Hastings Fredrickson may sound like a porno name, but it isn’t. Well, in a way it is. As I will demonstrate, the admittedly criminal behavior of Fredrickson is treated more seriously than countless examples of actually violent and more reprehensible acts, including where people (read: men) have had their skulls fractured.
Fredrickson, who was an Australian defense contractor and before that an army commando, was convicted of three counts of using a carriage service in a manner “menacing, harassing or offensive.” A carriage service is simply British-based legal parlance for postal services, phone, internet, and other telecommunication devices.
In the case of one woman he had sex with, Fredrickson filmed the encounter, without her consent, and then distributed pictures to a number of colleagues. These colleagues, who all had associations with the military or Australian military contractors, called themselves “The Jedi Council” and exchanged graphic, pornographic, and sometimes illegal materials and references to the women they claimed to have had slept with (and proved through pictures and films).
Watch Your Language, Padawans
More surprisingly and alarmingly, Fredrickson’s convictions for offensive use of a carriage service (it’s pretty clear the sharing with colleagues was neither harassing nor menacing) included his detailed written accounts of sex with women. In this correspondence, he named the partners.
Although using the word “slut”, “moll” and other terms is far from the most genteel use of language, which I don’t seek to justify, it is mind-boggling to understand how such usage should generate criminal charges under an already amorphous concept of “menacing, harassing or offensive.” Better not come to Australia and write a book about banging Australian girls, Roosh! Or at least keep it off your email.
Bang/Don’t Bang Australia might be a little risky…
Fredrickson received a 15-month prison sentence. The water gets murkier here, as the sentencing judge ruled that the man be assessed for an Intensive Corrections Order, which lies somewhere between a suspended sentence (no jail but the term reinstated if a sufficiently severe additional offense is committed) and jail itself. The coming weeks will determine whether Fredrickson does indeed enter a penitentiary.
I have no problem with, and fully support, Fredrickson being convicted for filming his sexual encounter with the woman surreptitiously and then distributing it. The same goes for anyone else in the group proven to have passed on secret recordings of sexual encounters.
Losing Touch With Reality
What I do find troublesome, however, is the sentence handed to Fredrickson, irrespective of whether he serves full-time jail or not. Compared to physical violence, which encompasses both physical and psychological trauma to victims, the 41-year-old’s behavior was sternly punished. Such a stern sanction can be rationalized only if violent offenders are hit with even stronger sentences. Much of the time, though, they are not.
Ravshan Usmanov’s jailing for six months started the trend of often treating the publication of certain photos and films more harshly than rendering someone permanently incapacitated, in a coma, or otherwise leaving them fucked up physically. It shows no sign of abating, either. Jail the Usmanovs of this world, by all means, even for longer than six months, but at least bother to mete out every punishment according to the real severity of the crime.
The context of Fredrickson’s convictions is an intense, usually bitter debate about the place of women in the Australian military. Despite being admitted to the military with inferior (and quite frankly pathetic) physical entrance requirements, women in the armed forces are immediately allocated with a “victim badge”, regardless of whether they have experienced discrimination in the first place.
Combined with a general legal climate where a woman having her naked photos sent to someone else is frequently considered more heinous than many instances of exposing a human being to risk of death through serious street violence, it’s not terribly shocking that Fredrickson is still getting huge media attention.
The victim impact statements, which featured one from a woman who was just named in an email containing graphic descriptions of sex, were clearly listened to by the court. Sadly, it seems victim impact statements from those who are punched in the head, stomped on, and left to bleed are largely ignored when you evaluate the litany of times assault results in no criminal conviction, a good behavior bond or a suspended sentence. Maybe the judges’ belief that “boys will boys” explains it?
The Theory of (Criminal) Relativity
We could argue indefinitely about the “best” and worst crimes, in terms of the physical and psychological impact on victims. Having multimedia of you naked passed around without your approval is deservedly a crime, particularly if you did not consent to or know about the original production of that multimedia.
But similar to how someone breaking my arm is less grave than that same person deliberately shooting me in the head, disclosing private films and images of naked women (or men) should not be treated with as much contempt as actual physical violence, especially where it exposes a victim to close to life-threatening harm.
This is even more so for graphic emails only naming women. Whatever one’s opinion of the written content, the men involved had all coalesced voluntarily under the umbrella of “The Jedi Council.” The typed descriptions were not publicly disseminated in a literal sense, which would probably and justifiably attract the “offensive” part of a carriage service offense.
Criminalizing graphic writing of a sexual encounter, shared by choice between friends and where the partner is only identified by name, is nothing short of a slippery slope smeared with many jars of Vaseline.
Fredrickson committed a crime, no doubt. But did he beat a man to an inch of his life?
Take a peek at the following three stories, bearing in mind for the first two that the first acts of physical violence received less than a slap on the wrist. For the third, the defendant received no proper punishment for even the most recent attack.
- Kieran Loveridge of Sydney killed 18-year-old Thomas Kelly, and assaulted another four young men in separate attacks on the same night. Loveridge had been given a mere good behavior bond for a previous assault.
- With a single punch Shaun McNeil, also of Sydney, ended the life of Daniel Christie, who died after falling into a coma. McNeil had had a multitude of prior assault convictions, for which the most “serious” sentence was a six-month suspended jail term. Cumulatively, the convictions before Christie’s death could have hit the offender with twelve years of jail-time.
- For fracturing a man’s skull, Tyran Pumpa of Canberra was sentenced to two years, eight months’ jail, mostly suspended to just one year of periodic (weekend) detention. Ridiculously, the judge knew Pumpa had preexisting convictions for breaking a man’s jaw (a crime where he received, yes, you guessed it, a suspended sentence) and punching a man in front of police. The victim with the fractured skull’s additional injuries were permanent hearing loss, recurring pain and a heightened danger of him developing dementia.
It’s worth reiterating that Fredrickson broke the law for filming his sexual partner and the subsequent sharing of photographs. I don’t defend, condone or otherwise seek to minimize his damaging choices and the effect it had on that victim (forget those who were named). But I will always subject them to a test of relativity. Under this scrutiny, the Australian legal system gets an F.
Liberalism.
Victimology has been taken to such an extent by the left that real victims aren’t even victims anymore. Only those in the “correct” minority groups are victims that “count”.
In any society the groups that are held up as the “victims” are never the real victims. The reason for this is very simple. Victimhood is a powerful political position to be in so it is always claimed by the most powerful political groups in a given society. In mideval catholic spain it wasn’t the people subject to the inquisition that were considered victims it was the sainted catholic martyrs.
Just like in modern day America it’s not politically powerless groups like fathers who have their children, property and income taken from them in divorce, White racially conscious people who are subject to employment, judicial and social discrimination or traditional Christians who are gradually having their lifestyle and values criminalized… who are considered victims. These groups are presented as the “bad guys” of society.
It’s groups with HUGE political power with massive legal, media, financial and cultural support like homosexuals, jews, women etc… who are said to be “victims”
Cultural Marxism permeates in every level of our society. Under this dogma only individuals from minority groups (read women, Muslims,homosexual etc) are forever perched on victim pedestal. Even if these people commit heinous crimes, Leftist will actively seek to place the blame on hetero males. I’m looking at you CNN, MSNBC…..
The funny thing about morality is that it is never objectively right.
