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.

182 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your family, and especially your father, was right, you are a despicable and mentally disturbed being, but aware of your crimes, which you do not even deny. You are a shame as a human being, and I do not understand how the Justice Court has not put you inside a padded cell to prevent you propagating your insanity to the rest of society. You will never win, evil being.

Eivind Berge said...

My blog is an exemplar of legally protected speech in Norway no matter how you feel about it, and we have the court rulings to prove it. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the government's appeal, then this situation is affirmed and my victory is final. If they do decide to take on the appeal, we will have to argue the case again in Oslo, I and might still win.

My father has picked the other side and is no longer part of my life.

The feeling of evil is mutual. As shocking as this must be to you, sex-hostile feminists don't have a monopoly on defining evil. You do control the sex laws at the moment, but there are people like me who seethe with hatred in the opposite direction, and freedom of speech ensures that we still have a voice. I will tirelessly promote my agenda of antifeminist sex law reform as long as I live and to the full extent permitted by law.

Eivind Berge said...

As to whether I deny the crimes of which I was accused, the answer requires some nuance. I do not deny the factual description of them, and I certainly don't deny malicious intent and premeditation, but the law did not actually apply to what I had done and still does not. So the short answer is that I do deny my crimes, because they are not crimes at all.

Look at yourself. You want to put me in a padded room for having a different morality, derived from years of thoughtful deliberation, and different political opinions. Even if you don't realize how incredibly evil and dangerous you are, hopefully most of my readers will. And while that sort of nightmare is a real risk in the Norwegian system, it did not at all work in my case because even the prosecution's own appointed psychiatrist refused to go along with my family's attempts to have me declared insane. I didn't even have to fight for my sanity like Breivik did, because all the claims of insanity weren't even remotely credible to professionals. Your kind of hysteria is recognized for what it is.

Anonymous said...

You know that looking for someone's name can find a lot of information and make people pay for their crimes. In 1999 in Oslo they had the name of a suspect by murder to a 14-year-old girl, Eivind Berge, a well-known hebephile known for trying to flirt with pubescent children in pubs and other places. According to the case the girl was groomed by the pervert and when Berge was accused of statutory rape, the girl was found death in the area near Utøya, in the water, Berge could not be prosecuted for having contacts, or so claimed the investigation. To me this provokes anger and pain as these perverts do not pay for their crimes against women, but it is certain that this monster is inside a ring of child pornography (or pedophile ring) with a contact who is very fond of the opera. This is this motive of their insistence on legalizing perversions and unjustifiable crimes. I am going to contact his current partner and his family, in addition to the police and the Norwegian prosecutor, I leave this message to know the crimes of this scourge and their ring of child predators, even Berge is in fact known in pedophile activist websites as "an old friend of the pedophiles", which I hope thanks to this records, these scourges will pay for their crimes. Not a girl can being a victim anymore if we can stop these perverts at time.

Eivind Berge said...

You are seriously messed up. So delusional that not even the authorities will take your gibberish seriously.

By the way, in 1999 I was living in the USA, so if you want to implicate me in a crime, the correct location would be Clarksville, Tennesse.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, hvorfor sletter du ikke konsekvent idiotisk spam? Der findes i forvejen for meget af slagsen her på nettet. Ellers tager det til, og det ender med at det overskygger seriøse indlæg. Du kan skrive en advarsel øverst på din overside, hvor du pointerer at det ikke er censur, men at det sker af praktiske grunde.

Eivind Berge said...

I see your point, and yes, I won't tolerate too much of this idiocy. However, I also think it is worth knowing what kind of maniacs are out there, and so far this has been informative enough that I decided not to delete it. After all, this lunatic is only slightly less crazy than the "serious" vigilante groups that are tolerated by the authorities, such as this one:

https://www.facebook.com/Barnastrygghet2.0/videos/1811142769123912/

The man-haters who call themselves "Barnas Trygghet" engage in the exact same madness, entrapping men with lies, in a form which actually functions as an extension of the police and justice system. These evil forces are too powerful and enjoy too much support in the population to ignore. Now that we have reached the point where men are imprisoned for believing lies which elicit their ideology, persecution of men for professing the very same ideology can't be far behind. The "grooming" nonsense is simply an extraneous step to catch people who refuse to internalize the politically correct sexual norms. As an activist against these norms, this is disconcerting, because there is only a very thin line separating us from a full-fledged witch-hunt where madmen like my commenter here get to call the shots.

Anonymous said...

This man-hating anonymous is imbecile, hebephilia? and what is that? Do not even know how to write this idiot?

Eivind Berge said...

That vigilante video has now been removed from Facebook, but here is a good discussion:

"Barnas Trygghet" – en terrororganisasjon


http://vgd.no/samfunn/aktuelt/tema/1835572/tittel/barnas-trygghet-en-terrororganisasjon

caamib said...

Eivind - what is that organization about? What does their name even mean? Could you explain for those of who don't speak Norwegian? I am a bit under the weather now but I will write a longer post when I get better about some things that come to mind.

Eivind Berge said...

Barnas Trygghet, which means "The Children's Safety," is all about entrapping men by pretending to be young teenage girls online and incriminating them thanks to the grooming law which feminists managed to pass in 2008. Their mission statement is to catch "groomers," or rather men who are gullible enough to believe their lies. Usually the girls are impersonated by Stig Kalsnes, the 24-year-old mangina who is the founder of the organization. They then post videos on Facebook and YouTube of men who tried to meet the fake girls and instead got confronted by sadistic man-haters. Their popularity on Facebook is a squalid testament to the level of misandry in the population (the latest video had 16,000 likes), but they also inadvertently help recruit MRAs and raise awareness about the normality of attraction to young teenagers, as seen in the second link above.

What struck me about the comments on their Facebook page is that while there are many feminists and manginas who support their work, their supporters tend to be squeamish about showing the identities of the targeted men, because they sense that hatred flows in two directions and there will be a backlash when MRAs are given such an excellent opportunity to band together as an ostracized group. The feminist establishment and media in Norway are careful to anonymize the identities of sex offenders because they know that is the way to maximize oppression while minimizing dissent, so I am rather enjoying the amateurishness of Barnas Trygghet. They even comically call men "pedophiles" who are perfectly normal (at worst they might be hebephile, which is within the normal range and failed to get into the DSM-V despite feminist attempts) -- in fact, Barnas Trygghet don't even try to entrap real pedophiles, possibly because they realize pedophilia is so rare that they would have a shortage of victims to satisfy their sadism. I think they are actually a net benefit for men's rights, because men who lose everything have no choice but to pick a side. There are millions of men in Norway who find girls of the same ages attractive while pretending not to in order to be part of politically correct society, and anything which serves to reduce this hypocrisy is at least partly beneficial, in my view. The real enemy of men is of course feminist sex laws such as the grooming law and age of consent, not these clownish vigilante organizations. I say bring it on -- expose the true nature of masculinity, because we have nothing to be ashamed of about our sexuality and unity will make us stronger.

Feminists have two weapons against men: the law and shame. This organization mainly exploits the latter, and that is the one thing we can resist simply by changing our state of mind. So let's do it! Let the concept of "groomer" carry no shame.

Anonymous said...

As far as I can see, the main reasons why they pretend to be 13-14 year olds (and not younger children) are two:
1) It is unlikely that 8-9 year olds would be able to actively search for sexual partners on the internet (due to lack of experience, organizational reasons, and because they are kept much more under control). True pedophiles, who have learned to be careful, would smell a rat immediately.

2) Most of normal men have interest in young teenagers, and a lot of young teenagers, if given the chance, would not dislike (or even prefer) a much older sexual partner.

Reason 1) in conjunction with 2) means that it is much easier for these thugs to find a victim (which is what they are looking for) by posing as a 13-14 years old girl.

Eivind Berge said...

You are probably right. I had not given the question of how one would go about contacting prepubescent children online much thought, but upon reflection it seems unlikely that they can be found at dating sites like the ones used by these thugs (Barnas Trygghet apparently use Badoo.com). Which makes the entire concept of "protecting children" against pedophiles in this manner even more spurious and idiotic.

Anonymous said...

I was "targeted" by what I now in retrospect understand was "Barnas trygghet" on Badoo once. I then thought it only was some kind of money scam or something because I understood right away that the girl who claimed she 18 on the profile but said she was 13 when she contacted me, wasn't a young girl at all because of the way she presented herself in her messages to me. If I knew then that this was "Barnas trygghet", I would have played along and met up with that mangina and kicked his ass!

Anonymous said...

Man skulle lade som om man går med til et møde med et (fiktivt barn), og bagefter møder man op femten stykker... så er jeg spændt på at se hvem der bestemmer!

Eivind Berge said...

Now it has been decided: The Supreme Court has unanimously declined to hear the appeal! This means my victory in the compensation case is final, and we can rest assured that the definition of free speech stands as well. The state has also lost another 26,000 kroner in legal costs to me, and I will shortly receive everything I am owed with interest.

Anonymous said...

hahahaha! Du skulle møtt opp i Allehelgensgate i Bergen og sagt til dem, hit med penga mine! For noen fjols. I stedet for å bare gi seg med en gang har de forfulgt saken fra runde til runde. Og det verste er at det foreligger en slags moralsk pekefinger mot befolkningen fra påtalemyndigheten sin side at man som siktet skal innrømme skyld umiddelbart, for å unngå rettslige skritt.

Anonymous said...

At de selv skal være med til at støtte Eivind økonomisk må være et mareridt for dem, så det ville ikke undre mig hvis de nu fandt et nyt påskud for ikke at punge ud...

Anonymous said...

Blir spennende å se om de faktisk betaler ut pengen de etter dom må betale

Eivind Berge said...

De må betale, for alle ankemulighetene deres er brukt opp nå. Men ja, det gjenstår å se om de faktisk gjør det.

Anonymous said...

Jeg håber at du også har fået erstatning for dine uskyldige kaktusser, som måtte omkomme på grund af politiets ransagningsliderlighed...

Anonymous said...

Du skriver at din familie "valgte side". Så du opererer med klare moralske poler. Føler du at advokaten din som nå har vunnet saken har vært på din side "ideologisk"?

Eivind Berge said...

For min families vedkommende er ikke dette bare et moralsk spørsmål. Jeg har vært moralsk og politisk uenig med dem hele livet, med trodde det var noe man kunne leve med inntil de faktisk samarbeidet med politiet og gjorde alt de kunne for å få meg dømt, og attpåtil forsøkte å få meg erklært utilregnelig. Det var altså ikke et abstrakt spørsmål om holdninger, men en rent praktisk nødvendighet for å overleve at jeg måtte fjerne dem fra livet mitt. De valgte side bokstavelig talt, i praksis. Jeg trodde ikke at et slikt svik var mulig, og har lært en lekse der, nemlig at moralske poler spiller en større rolle enn jeg ante. Hvis noen er grunnleggende uenig med deg politisk, så er det antakelig en illusjon at man kan være venner, for da vil de ikke nøle med å bruke maktapparatet mot deg når de får sjansen. Men nå kan det hende at min familie er ekstra forrædersk, da. Ingen av dem hadde plikt til å forklare seg for politiet eller vitne i saken, noe de ble informert om, men alle stilte gladelig opp på avhør hvor de anstrengte seg for å fremstille meg i verst tenkelig lys (bortsett fra min mor som tilfeldigvis var på ferie i utlandet, men hun ville utvilsomt gjort det også). Ville det skjedd i andre familier? Antakelig ikke i de fleste, men moralen er at moralske og politiske motsetninger betyr mer enn man skulle tro.

Og ja, jeg føler at advokaten har vært på min side ideologisk. Selvsagt må han operere innenfor juridiske rammer, så det kommer ikke så klart frem som det gjør i mine ideologiske ytringer. Men hvem ellers ville forfulgt saken på denne måten? Han første jeg fikk oppnevnt var helt elendig, så jeg fikk også føle hvordan det var å ha en advokat som ikke var på bølgelengde.

Ox said...

Congratulations Eivind! Ikke gi deg. Du er jævlig flink og Norge trenger deg og andre som deg.

Hilsen en som forakter politiet og feminister minst like mye som deg.

CulDeSac said...

Ja, du har absolutt vært heldig med advokaten din. Advokater kan ikke trylle, ikke den du valgte heller, men i motsetning til mange andre advokater, så er din advokat åpenbart villig til å forfølge et krav der han vet med seg selv at han har rett i det juridiske. Mange advokater virker det som er mest opptatte av å gjøre seg populære hos påtalemyndighet og myndigheter for øvrig og/eller er pengegriske.
Jeg personlig hadde en sak om uberettiget straffeforfølgelse mot staten. Jeg hadde advokatkontoret Elden, altså John Christian Elden sitt, men deres korte brev med kravet førte ingen vei og de var ikke villig til å skrive klage eller noe. Det eneste de sa de kunne gjøre var å vurdere saken rettslig hvis jeg betalte inn 10 000 kroner på klientkontoen deres. Det gjorde jeg ikke, men valgte å heller skrive klage til Statens sivilrettsforvaltning på egen hånd hvorpå jeg vant frem med hele kravet mitt. Advokatfirmaet Elden kan jeg bare advare på det sterkeste mot.

Eivind Berge said...

