Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Support the Men's Movement by heating your room

I am not exactly used to getting donations. In fact, I have only received one donation so far in ten years of blogging, in the amount of 0.05 bitcoin. That was a great donation, but because much of my paid work has dried up I now feel the need to ask for more. If you support the real Men's Rights Movement and have some cryptocurrency wealth to spare, why not send some of it my way on any of my favorite blockchains so that I can devote myself more to blogging and less to trying to find bullshit work?

Bitcoin: 1MRAbudkmGvxi6ZqVZjFcrSAEvqG7mZvJ4

Bitcoin Cash: 1BcocAeC5yfzn3J6BuHWANX1Spdi52FjiS

Bitcoin Gold: GQJSaAfypzHsGMS6YZZe7nwypLHJ6pS3GC

Zcash: t1f7dCZKDzNvfEELDsyEGbf7uQgMfvZpi7M

Litecoin: Ld9Zsp2tndpGoHz86ZJ8RZZJDF4f5xW3t7

If you want to donate in a more anonymous manner, contact me for another address, or even a Zcash z-address if you want all the secrecy cryptocurrency can offer. Come to think of it, there is no reason not to share my z-address right away:

zcZ2xvhJDeXGB7Fm2ZWo3rhBiGTfyLsj5Gvnwt2dVFcKJtrEVYscuAqx4oVvzUBab5SSh7QQvzQUj1UEGLeY91LoFE7pQGu

I have never used a z-address before, but if I did, no one (except the sender) would know about it because these addresses have an invisible balance, unlike the very public Bitcoin blockchain. This is beyond what you would think possible if you are unfamiliar with zero-knowledge proofs, but it really works. It works because your Zcash client attempts to decrypt every secret transaction with all your keys to see if they might be yours, and because we trust the Zcash setup Ceremony (if you do).

But I don't really expect direct donations. I have something far easier in mind. Let's make this fun, and try some mining! The barrier to doing this is super low because you don't need to own any currency. You can donate right now by mining for me with hardware you already own, GPUs as well as CPUs. Contrary to what you may have been told, profitability for GPU mining is now very good, with under a year to ROI, and high-end CPUs are also worth mining with if you already have them. A typical graphics card will mine between 1-4 US dollars worth of bitcoin per day (not directly, of course, but via altcoins), and a good CPU will do about 30-60 cents, so it doesn't take many miners to make a substantial contribution to my frugal lifestyle.

This is how I suggest you mine if you are running Windows (if you need Linux advice, just ask in the comments). Download the Legacy Miner from Nicehash. Unzip and install it, let it download the rest of the files it needs, and it will look something like this:

[Update: Nicehash has been hacked and is currently not providing service, so this does not work at the moment. I probably won't be mining with Nicehash anymore even if they come back, unless they also refund the one week of mining income that got stolen from me.]


You may need to add an exception for your antivirus software, but I assure you that this program is safe. To mine for me, enter this bitcoin address: 1EivindD5Q9KnchaAJDfuQowY6MgNvAJ9Z. The worker name can be anything you want. With Nicehash operating on the pay-per-share system, every little bit helps when you mine to my address, even if you only mine for a few seconds. Every satoshi counts and is much appreciated! So if you are new to mining, this is a good way to start playing around with it. This method is completely anonymous without any need for registration. If you feel like mining for yourself instead of me, you can switch my bitcoin address for one of your own at any time, but then you have to keep mining until you earn 0.01 bitcoin in order to get a payout. And with winter coming up you probably need some heat anyway, so you aren't necessarily consuming more electricity than usual. Turn down other heaters instead. I guarantee you that once you start heating your house with mining, you never want to go back to paying for heat rather than getting paid for it, or donating as the case may be. Before you know it, you will be building miners to put in every room like I have done.

For example, this is the one in my bedroom. My cat loves mining too because it emits so much heat.



The reason why have trouble supporting myself fully on mining is because I don't have enough money to invest in GPUs. After rent and food, any donations will be invested in more GPUs, which means they will help generate income for several years to come. I am also constrained by the amount of electricity I can dissipate through my apartment, but I haven't reached that limit yet. And when I do reach that limit, I would like to expand into a separate mining facility if possible, but I don't think I strictly need to in order to make a living.

In a future post, I plan to explore the thermodynamic implications of cryptocurrency mining more philosophically, but for now I just need to pay my bills. One way to look at is to regard Bitcoin as a manifestation of the Second Law. As if guided by the universe itself, Bitcoin came into being in the service of entropy, and we are its willing slaves feeding it all the energy we can get our hands on, hastening the degradation of our environment. But such is life. We flourish by consuming, and bitcoin is the most powerful modern expression of this principle. So useless and so useful at the same time. Like spending energy mining and refining gold and then putting it back in a vault underground, we now have an excellent incentive to perform the equivalent intrinsically useless digital work. But it beats bullshit work, because at least it is not about wasting your own time. You will be amazed at how little maintenance a miner needs, and if you run into any difficulties, just ask.

160 comments:

Anonymous said...

Get a job, you lazy bastard!

Eivind Berge said...

Nope, I am going to let the feminists have the toxic workplace to themselves, and recommend all men boycott that sex-hostile place. Why would you want to spend time in a place where your sexuality is systematically persecuted? Let the cringing manginas who still want to put up with it grovel in apology for the slightest sign of masculinity under the hateful cunts who rule the workplace. Real men have better things to do, not least mount a resistance movement against all this misandry. That is my vocation.

Anonymous said...

It's an interesting experiment to be sure.

For the "get a job"-comment, I would just briefly like to note in passing that we are heading into the Second Machine age, with +30% unemployment in the next 10-15-20 years, and requiring everybody to get a job instead of paying out a citizen wage, is in my view nothing but an ignorant and stubborn recipe for suicide, crime, and failed households what with that entails for fragmentation of society and the failure to raise children to see themselves as part of a community.

On a philosophical not, in the words of Einstein, "you cannot solve problems by the same means that was used to create them".

Eivind Berge said...

I agree with a guaranteed basic income, just enough to survive on, maybe even a bit more if the machine age really materializes. Countries like Norway could afford it already, but I think the greatest obstacle is jealousy. As long as workers are a strong majority, they will vote to ensure that others don't have it so easy.

Anonymous said...

Nice cat.

Anonymous said...

For the comment in response to "get a job comment":

Yeah, and you have to summ up both to the second machine age, also the female employement problem. Before feminism and female employement, like the 1950 USA when women stayed at home, men were the only family member to work and could afford to mantain a family of 4 members and more, also the house with the White fence and 2 cars. Today 2 ppl (yeah, queers included) working full time in a decent activity have issues to survive with 1 kid and the prius.
What really frustates me is that the establishment says that you can't stop innovation and mordernization: you can't stop the second machine age, people will lose job and you have to accept that. Meanwhile that they say this shit, they throw in jail the poor incel guys who buy plastic sexbots shaped as Young women or slightly prepubescent females. As you can see, they do stop the innovations they don't like, using draconian and inhuman punitions.

Eivind, what you write about the guaranteed basic income contraddicts your "liberal" views in economy. You said you are ideologically a capitalist (like most antifeminists and MRAs, and it's weird because the 1st antifeminist was Ernest Balfort Bax, who was a socialist).
Sometimes I fail on organically following your thinks.
Don't get upset but this is a contraddiction of yours like the one you did when, on one hand, you said that sexbots and prostitues are not the solution because men need real sex with willing and desiring women (aka: LOVE), and on the other hand, after the Brevik's job you said that the access to women's body is to be pursued with every means (aka: RAPE), included violence, that is rape. You can't go for rape and go for being desired at the same time; one exclude the other.
All this mess to highlight that, essentially, you are advocating for the free rice cup. Not very capitalist. Are you a commie now? Norway is known as one of the country with the most generous welfare (Norway, Sweden and Finland), and that is in my opinion the main reason you don't move away from the feminist hell: you don't want to lose your material and economical rights (privileges) of norge. Otherwise you would have escaped from "Lilyhammer" to Lagos a bunch of time ago.

Meanwhile I post here a bomb (Wikipedia is wrong and possibly manipulated by feminists and I still can't believe it): de facto, as for now, the hyperfeminist France has NO AGE OF CONSENT!

https://www.rt.com/news/409794-france-consent-age-introduce/

Allah hafiz, brothers.

(sorry for my form, but my computer doesn't type all the letters I press in the keyboard)

Eivind Berge said...

No, I am not a commie, but my views do evolve over time. I am now MORE hateful against feminism than ever before because feminism has gotten worse, but I am less against some mild form of socialism because I see more flaws in capitalism, especially if machines really do take most of the jobs and we are left with extreme wealth disparity. There is already extreme wealth disparity, and there are limits to how much can be justified, I think.

And I still don't think sexbots and prostitutes are the solution, never said so. But they shouldn't be criminalized either. I think using pornography is actually harmful to men, but that doesn't justify criminalizing it, including child porn. My views on unhealthy lifestyle choices such as drugs and pornography have always been 100% libertarian -- criminalization is immoral. Sexbots are probably less harmful because they would be more realistic than porn and hence not mess up your sexual wiring like porn does, but they are a waste of your time.

Regarding the French situation, it seems they do have an age of consent at 15, but sex with someone under that age is not automatically "rape," just "abuse." Norway had the same type of legal situation until 2015, when the lie that all sex under 14 is "rape" was instituted. Sex under 16 but over 14 is still just "abuse" and not "rape." So basically France is just lagging behind the current madness of pretending that minors literally can't consent. The mob wants to abolish the concept of statutory rape/abuse and replace it with the delusion that sex with minors is LITERALLY rape whether they consent or not, with the same punishment. Like I said, there is more reason to hate feminists than ever, yet sadly there is also less opposition to feminism than ever. If you think France does not have an age of consent just because sex with minors under 15 isn't "rape" but a lesser crime, then you have fallen for a lot of it yourself, because that was how the age of consent was conceptualized even by the mainstream until very recently. But now it doesn't satisfy the public's bloodlust for punishing male sexuality even though "sexual abuse of a child" was already a very serious crime without calling it rape.

WGE said...

This is the argument they used in the USA to ban the death penalty for minors aged 16 to 18. Exactly the same pseudo-scientific crap they use for sex with under-18s:


Under the "evolving standards of decency" test, the Court held that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the murder. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy cited a body of sociological and scientific research [1] that found that juveniles have a lack of maturity and sense of responsibility compared to adults. Adolescents were found to be over-represented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior. The Court noted that in recognition of the comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of juveniles, almost every state prohibited those under age 18 from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent. The studies also found that juveniles are more vulnerable to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure. They have less control, or experience with control, over their own environment. They also lack the freedom that adults have, to escape a criminogenic setting.[1]

Eivind Berge said...

The fact that they pretend the "age of consent" is at issue in the article shows how insanely out of hand the situation has gotten. It is as if the crime of "abuse" counts for nothing even though it is punishable by many years. In Norway until 2015 (and still in France), children at any age used to be able to consent to not being raped, but not to not being "abused" (until they turned 16 in Norway and 15 in France). So the law was more honest. Calling it "abuse" is an opinion (which I certainly disagree with to a great extent), but calling it "rape" is a flat out lie -- a lie that the average person now believes in. And this moronic feminist lynch mob that the public has become will now have its lie instituted everywhere. I bet it won't stop there either, because the difference between the "age of consent to not being raped" and the other age of consent will still upset these dimwits. So before long there will probably be just one age of consent -- 18 or more -- and everything under will be rape. Courts will not care if the minor was forced or a willing participant because the law has invented its own alternative reality where it is all rape either way, with the same mandatory punishment.

Anonymous said...

About the "minors" situation, we are living right now one of such cases: the evil monster Cyntoia Brown, who as a uner 18 adult whore (so, a poor little pure child abused by bad patriarchal older guys folowing the angloamerican feminist retoric) killed an harmless customer with an illegaly detained gun. In the social network there is the moral police of celebrities in a crusade to free her.

No, Eivind, in France there is no AGE OF CONSENT at all right now. They have to introduce it from scratch because the actual law referres only to OFFENCE only:

"The fact of the commission without violence, constraint, threat or surprise of a *SEXUAL OFFENCE* by an adult on the person of a minor under fifteen years of age is punished by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000"

I know that in the feminists' and feminism male apologists mindset every straight sexual intercourse is an offence unless the females is in a condition of advantage, but the system failed on jailing the imaginery monster in question because it was not possible to prove the rape or abuse. The law deals only with the term OFFENCE, and a consenting intercourse is never an offence. Even the chat was a proof that the underage adult woman was willing and enthusiastical willing. If the french law was a true age of consent law, there were no chance to save the guy from the feminist bloody hate machine.