The funny thing about people is that they are never always right. Saying that there is not objectively correct morality leads into all sorts of murky philosophical and social problems.
I concur mate
But it’s true. What is right for us could be wrong as hell to others in other nations.
Philosophy is about questioning society. Things like “hey it’s legal to own slaves, but is it right?”
There are some things that are purely a matter of social circumstances, like which side of the road to drive on. Neither America nor the UK is morally superior in that respect: they simply had to choose one side for everyone to drive on.
.
However, more social practices are not like that. It isn’t just a matter of intersubjectivity and cultural relativism.
http://i.imgbox.com/dK9p1d90.jpg
When people mention cultural Marxism, that is when I know they are gone in the head.
Your nonsensical, vapid and retarded comment is a good fodder for hilarity. Nothing wrong in pointing out Cultural Marxism when it is prevalent in Western Society. I don’t need validation from nutcases like u!
Pointing out something that doesn’t exist! Okay.
Okay then mate. Lemme enlightened you. Go to FrontPage News.com and check out Mallory Millett articles. A repentant ex-Radical Marxist, she spilled the beans on Marxism hellbent goal to restructure and overhaul the Western Civilization.
Read it first, we’ll discuss later.
direct link please
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mallorymillett/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives/
Reminds me of a recent fraternity suspension at Yale, for something “offensive” which was said, off campus, at a private function, by people who have since graduated. Watch what you say in private, komrades – speech is no longer free. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-13/yale-bans-sae-fraternity-for-violating-sexual-misconduct-policy
You can bet if some women said something “inappropriate” about a guy, everyone would laugh the guy out of the courtroom for standing up for himself.
In this case, there wasn’t even a courtroom.
No different than the severe restrictions placed on fraternities at UVa due to a hoax rape that never occurred.
I’ve told friends and family that if I ever turn up dead and it becomes a “cold case” because the local cops are lazy and won’t get leads, then they should say I was a fag or something so it get deemed a hate crime and I get a real investigation.
They should throw in that I’m 1/8th black and had a handicap too just for good measure. In fact the handicap could play into it, like “Hey I told Doktor Jeep to be careful but he didn’t hear me ’cause he was deaf”.
On a serious note, it’s like computer hacking. For hacking a bank for example you will serve more time than if you molested a kid. Why?
Well, the banking system as well as nations are run by child molesters and you don’t go messing with “their” banks.
So it all boils down to “who has more power”. Some random kid getting raped who has no money, is not a voting bloc, and no lawyers? Who gives a shit. Some whiteCISracistbigothomophobescourgeoftheearthhetero gets beaten half to death? Does he have lawyers? Is he a voting bloc? Does he have money? No? Fuck it then.
Now is the time for all good men to actively work behind the scenes to tear this “civilization” down.
My sociology class (yeah yuk it up. I had to take it) had a good point.
People are fast to claim their kids are their most precious resource, yet the punishment for molesting kids does not reflect that.
If your most precious resource (lets say water in the desert) was criminalized the only reasonable outcome would be death for the offender. Yet as you state, hacking will get you more time than raping a toddler.
LOL, saying you are black will not help get your crime solved. Didn’t work for all those black guys who are murdered by whites like martin, garner, and the long list. Even if they find and charge the killer, the all white jury will vote not guilty or refuse to indict.
Are you kidding me? The only reason anyone even knows the name “martin, garner” etc… is because they are Black. If they were any of the multitudes of White men killed by Blacks every day in America the establishment would have yawned and ignored it like they always do….but because they were Blacks killed by White men they got full scale international media coverage of their deaths, full blown martyr treatment and demands for “justice” that none of the much more numerous White men murdered by Blacks have ever received.
The “multitudes” of white men killed by blacks “everyday” actually get justice for their murders. The establishment (who are white men) does not ignore their murders because if the killer can be reasonably identified, he is charged with murder, put on trial and almost always convicted. In otherwords, the system works as it should if you are a white who is murdered. The killer goes to jail…. unless it is a white womanw ho claims you beat her.
The only reason the people know the names Martin or Garner is because justice was not given as it would have been had they were white. If one white man shot another white man in a public area and said the guy attacked him, he’d be charged with murder on the spot plain and simple. He’d basically have to prove his case in court. If a white cop, choked to death some white fat cat on wall street with his hands up, that cop be in prison for murder. White people can beat up cops and somehow not get shot. Black people have their hands up and get choked to death for resisting.
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=brampton%20girls%20beat%20up%20cop
“The “multitudes” of white men killed by blacks “everyday” actually get justice for their murders.”
Really you sure about that? There has never been a White man killed by a Black man who has not had his killer been apprehended and punished? Do you actually believe this?
“The establishment (who are white men)”
Really? The President and Attorney General. Two of the people most responsible for the legal system of America are both White men? It’s so interesting for me to actually see how strangely disconnected from reality you are.
You know it’s pointless speaking with you because you have this fantasy world in your head where White men like me are always the bad guys holding all the cards and non-Whites are perpetual powerless victims. No amount of reality will convince you otherwise.
The overwhelming majority of white men murdered by black men, get justice for it if the killer is known. If the killer is unknown how can there be justice regardless of race? And if they are unknown we can’t know they are black now can we?
When the killer is black and known, he almost always go to jail. Which is why you can’t name just 10 cases of blacks who are getting away with all these murders can you?
The congress is all white men, the police are almost all white.
You have no reality, just bullshit. Name all these blacks who kill whites and white cops don’t charge them.
Stupid feminist PC government!
You really believe these drama queens were “damaged” by photos? This is a perversion of obsolete notions of female chastity, the only effect was showing them as the damaged goods they are to potential husbands they would want to scam.
“The court heard Fredrickson also said that having anal sex with a woman
is like ‘you’ve stolen her soul’, and it was a significant ‘notch on the
belt’” ridiculous that courts of law are admitting evidence of thoughtcrime. Sounds like punishment was largely based on him being a cad, but he didn’t trick virgins by promising to marry them, these were whores!
It’s like in The book The Minority Report which was made Into a movie where they have psychics who can read the minds of people am they arrest them for thinking of commiting a crime. Scary thing is if that were to become a reality you wouldn’t just be arrested for thinking of commitng a crime it you would be arrested for thinking something politicaly incorrect or something The Left an SJWs deem is illegal to think.
chicago is launching a precrime type pilot program(no tinfoil, I read it in RollingStone).
That’s scary.
Every day that goes by I’m even more convinced that Western Civilisation has crossed the rubicon in it’s quest for destruction….
Embracing MGTOW is the only way to deny the monster the oxygen it needs to survive.
…and on a lighter and somewhat more putrid note about sending porn photos over the Web.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2954261/Fury-Baby-P-s-mother-sells-pornographic-pictures-online-sent-prison-just-18-months-released-early.html
Eh, considering the perp, I would say it’s a crime against manity. Are you sure the Daily Mail isn’t affiliated with ROK?
I could see a similar article, slightly tweaked, on this site, considering the subject 🙂
This isn’t surprising, especially in Australia which may be the most PC nanny state in the World right now.
