What a Fu***ng Paedocrite!!! ‘Paedophile Hunter’ Exposed as Child Sex Offender
Michael Terry was’ head of security’ at one of the largest of the multitudes of ‘paedophile hunting’ vigilante gangs that have popped up all over the UK.
This was despite the fact he’d been described as a ‘dangerous sexual predator’ by a judge.
He had been convicted at Liverpool Crown Court in 2014 of indecent exposure and inciting a girl under 16 to engage in a sexual act, and given a five-year Sexual Offences Prevention Order.
It prevented him from having any contact with children under 16.
Then, in February 2016, he was jailed for 12 months at Preston Crown Court when he breached the order by befriending a vulnerable woman who had a six-year-old son and staying overnight with them in Blackpool.
Terry, 43, breached the order again after he joined the Lincolnshire-based Guardian Angels, and became close to its director Mandy Bradley — staying over at her house on several occasions, despite her having three children under 13.
The Upskirting Law
Given that it came as a surprise to most that a ‘loophole’ existed in UK law that made upskirting technically legal (although anyone pointing cameras up the skirts of females would always be at least arrested under more general offences) you might think that it shouldn’t be particular troubling that the anti-upskirting bill will finally be passed in parliament. Anti-feminists and pro-male sexuality activists (not to be confused with anti-masturbation ‘male sexualists’) however should be very troubled. The problem is not that upskirting will soon be fully illegal in the UK, but that it’s likely that upskirting porn will be made illegal too (if not now, in a couple of years when some other femihag points out the further ‘loophole’). You don’t think the femicunts will criminalize only the guy with balls who takes the upskirt pics, and not the thousands or millions of men who fap off to them online do you? No, just as it’s illegal to view pics of 17 year old girls in bikinis, or actresses pretending to be ‘raped’, so it will inevitably become illegal to own upskirt pics and videos. Eventually, the femibeast and male sexualist dream of an internet in which the only photos of women that are legal to look at are dressed head to toe in burqas, will be realized.
Male Sexualist Madness
My relationship to Eivind Berge over the last ten years can be likened to that of a man who finds the most beautiful woman he can imagine, the perfect match for him both regards body and soul, in a world filled with only ugly and despicable freaks and hags. And then discovers that ‘she’ has a cock.
I refuse to consider that I have any association to a movement that has at its heart the idea that masturbation is sinful, justified through lunatic feminist advocacy research and quacks looking to make a quick buck (mainly through exploiting the male demographic amongst the most victimized by feminists – incels).
Eivind Berge maintains, quite fairly, that it is complete idiocy to believe that men (or boys) can be harmed by sex. Yet he wants to place at the core of his manifesto the feminist junk science belief that men (and particularly boys) can be harmed by watching sex.
I don’t even want to feel the discomfort of discussing this much further. It elicits the same nauseous feelings in me as when I write about Paul Elam or the men’s rights betrayal. Really, in the end, there was not much difference between Eivind and Elam. Both have embraced a feminist concept relating to male victimhood and exploited it to gain followers at the head of a movement that purports to fight for men. Perhaps he will invite him, or maybe Hannah Wallen, to guest post on the evils of pornography, and rail against feminists who don’t take the harm done to men and boys by pornhub seriously enough? The men’s rights movement that began with Ernest Belfort Bax over 100 years ago, and that exploded online through the blogging of the late, great Angry Harry 15 years ago, was hijacked and gutted by the shameless ego and money grabbing weazel Paul Elam, and of course his ‘lovely looking sheilas’. A few of us obstinate followers of Harry stayed true to the anti-feminist cause and continued to shout into the wind. Now none remain.
Well, I can look in the mirror and still call myself an anti-feminist, if not a male sexualist.
Age of Consent Map
Take a look at the age of consent map above. Aside from the USA and a couple of central American countries that are virtually states of the US in all but name, every country with an age of consent higher than 16 is Islamic. True, there are one or two Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, which either have a very low ‘age of consent’ or none at all, but this is very misleading. Those countries have strict laws against even fraternizing with unmarried females, let alone having sex with them. Of course, this may well not trouble Male Sexualists, who appear to be on the road to campaigning for a society in which not only is porn illegal, but uncovered women and pre-marital sex are illegal too. Fine. This has nothing to do with anti-feminism, obviously, but if male sexualists want to preach this, go ahead and preach it to the two dozen followers out there. But why not just convert to Islam? I just don’t see the point of killing whatever hope was left of a libertarian anti-feminist anti-sex law movement. Even Paul Elam never managed to kill that hope, at least not completely. Others, it appears, wish to do so.
Maladaptive Female Sexual Psychology
An evolutionary behaviour or predisposition is maladaptive if it has no benefit in the environment in which it is displayed. In other words, if a trait was useful 100,000 years ago in the environment in which it evolved in through natural selection, but no longer is in the modern environment, it is maladaptive. Strictly speaking, it is maladaptive if it no longer has survival benefits, but today we could more loosely describe any evolutionary trait which causes more harm than good (either for the person displaying it, or through its effect upon others) to be maladaptive.