Nå har denne saken pågått i fire og et halvt år, men journalistene i BT har fremdeles ikke lært seg forskjellen på trusler og oppvigling eller fått med seg at jeg kun var siktet for det siste.

http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Truet-med-politidrap_-far-full-erstatning-329764b.html

Teksten er bak en betalingsvegg, så jeg får ikke lest den, men overskriften sier:

«Truet med politidrap, får full erstatning»

Og billedteksten:

«TRUET: Bloggeren Eivind Berge i Bergen Tingrett i forbindelse med saken mot ham i 2012 hvor han var siktet for trusler mot polititjenestemenn, etter at han skrev på bloggen sin at han planla å drepe politifolk. Han ble frikjent, og tilkjent erstatning. Staten anket erstatningsspørsmålet til Høyesterett, men de har nå avvist anken. FOTO: Silje Katrine Robinson»

Er de virkelig så dumme, eller prøver de å gjøre det mer sensasjonelt enn det er?

Anonymous said...

I høst ble staten dømt til å betale 37.100 kroner i erstatning til Berge.

Staten ble også dømt til å betale Berges saksomkostninger på 150.000 kroner.

Regjeringsadvokaten anket saken til Høyesterett, men 27. januar avviste Høyesteretts ankeutvalg saken.

Dermed er den lange prosessen mot Berge over, og staten må betale både erstatning og saksomkostninger til den selverklærte anti-feministen Berge.

Truet med vold mot politiet

Eivind Berge meldte selv om avgjørelsen i ankeutvalget på Twitter:

«Enden er god: I stedet for straff fikk jeg 37 100 kroner for å si min mening om politidrap som mannsaktivisme mot sedelighetslovene! Hahaha!»

Saken mot Berge startet tilbake i 2012 da Berge arrestert av politiet i Bergen. Det skjedde fordi et innlegg på 36-åringens blogg blant annet handlet om at han planla å drepe en politimann på Torgallmenningen.

Saksøkte staten

I juli 2012, etter å ha sittet tre uker i varetekt, ble Berge beordret løslatt av Gulating lagmannsrett.

Høyesterett slo siden fast at ytringer på internett faller utenfor definisjonen av «trykt skrift» i straffeloven. Riksadvokaten henla saken mot Berge i desember 2012.

Berge har innrømmet å forherlige voldshandlinger, men nektet for at han har oppfordret til drap. Han har siden understreket at han ikke angrer på noe av det han skrev på bloggen sin.

Han saksøkte staten og krevde oppreisning, og det er denne rettsprosessen som nå har fått sin ende.

LES OGSÅ: Kjæresten til antifeministen

caamib said...

Well, Eivind, I congratulate you on your final victory. Predictably, all those idiots who chastised you when you were arrested and celebrated when your detention period was initially extended in July 2012 are now completely silent.

But what can you expect from such vermin? The amount of lies and hysteria they can produce is truly astounding, kinda like this nutjob in the comments who claimed you were under suspicion for murder in 1999 Norway when you didn't even live there at the time. But this is probably some of the less crazy shit they said. I remember liberals saying you were the author of Emma's posts, then that got your girlfriend because you bought her since she's a destitute Russian or entire campaigns to get you off University because your beliefs about rape somehow meant you are a rapist. These people have no knowledge of the material world. Their fantasies and incorrect nonsense is all that exists for them. They are dangerous, they are maniacs and they hate you because you're white, straight and male. They don't give a fuck about any rape or age of consent or whatever.

The groups they find immune to criticism could rape their mothers, sisters or daughters and they'd be ok with it. The groups they find immune to criticism can rape newborns, it's all ok to liberals since these groups can't be criticized since they lack privilege. You have to understand that to a liberal actual definition of rape is any rape a straight white male has at any time. They are self-hating freaks and monsters and they will get what's coming to them very soon. They have already basically stopped reproducing and turned women over to groups like Muslims and they have no biological or ideological future. Nobody wants a pathetic mangina who asks for consent over and over again every millimeter. Women want men who do what they wish with them, it is in their nature. Consent is a very useful concept within an environment of patriarchal civilization. Today it's a gone concept. You cannot have consent as something that is demanded of just one group of people and liberals actually believe that just one group of people has to think about "consent". And even when they do get consent they still hate this group !

Liberals have no chance with any of these women and they have only decreased their chances by making the women in their countries basically a monopoly of the Muslims. And in the end these same Muslims will destroy the liberals who cherish them so much and that is a good thing. Western world has forfeited its future. It is gone. It can no longer be saved.

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks, caamib. Today I was informed that the payout will happen on February 16th and be 37,911 kroner, which includes 8.5% interest since two weeks from the verdict. So they have finally admitted defeat.

By the government lawyer's own admission in his arguments for appealing to the Supreme Court (which was flatly denied by that court), this case is also setting a precedent for similar cases, leading to an absolute requirement that someone in my position must be compensated ("konsekvensen er at siktede i tilfeller som vårt får et absolutt krav på erstatning og oppreisning"). This will help deter police from trying similar prosecutions. While it doesn't come out of their personal paychecks, they do lose face when they not only fail to get a criminal conviction but have to pay for their mistake as well.

caamib said...

My guess is that they're gonna keep trying, one way or another. Now they've lost this legal path so they will wait see if you will somehow slip and say something that could be prosecuted. You're certainly not a priority but I believe they're quite annoyed as this was a slap to their face. So they will check from time to time. But given that 1) you're much milder in your posts since you're not even incel anymore and 2) since already back in 2012 you admitted that some of your statements were too extreme and won't be repeated again they are almost certainly wasting their time.

Anonymous said...

Look at this mangina piece of shit Tom Stranger. The piece of shit Tom Stranger has convinced himself that he's a rapist, which he of course is not. But that piece of shit Tom Stranger is even to cowardly to sign up for a prison sentence for his self proclaimed crime. Let's see what this cowardly fucker would have said if he was met with the opportunity of a prison sentence.

http://www.nettavisen.no/nyheter/utenriks/her-star-kvinnen-frem-med-mannen-som-voldtok-henne/3423311459.html

Eivind Berge said...

Tom Stranger is not a rapist, but he is a mangina of the worst kind. It is really sad.

I also have trouble believing the girl's story of counting to 7200 while supposedly being too drunk to resist sex (that would be a daunting task even while sober). She is a professional feminist rape activist. How convenient that she has a "rape" in her past.

Anonymous said...

Yesterday I saw a man scream "I'm going to hit you if you do not get in the car" to a woman who would be his partner, this is just another crime of gender violence, and the worst thing is that the woman probably not report the man to the police. It's horrible, I cried yesterday for it, we are monsters, we are killing women, we are despicable, I wish I could stop being a man.

Anonymous said...

"I cried yesterday for it, we are monsters, we are killing women, we are despicable, I wish I could stop being a man." Yes, you are despicable, but please do not portray other men as losers, just because you are one. Sex-change would not help at all, you need a brain surgery if improvement were to be made.

Mom46now said...

I am a female and after a decade of nothing but an onslaught of lie after lie from my ex, Eivin Berge, he finally pulled the ultimate manipulation. He actually promised one of our 4 kids that if she could start a fight with me,and then leave the house and call 911 and report that I had beaten her-he guaranteed that she would have it better at his house. Now, he was currently getting divorced from wife#3, and a month later moved in his girlfriend AGED JUST 18yr old!!sick. for 3 months the children had no beds and only the clothes and bedding they packed when they were unlawfully taken from my home. I never in court brought up the fact that there was domestic violence, but there was and my eldest was remembering allot. I was arrested charged with 3 aggrevated assault charges (38,mom of 6,served in the military, taught preschool from home)-it was all gone because of a lie. This lie now a year later has caused depression, PTSD and anxiety because I can't afford $75/hr supervised visits. They aren't going to take anyone from family court that perjurers themselves and prosecute but it is the Judge in the family courtroom that is and can sanction very high fines and place that person on probation for up to 5 years which comes with a monthly fine. The best way to lobby this is to approve the attorney general with at least 5 cases that span a decade and pull minute entries, show the discrepancies in the testimony and statements and propose that the state could actually gain from these people trying to lie to the system and manipulate the situations in their favors if more family court judges would assign guilt of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt through fines and fees for maximum sentencing probationary periods. This would deter many to come not to lie. There also necessary to campaign to raise the age of consent to 21, this will prevent ugly men from engaging in vulnerable and uninexperienced high school girls.

Anonymous said...

If you want to be a story teller, please learn how to write properly, first!

Anonymous said...

Those who tell false stories about you are a bit wrong of the head, yes, but you are the living definition of a crack, you just have to take a look at your Twitter timeline, I think you even do only to annoy society, whatever your affirmations are real or not. It is as if in denying each thing who supports the society and following the contrary and unpopular version on earth you believe that you will succeed because of it, it is not so, there are things demonstrated by medicine and science, regardless you have reason in other things or not, maybe that's why you hate psychiatry, because I do not think that you even know what's going on in your head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#Crank_magnetism

Anonymous said...

Statens Sivilrettsforvaltning deler villig ut en halv million kroner til en mann som var siktet drapsforsøk etter at vedkommende vitterlig hadde knivstukket en mann minst åtte ganger med kniv. Bakgrunnen var at denne eks-direktøren som nesten ble drept angivelig hadde gjort seksuelle fremstøt mot dama til knivstikkeren. I motsetning til i Eivind Berge sin sak som utelukkende handlet om ytringer på nett, så synes ikke Statens Sivilrettsforvaltning at denne knivstikkeren bør bære noe av ansvaret for sine egne handlinger. Selv om det var snakk om hele åtte knivstikk og vedkommende kunne kanskje stoppet ved ett snikk. Eller kanskje to? Nei, Statens Sivilrettsforvaltning er et bol med feminist-rotter. Det er åpenbart at knivstikking av menn som har gjort seksuelle fremstøt er helt greit i følge Statens Sivilrettsforvaltning og ikke fører til verken nekting eller avkortning av erstatning eller oppreisning. Helt utrolig, spesielt når man sammenligner med Eivind Berges erstatningssak.
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/han-fikk-492-000-kroner-i-erstatning-etter-aa-ha-nesten-drept-eksdirektoer/a/23926412/

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/krim/graatkvalt-eryka-i-retten-eksdirektoeren-gjorde-seksuelle-fremstoet-mot-meg/a/23571138/

Anonymous said...

Eks-tingrettsdommer Inger Myhr som ble tatt for fyllekjøring etter å ha kollidert i fylla med høypromille alkohol kunne ikke lenger jobbe som dommer men ble belønnet av staten med en stilling i nettopp statens sivilrettsforvaltning.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/bil-og-trafikk/sorenskriver-hadde-2-98-i-promille-slipper-fengsel/a/10106950/

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg fikk pengene på konto i dag! 37 911 kroner. Så de betalte til slutt, men ja, det er litt rart at Sivilrettsforvaltningen kjempet imot helt til Høyesterett samtidig som de gir erstatning uten å nøle i saker som den over.

Emma said...

Sex-hostility and man-hating. Yeah. They rape children. If you talk to one of the 'straight male' as a female commentator, she’ll say that, when it comes to sex (which he tells you is likely going to happen to you,) they, “not leave young girls alone… usually.” Usually. As in not always. As in they sometimes FUCK LITTLE GIRLS.

I don’t care if everything else they touch turns into rainbow fucking sprinkles, I don’t care if being a lesbian feminist is literally Hitler, that is not acceptable.

Minister said...

I will prove why libertine Eivin is wrong, and still thanks to the inspiration of the Lord who guides every word of mine.

Caesar Nero had openly homosexual marriages and young boys as sexual partners as young as age-8. Child sex is only for creeps. Period.

In fact, the Roman Empire, with its great emphases on "practicality and doing what works", considered the simplest way to deal with all orphans and unwanted children was to allow them to be "purchased-adopted as sex slaves" - male or female of any age - as long as they were kept off the streets, fed and sheltered.

The evil nature of humanity being as it is, this did solve the "orphan problem" as compared to the hordes of sometimes scores of thousands of orphans on the streets of London in the 1600-1700's. This is what libertarianism (AKA anarcocapitalism) wants for 2017 as well.

Prostution is an evil like pedophilia and robbery, is slavery. In ancient Rome, prostitutes were often foreign slaves, captured by soldiers (one of their main reasons for serving in the Roman army) or purchased as slaves for sexual purpose, usually having been raised for that purpose, sometimes by large-scale "prostitute farmers" who took all abandoned children.

Indeed, abandoned children were almost always raised as prostitutes in ancient Rome. Enslavement into prostitution was sometimes used as a legal punishment against criminal women. Buyers were allowed to inspect naked men and women for sale in private and there was no stigma attached to the purchase of males by a male aristocrat.

Scattered throughout the Roman Empire, and especially in the Ancient Near East along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, there were many shrines and temples or "houses of heaven" they were called dedicated to various deities documented by the Ancient Greek historian Herodotus in The Histories where sacred prostitution was a common practice.

Thanks to God this came to an end when the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century AD destroyed the goddess and homosexual temples and replaced them with Christianity. Sex is something that our Lord gave us to procreate and continue his work. Marriage, as it was thought by God, is the only time that sex is benign and healthy.

Sadly, Constantine had much more Christian spiritual insight than modern Christian nations!

Anonymous said...

Hi Eivin, I'm just a 14 year old girl who thinks you're very sexy, you're very hot !! >_> Let's stay on webcam I want to meet you I'm very dirty do not tell anyone hehe >___~ nasty_girl14@hotmail.com xoxo

Anonymous said...