Keep in mind that a french advocate of imaginery children rights feminist got angry and told to the TV that there was too much age difference... once again is not the act that is a crime, but it's the age of the penetrating dick that creates the imaginery invisible psycological damages and so the crime.

Am I the only one who remember "age is only a number" saying? Other times... 16 years ago.

All this mess in a country that is gonna to criminalize the advance in the angloamerican feminist way: right now you can get laid with whoever female of any age as long as you don't come on her at first. You must be choosen by her.
It's more than crazy.

Day by day, Islam looks the only way to liberate men from the feminist yoke and female domination.

Allah hafiz, Brothers.

Anonymous said...

PS: no, you were wrong on being a capitalist. Capitalism doesn't work, and when it crashes harshly like in 2007, it goes on backup with violence and mass brainwash. Remember the tent cities outside LAS VEGAS? It's cyclical, it's a matter of time that it will happen again. Nobody counts the victim of capitalism, like the deads due to the lack of medicines. No need to go in the USA: remember Greece? It's like the "genocide": it's genocide only if the guy is hated by the west. They say Mladic killed 8000 muslims (still to prove it), but the west kills 8000 muslims in 2 months of bombing in Mossul.

Communism was made to fall for a way less: lack of videorecorders and coca cola.

Right now they are trying to overthrow Venezuela by blocking the sale of medicines and hygene products. Maduro had to look to India in order to get the stuff. Also, the EU made new sanctions because they don't like the venezuela government. However they can't count on feminists because the government is ruled by feminists.

A real MRA / antifeminist can not be a capitalist. Adam Smith is a feminist.

Eivind Berge said...

Prosecutors got too greedy and tried to get that Cape Verdean man who had sex with an 11-year-old girl convicted of rape, which failed because the law is still reasonable enough to not define it as rape when it wasn't proven to be coerced in any way. But France does have an age of consent which defines sex with someone under 15 as a lesser kind of abuse even when the minor is a willing participant, and I don't understand why you are denying this. The debate now concerns expanding the legal definition of "rape" to include consensual sex with minors under a certain age (which will probably be 14 at first as in Norway), which goes way beyond the concept of age of consent as we have traditionally understood it.

Eivind Berge said...

It is better explained in this article:

https://www.rt.com/news/404833-11yo-girl-rape-french-prosecutors/

Different case, but same thing:

"On Tuesday, prosecutors in Pontoise, a commune in the northwestern suburbs of Paris, decided to drop the rape charges, and instead, charged the man with “sexually assaulting a minor under the age of 15,” a crime punishable by five years’ imprisonment and a fine of € 75,000."

So they applied the age of consent rather than rape law. France only has no age of consent if you subscribe to the most insane feminist definitions complete with the delusion that children literally can't consent.

Eivind Berge said...

Or to put it another way, in France there is no age of consent in rape law, but why should rape law include an age below which consent is presumed not to exist??? That presumption is an insane accomplishment of feminism in recent years, something I utterly reject. If you believe children are always abused by sex for whatever reason (or for some other reason should be off-limits), then the honest way to criminalize sex with children is to define it as a crime entirely separate from rape, because it is a separate phenomenon unless it also happens to meet the criteria for rape, in which case rape law can be used anyway. As MRAs, it is important that we refuse to pander to the delusion that children literally can't consent by using the new terminology foisted on us which obliterates the distinction between rape and statutory rape. Statutory rape is a legal fiction, and what France is about to get is also a legal fiction, but one which pretends that it is not a fiction but rather reality. This can never be accepted by any reasonable man because it is not only hateful due to the increased punishments that go along with it, but also intellectually dishonest. But that delusion is now par for the course in our civilization. Humanity has an astonishing ability to make up lies and believe in them, and if we abandon some lies, we only pick up others with renewed intensity. In my lifetime I have seen the lie that children can't consent go from a fringe feminist position to one enforced by the mainstream, but somehow I escaped this brainwashing myself, I am proud to say. It is amazing how one can become the most reviled kind of dissident by just staying the same. Also funny that the public can be shocked by the law, as if the law is some kind of surprise, but that is how fast feminist values are advancing, to the detriment of men and sexuality.

This is, of course, just one of the many things that are wrong with rape law after feminist reforms. It is not even the most significant corruption of rape law, because sex with children has long been heavily criminalized anyway, unlike all the new and unfair ways adult women now have to accuse rape in accordance with the law.

Anonymous said...

On topic, some stats from running two miners:

1) 1070Ti-miner
* 3kWh / 15h @220W

2) vega-miner
* 4,25kWh / 13,1h @320W

Amounts to 0.00044477 BTC

For a spotprice on electricity that is about 0.33 NOK / kWh, in my calculations that becomes 0.01111925 BTC / USD worth of electricity - bearing in mind that the current spotprice is way lower than the actual price of electricity delivered to the consumer in Norway.

Still, at current value of bitcoins it makes for some 90 USD value in BTC per 1 USD value in electricity.

Add to the fact that I can turn off the heaters (in winter), so there's power to be saved there in the total budget, and this is looking quite good so far.


Anonymous said...

Hang on, that was 12.45 USD in BTC per 1 USD in electricity. My bad.

Eivind Berge said...

That is still very good. We don't know how long it can last, but mining is a no-brainer at current profits. Certainly if you have a GPU and you also need to heat your house, what are you waiting for, people? And if you don't have a GPU, well, today is Black Friday, so you can probably pick one up cheap.

Anonymous said...

The feminist celebrities Kim Kardashian and Rihanna defending this murderous bitch of men, Cyntoia Brown, is sick!!:

http://d2vpb0i3hb2k8a.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2017/11/23/bbc-22.jpg

Anonymous said...

"The debate now concerns expanding the legal definition of "rape" to include consensual sex with minors under a certain age (which will probably be 14 at first as in Norway), which goes way beyond the concept of age of consent as we have traditionally understood it."

No Eivind. The AOC law is rightly to state a consensual intercourse with a minor of a certain age as rape even if she was begging and crying for it. It's that since the law was invented by feminists.
Otherwhise it would be just a normal rape, maybe perpetrated against a minor; but if the minor is willing, you can't apply that law. For such reason, right now, France has no AOC at all.
The one they are gonna to introduce isn't a doppleganger.

The different case you cite, is rightly the case of the black guy (who magically turned 30 while he is 28) who impregnated the 11 years old woman, that created the mess. Actually, this is just another case of such nature, but the difference is that this time the international feminist has moved on and took actions. The system failed its attempt to abuse the law by bending it in a way that suits it's aims (creating a rape case that doesn't exist).
Obviously the new law will fix this, creating the inhuman condition of rapists for the guys who had natural sex with willing under 18 years old women.

What amazes me, is that they are dealing with "very low ages" (WHO reccomends betweeen 14 an 16 year olds..., but of course, AOC is a feminist construct against normal male sexuality and should not exist at all for women who had the 1st cycle, like in Islam), they are choosing between 13 and 15. The "new normal" I would bet for, is 16. Remember Spain? From 13 to 16 in a week by the exploitation of a homicide/suicide involving an underage gipsy woman.

To cut short, the colour of france in the Wikipedia AOC page is wrong. As for now it should be blank, and in future maybe or the old colour of Spain or the same colour of Germany, Austria, etc.

However there is such a lust worldwide to fullfill the jails with good men who did nothing wrong and harmed nobody, instead of real criminals (killers, violents, robbers, corrupted, etc)

When did Norway raise AOC from 14 to 15? 2006? 2009?

@Anon, yeah, I would like to incite the parents' of the victim, killed by the bitch, to raise their voices online, but it's even not possible to find them.
An antifeminist NGO is really needed, at least against bestialities like this one. Being underage is not an excuse and there should not exist an AGE PASS (like the pussy pass).

Anonymous said...

The problem is, GPU coolers are noisy. Also, you need a new GPU to give some power to mine up Bcoins. Doing it with an old GPU doesn't make sense, isn't it? So you have to plan down the mortgage of your dedicated new computer.
Also, many countries has very expensive electricity...

Allah hafiz.

Eivind Berge said...

You are wrong. France has an age of consent and it is 15. What is new is they will get an additional delusion on top of the age of consent which says children under 13 or 14 are also necessarily "raped" when they have sex, with all the punishments that entails. Do you think they are going to abolish the old age of consent law and legalize sex with 14-year-olds? Of course not. The current trend only goes in one direction, towards ever greater demonization and punishment of sexuality.

You wrote: "The AOC law is rightly to state a consensual intercourse with a minor of a certain age as rape even if she was begging and crying for it."

Wrong, this is NOT how age of consent has traditionally worked, certainly not in Europe. AOC merely meant that minors below that age are "abused" even if they are willing, and the punishment was typically much less than for rape. The delusion that they are always "raped" is an additional corruption which is only now rearing its ugly head. But people growing up today are indoctrinated with the idea that this latter type of age of consent law is the only possible one, so I understand where you are coming from.

Eivind Berge said...

The age of consent has been 16 in Norway my whole life. And the additional "rape" delusion did not exist until 2015. So by your standards, Norway had no age of consent at all until 2015, and now it is 14.

Eivind Berge said...

Also, even in the USA where they have statutory "rape," this is still a totally different concept than rape even if the word is the same. It would be set apart from rape by being called "rape in the fourth degree" or something like that, and wherever such a law exists, it is called the age of consent. Also the higher ages like 16 and 17 might be criminalized as "unlawful sexual contact" and not be called rape at all in some states, but this is still the age of consent then. The Americans do have a delusion of "child rape" which is similar to the Norwegian and soon to be French law where they believe it is literally rape even when it is consensual, but that is far lower than the age of consent. It is possible that the end result of all the feminist reforms will be to have all sex with anyone under 18 defined as first degree rape, but we are not there yet. At this point there is so much outrage whenever a man receives less than the maximum penalty for rape after being accused of any of these crimes that it wouldn't surprise me if it happens very fast.

Anonymous said...

"WHO recommends betweeen 14 and 16 year olds"

WHO means "World Health Organization", doesn't it? So why do they mess with people's sexuality? Should people become more healthy by denying them the right to mutual pleasure?

Eivind Berge said...

"The problem is, GPU coolers are noisy."

This depends. The better GPUs have huge coolers that don't get so noisy, and it also depends on the airflow in your case. And you can adjust fan profiles to your liking and don't need to mine with full intensity, either.

"Doing it with an old GPU doesn't make sense, isn't it?"

Not if it is very old, but you can try it and see. The program I linked to starts with benchmarks before it will mine anything, so you get an idea.

Anonymous said...

>"The problem is, GPU coolers are noisy."

Here in Norway we have a dedicated room in the house for the hot water heater, washing machine and clothes dryer / clothes rack where we put the clothes to dry (not much sense in hanging them on the outside in 0 degrees celsius after all).

So, putting a miner in such a room makes sense from the perspective of keeping that room some 5 degrees hotter than the rest of the house, which helps with heating the water and drying clothes, and you can always open the door or move the miner around when you want more heat somewhere.

Combine it with starting the miner up when the machine starts and installing TightVNC (http://tightvnc.com/download.html) and you can pretty much just power it down and move it around at will. Personally I don't get why people don't just buy a Raspberry Pi and do remote desktop through that.
Other alternatives for completely quiet and affordable mini-computers are the ROCK64 (https://www.pine64.org/?product=rock64-media-board-computer) which has just recently been released and does usb 3.0 and has 4GiB RAM and eMMC up to 64 GiB, and the ODROID-XU4 (http://www.hardkernel.com/main/products/prdt_info.php?g_code=G143452239825).
Personally I use a Fitlet Mini Pro (https://www.compulabnordic.dk/produkt/mintbox-mini-pro/) w/extra passive heatsink, because it can be screwed on to the monitor on the back so it's tidier and it fills all of my daily needs.
Compulab also has a range of much more powerfull yet fanless machines, BTW.

Anonymous said...

"You wrote: "The AOC law is rightly to state a consensual intercourse with a minor of a certain age as rape even if she was begging and crying for it."

Wrong,..."

So, assuming you r right, why the guy got away with his act of impregnation of a 11 years old woman?

