecutors don't care, since their careers grow in proportion to the damage they inflict on people. They never pause to consider if a law makes sense or conforms to the most basic moral standards, since their jobs depend on not comprehending common sense, or if they do understand it, they are so evil that they don't care. But what about the general public? How can you stand for this? Why aren't more Americans fighting back against hateful feminist sex laws even when they produce so bizarre results?

I know that Jennifer will not actually serve 22 years, because the scumbags running the system will lose their power in the coming deflationary collapse. It will be impossible to feed and guard her for anywhere near that long. With Brent crude now at $36 a barrel and WTI at $34, and depletion of natural resources being the principal force behind this deflationary trend, it is only a matter of a short time before prison guards will starve to death. Those who make a living by hurting others and produce nothing of value will find themselves most superfluous when business as usual ends. One year ago, Gail Tverberg predicted $20 oil by early 2016 and the collapse of civilization shortly thereafter, and it looks like she will be right. This is a Pyrrhic victory because nearly all our lives are ending in the deflationary collapse, but at least it will put an end to the problem of feminist sex-hostility. It remains to be seen how long a collapsing civilization will prioritize its war on sexuality, and for all I know this will be one of the last things to go, but no matter how hard they try, nothing as wasteful as the American prison system can be maintained for long. Prosecuting victimless sex crimes provides zero benefit except to perpetuate hatred, at a huge expense, so why prioritize it? Humans are not rational, and this sort of injustice may well continue till the bitter end, even thought the end is likely only months away at this point and one would think the powers that be had better things to do with their remaining resources than locking up women for being nice to boys. Men's rights activism (which is really sex-positive activism and good for women too, as this case shows) is therefore relevant as long as industrial civilization persists, and we should think of ways to hurt the state as much as we are able to.

The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. Resistance is therefore best accomplished by refusing to internalize the norms of the oppressors. Please take this message to heart. Don't internalize feminist sexual taboos, like I have not done, and you will be the kind of beast that the authorities cannot contain, the kind of person they will hate as much as I hate them. Or if you have already internalized these odious sexual taboos, deprogram yourself and get this sick morality out of your system. The feminist war against sexuality cannot be successful without our cooperation, and I for one am refusing to cooperate. Yes, this is a perilous course to take, but the moral gratification of looking down on our oppressors with a righteous heart makes it worth it. My heart is seething with hatred against the scumbags in law enforcement, and so they have correctly identified me as an enemy more malevolent than any other, because my mind refuses to serve the oppressors. Sadly, most actual sex offenders don't rise to my level of resistance, but instead participate in their own persecution by tacitly or even explicitly supporting the norms by which they are oppressed (even Jennifer reportedly groveled and pled for forgiveness in deference to the feminist sex laws in court as if she had really done something wrong, but hopefully that wasn't sincere). Very few convicted sex offenders will tell you there is anything wrong with the laws they got convicted of violating, but my attitude is profoundly different even though I have never even been accused of a sex crime. I am no simple criminal, but an activist against sexual oppression, which is far more dangerous for the state. My blog is an effort of resistance against sexual taboos from A to Z, only interrupted by some forays into peak oil. The authorities tried to have me imprisoned because these are dangerous ideas which directly challenge their authority. In fact, I challenge the very foundation of their power, which is the norms internalized in the populace, without which the police state couldn't last a day. If people come to see the police as their oppressors, like I already do, our oppressors will not have access to enough violence to remain in power. My mission in life is to incite hatred against the scumbags in law enforcement, so that they will feel what it is like to govern a populace which hates their guts and sincerely wish them the worst. Only then can we make progress against the feminist war on sexuality.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Facebook is evil

This week we learned that Facebook has kicked out Rune Øygard because he is a convict of the victimless sex crime of having a consensual sexual relationship with 14-15-year-old girl (there is nothing really unusual about this criminal case, which just shows run-of-the-mill misandry and sex-hostility at work, but it received a lot of publicity in Norway because Øygard is a politician). It turns out that Facebook has an actual policy against convicted sex offenders. To me, this crosses the line and demonstrates unambiguously that Facebook is an evil instrument of political correctness, in the business of enforcing feminist sexual taboos. I believe a private company such as Facebook should have the right to exclude anyone they want, of course, but this policy raises the issue of whether it is a good idea for us to spend so much of our time there. The issue is our willingness to give them power over us. Facebook's ostracism hurts because we have trusted them with too much power and now they abuse that trust, but the fundamental problem is our gullibility. The moral is: Don't make yourself too dependent on any morally corrupt entity. This is an inherent risk of centralized platforms, so we should probably try to avoid these whenever possible.