Ja ja, da så...

http://www.bt.no/nyheter/lokalt/Politimannen-som-anklages-for-a-ha-lest-om-overgrep-mot-barn-vedtar-boten-pa-15000-kroner-330965b.html

Eivind Berge said...

Utrolig at han sier seg skyldig og godtar straffen uten rettssak. En helt vanvittig mangina, men vi kan vel ikke vente noe annet av en politimann? Nå blir denne definisjonen av «barneporno» stående iallfall inntil en skikkelig mann blir anklaget.

Eivind Berge said...

Og advokaten hans er enda mer blåst:

«Austgulen mener politimannen har tatt en riktig avgjørelsen om å vedta et moderat forelegg i en moderat sak.»

Går det an å kalle seg forsvarsadvokat når du er en så stor rævslikker av feministstaten at du aksepterer at noveller skal være straffbar barneporno uten videre? Og 15 000 i bot er til og med en «moderat» straff for å lese tekster??? Er du så sykt mannevond i hodet ditt at du mener fengsel skal være normalstraffen da?

Eivind Berge said...

Vegard Austgulen bør miste advokatbevillingen. Det der er ikke bare feministisk, men direkte uetisk også innenfor advokatstandens egne normer. Å fremstille klienten som om han slapp billig unna når han blir straffet er ikke forenlig med å ivareta hans interesser, uansett sak. Alle menn i Bergen, STYR UNNA denne advokaten hvis dere blir anklaget for noe! Han er både en ideologisk fiende og inkompetent!

caamib said...

Any comments on the Milo thing? He was ostracized by even the pathetic alt right/red pill community for some common sense comments made over an year ago. The worst thing is, he bowed down to them so hard that instead of saying he was the a sort of sexual predator at the age of 14 (which is just with how I've seen some 14 year-old girls behave as well) to whining about being "abused". I can't believe how pathetic the alt right community have shown themselves to be.

Terry said...

Hi Eivind, What's your view on paedo vigilantes such as the woman below?

http://youtu.be/tVJXQscDAo4



Anonymous said...

to caamib

Gayness is a disease, the ancient Greeks already knew that despite modern defamations against them, and they placed the hubris in the anus, as a sign of shame and disgust that gayness provokes. Whether it's with a 14-year-old boy or a 30-year-old man, gays like Milo are itself is a bunch of liars, hypocrites and convert any act of human love in human perversion and baseness. A 14-year-old girl and a grown man just do what is destined for nature, which is to get together and create new life, and I do not give a shit how much the affeminated right-wing and modern mens rights trash tells me otherwise, just like the pink plague.

Anonymous said...

What do we as parents do when key public officials, large corporations as well as powerful governmental institutions become the key players in both stealing and sexually abusing our children? In my years of investigating these heinous crimes against humanity, I have learned that many in the global elite do not view the abduction and sexual abuse of our children to be a crime. Our children are merely the sexual toys for many of the world’s elite whether they be associated with the royal family of England, the Bush family, Dyncorps, Wachovia Wells Fargo, Blackwater (now Academi) or HSBC bank.

Yesterday, marked the Super Bowl. the largest child-sex-trafficking event in the World. And the FBI and the NFL do almost nothing to prevent this from happening. Why? It isn’t because they don’t have the resources to stop it.

Anonymous said...

You forgot children abducted by UFO: FBI and the NFL have never investigated a single case of this heinous and widespread crime!

Teresa Huizar said...

Eivind, this a conversation we need to have about Milo, Child Sexual Abuse, And The Myth Of Consent

In part, I am cheered to know that in 2017, American society still finds defending the rape of children beyond the realm of acceptable discourse. But fascinating as it is to recount Milo’s many other transgressions, his gut-churning comments about child sexual abuse reveal a vile and all-too-common myth: that children under 18 can somehow consent to sex with adults. They can’t. Full stop.

It’s heartbreaking to see an admitted child sexual abuse victim like Milo attempt to minimize his trauma by insisting that he chose it. In the world of Children’s Advocacy Centers, where we coordinate the investigation of child abuse and provide services to heal the trauma it causes, we hear it over and over—from the incest victim who has been told by her father that she “came on” to him to the child abused by his coach that truly thought that the person who exploited him loved him.

Anonymous said...


@Teresa Huizar
Fuck off bitch. Every age of consent law setting a limit over honest puberty is an atrocity against men. Children under 18 are not CHILDREND and women over 12 can have sex with wohever. PERIOD.
It's byology, it's nature.
Milo is right only if the involved parts are grwon men and minor women.
If you are a creepy old and ugly it's just your fault. Stop criminalize normal male sexuality to improve your inexistent sexual value.

Anonymous said...

@ Eivind.
But until what point it's right to respect the law?
Look what the law did against you.
Why should I pay taxes if they are used to harass good men like you?
If the law is wrong, it's a moral duty to break it (GHANDI)

Anonymous said...

@ Eivind: This is important
Can you please write something about the rape of a nation that is happening in FRANCE?
The MANGINA president to be MACRON (the candidate of the world's establishment) is, following the modern feminist concept of pedophilia, a victim of a pedophile woman.
He had sexual intercourse at 15 with her, 23 or something older then him, and now they are married.
What if the genders were on opposite sides?

Of course I do support that he is not a victim, but a real mangina like him will fuck up france even more after the atrocity perpetrated by Hollande about the criminalization of purchease of sex with over aged females.

caamib said...

"Gayness is a disease, the ancient Greeks already knew that despite modern defamations against them, and they placed the hubris in the anus, as a sign of shame and disgust that gayness provokes. Whether it's with a 14-year-old boy or a 30-year-old man, gays like Milo are itself is a bunch of liars, hypocrites and convert any act of human love in human perversion and baseness. A 14-year-old girl and a grown man just do what is destined for nature, which is to get together and create new life, and I do not give a shit how much the affeminated right-wing and modern mens rights trash tells me otherwise, just like the pink plague."

Sigh. You missed my point, badly.

I don't care about gayness, ancient Greeks or what you think about homosexuality. Or even about your idea that one thing that happens in nature is destined for it and another that happens in it isn't. Let's leave such semantics behind.

Think about it. What did Milo apologize for? Was it his homosexuality? No, it was his comments on the aoc. You correctly understand that " A 14-year-old girl and a grown man just do what is destined for nature, which is to get together and create new life" but what you miss that the attacks on Milo, due to female privilege, would be even harsher had Milo said what he said about 14 year-old girls. So Milo is much closer to your position than the freaks attacking him. But what do you do? You gloat over what happened to Milo due to your hatred of homosexuality. Of course, it's entirely within your rights to hate homosexuals, but your reaction of gloating because somebody on the wrong side got it for views you also basically hold shows just how divided and shortsighted the right is.

Eivind Berge said...

I think the Milo scandal shows that MRAs really don't have any friends at all, except actual pedophiles such as Tom Carroll. Everyone else has gone insane.

Anonymous said...

so true, Eivind... The want to impose you something not possible cause it's not natural: finding older women attractive. It just don't work, you can't fall for one of them. As opposite, you fall for a nubile and fertile girl and you will love her 4ever, even when she will be old, cause you watch her and still see that girlie.

I'm considering Islam and movining into a shariah based country, above all after a muslim coverted girl fucked me up for good. If only you all could see her views about sexuality toward the man (chosed by her, obviously, the others like me can drop dead)... she thinks she is less than a sexual toy.

Moe said...

to Anonymous Thursday, March 02, 2017 11:30:00 AM

I have two daughters, one of 14 and one of 8, so listen to me, you little puke. If I find you near one of them, I'm going to catch you, and when i do I'm going to carve my name on your back with an ice pick!

Eivind Berge said...

You think this is about me, eh? This is politics. It is much bigger than me. Feminist sex-hostility is currently in charge of the laws around here, but that can change and will eventually. The most realistic path out of this madness is probably via Islamization. So even if we MRAs don't have many friends, there are at least other forces that can potentially destroy our enemy.

While not enthusiastic about it, I think shariah law is less evil than feminism, and so I support it over feminism. The more Muslim immigration, the better, since it slowly erodes the authority of the feminist state. Morally at first, and eventually there can be legal reform in our direction.

And thankfully we already have the needed laws to deal with violent creeps like Moe here.

Eivind Berge said...

Isn't it funny how a psycho like Moe has all the laws on his side "protecting" his daughters, yet he still feels the need to make violent threats? And not even against a pedophile, but an activist for reasonable laws. What sort of messed up issues does he have? A pathological fear of losing sexual control of his daughters, for sure, along with sadism and too low intelligence to stay above the law even in the most ideologically favorable environment.

Eivind Berge said...

Ah, I see now that Moe's threats were not directed at me, but the Anonymous commenter above. Oh well, most of my comments still apply.

Anonymous said...

I have a problem with that, this modernist degenerate society is completely hostile to real religion (not this christfeminist garbage like Pope 'fag-enabler' Francis who set AoC at 18 in the Vatican), atheism and secularism (and false, new age, humanist etc. religions) is almost omnipresent like feminism, I think they are the offspring of feminism, or weapons of feminism anyway.

As a sane man I want nubile girls too and have a true religion against this modern society, so should I become a Muslim (although a barbaric and unrefinated tribal religion) as the anonymous said or should I be better a fundamentalist Christian to fight for a theocracy in order to rid this feminist nazi world?

Eivind Berge said...

Christianity should theoretically be just as able as Islam to withstand feminist corruption, but in practice I don't see that happening. So I would go for Islam, unless you are charismatic enough to start your own sect. There is something to be said for a movement that already exists.

Anonymous said...

I debatten på NRK i kveld snakkes det, (kanskje en av ytterst få ganger på statskanalen) om strukturelle forskjeller i samfunnet som er med på å marginalisere gutter. Da særlig med tanke på utdanningsløpet og det faktum at jenter i alt vesentlig dominerer prestisjeutdannelser som psykologi og medisin. Fag som for noen tiår siden var dominert av menn. Slik jeg ser det henger dette sammen med ikke bare en skole som er tilpasset jenter, (hva nå det skulle være) men også et media, en samfunnsdebatt og et klima hvor man har fått lov til å undertrykke og kollektivt marginalisere gutter og menn, gjennom retorikk og holdninger. En høyesterettsdommer kom med et lite eksempel, hvor han viste til at man i forbindelse med jenter i forsvaret har uttalt at "de er bedre enn gutter og utviser bedre holdninger enn dem" og hvilket hysteri det hadde blitt om man hadde rettet slikt kollektivt skyts mot jenter.

Sagt annerledes: man har et samfunn som er fininnstilt på å bekjempe enhver form for, kall det kritikk, eller kall det negativt lys rettet mot kvinner, da man lett subsumerer det i kategorien kvinnediskriminering, mens kollektivt hardskyts mot gutter menn, blir ikke tatt alvorlig, eller enda verre, tilnærmingsvis blir hyllet av PK-eliten. Det er en form for mer eller mindre skjult diskriminering som retter seg mot menn, og jeg tror det her ligger mye. Blant annet at samfunnsdebatten virker ekstremt negativt inn på menn og gutters psykiske helse, og samtidig ødelegger for gutters selvtillit, slik at de faller fra på et tidlig tidspunkt i utdanningsløpet.

Eivind Berge said...

Det er ikke rart jenter viser bedre holdninger i forsvaret når alle sammen er der frivillig, så det kan jeg tro. Om de er bedre hvis de blir rekruttert på like vilkår kan jeg derimot aldri tenke meg, for ikke å snakke om hvis de må utføre den oppgaven som forsvaret faktisk er til for.

Anonymous said...

Og tør jeg legge til på et slikt politisk ukorrekt fora, at jenter har mer kollektivistiske tendenser. De tenderer til lettere å følge kommando, i motsetning til de individualistiske guttene.

Nå er det jo blitt sagt da at om kvinner hadde styrt verden så hadde det aldri blitt krig. Det passer kanskje ikke helt inn med påstanden om å være velegnete soldater, men det som også bør nevnes i sammenhengen er at gutter/menn har blitt tvunget inn i militærtjeneste i de fleste samfunn gjennom hele historien. Mens jenter/kvinner som regel har sluppet unna.

På tross av det faktum at menn har blitt tvunget til å måtte ofre livet for sitt fosterland, så blir det altså brukt mot dem.

Anonymous said...

@ Moe
The next one I'm gonna fuck is you 8 yo, I'm tracking you down right now.

Anonymous said...

@ Moe
Even IF I'm not a pedo, I will make violence against myself to punish u via your little daughter.

Anonymous said...

I thought you were a libertarian and because of that you probably hate religion. I mean the most anti-libertarian and sex-hostile world system in the world zre the religions, at least that says the current society. It's just curiosity.

Anonymous said...

Today, Religion is a tool of liberation, to empower the men oppressed by feminism through the reset the of the natural relation between men and women; that must not be equalitarian but complementary, as biology and nature want.
In the current sociey, the religion that is the nearest to men's issues is Islam, indeed.
Once upon a time, muslims criticized the catholics about the way in which women were dominated and bigotry... times change. It's crazy.

Anonymous said...

I do not know if treating women like shit is fair, no matter how crazy feminists hurt us. But as Christianity has treated women it does not seem wrong to me, but even necessary even more today. Marry a pretty nubile woman aged 13-19 years-old and have a traditional life compared to slave and rape nine years old...

Eivind Berge said...

