Why am I with Eivind Berge?

People here : http://forum.kvinneguiden.no/index.php?showtopic=673557 are wondering why I am with a guy who thinks “he has the right to rape” and why I think I “shouldn’t have the same rights as men”. Possibly I’m old-fashioned housewife or brainwashed:

”Er det bare jeg som blir helt paff av at en kvinne selv mener at hun ikke skal ha de samme rettighetene som menn?”

” Han har sikkert hjernevasket henne, men noen kvinner er litt gammeldagse av seg da.”

I’m for equal rights, so is Eivind (look up libertarianism).

 

Eivind doesn’t think he has a right to rape.

 

I was always kinda ambitious and not particularly housewify (although I can do both, depending on what is needed at the moment). I study physics, lift weights and create art.

 

(if these revelations don’t fit with your understanding of us and surprises you, leave a comment and explanation will follow).

 

So why am I dating him, exactly? I will tell. He treats me with care and respect and listens to me. I try to make him happy and he does the same in return. We have lots of similar interests and topics to talk about, make each other laugh, stuff like that. Oh, and he’s also handsome, as a bonus.

_______________________________________________

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Personal emo stuff and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to Why am I with Eivind Berge?

  1. Thomas says:

    Det er typisk den feministiske politistaten og skulle forsøke å sette mennesker opp mot hverandre, slik disse stupide fehodene som frekventerer kvinneguiden gjør. Deres mangel på kognitive evner gjør at de ikke er i stand til å forstå noe av det Eivind skriver og heller ikke at deres egen/feministenes holdning til spørsmålet er egnet til å gjøre både menn og kvinner ulykkelige.

    En av de mest motbyedlige og radikale feministene erkjenner her – skadefro- å ha søkt å ramme Eivinds meninger ved bruk av makt fra den feministiske politistaten : http://www.dagsavisen.no/nyemeninger/alle_meninger/cat1003/subcat1018/thread249673/#post_249673

    Stå på!

    • emmatheemo says:

      Takk. Jeg føler ikke noe sinne over folk som henne engang. Hun vet ikke hva hun snakker om, og hennes artikkel er ren samling av “shaming language” og lite innhold.

  2. paniorpa says:

    I read a few posts on Eivind’s blog. I think he is smart. I don’t know if he was looking for trouble, like a publicity stunt or something. I do think he sometimes vented too much and I am not surprised he got arrested. I support him overall though.

  3. _ (@hzrxt) says:

    Damn, I feel bad for hitting on you while your boyfriend’s in jail, but you have to be the perfect woman. How much can you lift?

    • emmatheemo says:

      Uh… 60-70 lbs off the floor? I have no equipment but old computer monitors.
      Funny you say I’m the perfect woman, many in the sphere prefer those sweet housewife chicks.. (nothing against them). Thanks for making me feel good about myself today, lol. This time is such crap..

      • _ (@hzrxt) says:

        Right, when you said “I […] lift weights” I got the impression that you did powerlifting, olympic lifting, or something similar. So you’re only almost perfect then. When you get the time/courage/money/wits, I’d really recommend it. Look up Starting Strength and avoid fuckarounditis.

        I’m not that into the “sphere.” Feminism is only a symptom of the wider disease that is Marxism and collectivism, so I fight that head on instead.

        And no problem, you appear to deserve to feel good. And please… stay safe.

      • emmatheemo says:

        nah, I don’t do anything very serious 🙂 But wouldn’t mind going further.

  4. no more mr nice guy says:

    Why you didn’t you encourage him to get rid of his ideas and stop blogging ? Now the guy will probably go to jail because of his blog.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Because it’s ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing fair about having to stop blogging because the state will attack you just for blogging. I could never encourage him to “get rid of his ideas”. Especially in a country that since 22/7 promised us more openness and more democracy.

      What I could have done, however, is to encourage him to drop the angry, emotionally charged language about cops. I think he should be able to express whatever hate he has without being arrested, but it was just pointless, might as well have stopped it. But his ideas? No way, There is nothing wrong with his other ideas, in a sense that they are legit viewpoints, even if I disagree with some of them.

  5. Marius says:

    How are you two holding up with EB held in custody by the police, Emma?

    I disagree with many of his views, but IMO he has stayed well within the bounds of what we must tolerate in terms of freedom of speech if we aspire to be a healthy society. Hopefully, a jury will dismiss the case, despite the law having been broken in a formal sense. That law is broken by design. And of broken laws, a certain famous civil rights activist once said (from memory):

    “I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”” (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., nobel peace prize recipient and civil rights activist)

    Like you, I do think EB has overstepped with regards to how aggressively he has posted in the more recent comments, but the very foundation of a liberanything approach to life is that one does not legislate based on “ought” and “ought not”, and a fundamental thing about all legal and ethical principles is that we must hold them dearest when most sorely pressed to forego them, as we have no claim to them when we permit them to yield to outrage, convenience or expedience.

    Freedom of speech is one of those principles that must be considered foundational for any society which aims to have a future. Particularly a nonviolent future, as- paraphrasing Dr. King again- “violence is the language of the unheard”. There’s no legitimate reason why speech or expression itself is to be limited this way. To ascribe this power of control to inciting speech is an insult to autonomy, as well as underestimating the more substantive and substantial powers of speech.

    Like this one: kill all smurfs!

    There, that broke the same law (§140). I think it’s pretty credible that I would go crazy if there were smurfs in my garden (for one thing, smurfs are widely held not to be real, and incredibly annoying to boot with all that singing). So it gives about as much “due cause”, legally. The law doesn’t explicitly require it to be inciting violence to a real person (or plural thereof), and there is ample legal precedent in porn law that fictional characters are potentially valid legal parties to some proceeding that is illegal, another legal absurdity of ours. Love to see an actual trial over that infraction: “inciting violence against smurfs.”

    Thing is, if someone out there has decided to kill a smurf, you can’t lay that at my feet without going to the rather dramatic step of denying them the right of complete culpability for their own actions. And, equivalently, perhaps more importantly, in doing so one has also invalidated the moral autonomy of those that haven’t killed a single smurf. Autonomy entails the ability and freedom to choose both good and evil, and by attacking the right to be completely culpable for choosing evil entails a devaluation of the ability to choose good. One cannot be a good man without autonomy, and one can only be as good as that autonomy permits. To deny autonomy is to deny the ability to be good.

    Now, if I already had a posse of stone cold smurf killers hanging on to my every word, perhaps even sworn to my smurf-killing cause, it might be ethically viable to charge me with using that well established power and influence as an instrument. But the utterance itself, the expression, that isn’t something to charge someone with. Not in my world. In my world, we’re all culpable for each and every smurf we kill, and no amount of incitement can change that.

    Just to be clear, I’m not using smurfs as a “code” for the police here. I don’t mind landing in an interrogation for my antismurf activism, but I’m not antipolice. Critical of their priorities and their activities in the recent years, yes. In favor of violence directed at the police as activism or as a means to “send a message”, no. In the postmassacre political climate, it has unfortunately become important to clarify such things, lest idiots take steps to harass a fellow for making what should be an obvious point.

    In this arrest, the police have not represented my preferences, nor what I believe to be the best interests of the people and thus their duty. For that, they are- according to the trials held after WW2- individually and personally accountable. I think it would be appropriate for them to apologize for this transgression, as the law they’re enforcing is clearly unjust, much as many past laws have been, and some current ones are. Since they’re unlikely to do so, I for my part offer about a five millionth of an apology for their miscarriage of justice, and hope the court is going to set things straight.

    I’ve no idea if EB was planning anything, although I seriously doubt it. I do know, however, that what he did do (voiced an admittedly violent point of view that might walk a fine line with regard to incitement) is something I as a citizen don’t want to have qualifying for an arrest. Regardless of the matter of whether or not he did plan to do something (which wouldn’t have been illegal yet anyway). To say nothing of their statements about intending to pursue people that have commented on this blog. They’ve allowed one man’s massacre to influence a whole society in a direction that is most unfortunate, and I’m sorry EB found himself downwind of that fan after the bovine feces started pouring into it.

    So, best of luck to both of you with this case.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Thanks for stopping by..
      I think this turn of events will be a disaster for society. If they criminalize exrpession of frustration, those who are on the edge between violent and non-violent will simply go violent. Because why sit in jail for 8 years because of blogging, if you can do that for murder or rape? Nice society they are creating for us. One in which peaceful bloggers are punished, and the real dangerous people are encouraged to solve things with violence, because there is just no other way. I fear more shit might happen and it really sucks, as I live here and don’t want to be blown up, raped or killed.