In Britain, there is a more disturbing standard. Women who commit multiple violent crimes walk away free, whilst men who share nudes of their ex’s get jail time. Take these two cases for example.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722845/Estate-agent-21-glassed-stranger-night-spared-jail-despite-18th-conviction-assault.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-30035599
The discrepancy is unbelievable. I’m not really surprised. Over half a decade ago, me and a friend were waiting at a bus stop when he got into an altercation with a girl who proceeded to throw a broken brick at him. He grabbed her and punched her in the back to stop her from doing it again. No consequences for her, threats of arrest, imprisonment as well as continued harassment from the girls family and school I went too for several months.
Tread carefully men, tread very carefully.
No, it should be “treat forcefully like a deranged sociopath”. Chances are, had your friend beaten her to within an inch of her life, and then castrated her father and raped her dog, the faggot judge would have thrown him a parade and then all the little hens would have surrounded him day and night begging him for his seed.
If his friend had beaten her to within an inch of her life, they’d probably be married by now; women love a ‘strong’ man, lol.
LOL
in ths day n age you need to film the sex otherwise yu got a false accusation on your hands
True but they sent it too other people which was a mistake. A big over reaction though.
Women will get away with murder before long.
They already do in the states. They have legal defense called battered woman syndrome. Woman can claim she was under intense abuse from the male for prolonged period of time and just snapped under the pressure and attacked him in his sleep and killed him, and she can walk away with probation and psychological counseling. The man is dead and can’t testify for himself, and the jury is only going to hear the woman’s side of the story. This was later revised to battered “person” syndrome, meaning the male can now use it as legal defense also, but its not as effective legal defense for men with higher burden of proof, juries less likely to believe it. Courts are biased in favor of women as victims.
Wonder how long before they’ll get away with mass murder. That’s probably the next logical level.
Killing their children is already acceptable by the society.
I always, always ask this to feminists. I have yet, in these last two years for them to challenge me with this:
“If women have above forty different versions of birth control, not including abortion, adoption (where they can be paid big money) , abandonment laws without having to be prosecuted within thirty days of birth (literally any hospital, police station, fire dept, or orphanage/church) no questions asked; it is impossible for a man to get a woman pregnant against her will legally!”
“So, why can’t I walk away if I feel it is too big a financial risk?”
They usually have nothing to say.
What can they say?
If they do, I share with them how much money I have paid in child support, being forced into and out of court, and having to travel to even get meager visitation.
They literally call me an A-hole, misogynist, or bitter. The last is my favorite. The last one to call me bitter, said that after admitting that she does not even pay child support for her kid. One who claims that her ex does not let her see her kid. Yeah, how does a woman lose her kid in family law if she is not some extreme basket case, or leaves the kid and never looks back? I bet she still gets her tuition paid as a “single mom.”
She is older.
Apparently, cognitive dissonance never dies in a woman until her body does. Perhaps never?
Yeah, I was told to my face she’ll use the family court to rob me of my money… That’s how far we’ve got.
The comeback as to why men can’t have a “financial abortion” is twofold:
1) It’s your child, so take responsibility
2) You should have kept it in your pants.
The transformation of when a fetus goes from being “her body” to being “his kid” is rather mystical. In Canada it is only at the moment of birth: there are no laws governing abortion.
As for the pants argument, it only works one way.
Remarkably, with abortion, either choice will be deemed to be the responsible choice for a female, but a man who doesn’t want to be a father – doesn’t want any parental “rights” – is deemed irresponsible.
http://www.numberofabortions.com/
(1916) Agnes McHugh – Chicago Attorney
A man jury will not convict a woman murderer in this county, if the prosecutor is a man. I think this leniency may be traced to the chivalry latent in every man. The jurors see two or three big strong men sitting at the prosecutors’ table, and subconsciously feel that these fierce prosecutors are attacking the frail, pretty woman in the prisoner’s chair. Their instinct is to defend her.
…
(1921) Alice Robertson – U.S. House of Representatives, Oklahoma
Women who murder, get off too easy. They’re not judged according to the same standards as men who murder, but you don’t hear the suffragists demanding equal rights for the men, do you? No, the suffragists want equal rights for women with special privileges.
(1927) Fannie Hurst – Writer
“Married women have become parasites and consumers instead of producers, taking no share in their husbands’ burdens, and are worse chattels than their grandmothers,” Miss Hurst said. “The vast army of women seeking divorce are mainly after easy alimony from men they have ceased to love – surely one of the most despicable forms of barter that can exchange human hands.”
http://www.sciencevsfeminism.com/myth-of-oppression/a-womans-voice-selected-quotes/
This is my thought. The defense psychiatrist for the Jody Arias case comes to mind. This is what the defense will try to raise if your “beloved” goes bi-polar again, killing you while you sleep.
With that said, there are droves, upon droves of women literally saturating every segment of the US court systems. On every level. Especially family law.
Also, they have the leverage on every single politician from your local stooge, to the power brokers in DC. Their hold is cracking. But we have a long way to go. 2014 was a great start.
We need to get ahead of the males, and promote non-marriage until family law is rectified. Truly rectified! Into something more sane.
Then, if someone wants to marry, it is because the women know there is no free lunch. And they must accept that there will be no financial windfall, nor free housing coming their way if they trap a man, or try to frivorce rape him.
– The defense psychiatrist for the Jody Arias case comes to mind. This is what the defense will try to raise if your “beloved” goes bi-polar again, killing you while you sleep. –
That defense psychiatrist is a one dumb inefficient cunt, I would have simply argued that the chump who was murdered had nearly driven the poor oppressed murderous cunt into suicide by his misogynistic words & patriarchal attitudes and thus in the act of righteous self-defense the cunt rightfully killed him. Problem solved! I rest my defense.
When a man murders a woman, they wonder, “What did she do to DESERVE that?”
When a woman murders a man they ask, “What did HE DO to deserve that?”
In other words, women don’t deserve to be murdered but men do.
Not all the time. There have been some great guys murdered by psycho women and most people have seen it for what it is…we shouldn’t fall into the trap that loony feminists do and selectively warp reality to our own preconceived worldview.
I am making a generalization. However, google “feminists defend Eileen Wuornos” and see what you come up with.
They pretty much do, whenever there is a murder case that involves a man and a woman, the prosecutor gives the woman the deal to testify against the man, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Paul Bernardo is the perfect example. Karla Holmolka did all the raping and killing and torturing and he is in jail and she is scot free on the carribean
Mary Winkler shot her husband to death. She even had an interview on Oprah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR8nqa2f0bA Go to 2:25
Women rate men as “dates” on the internet on some app called Lulu. Apparently this is legal, and women can disclose anything about their male dates in or out of bed as long as the women only use the man’s pics that are already available on facebook. They can judge you on the size of your dick (alpha fux), how much you spent on restaurant (beta bux) etc. The current day feminist is a sex positive whore who seeks to blame all her unhappiness in life on men, it has nothing to do with equal rights.
This applies to many things. A few years back there was a British actor (don’t know who – don’t get that channel) that was charged with possession of child pornography. His defense was that he himself was sexually abused as a child, and the reason he had been looking at child pornography was because he was researching it along with molestation etc. He was not let off for this excuse.
Now, you may agree or disagree with the actor’s conviction, but when put into the context that men are visual while women are verbal, the amount of literature dedicated to sex crimes is astounding – and far, far exceeds the amount of actual sex abuse cases which actually occurs – even by the faked inflated numbers, which means that people (mostly women) are buying this literature and reading it for a thrill or for entertainment – not because they are researching their own personal situations.