It is a matter of choosing the lesser evil. A society based on libertarian sexual values never existed as far as I know. The closest we came was right after the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s, but then third and fourth-wave feminism got to work swinging the pendulum back to oppression, and now we have what I consider the most sex-hostile society in history. It is true that punishments for sexual crimes are not always as harsh as they have been in the religious past, but compared to other crimes they are now the most draconian and most zealously prosecuted by far.

I know of no religion so sex-hostile and hateful to men as feminism. Just to take one example, Islam allows temporary marriages while Norway always criminalizes men for paying for sex with no exceptions, worldwide. And women can redefine entire relationships to rape, pornography is either criminalized as child porn or revenge porn if the woman regrets it, if you so much as look at a woman it is sexual harassment, the age of consent is insanely hateful and so on and on with more on the way.

It is really an easy choice, given what the only realistic options are.

Anonymous said...

http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/8968179/

Eivind Berge said...

Å, herlighet. Det blir bare mer og mer absurd. Hvilken hjemmel har de for å sikte menn for dukker? Er det også definert som «barneporno»? Som vanlig sier politiet at de «ser alvorlig på saken», uansett hvor latterlig det blir. De drittsekkene er ikke i stand til å tenke rasjonelt rundt seksualitet, for de er bare brikker i et maskineri som utfører en heksejakt.

Er det ingen i media eller det offisielle Norge som i det hele tatt fatter hvor absurd det er?

Dukken er forøvrig åpenbart ikke prepubertal, så det er ikke snakk om pedofile fantasier engang. Hun har bryster og timeglassfasong.

Og hva skal vi gjøre med alle barn som leker med dukker, nå som det også er overgrepsmateriale? Tenk på alle familiefedrene som har tilgang til dukker! Her må det politi inn i alle hjem!

Anonymous said...

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/psykolog---sexdukker-kan-forhindre-overgrep-mot-barn/67365695

Eivind Berge said...

Endelig et fnugg av fornuft oppi galskapen, altså. Men politiet gir faen i forskning, de bare kjører på med heksejakten mot menn basert på hysteriske antakelser som de trekker ut av politirævholet sitt. Det er altså ikke avklart om det er ulovlig engang, og likevel er det fritt frem å aksjonere mot menn med alle maktmidler bare fordi dukkeforsendelser gir mistanke om en «barneinteresse»? Dette er definisjonen på en heksejakt, og vanvittig skremmende at det blir tolerert av det norske folk.

Anonymous said...

jeg tipper din venn Theantifeminist har en slik dukke

Anonymous said...

If you like Islam so much, why do not you become a Muslim?

Eivind Berge said...

Perhaps I will. It is obviously true, as was pointed out above, that religion and especially Islam is now a tool of liberation from a worse oppressor. My society hates me just for being a man and constantly comes up with new ways to criminalize male sexuality. Yesterday it was literature, today it is sex dolls and what will be the next? There is constant innovation going on, with the feminist police state always dreaming up new reasons to persecute men for crimes further and further removed from any real victims and increasingly focused on harming us just for existing, until not one single thought is free. Meanwhile I am pretty sure Islam hasn't introduced a new sex crime since the Quran was written in the 7th century. So even if it may also be oppressive in its own ways, at least it is stable. If you are a man under feminism and somehow haven't felt the effects of sexual criminalization yet, then you can never know when they will come for you because the laws are always expanding and the police is always one step ahead of the law.

Anonymous said...

Glossary revised and created by the Girlchat community:

Normal Heterosexual Men – A man who suffers from aspergers syndrome and who, due to his handicap, wrongly takes other men’s denials of interest in pre-pubescents girls as literal, thus believing himself to being a pedophile is not ‘normal’. (example : the webmaster of theantifeminist.com)

The Shopenberq Delusion – The simple-minded belief of many Libertarian Conservative MRAs that in a future where teen porn, downloadable 3d-printed child sex bots, intergenerational sex etc is on tap, that society will continue to promote adult privilege and “beetween consenting adults” sexual values through the legal enforcement of those morals on minors (i.e. banning political franchise and full rights to minors etc) but will give adults a free pass to enjoy the new legal sex with teenage minors. (Named after the MRA Shopenberq, who has come to believe that any law restricting underage sexuality is bad, but at the same time ‘minors’ who give men what they want should be banned to vote in order to preserve civilisation). See http://theantifeminist.com/

Paedocrite – A person (usually MRA) who accuses other men of being mentaly disturbed for being attrated to pre-pubescent girls in order to gain aceptation from their own ‘normal’ sexual attraction to ‘teenage girls’, whether the target person is attrated to preadolescent children (attraction to whom is normal), or actual little/toddler children (a real paraphilic). (alternative version – shopenberq)

Stupid aspie ephebophiles – A phrase used by a certain paedocrite mangina blog owner at Theantifeminist, referring to the countless ‘pro-feminist pedophile freaks’ writers at their supposedly ‘normal’ men’s rights website. The blog owner actually boasted that he manipulate and censurate the comments of these people at their site just because they were ‘stupid aspie ephebophiles’.

We denounce real paedophilia – The antifeminist led ‘attraction to pre-pubescents is not normal in males’ hypocrital creep that is already leading to the criminalization of millions of men (because most of men are attrated to preadolescent girls), the overcrowding of prisons, a rise in the male suicide figures, and unless stopped, ultimately destroying men for fall in love with a pre-pubescent girl. This hypocrital creep is a antifeminist response to the inevitable and ongoing reduction in the price of sex for men that is being caused by being a hypocrital coward continually making it easier for men to obtain easy, cheap and meaningless sexual satisfaction with adults and legal teens, than have a altruist relationship with a child.

PUA – A degenerate man, a libertine who devotes himself, instead of working or doing something useful to the world, deceives and sexually predate women and underage girls, while at the same time talking about returning to male-dominated Christian values and the better 50’s, when the anti-vice squad would have opened their heads straight for engage in deceive unmarried women and underage girls to get sex.

Men Rights Activist – Privilaged, usually white, middle-class male who seeks to position themselves morally and thus socially above women peers and in power whilst maintaining their own ridicolous inversed feminism – masculism.

Anonymous said...

In all the articles I read about you, they consider you a pedophile, is that true?

Eivind Berge said...

No, and I am not aware of any articles which claim it either. What do you mean?

Anonymous said...

AnonymousSunday, March 05, 2017 10:02:00 AM

Surely, you’re joking. Berge, the self-proclaimed Libertarian antifeminist, have a long history of viciously bullying pedophiles, including threatening to out them, making baseless accusations of child molestation and, true his extreme misandry, when not accusing pedophiles of misogyny (for the horrible sin of not being attracted to adult women) calling for the extermination of males. This is well-documented, and would not escape any journalist capable of doing their job, rather than writing anti-pedophile propaganda, designed to appeal to the Left and capable of fooling only the most gullible among the general public and us.

Eivind Berge said...

Um, ok, whatever you say. I guess it's time to write a new post, since this discussion has degenerated into gibberish.

Perhaps I will write about Bitcoin next. I invested most of my compensation money in bitcoin, and it has already gone up over 20%. Now the big question is whether Bitcoin can scale or is destined to be torn apart over the blocksize controversy. The network is now maxed out around 2-3 transactions per second and new users can only get their transactions confirmed in a timely manner by paying a higher fee than someone else. Will there be a resolution, such as SegWit or a hard fork, will the network just stagnate, or do we not really need to scale on-chain despite all the apparent problems? Because that's what the charts are telling us. These are interesting times indeed. Even more so because the Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF is about to get approved or rejected by the SEC in the next week, which is expected to have a huge impact on the price.

Anonymous said...

Invest it in a building, then go up to the roof and throw yourself into the void, you will do a great favor to the world. By the way, little dick face you have, fuck. Seriously just look at your profile picture.

Anonymous said...

Det ville være en god idé, hvis Eivind fremover slettede alle de indhold der udelukkende indeholder fornærmelser og personlige angreb. Det drejer sig om at opretholde en smule seriøsitet på denne blog, og ikke om censur - spam har intet at gøre med ytringsfrihed.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The most repulsive and vile site in internet:

https://mancheeze.wordpress.com/

A misandrical radical feminist who abhors all mens on Earth, incluiding transsexual people, pedophiles, sex offenders, any men who have consensual sex with a minor, etc.

This IS needed to be denounced.

Eivind Berge said...

Enig, jeg kommer til å fjerne fullstendig useriøse kommentarer fra nå av.

President Donald Trump said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous said...

Jeg husker en nettside i gamle dager som fremmet politisk korrekt innhold. Der slettet de intet, men hadde en egen avdeling de kalte for "latrinen" hvor alle useriøse meldinger ble flyttet til. Ganske effektivt kan man si, særlig med tanke på det å ivareta ytringsfriheten. Nå har vel ikke Berge samme type administrator-muligheter, og jeg må si meg enig i at når meldingene blir så bort i natta useriøse som slik de har vært i det siste, så kan sletting forsvares. Generelt synes jeg terskelen skal være høy før man sletter meningsmotstand. Argumentere i senk derimot...

Anonymous said...

Politisk ukorrekt skal det være. Dessverre ingen mulighet til å redigere innlegg om man først har postet...

Anonymous said...

I ask sincerenly: is it frivolous to say that I like to masturbate with prepubescent anime girls?

Eivind Berge said...

That should be frivolous and nobody else's business, except when insane laws make it a political issue.

Anonymous said...

The truth now I have more respect I have put some(not all) trolling comments but I have realized that I was wrong with you. I hate myself because recently I discovered that I like prepubescent girls and I hate myself because all pwople hate me but I should not do this. I am sorry

Anonymous said...

No. Islam and feminist state are both shrewdness and malignancy to the society. There is no better option in there. Islam and Christianity are inherently sex-hostile. They consider human body and sexuality as filthy and sinful. You should be against them

Also Shariah law is extremely against liberty, sexuality and humanism. They keep capital punishment for some "sex crimes"(such as cheating) and amputate hands of thieves

> A general public in view of libertarian sexual values never existed the extent that I know.

Ancient Japan. (More, perhaps until 20th century)

I realize that there are many "sex-friendly" in ancient Japan, for example, 夜這い, 春畵, 源氏物語.

源氏物語(The Tale of Genji) is a classic Japanese literature masterpiece that is prominent in Japan for long time. It is a very long romance and written 1,000 years ago. It even deals with incest and pedophilia. I recommend you to read it

Eivind Berge said...

I've heard of The Tale of Genji and wanted to read it, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Anyway, from what I hear, even Japan is succumbing to feminist sex-hostility now. And the Men's Movement, the real one who actually opposes this, is so tiny that we don't have any political influence. That is why I look to Islam as the only hope of at least reducing some of the damage. Doesn't mean I support capital punishment for cheating and amputations and such, but overall they seem to be less odious.

To you who say you like prepubescent girls, do you like them exclusively? Then you have a bit of a problem, but I agree that hating yourself or trolling is not helpful. Perhaps the Virtuous Pedophile community can be supportive. Check out this blog:

https://notamonsterblog.wordpress.com/

Pedophilia goes beyond the scope of the Men's Movement, in my view, but there is some overlap since we can all agree that laws should be reasonable and thoughtcrime is an abomination. Pedophiles should certainly be allowed to live out their fantasies in virtual reality and not be punished for expressing themselves and possessing information.

Anonymous said...

Mener du at kvinner tåler alkohol dårligere enn en mann? Da er du en kjønnsdiskriminerende kvinnehater, om vi skal ta svensk forskning til etterretning.

Den vanlige mann i gata har vært så naiv at han har stolt på forskning som sier at menn tåler mer alkohol enn kvinner basert på tre grunner. Menn har høyere kroppsvekt, de har mer vann og mindre fett i kroppen, i tillegg til et enzym i magesekken som gjør at de forbrenner alkohol raskere. Rent biologisk sett høres jo dette plausibelt ut. Eller...?

Nei! Nå kan svenske forskere fortelle at dette ikke stemmer, det vil si, de benekter ikke biologien, men de velger som all annen politisk korrekt forskning å ikke forholde seg til den. Men hvordan i alle dager kan da søta bror hevde det motsatte av hva tradisjonell forskning har fortalt oss i en årrekke? Jo du skjønner, for dem er det samfunnsanalyse som gjelder. Og legger man statistikken til grunn, kan man se at menn har langt større risikoadferd i fylla. Det er jo de som dreper, fyllekjører, voldtar osv.

Det rasjonelle mennesket vil med rette kunne hevde at dette er utenfor saken. At noen menn, og i høyere grad enn kvinner, bruker alkohol som en unnskyldning for å oppføre seg som tullinger, burde ikke berøre det biologiske faktum at en gjennomsnitts mannskropp takler alkohol bedre enn en kvinne.

Men for en konstruktivist er det annerledes. I sedvanlig stil operer man ikke med et skille mellom biologi og samfunnsanalyse. All forskning ER samfunnsanalyse. Å si at en mann takler mer alkohol enn kvinner er kjønnsdiskriminerende. Gitt premissene til politisk korrekt kjønnsforskning så finnes det ikke kjønn heller, forresten. Kjønn er en konstruksjon. Gadd vite hvordan man kan diskriminere på bakgrunn av kjønn, om det ikke finnes kjønn, men slike paradokser velger PK-relativistene ikke å forholde seg til.