      And you’re right – Eivind has no group that listens to every word of his, ready to kill for him or whatever, and even if he directly told people to kill cops (he didn’t), they are still free to not do it, they aren’t being offered money for it and there is little to gain. I don’t think anyone ever agreed with him on his police ideas anyway.

  6. Clarence says:

    Just checking back here after about two weeks to see what was up.
    Hey, you can’t complain, Ms. I was-posting-about-once-a-month-for-awhile-there 🙂

    Anyway, I had no idea Elvind was in jail! And merely for expressing his opinions?
    I am going to give the best of wishes for you both.
    He’s brave, if nothing else. And you seem to have both brains and integrity.
    If there is anything we can do, please leave a notice on here.

    Clarence

    • emmatheemo says:

      Hey,
      Thanks for stopping by. I think he went to jail because after the terrorism, people are pretty paranoid and saying things like that are too alarming, kind of inappropriate too. They think he was encouraging violence against the police, but I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the intention. He wasn’t making any threats either, but some news articles state “threats” was the problem, although this has no base whatsoever. But then, some articles also called him a right wing extremist, which is also strange (he’s libertarian).

  7. Realist says:

    Well, it was your choice to hook up with a bad boy. There are plenty of nice, good looking, decent guys in Norway with regular jobs, also guys with interesting opinions, academics and musicians, who are not violent in their rhetoric and hateful towards the society. In fact, Eivind lived off the society which he hated so much – he took advantage of the welfare state. In Ukraine neither him or you would be doing so well.
    After what happened, Norway can’t afford to have extremists out and about.

    • emmatheemo says:

      He’s not a bad boy. If he was, he wouldn’t have a problem with involuntary celibacy, would he?

      Yes, there are plenty of other nice men, but none of them would admit to not being able to get laid, and I’m focused on these, for justice. Don’t even tell me about “jobs”. In Norway, choosing a man with a better job is pure hypergamy, which goes against my nature and purpose. Since Norway is so great and I don’t have to barter my sexuality in return for a man’s money, I can value a man for more than just his paycheck, like an ideal feminist.

      Norway is a great country, but like all the others, it has flaws. Someone’s gotta point them out. Sure, Norway can’t afford to have extremists, but it’s just very good at making them. Your type of dismissive attitude (“What are you complaining about, it’s Norway, paradise on earth”) is especially the reason for that.

    • emmatheemo says:

      You aren’t getting rid of the real dangerous people by jailing bloggers. People like that are too obvious. Real terrorists won’t tell you before blowing us all up. And the more intolerant we get of speech, the less likely they are to talk.

    • emmatheemo says:

      ” In fact, Eivind lived off the society which he hated so much – he took advantage of the welfare state.”

      Actually, before last summer, he lived on his own earnings. So not much to be thankful for, except all life quality being forbidden.

      • Realist says:

        Not much to be thankful for? Except for the free education he got. Wow, a whole year of his own earnings by age 34! Quite impressive. Anyway, that’s not the point. I didn’t mean you should’ve been hypergamous. Ok, the guy’s job aside, there are plenty of guys who would treat a woman nicely AND not engage in violent rhetoric and support raping innocent women. The point was that he was “problematic” from the very beginning, if you are so hateful and radicalize and increase your violent rhetoric after July 22, don’t be surprised that you get police attention. Norway does not have that many extremists (just a few) compared to other societies, there are many more in libertarian societies such as the US, or in transitional societies like Russia.
        I wish you luck either way.

      • emmatheemo says:

        It wasn’t one year, I said he lived on his own earnings a year ago. Then he got famous and got fired.

        Back in Russia my education wasn’t free, and I wasn’t doing any worse than here. In fact schools were better. I’m not sure at all I would be doing much worse if I stayed. My mom’s life got worse after she came here. So please don’t tell me to just shut up because Norway is giving us money. One thing’s for sure – Norway won’t drop you and let you starve. I don’t deny that Norway has it’s good sides. In any case, Norway also has many problems (it’s neither heaven nor hell) and no matter what your position is, it’s not wrong to point them out. It doesn’t mean you “hate society” (neither me nor Eivind hate the Norwegian society as a whole). In fact it’s a sign you care about a society.

        I chose Eivind because he was the first guy I was with. And he was nice. From that moment, things like angry language are extremely minor flaws, and not problematic to me. I met plenty of people who say worse things, the only difference is that Eivind said them publicly. That’s kind of inappropriate and he needs a better sense of self-preservation, but why not live and learn? Should I dump him for that? I simply chose not to go around looking for the best guy, but stuck with the first one because he was good enough.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Sorry for the somewhat angry tone, but I heard it all before and it’s like people don’t see that a country can have both good and bad sides, and if it gives you anything at all, you must just shut up about any problems it might have. This isn’t logical.

    • Realist says:

      Of course, there are things about Norway that a Russian might not like (I’m familiar with both sides too, as I also speak both Russian and Norwegian), but that doesn’t change the fact that you and your mom are in Norway now, and not in Russia. That means that Norway is much better for you as women than Russia where women have a much lower status and have to try much harder both to work outside the home and are actually expected to “please” the man. I’m not going to diss Russia as I kinda like that country, but the truth is is that Norway is much better for women and in many cases even men too – we don’t see Norwegian men emigrating to Russia in droves. My advice was simply to be grateful as an immigrant to a country that has given you and your family so much. Your mom’s pension after working there just 7 years will be higher than most Europeans’, much less Russians’.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I’m grateful, of course, that wasn’t in question. I personally don’t have anything to complain about, I just know others who have. It won’t matter to my mom what her pension could have been if she worked here for 7 years, as she couldn’t get a job for 11, despite always being a good worker (leader of a construction worker group, owner of a store, translator) back in Russia. She didn’t get lazy, she went for a bunch of courses where people tell you a job is guaranteed, but got none, which ruined her health and potential to rise above what she has now. On top of that, people with high paying jobs pay a lot of taxes and hate people like her for it. She is still in Norway because she has nothing to come back to, and no health to work her way up again. I’m still here because I’m in the middle of an education, not because it’s necessarily better here.

        I admit I was young when I left Russia (13), but I wouldn’t say I had low status there. Neither did my mom. Nor do I mind “pleasing” the man or working hard. Lets just say I’m choosing to point out things that are wrong despite being perfectly happy, altruistically.

    • Realist says:

      Not to even mention the political freedoms, the freedom of speech, that can be enjoyed in Norway, as opposed to Russia. In Russia they put young women who don’t agree with the system behind bars for a long time, even if they have small kids. So don’t spit in the well you drink from. Eivind abused the freedom and the good will that the Norwegian society offers by insulting one of its most basic values – respect for the woman. If he insulted one of the basic values of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, he might already be dead.
      And the fact that you will have police inside your relationship, has nothing to do with the “regime” in Norway – Norway is a liberal, free country – but it has to do more with individual actions of Eivind for which he should be responsible. That’s the problem in the West now, everyone wants the rights and freedoms to do no matter what, but they don’t want to take responsibility for their actions and choices on individual level.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I’m not spitting in the well I drink from, I’m selflessly trying to improve things for the better 🙂 You have my motivations all wrong. I never stood for hurting anyone physically, but I don’t mind hurting people’s feelings by telling them why they are wrong. Do you mean to say this is harming Norway in any way?

        Never heard of anything like that happening in Russia (neither did my relatives), not today anyway. In 1937, yes.

        The fact that we have “police in our relationship” is both his doing and the result of post-22/7 paranoia. Can’t say I blame them, I understand their fear about Eivind, I just don’t share it.

        Yes, in other countries, he might be dead for his words, but it’s a fallacy to say that just because other countries are worse, we shouldn’t care about bad things in THIS country. I don’t think Eivind wants an unreasonable amount of freedom anyway.

        If Norway is gonna be a good country, it must not jail anyone for merely insulting subjective values. Not everyone values what you value, and as long as they don’t get literally all in your face about it where you can’t escape, or do real actions, we must leave them alone (yes, that counts for racists, Nazi, people who think infanticide is ok, etc).

