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:

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:

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.