Censorship on Facebook seems to be a trend which extends far beyond sex offenders. Pål Steigan has also reported an incident of censorship and written more about the worrisome political power of Facebook as well as their devious finances and phony charity. Steigan is a communist blogger who ironically has more faith in capitalism than I do, since he does not believe collapse is imminent. Despite his leftist background, his blog is very honest and informative, and at this stage of the game for industrial civilization it doesn't really matter whether one is a communist or a libertarian because neither ideology can accomplish anything when faced with deflationary collapse. What matters is to preserve as much freedom as possible for as long as we can, and for that I commend efforts from all across the political spectrum. Even the mainstream leftist publication Klassekampen is starting to express queasiness about Facebook's censorship these days.

It is ironic that I am not being censored on Facebook despite being an ardent activist for abolishing Øygard's crime, while he, a pathetic spokesman for political correctness, is. Though his actions speak otherwise, judged by his words, he is a feminist brown-nose who truly believes men should be imprisoned if found guilty on similar accusations. Whereas an upstanding MRA would proudly admit to such an ill-defined "crime" and go for jury nullification, Øygard is in complete moral and ideological agreement with the sick law. He just claims he didn't do the crime and that the girl is lying. I believe he is most likely guilty as charged because the accusations are so spectacularly natural for all men, and plausible, too, for a man in his position, but he did nothing worthy of punishment and the law itself is the problem here. A morally corrupt law which fills my heart with seething hatred against the government as well as scornful ridicule for the primitive buffoons who actually internalize the sexual taboo that tells their puny brains that sex with a 14-year-old is "abuse" -- which is to say the many imbeciles in Norway who use the word "overgrep" with a straight face. In their most common usage these are meaningless words, imbued with the malevolent magic of pure irrational taboos and nothing else. It literally does not matter what these words mean, because most of the time, the media will be no more specific than simply spouting these vague terms, and that is all it takes to make every common simpleton hate the accused man. A "sex offender" can mean anything between heaven and earth from something unbelievably innocuous to truly heinous (the latter being only applicable to a tiny subset, while the majority of sex crimes are completely victimless), but it does not matter, because it is the label itself that counts. We are dealing with an irrational phenomenon of creating a recipient for society's generic hatred, someone to oppress and exclude for reasons that are incomprehensible to me. Sort of like racism and witch-hunts combined, only politically correct.

Perhaps Øygard is a simple soul who has been earnestly brainwashed and can't resist these hateful taboos on an intellectual level. But while sexual taboos are highly effective at empowering the police state, legitimizing oppression and turning almost all his friends against a man, they do little to influence actual sexual behavior. Øygard is, after all, a man and acts like it. Normal and healthy heterosexual men do not turn down sex with well-formed females just because there is a law against it, and Øygard is no exception. Now that he has already served his sentence, he has nothing to lose by aligning his ideology with his actions and becoming a men's rights activist, so I would strongly advise him to do so. It reflects very badly on him that he can't take responsibility for his actions but instead keeps supporting the very feminist sexual taboos that he became a victim of. It puzzles me that he is still sucking up to the scumbags who put him in prison, even after he has nothing left to lose by standing up for a reasonable sexual morality. Frankly, he is a hypocrite. So he is not a great ambassador for the Men's Rights Movement, but I support him anyway because he serves to highlight he injustice of the law and the moral turpitude of Facebook.

I recommend using Facebook as little as possible in order to hurt their revenue and diminish their political influence. I am not saying delete your accounts since I am not doing that myself, but I will not use Facebook anymore unless an old friend sends me a message or something like that. A platform which enforces a morally decrepit ideology is not one I will invest my time in. Don't supply Facebook with content that they can exploit to sell advertising, spend as little time as possible there yourself, and whatever you do, never click on an ad through Facebook. I have never been a particularly active Facebook user, and from now on I will make sure to invest so little in my account that it will hardly be missed when Facebook decides to exclude me.

Instead, we should vote against hateful sexual taboos with our feet and use other platforms to publish our writings and build our communities. I have good experiences with Google's Blogger so far, who has never censored me at all even when I was jailed for my blog. WordPress also seems to be OK, judging by the fact that even brilliant activists for children's sexual self-determination such as Tom O'Carroll (who is a pedophile in the true meaning of the word and a convicted sex offender) are free to promote their agenda on it. Twitter also does not exclude convicted sex of offenders to my knowledge and I see lots of them on there, where activism for sex law reform also seems to be tolerated. So I suggest using these services instead of Facebook, while maintaining good backup routines so as to be ready to move all our content to another platform as needed, which can be a personal website if necessary. I don't know of any truly decentralized, censorship-proof social network, but we don't really need social networks anyway. Just using blogs, books, personal websites and email works fine for all our needs.