      • Realist says:

        I’m sorry about your mom, I really hope she does well. It’s just unfortunate, since I know many people from the Eastern bloc, some of them my friends, who thrive in Norway. After all, there must have been a reason why she went there, she could always go back, if she couldn’t find a job, yet somehow she was able to stay in Norway for 11 years without working. Wow. If you left when you were 13 you didn’t really see how things are for women there. Sure, there are good things, but in Norway women have a much higher status – namely, have an equal status. And they receive the well deserved help when they want to be mothers. There are also many more suitable men in Norway, than in Russia. I think it would do you well to go back to Russia and live there for a year or two.
        In Norway there is a consensus about values. The viking idea of “lagom”. It works well and it is not smart to disrupt that. I can see why women might feel threatened about having someone saying rape is ok. It’s never ok, in any society, under any circumstances.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Well, I really can’t compare Russia and Norway now, as I don’t live there anymore. But when I was there, I didn’t notice any specific low status for women I knew. What do you mean by “help when they want to become mothers”? In any case, it’s not very relevant and doesn’t erase problems Norway does have.

        Some women feel threatened when someone says rape is ok. Others feel threatened when someone says abortion is ok, in all seriousness. There are plenty of opinions (not direct threats) that can be scary to someone, but that’s not a reason to jail anyone. You don’t see how forced conformity can be poisonous? Not to mention tyrannical?

      • Realist says:

        And it is not a hysteria or paranoia, for a small country like Norway it is a big number. Today I went and laid flowers by the Norwegian embassy and many Norwegians were grateful, so are my Norwegian friends.
        The government is wise to keep an eye out for potential threats. Even if Eivind wouldn’t actually do anything, how is the government to know? He IS threatening and his threats accelerated right after the event. You have to be responsible for your actions and words. Btw, the US government is much harsher with its citizens and even foreigners.
        I meant the girls from the Pussy Riot, who were arrested and are still in jail. Yes, they were arrested for hooliganism, but it is clearly political and they are held because it is political. I’m not against Putin’s regime, but I certainly admit that it is a pretty harsh regime.

      • emmatheemo says:

        He wasn’t directly threatening anyone. There weren’t any threats. What he said was careless and inappropriate, and this is why we tried to fix it and distance ourselves from Breivik’s actions (a whole post just for that). Of course it’s not wrong to take actions to prevent further terror, but I don’t know if jailing Eivind will have the effect they want. Those that do terrorism won’t talk about it so openly. Or maybe, the dumbest ones will, and only the smartest ones will remain hidden and safe. They might also be more motivated to do it now, since expressing your alternative ideology is not ok anymore. In short, what we might have is another version of the plague, where we blame old women as witches and burn them. That feeling of urgency, bad shit is happening so lets attack many people in hopes that we get the correct perpetrator this time.

        And thank you for telling me more about bad things done in other countries, but I do get a feeling you’re trying to invalidate bad things happening in Norway. Like it doesn’t count because other countries do worse things? I hope it’s not what your’e saying. Sorry if I assumed wrong.

      • Realist says:

        Don’t back-paddle – Eivind supported Breivik in spirit and he supported his actions. He was in awe. I support some of Breivik’s ideas, but never his actions. Eivind always supported violence. Again, be responsible for your words. Every extremist in every country is under police surveillance. He has actually done a disservice to WNs because now they pile him together with them while he is far from a WN. So he HAS hurt several groups and causes. The world is getting more unstable and governments will have to crack down on psychos and extremists to save the public. You said yourself you wouldn’t want to be attacked or raped. Well, why do you think other women do? You think it’s nice to send your kid to an island and receive a dead kid back?

      • emmatheemo says:

        Nope, didn’t support his actions. Well, perhaps the cop killed. Not the kids. He said Breivik’s terrorism was effective, not that it was morally good. In awe? Of his effectiveness, nothing more. He said in all bad things, there is always something good. That’s not a strange thing to say. I think there is something positive in Eivind’s arrest (publicity), despite the fact that I hate what has happend to him.

        I don’t think other women want to be raped. I don’t think it’s nice to send a kid to an island and have them killed. I never said any of that and you should probably familiarize yourself with my views better before you speak.

      • Realist says:

        And, no, I didn’t say it’s not allowed to criticize Scandinavia – I already mentioned that I’m critical of their immigration policy which is too lax. It’s just morally hypocritical to criticize Norway for these minor things while ignoring how things are much worse in your home country. Human decency demands that you first resolve your own problems and then criticize others. Besides, there IS a consensus, as I said – most Norwegians have agreed to give women rights and to make women work as much as men. That’s what the majority wants, and you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can criticize, but don’t be surprised that when you threaten, when you produce hate speech, when you threaten at inappropriate moments, the public and the authorities will investigate. They can’t afford to have psychos running around anymore. They have to protect the people who have hired them to do their jobs.

      • emmatheemo says:

        It’s not morally hypocritical at all to criticise one thing over the other. I don’t live in Russia anymore, and haven’t lived in it for 10 years. Some people choose to be animal rights activists, some choose to be MRAs. Everyone’s free to choose what they want to engage in. Problems Eivind points to are far from minor. Would you say animal cruelty is hypocritical to care about because it doesn’t disintegrate the country and hurt people?

  8. jack says:

    Eivind Berge’s advocacy of violence pales in comparison to the murderous incentivations of radfems. And the radfems need not fear arrest, of course. This confirms his own theory that the police is only there to protect women and victimize men.

    • emmatheemo says:

      I think it’s also a bit like a Russian roulette – there’s lots of violent rhetoric on the internet, against individual people and groups. But only a few will be detained and investigated.

    • Realist says:

      For Scandinavian (and even European standards) his rhetoric is actually pretty crazy.

    • Realist says:

      Yea, noticed how well the US is doing lately…? All the psychos and the frustrated are out on the streets shooting, and the public is just getting more polarized. People are frustrated, agitated by all these polarizing opinions (“hate speech”) and it will just get worse. The US is no paragon for Europeans, and certainly not for small North European societies (which in many ways are actually more open than the US itself).

      • Realist says:

        And, Emma, I do wish well for you and sorry, if I sounded too harsh with you, you are after all, still a young girl. You have the right to your opinion, I just don’t like it when some people tend to get carried away with this assumption that Scandinavia is some “police state” when in reality it can’t be further from that. It’s insulting to people like us who value the Nordic model. 🙂

      • emmatheemo says:

        I might be young, but reading history gave me some perspective. Norway hasn’t been the way it is for a very long time. Not long enough for a person with a single lifetime to see if it’s sustainable or not. And I wasn’t bashing Norway, I was merely disagreeing with the idea that it’s perfect and its powerful people never do anything horrible.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Also, no need to apologize, we were just having a debate.

      • Realist says:

        Norway doesn’t HAVE to be perfect. It is good the way it is and certainly among the best countries in the world. There are things I would also criticize, like it’s immigration policy which is not strict enough. But in general Norway will do well for many years, as the crisis devours the rest of Europe and America, the Scandinavian countries will stay safe for quite a while. In gender relationships, there is a give and take, if you want women to work as much outside of home as they expect in the West, you can’t expect them to be “ultra feminine”, “housewify” and not demanding. This is just what Western men (the majority) have chosen, no need to shriek about it. And btw, Norway was pretty egalitarian for world standards even when it wasn’t rich. Its women were always strong. You are going against the national character of the Norwegian people when you support a rape apologist. But no need to argue, as the majority of Norwegian women AND men don’t adhere to Eivind’s ideas and values. Most can continue exercising their freedom of speech not at the expense of womenfolk.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Norway wasn’t always so feminist. Or rich. I’m not saying Norway is about to collapse, nor do I want it. I’m just saying each generation thinks it’s more enlightened than the last and it’s easy to forget things as you experience them in your lifetime are not necessarily here to stay/sustainable.

        It doesn’t have to be perfect, but it doesn’t mean I shouldn’t stand up for those who are doing badly due to feminist reforms. Since I’m not in Russia, I will do nice things for those who are here, and only nice things.

        I’m not particularly offended by his rape apology thing. “Rape is OK” was NOT the main focus of the argument. He chose “Rape is equality” slogan to attract as many readers as possible so he could be heard. His main message was that forced equality of outcome is ridiculous and people should be left alone to achieve what they can with their own power, for the most part. I don’t support a rape apologist, I support what Norway has very little of – an original thinker with guts. Oh, and more people than you think agree with some of his ideas. It’s just not allowed to “go against the national spirit” and admit it. Also, his words are too outrageous sometimes and people who otherwise agree with him distance themselves because of this.