Why the french law uses the word "assault"? The greatest part of other AOC laws, never refers to "assualt" or "rape" but just "sexual intercourse" or even "sexual act". This is the real "Stautatory rape", that sets the real age of consent!
That's why I think that France, right now, has no AOC.
There is no need to abolish the old law, because it is about "assault" and not "sexual intercourse" or "sexual act".
Unlawfult contacts are unlawful because they are defined by the law. That's the difference. So, in some state in the USA the age of consent is 16 with the exception of some activities and behaviours, defined by the law. In a deep view, there are some some states that criminlaize some activities even if acted between full adults. There is no limit to the fantasy of feminist legislators.

Also, interisting is that the french judge didn't bend himself to the system and the humor of the belly of the plebes. He stands strong, applying the french law and letting the impregnator free. In other countries of CIVIL LAW (that is the most worring part!!!) judges bend the law to applease the main stream narrative imposed by the establishment and brainwashing the people. I'm sure his life is not easy right now. Somehow France looks still now a state of law. Like germany when cops release the refugees, who were suspected on setting up an attack against a xmas market. No evidences, so they were set free. It is something not foregone, today in west, in the countries of the NATO area and the allies of the USA.

Of course, the feminists' point was rise up to 18 or better 21, like what Ernest Balfrot Bax denounced 100 years ago. That's nothing new, the socilaist told us too much time ago.

Sorry, I confused the GPU with the CPU,.. I could not imagine that mining is not using CPU anymore and now uses the baord for gaming. Mine is integrated in the MB, so you can get a clue.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I forgot:

Allah Hafiz, brothers.

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-41967461

Eivind Berge said...

I am not seeing any reports of a man getting away with impregnating an 11-year-old. They only say rape charges were dropped, while he can still be convicted of the age of consent violation if he isn't already. Which the French according to the media call "sexually assaulting a minor under the age of 15." So they are already falsely pretending it is an "assault" too (unless this is just a confused translation), and the punishment can apparently be a draconian 5 years plus a €75.000 fine, so why do you insist that this is not an age of consent law?

In a country with double jeopardy protection such as the US, it is possible to get away with a crime if prosecutors get too greedy and for example try you for rape when the law only allows for statutory rape, but I don't think France has double jeopardy protection. There is no obstacle to convicting the man for "sexually assaulting a minor," and the outrage only exists because this isn't sufficiently delusional and draconian to satisfy the bloodlust of the feminist crowd.

Eivind Berge said...

As to the appearance of 14-year-old females, I submit "Cash Me Ousside" girl Danielle Bregoli as an example that they can look like fully grown women. Just look at her. You have to be an imbecile to think attraction to her has anything to do with pedophilia.

The girls in the #MeAt14 article look younger than their age because of the dated 80s fashion style.

Anonymous said...

No, it's something between fake news and translation mistakes. The media calls "assault" but it isn't. It's like when the call pedophile a guy who got laid with a woman who is not 18 years old or older. The guy just got away with it and you keep on failing on justifing that.
I've already posted this article:

https://www.rt.com/news/409794-france-consent-age-introduce/

Now read the artcle's title: "France may set age o consent at 13". It's a loophole, Eivind, but the facto there is no age of consent right now in France. Otherwise the nigger impregnator would be already jailed.
Assault is considered less then rape, so the punishment is "only" 5 years. But "consent" excludes "assault".

Now we just have to wait to enjoy the spectacle of what the real victim of the old creepy monkey pedophile Brigitte Trogneux in gonna do, in his feminist delerium. After all, Macron started on being molested and raped when he was just 15 years old so still a child since he is a male. Stockolm syndrome is stong on manginas:

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/11/25/543485/France-president-Macron-violence-women

Allah Hafiz.

Anonymous said...

I dont read BBC. It's like CNN: very fake news.

Eivind Berge said...

If France was really debating whether the age of consent should be 13, that would cause a huge outrage in itself for being too low. Which it probably will anyway, but that is not what they are debating at this time. They just want minors under 13 to be automatically "raped," rather than "abused" or "assaulted" or whatever you want to call it when it is just an age of consent violation with a willing minor. And most importantly, they want to impose the harsher penalty that comes with conceptualizing it as rape. Which is totally undeserved, but that is to be expected from the current climate of misandry, so none of this is surprising.

I do not believe consent is considered a valid defense against the "assault of a minor under 15" crime in France. This is their current age of consent law and it will remain after the proposed reform, then applicable between the ages of 13 to 15 or something like that. This law is self-consciously statutory, which means they don't go about pretending that the minor does not and cannot consent.

Anonymous said...

Fucking underage girls is illegal, we know that. But that's like saying that drinking wine is illegal. Why cultivate grapes if the product cannot be tasted?

Eivind Berge said...

The honest answer to that is that the grape cultivators (parents) want to influence how the grapes are harvested. If they can arrange an early marriage or something they are happy with, then age of consent is rarely an issue. But if society does not give them that power, then they will try to control their daughters' sexuality by means of the state instead, to at least get them to an age where (they perceive) the girls will make better decisions.

Anonymous said...

You ask women if they prefer to have their arms cut off or raped, and the vast majority of them say that they prefer to have their arms cut off, their legs broken or blinded by a rubber ball before they are raped.


It's totally irrational.

Offences of assault and battery should not carry much greater penalties than rape.

A rape is, after all, a penis entering a vagina, something that millions of people in the world do every day for pure pleasure.

Let's see if we all throw some light on the irrationality of rape being such a serious crime in our legal system.

The same could be said of sexual abuse (a stolen kiss, for example). why is stealing a kiss more serious than stealing a wallet?

Anonymous said...

That's exactly what I said some time ago: somewhat unpoetically speaking, the Pussy is designed to receive that tool, whereas noses have not been created to be broken by a fist, lungs do not exist to be perforated by a knife, and a kidney's function is not to be smashed by a gang of thugs with iron bars. So, why are violent criminals often treated much softer than people who have committed so-called sexual assault, even in cases of so-called "technical rape"?

Anonymous said...

The woman is a weather vane. A psychopath for whom everything is a game (relations, work, politics, wars...) because she knows that they will always come to rescue her. Whether they are white knights or Saracen horsemen, they know very well that they will survive.

I've read it several times: their mental development stops at 13-15 years old (possibly when they fuck for the first time and they realize that they can get more by that route than by effort). A 30-year-old woman is a 15-year-old girl who is ill-behaved, knowing the consequences of her actions for herself and, above all, for others.

They don't care about the world around them. They don't care who provides it. They don't care whether or not there is technological, intellectual or cultural progress. They will have the best of any of the realities in which they have lived. All they want is to be sexually attractive, to know that they can fuck all they want and more. Let the others worry. As long as they have someone who thinks they're fuckable, the world can burst.


And, by the way, that MGTOW philosophy thing. I do not regard it as a philosophy, nor as an organization in itself. It is only that men are running out of, or taking away from, the reasons why they should strive. They're unmotivated men. You can expect to get nothing but indolence when EVERY FUCKING day, and more and more, they receive contempt, when I do not hate, WHATEVER THEY DO.

If they never recognize what they do for others, the conclusion is that it is better to do nothing. At least that way my back doesn't hurt or I don't have to put up with the pain of a rejection because it's all a game. It's more. If they see that the woman or the businessman who rejects them then fucks the town's junkie, do they really want them to keep playing by those rules?

Eivind Berge said...

You have to separate real rape out from all the statutory "rape" and other bullshit. And once you do, you are left with a real offense that I agree is pretty serious. Women are designed to be selective more than receptive. So when they don't get to exercise their selectivity, I can understand it is a big deal to them. When they are literally raped, meaning the fight back to the best of their ability even if that gets them exposed to serious violence that only barely falls short of killing them. Or a credible and immediate threat of such violence. Only then can I agree that rape is as serious as it is made out to be. But we absolutely have to define it reasonably. And lower levels of sexual coercion are not rape, but can sometimes reasonably qualify as lesser crimes. At that point, though, I agree that there is nothing uniquely bad about the sexual nature that merits harsher treatment by the justice system than other violence. It is not rational to elevate "sexual assault" above other assaults when it isn't intercourse and doesn't meet the definition of rape.

There is also a another side to female selectivity which is willfully ignored these days. Female selectivity means women are DESIGNED to deal with all the sexual attention that society now calls "sexual harassment." Society does not need to shield females from all this unwanted attention, because mechanisms for dealing with it are already built into their psychology, and this is emphatically not a big deal to them, or else they wouldn't be able to function in our ancestral evolutionary environment either. It is absurd to pretend that women should only have to experience sexual attention from men they want. If that were true, they wouldn't need to be selective! And if they weren't selective, then rape wouldn't be a big deal. So they have to pick one (and I agree with real rape, but not the other stuff).

Anonymous said...

"The woman is a weather vane."

[img-slow clap]

Anonymous said...

https://orig00.deviantart.net/29b2/f/2017/072/e/0/mgtow___men_go_their_own_way___is_a_weapon_by_mgtow_me_not-db28rjz.png

Eivind Berge said...

The feminist sex abuse industry in Norway is having a field day preying on our indigenous population.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/29/europe/norway-sexual-assault/index.html

"Of the 151 cases, 43 involve rape, including three assaults on children. Sexual intercourse with children under 14 is the alleged offense in 40 of the cases."

Most of this is entirely statutory, and the morons in the populace gobble it up as real rape and abuse because the scumbags in authority tell them to. Will the Sami people also be so gullible? Will they accept having feminist sexual norms imposed on them? Kudos to them for not internalizing feminist sex-hostility until now, at least! I seethe and roil with hatred against the Norwegian government, and suggest the Sami people follow my lead. I hope at least some of the 92 men persecuted in this campaign become MRAs. The Sami sure seem to be an encouraging exception to the feminist brainwashing that has emasculated our men, so if there is any hope of a male resistance in Norway, they are our best bet.

Anonymous said...

Nei ka faschken
Ka du tru
(also lel)

Eivind Berge said...

Norway has a long history of oppressing the Sami people. Back in the 1500s and 1600s, they were accused of sorcery and brutally persecuted. Sami men were burnt at the stake at a higher rate than other Norwegian men. The current witch-hunt is the same shit in a different wrapping. The justification now is "sexual abuse," but it is equally irrational and hateful. Despite all the political correctness about protecting minorities, we still do exactly the opposite. Sex abuse hysteria trumps all other considerations even if it leads to blatant forced assimilation of a different culture. There is no cultural relativism in feminism, only a bigoted imposition of arbitrary definitions of "sexual abuse." These idiots in the police and justice system think they know the truth just like their colleagues in the 1600s, but they are only enforcing legal fictions that the indigenous people have no more reason to accept than any other forced assimilation. I hope they are smart enough to see that.

Anonymous said...

This sex-hysteria was supported by MRA's, and the MRA's are no more than slaves of women who accept servitude but implore their masters to reduce lashes and increase rations...

Therefore THEY DO NOT REPRESENT ME

My absolute contempt for them.

Eivind Berge said...

Nope, MRAs do not support sex hysteria or the resulting laws. In fact, we oppose sex hysteria BY DEFINITION.

Anonymous said...

"While in France, the case of the rape of an 11-year-old Cape Verdean girl by a 28-year-old Frenchman of Maghrebi origin reached the headlines because the court found it to be mutually consensual, the same case is repeated in Finland.

We learned that on 27 November, a 23-year-old boy named Juusuf Muhamed Abbud was sentenced to 3 years in prison for sexual assault on a 10-year-old boy in 2016 in Pirkanmaa province (capital, Tampere). The district attorney had requested that he be punished for rape, so the sentence was 3 years, shared by the victim's attorney. But in Finland as in France, the fact that it is allochthonous allows the principle of judicial clemency as defended by the Union of the Judiciary. The District Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion as the Pirkanmaa District Court: The evidence was not sufficient to show that the 10-year-old victim was having an unauthorized sexual relationship with Abbud."

I'm the father of the child and I slit his throat in court in front of the judges.

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know the facts in this case, so I have to assume the verdict is correct that the boy was willing. Slitting a man's throat because your son is gay is a little harsh, don't you think?

Also not buying the "allochthonous" explanation for "clemency." Three years in prison is not clement for statutory abuse, and I would expect an autochthonous person to get the same (until the law is reformed to make a "rape" sentence mandatory, which I expect Finland will now get busy with just like France).

Anonymous said...

Actually, it sounds as though the boy stood up against his own attorney. He could have told the court that he was abused, deceived, "groomed", or that he was too young to understand what he did, and everybody would have believed him hurriedly. But he apparently did not so, which makes one believe that he was truly willing.

Hypersonic said...

Amos Yee vs. Destiny

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uw9NWF7Z6w

Anonymous said...

"Real men have better things to do"

https://holocaust21.wordpress.com/2017/11/25/youtube-remove-amos-yees-video-on-why-paedophilia-should-be-legal/


Herregud, for en gjeng

Anonymous said...