So, why should women be able to get off on reading the torrid details of another’s sexual abuse? In the context of male and female sexuality, reading about sexual abuse stories for a thrill is just as sick and perverted as looking at child porn.
And, btw, the excuse that no child is harmed by mere anonymous stories is pure bunk in the light that Japanese manga-cartoons have been subject to classification as child porn, as well as when they use those age enhancing programs in reverse (ie. how they show the kid on the milk carton 10 years after his disappearance via computer enhancement). Ie. Even if an adult pornographer fully consents to have nude pics taken of them and then placed in the reverse-enhancement to “young them up” it is still called child porn, and treated as such (because it promotes child porn). Well, in that case, the National Enquirer selling torrid stories about XYZ celebrity’s sexual abuse as a child is just as bad (or worse because there isn’t explicit consent).
It wasn’t an actor, it was Pete Townsend of the Who. His story sounds like bullshit tho
Here are the origins of feminism. “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population”-Margaret Sanger(feminazi, founder of planned parenthood)
“What will we and our daughters suffer if these degraded black men are allowed to have the rights that would make them even worse than our Saxon fathers?Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1815-1902 (Social activist, abolitionist, author of the Womans Bible)
“White supremacy will be strengthened, not weakened, by women’s suffrage.” – Carrie Chapman Catt, 1859-1947 (Founder of the League of Women Voters)
“I have an opportunity to present in a planned parenthood meeting…it was a great privilage when I was told that I was recieving this award I admire Margaret Sanger, enormosly. Her courage, her tenacity, her vision.” -Hillary Clinton (feminazi, congresswoman)
Not to mention they were all members of the WKKK. Feminism has never been about so called equality which is a myth.
Australia has one of the biggest white knighting cultures an social systems in the world.
India, Sweden and various others have Australia beat by a mile. Just look up only women buses, trains and parking spots at malls. Almost every single place on Earth has become infected by this gynocentric virus.
Yea there’s worse than Australia but Australia is one of the worst I think.
Sweden is probably the worst PC feminist place… officially.
But you only need to watch/read the media in Australia for a few days to realize its unspoken social agenda is pure PC feminism.
Sweeden sounds far worse from all the things I’ve read but if you compiled a list of the most feminist blue pill countries Australia would be in the top echelon.
Yep. MGTOW is looking at real-estate in Antarctica more and more… and with global warming turning it all into a beach-front paradise, it might be a good move.
Hell, with all the things men have invented over the millenia, I’ll bet in a decade or two, Antarctica could become the premier world power with the highest standard of living.
No need to worry about reproduction… the rest of the world will supply us with male “immigrants” and eventually, after we close the borders due to mass civilization collapse, we can pick and choose the female 10’s of the world to come and be breeders for us. Maybe we’ll allow in some 8’s and 9’s as cooks, maids, wet nurses and other various worker-wimminz.
Mwuh hah hah!
I suggest we rename it “Patriarchy Island.”
If red-pill men of the world formed their own nation, we would be a superpower within a decade…I can only imagine the white knights and women trying to launch missiles and operate drones; they can barely launch their fat asses off the couch, and have trouble driving cars in broad daylight.
Yet if the cultural engineering keeps clipping along at this manic pace, the red-blooded men of the world will eventually band together and once again re-assemble a society destroyed by idiots and their communist mischief
Well DUH, Australia originally started as a prison colony.
That has no bearing on Australia now it was so long ago. More than half the population are migrants or children of migrants with no connection to the first fleet.
Even then, the migrants and their children naively accept how white knighting and sexual thirsts are de facto Aussie ‘traditions’, much to the embarrassment of the Anglosphere.
That’s true I’m not defending Australia because I hate being a in a blue pill haven but originally being a convict coloney has nothing to do with white knighting getting outta hand here.
Actually, it does. White knights think they can use goodwill as “advance payment” for access to sex; given Australia’s past as a prison colony, it makes sense in context if it became a sausage party afterwards.
I think your drawing a long bow there Australia didn’t use to be a nation of white knights it started when progressive politics started taking over. Many countries that weren’t prison coloneys have a white knighting culture aswell.
In practice, a “western progressive” political agenda ends up being gynocentric.
If you want to talk about “white knighting cultures”, then England is the best start.
That’s right but when England colonized Australia they weren’t a ‘progressive’ gynocentric culture, that came later.
In the Anglo context, anything gynocentric guarantees hints and reeks of Victorian misandry.
“..started as a prison colony”
….which should be an Alpha breeding ground. Unless Britain only sent her sissiest criminals there; the peeping toms and petty thieves and communists. They all sat around braiding their hair, painting their nails, gossiping, and waiting for strong empowered wimmins to come along and show them how to build a civilization
I don’t give a shit what the “law” states. The law is set up to put me in prison.
-I WILL record all activities in my private home. That includes my bedroom.
-I WILL voice record conversations I have with sketchy women at work.
-And I WILL use these items as evidence if any woman tries to charge me with rape, harassment or any of the other go to accusations where I am guilty until I PROVE I am innocent.
To tell me not to do these things in this day and age is to tell me to pray to god I don’t get mixed up with some hateful female. Not to bash religious folks, but praying doesn’t amount to much.
If justice was truly blind and fair, things like this would only be seen in a textbook as an example of the law done wrong.
Just put up one of those signs on your house stating that the property is under camera surveilance for security purposes… Put it right at the end of the driveway or next to the front door. Then nothing can be said about you possessing video footage of every event that occurs in every corner of your house 24/7. Consent is a moot point after publicly announcing it with a sign. My apartment complex, for example, has signs stating that the lobby, elevator and hallways are all under video surveilance. If you get naked in the hallway here, you will be video taped and you will have no legal recourse.
That law he broke has a maximum sentence of THREE years prison. Can you believe someone getting three years for a crime of this nature, Australia is white knight as hell and its nanny state laws which continue to see men in their worst potential light until proven otherwise and women as untouched angels will continue to claim the freedom and livlihoods of more men in the future.
My advice: Leave. Find a less feminised, less expensive and less culturally destroyed country than Australia. The feminist brainwashing dished out there is some of the worst I have ever seen.
Little wonder why I moved away with no intention to return.
As did I.
Asia is the place to be. Leave those tramp stamp, muffin topped princesses to the betas, and just leave.
I’m Australian I just got a job doing SEO unfortunately I’m stuck in Perth. What the fuck am I supposed to do?
Filming without knowledge is merely self defence in the event of a false accusation. I don’t think it’s morally wrong. Sharing it on the other hand not so justifiable
This comment doesn’t pertain specifically to this article, but I need to get this off my chest. I’m prepared to be attacked for this, but I have to say that some of the articles and comments on this website are really
upsetting.
I don’t understand what exactly it is you guys want… do you
feel that women have it better so you want the genders to be equal, or do you
want men to have it better than women? From what I’ve read, it seems like the
latter.
I’m all for not being politically correct and acknowledging the
truth. To be honest I do think that men are better than women at most things.
And when it comes to double standards, and just in general, men do have a
harder time. And, women are indeed placed on a pedestal in some ways. But does
that mean you have to promote things like fat shaming and slut shaming?
Upholding double standards for women isn’t going to make double standards for men go away.
The hypocrisy in some of the RoK articles is just astounding.