      • Realist says:

        There are many libertarians who have argued some of those things, over and over, even in Norway (like Siv Jensen). This debate is old and those arguments have been said before many times. It’s just that he did it at the expense of women – by being a rape apologist. About gutsy, interesting people – Norway is a small society, you can’t expect to have a lot of freaks, but there are some interesting individuals, for instance, in the black metal scene. Norway can’t and doesn’t have to be full of uber creative people – there are only 4 million, it’s not America where given that mass of people who’ll have a lot of extraordinary folks. If you want the artists, the actors, the anarchists, the disorderly freaks and maniacs – go back to Russia, it’s full of them.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Nah, freakiness is a limited resource here, I think I will stay in order to enrich Norway with art and possibly new inventions 😉

      • Realist says:

        Aha, and to benefit from Norway’s welfare system and the comforts that creates for a woman professionally, emotionally and romantically. Probably taking advantage of the Norwegian free of charge education too.

      • emmatheemo says:

        No, planning to give back whatever I have taken 😉 My goal was always to be a productive member of society, which I’m working on. And then pay tons of taxes so others can use it for the same. What’s your point?

  9. jack says:

    Eivind Berge may go down in History as the first political MRA prisoner. If he were a woman in a similar situation a $500000 charity would already have been set up to support him. It would be sad if he were prevented from making the most of his situation for want of a few thousands.

  10. Realist says:

    Well, the help is pretty relevant if you want to be a mother. In Russia, you are on your own (well, maybe with your mother),the men aren’t always helpful and neither is the state. Hence, the large amount of abortions and impoverished women. In general Russia is egalitarian when it comes to women, but much more sexist than Norway and frankly, has thrown its women under the bus. So if you’d rather prefer not to be safe as a woman.. but since you don’t want kids, that’s not a problem for you, just don’t assume it’s not a problem or “relevant” for those women who DO want children.
    Saying abortion is ok is not threatening – it may be unpleasant to some women, but they still retain the choice to have an abortion or not have it. But when you say rape is ok, that’s different. Because a woman or a girl doesn’t really have the choice not to be raped. Anyway, it’s just uncivilized and unfair. And can’t be anywhere further from libertarianism which values human physical integrity and freedom.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Hmm, I’m very much against paying women to be single unmarried moms. I would only support any help if she was married and the guy, bound to her by law, wasn’t possible to track down and made to pay.

      I agree that saying something mean can be uncivilized, but it’s very unlibertarian to forbid uttering any uncivilized opinions. Lots of people said threatening stuff to me on the internet, but it’s the internet and not direct threats. You’re right, libertarianism values human physical integrity, but nasty words online have nothing to do with that.

  11. Realist says:

    Wow, your mother has been a welfare queen for 11 years, and you have used Norway’s hospitality and safe environment (which was built not only hard work of Norwegian men AND WOMEN but also on values such as egalitarianism which you try to combat) to have a good life and you are still complaining? You sound like a refugee from Congo who arrives in Europe and complains that his refugee shelter is not good enough or that they want him to turn back, saying “what kinda country is this”, while back in Congo he’d be killed, or like those Arabs in Europe who scream “jihad” and badmouth the Western values while keeping their wife and 4 kids on European earned welfare, while they all would have to live in mud huts back at home.

    • emmatheemo says:

      How many times do I have to repeat it to get through to you? I am not complaining about myself! I have it just fine, but others I know haven’t. Your attitude towards my mom is exactly the type of problem I was describing. Mom came here, worked really hard to get a job for 11 years (she was ALWAYS employed in Russia), got nothing, had people tell her she must have communication problems (was always the soul of the party back in Russia), and got stressed out by it to the point of illness. And her chances to work her way up are ruined now. And little shits like you come here and say she was a “welfare queen” and should be happy. Do you realize she could have been a good contributor to society and paid taxes, AND had a better life, if there was a job for her here? What, do you think she likes it?

      Again, you push the same stupid argument that since other countries are so bad, there is nothing wrong with this one. Breivik killed only 77 people. But at least not 6 million, like Hitler. So Breivik is actually a nice guy, what are you complaining about? Send him a love letter, exhalting him the same way you do Norway.

      • Realist says:

        So how did she survive those 11 years? On the welfare – either the state or the Norwegian man. I’m sorry she wasn’t able to get employed if she was such as a star as you say but I have several friends – young women immigrants from a former FSU country who are thriving in Norway – speak fluent Norwegian and have managerial jobs. Former FSU men who work in construction and wood working – no problem. They have it great. Don’t blame that society because you weren’t able to integrate (and I can see how that can be difficult given the differences between Slavic and Germanic mentalities). The unemployment rate in Norway was below 5% – she’d have to be really retarded or “different” not to have found a job.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Why is it always the person’s fault if they haven’t got a job? Would you say the same about women before feminism? According to your logic, they just failed to integrate in the “man’s world” and should suck it up.
        It was in the newspapers, people over 40 are discriminated against and get less jobs. Of course no one owes them jobs, but that’s not to say that unemployment problems are always due to the individual. Jobs aren’t infinite, and economy plays a role. Choices government makes can affect it.

      • Realist says:

        You know, maybe there is something to it.. maybe you’re just a loser who resents the Norwegian society. Those EE people who did well there never complained about anything in Norway one bit (even the men didn’t complain, they just mentioned that women were “more feminine looking” back home, but they didn’t say they’d rape). But losers, like Eivind, who can’t do well on their own, complain about the “evil society”. Typical.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I’m not a loser. I told you – I got everything I need. I’m just capable of caring about other injustice other than my own. It’s great that your other friends had good lives. Not everyone has, and not everyone is to blame for that. I also find it disappointing and dishonest that you resort to this “argument”.

        Also, Eivind is doing quite well. Haven’t you forgotten? He has all he needs too (or did before the jail). So you have no argument.

      • Realist says:

        In the kind of Norway that you and Eivind want the jobs would be even less “infinite”. You want a libertarian dog eat dog society. In that society neither of you would survive. Well, you’d probably have a choice to be a prostitute or work some low paying manual labor, or compete for a rich man with many other women. In a country with 5% unemployment… er, yes, it is very much about the individual if they can’t hold a job. In my country, unemployment is at least 15%.

        And, btw, you’re the one who’ll be sending love letters to jail, that’s not really my cup of tea.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Aren’t you the slut from Dalrock’s, who is too ashamed to disclose her partner number, rationalizing her serial monogamy?

      • Realist says:

        Very libertarian to call someone a “slut”. 🙂 Not that it bothers me. I’m neither ashamed nor proud of my partner count since I am respected for who I am and I don’t have to impress anyone and a partner count is somebody’s personal business and is irrelevant to everyone else. Sorry, old fashioned MRA shaming language won’t work here. I couldn’t care less if I’m called a “slut”, especially by someone like you.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I wasn’t shaming you. I simply asked if you were that slut from Dalrock’s. But since you got defensive, I’m pretty sure it’s you (and you aren’t as unbothered as you say).

      • Realist says:

        You can’t shame me, don’t flatter yourself, you’re not all that. 🙂 Like, I couldn’t care less about your opinion of my “sluthood”. Frankly, even if it was someone I highly respected, I wouldn’t care, even though someone I respect is not likely to call strangers “sluts” or whatever. I’m not defensive, I’m just trying to explain to you how the kind of “sluthood” you talk about is non existent in my life in 2012. Maybe in your 1950s America life it is existent. I observe sexual and relationship hygiene not because I fear to be called a slut by some stranger online but because of my own well being. If I feel that sex will be good for me, I have it. I wasn’t even sure who you meant, maybe it is me, it’s funny how a libertarian clings to some American Christian fundy’s such as Dalrock’s ideals.

      • emmatheemo says:

        That’s an awfully long reply for someone who doesn’t care whether they are called a slut or not. Don’t worry, I like the sexually generous 🙂

      • Realist says:

        I don’t care about being thought of as a slut, but I care about slut shaming for the sake of other girls – slut shaming has no place in North European society. Because both sexes have to take responsibility, not just women.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I’m not really a slut shamer either. I just find sluts who fuck who everyone else is fucking kinda damaging. No, not only to guys who go sexless, but other girls. If there is ever a man who won’t commit, demanding relationship before sex won’t work, because he doesn’t have to commit to get sex. Without all those other women spreading their legs, there would be no problems with men having all the benefits of relationships with none of the costs, which you dislike so much.

      • Realist says:

        Frankly, I don’t even think there’s so many of those women who fuck the same guy. From my perspective, that’s really not in a woman’s best interests. A woman is interested in commitment from a quality man – most women are NOT like Samantha from Sex and the City. Women have longer dry spells than guys imagine. I’ve had them for as long as over a year. I could go out and have sex with any guy yet I didn’t. Most people having sex are in LTRs, as I said there is monogamy, it’s just that it doesn’t always result in a real family.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Yeah, except more women than men have STDs now, and men are being reused for baby making.