I'm starting to think thanks to the Hollywood scandal, that legal adulthood at 18 is a house of cards and a lie.

Lately, the production companies are throwing girls to fame, who the next day after turning 18, are already drilling 4 dicks into a gangbang. Pal don't fuck with me, at that age you are still a kid and you don't have a fucking clue about life, to fuck around in front of the whole planet. The age at which it is legal to make sex should be regulated. Minimum 22 or 23 years.

That's why I'm seeing more and more cougar and milf porn. Because there you have the guarantee that whoever fucks in front of a camera is because he really wants to and not because they have filled his head with birds in the middle of a party up to cocaine and dollars in his pocket.

jack said...

Regarding hanging on to a job, I'm retiring in a few weeks at 58. I'm no longer sure putting up with my job for so long has been a 100% right decision. I have never been good-looking enough to pull birds for free, not by a long shot, so I fell into the trap of working just for the money early on in my life. My job has enabled me to have disposable income to pay for pussy and to travel a few weeks each year (sex-travel combined with tourism). I've been lucky enough to live in a country where paid sex is legal and affordable. All the same, opting out and leading a frugal life with some good books and a fishing rod in the country might have made for more fulfilling life in retrospect. Anyway it was my decision and not being a woman, I cannot blame others for my choice. I have more understanding now than ever for men who opt out.

Anonymous said...

http://www.accesshollywood.com/articles/couples-therapys-dr-jenn-berman-doug-hutchison-is-not-a-predator-124239/

I feel like throwing up reading this. "I think this guy's a pedophile." Pedophilia at the ripe age of 16. It's fucking vomiting, these washed brains, this is 1984. He's not a predator, he doesn't go online seeking high school girls. You can't even like high school girls. You shouldn't be allowed to marry a girl at the age of 16. What's wrong with this totalitarian brains? Women are trash, jealous bitches, that's what they are. And men are cowards.

Anonymous said...

How can there be people who believe that there are anti-feminist women like Lauren Southern?

No, there are no anti-feminist women. All women seek their greatest benefit at the lowest cost, and the status quo gives them all the freedoms and privileges without demanding any responsibility in return. You can't beat that. You can't beat Free.

You know what an anti-feminist woman is? A pro-patriarchy woman. In other words, women should not be able to vote, should not have sexual freedom, should not be able to divorce and should not be able to work in an office. She would have to marry a man with resources, who could support her and her family and devote her whole life to taking care of the house, man and children.

Any of you have you met any women who would defend that?

Anonymous said...

I completely and unequivocally denounce the horrendous allegations of nonconsensual sex against women and children under 18 with every fiber of my being … More than anything, I want my daughters to live in a more equal world and a world where they will not become victims of sexual harassment. Age of consent would be set at 18 in all USA states now!

Eivind Berge said...

That is the position dutifully parroted by every public figure, yes. Anyone who does not agree is an MRA, and we are not even on the map. The misandry needs to get even worse before men will react, apparently. The good news is that it is getting worse every day now, with more and more men ostracized who formerly thought they were politically correct. They still repeat the misandry, but I doubt their heart is in it anymore.

Anonymous said...

France has an AOC of 15. Anonymous is a bloody moron.

Anonymous said...

Ages of consent in China:

Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368): 10 years old.

Ming and Qing dynasties (1368-1911): 12 years old.

Republic of China (from 1928): 16 years old.

Maoist China (from 1957): 14 years old.

Currently (as of 1979): 14 years, except in Hong Kong and Maco which are 16 and to get married, 20 years for women and 22 for men.

Anonymous said...

A swedish man, the first one sentenced to prison in the world for committing "Internet rape."
Seriously, rape through interner, not dating a minor and fucking him or pornography of minors, literally raping him or her behind a screen.

Does anyone have any more information?

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know about that Swedish case, but "Internet rape" has been a concept in Norway for several years already. Rape law is now so insane that you don't need to meet someone to rape them; all you have to do is to talk them into masturbating, and of course the feminist-corrupted standards of coercion apply as well, so it can even be negligent rather than deliberate. The first case I heard about was the so called "Helikopterlegen." The newspapers are also constantly blaring about "nettovergrep" and how you need to protect your kids from being sexually abused online -- a concept too ludicrous to take seriously, of course, but the buffoons around me have all lost their minds on sexual matters. It beggars belief that men are still not fighting back, but it only keeps getting worse without any reaction. At the end of this month, the jury will also be gone from Norwegian courtrooms, so feminists will finally be free to enforce their hateful sex laws without pesky nullification by what is left of reasonable people. At that point, violent activism is not only morally legitimate like I have been arguing for years, but the ONLY recourse available to us, and the Norwegian justice system is reduced to a joke with no moral legitimacy even in theory.

Anonymous said...

This is correct, the first sentence was in Norway, and started on Alice Day this year (25.04).
Alice Day is BTW the International Girl Lovers' day. The state attorney, a young and clearly as fuck psychopathical shitstain wanting to make an example and a carrieer, wanted to imprison a 23 year old man to 21 years in additional protective custody for having tried to coerce girls to send videos of themselves, but stepped back after the guy had been mentally tortured to a full confession in police custody and full isolation at threats of physical violence and murder.

Horray for Norway and horray for perverted justice.

jack said...

I wish people would stop discussing AOCs in different countries. When you get accused of a sexual crime these days it matters jack shit what the law says about the age of consent. Indeed it increasingly doesn't even matter whether the "victim" is under 18 or above, as anything any man can do with respect to a woman is resolvable as "rape".

Anonymous said...

When I got involved in cryptocurrencies - and I'm a late adopter, I only started in this year - I thought about mining and decided that, since mining equipment is expensive and mining has diminishing returns, I might as well use the money required for a miner to buy some coins directly. And I think I made a better deal with that. Especially with bitcoin wich just skyrocketed. If I didn't bother with altcoins I'd have much more now. But even with altcoins you can win big if you invest smart. I'm not that good in finances so I made many poor decisions, but I'm still in the positive even like this. It's just that I didn't get rich just slightly less poor. On the regular stock marked I'd probably had lost all my investments with this kind of decision making but it seems on altcoins even a fool can win.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, you got lucky and did the right thing in retrospect. I would also have made a lot more by simply holding bitcoin rather than investing in mining equipment. A year ago I had over 10 bitcoins, but I spent most of it on mining equipment as well as living expenses due to a shortage of other work. Holding bitcoin would have yielded 10 times more profit, but I had no way of knowing that it would skyrocket in the past year. After all, I had been waiting since 2013 for this to happen, so I thought mining was at least an equally good bet at the time.

But you are wrong that mining has diminishing returns. It has accelerating returns at the moment, in fiat, due to the surge of the entire crypto space. It remains to be seen how much I lost by mining instead of holding in the long run. I now have enough mining income to pay my basic living expenses, but not anything more. I missed out on getting wealthy, but I am liberated from necessarily having to work, and that is indeed a wonderful accomplishment. It is frustrating to miss the jackpot so narrowly, being such a bitcoin enthusiast and then ending up with crumbs when it really takes off, but I try to focus on the positive side. If bitcoin should crash, I still have my miners too.

Cryptocurrencies market cap is approaching half a trillion dollars now, and 40% of that is altcoins. Mining is looking very good because there simply won't be enough GPUs and CPUs in the world to drive down our profit any time soon. In the long run our income will tend to equilibrate around the price of electricity, but first Intel and AMD need to ramp up production of hashing power enormously, which is not done overnight.

By the way, Nicehash has been hacked and gone out of business, so what I wrote about mining on that pool is no longer applicable. I use Flypool now (for Zcash) and Nanopool (for CPU-mining Monero).

holocaust21 said...

I just published my first article regarding cryptocurrencies: https://holocaust21.wordpress.com/2017/12/16/rick-falkvinge-discusses-profound-implications-of-cryptocurrencies/

My main recommendation at the moment is IOTA, its market cap is still where bitcoin once was, and its technology is the most revolutionary if it can overcome a few hiccups. What do you think?

Eivind Berge said...

I don't know much about IOTA, so I don't have an informed opinion, but my general feeling about altcoins is this: Altcoins are created by people who missed out on bitcoin in order to get a sort of consolation prize that they hopefully can sell for bitcoin again. Sometimes this has been spectacularly successful too, and I won't rule out more gains to be made from altcoins, but I don't get excited about them either. The Bitcoin brand is so strong that it seems destined to reign supreme, even though scalability is atrocious at the moment (I have a transaction stuck in the mempool for a week now, even though I paid a fee targeting 24 hours). I think bitcoin use will mostly move off-chain as it gets adopted by regular people while blocks remain small, and it can still work, so there is no legitimate need for altcoins.

Eivind Berge said...

Perhaps I was too harsh on altcoins saying they have no legitimate use. Some of them do offer truly revolutionary features that Bitcoin lacks, such as Zcash z-addresses or much better on-chain scalability. And just because you can scale bitcoin off-chain doesn't mean it is desirable, though most people won't know the difference. Personally though, I would rather keep assets in a bitcoin address that I took pains to keep secret than use Zcash, and if I had enough bitcoin I wouldn't mind paying the huge fees for on-chain transactions. But as a world currency, Bitcoin in its current form is admittedly far from a comprehensive solution.

holocaust21 said...

I agree with you about most altcoins, but that's why in my blog post I point out that one wants a concentrated portfolio - you need to handpick cryptocurrencies that genuinely offer a significant advantage, not just ones that are clones or clones with a few small irrelevant tweaks here and there. And also not ones that sound cool, but are actually relatively niche in practice and won't get 7 billion people using them.

IOTA is very different from other altcoins as it doesn't use a blockchain. I think all (or most?) altcoins are all based around the blockchain concept and tweaking it a bit, even Zcash or Monero which do offer some advantages over bitcoin (anonymity) are blockchain based. However, what IOTA have done is instead of blockchain they created the "tangle" and there are no miners. Instead every time you make a transaction you act as a kind of miner yourself i.e. you have to solve a small cryptographic puzzle as a proof of work and then verify two other transactions. What this actually means is that the more people who use the network the faster it becomes! When you have made a transaction and verified others then you add your result onto the "tangle", there's no waiting for block times or anything like that. Thus, the end result should be zero fees, massive scalability and super fast transactions which would also include microtransactions from IOT devices.

Basically the bottom line is this: As you admit, bitcoin in its current form isn't really suitable as a day to day currency, but IOTA has the potential to be much better, now if it turns out that IOTA does work in practice and bitcoin doesn't manage to sort itself out to become "as good" then where do you think all the money will go? Into IOTA of course!

Eivind Berge said...

That sounds like a massive scam, because if there is no mining, who owns all the IOTA that are created already? Looks like a 100% premine that presumably belongs to a small group of people, and why would everyone else want to make them rich? Satoshi's fortune is problematic enough, but it only amounts to 5% of all bitcoin and doesn't seem like he is claiming it anyway.

holocaust21 said...

Well according to the original IOTA crowdsale it seems there was no premine: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1262688.0

Eivind Berge said...

I would still call this a premine, which is a common term for all coins that are not publicly mined. 100% of all the coins coming into existence at launch makes for an unfair distribution, even if there is a crowdsale, in my opinion. I don't like premines because they are just free money given to selected individuals. That doesn't stop some coins with significant premines from becoming very valuable, such as Ethereum, but I don't think the world will embrace this model. IOTA is most comparable to Ripple and Stellar from what I have heard so far, and they don't really qualify as cryptocurrencies since there is no mining. I also have a hard time understanding how it can be trustless if there is no blockchain to verify on a node of your own.

holocaust21 said...

Well, my understanding of Ripple is that it's more centralised than bitcoin requiring trust etc. However, IOTA is closer to bitcoin in having a decentralised ledger but instead of that ledger being a blockchain it is a "tangle" which is a somewhat different data structure.

So to answer your question, yes, with IOTA you can have the whole tangle and verify it on a node of your own. Currently there is some centralisation in that they have a coordinator which keeps track of the state since a shortcoming of IOTA is that it requires massive scale to be secure and until they achieve that some centralisation stays. The other shortcoming is that currently to run your own "full node" you need to manually find a peer and connect to them, and they need to connect to you, which is currently done via a slack channel. This is kind of inconvenient so most people are running "lite nodes" which connect to another "full node", I think there might be some work underway towards automated peer discovery to resolve this but this isn't as trivial as with bitcoin since the IOTA network is vulnerable to some form of attack unless peer discovery is done right (not too familiar with the details)

Eivind Berge said...

