Feminist State Stockholm Syndrome

About a year ago, my boyfriend (Eivind) was wrongfully arrested for what they saw as incitement to violence and glorification of violence. At the time, he made an argument that cop murder was morally right in the face of oppression, as cops are the enforcers of the worst of the feminist laws. He also cheered a couple of times, when news about a cop killed came in the media. He didn’t actually tell anyone to kill, or plan a rebellion, or whatever. He just expressed a view that violence can indeed be a solution in situations like these, a view that you can express and get away with, if your political leaning is to the left, and preferably feminist.

One day, I was chatting with my boyfriend. He went for a jog and simply didn’t return. It was late at night, so I became increasingly worried that maybe he got run over by a car, killed, being robbed, etc. I almost lost my mind not knowing where he was. The next evening, cops called me and told me he was arrested. The person who raised a case against my boyfriend was the police attorney Rudolf Christoffersen (http://search.aol.com/aol/image?q=rudolf+christoffersen&v_t=aimright-ff&s_it=searchtabs ). I googled him and found out that this guy was the one who harassed a family of gypsies recently, and held the parents in an empty cell for a week. They were later cleared of their charges. He also caught Amy Winehouse smoking pot while she was visiting Norway. In short, it seemed like someone who enjoyed harassing the weakest and to concern himself with the most made up, victimless crimes.

My boyfriend had to sit in jail for almost a month. He wasn’t even convicted, but in Norway they are allowed to hold you in jail before the trial for the silliest of reasons. The reasons were fear that he will destroy evidence (as if he could remove all the traces of his blog and claim he never said the things he said). Another reason was “concerns that he will repeat the crime”. Basically, they said “well, he still hates cops, so we can’t let him go, because there is high chance of recidivism”. That it, he’s in jail for expressing hate for cops and they were gonna hold him in jail until he stopped hating cops.

My boyfriend was lucky to have a good lawyer, who proved to the Supreme Court that internet was not public according to the law, and thus an incitement charge can’t be made. Of course, it’s absurd, but the law was very old and did not take internet into account. They let him go. They were pretty angry the law was so old and still not updated, although it was supposed to be updated already in 2005, just to catch people like my boyfriend. Hastily, they finally updated the law, and now it’s illegal to incite violence online, if your speech could reach at least 20-30 people.

What I find surprising is how some allies blame Eivind for this law. Also, it is also surprising the anti-cop hate Eivind expressed is seen as such a big deal. For some reason, some people think it’s pathological. I’m saying that, but it doesn’t mean I agree with his statements. I simply find them utterly uncontroversial. I think all of these people are suffering from what I would call the Feminist State Stockholm Syndrome, and will explain why.

In many ways, the feminist state is like a kidnapper. They have total power over your life, and in a confrontation, you will most often lose. It would be a very unequal fight, to put it mildly. They also hold other people in a similar position. However, if you’re a good boy/girl, they will allow you basic things, like freedom to continue as you are without being harassed by them. However, those victims that do act up, rebel and want to get away are not treated so well. You can be put in an empty cell for a week, without warning, and then deprived of your freedom to live as you wish for the next few years. And like a true kidnapper psychopath, they will blame it on you.

See what you made me do? Your insistence on fairness is nothing but whining of the overprivileged, so you need to be punished. If you didn’t try to escape, you wouldn’t be experiencing beatings right now. If you didn’t talk back, you wouldn’t be in a cell right now. You brought it on yourself.

Eventually, some victims start believing it, and lose sympathy for those who still have their head together.

You mustn’t talk back to the Feminist State. The Feminist State is good to you if you just shut up and obey. It didn’t even beat you all that much for your transgression this time, see how fair it was? Why are you so angry, I don’t understand. The rest of us are doing quite well.