      • Realist says:

        I knew right away that you guys clicked because you are also kinda “different”. 🙂 You are a girl that likes a guy who is a bit edgy and “controversial”. Also, Eivind is very very smart and it’s probably great to have intellectual conversations with him. That’s how my relationship is with my man too and he is also pretty handsome.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I like a guy who is cute as kittens 🙂 But his original thinking is always a plus. I just didn’t think much of it when I first went for him, thought he was just a desperate sex-starved guy who was saying all those antifeminist things because he was sex-starved. That’s just irresistably cute. But I now know they have logic behind them. And so it went.

    • jack says:

      Realist, are you trying to hijack the girlfriend of a man under arrest? Shame on you! Such things are what make us men so vulnerable and hopeless you know.

      • Realist says:

        I’m not trying to hijack anybody. I’m just telling her that she chose someone who was prone to be “problematic” because she wanted excitement that a man going against social mores brings. But the price you pay is the woes when he is in jail.

      • emmatheemo says:

        He’s not prone to be problematic. He is cute as kittens 😀 You have no idea. I would suggest you try it for yourself, but I’m afraid it’s not your fetish. Might even help preserve the society you love, eh?

        Frankly, I went for Eivind because he was so sad and downthrotten, and extremely huggable. I wish I could hug every beta, but I can’t hug every beta ;_;

      • Realist says:

        It’s fine, I believe he is nice to you in person, absolutely. I used to be in a LTR with a black metalist who was also “different”, although he didn’t promote rape and had nothing against feminism, namely, he was indifferent to it. But he was “different” since he had long black hair and could be considered “anti social”. So I know that those types can be charming. And as for cute betas.. you’d actually be really surprised as to the man I’m with.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Good for you 🙂
        Look, the fact is, I’m also “different”, and feel closer to those like myself. It’s possible I fit well with Eivind because I realize that angry feelings are not just sick or evil, they often come from somewhere and to fix it, just telling them to “get help” or “just live as you are and shut up” is not okay. Better than anything is giving them what they lack and need, and suddenly they aren’t angry anymore. I have more tolerance for “scary” words because I’m used to them, they don’t mean much. I know they often don’t reflect anything evil or anitsocial. Other people overreact.

    • Realist says:

      Yea, I don’t disagree that it might be leaning towards the natural, biological way (with “reusing men”). Also, men are less prone to STDs. Besides STDs, from the naturalistic POV there is nothing bad with this – women having kids with the better specimen makes sense from the evolutionary perspective. So if you want to shame those women, then don’t forget to shame men for going after younger women. Again, one might want to look at anecdotal evidence as well – most women are with betas, also, there are tons of variations in relationships. Yea, there are a lot of singles, but there are also many women in monogamous exclusive relationships. And there are celibate women.

      • emmatheemo says:

        they wouldn’t go for younger women with no young sluts around 😉

      • stormy says:

        Actually, with some STD’s, like syphilis, there tend to be more men in the late stages and more women in the early stages. STD detection is higher in women because women get yearly visits to the gynecologist. Men don’t get tested, so keep spreading, or find out after they’ve had it for a ridiculously long period of time.

        yeah sorry I’m a bit obsessed with health.

  12. Realist says:

    You and Eivind just don’t have a case. Yea, Norway was not always feminist, but is every single Norwegian man and woman FORCED to be feminist? No. Every couple can decide themselves how to live. The man can support his family and have the wife as the housewife and mother. The woman will be out of the labor force and the man can have her job. Norwegian men are NOT forced to live by the feminist model, they CHOOSE it. If they were feeling oppressed, they would throw off that oppression, make no mistake about it, they’re Nordic people. Just like the Icelandic people got rid of the bankers’ oppression. They’re absolutely capable of throwing off feminism, it’s just that they DON’T want to. You know why? Cuz feminism is good for them and they like it. 🙂 It’s a good life. 🙂

    • emmatheemo says:

      They aren’t forced to be a feminist, they are forced to adhere to feminist laws. So yes, in a way they are forced to be feminists. The law against prostitution, all that sexual harassment crap, fake rape, affirmative action. Companies don’t CHOOSE to dissolve themselves if they can’t get 40% women on board of directors. Undesirable men don’t choose to remain celibate and single, which they otherwise could have fixed with some paid services. Men don’t choose to go to jail for having normal sex, because the woman was drunk and forgot she did it.
      You’re right – many men aren’t aware of what can happen to them in this country, until it does. Those it does happen to, often can’t make the connection between that and feminism. And as long as it doesn’t happen to too many, and as long as only the least resourceful are in trouble for it, it’s not too obvious. Men, in contrast to women, just don’t have the tendency to take other men’s side. Men who are benefitted by feminism in any way will gladly throw men that don’t under the bus.

      • Realist says:

        Btw, Scandinavian men do get paid services in other countries. The state might want to try to control that but it’s impossible. So they do use sexual services in the neighboring states. But it’s a disputable issue – it is up to the given society to decide if prostitution should be legal and the Nordics have decided that it should be. Men are motivated to be productive and take wives / girlfriends, create family, instead of sleep with prostitutes.
        All these “fake” rapes and such are a pretty new development, and I believe it’s a backlash against the libertine culture where guys expect to just get laid without any consequences and without “earning” sex. This is an interesting new development, which actually implies that sex is a female resource. In this day and age people should have rules about sex – and no one should abuse them.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I suspect you’re right about fake rapes being all about controlling men who expect free sex. Do you mean to say fake rape stuff is the rules that we should have? I hope not.

    • Realist says:

      I’m not saying anything, I’m just guessing about what is going on in the minds of Norwegian feminists, whilst reading how they argue it. Before taking the red pill, I would have also said it is all bull, but now, thinking in terms of evo psych, this picture gets different. I also used to think that sex is something you give out of love and good will, as a kind of a credit to create a family with children. Obviously, that’s not how men see it. So we need a different model possibly. Or at least we need to give all girls the red pill and inform the women. Many people in Scandinavia still have illusions that the sexual value of both genders is the same. It is not. What do you do in a situation when two people are in love and want to be intimate, yet they don’t want to create a family (thus the woman’s years end up getting wasted)? Both pay for the dates – the woman’s resources get expended, the men’s don’t – the man gains more.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Oh, finally something we can agree on! Realist, don’t be too mad about anything I said, we can even be friends perhaps, unless you find me totally repulsive, which I don’t find you 🙂 You’re right the value is not the same. It can lead to bad things for the woman, if she uses sex unwisely.

      • Realist says:

        I’m not at all repulsed by you, you are a smart, young woman and I only wish you success. In fact, I posted a bit on Eivind’s blog (not always that smartly), and right before you two got together I asked Freya to send him love. And it happened!
        Women are different and the relationships are now complex. The messages about sex are also mixed. Some women have sex for fun, although I doubt it’s as many as the magazines like to tell us – most women want sex with quality men within an exclusive relationship and most get it somewhat. I believe most people are together for love and most people are average – neither male alphas or beautiful models. It’s just when it comes to sex – it is in societies where you go Dutch on dates and live in LTRs that take years without children or financial contribution from the man – it is not really that beneficial for women as it is for men. My argument is simple: the woman brings more to the table than the man, she brings half of the financial resources and all of the reproductive resources, that’s a lot! The man only brings half of the financial resources. This is

    • Realist says:

      I would actually prefer that women would give it up less and demand more commitment than just being a girlfriend, if they feel like it. Second, women should be more careful about situations where they have sex. Most of the time, I believe, they will not regret. But they still need to be given the red pill and informed about male sexuality and men’s MOs. A situation where I’d say men should be held liable is sex when the woman is under influence – and here, instead of going after the men, a general consensus should be established that women shouldn’t be touched when they are drunk, no matter what they do. Simply make it an unwritten rule for men – don’t touch a drunk woman. It would be nice if instead of just demanding that women stop “acting like sluts” and take all responsibility for sex, men too would be imposed some responsibility and rules.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Hmmmm… Teaching women about men is a good idea. Not sure about the unwritten rule. There is already such a one. I don’t think it’s helping. Read in a newspaper recently that “6 in 10 Norwegian women don’t want sex without drinking first”. Wow, and it seems pretty true from what I have seen. People rely on alcohol to relax and get laid. So I’m not against the rule, I just dunno if it’s working. Like you said, most won’t regret it.

        I don’t think a man should go to jail because the woman was drunk but conscious – we are otherwise responsible for anything criminal we do while drunk, so I don’t see why the woman wouldn’t be responsible for having drunk sex.