So it has all sorts of problems. But I agree that a coin with a ten-billion-dollar market cap is worth taking seriously.

holocaust21 said...

Yes, and quite a lot of work has gone into the design, rather than it being a lame copy, though I do agree, IOTA is not as polished as one would like at this stage, which I guess is the risk.

Now you mention about Ripple, I realise Ripple has been catching up fast with Bitcoin, they have made themselves very cosy with the banks and very good with their centralisation (whilst pretending to be trying to decentralise). Next step they just need to get cosy with the politicians and then they can criminalise all the cryptocurrencies with Ripple being the only allowed one... Fuck! Only IOTA can compete (Ripple is much faster than Bitcoin), if IOTA get their act together and fix some of the problems.

Anonymous said...

Nå er den menneskelignende bendelormen Patricia Kaate på vegne av Amnesty Norge ute og etterlyser skjerping av voldtektslovgivningen til også å gjelde "sex uten samtykke". Når dette blir innført, og det blir det takket være ikke minst Høyre og Frp, så blir det i praksis umulig for hvilken som helst mann å bli frikjent for anklage om voldtekt. Dette uansett hvor frivillig sexen har vært.

https://www.nrk.no/norge/norsk-samtykkelov-havnet-i-skuffen-1.13829994

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, Amnesty har kjørt den kampanjen mot menn i årevis allerede. Det blir ekstra alvorlig om de klarer det nå som juryen også forsvinner. Men voldtektsloven er allerede så til de grader utvannet uten samtykkekriteriet at det er svært få anklager som bare mangler den biten. Mannsbevegelsen har så ettertrykkelig tapt at vi bare sitter igjen med hatet og et ørlite håp om en gang å få hevn den dagen en handlekraftig mann føler som oss. Vi har overhodet ingen påvirkning på lovverket, og nå er Norge heller ikke lenger en rettsstat. Alle partiene består av mannehatende drittsekker, og som du sier er Høyre og Frp de aller verste jævlene.

Eivind Berge said...

Ser at svenskene allerede er i gang med lovforslag.

«Loven om samtykke skal ifølge den svenske regjeringen medføre økt tydelighet i samtykkeparagrafen i voldtektsloven, slik at en person i ethvert nytt moment i sexakten skal si ja eller vise vilje til å være med.»

Ideen er altså å pålegge menn et beviskrav om at samtykke er uttrykt til enhver tid. Dette er noe som ikke naturlig eksisterer i den virkelige verden, og som de færreste menn kan bevise under de beste av omstendigheter, men det er selvsagt ikke relevant. Poenget er at enhver anklage om voldtekt skal føre frem, uansett hvorfor kvinnen føler for å anklage voldtekt. Og dette er noe den jevne mangina og 100% av politikerne nå støtter. Det er bare byråkratisk somling som gjør at det ikke allerede er innført.

Anonymous said...

Ja, det er helt for jævlig, Eivind! Tenk; "ethvert nytt moment i sexakten skal ha samtykke". Hvordan forklarer man som mann til et sett med dommere under tiltale for voldtekt at man hadde et slikt samtykke? Det er jo ikke mulig når man jo vet at sex ikke fungerer på den måten at man avventer samtykke før man går videre. Amnesty er en hat-organisasjon, ja, en terrororganisasjon. Ingen må finne på å støtte dem.

En hver mann må skjønne at han skal levere motanmeldelse mot kvinnen straks han blir oppsøkt av politiet og anklaget for voldtekt som han ikke er skyldig i. Ideelt sett skulle jeg ha foreslått å anmelde for falsk anmeldelse, men politiet forakter anmeldelser for falsk anmeldelse og henlegger alle slike anmeldelser på ren automatikk, samt begår med glede både ytterligere lovbrudd som for eksempel falske forklaringer for å opprettholde slike bevisst uriktige henleggelser som gjelder anmeldelse for falsk anklage/falsk anmeldelse. Så derfor - selv om det smerter meg - så må jeg anbefale å gå til motanmeldelser av kvinnen for voldtekt. Dette selv om kvinnelig voldtekt selvfølgelig høres helt absurd ut. Det er den beste måten å få en falsk voldtektsanklage mot seg henlagt på, tror jeg.

Eivind Berge said...

Den eneste måten jeg kan tenke meg at samtykke kan bevises etter de kriteriene der er hvis kvinnen sier hun samtykket. Men når kvinnen anklager voldtekt, så har mannen allerede mistet den eneste muligheten til å renvaske seg som loven åpner for. Og da er mannen allerede dømt ved anklage alene!

Alternativt må man filme og dokumentere hele sexakten med uttrykt samtykke for ethvert nytt moment, men det må da til og med idiotene i Amnesty forstå at normale mennesker ikke gjør. Så det hele koker ned til å få menn dømt etter anklage alene.

Eivind Berge said...

Vi kan med andre ord erstatte hele voldtektsparagrafen med ett eneste kriterium om at kvinnen alltid har rett når hun anklager voldtekt. Sex er i utgangspunktet voldtekt, og mannens mulighet til å motbevise dette er så urealistisk at den ikke er verd å nevne.

Eivind Berge said...

Med samtykkelov er «voldtekt» redusert til mangelen på en formalitet, og ikke engang en formalitet som normale mennesker utfører, men et unaturlig rituale som bare eksisterer i feministpropaganda. Den ondskapen vi her har å gjøre med er altså på et slikt nivå at monstrene i Amnesty og alle de norske og svenske politiske partiene på ramme alvor mener at menn skal fengsles i årevis for noe som ikke engang kan kalles en bagatellmessig fornærmelse, men er ren og skjær svada. I virkeligheten er det flere kvinner som ville blitt fornærmet hvis man skulle oppført seg slik samtykkeloven forutsetter, enn hvis man ikke gjør det. Og samme hvor mye du maser om at hun skal bekrefte samtykke til stadighet, så kan hun alltid ombestemme seg i neste sekund og definere det som voldtekt likevel, så du kan ikke vinne.

Ethan the Virtuous pedoFeminist said...

To my mind, the single biggest benefit to age-of-consent laws is to resolve cases of indisputable rape. If it is agreed that sex took place, then a young teen girl does not need to prove lack of consent. Men know this and it deters rape. This restriction is workable because fewer underage girls do actually consent and because sex is not vital to their well-being.

To sexually like 4 yeas old children is normal but is not ok to bang 15 years old nubile and ripe females, this is unnatural, Eivind.

Eivind Berge said...

I know you are a troll, but I will address this idea that age of consent is justified in order to punish rape without having to prove it, because it is disturbing that anyone can be so nonchalant about doling out harsh punishments. If rape means anything at all, there is obviously a big difference in culpability between actual rape and consensual sex. So ignoring this distinction below an arbitrary age just to make it easier for the justice system and accusers is mind-bogglingly irrational and cruel. How can anyone think this is really logical and just?

The most you can logically justify by that logic is the sort of punishment one would get for breaking a speed limit. We do not punish victimless speeding as if some horrible accident has actually occurred, and I never heard of anyone who wants to. Yet it is somehow acceptable to presume rape and punish it as such just because of a technicality? This is another example of all logic an fairness going out the window as soon as the topic is sex, in keeping with the sex-hostility of our times.

Anonymous said...

Petter Eide og Patricia Kaate på Dagsnytt18 i dag. For noen undermennesker. verdiløse rotter. Jeg tror aldri jeg har hatet noen så sterkt som nettopp Eide og Kaate og jeg håper at jeg aldri igjen skal bli utsatt for slike vemmelige vesener. At det overhodet eksisterer 2 så forferdelige skapninger får meg til å riste av sinne.

Anonymous said...

https://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/minnie-driver-raser-etter-metoo-utspill-fra-mannlig-kollega--la-kvinnene-ta-seg-av-snakkingen/69192453

Så hvis vi skal ta denne Minnie Driver på alvor så er et klaps på rumpa og voldtekt uke alvorlig, eller hvordan var det nå igjen? Jeg fatter ikke hvorfor alt som dreier seg om seksualitet skal være så totalt blottet for nyanser?

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, jeg fatter ikke at det går an å si noe sånt. Nå er det tabu å se forskjell på et rumpeklapp og voldtekt, eller overhodet noe seksuelt som en kvinne anklager. Den artikkelen kunne bare vært satire så sent som for et år siden, men nå er vi der på ramme alvor. Klarer de å se konsekvensene hvis lovverket også skal innrette seg etter disse normene? Det blir det neste hvis de får holde på sånn. Vil menn reagere da?

Anonymous said...

Just a guy who is tired of being alone stressed and horny. Sick of women treating me like shit everyday. I'm sorry I don't have sick pack abs and a new Porsche and tons of money just so you fucking whores will talk to me. That's bullshit. I used to be the nicest guy in the world. Now I hate women with an undying passion. And I mean HATE!!!!!! Everyday fucking spent alone constantly beating off wishing I could have a girl that would love me for me. But no, I cant fucking have that huh? Every other guy gets laid every night and gets a pretty girl to hold at night. I get shit. FUCKING PORN EVERY NIGHT. fucking cunts won't literally give me the time of day. Fucking tired of this. I don't deserve it. God I'd give anything to fuck a beautiful women's cunt and to finally release decades of stress in her mouth. So much fucking sexual tension. Sick of being lonely. Drinking myself to death. While you whores just laugh and make fun of me. Hate women of all races and ages. They're all spiteful, evil, arrogant , stuck up, gold digging FUCKING CUNTS!!!!! GOD I HATE YOU. And yes I have an obsession with elsa. I dream every night of being able to empty out my stress filled balls into her butt.

Eivind Berge said...

There are several bad habits in that text that are not helping. First, quit the beating off/porn/drink. In that order of importance. Then you need to work on your attitude, though it should mostly take care of itself when you quit the other harmful stuff. Hating women does not help you to love women. Separate politics from most girls you meet, many of whom are so apolitical that they don't even vote, and hate the legislators/laws/cops/feminist lobbyists who actually deserve it.

Now use your emerging constructive motivation to meet women. You have it in you, but bad habits are clouding your judgment. Currently your motivation is as misguided as a jewel beetle attempting to mate with a beer bottle:

https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2013/06/19/193493225/the-love-that-dared-not-speak-its-name-of-a-beetle-for-a-beer-bottle

Except unlike the beetle you are not 100% fooled by the porn and other distractions, so you still feel some sexual tension. Or think you do, because your sex drive is actually too weakened to get you anywhere with women, and that is the root problem you need to address.

Anonymous said...

https://www.rt.com/news/413666-sweden-rape-consent-law/

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous:
Go to a prostitute. I am happy I did a few years ago, after being in your situation. Everything changed after.

Eivind Berge said...

Or better yet get a sugar baby if you can afford it, which will be just like having a girlfriend. But you need to put yourself in the right frame or mind first, or else you won't know what to do with her. If you have been an incel porn addict and suddenly get laid, chances are you will have performance issues. So get rid of that crap FIRST to save yourself another embarrassment.

The current round of feminist rape law reform is insane, but let's not forget to oppose the old bad laws just because they propose even more extreme ones. The definition of rape which is now considered "normal" or too lenient is actually the hateful feminist reform that made me an MRA 17 years ago. But I am glad at least Denmark had the balls to oppose a consent-based definition of rape.

Anonymous said...

I say start with a prostitute. A sugar babe might be too much to handle at first. (at least it would have for me) Clean your self up though; you have to be presentable. Find the ad pages (on the web, don't go to the streets) and get a girl with good reviews. You don't want the experience ruined by money chaser or an actual trafficking victim. Because of the fucked up laws in many countries, this market is shady and that ruins it for both the customers and the good girls. If she is willing to visit you at home or a hotel, it's usually a good sign (but no guarantee).

Eivind: Yes, we must oppose both the old and the new proposed laws. This is really trouble brewing: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/sv-vil-ha-samtykkelov-i-norge/a/24212763/

Luckily, the idiots at Stortinget love to oppose each other, so hopefully the government will fight it off for now.


Eivind Berge said...

So not 100% supported yet, but wait until the shaming starts for not being sufficiently feminist and I bet all the politicians will fall into line.

Eivind Berge said...