Husk, fakta er kun massepsykotisk korrekt. Virkeligheten eksisterer ikke uavhengig av det innholdet vi gir den, så da gjelder det å si de riktige tingene. En svart person er ingen neger, menneskeheten kan ikke oppdeles i rase (rasister og antirasister derimot...) Og kvinner er menn overlegne på alle punkt i likestillingens navn. (Eventuelt, det er riktig at menn blir diskriminert for å oppnå likestilling, jmf likestillingsloven)

Et rasjonelt menneske ser verden på en annen måte, dessverre. De er ute etter å observerbare fakta, og ønsker å innrette seg og agitere i henhold til den reelle virkelighet etter beste evne. PK-forskerne forkaster virkeligheten, og mener at den kan tilpasses etter massepsykotiske doktriner, omtrent slik Nazi-propagantørene argumenterte under andre verdenskrig.

Det er ikke lett å være et rasjonelt menneske i dagens samfunn

Anonymous said...

Jeg glemte forresten å si at nå har PK-eliten bestemt at jomfruhinnen ikke finnes lenger også. De kan nok ikke uten videre benekte skjedekransen, men jomfruhinne-begrepet høres så diskriminerende ut, at de velger å helle fakta ut med badevannet så og si. Det finnes ikke jomfruhinne, vi må bare akseptere det.

Så gudene må vite hva en bråte muslimske kvinner fikk operert inn hvert år i 1998/2003 (for ikke å spørre om hvorfor i helvete man skal få operert inn noe som forskerne sier ikke eksisterer?)

jmf artikkel: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/unge-jenter-faar-ny-jomfruhinne/a/11457/

Det er mulig politisk korrekte forskere ikke så det som et problem å kalle det jomfruhinne på -90 tallet. De ser i hvert fall ingen problemer med at det som før var hvitt, er nå blitt svart, og motsatt.

Kilder på min artikkel ovenfor.

https://www.svd.se/falsk-bild-att-man-kan-dricka-mer-an-kvinnor

Semantikk kjære Berge, det er hva alt dreier seg om. Du må bare akseptere det først som sist. Til helvete med fakta, så lenge man bare tenker de tankene som er "riktige" å tenke.

Eivind Berge said...

Hehe. Konsekvensen av den logikken er at kvinner «tåler» alt mulig i den grad det gjør at de lever like lenge som menn. Så da bør vi anbefale kvinner å drikke og røyke og så videre i slik grad at forventet levealder blir utjevnet :-)

Anonymous said...

Anne Bitsch: Etnisk norske menn dømmes mildere enn utenlandske menn i voldtektssaker. Dette betyr at vi lever i et diskriminerende samfunn mener hun.

Dommer: grunnen er at overfallsvoldtekter har høyere strafferamme enn såkalte festrelaterte voldtekter.

Bitsch: rettsalen lar seg styre av ideelle ofre og overgripere.

Dommer: konklusjonen deres er svakt begrunnet

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/voldtekt/gjennomgang-av-voldtektsdommer-etnisk-norske-faar-mildere-straff/a/23942249/

Bitsch mener altså at alle skal dømmes like strengt uavhengig av omstendighet og forløp. Det finnes ikke nyanseforskjeller når det gjelder voldtekt. Skjerpende omstendigheter er en "myte", og vi er alle rasister siden etnisk norske får lavere straff enn overfallsmenn fra nord afrika.

Eivind Berge said...

Helt typisk feminisme. Voldtektsparagrafen omfatter nå veldig mye som aldri skulle vært definert som voldtekt, og ikke var det før år 2000, slik som kvinner som angrer seg etter sex i beruset tilstand. Heldigvis holder rettssystemet fremdeles litt igjen på å straffe alt dette like strengt som ekte voldtekter, men det er bare et tidsspørsmål.

Anonymous said...

Jeg mener bestemt at Anne Bitsch har vært en av dine argeste kritikere, og stått fremst i rekken av de som satte seg mål om å politianmelde deg. Stemmer ikke det?

Eivind Berge said...

Jo, hun skrev noen artikler som agiterte i den retningen så vidt jeg husker.

Anonymous said...

Det faktum at der findes en strafferamme for voldtægt (og ikke bare en fast straffeudmåling) betyder at der rent faktisk findes nuanceforskelle, selv ifølge lovgivningen.

Anonymous said...

Man opererer sågar med begreper som uaktsom voldtekt osv. På lik linje med drap, så bør det også gis et stort rom for nyanseforskjeller i strafferettspleien. Slik jeg leser kvinnesaks-aktivister, ønsker de at alle voldtekter skal skjæres over en kam, og gis samme straff uansett. (En voldtekt er en voldtekt).

Hva mener så leserne her inne om Hemsedal-saken? Tre menn blir frikjent av en norsk domstol. Norges befolkning, ikke minst media, vil ikke godta dette, og mener at de burde dømmes uavhengig av hva domstolen mener. Litt underlig at storsamfunnet kan gjøre seg til eksperter som står over norsk rett, når de i bunn og grunn har null innsikt i saken? Og hva er det da som gjenstår? Lynsjing? Selv Riksadvokat Tor A. Busch mener at man må respektere norsk retts avgjørelser.

Eivind Berge said...

Uaktsom voldtekt ble innført i 2000 og er ikke noe fornuftig begrep i det hele tatt. Alle disse sakene skulle aldri blitt tiltalt som noe som helst. Jeg husker godt at det var en liten protestreaksjon mot det fra advokater rett etter lovendringen, men den gikk raskt over og feministene klarte å få det innført i praksis også, selv om det var ekstremt få saker de første årene.

I politikken husker jeg at eneste motstand mot uaktsom voldtekt kom fra Høyre (eller kanskje også Frp), og ikke fordi de brydde seg om menn. Neida, de var bekymret for at noen voldtektsmenn skulle slippe unna med mindre straff fordi sakene ble nedgradert til uaktsom voldtekt. Som alltid er politikk utelukkende basert på mannshat, og mannens rettssikkerhet er det ingen av partiene som bryr seg om.

Vi kan ikke sammenligne uaktsom voldtekt med uaktsomt drap, for drap er ikke noe som skal skje under normale omstendigheter. Uaktsomt drap kan bare skje når noe annet ulovlig har skjedd, slik som promillekjøring. Sex er derimot helt vanlig og skal være lovlig, så hvordan kan vi snakke om uaktsomhet? Det gir ingen mening med mindre man aksepterer at mannen skal bære hele ansvaret for kvinners uheldige reaksjoner som han ikke vet om. Uaktsom voldtekt er per definisjon sex som mannen tror er lovlig, samtidig som han heller ikke gjør noe annet ulovlig. Hele greien er basert på at mannen skulle vært tankeleser eller gjort noen annet som det IKKE er normalt å gjøre! I motsetning til bilkjøring har vi ingen lover eller normer som sier at man skal være edru under sex, for eksempel. Det er heller ingen lovpålagte sikkerhetsrutiner eller sjekklister som menn må følge hver gang. Sett fra mannens perspektiv er det overhodet ingenting som skiller vanlig sex fra en «uaktsom voldtekt» inntil kvinnen angrer seg i ettertid. Så hvorfor aksepterer vi at dette skal inn i voldtektsbegrepet? Det vil si, jeg gjør jo slett ikke det, men feministene har langt på vei klart å normalisere uaktsom voldtekt. Som så ofte skjer fikk endringen små konsekvenser på kort sikt og enorme konsekvenser på lang sikt. Nå er det rutine for påtalemyndigheten å prøve seg på en uaktsom voldtektsdom hver gang de ikke vinner frem med voldtekt. Heldigvis har rettssystemet likevel vist seg imponerende motstandsdyktig mot denne taktikken også, så vanligvis fører frifinnelse for voldtekt også til frifinnelse for uaktsom voldtekt.

Det skjedde merkelig nok ikke i Hemsedal-saken at aktor prøvde seg på uaktsom voldtekt, antakelig fordi han følte seg så sikker på at mannshatet nå står så sterkt at han kunne vinne frem med voldtekt. Denne saken er utelukkende basert på at kvinnen angret seg. Fremstillingen i media står i absurd kontrast til saksdokumentene, som ikke engang anklager mennene for noen som helst tvang. Og rettssystemet funket også og lot rettferdigheten seire, men det skremmende er at alle fagdommerne ville dømme likevel. Feminismens endelige seier kommer når de har fått fjernet juryen, noe denne saken dessverre ser ut til å bli utløsende faktor for.

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg har tenkt på hvordan Hemsedal-saken ville forløpt om den hadde blitt påtalt som en uaktsom voldtekt. Da ville aktor satt seg i litt av en ideologisk kattepine, for han måtte ha innrømmet at han baserer seg på at kvinnen er ikke bare fysisk, men også moralsk underlegen mannen. Basisen måtte da blitt at en kvinne som er alene med tre menn rimeligvis blir så redd at hun føler seg truet til sex, selv om mennene ikke oppfører seg truende på noen som helst måte. Og at menn til og med «burde vite» at kvinner er så sarte sjeler at de ikke kan ta moralsk og mentalt ansvar for seg selv på lik linje med menn. Selv om det er det feminismen står for, så ble det kanskje litt for mye å innrømme det? Eller han ble for grisk på straff. I stedet valgte aktor i alle fall en ren non sequitur, en påstand om forsettlig voldtekt som overhodet ikke er forenlig med fakta, og juryene lot seg ikke lure. Det gjorde derimot media og store lag av folket som ikke har satt seg inn i saken. Og fagdommere gir blanke i at det ikke har skjedd noen voldtekt, for her er det en kvinne som angrer seg, så da vil de sette menn i fengsel. Det blir vår fremtid også når juryen forsvinner og erstattes av disse profesjonelle feministene (riktignok fremdeles sammen med lekdommere, men i et system som tar sikte på å overkjøre dem).

Anonymous said...

Hvorvidt det burde eksistere uaktsom voldtekt skal jeg ikke mene så mye om. Men det jeg mener er at det bør finnes formildende og skjerpende omstendigheter også innenfor strafferettspleien hva angår voldtekt på lik linje med slike omstendigheter hva angår drap. Sagt annerledes, alle voldtekter kan ikke sammenfattes under en og samme straffereaksjon. Med dette refererer jeg til disse forskerne som sammenligner etnisk norske og utenlandske dømte menn. Å sammenligne festrelaterte og overfallsvoldtekter blir som å sammenligne epler og bananer. Ikke en underbygging av "myten om den idelle voldtektsmann". Det redelige ville heller vært å sammenligne overfallsvoldtekter mellom etnisk norske og utenlandske menn (all den tid etnisitet er hovedpoenget i deres forskning). Uaktsomhet rommer vel mer enn bare det som knyttes til noe ulovlig. Foreksempel at gjerningsperson er å kunne klandre for at skade har skjedd. Man tar en sjanse, på tross av bedre vitende. (Det er vel dette man legger til grunn for uaktsom voldtekt).

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, selvsagt bør det finnes formildende og skjerpende omstendigheter. Når man har satt minstestraffen til tre år, så har man likevel tatt bort mye av denne muligheten og erklært at voldtekt alltid er en ekstremt alvorlig forbrytelse -- noe som ikke lenger stemmer med gjerningsbeskrivelsen etter at feministene har utvannet den. Minstestraffen gjelder riktignok ikke for uaktsom voldtekt, men merk deg at strafferammen er strengere for uaktsom voldtekt enn for uaktsomt drap, og straffenivået ligger skyhøyt over! Og det til tross for at Høyesterett bestemte at det ikke skal være en glidende overgang mellom straffen for forsettlig og uaktsom voldtekt slik som drittsekkene i påtalemyndigheten ville ha. Straffenivået ligger markant lavere enn for forsettlig voldtekt, men ofte ti ganger høyere enn for uaktsomt drap. Samfunnet sender altså det klare og veloverveide budskap til menn at det er bedre å uaktsomt drepe en kvinne enn å ha sex med henne som hun kan komme til å angre på. Er dette noe du vil stille deg bak?

Jeg er grunnleggende uenig i at det er straffverdig å ta sjansen på at en kvinne kommer til å angre seg når hun for eksempel blir edru. Det er helt normal mannlig oppførsel å ta slike sjanser, og hvis kvinner ikke liker det, så får de faen meg ta ansvaret selv for å unngå slike situasjoner og ikke bare overlate alt ansvar til menn! Eller eventuelt får vi straffe begge, siden kvinnen i så fall også er uaktsom og slik forårsaker sin egen ulykke! Men av opplagte grunner er det ikke aktuelt å straffe begge, så da er eneste rimelige konklusjon at uaktsom voldtekt aldri skulle eksistert. Du kan ikke ha i pose og sekk, og både straffe menns uaktsomhet mens du unnskylder kvinners uaktsomhet for nøyaktig den samme ulykken. Trafikkskadde blir for eksempel like fullt straffet for uaktsomhet, selv om de selv er eneste offer -- det skjedde med min egen mor etter at hun kjørte av veien mens hun var trøtt! Hvordan kan du akseptere at uaktsomhet i forbindelse med voldtekt skal være et moralsk unntak hvor offeret selv ikke kan straffes samtidig som andre blir det? For meg som har levd en stund og husker et annet regime, er det helt absurd at vi i det hele tatt har denne samtalen, for det fortonte seg som helt hinsides feministisk ekstremisme da det ble innført. Jeg husker til og med en artikkel i Bergens Tidende som harselerte over at hvis vi skulle få uaktsom voldtekt, så vil ikke kvinner lenger være moralsk likeverdige menn, og sex vil i realiteten ikke lenger være lovlig, akkurat som jeg påpekte ovenfor. Og nå er altså motstanden redusert til en minimal mannsbevegelse, så langt har feminismen kommet på under 20 år.