  13. Realist says:

    And you are bullshitting about Breivik and Hitler – why would I praise some loser evil guys’ actions? I was praising the GOOD that was done by Norway, as opposed to lesser good (or none at all) that is done by other countries. Fix your logic, dude.

    • emmatheemo says:

      You came here and tried your hardest to prove to me that I have nothing to complain about because Norway is so great. I was pointing out legitimate problems, but you decided I sound like one of those people who escaped from Congo but complained the shelter wasn’t good enough. I pointed out that just because other countries are worse, doesn’t mean it’s wrong to point out bad things about this one. One country caused a lot of damage to their people, another one did much less. So I said you might as well excuse Breivik, because you are excusing Norway. Both did less harm than others.

  14. Realist says:

    Anyway, back to my original point – you made your bed. You wanted an exciting freaky guy who is “different’, now you can have him – in jail for another month and it probably won’t end at that. There were many decent, hard working, nice guys who are much better boyfriend (much less husband) material, but you overlooked them. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

    • emmatheemo says:

      No, I wanted a a guy cute as kittens, a sweetheart. An omega/beta who has no one else. Since there are so many alpha-loving women around, I must do the opposite. It’s my kind of activism, if you can call it that. I also did a good thing for the society you love so much. Kindly thank me for preventing violence.

      • Realist says:

        You didn’t prevent any violence. Eivind has no right to expend violence towards women or society in large. He is simply entitled to think that.. This is the problem with the West these days – no individual responsibility – “I will be a dick, and damn you – I have the right to hurt you with no punishment”. It’s like he thinks he deserves sex, or he’ll be violent. Not really, sex is not a right. Physical integrity is a right, but not sex.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Of course sex is not a right. Neither Eivind nor me said any differently. He didn’t say he deserves sex like it’s a right. He was a sexually frustrated man, one of many feminism helped create. Most of those you don’t have to worry about, they’ll just kill themselves and you will never hear of them. But some might aggress. Whether a guy has a right to aggress or not is irrelevant – he might do it. And then doing anything to prevent him from that is good for society. So yes, thank me for preserving your beloved society.

      • Realist says:

        Sorry, Eivind does not sound like a “kitten”. What he says is not cute. Most women are with betas, I am with a cute beta too (who also happens to be “different” yet he does not really promote rape). You are no better than other women who have sex with men.

      • emmatheemo says:

        When did I say I was better? 🙂 I’m more useful than a serial monogamist fucking a bunch of alphas who don’t wanna marry her, but no, sex is not an accomplishment for a woman. I fully admit that.

      • Realist says:

        Btw, I wouldn’t qualify Eivind as beta. According to my definition, he is omega/alpha, yes, weird, but that’s how I see it. He has both omega qualities – angry loser nerd, low paying job, not a good husband prospect, short and skinny. And alpha qualities – above average intelligence, brave. Now that he’s in jail, I guess, an MRA like you would add points for that too (he was hoping to get groupies by being a “criminal alpha bad boy”), although I personally consider this particular case as an instance of being omega.

      • Realist says:

        There’s nothing wrong with “fucking a bunch of alphas”, especially, in serial monogamy, you as a libertarian really shouldn’t be so judgemental of that. After all, that is individual freedom. It’s also funny how a libertarian would care being “useful” to anything or anybody – most libertarians are far right anarchists who wouldn’t care less if they are “useful” to society at large or state.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Actually, as a libertarian, I have the right to be judgemental. I’m not pro forbidding women to fuck alphas, I just think there are too many of them and the world would be a better place if someone fucked angry omegas too. That’s MY choice. I choose willingly to be useful to society, I’m just against other people being forced to do the same against their will. If no one wants to fuck an omega, they should be free not to.

      • Realist says:

        It is not feminism that creates scarcity of fuckable females, but Mother Nature. Wasn’t it that our DNA tells us that only 20% of males procreated in the past? In the past even more males went without sex. I know that Eivind likes the 1950s model, where every dude was guaranteed an average wife for life whom he had to support, Eivind just forgets that he’d have to marry that chick himself being 22 and stay with her before he can even have sex, but many men today would never sign up for that – they want the premarital sex, they want to prolong adolescence with all the benefits of marriage (LTRs) and they want to try out different women, which even betas can these days – as most people DO go through this serial monogamy. The betas always have the choice of women at the scale of 3-6 their own age if they want to have a girlfriend.

      • emmatheemo says:

        It’s both. Without forced artificial equality, you wouldn’t have those dangerous/suicidal omegas running around. Get too many of them, and you might just destabilize society.

        The sexual freedom you speak of it useless to a guy with very few to no options, which is a lot of guys. Eivind admitted in the past that he’d give up all this supposed sexual freedom for one wife to regularly have sex with. In any case, guys take what they can. Women have more options for sex, and with power comes responsibility. There would be no men having sex outside marriage if women didn’t allow it.

      • Realist says:

        You are no better than most Norwegian women who marry betas and have children with betas. Women want stable long term relationships, not casual sex and contrary to the popular MRA opinion women have a natural reflex to keep an eye out for players. Most women play hard to get, even with alphas. Sure, they feel enticed and want a guy who is very hot or charismatic or rich/famous, but they are not stupid or blind. In Norway, the like go with the like – people are together with someone of their own caliber and age. Feminism also gives a lot of no strings attached sex, which is good for men – and given how much people drink in Norway, it’s not just the alphas who get this sex. There are too many stereotypes in MRA, yet they don’t know what really goes on in women’s bedrooms.

    • Realist says:

      So did Eivind shut up and become happy, content, and pacified after he got sex? No, he didn’t. He radicalized even more. Because the truth is it was never about sex, it was about his misogynistic anti-egalitarian ideas. Such people cannot be appeased. Trying to appease terrorists or aggressive entitled men is the wrong tactic – it’s allowing them to turn you into a victim and hold society as a hostage. The right answer for entitled, threatening dickheads who think they deserve more than everyone else is a smack with a baton.

      • emmatheemo says:

        He became happy. He said his happiness level went from 2/10 to 8/10. But if you read his blog, he said “If I have a gf, I will still blog about injustice, I just wouldn’t be personally motivated to attack anyone”. Both me and him have a sense of justice and react to abuse of other people, despite not being harmed ourselves. It’s possible to blog altruistically. You’re wrong about him becoming “even more radicalized” after that. It was less. The real reason for this effect was probably that since he no longer was miserable and violent, he was more open about his past feelings. You can’t admit you wanted to once kill somone, if you are still planning to.

        He also started writing more after meeting me because his former anger was preventing him from hitting the right keys on the keyboard (seriously).

        The rest of your post shows me how little you understand. You want to fight fire with fire, good luck with that. It was all about sex. He never said sex would somehow change his political opinions, he just said it would make him happy and peaceful. Which it did.

      • Realist says:

        I agree that having a woman in his life can be beneficial for a man, because when a man gets sex, he gets not only physical and emotional pleasure, but also personal validation. So in that regard I believe that he became more content. But the fact remains that he still continued with very violent rhetoric and he still insisted rape is ok. I didn’t read his latest blog entries, but I noticed that they were just as aggressive as before after 22/7 and he spat just as much venom as before. In the end he crossed the line with threatening cops during a period which was already politically charged and that was enough. He made his own bed.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Because injustice still happens. The blog IS especially for that – for expressing views and venting. Doesn’t mean he is like that in real life. His blog personality and his real one are not the same. If you got so much less angry that you can type more effectively and don’t want to attack anyone anymore, of course you would instead use your blog more. Duh.

        He also didn’t threaten cops. Find me a line where he directly threatens cops.

    • stormy says:

      A woman who dates a man who said women should be systematically raped to get back at feminism…is criticizing a woman who’s dated and has had sex with more than one man for being a “serial monogamist”. Anyone see the irony here? LOL. Also, women are more likely to initiate breakups, so it’s less likely that THEY didn’t want to commit, more likely that she didn’t. And that’s perfectly okay. We all make the choices we make at the end of the day.

      As for Emma the Emo…
      “No, I wanted a a guy cute as kittens, a sweetheart. An omega/beta who has no one else.”
      Your guy isn’t as cute as kittens, love.

      “Since there are so many alpha-loving women around, I must do the opposite. It’s my kind of activism, if you can call it that.”
      What you’re saying here COMPLETELY contradicts what you said before. It sounds like you’re “taking one for the team,” not like you genuinely want to date him, but you’re doing it to make a statement. “I must go against what makes me happy and what I want to make a statement to society!” Right now, you look like a girl who’s dating a freak, dating a man people tell their daughters NOT to date. Your activism has done nothing. You’re only hurting yourself.