And now that the new law is in place, some of the people will blame Eivind for it. After all, it was his case that made the state change the law hastily. However, they don’t realize that a kidnapper is not truly their protector and caretaker, and a kidnapper can do anything as a reaction to a victim’s resistance, and blame it on them. The abuser can make up a random rule on the spot and make it of great importance and meaning in the head of a victim, and the victim will believe it. And they are taught to be scared of breaking this rule, or even thinking that the abuser is being abusive by enforcing it. After a certain amount of time, watching someone resist the abuser is shocking and controversial.

Here’s the thing. You can fool a kidnapper. You can sweet talk to a kidnapper. You can escape, call outside help, disarm them, knock them out, etc. But you can’t start agreeing with them and seeing them as authority. And you most likely can’t reason with them either. They only start being reasonable when they can’t afford to be unreasonable anymore.

In view of all this, it should be clear why someone will think violence is an appropriate response. I’m more into all the other options available, and wouldn’t recommend violence. I just don’t gasp when someone suggests it.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Feminism, Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Feminist State Stockholm Syndrome

  1. Eric says:

    Emma:
    “I just don’t gasp when someone suggests it.”

    The problem, though, isn’t that (and you’re correct that feminists/leftists who say the same things are given a free pass. The problem is that the mass media is 100% controlled by feminist/leftists and they aren’t going to put the same construction on Eivind’s words that you or I would. There is a significant move in the US to label the MRM as a ‘hate movement’ right now (a vacuous American legal term that basically gives anyone carte-blanche to persecute any group so labeled). Even worse, the American government’s penchant for ‘false-flagging’ is well known; and such sentiments could easily recoil on Eivind and the MRM if these guys were to orchestrate an ‘incident.’

    I suggested on Eivind’s blog and at Antifeminists too that he do exactly what you did here: expose the cretins who enacted this law and who’s pulling the wires in the feminist police state. From what I can surmise, the Norwegian press is much less tightly controlled than the American media, so that way would have a better effect.

  2. Its hard not to espouse violence when violence is being used against you. There are clear arguments for and against pacifist ideals, but when faced with an enemy also implementing rhetoric I dont know if it would work

  3. Liz says:

    Is he under the impression society would improve if the police force was eliminated? What is his objective?

    • emmatheemo says:

      No, not eliminated, just not exempt from accountability themselves, and not enforcing evil.

    • emmatheemo says:

      That is, if those things were fixed, society would definitely improve.

      • Liz says:

        Well, yes if things were fixed (assumably) society would improve. But it’s a democratic republic. The police are enforcing laws. The laws are a result of the democratic process, so it could be said that citizen murder is equally morally right until said improvement. In fact, more morally right because you are holding the culprits (voting public) accountable rather than the enforcement arm. Using the rationale it would even be accurate to say that it is a moral imperative to bomb populations that spread feminism unless and until they “improve”.

      • emmatheemo says:

        No, I don’t think it follows. While each voter partially has the responsibility for voting feminism into power, each only has a tiny part of it. An enforcer is causing harm very directly. For Nazi Germany, no one would argue bombing the people would have been a good idea. But no one in their right mind would say the officers who gassed the jews should have gotten away with it, just because the people have voted for them.

        I also don’t believe democracy should be able to vote absolutely anything into existence, even if it’s unconstitutional.

      • Liz says:

        The enforcer is enforcing laws. He or she cannot selectively choose which laws to enforce, and the system wouldn’t work very well if they did (“I won’t protect that victim because I think he/she is a bad person and such people shouldn’t be protected, ect”). Unlike a fascist dictatorship (aka Hitler example) in a democratic republic, if the problem is the law, the problem lies with the people who make the laws. Your boyfriend’s proposal won’t result in the selective enforcement of laws (specifically only the ones he approves of)…it will only make it more dangerous for them to enforce them.

        It’s either violent overthrow of government (aka revolution) and the legion of problems that go with that, or work with the system and persuade without violence.