Eivind Berge said...

Uaktsom voldtekt går forresten ikke ut på å ta en sjanse mot bedre vitende, for da blir det dolus eventualis, som går under forsettlig voldtekt. Retten legger til grunn som fakta at mannen ikke visste bedre i en dom for uaktsom voldtekt. Straffverdigheten begrunnes med at han burde visst, angivelig fordi en normal hensynsfull mann ville visst -- noe jeg bestrider på det sterkeste. Mannen dømmes altså fordi han ikke oppførte seg som om han var en slags feministisk fantasiskapning.

Du blander sammen sannsynlighetsforsett og uaktsomhet, antakelig fordi feministene ikke pleier å være helt ærlige når de diskuterer dette og du ikke har satt deg skikkelig inn i det. Uaktsom voldtekt betyr faktisk uaktsom voldtekt, og ingen grad av forsett i det hele tatt!

Eivind Berge said...

Hvis du innser at det godt kan være voldtekt, men du bryr deg ikke og velger å ta sjansen, så trenger vi slett ikke noen lov om uaktsom voldtekt for å straffe det! Da har du et forsett om å begå voldtekt om nødvendig, og det er ikke det uaktsomhet handler om.

Tydeligvis har feministene klart å snike inn uaktsom voldtekt under påskudd om at det bare er en lettere form for forsett i dine øyne. Hvis det er det du trodde uaktsom voldtekt var, så kan jeg skjønne at du ikke er mot det, for jeg kan selv tenke meg situasjoner hvor dolus eventualis er et rettferdig skyldkrav. Men det er altså ikke det vi snakker om. Uaktsom voldtekt er 100% mannshat.

Eivind Berge said...

En liten rettelse: Da jeg skrev at du blander sammen sannsynlighetsforsett og uaktsomhet, så mente jeg eventualitetsforsett (dolus eventualis). Sannsynlighetsforsett (dolus indirectus) er et sterkere forsett hvor gjerningsmannen har regnet det som sikkert eller overveiende sannsynlig at en uønsket følge vil oppstå. Det enda mer alvorlige hensiktsforsettet (dolus directus) foreligger når følgen av handlingen var tilsiktet, og så har vi overlegg helt på toppen hvor forbrytelsen i tillegg var planlagt.

Den absolutt laveste formen for skyldkrav jeg kan akseptere for voldtekt er dolus eventualis, som Wikipedia definerer slik (og i tillegg må selvsagt den objektive gjerningsbeskrivelsen være fornuftig, noe den ikke er i dag):

Eventualitetsforsett (dolus eventualis) foreligger der hvor gjerningsmannen holder følgen mulig (men ikke overveiende sannsynlig), og bestemmer seg for å gjennomføre handlingen selv om følgen skulle inntre. Dette er den positive innvilgelsesteori.

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsett

Dette med positiv innvilgelse er viktig:

Vilkårene for å legge til grunn at det foreligger forsett i form av dolus eventualis, er i Høyesteretts kjennelse Rt. 2004 side 1769 avsnitt 11 sammenfattet slik: «Det er ikke tilstrekkelig til å konstatere forsett i form av dolus eventualis at det forhold som forsettet skal dekke, for gjerningspersonen fremstilte seg som mulig, og at vedkommende likevel valgte å handle. Det kreves i tillegg en positiv innvilgelse av dette momentet. Lagmannsretten måtte således ved sin straffutmåling finne det bevist at A bevisst hadde tatt det standpunkt at hun ville medvirke selv om det var en så betydelig mengde heroin – her er det tale om inntil 194 gram – som skulle kjøpes/oppbevares. Denne positive innvilgelse, som riktignok inneholder et hypotetisk element, skiller – i det nedre grenseområdet – forsettet fra den bevisste uaktsomhet.»

Det er slett ikke den type vurderinger som ligger bak tiltaler om uaktsom voldtekt. Ingen positiv innvilgelse av risikoen. Det som skjer er at ut av et hav av seksuelle relasjoner som foregår hver dag, så er det en eller to kvinner som angrer seg og anklager voldtekt av grunner som kommer overraskende på mannen. Gjerningsmannen hadde faktisk grunn til å tro at det skulle gå bra, for det gjør det også i det overveldende flertallet av lignende tilfeller.

Da er vi over i uaktsomhet, og det er det umoralsk å bruke som skyldkrav for voldtekt av grunner som jeg anførte ovenfor.

Anonymous said...

As I said I'am considering to move into a country in where the Shariah law rules because Islam was, is an will be the only tool agaist feminism.
Look at the newest law of Saudi Arabia (the link is down), from october 2016: they lifted female age of consent to 30! And the maximum age gap allowed is only 10 years! Like if you are 45 you can get at best a 35 years old female!
It's not a joke! An it is evforced only against foreign men! In short, is a law agaist us only! I mean, if you are lucky enough to convince a female's family to allow you to marry her, you can get only expired females! In a country where men can marry 8 year old preteens!
30 years old single women are spinsters and are considered spinsters by the society! And if you are non saudi you can get only one of them. This is atrocious, overly frustrating, and can only increase my hatred towards the west.
If you read the justification it looks written by a feminist! The retoric is the same.
Im sure the US department of state of the former administration and the UK are behind this shit! Similar atrocities were passed in Cambodia, and into the pre Duterte Philipines, upon feminist NGOs (like save the children, plan international or oxfam) tha actually are not NGOs since they are a tool of western governments to push their global femnist agenda. Feminist is a world wide coup d'etat agaist normal men.

https://taraummomar.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/age-requirements-increased-for-saudis-marrying-non-saudis-40-for-men-and-30-for-women/

Anonymous said...

In other words, when Arabians move to Western countries, they demand equal treatment, but when we move to theirs, discrimination is welcome?!

caamib said...

Whining about some "double standards" is retarded and a waste of time. One of the commentators on Roosh's site noted a very important thing - that we're no longer living in the West but the anti-West. The current society has very little to do with most of what West was all about, like patriarchy, freedom of speech, solid degree of rationality or civility. We are living in what is much more aptly called the anti-West. Crying for West is like crying for somebody who had been dead for some decades.

I have recently become a Muslim and advise everybody to do the same. Islam is strong and must win. It must trample most of Europe into dust. It must conquer it, even if it conquers what will initially be a pile of ashes.

Eivind Berge said...

Congratulations on your conversion, caamib! Do you practice the religion faithfully as well? Like praying five times a day and making sure you don't eat pork? Do you go to a mosque?

That's a funny law in Saudi Arabia. It seems designed to help the local men get all the young women without competition from foreigners, but then it also applies to Saudi men, who must be between 40 and 65 years old to be able to marry a non-Saudi woman, who must be at least 25. What's up with that? Do they mean for purposes of residency, maybe? Then it makes sense to have some restrictions. We also have a minimum income for that, but not such a strict age requirement. I assume young Saudi men can emigrate if they want a foreign wife.

Anonymous said...

Eivind That's mainly because Saudi Arabia is a USA protectorate absolutist kingdom, nor is that a king, is a satrap of the USA, whose country has the name of its leaders? Hitlermania? it's ridiculous.

however, would like to ask a question to everyone but specially caamib, if I or someone deny o not believe that muhammad as a prophet and his god, how can I become a Muslim? As much as I hated feminism and this anti-west, I would have to lie? I have to believe in God and angels even if I not? Why reject my personal integrity? That is my question

Anonymous said...

@eivind
You pointed out an intersting poin that actually does not exist: my fault, sorry.
I forgot to point that Saudi Arabia has an huge problem with spinsterhood. So, saudi men have already the chaches to get women.
In my opinion is a law manufactured just against men like me, who decide to live their life following a law that is noth the one of their contries, to make impossible for us to get decent women even if we move there.
In other countries like Pakistan, where men are weakened by western propaganda through satanic sluts like Malala, the feminists managed to pass the very same law of the west, like aoc at 16.
Since in Saudi Arabia it is not possible because local men would rise up, alhamdulillah!!!, they managed at least to ruin the lives of oppressed desperate western men who were getting ready to move.
It's the war on western men.

Anonymous said...

Andrea Vollum og Berge er tydeligvis uenige når det gjelder samfunnet vi lever i:

http://www.bt.no/btmeninger/debatt/Verdens-beste-land-for-voldtektsmenn-331577b.html

Anonymous said...

@caamib:
if you think real islam will win just for the reasons you pointed out, you are deluding youself. Ask every popular movement that is being repressed by labelling them as terrorirsts. Do you know hellfire missiles?

In many countries (example: Pakistan) where shariah rules passed feminist laws that are completely un-islamic, antipatriarchy, un-constitutional and essentally giving privileges to females, the same of the ones given by the new western society.

Only the great PEOPLE of YEMEN succeded on overthrow the feminist law lifiting age of consent (in case, marriageable age) to 18; THE VERY SAME DAY AFTER IT WAS APPROVED! Do you know what is going on in Yemen right now, right?

It's your usual feminist war on normal male sexuality, mixed with cultural imperialism and western arrogance.

Anonymous said...

you should become muslim..it is easy
start drinking camel urine
rape 5 year old boys daily
torture mutilate women daily
soon the West will be bankrupt and the camel humpers will have turned the world to desert

Eivind Berge said...

Det ser altså ut som det blir Andrea Voll Voldum som klarer å ødelegge norske menns rettssikkerhet en gang for alle, ved å få fjernet juryen. Ondskapen kommer i form av et pent ansikt, men la deg ikke lure, hun er mannshatet inkarnert og har nå enorm makt til å gjøre skade. Det vil forresten også gå ut over kvinner når juryen forsvinner, for de blir også anklaget for forbrytelser og har bruk for folkets beskyttelse mot tyranniske lover.

Anonymous said...

"torture mutilate women daily"
This activity for itself justify every possible conversion.

Anonymous said...

Norway the best country for rapists...
this female narcisist performs hate speech (against men), and fake news as well.

Every western country regime is oppressor of men.

Eivind Berge said...

She is a false accuser who lost her rape case, but that doesn't stop the media from celebrating her as a rape victim, and promoting her agenda of abolishing the jury system in Norway so that no rape accuser will lose in court again. And judging by the political climate, that is exactly what will happen.

Anonymous said...

A coup d'etat.
Perpetrated globally.
And it fully succedeed.

Communists can suck balls, they failed miserably on doing the same that feminists did.

Meanwhile in Düsseldorf,... another poor rejected victimized incel lost the control:

https://www.rt.com/news/380058-d%C3%BCsseldorf-station-ax-attack/

cops degraded him to: “obvious mental health problem".
Of course he has, how can you be healthy in the feminist society? And not everybody can or want to "stay calm" and keep on suffering in silence.

NOTE: some news report he attacked a 13 years old woman... I think there is no need to say more.

Anonymous said...

100% of Christians in Twiiter spend almost the entire day denouncing that Muslims marry minors and deny that their religion has anything to do with pedophilia, and condemn it of course. This is the Christian today a group of pseudo-feminist manginas trying to survive one more day. pathetic religion they are almost dead

Anonymous said...

Obviously people on this page have mental problems. They think that converting society to islam might make it less sex hostile. They who cut off peoples hands for just kissing people in public. What fuckin' morons.

Eivind Berge said...

I do believe that Islam is less sex-hostile than the feminist state overall. But supporting Islam is also about a desire for revenge for the criminalization of our sexuality, as it would make the feminists suffer too, even if it wouldn't get rid of all sex-hostility.

Anonymous said...

I believe, and I speak for all, that we wish not death, but the slow torture and worst nightmares for 99.99% of feminists on earth.

However, I believe that a feminist would love to live in an Islamic state, I have never seen a feminist complain about Islam or that Muslims marry girls, even small girls, Islam is in fact the best thing for a feminist, because the woman no longer feels danger that they leave alone their stinky pussy, they are guaranteed marriage and children, that is the bottom what these demented bitches want.

If any day Islam dominate the West, I am sure that with a few years feminism would eventually infiltrate, and the age of consent even raised to 18, with the complete pack of rape laws, only awaits some eventual stupid justification like that other some muslim countries do.

caamib said...

Eivind, it's like this...

" Do you practice the religion faithfully as well? Like praying five times a day and making sure you don't eat pork? Do you go to a mosque?"

It would be more truthful to say I want to be a cultural Muslim because I really can't get myself into believing in Allah or any other god(s). So while did visit an imam, who was a nice person and said he had cases like me before, and try to visit the mosque often, I have not said the Shahada yet and am having trouble with some of the circumstances of becoming a Muslim here. Their number is extremely small and the girls seem to be just what I remembered those few Muslim girls - extremely stupid, slutty and secularized.

Also, sadly, I can't believe in god and don't see if there's even a point in pretending enough to formally become Muslim (as it doesn't seem it might get me a woman here and the people are ok but younger ones are quite moronic and older ones better but not really my generation). So thereby I can't really pray regularly. I tried to, and persisted for a few days but just couldn't find enough discipline for doing this without some kind of an interior need. I have some sort of super-skeptical, atheistic brain and was pretty much an atheist/nontheist since I was 10. That is unlikely to change.

So, what this anon asks about gods/angels, no, sadly I can't bring myself to believe in these but the bigger problem is the circumstances with women and the company there I describe.