      “I also did a good thing for the society you love so much. Kindly thank me for preventing violence.”
      So you agree that he deserves to be jailed and is a potential danger to society? lol.

      Sorry guys, this debate is too good. On both ends. And no, Emma the Emo, I don’t hate you, because we all make the choices we think are right at the time, and I do think you are an intelligent and well spoken woman. But you do see the irony of what you are saying?

      I’m sure Eivind has been good to you and treated you well. And I’m happy you have that. But I think it’s best for you to stop trying to defend it and lay low for a while. You don’t need any more stress or frustration. It seems like you are hell bent on staying with him, regardless of how crazy the whole situation seems to everyone else, and he’s going to need all your support.

      • emmatheemo says:

        The irony is her insistence I’m with a “bad boy” (who obviously all are sexless, fall in love right away and want to commit quicker than you, right?), while she herself wasted years on guys unwilling to commit to her ( She said it before, that she broke up with guys because they didn’t want to marry and have kids with her). I wouldn’t have criticised her if she didn’t jump at the opportunity first. I don’t get personal if you don’t get personal.

        Yes, he’s cute as kittens, but you wouldn’t know because you haven’t met him and have absolutely no knowledge on what he’s like, at all.

        “What you’re saying here COMPLETELY contradicts what you said before”
        No it doesn’t. Is it impossible to both find a guy to be attractive, AND fuck him for justice? They are not mutually exclusive you know. You know what my actions did? Prevented potential disaster. Funny how some of you first scream for him to be jailed as a dangerous person, then deny my actions actually did any good, because “they did nothing” and “I’m only hurting myself”.

        “So you agree that he deserves to be jailed and is a potential danger to society?”

        No, he didn’t deserve jail, as he was no longer dangerous. I PREVENTED IT. I prevented potential violence with love, rather than hate. It was both easier than using jail and required less tax payer money.

      • emmatheemo says:

        “It seems like you are hell bent on staying with him, regardless of how crazy the whole situation seems to everyone else,”

        This is the thing. I know his side of the story, but I also know how a normal person reacts to him when they first see his blog. I was one of them. after all. But I gained insight, and the hard part is to give it to others (not that understanding him was a piece of cake – if it was that easy, everyone would do it). So I actually know it looks crazy to others, but from the beginning, I signed up for it and don’t mind. Like Realist pointlessly says, I made my bed (as if it was even a question or something I was complaining about?). I simply find it important to be loyal and those who deserve my loyalty, and Eivind is one of the best people I have met (if you can’t understand THAT, I can elaborate).

      • Realist says:

        Well, in my defense, I actually DID get commitment (to the same extent that Eivind has committed to you and tons of other women get commitment by being steady girlfriends) – we had an exclusive relationship that lasted for years, the fact that there was no marriage didn’t mean there was no commitment (as I wouldn’t even sleep with a man who didn’t make me his exclusive girlfriend), I just ejected the guy since there was no proposal after 2 years. Now I am engaged and plan to marry by the end of the year, to a tall handsome man who also happens to be of above average intelligence and who wants children. So have absolutely not “wasted my youth” – I still have a great life.
        I’m not projecting regards to the “bad boy” – I just said you CHOSE to date an anti-social freak with extreme ideas, so don’t be surprised that there is trouble. As I said, he is not beta, he’s a mixture of omega and alpha qualities. And, man, he really is nerdy (judging from that interview on NRK).
        p.s. There is nothing wrong about being pagan and a naturalist/realist. Those two go together in fact (Gods are often symbols of natural phenomena or life categories, such as Freya is for love and destiny).

  15. Realist says:

    Basically, my point was – you can try to go against Norway as much as you want, but you have to realize – feminism is the BYPRODUCT and in some cases the CAUSE of an affluent and progressive society. You can’t have that if you don’t give women as much political power as men. So it’s either / or. You either accept the whole package, or you choose a different system / value set. Like, Cambodia or Russia, if you wish. Or some African or Latin American country. Macho culture reigns free there. But if you want order, stability, equality, wealth – you must accept feminism. And it is perfectly sustainable with a few fixes here and there – such as getting rid of unnecessary freeloaders (this doesn’t include single moms as those are vital to keep the healthy birth rate of Norway). You just can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want women to bust their asses to make the society wealthy, you’ll have to listen to what they want and sometimes even do what they tell you. Otherwise you can move to Cambodia (like Eivind wanted to) or Russia.

    • emmatheemo says:

      I’m not “against Norway”. Feminism and forced equality costs money. Feminism and wealth often go together (but often there is wealth and no feminism) because wealthy countries can afford it.

      I’m not at all sure at this point that feminism causes order, stability and wealth. Countries in the past prospered just fine without it.

      • Realist says:

        No, feminism creates money. Women in the labor force add to the economy. If all employed women didn’t go to work one day, the economy would crash. Sure, you can keep the women at home (there is plenty of work there with the kids), but then the living standard will be much much lower. In N.European countries where there is harsh climate people need to flock together to survive and to create welfare.
        In places like Saudi Arabia or Qatar where there is wealth but no feminism, they are living off of resources, and they don’t enjoy the kind of freedom of speech which you claim to defend so much. Neither do they enjoy equality for everyone (including men). Most other countries in the world are poor and unstable, and as a rule – do not have feminism or subjugate their women.

      • Realist says:

        Countries in the past prospered? To some extent, but they had no individual freedom (be Christian or die). The average life span was half what it is today. Women and children died in childbirth. Men died at work. There were no vacations to Rhodes or barnehage. When you became old and couldn’t work you were often dragged to the woods in a sleigh and left there.

    • jack says:

      Sorry, I thought you were only a weak MRA defaulting back to white knight, but I see you’re some kind of feminist.

  16. emmatheemo says:

    This thread is such a giant bitchfest. I apologize to anyone civilized who reads this. I’m not above rolling around in the dirt with another pig like me.

    • Realist says:

      This is a public blog so don’t be surprised if somebody responds to what you say. Nothing I said could label me a “pig” either.

      • emmatheemo says:

        You chose to argue all day with me, calling my mother a retard. People who are arguing with the goal to convince someone of their POV don’t do this. You don’t come across as someone who wants to save me from bad decisions or convince me of anything. In short, you don’t come across as a serious debater, and I have spoken to many of those. They don’t insult my mom and don’t respond to any personal challenges I might throw out. You responded to every single one since I suspected you weren’t really here to debate seriously.

  17. Realist says:

    My goal wasn’t to be a “serious debater” (I have other outlets for that), but just to give some opinions about an interesting topic. Sorry, if I offended you, but I didn’t call your mom a retard, I did say I was sorry about how it went for her, HOWEVER, it must be acknowledged that given how low the unemployment has been in Norway, it should not be difficult to find a job there, even if it is very basic – many FSU people have done it. It’s not really about your mom, it’s more about this stage some people in the manosphere tend to be in – they complain about the welfare state, yet when they have to make a living on their own and fight in a real libertarian society, they fail and look for all kinds of excuses outside them, just like Eivind did. A lot of things in Norway are brought to you on a silver platter, and you can make the basic living. In other countries, which are more libertarian and don’t have welfare systems, a person must fight hard and compete just to secure that basic living.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Well, mom was a good worker, didn’t get a job. Fact. Deal with it.

      Whether one has welfare or not doesn’t make either me or Eivind wrong. Either way, we aren’t against all welfare (as a necessity), we just think Norway has too much of it.

      • Realist says:

        Absolutely agreed. Norway gives way too much money to foreigners and non European immigrants who “bite the hand that feeds”. Like Mullah Krekar and a load of others. Also, too many welfare checks for adult people, including well bodied males in their late 20s and up.

    • jack says:

      …including well bodied males in their late 20s and up
      Why insist on males as welfare parasites? Males contribute to 80% of the money in pension funds and use only 20% of it. Females have maternity leave and maternal allowance, parental leave and parental allowance, special leave and special allowance, education leave and education allowance, etc. etc. Organisations are running out of names to name all the special leaves and allowances granted to women. Females report sick 50% of the time. Females file for invalidity on full wages as soon as they’re 45, and they get it! It’s not even whether they can work like men, they simply don’t want to, they just want the money, and they’re getting it! Wonder then why Europe is broke.

      • emmatheemo says:

        Don’t expect much from Realist. It’s the woman who complains about having to pay half on dates and then praises feminism and equality; someone who wasted her youth on “betas” who refused to commit and have kids with her, then projects onto me that I “hooked up with a bad boy” (who’d do both of those things without hesitation).