      • emmatheemo says:

        I see there are two sides of the issue, moral and practical. First, about the morality of being a cop who enforces thos laws:
        A cop is not forced to be a cop, and they are not exempt from personal responsibility. It’s odd you think evil actions of the police are more excusable in a democracy, rather than less. At least in a dictatorship, you can say you had to kill, or else you yourself would be killed. But in a democracy, there is no such excuse. Btw, same applies to law-makers (politicians). They are not excused, because citizens voted for them.

        Also, you seem to have misunderstood what my boyfriend was really for. He was not for “selective enforcement of laws”. Laws should be laws. But they should be reasonable and not based on idiocy, that’s all. Some current laws should not exist.

        I’d love to talk about the purely practical side of this strategy, but I’m afraid of being misunderstood and going to jail. It can happen.

      • Liz says:

        FWIW, per this bit: ” For Nazi Germany, no one would argue bombing the people would have been a good idea.”
        Actually, the Allies did bomb Nazi Germany very soundly, and many many times.

      • emmatheemo says:

        And it was wrong.

  4. Liz says:

    “First, about the morality of being a cop who enforces thos laws:
    A cop is not forced to be a cop, and they are not exempt from personal responsibility. It’s odd you think evil actions of the police are more excusable in a democracy, rather than less.”

    Some perspective is in order here. “The feminist state” is a pretty broad, arbitrary construct. We’re not speaking of genocide police tactics….the reason I asked if he believes society would be better served without a police force. I assume he likes the concept of property rights and protection of one’s personal physical integrity from violence of others (protections against theft, mugging, pillage, rape, homicide et al). I’m assuming he isn’t against ALL laws. And laws require enforcement, or they are just wishes on paper.

    No one is forced to be a cop, true, but I’m very glad people are willing to do so in the interest of everyone’s protection (juxtapose your country with those that have no police like the FATA or truly criminal police state tactics…a large portion of the planet, too numerous to mention). I believe their motivations are generally honest and very honorable. Governments capable of building a state that can protect its citizens, honor their rights, or refrain from robbing them blind don’t exactly grow on trees. They’re more the exception than the norm in the history of human experience.

    I’ll leave it at that.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Of course he’s not against ALL laws. That would be silly. And of course not all cops are guilty of enforcing laws that allow some women to regret sex and pin it on the guy, for example. Not all cops are like that. And sure, in some countries things are even worse and the cops are mostly corrupt and enforce laws even more selecively than here. But I’m not gonna fall for “look how good you have it”, smaller cop abuses are still abuses. It’s like saying “This guy has honorable intentions, because he beats you less often and less hard than this other guy would”

      • Liz says:

        Suppose someone threatened to kill you. Is this protected speech?

      • emmatheemo says:

        No, it is a threat, and should be illegal

      • Liz says:

        Fair enough. I agree.
        At what point does such speech represent a threat? What if it applies to a group you are a member of?

      • emmatheemo says:

        Anyone should be able to discuss philosophical points about anything they wish. They should also be able to express their hate.

        The former is very basic for freedom of speech and thought. If it was not free, you could go to a philosophy course, get an assignment to prove to the class that late time abortion is ok, and get jailed for inciting to murder people.

        The latter is much less pretty, but in my opinion, it must remain free. For example, I’m not a racist. But if someone is racist, they should be allowed to be racist. In fact, forcibly silencing these is like covering a gaping hole in your wall with a piece of cartboard. It makes everything look ok, but it’s not ok. If you want these attitudes eliminated, use proportionate response. That means violence/threats are responded to with violence (like jail), and utterances are countered with utterances. Using force to make unpleasant attituted go away will only make them hate you harder, and be less inclined to change their mind. In fact, force against them will give their racial attitudes more legitimacy in their minds.

      • emmatheemo says:

        If it applied to my group, it’s the same btw. Silencing the hater will not actually protect me.