However, I do avoid pork, don't drink currently and read the Quran every day and am calling myself a Muslim, which could have great benefits for me, as Muslims are pretty much untouchable in the eyes of liberals. So I fully intend to continue calling myself a Muslim and practicing most of it, and see what happens.

As for the anon saying this...

"f you think real islam will win just for the reasons you pointed out, you are deluding youself. Ask every popular movement that is being repressed by labelling them as terrorirsts. Do you know hellfire missiles?"

I am not sure I understand this part.


"In many countries (example: Pakistan) where shariah rules passed feminist laws that are completely un-islamic, antipatriarchy, un-constitutional and essentally giving privileges to females, the same of the ones given by the new western society."

I am not familiar with the situation in Pakistan. Note that a cultural change could sometimes lag behind the laws. What matters for Pakistan is how good of a place for men is it now.

"Only the great PEOPLE of YEMEN succeded on overthrow the feminist law lifiting age of consent (in case, marriageable age) to 18; THE VERY SAME DAY AFTER IT WAS APPROVED! Do you know what is going on in Yemen right now, right?"

Sorry, I don't believe war in Yemen had been started for that reason. That's just silly.

caamib said...

"Obviously people on this page have mental problems."

Most do, yes. But in a sense you're talking about it's mostly the feminist maniacs posting nonsense here.

"They think that converting society to islam might make it less sex hostile. They who cut off peoples hands for just kissing people in public. What fuckin' morons."

Sex hostility isn't my primary problem. I oppose it but that's not why I post here. The primary problem the world has is to remain a civilization and not descend into a state of 10,000 BC. And Islam a chance to avoid that in at least some parts of the world.

Anonymous said...

The Provincial Court of Paris, France has sentenced a man know as caamid, 50 and native of UK, to 19 years and six months in prison for kidnapping a sixteen-year-old girl who was playing soccer in a park located in the 13 rue Housing and sexually abusing her in a semi-rundown house and inside a community garage, where she was surprised by some neighbors.

The ruling, issued by the Court, proves that the accused took the 16-year-old girl by the hand at about 20.00 hours on February 5, 2015 and transferred her to the shack where she threatened to kill her while abuse by touching her, which caused "fear and fear" in the girl.

After being expelled by another individual from the house, in which the child's underwear was found, the process moved with the victim to the garage-basement of a building located on a street in the same town, where he consumed his sexual aggression and where she remained with the adolescent girl until 4.00 hours, when they were found by locals who were beating the area.

The minor suffered physical injuries as a result of the abuses, which also presents a psychological symptomatology consisting of rejection and fear of the aggressor, avoidance and strong feelings of discomfort and embarrassment when addressing the issue, crying at the time of disclosure and in days subsequent to the supposed experience, restlessness and irascibility, fear of the dark, nocturnal awakenings, fear of going out on the street alone, generalized fear of older adults and learning of inappropriate childhood sexuality.

The sentence, which covers the crimes of sexual abuse continued by the two episodes and illegal detention, also imposes ten years of probation, ten years of Paris exile and 15 years away from the minor at a distance of 500 meters , as well as to the prohibition of communicating with her.

Anonymous said...

What's your point last anonymous?

Eivind Berge said...

He is just trolling. I will seriously start deleting that kind of bullshit now.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

What happened is punishment for evil and violence of feminists and liberals. Any of you supporting atrocities like women’s suffrage, immodest clothing, child support/alimony, no ban on adultery, ban on prostitution and a lack of female premarital chastity, all the things that drove this young man to be unable to find a girlfriend, are disgusting , horrible people and you created a culture where this is possible. What you think Eivind?

Anonymous said...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner

Any opinion on this case?

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Brock Turner did nothing wrong and the fact that he got convicted for sexual assault after the woman willingly came with him to let him do it infuriates me. This is exactly why we need men's rights activism, to fight the hateful laws that make such convictions possible.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Last anonymous; Go the fuck away. None of us share your fantasies about infants or your homosexual fantasies. I can assure you that Eivind will delete your perverted and idiotic post.

Anonymous said...

This is the most disgusting thing I've ever seen in my life:

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Action_%28organization%29

A 15-year-old girl denouncing the "statutory rape" as an absolute evil as the murder of children, but what kind of mentally ill, weak 15-year-old girl can believe that sex with a man of 23 at the "tender" age of 15 years should be denonunced and used as an attack against something? I doubt if that evil girl is alienated by the conservative guy that child grooming she, that young hag really believes that sex with minors like she is rape

Not only are feminism, this conservative garbage that stops at nothing to force the world its moral law, I do not mean that killing unborn children is fine but these self-proclaimed saviors use 15-year-old girls to make stings to the purest style of To Catch a Predator and the like and then denounce a non-violent sexual relationship with a guy of 23 as a disgusting crime, and above all is not a bastard like Stinson Hunter, not an old feminist hag, is a 15 year old girl ! She and their like she are the really disgusting!

Let's not forget that even 17 year old men denounce their teachers for statutory rape, this modern youth trash is simply the sons of feminism and conservatism. And we, healthy men, was believe that 15-year-old girls are angels who really love us, and turn out to be just witches, manipulators, and miserable beings like the rest of women on Earth.

So or women kill their unborn children or just they put you in jail for doing what nature has set for men. No, I not hate feminists, I hate women, ALL. They deserve our hate.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the legal fiction of statutory rape is one of the things that upset me the most about feminism, perhaps the single most revolting thing. I have nothing but contempt for anybody who supports these laws, and it boggles the mind that some people even internalize it as a real crime when it is obviously victimless. How can they be so stupid? There are not many decent people left these days.

Anonymous said...

Hideyosi Toyotomi married a 14 year old girl when he was 26 years old. And it was a marriage for love, it is proven historically, now it is statutory rape. He became the kampaku (emperor's adviser) in Japan, the ending of a amazing career, these histerics have a miserable job for a meager salary and a forty-year-old wife who divorces and leaves them in ruin, what ridiculous beings they are.

Feminism is Fascism said...

I was looking at wikipedia and between the forms of "violence against women" in feminist issues, and in "rape" (a separate category) in addition to "campus rape" and others, was "statutory rape", is incredible, do not even bother to hide it, we permit that these Feminazis go unpunished? Are we going to whine for some fools to complain that we are misogynist and antifeminist for hating their sexual holocaust? Feminists are scum, from the first wave to the last. I'm a Man and attracted to Minors like the 99% of all mens. They hate us because they are a bunch of Nazi jealous hags.

Eivind Berge said...

Categorizing statutory rape as "violence" is of course absurd, as it is neither rape nor violence, but a legal fiction arbitrarily defined into existence by the feminist scumbags in our legislatures. Statutory "rape" is a dysphemism, a word deliberately misapplied in order to demonize and punish men. The ideologues know what they are doing; however, I would think that calling it "violence" is a bit too intellectually insulting for even indoctrinated feminists and manginas to be comfortable with? Are they happy to be treated like idiots?

Anonymous said...

So why MRA, masculinists and all right wingers and extreme right wingers if they are anti-feminist why they think the same as feminists in all sexual issues like statutory rape, Surrogacy and rape in general?

Anonymous said...

http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/9014234/

Poor boy, only 17. He must be hurting right now!

Eivind Berge said...

Probably just wishful thinking on the part of the accuser. But it is a profoundly sick system that takes this sort of thing seriously as "abuse."

Valentinako said...

This is a horrible site. It promotes using underage girls for sex as well as how to lie to them and coerce them to get an abortion.

It promote a culture of rape and victim blaming.

Eivind Berge said...

You are mistaken. I don't promote abortions, and lying shouldn't be necessary either. I obviously promote a lot of what feminists (and the law) call rape and victim blaming, but only because I disagree with their definitions of rape and victimhood. I don't promote real rape, reasonably defined.

Anonymous said...

There's nothing acceptable in a site that fights against the human rights of half the humanity. This site is totally full of hate against women and projects about taking their rights away.
The ones giving this site a good rating are those who take part to this and have the same aberrant ideas: misogyny, sexism, hate speech, fascism. Obviously, not suitable for -18 children.

Eivind Berge said...

Feminism is also fighting against the rights of half of humanity, and feminist writings are full of hate against men. This is indeed a bitter, hateful struggle and there is nothing nice about it. It is a zero-sum game by definition where each side can only advance by hurting the other. When feminists raise the age of consent or expand the definition of rape, they can only do so by taking away from men's rights. You are free to be on their side, of course, but don't you see how disingenuous it is to claim that my site is unacceptable and "not suitable for -18 children" while you have no similar problems with feminist activism?

IntellectualWomyn56 said...

A girl of 15 can not consent is impossible, as far as I know a child under 18 is a child, how can a man be allowed to sexting a 15-year-old girl like Anthony Weiner? He is a pedophile pervert

Eivind Berge said...

Men's rights activists fundamentally disagree with those assertions. It is purely a legal fiction -- an outright lie -- that 15-year-olds are incapable of consenting to sex. And Anthony Weiner is a perfectly normal man.

By the way, how do you "know" that 18 is the magical age when humans become capable of consent when that's not even what the law says in most jurisdictions?

Anonymous said...

It just gets worse: Now a student is in danger of being evicted because she has silicone breasts, and undressed in front of a camera!

http://www.side3.no/nakenmodell-kan-bli-kastet-ut-fra-studiene/3423326539.html

Eivind Berge said...

So the stark horror of sexuality promoted by feminists is also hurting women in various ways. They got what they asked for. We are reaching the point where any person who has displayed any kind of sexual reference, no matter how innocuous, gets excluded from more and more positions in society. These are the professions affected so far, according to the link in that article:

1. barnehage- og førskolelærerutdanning
2. Pedagogiske utdanninger som tilfredsstiller kravene til å bli tilsatt i undervisningsstilling i grunn- eller videregående skole, jf. kapittel 14 i forskrift 23. juni 2006 nr. 724 til opplæringslova
3. audiograf (audiolog),
4. barnevernspedagog,
5. bioingeniør,
6. ergoterapeut,
7. farmasøyt (inkludert reseptar),
8. fysioterapeut,
9. jordmor,
10. klinisk ernæringsfysiolog,
11. lege,
12. optiker,
13. ortopediingeniør,
14. psykolog,
15. radiograf,
16. sosionom,
17. sykepleier,
18. tannlege,
19. tannpleier,
20. tanntekniker,
21. vernepleier,
22. paramedicutdanning
23. profesjonsutdanningen i teologi
24. trafikklærerutdanning
25. logopedutdanning
26. utdanninger i spesialpedagogikk
27. tolkeutdanningene i tegnspråk.

https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2006-06-30-859

I am glad I don't work in any of those areas, and would advise all men and women to boycott these educations if you value your sexuality.

Anonymous said...

Well this is beyond disgusting. Treating these women like animals.

My mother's from a lovely village that frowns upon scum like yourself and, I kid you not, you would get your dick chopped off if you were found to be sleeping round when you're supposed to be with one woman.

Also, this whole "statutory rape is not rape" is a load of shit but does work on the truly brainless and desperate underage girls.

Eivind Berge said...

How people manage to internalize sex-hostile norms is a matter of morbid fascination to me. How do you do it? How do you believe something so flagrantly hateful to yourself and humanity as well as factually false (the part about "consent" being impossible by decree of a legislature)? I see the politicians who make these laws as disgusting people, and most people agree with that assessment to some extent, yet you somehow let them rule your most intimate feelings as soon as they decide on anything having to do with sex. How can you be so docile?

Anonymous said...

"So the stark horror of sexuality promoted by feminists is also hurting women in various ways. They got what they asked for. We are reaching the point where any person who has displayed any kind of sexual reference, no matter how innocuous, gets excluded from more and more positions in society. These are the professions affected so far, according to the link in that article:"

But where does it state that is against the law to depict your own naked body?

"student er uskikket i utdanningen som nevnt i § 1. nr. 23 dersom ett eller flere av følgende kriterier er oppfylt:
a) studenten viser manglende vilje eller evne til omsorg, forståelse, innlevelse og respekt for de mennesker de møter i sitt arbeid.
b) studenten viser manglende vilje eller evne til å samarbeide og til å etablere tillitsforhold og kommunisere med mennesker i sårbare livssituasjoner, pårørende og samarbeidspartnere.
c) studenten viser manglende vilje eller evne til å skape et miljø som tar hensyn til barns, unges og voksnes sikkerhet og deres psykiske og fysiske helse.
d) studenten viser truende eller krenkende atferd i studiesituasjonen eller overfor brukere, konfidenter eller barn, unge og voksne i sårbare livssituasjoner.
e) studenten unnlater å ta ansvar som rollemodell for barn og unge.
f) studenten har problemer av en slik art at han/hun fungerer svært dårlig i forhold til sine omgivelser.
g) studenten viser for liten grad av selvinnsikt i forbindelse med oppgaver i profesjonsutdanningen og kommende yrkesrolle.
h) studenten viser manglende vilje eller evne til å endre uakseptabel adferd i samsvar med veiledning.
i) studenten er ikke i stand til å utføre de yrkesmessige handlinger praksis krever."

Eivind Berge said...

It looks like this regulation leaves it up to the judgment of the enforcers to decide who is unsuitable, especially on point e. What exactly is a "role model"? When sex-hostility is the norm, anyone who exhibits any kind of sexual vitality can easily be excluded.

caamib said...

"So why MRA, masculinists and all right wingers and extreme right wingers if they are anti-feminist why they think the same as feminists in all sexual issues like statutory rape, Surrogacy and rape in general?"

