Don’t you just love it when oppressors thinks they are oppressed? Well, someone recently posted a perfect example of that on Eivind Berge’s blog.
The commenter made us pay attention to a commenter named Compleo, who posted in this forum:
To summarize, the forum post was about Eivind Berge and men who agree with him. There are some frustrated men who do understand what Eivind Berge was talking about. Norwegian feminists do deny women have any sort of extra sexual power, while relentlessly persecuting male sexuality and insisting on affirmative action. Someone asks “Could a network of men fighting women’s rights really form in Norway?”, to which Compleo responds:
“Jeg ser for meg at noe slikt kan dannes, dersom frustrerte unge herrer som gjerne vil ha noe å skylde på for egne nederlag – annet enn seg selv – lar seg forføre av denne EB`s antifeministiske hatretorikk.
Og for å være helt ærlig. Det må de gjerne, så får vi tatt et endelig oppgjør med slike djevler. Jeg vil heller ha borgerkrig enn å godta at kvinner mister et fnugg av sine hardt tilkjempede rettigheter.”
”I can see that something like this can form, if the frustrated young gentlemen who wish to blame something for their failures – something other than themselves – let themselves be seduced by EB’s antifeminist hate rhetoric.
And to be totally honest. They should, so we can make a final settlement with such devils. I’d rather have a civil war than to accept that women lose a shred of their hard won rights”
First, affirmative action is not a right and should never be. Nor is putting a man in jail because of regretted sex, or without evidence. I can understand not wanting to lose real rights, but there is no one here trying to take them. Even if someone does want women “back in the kitchen”, they have no power whatsoever in Norway at the moment, so no need to get so hysterical over one single blogger. Let’s look further.
About young men who feel the AP party and the feminist state are discriminating against them:
“Jeg er villig til å se på dem som farlige udyr som må bekjempes med alle midler. Ormeyngel en må knuse under hælen før de får gjort noe skade.
Men det er også den eneste andre betegnelsen slike djevler – som gjerne ofrer kvinners frihet og rettigheter for å bøte på sitt eget sårede mannsego – fortjener.”
”I’m willing to look at them as dangerous monsters that need to be fought with all resources. One must crush vipers under one’s heel, before they can do any damage.
But this is the only other designation these devils – who are willing to sacrifice women’s freedom and rights to mend their wounded male ego – deserve”
And here you get a glimpse into the paranoid mind of a typical femifascist. They sit on top of their tower and worry that someone will take away their “rights”, while people with different opinions or sex don’t even have them. They are more than willing to fight opposing opinions with state violence and support anti free speech laws, but it doesn’t enter their empty heads that the same violence can be used against them. But then, why should they worry, as long as they switch off their brain and parrot whatever AP tells them to think?
Last year Eivind Berge went to jail for 3 weeks for saying it’s right to meet state violence with violence.
And Compleo went to jail for saying it’s right to crush people for disagreeing with the feminist state… oh wait, she didn’t go to jail, because she’s a fucking feminist preaching to the choir!
So who has more power, really? Who keeps voting for the people enforcing the feminist state? Who’s the oppressor?
Also, who, in a non-hypocritical country, would be more likely to get a charge of incitement to violence? Who has more people agreeing with them? Eivind Berge, whose opinions are not popular with the general population, or Compleo, whose opinions are backed by the state?
She says when she’d want to crush disagreeing men:
“Dersom de slenger seg på en bevegelse som agiterer for å frata kvinner noen av sine hardt tilkjempede rettigheter – enten det gjelder retten til egen kropp, til å ikke bli diskriminert i arbeidslivet, eller hva enn det måtte være – så ja.”
”If they join the movement that agitates towards taking from women any of their hard won rights – whether it’s their right to their own body, the right to not be discriminated in the workforce, or anything else – then yes”
Ohhh boy. So if I join a group of people who say “affirmative action is unfair” I need to be crushed under a heel? If I have enough honesty to admit that I don’t like forcing someone to hire an unwanted person in their company, I should be put in jail, maimed, killed?
And don’t get me started on the “right” to not be discriminated in the workforce. We’re already being discriminated in the workforce (actually everywhere), and always will be. Unless, that is, we find out how to modify pre-natal hormonalization of the central nervous system, and give men and women truly equal interests and tendencies. Our conceptions of masculinity and femininity don’t come out of thin air. We know, subconsciously, that men and women are not like each other, and discriminate accordingly. That doesn’t mean male dominance in top work positions is due to discrimination, but that’s a topic for another time.
“Så mener jeg det er greit å ta personen seriøst, og handle deretter. Dvs. gå til affære FØR han skader noen eller “inspirerer” noen andre til å skade noen. Et samfunn må kunne forsvare seg mot personer som har en agenda om å underminere de fundamentale rettighetene til individer eller grupper innenfor det samfunnet.”
”I believe it’s ok to take the person seriously, and act accordingly. That is, act BEFORE he hurts someone or “inspires” someone else to hurt someone. A society must defend itself against people who have an agenda to undermine fundamental rights of individuals or groups inside this society”.
Norway breeds morons. They will trade freedom for safety. Lucky morons never get to experience the sharp end of their own hypocrisy, and never have to stand there and defend themselves from the overwhelming force of the state. “But I didn’t meeeannn anything by saying that! I didn’t know it was illegal to discuss the murder of a whole group of people!” Ohh yeeahh. Or how about the other possible sharp end of the stick: “But I didn’t think my ideological enemy would follow my own advice! It’s ok when I do it, it’s wrong when they do it!”*whinebitchwhine*
“EB er ikke “farlig” fordi han er “politisk ukorrekt” – han er “farlig” fordi han genuint ikke aksepterer at en gruppe mennesker skal beholde sine grunnleggende rettigheter – fordi han ikke ser på en gruppe i samfunnet som like “menneskelige” som seg selv. Da har han også moralsk frasagt seg sin egen rett til å bli behandlet som et fullverdig menneske – både av folk og stat.”
”EB is not ”dangerous” because he’s ”politically incorrect” – he is ”dangerous” because he genuinely doesn’t accept that a group of people should keep their fundamental rights – because he doesn’t see this group as as ”human” as he is. Then he has morally rejected his own right to be treated as a full person – both by the state and the people”
First of all, EB doesn’t want to take any fundamental rights from anyone. His argument is simply this: “If men are forced to give up their natural male powers (status/job attainment, through affirmative action), then why should not women give up their natural female powers (sex). You know, for equality you feminists keep going on about?”. The argument is so good precisely because it produces a moral repulsion in everyone. It shows how unfair it is what feminists are demanding. No, it’s not ok to take from men and give to women! They already don’t get laid as easily as you, and you’re making it an uphill battle for ridiculous ideological reasons.
Second.. What if he was for taking away women’s rights? What if, for whatever reason, he didn’t accept that one group of people should have fundamental rights? Granted, this would make him a disgusting person, but what is it to you? What right do you have to dictate how someone thinks? Why do you think the state should have the right to treat someone as an animal because they think differently?
I could say the same. “Compleo is such a sicko, Compleo doesn’t think antifeminists should be treated as persons. That means she herself no longer has a right to be treated as a person – by state or people!” But I wouldn’t say that. Because I’m better. Because I’m not a sick, paranoid ideologue. And you know what? Eivind Berge is better. For example, he said it was unjust to jail Pussy Riot feminists for the song they performed in the church. Let that sink in.
I recommend MRA read this type of hate rhetoric, to know what they are up against. And for God’s sake, be better than them. Principles is the only thing no one can take away from you. And without them, nothing is worth having in the second half of the life. Don’t fall to their level. Use words to mirror their actions to them, but don’t copy them.