Det er et morsomt poeng at man også kan beskytte mannen med en kontrakt, hvis voldtekt = mangel på kontrakt. Hvis vi ser bort fra det absurde i det og den respektløse sløsingen med folk sin tid til å sette opp slike kontrakter, så kan det ha noe for seg i den forstand at mannen vil få et fnugg av bevis til å slå i bordet med. Da vil kvinnen fremdeles kunne hevde at hun ble presset til å skrive under på kontrakten eller at hun ombestemte seg etterpå, men mannen vil likevel stå sterkere enn i en del tilfeller i dag hvor han må forsvare seg mot kvinnens ord alene. Dermed har vi flyttet bevisproblemet ett hakk oppover til å gjelde eksistensen og gyldigheten av en kontrakt i stedet for noe som gjøres direkte mot kvinnen, men samtidig har mannen på sin side fått seg et håndfast bevismateriale med på kjøpet.

Så dét kan være et argument for menn til å akseptere denne loven, helt til du tenker på hvor mange par som vil hoppe over kontrakten fordi de ganske riktig mener den er tullete, og fordi de stoler på hverandre. Helt til kvinnen anklager voldtekt likevel. Så da sitter vi igjen med menn som blir dømt fordi de mangler kontrakt av helt uskyldige grunner, samt en del reelle voldtektsmenn som kommer unna med det fordi de visste å tvinge kvinnen til å skrive under, takket være feministene.

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Morsomt og tatt på kornet:

https://steigan.no/2017/12/nrk-som-trangviksposten/

Anonymous said...

Selve hjernen bak den norske feminist lovgivningen, Arbeiderpartiets med sine representanter, klarer ikke å forholde seg til egen lovgivning. Jeg klarer ikke annet enn å føle skadefryd, på tross av at dette ikke er annet enn en politisk heksejakt. Om dette blir en ny Tore Tønne sak gjenstår å se, men selv et slikt tragisk utfall ville ikke ha dempet feministenes jævelskap. De går over lik for å bevare kvinners ære. Det er fullt på høyde med vikingers blodhevn og muslimenes æresdrap. Feminisme er vår tids barbari.

https://www.nrk.no/norge/internt-ap-dokument_-giske-kan-ha-brutt-likestillingsloven-1.13838093

Anonymous said...

Eivind, har du hørt om dette?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/22/investing/bitcoin-plunges-below-14k/index.html

Eivind Berge said...

Morsomt. Et par kvinner som har opplevd "ubehageligheter av seksuell karakter," som ikke engang var nok til å lage en politisak med feministenes egne sedelighetslover, får syv minutters toppsak i Dagsrevyen. Det sier alt om prioriteringen av kvinners ære, ja. Giske er en mann som har underkastet seg den ideologien, så han får som fortjent. Men kanskje det kan være en lærepenge til andre menn om hva som er belønningen for å være feminist.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Bitcoin has dropped a bit today and is now around $13,000, but that is still very high, and mining is still profitable too. This is probably a good time to buy if you have money to invest, because nothing has fundamentally changed. Transaction fees are very high, with $30 for fast confirmation of a standard transaction, but if bitcoin is going to be adopted, it will mostly have to be off-chain anyway, and Segwit has only reached about 5% of its usefulness, so effective block size will almost double in the near future.

Anonymous said...

Siden vi snakket om prostitusjon, stalltips: https://medium.com/@PinkDate/all-about-the-pinkdate-ico-a13b6dc7e971

Øyvind Holmstad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Youre Eivind Berge?, do you know what's going on? this is true? This message is moving through forums and blogs everywhere.

"He is a anti-feminist hebephile and was once charged with the statutory rape of a thirteen-year-old girl in Bulgaria. The charges were dropped after the girl refused to testify and subsequently disappeared. Although Berge was suspected of her murder, her body was later found and her death ruled a suicide."

Eivind Berge said...

LOL, no, none of that is true. I have never even been to Bulgaria.

Øyvind: Enig, og det aller sykeste er at kvinnelig seksualitet tilskrives null makt i feministisk ideologi. Faktum er at menn ser opp til unge kvinner, og de fleste maktposisjoner i arbeidsliv og andre organisasjoner har liten innflytelse i forhold.

Monique said...

I’m come here because your blog is listed on a child protection website.. wow.. just horrible..your blog is trying to normalize pedophilia..it is disturbing to see that now this is the trend..showing that a relationship between a middle aged man and a very young girl is normal and perfectly natural..

It is quite shocking that we reached this point where these kind of blogs now pop up, and people cant see nothing abnormal about it. Blogs as a matter of fact have always been used as an efficient tool to brainwash..your blog is doing just that,,brainwashing

avoid this blog..trash that presents child abduction and pedophilia in a positive light!!

Eivind Berge said...

I am afraid I have no "brainwashing" power. It is the other way around. Blogs like mine pop up because opposition to feminist sex-hostility exists. We have no power at the moment, but you are doing a good job making more of us with your insane views. What you call "child abduction and pedophilia" is teenage girls willingly running away with men, and there is neither abduction nor pedophilia in that. And the only reason why they have to run away is because of the misandry that you represent, which then ends up hurting both the girls and the men and the parents who have to worry about a problem they themselves contributed to.

caamib said...

"I’m come here because your blog is listed on a child protection website"

Well, that kinda shows you the kind of standards current "child protection" has. Much like everything else in the West, it is completely dysfunctional and ridiculous. If blogs like these are listed there then you are actively working against the best interests of children, wanting them traumatized by animals like cops and prosecutors. Is that some government site lol, could you show it?

"showing that a relationship between a middle aged man and a very young girl is normal and perfectly natural.."

It is normal and perfectly natural.

"It is quite shocking that we reached this point where these kind of blogs now pop up, and people cant see nothing abnormal about it"

In fact, many people do something abnormal about it and you know this. There are many people as delusional as you are. Do you think you're alone in your bullshit?

"Blogs as a matter of fact have always been used as an efficient tool to brainwash..your blog is doing just that,,brainwashing"

This is just amazing.

Take a fucking hint - if a site A like those you come from says something that had been the case for thousands of years and produced healthy children is bad and a site B (like Eivind's) says it actually isn't bad, which one of you is trying to brainwash people?

You're as dumb as those sites against "sexual harassment" led by liberals who just want to criminalize any sexual behavior by whites, but want their own newborn daughters to be brutally raped by Muslims and blacks, because they view these groups as sacred gods.

caamib said...

Also, you even managed to say a straight up lie that is in no way a matter of how one sees age of consent. Where the fuck does he say anything in favor of fucking "abductions"? There are still some of us who can read, you retarded scum.

caamib said...

"He is a anti-feminist hebephile and was once charged with the statutory rape of a thirteen-year-old girl in Bulgaria. The charges were dropped after the girl refused to testify and subsequently disappeared. Although Berge was suspected of her murder, her body was later found and her death ruled a suicide."

As a Bulgarian, I have to confirm this, unfortunately. He also sexually abused me last summer when he was here again, which I reported but Bulgaria is like 100 years behind the rest of the world on this so nobody did anything. Eivind is worse than Harvey Weinstein.

Anonymous said...

Yeah okay merry drunkmas!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68N_-OqaJ7g

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Jeg la inn en mer utdypende kommentar her:

https://debatt1.no/meetoo-og-rid-modellen/

Is Josef Fritzl the Messiah? said...

Josef Fritzl is the victim of a judicial and media staging. 2008 was the date of the Messiah's coming according to Maimonides. And you can appreciate it in his book Guide of the perplexed.

Josef Fritzl was destined to save humanity from homosexualism, feminism and cultural Marxism in general. He came to restore Christianity.

Anonymous said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candie%27s_Foundation

Look at the huge list of feminists who support this anti-teen pregnancy org.

We must campaign to SUPPORT that adult men (ADULT MEN ONLY not boys of the same age) have sex and relationships ONLY with girls age 16 years old, but en masse as an epidemic like the MGTOW.

My idea is that hundreds of thousands of men go for 16 years old ONLY, IMPORTANT that's their weak point.

Anonymous said...

Det går ikke an å være antifeminist og ikke kjenne skadefryd over tilstandene i Arbeiderpartiet i det siste. "likestillings"partiet fremfor noen har et forklaringsproblem når toppene oppfører seg på samme måte som de beskylder personer i kommentarfeltene for å gjøre. Nå hevdes det at flere topper er innrapportert. Det blir i alle tilfeller en gavepakke til de som ikke liker Arbeiderpartiet.

https://www.nrk.no/norge/flere-ap-topper-omtalt-i-ny-bekymringsmelding-1.13842552

Eivind Berge said...

Ja, sånn går det når de stiller umenneskelige krav til å fornekte sin seksualitet når man skal være med i partier, organisasjoner, arbeidsliv eller de fleste andre situasjoner hvor seksuelle følelser kan oppstå. I stedet for å innrømme at kravene var urimelige, bare skrur de opp mannshatet enda noen hakk, og da er jeg enig i at de bare kan ha det så godt.

Anonymous said...

Just as a heads-up: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wjpzx5/using-bitcoin-as-money-just-got-a-lot-harder-in-europe?utm_source=mbtwitter

There are more legal changes coming, europe-wide, and North-Korea is now set to enter discussions on the 9th, so I'm guessing bitcoin is going to tank by 50% within the next two-three months.

- G

Anonymous said...

Personally, I think that peak female beauty occurs during the ages of 12 – 16 (with a few exceptions). Females above 16 are generally desperate to recreate that adolescent attractiveness by using certain clothing styles and large amounts of makeup.

Eivind Berge said...

Usually when bad news is known about Bitcoin or any other commodity, it is already priced in.

Anonymous said...

"Bitcoin is too hot for criminals. They're using Monero instead" : http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/03/technology/bitcoin-popularity-criminals-monero/index.html

Eivind Berge said...

Bitcoin is too difficult to use for anyone at the moment unless you are willing to pay 20 dollars in transaction fees per input. And then the person you are sending to needs to pay as much to spend it again. That's what we get for the 1-megabyte-plus-Segwit blocksize, but surprisingly, the price of Bitcoin is still rising. So criminals and everyone else are best advised to use bitcoin anyway, but it is only really practical for rather large payments until we get second-layer solutions sorted out.

This can be solved in principle, if most people are happy to not use the blockchain directly, but rather let someone else owe them most of the time, just like banks operate and Bitcoin exchanges already do. For example, Facebook could offer bitcoin wallets and billions of people could transact without touching the blockchain.

And if Bitcoin does get adopted this way, it will be fantastically decentralized and secure at the bottom level. It will remain possible to run a full archival node on the cheapest and smallest hardware that you can buy, such as a Raspberry Pi, and even fit the entire blockchain on a MicroSD card for the foreseeable future.

When I was little I thought Swiss bank accounts were cool, but now we have something infinitely more powerful. You don't need to trust no stinking bank, because you can have the whole banking system in your pocket (and it's OK that most people don't care to and leave the opportunity to us enthusiasts to be as secure or anonymous as we want).

Eivind Berge said...

I meant to say "just like banks operate" minus the fractional reserve. That is important. Bitcoin allows us to hold "banks" accountable by cryptographically proving holdings in the blockchain. Some fractional reserves could still be tolerated, but not conspicuously more than the amount of real bitcoin in circulation.

Anonymous said...

https://dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com/

ALL please Check out this blog!

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, that blog is intelligently done, though it is hard to tell how serious it is.

Eivind Berge said...

It is more serious than it looks at first sight. With titles like "The Police are Eating Donuts and Watching Child Porn" it is easy to think satire, but it isn't really. It is spot-on the problems with what passes for the official MRA movement. Also he coins a potentially useful new word:

Concept Introduction: the Blue Knight

Like his White Knight counterpart, the Blue Knight (as in “Blue Balls”) is any man on the internet and beyond the internet whose excessive, over-reactive protective instinct is commanding him to set out to “defend” children from “sexualization” or “exploitation,” blah-blah-blah voodoo mumbo-jumbo. As the White Knight goes out of his way to propose ways to protect women from the consequences of their own behavior, the Blue Knight is preoccupied with protecting children from the consequences of their own sexuality. Obviously their methods are identical: attack the “evil men” who “corrupt the poor women and children.” Indeed, it’s no coincidence that the feminized phrase is “women and children,” as the impulse to “protect” both groups is one and the same.

This feminized sense of false morality has taken over the entire Manosphere and the entire Alt-Right, with all their assorted constituents — MRAs, PUAs, MGTOWs, Nationalists, Ethnonationalists, Tradcons, Natsocs, Libertarians, Ancaps, Reactionaries, NRxers, Fundamentalists, etc. — going along with it, often enthusiastically.

The time has come to build something new.


Indeed it has.

Anonymous said...

Important and useful post: "Japan’s de facto age of consent is between 18 to 20 years-old."

https://dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/the-situation-in-japan-isnt-as-good-as-some-people-claim-it-is/

Atle B said...

https://dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com/

Enda en avviker?