You claim that all these feminists are hypocrites (which many are), however how
can you do that when you’re being a hypocrite yourself? You complain about
things like the “suppression of male sexuality” but then you go complain about
how much you hate slutty women. Women like sex too, why should they have to
suppress their desires for you? When I dated guys I didn’t think of them as
losers if they were a virgin, of course it’s nice to have someone with
experience but I’m not going to think of him like “trash” if he doesn’t.
There are many girls who do judge guys if they are a virgin,
or only want a rich man, but honestly I think those girls are assholes. You
guys think so too, right? So then why is it okay for YOU to judge girls for
things like their sexuality? Why can’t we just judge people by their character
or whether they are a nice person?
I feel like most of the people on here just had unusually
bad experiences with women… or maybe you just like having something to be angry
about? As a young woman, I was so so glad when I found out that the majority of
men on here are older. Thank god most young guys don’t think this way. I’d be
running for the hills if some guy like that wanted to date me.
Unfortunately, that also means that you guys are more set in
your ways and will probably just get angry at this comment. But I’m honestly just curious why you think women are so terrible, but then you say such mean,
downright nasty things about single moms, ugly girls, fat girls, etcetera, who
might be perfectly nice people.
If young males don’t think this way maybe its because they’ve been raised by single moms who talked down their father in his absence, they were educated by 90% female teachers, they are trying to find work interviewing with female HR managers who eliminate them with meaningless questions like what’s your favorite color and why. Maybe they are compliant beta males who haven’t ingested the red pill yet, who just think that’s the way the world is.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. By “this way” I was referring to the men who are hypocrites who complain about women, but at the same time promote double standards against women.
Let me just clarify, that this comment is not in response to this article specifically. There are articles on this site that I agree with, including this one, and I think it’s terrible how easy it is for a man to be sent to jail compared to a woman, or how their lives can easily be ruined by being sent to jail for things like false rape accusations, etc.
Baby, all you need to get off your chest is your shirt!
Pics or stfu.
Sorry to break it to you Jeb but “pics or gtfo” comments don’t scare me, man, at least you could have been more original.
-But does that mean you have to promote things like fat shaming and slut shaming?-
Fat men got fat-shamed too. And society, men & women but women mostly, not only shame but also criminalize sluts who take money (read: prostitutes).
-Upholding double standards for women isn’t going to make double standards for men go away.-
And throwing a murderer in prison won’t resurrect his/her victim from death just like banning Nazism won’t resurrect the Holocaust victims.
-You complain about things like the “suppression of male sexuality” but then you go complain about how much you hate slutty women. Women like sex too, why should they have to suppress their desires for you?-
Not me, I have nothing against slutty women especially the ones who are willing to take money in exchange for their monetary-motivated promiscuity (read: prostitutes). But guess what, I must suppress my desire because of the ongoing oppression, courtesy of feminism and religions against the Johns of the world.
-When I dated guys I didn’t think of them as losers if they were a virgin, of course it’s nice to have someone with experience but I’m not going to think of him like “trash” if he doesn’t.-
I personally won’t give a rat’s ass if you think those guys as losers or thrash or whatever so perhaps you should not give a rat’s ass too when guys do the same.
-Why can’t we just judge people by their character or whether they are a nice person?-
Unless you’re a mind reader then you can’t know for a fact whether this or that person is truly a nice person deep down inside. Most of the times most people just act as if they are nice persons until they get what their want then all pretense will be dropped faster than you can say “Omaima Nelson killed, castrated, mutilated and partially ate her husband in the year of our Lord 1991 and didn’t even get death penalty”.
-I feel like most of the people on here just had unusually bad experiences with women … or maybe you just like having something to be angry-
It’s the former.
-As a young woman, I was so so glad when I found out that the majority of men on here are older.-
You might be young but if you’re a fatty then trust me, even the older guys here or even the top old geezer here will want nothing to do with you except perhaps using you as a floating device in the event of another Titanic.
-But I’m honestly just curious why you think women are so terrible, but then you say such mean, downright nasty things about single moms, ugly girls, fat girls, etcetera, who might be perfectly nice people.-
Does the guys here say those things to the faces of single moms, ugly girls, fat girls, faggots, etc? Of course not, those guys only say those things here, why would you even care about what some guys are saying at a website dedicated for male audience? Are you some kind of female version of ISIS who want to ban free-speech? Mashallah!
I appreciate the well-thought out response. But I have to disagree with your analogy, “And throwing a murderer in prison won’t resurrect his/her victim from
death just like banning Nazism won’t resurrect the Holocaust victims.” So what you’re saying is, upholding double standards against women is mens’ way of enforcing justice in order to make things more balanced. Well, there’s one problem with your analogy. I’m assuming women correspond to “murderers,” so you’re also saying that ALL women want to promote double standards against men, which I don’t think is true. Double standards hurt everyone, including the people who are against double standards. If what you’re saying is right, then black people should start being racist to white people in order to feel better about racism against black people. Yeah, that’ll make things better. And yes I’m aware of the target audience for this site and that my comment is probably pointless, but it’s hard for me not to speak out against something if I think it’s bad. Although you may not say such mean things to women’s faces, I still think it’s wrong. And duh you can’t know if a person is nice or not… all I’m saying is that you shouldn’t look down upon someone unless you DO know.
-So what you’re saying is, upholding double standards against women is mens’ way of enforcing justice in order to make things more balanced.-
Correct.
-Double standards hurt everyone, including the people who are against double standards.-
Our target is to hurt the ones who initiated the double-standard. Sorry for the collateral damage due to our carpet-bombing, may God have mercy on your souls, inshallah.
-If what you’re saying is right, then black people should start being racist to white people in order to feel better about racism against black people.-
If that’s what they think is in their best interest, why not? Just make sure your life-saver lock & load.
-Yeah, that’ll make things better.-
Trust me, it will.
-Although you may not say such mean things to women’s faces, I still think it’s wrong.-
Why you think it’s wrong? Because you only like free-speech when the content of the speech is your liking?
-all I’m saying is that you shouldn’t look down upon someone unless you DO know.-
What exactly YOUR notion of “look down upon”?
A friend of mine who is 6’4″ absolutely refused to date short women precisely because he does not want to “look down upon” them when talking. I never really thought about it but now that you brought up the subject, I’m getting the epiphany that things between genders will be better if men absolutely refused to date/marry women who are so much as 1″ shorter than them lest those misogynistic men will “look down upon” those poor women.
Well that’s pretty silly if you think that it makes things better. It only makes them resent each other more.
“Why you think it’s wrong? Because you only like free-speech when the content of the speech is your liking?”
lol
wtf, why do you keep going on about how I’m against free speech. I
guess all the guys who write articles against feminists are against free
speech too. If someone is being a douchebag by saying racist or sexist
things, I’m going to speak up about it. Even if it doesn’t affect my life directly, I care about the people whose lives it does affect.
I realize the meaning of “look down upon” is quite vague… Well I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having preferences… If guys prefer virgins, skinny girls, pretty faces, that’s perfectly fine… but seriously, have you seen the internet? The way guys talk about women with undesirable characteristics, it’s just mean and there are young girls who can be hurt by that. I mean it’s not like it’s causing suicide left and right, but some guys do it openly to girls, calling them names like “sluts” and that can really hurt their self-esteem. Women say nasty things about men too of course. Anyways that’s not even the point of my original comment, the main point is that some men on this website are such hypocrites.
