Good news regarding our old friend Eivind Berge in Norway. Eivind has been successful in his appeal against wrongful imprisonment in 2012 (over alleged incitement to harm police officers through his blog writings) and the court awarded him over $4,000 in compensation. He has posted his reaction here :
MRA veteran ‘Factory’ in an eloquent YouTube rant on the corruption of the men’s rights movement by lefties, manginas, SJWs, and abuse hysteria validators at AVoiceforMen and Reddit/r/mensrights. Things have gotten so bad that the likes of Paul Elam now slander our old friend Bernard Chapin as the ‘right-wing equivalent of David Futrelle’, whilst Elam’s partner in crime Dean Esmay accuses MRAs who criticize feminist sex hysteria of being ‘rape apologists’.
Roosh V might not be everbody’s cup of tea, but it’s clear that nobody on the planet is doing as much to take it to the feminists as he is. The ‘Battle of Montreal’ might prove to be pivotal – it showed that manosphere tactics built up over the years (including here) such as standing one’s ground, fighting fire with fire, and shaming the shamers through Google Bombing, can prevail against the very worst that the SJWs have to offer (and in their very heartland too).
Shamefully disowned by the mangina ‘child abuse’ obsessed victimizing paedocrites at reddit/r/mensrights :
Excellent article on the Edward Heath witch hunt taking place in the UK now :
“…If it wasn’t so horrific, all this would be entertaining. Or maybe not entertaining, but illuminating. There is something fascinating about actually being able to sit back and watch all this. To see this form of collective national psychosis playing out around you.
But it is horrific. Terrifying, actually. This is the second time in my life when I’ve thought to myself “I can see how it happens”. Where a McCarthy, or even a Hitler, could come from. Here, on my own doorstep.
The first time was that week after Diana died. But that was only for a week. This is weekly now. Brittan. Heath. We still have the Janner show trial to come.
One phone call. One letter. One press release. That’s all it takes now. “
In 100 years time, when future historians are looking back at the feminist driven ‘pedo’ inspired sexual holocaust against men, the great crime against humanity of the 21st century, one of the most intriguing and disturbing questions they will be asking is ‘how was this able to take place against the backdrop of the emerging men’s rights movement?’ When those same historians see that there were a few individuals within that movement as brave as Janet Bloomfield (JudgyBitch) able to speak out against it, the question will seem even more puzzling..
Pedo-hysteria has absolutely nothing to do with “protecting” children and everything to do with demonizing male sexuality. It is perfectly natural for adult humans to find other adult humans who have matured to the point that secondary sex characteristics are visible, sexually attractive. Germaine Greer herself had no problem perving out on extremely young men and most of North America continues to turn a blind eye to women who sample very young men sexually.
Albert, the man in the first image of GQ’s hit piece on the men’s rights conference, and who many suspected (including myself) of being a plant, gives his account of what happened that day. I’d like to add that we are very happy to have a man as brave as Albert, and a true MRA, as a loyal and esteemed reader here.
I also suggest a change.org petition be started demanding it be made illegal to discriminate against offenders after they have served their sentences. If the public are allowed to dispense their own punishments then society is run by mob justice.
The daft authoritarian calls for the hapless Sheffield United footballer, Ched Evans, to express remorse whilst he is going through a legal process of trying to overturn his conviction is a classic catch-22. The extreme-feminist stance now dominant is not going to relent no matter what Ched Evans does, and he is right to challenge his conviction in the light of cctv evidence contradicting the court’s finding that the alleged victim was seriously inebriated – not to mention the inexplicable outcome that others involved were acquitted whereas he wasn’t.
Aside from the questions as to the safety of the conviction, and ignoring any complicity by the supposed victim (who had not been plied with drink by Ched or any of the defendants, and likewise got to the hotel of her own volition), the idea that this was some heinous crime is self-evidently absurd. Evans’ punishment has already been far in excess of any that was warranted. There is no basis to presume (and no evidence to support) that there has been any sort of significant negative impact on the supposed victim. If she was, as the court accepted, inebriated beyond sense, then there could have been no negative impact at the time. We know that there was nothing more than at most some degree of regret afterwards, because any impact was not just tempered but completely overturned by her apparent joy at contemplating the many thousands of pounds she expects to receive in criminal injuries compensation (as revealed in her tweets). So how does this justify a five year jail sentence?! Taking into account the alleged victim’s complicity, then it is hard to see how any imprisonment was justifiable.
The general tenor of the debate over the incident is the stuff of the Dark Ages, predicated on the impact of rape in times past. Pregnancy. This is no longer an issue at all. There is no possibility of any even mild inconvenience from conceiving an unwanted child, give the technology of the ‘morning-after’ pill, and, failing that, infallible non-intrusive early abortion.
There isn’t even mild embarrassment in terms of social standing: going to a hotel for the purpose of having sex with prominent footballers is not something a girl has to live down, if indeed she might not publicise and celebrate. Of course, it may cause problems if she has a boyfriend, but that’s an extraneous matter – which is brought in to create many a bogus ‘acquaintance rape’ scenario, when but for this there would be no retrospective withdrawal of consent
This ridiculous debacle – generically, and Ched Evans’ own case – stems from the ‘show trial’ nature of rape in the contemporary highly politicised climate. Sex in effect has been declared by default illegal for males, who are liable in respect of any instance to be summoned before a court and required to prove they had ensured that consent had been obtained. The legal process has been inverted from what it should be: that it is up to the Crown to prove, and to prove beyond reasonable doubt, criminal wrongdoing. Most rape cases are simply one person’s word against another’s, with the man’s word then presumed, on no basis that is warranted, not to be believable; despite there being often an all too obvious basis for false allegation, and research revealing that this is routinely for the most trivial reasons. Such cases should never get as far as the CPS, let alone court. In Ched Evans’ case there was some evidence that the alleged victim may have been too drunk to consent, but this was not clear-cut, and now appears to be undermined by evidence which should have been put before the court.
This abandonment of any semblance of due legal process succeeds – as was the intent – to make the most fundamental activity in life impossibly fraught for boys and men, whilst providing carte blanch for girls and women to retrospectively withdraw consent in the event of the slightest feeling of embarrassment; this at a time when sex has never been less likely to compromise female social standing.
On the fulcrum of ‘acquaintance rape’, the madness of ‘third wave’ feminism, and the ‘identity politics’ of which it is core, surely is set to implode from the weight of its own absurdity; albeit that things might well get yet more absurd in the meantime. Eventually the collective penny will drop that the femascist twitterati at the very least are sixpence short of a shilling.