Eivind Berge said...

Faktisk en helt normal mann som bare er avvikende i den forstand at han har klart å slippe unna hjernevaskingen om at seksualitet er skadelig for mindreårige og annen feministsvada. Han tar litt vel hardt i enkelte ganger for å gjøre bloggen mer interessant, men budskapet er klart og tydelig sunn mannskamp.

Anonymous said...

Atle B molested me when I was 11 years old, he is a sick pedo, he needs help.

Anonymous said...

Oh my god, youre 45 years old and you get your kicks doing blow with 17 year old kids whose only claim to fame is that people know better what their vagina looks like than their face. You should be sent to prison, shouldn't?

Anonymous said...

What do you think about this?

https://dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/rape-must-be-legal-heres-why/

Eivind Berge said...

The question of whether we should "legalize rape" requires a longer answer that I plan to do a blog post on, but here are some preliminary notes.

Of course, I have always advocated reinstating the marital rape exemption, which means legalizing rape within marriage, and I disown all the feminist reforms which have expanded the definition of rape beyond forcible intercourse, which means a whole lot of "rape" legalization. However, I don't take the position that rape should be legalized altogether. That said, it would be a tremendous net benefit for justice to remove rape laws and in fact all sex crime legislation, but it is misleading to call this "legalization" of rape because actual rape would still be covered by nonsexual assault laws and punishable pretty much as harshly as it deserves to be (because other laws are also rather draconian if they are enforced to the max). This is a sane position to take, and I am willing to hear arguments for it that might convince me.

What is not sane is what people usually think if we tell them that rape should be legal, which is that not only should there be no crime of rape, but rapists should have immunity to prosecution for assault and other crimes too if their motivation is sexual. To avoid this confusion, I never speak of "legalizing rape" and I am far from convinced by this new blog that it is a good idea to use that kind of rhetoric.

Eivind Berge said...

And of course I don't subscribe to the concept of females as "property," though it is de facto true that children are to some extent property of their parents and/or the state. If you literally want to enslave women and girls, that would require a lot more extensive legislative reforms than abolishing rape law, because they would (and should) still be protected under laws pertaining to slavery and other violence. If the Daily Antifeminist literally wants to do so, he is a bit of an extremist and not really compatible with the MRA movement on this issue, I would say. But then again, he believes in "ballistic trolling" in order to arouse men from the slumber induced by us more reasoned MRAs, so perhaps he has a point.

Anonymous said...

https://www.wxyz.com/news/national/police-chief-arrested-in-undercover-child-sex-sting

Anonymous said...

Why is MRA obsessed with the sensationalized cases of child sex? I’ve worked with law enforcement on online child exploitation cases, and 95% of them are disgusting horrible cases of abuse. The other 5% are mostly terrible (clear exploitation with an huge age gap) and maybe 1% are cases where it’s just a harmless nude.

MRA is OBSESSED with this idea that 95% of sex offenders are dudes pissing in public or getting sent pictures of the breasts of a happy consenting girl who is 17 years and 364 days old. That is NOT the reality. That is the sensationalism of news and your own confirmation bias.

Eivind Berge said...

Nope, you don't understand MRA and how fundamentally we hate your guts. You naive fool who somehow think you are one of the "good" guys who only occasionally go to far! This is not a battle about percentages, but ideology. We do not agree that "online child exploitation" or child porn should be crimes at all, under any circumstances. We are not messing around here; we really mean it. If we had our way, all men in prison for child porn and statutory rape would be liberated and replaced with the likes of you, the scum responsible for the sexual holocaust.

You see, we take the moral high ground, and it is immoral to criminalize these things in principle. You are a bad person in our view and this hateful feeling is mutual and fundamental, not a misunderstanding at all.

Anonymous said...

Recently jealous females have been attacking James Franco for trying to get with 17 year old girls, you would talk about it?

Anonymous said...

"Why is MRA obsessed with the sensationalized cases of child sex?"

I can't speak for other MRAs (and I'm not entirely sure I am one, precisely), but I do have a case that I could talk about, IF you are genuinely interested.

So tell me two things, if you would be so kind and then we could have an honest discussion here:
"I’ve worked with law enforcement on online child exploitation cases, and 95% of them are disgusting horrible cases of abuse."

1)
In what capacity have you "worked with" law enforcement, and in which nation?

2)
Are you familiar with the concept of "bias", such as in "survivor bias" and especially "selection bias"?


Cheers,
that guy. yeah, the one. At the four-letter uni.

caamib said...

"Why is MRA obsessed with the sensationalized cases of child sex?"

What a bad way to start. This is basically how you immediately spot a leftist. What do you even mean by sensationalized? And by child sex?

"I’ve worked with law enforcement on online child exploitation cases, and 95% of them are disgusting horrible cases of abuse."

And how the fuck do you disgustingly and horribly abuse somebody sexually online? What you don't understand is that shit like this only makes the few of us remaining sane people see you as even crazier than before.

"The other 5% are mostly terrible (clear exploitation with an huge age gap) and maybe 1% are cases where it’s just a harmless nude."

What the fuck is the difference between these 5 percent and the 95 percent? State examples you encounter. Remember, readers of this blog who agree with Eivind mostly think you're a delusional maniac so it is useful to present your case more clearly and with some examples.

Why is MRA obsessed with the sensationalized cases of child sex? I’ve worked with law enforcement on online child exploitation cases, and 95% of them are disgusting horrible cases of abuse. The other 5% are mostly terrible (clear exploitation with an huge age gap) and maybe 1% are cases where it’s just a harmless nude.

MRA is OBSESSED with this idea that 95% of sex offenders are dudes pissing in public or getting sent pictures of the breasts of a happy consenting girl who is 17 years and 364 days old. That is NOT the reality. That is the sensationalism of news and your own confirmation bias.

"MRA is OBSESSED with this idea that 95% of sex offenders are dudes pissing in public or getting sent pictures of the breasts of a happy consenting girl who is 17 years and 364 days old. That is NOT the reality. That is the sensationalism of news and your own confirmation bias."

Oh what the fuck do you know what MRA's are obsessed. MRA's like Eivind are a minority and most MRA's are as delusional and stupid as you are. You just reveal your ignorance and stupidity, combined with smugness and callousness.

Incredible. The thing is, even a happy consenting girl who is 11 years and 364 days old shouldn't be the problem. That's what the issue is.

Also, there can be no such thing as statutory rape. Rape is a completely different crime done by a penis in certain circumstances. You're just diluting the word. Let's say that the age of consent is 12 and I have sex with an 11 year-old girl who consents. That girl isn't raped. I broke the law by having sex with a person below the age of consent. If everything you don't like is rape nothing is anymore.

You're a delusional idiot and people like you will die, have no worry about that. What matters is that we sane people join those who will massacre you. I'm hedging my bet on the Muslims, which is why I am one. It's a pretty sure bet given that you have given them a status of semi-gods and their religion and actually hates everything you stand for. This doesn't bode well for you, but you are too stupid to realize that - and it is good that you are.

Anonymous said...

For the record, I am against violence of all kinds, and I recommend one does not threathen others.

Thank you for your consideration.


-Gally

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Trond Endresen:

"Hvorfor sitter alle folka som støtter den evolusjonspsykologiske forståelsesmåten så jævla stille i båten under #metoo-hysteriet?

Det evolusjonært utvikla og kjønnsdrift-baserte spillet mellom mann og kvinne er det blitt kjettersk å snakke om. I stedet handler det om å falle på kne for ekstrem moralisme og se gjennom fingrene med falskspill og hykleri.

Jeg noterer meg spesielt at evolusjonspsykologi-gjengen ved NTNU, som liksom har gjort det seksuelle spillet til sin spesialitet, er påfallende tause."

Øyvind Holmstad said...

Andresen!

Anonymous said...

Ingen ting overgår den øredøvende tausheten til Hadia Tajik under den mannlige kjønnslemlestelses-debatten.

Det var et skuespill i studert narsissisme.

Anonymous said...

https://www.allenlawaz.com/age-of-consent-laws-in-arizona/

Here it says openly that a teenager up to 17 (even says after theirs teens!) is unable to make decisions about his own body using ridiculous studies. age of consent to 18 that most vile place, death to USA!

Eivind Berge said...

That is coming from a criminal "defense" law firm which is parasitical on those laws. The higher the age of consent, the more clients they get to defend from that artificial problem, so why would they oppose it?

Anonymous said...

I am perplexed by a myth spread by straight men. The blatant lie that adult women are somehow superior to adolescent girls.

The so-called’ normal’ heterosexual men claim that adults women are better off, have a better head, spread their legs only to the most appropriate guys (poor losers) blah, blah, blah, blah….

A… FUCKING… SHIT…

Adult women are TEN THOUSAND TIMES MORE repugnant, heartless, heartless, childish, irresponsible, irrational, slutty, cruel and impassive than Teenagers.

I encourage to men to THINK FOR HIMSELF, suggesting that they google for ADULT WOMAN, and see all the junk that comes up. In today’s woman, coming of age is just a pass to do what literally comes out of their vagina.

To be blunt, adult women are rubbish.

So why do men today so affirm that adults are superior?

Simple… they’re better manipulating than Teenagers.

If you think about this, it makes a lot of sense.

Adult women have nothing to offer about a girl under the age of 18, NO beauty, NO intelligence, NO better conversation, NO ability to bear children and have a family, NO even better, in fact the skin of their bodies literally just rots more and more every day. The peak of a female to offer all this is 14 to 16 years. So what a adult woman can have to offer a man?

Nothing.

So the narcissistic sex despots (Feminists) on this side of the planet (West) have only had to manipulate decent human beings for decades to turn them into today’s manginas. Encouraging male sexual mutilation, i. e. denouncing sex and marriage with girls under the age of 18, applauding violent and hateful women like Kathy Gifford, Madonna or Rosie O’ Donnell. They idolize mature New York sex-type women as the new up-and-coming scam artists to catch up idiotic beta men who don’t know they could be fucking with their new 16-year-old girlfriend tomorrow.

Women in the West have had no choice but to manipulate decent human beings for decades. Men are really interested in Teenagers, they just think we’ve all forgotten it!

To sum it up:

Adult women ARE superior to Teenagers because they are better at manipulating men to forget and deny their attraction to Teenagers, because they are better actresses acting as decent human beings… something that is now less obvious because females in this world have forgotten how…. no longer have any reason to act well… the vicious women have had and have the men grabbed by the balls, and are now seeking to spread their hatred of healthy men to other countries (such as Japan, where adolescent women are still “pretty”).

If men were to marry 13-17 year old girls as we were doing before even Ancient Greece existed until 60 years ago, then those women would grow up with a good husband and not need to manipulate men to get one. Then, and only then, will I give adult women a hint of credit.

Anyway, it looks like they’re right. Adult women ARE SUPERIOR.

ARE BETTER MANIPULATORS.

END.

Eivind Berge said...

With regard to the following comment:

"For the record, I am against violence of all kinds, and I recommend one does not threathen others.

Thank you for your consideration.

-Gally
"

Yes, this blog must stay legal, or else we risk censorship or worse. While commenters are personally responsible for their own comments, for the sake of the preservation of this blog I must emphasize that I cannot tolerate illegal content. So kindly refrain from posting such, or I will have to delete it. Expressions of sentiments, including hateful ones as long as they are legal (for example, in Norway you can say you hate an ideology but not a race or religion), and how we would like to change the law are fine. And there is, of course, (at least) one kind of violence which is permissible to advocate, and that is the enforcement of laws. The important thing is that we advocate for changing the law via democratic means rather than incite insurrection. Norwegian law gives us a bit more leeway, however, as we can legally advocate for crimes as long as we don't specifically and publicly ask somebody to carry them out. So it is fine to say that insurrection would be a good thing and morally justified and statements to that effect. But please don't go any further here. To be on the safe side, it is probably best to avoid that milder kind of advocacy as well except perhaps in very broad terms. Focus on ideology and the moral depravity of our enemies, and if the MRA movement has any potential to make a difference, action will flow organically when we win the battle of ideas, I think. At least that is my impression of how other successful movements do it. When there is enough anger, riots just spontaneously erupt without anyone inciting them, and until then nothing can convince the crowds to act anyway.

Eivind Berge said...

"Jeg noterer meg spesielt at evolusjonspsykologi-gjengen ved NTNU, som liksom har gjort det seksuelle spillet til sin spesialitet, er påfallende tause."

De er vel for redde for å miste jobben til å si så mye offentlig nå som den minste anklage er nok, men de har faktisk publisert antifeministiske artikler om temaet.