– Well that’s pretty silly if you think that it makes things better. It only makes them resent each other more.-
The way you resent some hypocritical men on this websites?
-I guess all the guys who write articles against feminists are against free speech too.-
Only if those guys seek to inhibit/discourage feminists from espousing their views but generally the guys here don’t go to feminist websites to speak-up no matter how they think those cunts being cunts.
-If someone is being a douchebag by saying racist or sexist things, I’m going to speak up about it. Even if it doesn’t affect my life directly, I care about the people whose lives it does affect.-
Would you care about the lives of short men or loser men who can not seem to bed tall hot girls?
-The way guys talk about women with undesirable characteristics, it’s just mean and there are young girls who can be hurt by that.-
That is exactly why free speech is so precious, if we are only allowed to talk about things which no one will find offensive then the concept of free speech won’t even exist.
-Women say nasty things about men too of course. Anyways that’s not even the point of my original comment, the main point is that some men on this website are such hypocrites.-
Well I’m no hypocrite so I guess I should not be conversing with you any further. BTW, good luck on finding your hypocrite dream guy on this site.
“if we are only allowed to talk about things which no one will find offensive then the concept of free speech won’t even exist.”
I never said we should restrict freedom of speech… that’s why I’m using my freedom of speech to speak against things I find offensive… isn’t that just a natural thing to do?
“Would you care about the lives of short men or loser men who can not seem to bed tall hot girls?”
If I saw a woman making fun of short men, I would tell her she’s a bitch.
well it was nice talking to ya…. but what in the world, I’m not looking for a guy on this site… -_____-
-I never said we should restrict freedom of speech… that’s why I’m using my freedom of speech to speak against things I find offensive…
And the things which you find offensive are men’s opinions on women……which is to say that a purportedly free speech supporter got offended by people who are exercising their free speech.
-isn’t that just a natural thing to do?-
The concept of free speech is not natural, it is a sacred invention.
-If I saw a woman making fun of short men, I would tell her she’s a bitch.-
Thanks for the noble intention. I’m 6’1″ but if I were a short guy then I would much more appreciate if you told her to let me fuck her, instead of the meaningless “you’re a bitch” which she would simply laugh off anyway.
– I’m not looking for a guy on this site…-
If you’re looking for a girl then you’ve come to the wrong site, try Jezebel.
Well how about you just shut the fuck up and get the fuck out of here?
“You claim that all these feminists are hypocrites (which many are), however how
can you do that when you’re being a hypocrite yourself?”
That is a logical debating fallacy — or rather, an intellectually dishonest debating tactic — known as ‘tu quoque’, or “You too” in other words. It is an attempt to displace someone’s argument by saying ‘but you do that too’, and therefore the argument is not valid.
“When I dated guys I didn’t think of them as losers if they were a virgin, of course it’s nice to have someone with experience but I’m not going to think of him like “trash” if he doesn’t.”
Actions and results matter much more than intentions. You’ll learn this as you grow older. I doubt very much that the virgins among your (several) sexual partners lasted long as your boyfriends.
I might note you have explicitly expressed a preference for someone with “experience”, i.e. someone who’s had several sexual partners, over someone who has not. That you say you didn’t think of them as ‘trash’ if they were virgins is rather like the common bullshit comment that women think a guy is ‘nice’ but not ongoing boyfriend material – as demonstrated by the fact you refer to them as past and not current long term partners.
Your compliment (or, really, non-insult), as with saying someone is a “nice guy”, is meaningless because your comments are not congruent with your actions. You don’t keep the virgins, and you go for men with “experience”. At the end of the day, your actions demonstrate you regard virgins as trash because, by your actions, you’ve disposed of them — rather like rubbish. This is not honest or congruent behaviour since women — like yourself — gravitate towards the guys who’ve had several previous sexual partners, ignore the men who do not, and then moan when said guys treat them badly and ask where all the good men have gone.
“as demonstrated by the fact
you refer to them as past and not current long term partners”
Did I say I have a current partner? Cause I don’t. Did I say how long the relationships lasted? No… why are you making all these assumptions? My first was a virgin and he dumped me after half a year… my second was experienced and I dumped him after a year because he turned into an asshole… the length of our relationships had nothing to do with sex, I didn’t even want to have sex because I wanted to wait until marriage… of course since I’ve only had two partners I can’t prove anything, but my partner’s personality is WAY more important than his sexual experience, and breaking up with someone over that is pretty ridiculous imo. I don’t “gravitate” towards anyone, experience is just a bonus. Sexual experience is at the bottom of the list of things I look at when choosing a mate.
And yet you say it’s nice to have someone experienced, with the benefit of precisely one partner who was and one partner who wasn’t. On your unverifiable assertion, of course; we have no idea whether you’re telling the truth about your age, your number of partners, or who ended the relationship in each case. All we have to go on is your stated preference for men who’ve slept with other women.
“of course since I’ve only had two partners I can’t prove anything, but my partner’s personality is WAY more important than his sexual experience, and breaking up with someone over that is pretty ridiculous imo.”
I didn’t say breaking up with someone over that. Stop changing the subject. We were discussing selection of partners. And you’ve expressed a preference for a partner with prior sexual experience, notwithstanding the only experience you’ve had with them is one guy who apparently was an asshole towards you (and without any delineation of his “asshole” behaviour, I might add). You are basically validating this website’s views about what women actually want versus what they say they want. As said: actions speak much, much louder than words.
I could give you a “delineation” of his asshole behavior by telling you how he called me names while drunk when it was completely unwarranted, and how he and almost got us into a car accident by driving while drunk, but that would be pointless since that would be an “unverifiable assertion,” wouldn’t it? If you’re going to assume things about my experience then I’m going to tell you about my experience, no shit I could be lying but there’s nothing else I can do.
I did not change the subject, YOU assumed that the length of my relationships had something to do with my partners’ sexual experience. But okay, we can discuss selection of partners. Sexual experience is not, and has never been, a deal-breaking factor of mate selection for me. If he’s not experienced then big fucking deal, I’ll teach him how to please me.
“I could give you a “delineation” of his asshole behavior by telling you how he called me names while drunk when it was completely unwarranted, and how he and almost got us into a car accident by driving while drunk, but that would be pointless since that would be an “unverifiable assertion,” wouldn’t it?”
Correct. That’s why every woman who comes spouting in here about their personal experiences really has very little to actually say, because women lie – continually – to make themselves seem better or more virginal than they actually are.
” If you’re going to assume things about my experience then I’m going to tell you about my experience, no shit I could be lying but there’s nothing else I can do.”
You could, of course, concede the fact you have very little experience in relationships, as is apparent from your disclosed two-cock history. You could maybe stop making assumptions about the older and more well-travelled men on this website, as you did with this remark:
“I feel like most of the people on here just had unusually
bad experiences with women… or maybe you just like having something to be angry about? As a young woman, I was so so glad when I found out that the majority of men on here are older. Thank god most young guys don’t think this way.”
You could, in short, try listening to your elders and betters rather than spitting brain farts of assumption about their experiences or the solid base of female behaviour they have witnessed which forms the basis for their views. As phrased the above is shaming behaviour by you, which is amusing given your breast-beating about slut shaming earlier on. Who’s the hypocrite now?