Female sexuality is maladaptive. It lies at the heart of all our problems regarding the feminist assault upon male sexual freedoms. Eivind Berge realizes very well that sex is a resource needed by men in order to be happy, yet women guard this resource because of environmental necessities regarding pregnancy, that no longer exist. Because female sexuality is maladaptive, selfish, and illogical, feminists have arisen out of the swirling maelstrom of the brood mare animal collective psychology in order to bludgeon society into making it adaptive again. Real anti-feminists should strive to do the opposite. Whereas feminists seek to shape society through force to fit maladaptive cavewoman sexual needs, the goal of anti-feminists should be to use 21st century technology to shape women into adapting to the sexual realities and utopian opportunities of 21st century life. In such a world, both men and women would be much happier and sexually content. Men will soon have two options in order to shape women into sexually liberal horny sex goddesses, only too willing to share their sexual resources with us. This can be done through market incentives and technologies ranging from ‘female viagras’ to changing female sexual nature through gene editing (again, hopefully voluntarily through market incentives and pressures). The other option, less desirable, but inevitable if the first option fails, is for men to simply to bypass real women alltogether, and create their sex robot substitutes (or even create a new version of biological women ‘from scratch’ in the lab).
Have I Failed in 10 years of this blog?
This blog is almost exactly ten years old. And before I started this blog, I was a men’s rights supporter, although only an activist occasionally, for nearly 15 years before that. Really, all my life, although it wasn’t until I read Neil Lydon’s brilliant No More Sex War 25 or so years ago that I first became aware of anti-feminism and ‘men’s rights’ as a coherent thought.
It’s true, I have ‘failed’ here, in that I didn’t get close to starting a movement that fought against feminist anti-male sexuality legislation, including the age of consent. For most of the time, I never wanted too. I wanted the men’s rights movement to accept that these issues were valid, and even should be placed at their core. Of course, I was 100% right in this. As I have repeatedly shown, feminism itself arose not from the suffragette movement and the ‘right to vote for women’ but from the demand to raise the age of consent and criminalize prostitution. The suffragette movement was a direct result of these things. The first feminists didn’t want ‘equality’ or some noble ‘right to vote’. They wanted the right to vote simply to vote for a rise in the age of consent, and to be able to control male sexuality more effectively. Ironcially, they didn’t even need this, and the age of consent was raised from 12 to 13, and then to 16 in the UK, in 1885, along with laws against prostitution (and homosexuality) through feminist (social puritan) activism before they had even secured the vote.
And of course, as everybody knows, I failed to keep the men’s rights movement from turning into a male sexual victimhood mirror version of feminism. I came close, I guess. I had Angry Harry, the father of the online men’s rights movement on my side, for most of the time. Simply put, Paul Elam and his sheilas were far too much. If somebody even a bit less of a complete paedocrite had taken charge of the MRM at that crucial time, things might have been different.
And I could never do this alone. For ten years I struggled to present the very historically true case that feminism arose from the desire to control male sexuality in Victorian England, and that the first men’s rights activists, such as Ernest Belfort Bax, railed frequently against the feminist attempts to raise the age of consent (from 12 or 13!). I created memes such as ‘paedocrite’. I tried to keep the message simple and communicable. What we were up against was blindingly obvious. Aging, ugly, bitter femihags trying to improve their desperate sexual market value through anti-male sex laws. I tried to stress the important distinction between being naturally attracted to young teenage girls, and real paedophiles attracted to 6 year olds. Whilst at the same time, I never wanted to throw real paedophiles under the bus, nor accept the quack pathologizing term ‘ephebophile’.
I didn’t fail here. My readers did (with a very few exceptions). I’m still convinced that even if 100 of us regularly posted comments on mainstream articles pointing these things out, it might at least have had a small impact on the pace of legislation. Instead, I did get lots of MAPs and other sorts coming here, not even reading my articles, but simply seeing this blog as a place to dump their own complicated smartasspie theories, most of which didn’t pin the blame on feminists at all (and even claimed feminists could be brought on side, if they weren’t already!).
Did I have any victories? Did any good come out of the ten years of blogging? Well I spoke the truth, always. In the end I was shouting into the wind, but I’m proud of the fact I did. And I never once betrayed anti-feminism or supported feminism. In that, I was truly one of the very last anti-feminists.
On a concrete level I did stop the first attempt at an anti-sex robot law (by a Canadian mangina professor). I also played a part in alerting the media of plans by the EU to make porn illegal throughout the continent (I guess that makes me officially the anti-male sexualist). A piece of legislation, that might have been quietly passed, if it had not been picked up by a number of tech sites and widely ridiculed.
I also had my sanity saved by a few of my readers and fellow bloggers. The dearly missed ‘Eric’, who suddenly disappeared several years ago (when he was apparently ill). ‘Alan Vaughn’, ‘Highwayman’ (the one ‘ephebophile’ I had any respect for). Not to mention, the beautiful Sabrina Vaz. Fellow bloggers such as Scarecrow at Men-Factor, Steve Moxon…Ferdinand Bardemu (not to be confused with Matt Forney) and of course, Angry Harry and Chris Brand. And lastly, but definitely not least, Eivind Berge.