Friday, November 20, 2015

My compensation case for wrongful political imprisonment goes to the court of appeal

I am special because I did not internalize the prevailing sexual taboos of my culture like my more impressionable peers. Instead, I grew up to be a men's rights activist, dedicating my life to the fight against oppressive sexual taboos and their associated laws. If there is one thing I am proud of which to my mind really makes me better than most people, it is my ability to see through the odious irrationality which forms the basis for most of our sexual legislation. I am truly one of the few blessed (or cursed...) with the gift of sight in the country of the blind. I see the man in the street as a simple-minded fool who will easily internalize ever more hateful and irrational laws against normal human sexuality, usually including a great number of his own desires and actions. My refractoriness to brainwashing with feminist sexual taboos means that I don't fit in, and proudly so. If you are of the mainstream persuasion, then I represent what you consider evil, and you represent evil as I understand it. This difference is profound and cannot be amicably reconciled, because this is the stuff that true hatred is made of, the kind that motivates lynch mobs and legislators on one hand and sex offenders and sex-positive activists on the other.

I am a stranger in a strange land who fundamentally does not accept the sexual morality of my culture, a natural-born rebel. I am so ardent and sensitive to this issue that I can't read the news without convulsing with hatred against the state for another persecution of victimless sexuality and fake victimhood, which happens daily (such as this recent example). If I were to express my opinions with complete honesty, I would obviously be in prison, so this blog is an expurgated version fit for publication. My original comments that landed me in jail in 2012 actually also struck the right balance between the hatred in my soul against the scumbags in law enforcement and the purely pragmatic need to remain within the law, which is why I was cleared of all criminal charges by the Supreme Court of Norway. I am assuredly not a nice guy from the point of view of society, and those judges would have loved to see me imprisoned, but the police had so flagrantly disregarded the law that it would have been a scandal to let the prosecution proceed.

I became a men's rights activist first and foremost because of the corruption of rape law (see my post entitled "My Antifeminist Journey" for how I was radicalized) -- because of the hatred instilled in me by all the feminist legal reforms to rape law in my lifetime -- closely followed by the hatred incited in my soul by odiously high age of consent laws and the legal fiction of statutory rape, the criminalization of child pornography with its absurd definitions, grooming laws, revenge porn laws, the feminist construct of "sexual harassment," the criminalization of men who pay for sex (and the sellers too in many countries), the recent abolition of the statute of limitations for sex crimes in Norway, the preposterous "trafficking" hysteria, the institution of needless taboos against sexual relations between people based on a multitude of roles and statuses such as doctors and patients and teachers and students or President and intern, and no enumeration of my antifeminist hatred is complete without mentioning the bizarre feminist idea that women should be held equally culpable for sex crimes: the female sex offender charade. This makes me a bona fide enemy of the state, and because of expressing my conviction that insurrection is the moral response for men, I was arrested in 2012. I am admittedly an ideologically violent activist, but it is legal in Norway to be an advocate of violent resistance as long as one does not publicly exhort a specific implementation of such acts, which I never do. Even communists don't get imprisoned here just for being ideologically revolutionary, and it would be a travesty to lower the bar on permitted speech just for me.

My mission is to convince men that the sex laws of our land are hateful and unfair and that the scumbags in law enforcement are our enemies (and not just the enemies of men -- cops and prosecutors increasingly use our insane sex laws to prey on women too, goaded on by feminists and manginas). I aim to incite maximum hostility against the feminist state of Norway (without breaking the law), against our legislators and their enforces. This hatred is mutual, of course, and I provoked a predictable reaction from the state. But the more the authorities fight me, the more they help promulgate my subversive propaganda in court documents, like this one. That is the ruling from the district court (Nordhordland tingrett) in my compensation case for wrongful incarceration as a political prisoner.

The district court ruling claims that what I wrote would be punishable if not for the technicality of publicness, the definition of which did not include blogging at the time. This is wrong and cannot be allowed to stand. I did not incite execution ("iverksettelse") of crimes; I merely argued in favor of them and expressed my unflinching moral support for the brave men who hurt the state, as well as glorifying them after the fact, which is also legal. Expressing hatred and activist-glorification against laws, legislators and enforcers is protected by freedom of speech as this right is defined in Norway, and that is all I am doing. All the points in my old post from one year ago describing my lawsuit back then are still valid. But I lost and was denied compensation because the court regards my actions as "worthy of punishment," as is also claimed in an obiter dictum from a previous Supreme Court ruling in my case (though it is debatable what exactly they meant there). It is the opinion of the district court that my statements would be punishable if they were defined as public at the time, which is false. That is my most important reason for appealing, next to getting money: I want to establish for all to see that my kind of rhetoric which was labeled as extremist and criminal all over the national news is perfectly legitimate.