For eksempel denne motsier det feministiske våset om at såkalt seksuell trakassering er til for å undertrykke kvinner og ikke på grunn av menns naturlige trang til promiskuitet:

https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/2469456

Evolution and human behavior. 2017, 38 (5), 583-591.

Abstract

Sexual harassment has traditionally been studied as men's harassment of women. This has led to a lack of knowledge about same sex harassment, and women harassing peers. This has also downplayed the inherent sexual nature of sexual harassment acts. While keeping in mind that sexual harassment is undesirable and causes distress, one needs to consider that many acts that are perceived as unwanted may not primarily be motivated by a wish to derogate but rather by an interest in soliciting short-term sex. In the current study we examined both perpetrators as well as victims of harassment, and specified both sex of perpetrator and target (a total of eight sex constellations). We reproduced the previously found association between unrestricted sociosexuality and sexual harassment in a representative sample of 1326 high school students (57% women). In all regression models sociosexuality outcompeted traditional measures such as porn exposure, rape stereotypes and hostile sexism. Based on the original work we divided the harassment acts into two groups of tactics: sexual solicitation and competitor derogation. Men were particularly subject to derogatory tactics from other men, while women were particularly subject to solicitation from opposite sex peers. Sexual harassment may be understood better from a human sexual strategies perspective, including competitor derogation and mate solicitation. As such, sociosexual orientation predicts both same sex derogation and opposite sex solicitation. The current results highlight the importance of considering the sex of both perpetrator and target. This advanced understanding of the inherently sexual nature of sexual harassment needs to inform future prevention studies. Unrestricted sociosexuality predicts sexual harassment in all constellations better than traditional social science models.

Flere artikler her:

https://www.ntnu.no/ansatte/leif.edward.kennair

Eivind Berge said...

Eller jeg bør vel bare kalle den NTNU-gjengen ledet av Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair for halvveis antifeministisk. De kjøper tydeligvis feministenes ideologi om at såkalt seksuell trakassering er noe som bør tas på alvor og slås ned på (noe jeg ikke gjør!), men samtidig forklarer de det med naturlige kjønnsforskjeller og drifter i stedet for feministenes uvitenskapelige teorier. Altså at kvinner ikke overraskende opplever uønsket seksuell oppmerksomhet fordi menn faktisk vil ha sex med dem i langt større grad enn de er villige til å gi etter for, og at menn samtidig "trakasserer" hverandre når de konkurrerer om kvinner og derfor omtaler hverandre nedsettende osv. Jeg anerkjenner ikke noen av delene som upassende oppførsel, men det gjør denne gjengen av evolusjonspsykologer. De har vitenskapen i orden, men ikke ideologien, for de er i bunn og grunn feminister. Da er det kanskje ikke så rart at de støtter opp under #metoo-kampanjen også.

Så da blir spørsmålet, hvorfor skal vi akseptere at kvinner liksom skal ha rett til å slippe unna all uønsket seksuell oppmerksomhet, og at menn angivelig heller ikke skal kunne utsette hverandre for noen som helst ubehageligheter i konkurransen om kvinner? Ingen, absolutt ingen, har klart å gi noen fornuftig begrunnelse for å akseptere denne ideologien, heller ikke evolusjonsbiologien. Spesielt ikke evolusjonsbiologien, for det er absurd å gå så til de grader mot vår natur. Det er greit å ha lover og regler mot ekte voldtekt eller at menn kan bruke vold til å eliminere konkurrenter, men ikke seksuell trakassering, som er et konsept jeg overhodet ikke anerkjenner som noe som bør slås ned på. Mannsbevegelsens standpunkt bør være at vi slett ikke anerkjenner konseptet og derfor ikke tar noen av anklagene på alvor selv om de skulle være sanne.

Anonymous said...

And we are off to a great new year for the role of the police as the new sexual moral priests of our time: Denmark Facebook sex video: More than 1,000 young people charged

Good luck with... that.

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42694218

Eivind Berge said...

Child porn laws are weapons of mass criminalization, the most potent poison in the feminist arsenal. As a purely symbolic crime, it can be endlessly replicated to incriminate the entire population within seconds if desired. And the moronic populace still think there is some substance to this crime, because that is how dimwitted and obsequious they are. As MRAs we need to look down on them and insult their intelligence at every opportunity, and maybe they will snap out of it and not let the cops have this ridiculously easy power over them.

caamib said...

As I was about to tell this Gally person anyway, nobody is threatening them. I am simply telling them a turn of events will come in which they will die. I never said I will be involved in these events or that I even know how they will exactly turn out aside from the notion that Muslims will kill them and rightly so. Now, if I were some Muslim ringleader it might be perceived as a threat but I am not. So what are you rambling about, Gally?

Eivind has the intelligence to see what I am talking about and has just warned me about going further, which I have no need to, since it is anyways highly unlikely that I will ever be involved in this nor do I know when it might happen.

On the other side, it is noticeable that the person who wrote the original crap, be it Golly or not, I responded to didn't even bother to reply to what I said or replied to just a tiny bit of it.

Also, remember fellas - I know what you are, even if you yourselves can't admit it. I understand liberalism and that it sees whiteness and maleness as original sins to be exterminated. If you claim you're against violence you're either straight out lying, in belief that violence against those you hate isn't really violence or just incredibly naive and to get your delusions shattered in front of you once you realize what you're for. I know you. Don't forget that.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, Caamib, there was no credible threat, so no worries. Predicting a turn of events that you don't have any power over is not a threat, and I too hope it pans out that way. Muslims are indeed the greatest hope for men's rights in the current scheme of things. It's pretty clear by now that men's rights activism can't be marketed on its own; it needs to be part of a comprehensive worldview to gain any traction.

Anonymous said...

https://dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com/2018/01/16/rape-apologia-explainig-the-method-in-the-madness/

Anonymous said...

"As I was about to tell this Gally person anyway, nobody is threatening them. I am simply telling them a turn of events will come in which they will die. I never said I will be involved in these events or that I even know how they will exactly turn out aside from the notion that Muslims will kill them and rightly so. Now, if I were some Muslim ringleader it might be perceived as a threat but I am not. So what are you rambling about, Gally?"

Okay, we may have a slight disagreement on precision of words, here.
Bare with me, as I try to lay out the logic here as I believe a prosecutor might have done it.

You are using the word "WILL". As opposed to the word "MAY".
That choice of words is way strong, it means *inevitable* rather than *possible* (or *plausible, or *probable*), which means it carries the connotation that you either KNOW that what you claim "WILL" happen is INEVITABLE, and given that nobody can see the future that further means that you have special knowledge from groups that are capable of doing so and are intent on doing so, either through your own involvement or through different channels that are trustworthy beyond doubt to you personally.

Either way, it's like this: Were I to say to a police officer for example, that "You WILL be killed", then that is in no way ambiguous or open to interpretation in my favour, should I be accused of uttering a direct threat.

Now, threats being credible or not are a matter of separation: Anybody can, as Eivind rightfully points out, opine this or that on a blog and will most often not be considered to offer credible threats, but on a personal level for you caamib, you may still find yourself at the end of some degree of attention should you insist on using phrases that WOULD be talking yourself into trouble, AFK.

And Norwegian law being what it is, recently cast a verdict that "Expression-responsibility is also under the law on social media" ( http://jonwesselaas.blogg.no/1515756550_ny_blogg.html ).

Therefore, and pardon this rather longish rambling, you may wish to soften your language a little bit, and try to avoid speaking in certainties when you can in fact not be so certain.
Or, so I would recommend.

As to who I am, well let's just say currently I'm a nobody so that's a good starting point.

-Gally

Eivind Berge said...

I agree with a lot of things the Daily Antifeminist says and am inclined to go along with his rape apologia for tactical reasons. My reluctance to proclaiming that "rape should be legal" is not due to thinking we necessarily need rape laws, but the other crimes subsumed in rape that we really can't do without. For example, in order to rape a woman (I mean really rape her, not some feminist regret-rape) you have to violently assault/threaten/restrain her somehow, and that means you have already committed other crimes before you get to the sex. So rape would not be legal just because we abolish the crime of "rape," unless we also instate exemptions to a lot of other crimes for the purpose of rape. And that would be insane -- we would have a situation where you could knock someone out in the street or threaten them at gunpoint and then excuse yourself by saying you were only trying to rape them. But then again, feminist rhetorics is also insane, yet very successful at producing only slightly less insane laws, so maybe we really need to match their insanity in the opposite direction. The court of public opinion is not concerned with logic and coherence, after all. It is the narrative that matters, and I think the Daily Antifeminist is presenting a better alternative to feminism than the MRA movement has thus so far come up with.

caamib said...

"Bare with me, as I try to lay out the logic here as I believe a prosecutor might have done it."

What the fuck is this? Are you trying to say you know what some "prosecutor" would do? Have you lost your damn mind? The fuck do you know what some prosecutor would do (hint - not all them would do the same)?

"You are using the word "WILL". As opposed to the word "MAY".
That choice of words is way strong, it means *inevitable* rather than *possible* (or *plausible, or *probable*), which means it carries the connotation that you either KNOW that what you claim "WILL" happen is INEVITABLE, and given that nobody can see the future that further means that you have special knowledge from groups that are capable of doing so and are intent on doing so, either through your own involvement or through different channels that are trustworthy beyond doubt to you personally."

No, I don't agree with this and I will tell you why.

First of all, what needs to be made clear is that I thought you're an anti-pedophile liberal but it now appears you are not and that you're actually a MAP. In any case, my post was directed to somebody I thought was that kind of liberal. So I will explain why I said people like those will die.

And, yes, you are right that technically the right word would be "may" but technically so would you say to somebody you will try to kill as you don't know how it will end.

Regarding what I said, I am very certain that modern Western societies will collapse (their cultures have already collapsed around 2000) and then people like those liberals will certainly die. You don't have to be involved in this to know at all. All it takes is knowing some history and some facts about today's world. Let me give you an example - If some scientist who participated in the A-bomb program said, say around in July 1945, that most Japanese in the cities where the bomb will be thrown will die in something like a private conversation is he threatening the Japanese? No, he is just aware of the bomb's destructive power, just like I am aware of what awaits liberals. I don't need to be a part of this to know that they will be hardly any left alive. Now, yes, some MIGHT survive but most in fact surely WILL die.

"Either way, it's like this: Were I to say to a police officer for example, that "You WILL be killed", then that is in no way ambiguous or open to interpretation in my favour, should I be accused of uttering a direct threat."

What if that officer is going into some dangerous undercover mission and you know he will be discovered and killed? This is what I know about liberals - that they have created a world in which an uprising will delete them sooner or later.

caamib said...


"Now, threats being credible or not are a matter of separation: Anybody can, as Eivind rightfully points out, opine this or that on a blog and will most often not be considered to offer credible threats, but on a personal level for you caamib, you may still find yourself at the end of some degree of attention should you insist on using phrases that WOULD be talking yourself into trouble, AFK."

And Norwegian law being what it is, recently cast a verdict that "Expression-responsibility is also under the law on social media" ( http://jonwesselaas.blogg.no/1515756550_ny_blogg.html )."

This part of the post has no content. The first part of it is a claim you just make, a claim that goes against what I explained TWICE now. It doesn't even matter if it's on a blog or not. I know that I would say the same thing to a liberal in their face, but it would be no threat as I would also tell them who will kill them - a Muslim revolution, which will happen in some decades and I will almost certainly not be a part of. The probability part is something I covered before too. The second part is some bs on Norweigan law that says something about expression responsibility but isn't an argument for or against what I am trying to tell you.

"Therefore, and pardon this rather longish rambling, you may wish to soften your language a little bit, and try to avoid speaking in certainties when you can in fact not be so certain."
Or, so I would recommend."

Read what I told you in this post. Of course I can't know if all liberals will die and how must will certainly die. I don't know when but I can tell you it will be when Muslims finally take over most of Europe, as they should.

Eivind Berge said...

I appreciate your optimism, caamib, although I would put the probabilities somewhat lower. I can also go so far as to say that I would welcome a Muslim revolution and convert by the time it happens, because my psychological reality is already that I am a quisling, albeit with no credible enemy of Norway to collaborate with any time soon, perhaps not in my lifetime. This is all hypothetical aside from my hatred of the authorities, and contingent on developments that other forces probably won't allow. Islamization of Europe is sadly much exaggerated and has already given rise to counterforces such as the alt-right.

But yeah, we will both be too old to fight if the revolution is decades off, so this isn't really about us personally.