It's a sad state of the affairs in the sex hostile world. But as you can see by this blog and some others not all of us think so. I'd disagree about your last point though. I think the groups you mentioned aren't hysterical about rape as much as feminist and aren't covertly praising it when it's done by groups feminists love.

caamib said...

" This site is totally full of hate against women and projects about taking their rights away."

What you don't get is that healthy, reasonable anti-feminism always projects taking away some rights women have right now and aren't suited for (and, consequently, happy with) but simultaneously giving them other rights they currently don't have but need, like traditional rights.

"A girl of 15 can not consent is impossible, as far as I know a child under 18 is a child, how can a man be allowed to sexting a 15-year-old girl like Anthony Weiner? He is a pedophile pervert"

Your breathtaking arguments cannot fail to convince anybody.

Anonymous said...

These radical feminist are absolutely crazy... but I think the reason why no man would dare to advocate for minor sex acceptance is because nobody likes whiny, weak men, and crying about how the world needs to “accept” you is the definition of being whiny and weak. If a man were to complain about being accused of statutory rape, the instinctive response—from both men and women—is to tell him to stop being a fag and get into legal age women. But when a woman claims underage girls are oppressed by evil patriarchal pedophile freaks, women swarm around her in solidarity and the male chivalrous instinct is activated: “Those men are all pervert bastards, you’re too young for them. Here, have another cupcake.”

caamib said...

". If a man were to complain about being accused of statutory rape, the instinctive response—from both men and women—is to tell him to stop being a fag and get into legal age women."

And a sane, sufficient reply to such idiots at any time in history would be - why not both, given that both ages should be legal? That this sounds a bit odd/off, even to me, is purely to emasculation of men. The kind of men who are whiny and weak are exactly the kind who accept these crazy laws.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that is a common attitude, but I still think statutory rape is worth "whining" over. It isn't weakness to resist oppression, and we are talking about resisting the violence of the state, which is really not for the faint of heart. The argument that we can pursue women of legal age misses the point that the punishment meted out for statutory rape is unjust regardless of what other options existed. We are resisting a punishment which is unjust no matter how you look at it and whatever the motivation behind it might be. If it was simply meant to deter, it would be more along the lines of traffic fines than multiple years in prison, which is impossible to justify for victimless crimes. The damage done to a man convicted for statutory rape is not that he and other men must pick women of legal age -- which admittedly isn't such a huge problem -- but the actual punishment in specific cases, and this punishment is primarily what we resist as MRAs. This can only be seen as whiny if you somehow ignore the draconian punishment and pretend we are complaining about having to go for legal women.

Were black people whiny for wanting to end racial segregation? After all, they also had other options for colored people. The presence of perfectly good alternatives does not make it right to ban people from harmless acts, and certainly not to impose extreme punishments on such victimless crimes. The situation for men now is morally equivalent to facing decades in prison for using the wrong bus seat, and that is something we should all resist no matter how we feel about the legal alternatives.

Anonymous said...

But if a few months ago you wrote a post saying that the MRA has lost.

Do you want men to wake up and stop being run over? Stop defending and following this cult of promiscuous and misogynistic failures as has seems happened to the poor MRA guys because they has ended up as another right-wing anti-Islam nuts who only spits shit against women at discretion, the worst thing is that a guy like you, who have great courage and conviction, has been trapped among 'MRAs' whose unique diference to the standard feminists is that they do not see to have sex with a drunk women or sex tourism as rape, the end.

If we want sensible men and women to wake up and stop being trampled for doing what is natural in us, is to establish priorities, the success of feminism has been to make their own condition, a religion, many people object to follow identity politics because they seems that are divisive, but I do not know how bad are the policies of identity when only we, the right and worthy men deserve them and the rest deserve the worst for cowards and miserables, I am not leftist or believe in communist equalitarism .

So I recommend to all sensible men to separate from any ideology or political position and NOT start thinking of us as men, the error of the MRA that has degenerated into masculinism or inverted feminism, but as adults attracted to minors, and only that , nothing more and nothing less.

Men: Stop looking for women of legal age, to hell with all of them, that is the other mistake of all men, not even a traditional woman who wants to get married and have children, as the most sensible MRA say, not like that PUA mob, not even if we have to suffer hardship, only teenage girls, who are undoubtedly the real women on Earth, is not a case against women, but against adults, if they want us not to go with teens then they should stop giving disgust, I repeat not for being women, but adults, who are petty generally in both sexes. And women can dating teen boys and some remanent men and no problem.

First we must go to the 16-year-old, that should be our spearhead, we must make every man who is not a thug, actively want 16-year-old girls above adult women, are already grown so it is easier to convince men, drugged by years of pornography and nonsense sex with adults, and start making them clean, educated and healthy men, not this Marxist and feminist bastards who licks asses to get married a 40 years-old middle-class witch or at best cases to date a psychopath student of conductionary psychology who thinks that patriarchy is real.

Then we go down year after year, legally and socially, so it is easier to assimilate, until reaching the age of 13, the culmination of being woman, of well being, dedication and femininity, the most beautiful creatures of creation, Which at that age are generally relatively formed, breasts and soft curves, only a crazy man or a gay could not wish that, so we must reject all adult women, it's worth it. This modern propaganda floods us with 'attractive women' and 'girls who can only be your daughter' and we must stop it from the root.

But as I said it is not only a male issue, I explain, if it is mainly, men looking for and getting the real women, but we do not go to masculinism or have anything to do with the MRA, personally much of the bad name on minor-adult relationships is due to that promiscuous PUA or MGTOW scumbags that only look for teen minors (and adults) as sexual objects, or those Return of Kings real misogynists who talk about disciplining women and go back to the 1920s and although that does not make them rapists, it makes them to be like rogues, and I think they deserve it, but we do not, at least not me, and many others who just want 16 to 13 years-old to make love not to bang, to dating them as girlfriends or wifes and who respect and admire females, but without being a white knight mangina.

Eivind Berge said...

It is unfortunately a fact that the Men's Movement has lost as things stand today. We are not making progress either; on the contrary, feminism keeps advancing and changing more and more laws according to their sex-hostile ideology.

I disagree with your emphasis on attraction to minors. We certainly need to decriminalize sex with 13 to 16-year-olds, but I see no reason to reject older women. Girls are as pretty as can be well into their twenties, in my opinion (which I think is quite representative of men in general), and it is often not realistic for men to get teenage girls even if they were legal.

Isn't the Men's Movement small enough without making it exclusively about attraction to minors? I think it is very important to fight against unfair punishments for fake sexual abuse, but we need to be more inclusive than that. The MGTOW and Return of Kings types who realize that rape laws have been corrupted are also our allies, even if I don't agree with everything they say, and anyone promoting sex-positivity and less sex-hostile laws should be welcomed into the Men's Movement, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

I just read that Chairman Mao was disgusting and dirty for having an affair with a 14 years-old girl and compared it to having poor hygiene and drowning hundreds of people in the sea.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, the 45 million deaths from famine and other suffering caused by Mao's Cultural Revolution are nothing compared to sex with a 14-year-old, right? That is what our culture literally believes.

Anonymous said...

http://antifeministsite.blogspot.com

Antifeminists and MRAs are the same type of pedohisterics as feminists, you dont believe me? this guy even says that sex with a teen is rape even sex with 16 or 17 years old is rape, I do not know what makes them better than vanilla feminists.

Eivind Berge said...

That guy is an idiot and a feminist, certainly not an MRA. He takes feminist sex-hostility and amplifies it, wanting to apply it to males as well as females (which the justice system is already doing anyway, so he is not the rebel he thinks he is either), which makes him the most disgusting kind of imbecile.

As to the "harm" supposedly done by female teachers having sex with boys which he so naively accepts... money talks, and it is not surprising that accusers and relatives will speak of great devastation when lawsuits alleging sexual abuse are so lucrative.

Anonymous said...

But what good is it to go against feminism if it has already infected everyone? Okay, we end the influence of feminism and? So no one will stop thinking that sex with teenagers is abuse and be attracted to them is a mental disorder. Think: imagine that we are Jews, you think that ending National Socialism would end antisemitism? The most hostile and aggressive would go, but they would still be an anti-Semitic society and legislating against us. If anti-Semitism is now in a low form, it is because the powers are pro-Jewish, and yet the new face of anti-Semitism is very close, seeing the strength of the alt-right. Powers and society be never back pro-minor sex either be feminist or antifeminist.

Attacking sex with minors has a semi-conscious advantage that will never, ever give up: Justify sexual liberalism and liberalism in general: absolute freedom in sex while being 'consenting adults', do you want to be gay? Do you want equal marriage? If it is between adults is fine. Do you want porn and paid sex? If among adults they decide is their body! Even a neo-Nazi will say as long as it is between consenting adult heterosexuals I do not object!

Go to any place where you speak in favor of something sexual or not, no matter the ideological position, it is justified because it is between adults or for adults only, just like any eminent harmful thing, you want to smoke? Do you want to drink? Do you want play violent videogames? Do you want marry and work? First be an adult! I am already an adult I can do I decide! just be an 'adult' and you can be free and seek happiness.

Unless you mean that you objetive is that all 99% of society consider that free sex and sexual agency is only for consenting adults as now, but if a 14-year-old drop her panties with an adult, the state does not need to make the act statutory rape and all persons no need to become screaming histerics, just the parents.

But hey, all of you can buy a house and live with your legal age girlfriend and be happy :)

Eivind Berge said...

I am motivated by moral outrage, and nothing upsets me more than fake sexual victimhood and laws which seek to punish it. I try do to what is right, even if it is close to futile. I recognize that the world is now filled with morons who think sex with teenagers is "abuse," some of whom even claim to be antifeminists, but I still think it is worthwhile to be a REAL men's rights activist.

Fake victimhood is both intellectually and morally upsetting. Intellectually because it is a lie, and morally because it harms the innocent with the full force of a corrupted legal system. And the apex of fake victimhood is the female sex offender charade, because male "victims" of female "offenders" are not only not victims, but spectacularly lucky, which adds a whole other dimension to the travesty. How can you stand by and watch all this without getting politically involved? To me it is a no-brainer that we must react, even if we can make very little difference. If we can at least mock the buffoons who are dense enough to believe that women can be sex offenders, or that statutory rape has any real validity, and make them feel our derision, then I feel we have achieved something. I know we are too few to get the laws changed any time soon, or even affect the outcome of most court cases, but at least we can speak out against the insanity and immorality of it all.

Anonymous said...

What makes me angry and makes me hate society is that you have to be 18 years old to belong to the human community. And when it is accepted that type of segregation/slavery aberration is when everything else comes.

Anonymous said...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-children/

Here for example they put a similar idea to mine, very interesting read BTW

Eivind Berge said...

Perhaps children and people under 18 should have more rights. That is a big and complicated subject in itself. What I am most concerned with, however, is the unfair imposition of punishments on adults (and sometimes other minors) for sexual relations with minors. This injustice can be addressed without paying much attention to the philosophical "rights" of children, or the various positive rights they should or should not be entitled to. All of that may be very interesting, but it isn't extremely relevant for men's rights activism, in my opinion.

I also feel it is a bit contrived to speak of the "rights" of children when it is painfully clear that their parents and the government hold the actual power over them. Children do not, in fact, have rights; they merely have interest groups claiming to act in their best interests while exercising dictatorial power. The supposed right of a child “who is capable of forming his or her own views … to express these views freely in all matters affecting the child” (Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989), for example, means nothing if the child were to express a view contrary to the prevailing norms. A child who does not believe in statutory rape, for example, will be cruelly overridden and forced into a victim role by the powers that be.

I don't think it would really be practical to give children a bunch of new rights, because they are usually not capable of looking after themselves, and it would be unbearable for the parents if children could boss them around. Pretending minors are victims when they consent to sex, however, is a separate matter that can be sufficiently addressed by decriminalization.

Anonymous said...

A bit off-topic but I read that Breivik consider himself the future regent of Norway. I thought that the future identitarian and pro-male Rights European United States would be more an aristocratic republic and authoritarian libertarian state with the post of supreme leader, not an absolute monarchy with a king or emperor, I am neutral but I would like to know what is the position of the few sane people about it, I think only those who claim some divinity as for example the ruler of Japan should be entitled kings or emperors, if I for example came to power would simply call my post supreme head of state unless I claim some kind of divinity type like I’m the son of heaven, I have the right to rule by God , etc.

Eivind Berge said...

If enough men were to take men's rights activism as seriously as I do, we would obviously have a coup and seize power, whereupon we would reform the sexual laws according to antifeminist ideology. Since we don't have democratic support, you are quite right that it would be useful to have some sort of mythology to justify our power. However, it feels a bit contrived in this day and age to claim that we are ruling by divine right. So I guess I would just want to be entitled something like supreme head of state without the divinity. There is already a great role model in Norwegian history for what I seek to accomplish: Magnus Lagabøte -- Magnus the Law-Mender -- so I would be the new law-mender, this time removing all traces of feminism and other sex-hostility.

The justification would be morality rather than divine right. I believe that the current sex laws are so flagrantly unjust that insurrection is morally justified to change them. However, I kind of like the title of king, so perhaps I would consider keeping the monarchy for ceremonial purposes. The current King could even be permitted to continue as long as he didn't interfere with the law-mending, as far as I'm concerned (but I am guessing he is too feminist for that).