      • emmatheemo says:

        So what I’m saying is philosophical discussions about murder and such, as well as hate, are not direct threats. A threat is, I believe, saying “If you don’t do X, I will do Y (something violent or otherwise illegal, designed to cause serious fear). Or just “I’ll do Y to you”

      • emmatheemo says:

        Sorry for many comments. But here is another thing that isn’t a threat: saying “I wish you died” or “I will pray Allah strikes you down” or similar things

  5. Liz says:

    So at the one end of the spectrum is, “I’m going to kill you”, next, “You’re a cop so I’m going to kill you”, further down there’s “everyone should kill cops” and then there’s “I wish cops would die” at the end of that “hate” spectrum. I think most people can agree there is a difference between saying you hate something and wishing they would die and directly threatening or advocating killing them.
    The line from direct to indirect threat can be nebulous. Saying I hate policemen (or abortionists, or black people) isn’t a threat to policemen, abortionists, or black people. There was a case in the US where an anti abortion site posted the names and addresses of doctors and people started hunting them down. That is different from making a philosophical point, which is comparatively abstract. Threats aren’t abstract. I don’t know what your boyfriend posted, just sayin.

    It kind of comes down (as always) to context, and I’m not aware of the situation in your country. I don’t know if policemen are experiencing an increase in violence against them. When someone kills a bunch of people (hypothetical here) they look to reasons and attempt to come up with ways to prevent another tragedy from happening. And if the person had been held in police custody, was then released and did something awful they’d have a lot of explaining to do. I think it’s wise to err on the side of caution and just not advocate killing anyone online.

    • emmatheemo says:

      What he got in trouble for, was saying cop-killing is a good tactic. Like you said, it makes enforcement of specific laws very dangerous, perhaps at one point too dangerous to go on enforcing them. It’s like a middle ground between open revolution and trying to fix the problem peacefully. He also, many times, expressed approval and joy upon learning someone killed a cop. One time it was because a cop broke into a man’s apartment to put him into psychiatric confinement, and got chopped down by him. All this earned him a charge of incitement and glorification of violence. He was NEVER charged with threats. And you can trust me when I say that if cops had any possibility to charge him with threats, they would have also done it. After he got arrested, they even wrecked havoc in his room and searched everything, confiscated stuff that they hoped was incriminating. It never became incriminating, but they were trying REALLY hard.
      The point I’m trying to make now, is that even these paranoid cops couldn’t say my boyfriend was threatening them. “Indirect threat” is not a legal concept. There are threats, and there is incitement. But even incitement is rather “Kill the cops”, not “Everybody should kill cops”. So the charge was really a stretch.

    • emmatheemo says:

      I don’t think there is any violence against cops in my country. Norwegians trust the cops. During Breivik’s terrorism, he dressed as a cop and it allowed him to kill more people than he would otherwise be able to kill. Also, there was another thing that allowed him to kill so many: embarrassing police response. I think they didn’t even have a helicopter to put their best cop team on that island. It took them like an hour to get there, while Breivik was still shooting. And once there, they didn’t have a boat. A civilian boat had to help 20+ cops to cross a tiny body of water, slowing them down even more.
      So now, after looking incredibly bad, they are trying to make up for it, by attacking bloggers and keeping them in jail indefinitely. But you see, no one should b allowed to keep someone in jail indefinitely before they did anything wrong. Preventing a tragedy is not a good justification. First of all, you could be wrong, and this person is innocent and not planning anything. As someone who got to feel this logic on their own skin, I’ll tell you. ..Agreeing to “more safety” by jailing “potential criminals” before they can do anything is all fine and dandy, as long as YOU are not the innocent target. People who support these police tactics never think it will backfire on them, but there is absolutely no reason why it can’t. And it WILL, if enough fools think it’s a great idea and cops think it’s ok.

    • emmatheemo says:

      But yes, it’s best not to advocate killing online. It doesn’t mean you deserve to be in jail if you do, but yes, it’s not the wisest thing to do.

  6. jack4510 says:

    I don’t gasp either. I shan’t be the one who uses violence to defend himself because I would get killed on the spot. But if people with more guts than I have want to ….

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