If this is all true, and you are good looking, you need to callme. Now.
It’s not a surprise men are jailed for anything under the sun. Yet, women get away with everything. Take the men away from the women has always been apart of communist agenda. Putting women back into the hands of the man that they truly wanted all along…the state. In the book the “Naked Communist” it declares 45 goals to take over America. Every great civilization has been destroyed by women and simps of the state.
The communist ideology is about class warfare, not war between the sexes, races etc. That is the opposite of ‘communism’. Communism is about fighting the royalty, the capitalists and the church.
They have turned men and women into warring classes by casting men as the royalty, capitalists, and churches.
Take any feminist polemic and replace men with capital, and women with the proletariat, and you will see that there is no difference between what they say and what the communists said. Feminism is just communism in panties.
Shit, history’s a bitch !
As an individual “close” to the case, may I add my piece.
Firstly, Fredrickson is an avid, daily reader of the ROK website and he only wore the “white ribbon” enamel pin on his (Zegna) suit waaaay back in November 2013 to enrage the SJW mob – full well knowing the feminazi brigade would be baying for his blood. He personally does not give a flying f*ck what SJWs, thirsty blue-pill orbiters and the confected “outrage crowd” think about what he did and he has taken full responsibility for his actions. After the ordeal he has been through, his mental resolve is admirable and I’ve never heard him cry like a little bitch about the shit-storm that has enveloped his life for the past few years (he has had the odd bad day but nothing too serious). Since this shit storm first occurred in 2010, he has lost his career (had to walk away from three, high paying six figure jobs due to pressure from SJWs, top military brass intervention and over-the-top mainstream media pressure), he has lost all his high level security clearances, been blacklisted (Michael Weston style) by the “agencies” he worked with as a civilian – post SF life. He has been kicked out of the charities he volunteered with and he then wound up doing odd domestic labour jobs “Johnny Rambo” style until he could get back on his feet. Despite all this SJW BS, Fredrickson started up an online business that didn’t require his “unique” name to be associated with it. Accordingly he advises me that now life couldn’t be better. He gets to see more of his kids, manages a 60 hour work week (online business and study) around their schedules and essentially gets on with his life and avoids the “chatter” in the mainstream media. The last legal matter is just another hoop to jump through in order to move on with his life.
Once the court process is finalised (hopefully by March 2015 – pending the outcome of the ICO), Fredrickson will be submitting an article to Roosh V / ROK panel for the readers to enjoy. He is also intending to give a “tell all” TV media interview (with ALL proceeds going to a soldiers charity) that will significantly embarrass the top brass in the Australian Army and call out their SJW hypocritical, arse-covering stance surrounding this overblown fiasco.
The facts:
1. Fredrickson was “dobbed in” by a SJW IT technician at his old work in 2010. Fredrickson had always deleted his emails once sent (his background is enterprise IT), however, word got around that he was a bit of a “player” and the knives were out. He actually walked away with a small severance package on condition that he kept his mouth shut as to not embarrass the nature of his dismissal. There were grounds for taking it to a tribunal, however, Fredrickson walked with five figures deposited into his account.
2. Fredrickson has never denied the charges but what was funny was that he actually had consensual naked photos of the woman in question (which the Police (and the woman) acknowledged were FAR more revealing and graphic than the blurred/hazy video stills that he emailed to a select group (12 males that NEVER met or knew the woman). The woman and Fredrickson got a bit drunk and he set up the camera that was quite a way away and that without Fredrickson implicitly stating in his correspondence that it was “that women”, no one (including the woman) would be any the wiser. Seriously, I’ve seen the video footage and stills – you’d see more T&A on a “Girls Gone Wild” DVD. The woman in question – well, you’d be hard pressed to identify her as the footage was caught at night time in a dimly lit room. Saying all that though, Fredrickson has no hesitation with receiving a kick in the arse and knows full well that what he did was a c*nt act and that he crossed the line. That was never in dispute. The bizarre fact is the SJW pillorying and the Australian Armys (mis)handling of the case.
3. So why did he do it? Well anyone that has served in the military/emergency/protective services etc will attest to parts of the year that are completely bat-shit boring – even in a war-zone. There is downtime and when soldiers are bored they love nothing better than to jaw off, shoot-the-shit, crap on about bullshit in general. Topics range from annoying wives/GFs, new cars, boy toys bought with warzone allowances, sex with new girlfriends – no topic is off limits – as long as it passes the time and gets a laugh. Fredrickson had returned from Afghanistan in 2009 after capping off a 20 year career and was now busy in a civilian IT/defence contractor job. What started out as the odd email to old peers about his general travels around the country soon (with MASSIVE amounts of encouragement from the boys), escalated into graphic stories of madness and debauchery. I can attest to the fact that his stories were passed around the Special Forces Regiment and laughed about for many an hour. We enjoyed reading about his civilian tales of “high adventure” sitting in our vehicles whilst we were ferried to/from combat locations in the Chora Valley (Afghanistan). The intent was PURELY to raise morale for the lads and nothing more. Of course like all things, it can be taken to extremes.
After each iteration, the feedback from the troops required even more craziness and wanton abandon for manners and graces. Besides, the “annals” were NEVER designed to be read out at a Sunday School Christian fellowship to a bunch of effeminate, limp wristed pencil necks , but more targeted for a bunch of hard piping, Special Forces killers in their late 20’s early 30’s i.e. an ALL MALE environment.
Also, the tone and inflection of the stories was pitched in a black comedy way i.e. hyperbole, over the top and of course misogynistic as f*ck. Think Hunter S Thompson train-smashed with American Psycho.
Now remember the charges were “Use a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence”. I can tell you that NONE of the 12 male recipients were offended (that’s as far as the email went), however, the law is based on an objective test aka ” a reasonable person”. Seriously, reasonable people are not Special Forces soldiers. We always say stuff to offend each other as a form of brotherly love and NOTHING is off limits. Compared to the grisly shit we see during war, Fredricksons over-the-top style was a welcome relief to the drudgery of combat.
Should he have filmed the woman without her consent – DEFINITELY NOT, but he was not charged with filming her (it is not an illegal act in the Australian state that it occurred) . He was charged with WRITING about it. Of course this is overlooked by the mainstream media and click-bait feminist blogs. In fact it took two years for the NSW Police to bring charges over what was three emails (two subsequent emails had the original email attached to it). The delay was mainly caused by the Australian Armys top brass attempting to cover it up. An ADF formal investigation cleared Fredrickson and the others as no military offence had been committed. Once the case file was (allegedly) leaked to the mainstream media, then Army panicked and sacked six men over it despite being given the all clear by the military cops. The email was sent in Jul 2010, charges were laid in November 2013. Three years delay over three emails – what a f*cking joke.
Now of course let’s not condone what Fredrickson has done. He crossed the line and fully admits that he deserves what he gets (from a legal perspective at least), however, the way the Australian Army knee jerked (more like circle jerked) and the associated media outrage was typical of today’s sad culture.