  18. emmatheemo says:

    Heh. Something must be said in praise of “loser heros”. Kinda correct Eivind must be both alpha and omega. Another good example of this is Kaiji, who is both moe and GAR and is awesome despite his general omega traits.

  19. jack says:

    Let’s not forget – like Realist would have us forget here – why Eivind Berge was enraged about Norway. He was enraged because he was the citizen of a country that left him with no sexual choice but celibacy. It is incorrect that he was free to emigrate to have sex since Norway makes it a crime for its own male citizens to go pussy-hunting abroad. As a Russian you can buy pussy in Russia or wherever in the world you choose to do so. Not as a Norwegian.

    • emmatheemo says:

      I guess he could move and change citizenship, but he had no money for that when his celibacy was at its worst. No wonder he got as angry as he got. Realist is also someone who, at that time, was sweetly giving him a bunch of useless advice on being happy as he is, praying to Freya to send him love, saying Eivind’s problems are not sexual and in general not doing much to help. I’m a girl of action and problem solving, on the other hand 😉

  20. Jurist says:

    What kind of a freak prays to Freya, and at the same time calls themselves “realist”? What country is she from, that has an unemployment rate of 15%? Baltic region? Central Europe? She said she’s fluent in Russian, so..

  21. Jurist says:

    “p.s. There is nothing wrong about being pagan and a naturalist/realist. Those two go together in fact (Gods are often symbols of natural phenomena or life categories, such as Freya is for love and destiny).”

    But you study or studied the natural sciences then, I take it, since you are calling yourself “realist”. And how did you get to be called slut if you never slept with anyone who did not make you his exclusive girlfriend? Women routinely lie about such things, even if they are anonymous, and even on double blind surveys – in case you did not know. I just had a break-up with someone after one and a half years, here, and now she is lying to herself and to everyone about what kind of relationship we had and whether we had sex and how many times (last I heard it was down to 10% of the actual estimate). You also make a point of bragging about the guy you’ve engaged to marry. It’s always nice and interesting for intelligent men to realize that they are merely trophies in women’s battles for rank in hierarchies with other women, and where the value of their man is paramount to their worth. I realized that years ago. Most women are not rational and they are not honest – not even with themselves. Emma here seems to be one of the rare exceptions. You, on the other hand, realist, seem like a run-of-the-mill female egotist. You are also callous and cynical, which you demonstrated when you mentioned how you “simply ejected” a loving partner after about two years, just because there was no proposal. (And I am pretty sure you never let him in on what the stakes were – men are supposed to do all that mind-reading.) Here’s a wild guess: The guy you “ejected” (supposing that is a factually correct assessment of events) feels that he dodged a bullet – and all his friends tell him so as well, as you are a callous and calculating bitch (i.e. female egotist), and the tall and handsome, above average (we have but your word for it) intelligence guy, is in for a rough ride. These stories and archetypes have been repeating themselves since time immemorial.

    • Realist says:

      You are so full of venom and, of course, what you say has nothing to do with my life. I don’t even have to explain myself. I don’t want to go into details about my personal life, I’ll just say that I never “forced” anyone to propose to me and it was done out of love (my fiance is not a trophy, but I had to say he’s a quality man since she implied I had “wasted my youth”). Also, why should a woman live with a guy and give him the benefits of cohabitation when clearly their future goals don’t match? I don’t know why Dalrock, Emma and co are in such a high opinion of themselves to call other people “sluts” without even knowing anything about them. I don’t know why they feel compelled to call a person a slut for having more than one monogamous relationship like 99% of the Western world, I really don’t know why they are so condescending and arrogant, while still calling themselves “libertarian”.

      • Jurist says:

        “Also, why should a woman live with a guy and give him the benefits of cohabitation when clearly their future goals don’t match?”

        Well.. give him the benefits of cohabitation… I don’t know what you mean by that. He’s the man. C’mon, I’m sure he paid at least half of the rent. So what are you actually saying? Are you aware how many men give their female partners “the benefit of cohabitation”, often not requiring that the woman pay any rent, even?

        And still women in this rudderless country claim that there is far too little equality. That there is still a battle for feminists to fight. Is it any wonder then that we get angry guys like Eivind Berge as a result? Women clearly do not know how to appreciate the more than equal status they already have, just as clearly as women are not a collectivist group at all. Feminism is bunk, because it supposes that what gender you were born as, qualifies for special rights and considerations. It doesn’t. We are all individuals, with individual responsibilities, preferences and attitudes. Feminists, by denying this very fact, and by perpetuating male myths and hatred against men as a gender, define themselves as unreal collectivists. It would therefore be very stupid to call oneself either a liberalist or a libertarian, and at the same time claim that one is a feminist – or even (just) that one supports feminism.

  22. Karoline says:

    Jeg ble virkelig kvalm av å lese artikkelen i BT i dag. Å forsvare voldtekt etter et år med en høyreekstrem blogger vil jeg ABSOLUTT kalle hjernevask. Å forkaste framskritt som er gjort for likestillingen er noe av det mest retarderte jeg har hørt. Jeg håper du innser at selv om du er smart, så er du en slave for kjæresten din, og jeg håper du tar til fornuften og blir KVINNE igjen.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Hvordan vet du at det er hjernevask? Har du tenkt lenge og nøye hvorfor du tror det du tror selv?

      Og jeg har ikke forsvart voldtekt, vet ikke hva du snakker om.

      Jeg vet det er fristende å lese artikkelen og bare reagere med følelsene, men det er best å faktisk lese hva som blir sagt og tenke. Inntrykket er at du har faktisk ikke lest hva jeg sa, og misforsto (f. eks. du tror jeg forsvarer voldtekt, noe jeg ikke gjør), noe de fleste mennesker pleier å gjøre. Ikke vær som alle de andre.

    • Marius says:

      Seems to me the article in BT was a nice glimpse into something credible and workable that didn’t involve any sort of brainwashing. She came across as well reflected and independent, which isn’t the case for your comment here, Karoline.

      For one thing, libertarian politics aren’t right wing, they’re considered far left, if not extreme left. One step from anarchosocialism and its like. Clearly you’re misinformed. You’re also positing that only feminists are women, that everything feminism has achieved is progress, and further that she’s a slave to her boyfriend. There’s no indication of the latter, and if that were the case, it would be fine so long as it’s her choice. Insofar as feminism opposes free choices for women, it is its own enemy at best. And, of course, the notion that it’s all progress is simply ludicrous. No movement has ever realized ONLY progress. Feminism has a good track record overall, unless we count the prohibition and consequences thereof. But it does have areas in which it has been counterprogressive, and one has to be able to admit that. Being opposed to the counterprogressive elements is no vice.

      For Emma: nice interview; how close was it to what was actually said?

      • emmatheemo says:

        Pretty close 🙂 They also let me look at the text before they printed it, and correct possible mistakes if there were any. I tried my best to explain the ideology, but that was kind of hard to do in just a few sentences, so I wouldn’t be surprised if someone misunderstands.

    • thetesteres says:

      *KLUKK* Sa høna og la et egg.

  23. Jurist says:

    From today, and highly relevant, I believe.. http://youtu.be/1iCSEokcS-4

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Ah, yes, one must always be ok with admitting one was wrong, if it’s true. I haven’t watched this girl too much, but was under the impression that she was into the MRA stuff.
      What was the relevance you were hinting at?

  24. [blockquote] AVictim: PLEASE I”M BEGGING YOU FUCK ME!!!!
    Psychiatrist: No.
    AVictim: YOU CHARLATAN![/blockquote>

  25. Kazan says:

    Emma, has E. B. ever questioned his somewhat rigid idea of hypergamy after you became his girlfriend? After all, you are a splendid example of the opposite, namely hypogamy? At some point he must wonder?
    Kazan

    • emmatheemo says:

      I’m afraid one needs more than one counter-example to disprove a general rule… I don’t think his view on this is all that rigid. It’s not like he’s saying all women are hypergamous, or to the same degree.

  26. Pingback: Robert Stark interviews Nataliya Kochergova - The STARK TRUTH with Robert Stark

  27. Pingback: Robert Stark interviews Nataliya Kochergova « Attack the System

  28. Sirenia says:

    So he’s basically an internet tough guy? That’s reassuring. And unsurprising.

  29. Tafatle says:

    I’m starting to think 95% of humanity can’t think for themselves.

  30. Brendan says:

    Where is a link to this guy’s blog? Will I not understand any of it because it is in Norwegian?

    And you sound like a really good woman. It would feel like a gift from god if I had a girlfriend like you, although I’m an atheist. Does your boyfriend still have to use “Game” to keep you happy?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s