I was imprisoned for 22 days while the cops made a failed attempt at prosecuting me for promulgating my heartfelt conviction that insurrection is an ethical, noble and tactically reasonable course of men's rights activism. What I did was legal, but every bit as malicious as accused and with the utmost premeditation. The true test of freedom of speech is whether it protects malevolent activists like me with unpopular agendas, and aside from the compensation issue and the hysterical scramble to change the law because of me, Norway passed in this case. But I am still not done litigating the compensation issue. I appealed the district court ruling, and now my compensation suit is going to the court of appeal (Gulating lagmannsrett) on December 4th, 2015. The goal of the upcoming trial, aside from getting more publicity for the Men's Rights Movement and to legitimize our vicious propaganda, is to force the Norwegian government to pay me compensation in the amount of NOK 37,100 for their bad-faith attempt to prosecute me for exercising my freedom of speech, which they are refusing to do unless compelled by the court. I stated my sincere and thoughtful opinion on the ethics of violent activism against feminist sex laws and their enforcers, without telling anybody to actually carry it out. It was part of a philosophical discussion rather than a call to action, which was and is perfectly legal. In terms of mens rea, I most assuredly had a guilty mind insofar as what I did was no accident and perfectly malicious. But crimes also require the actus reus, and that was absent, since no actual law was violated, as certified by the Supreme Court.

From the state's point of view, I am a dangerous man because I seek to use my influence in the Men's Movement to hurt the government -- influence which only grows the more they try to suppress me -- but I do so within the bounds of the law. My heart is full of seething hatred against the scumbags in law enforcement and I sincerely wish them the worst, but none of this is criminal. It is mere sentiment and opinion and at worst glorification of crimes, which despite being mentioned in the Norwegian Penal Code of 1902, has long since been decriminalized in the interest of freedom of speech. It was de facto legal already in 2012, and now, with the enactment of the revised Penal Code in 2015, the law has even been changed to make it explicit that glorifying crime is legal. The new version of § 140 (the statute I was accused under), which is now called § 183, does not have any reference to glorification because it has been legalized, and now simply says: "Den som offentlig oppfordrer noen til å iverksette en straffbar handling, straffes med bot eller fengsel inntil 3 år."

Gulating Court of Appeal, Bergen
I am very idealistic about my activism. I took a calculated risk of being nearly as offensive as one can be without being a criminal, a risk I deemed to be justified because I so strongly believe in the sex-positive cause, motivated by morality and idealism from the depths of my heart. It is important for me to emphasize that everything I wrote was carefully considered and represents my deepest convictions, my heart and soul. Our goal as MRAs is to find ways to rebel against society in revenge for the feminist sex laws and influence legislators to repeal them, not because I think they can be persuaded by reason but because our politicians might come to realize that men's rights activists are a greater cost to them than the perverse satisfaction of oppressing sexuality that they derive from these laws. The words I was arrested for still describe my agenda with perfect fidelity. But that agenda did not and does not go so far as to literally incite illegal violence as defined by the Penal Code. Protesting means hurting society, but it does not necessarily involve breaking the law. A labor strike or a blockade, for example, can do far more harm than killing the occasional cop, without the downside of landing us in prison, so that is the sort of campaigns we should be agitating for. I am a spiteful propagandist for men's rights, but not a criminal inciter, and thanks to freedom of speech our cause cannot be silenced. Now it is time to do my part to foster hatred against the feminist state and its scumbag enforcers in the Gulating Court of Appeal on December 4th. I am motivated by the hate of that which is evil and the love for that which is still good about humanity, though few have the moral integrity to recognize it and fewer dare articulate it like I do. Come watch me win compensation for being wrongfully prosecuted for my activism.

UPDATE 11/27/2015: For reasons beyond my control having to do with bureaucratic delay in securing funding for my lawyer, the trial has been postponed until sometime next year. I will announce the new date as soon as I know it.

UPDATE 12/4/2015: The trial has been rescheduled for February 29th, 2016. I will use the extra time to practice elocution, and I hope to see many of you in attendance.

UPDATE 02/25/2016: The trial has been postponed again for the same reason. New date to be determined.

The trial will finally take place on October 13th, 2016.