As for the Chief of the Army – General David Morrison. For those not familiar, he got up in June 2013 to give his big feminist speech to the world and he has wrapped himself up in the feminist flag to score cheap political points. Despite what he bleats to the mainstream media – he is NOT out to change the Australian Armys culture towards women but to simply line up a cushy position post Army life when he retires in June 2015. He carried on with a whole lot of sabre rattling and he was throwing around words like confetti – yet no one was listening – least of all the soldiers. The only reason that General Morrison “broke” the news of the Jedi Council scandal was because the police had leaked the entire case file to Channel 7 News (Australian News outlet) to speed up the investigation (it had halted with Army for nearly five months)> General Morrison has backed into a corner so had no choice but to braek the scandal – but on his terms (or so he thought).
One of my former bosses was at a formal mess dinner with the Generals and he said that General Morrison is horrendously disliked – even by the Governor General (Sir Peter Cosgrove – former Chief of the Defence Force). General David Morrsion simply wants to get on the UN council by kowtowing and kneeling at the feet of vested interests aka the feminNazis. So far he’s positioning himself well, but the soldiers are not fooled.
Oh, what about the rest of the alleged members of the Jedi Council? – well I know that they weren’t exactly innocent parties in this whole thing, however, they just weren’t caught. Of course I heard that Fredrickson could have cut an immunity deal with the Police that would have whaled the remaining members of the Jedi Council and allowed Fredrickson to walk free, however, he has kept his mouth shut and weathered the storm. Let’s just say that there is more footage out there of different women (not filmed by Fredrickson).
So what are the lessons here? Maybe its MGTOW or rent a prostitute or maybe avoid Australia. The SJWs and femiNazis down under are oxygen thieves.
Oh and get yourself a brick mobile phone without a camera……
Thanks for passing on the inside info. Quite a different tale from the mainstream version.
Judging by any rational standard, this witch hunt punishment is completely out of proportion to the crime… unfortunately, that’s par for the course in these dark days. While he made a mistake here major props for owning up to it and taking the high road instead of others in his crew down with him.
Glad to see he’s landed on his feet. I look forward to reading his forthcoming piece.
“Bang/Don’t Bang Australia might be a little risky…”
I think we’ve established there’s nothing worth hitting on in Australia, never mind banging…… If Orlando Bloom can’t hold down an Aussie, no one can…
unless perhaps you’re into Kangaroos or Kolas……
Most Australian women honestly believe they deserve better than Orlando Bloom.
oh god this
The only thing that needs to be hit in Australia is the out-of-control feminazis. And by hit, I mean slapped back to reality
‘Seriously, this is twenty-first, like, century,you treat me as a damn equal.’
‘Apart from paying for dinner OBVIOUSLY. And hitting me back, that’ll get your arse arrested’.
There’s some kind of common factor here, but I just can’t quite work out what it is…
In the UK, if a non-white commits a violent crime, he frequently gets a slap on the wrist and do no jail at all. Meanwhile, white people go in prison for “racist” insults on the internet.
“I have no problem with, and fully support, Fredrickson being convicted for filming his sexual encounter with the woman surreptitiously and then distributing it.”
Distributing is a problem but secretly recording isnt a bad thing imo. What if the woman cried false rape? Fredrickson could use the tape to his advantage…
Consult with an attorney. You are allowed to use security camera to take pics of people at your door without their consent. You’re probably allowed to take R rated pics of people inside your home without consent. The legal issue is something about “reasonable” expectation of privacy. When nudity is involved a judge will usually say that a person has reasonable expectation, and consent is required. So how do you prove consent? The courts seem to have bias for women as victims, so make it obvious by your pics that she’s aware she’s being photographed.
I’m a bit disgusted we even have to spend so much language on saying, “this lesser crime was still definitely a crime.” I understand why it’s there, but our society should have the common sense to know that’s a crime instead of dogpiling anyone who forgets to write the proper language for a crime with a female victim.
Australia is the most feminist, mangina-populated, blue-pill country on the planet.
It is full to the brim with bitchy, entitled women.
Any man who considers going there for work or vacation, rather than asia, should reconsider his options.
Meanwhile, the US Armed Forces look the other way as black “soldiers” continue a decades long rape spree in Okinawa.
This trolling. The US has a naval base there as long as the Japanese government wants it there. Other US bases in Japan have been closed. Are you just as outraged when Japanese women are raped by Japanese men?
An update from close sources.
Both the prosecution (DPP) and the Defence legal counsel agreed that the judge handed down too severe a sentence and that there are strong grounds for appeal. Unfortunately, Fredrickson has already spent $150K (AUD) to get to this point, so the next stage would be the NSW Supreme Court where he has been advised that it will cost at least $100K to see it through (silks (senior counsel) would be on the case). He has decided he couldn’t be stuffed as this will only drag it on in the media and it wont be finished until early 2016. Then he would start his sentence and/or parole from then. He’d rather get it over with and get on with his life.
Oh yeah, the word on the street is that the judge who heard the case is apparently good friends with the Governor of NSW (the state the case is being heard) and that they both attend the same church on Sundays. Now who is the Governor of NSW you ask? – Well none other than the former Chief of the Defence Force – General David Hurley who oversaw the Jedi Council affair……….
Someone is pulling the strings here…….
Stop the press. I sat in on one of the proceedings and posed as a journalist.
The woman that got up and read her Victim Impact Statement (not the woman filmed) that was merely mentioned by first name only – has actually accused other men in her home town of Newcastle and Port Macquarie, NSW Australia of sexual assault – WTF!!!??? In the leaked documents that were handed to the DPP for submission, Fredrickson advised that the only reason he trashed the woman in question (in a private email (two lines mind you) to a friend in 2010 was that she accused Fredrickson of giving her an STD in 2010. Fredrickson denied this, went and got a STD test, it came back ALL CLEAR, he then sent it to her with a copy of the Drs phone number and the lab and Fredrickosn then told her to stop making up stories. It turned out to be a thrush attack – that’s all. Now Fredrickson tendered to the court receipts and copies of his bank statements that showed that over a four year period, he actually assisted the woman in question with the odd bank transfer of $$$ for her birthday and Christmas, yet she only cried to the cops in November 2013, once the media plastered Fredricksons name across all the front pages of the tabloids. What a crock of shit.
the woman never saw the email until it was shown to her by the NSW Police in 2014).
In fact, the woman was actually organising to meet Fredrickson for a dirty weekend away (that Fredrickson would pay for) in December 2013, so she obviously still was on speaking terms then.
Of course being a sentence hearing, all this evidence that shredded the womans character and obvious reasons for “crying foul” were not allowed as you’re not allowed to cross examine so called “victims”. The Newcastle woman was simply going for the (up to $40K AUD) victims of crime payment that the Australian government pays out after it’s all finished. This Newcastle women managed to get her name suppressed and she’s only in it for the money.
Now the tabloid journalist are crying “this poor woman” – what BULLSH*T. Now Fredrickson cannot say anything to the media until after this is all done as it will be contempt of court if he does. He also cannot call out her atrocious behaviour as her name is suppressed ofr ten years by the judge.
While I don’t condone the filming aspect of the first woman and Fredrickson deserves a kick in the arse for that (even though the court documents reveal that his Army mates egged him on to do it as they themselves had also filmed other women in secret) , the second woman who was identified by first name only, has prejudiced the judicial process.
Fredrickson was simply the man left holding the bag when the music stopped, his Army mates have (unsurprisingly) gone to ground, Fredrickson is simply keeping silent about other crimes that went undetected (applying the Italian mafia term of Omerta) and copping the usual SJW and Feminazi wrath.