27 January 2012

A Swedish Radical Named Eopyk

I feel I need to inform people about Eopyk, a particularly nasty Swedish radical who likes to harass MRAs, and anyone else that doesn’t fit the leftist mould of modern Sweden. Well over a year ago, and soon after I started making videos on Youtube, I found that Eopyk was prone to aggressive comment spamming. After watching my video “Feminism Revisited,” as well as part one of “Is the State Necessary?” I got to see this side of Eopyk for the first time, and from this point on Eopyk appeared to get a taste for returning to my channel week after week, using the same tactics, arguments, and logical fallacies, ad nauseum.

At first I tolerated it. My channel was very small and I really didn’t want to make any enemies. I brushed off accusations, like being a creationist who wants to brainwash his daughter. Apparently this isn't because I feel that keeping children out of daycare is best in the early years of development. I even deleted several comments because Eopyk apologised for certain behaviour, and I didn’t want Eopyk to get flak from others on my channel. But the behaviour continued. However, in contrast to the initial outbursts the comments became passively aggressive. Typically Eopyk’s comments are comprised of NAFALT (not all feminists are like that), epistemological solipsism, socialist dogma, and a particular favourite of Eopyk’s, feminist anthropology.

Like most feminists Eopyk feels that moderates are not responsible for the actions of radicals. What’s particularly amusing about this is that people like Eopyk refuse to acknowledge that radical feminists have amassed a lot of state influence, while so-called moderates make excuses for this. Here is an example:

"Really good. And thankfully today few people take Rox so damn seriously and the radfem influence has becomed lower since 2005. But great video at exposing radical feminism thanks for posting it. No other documary shows the true side of radical feminism as this one."
This comment can be found on ScentedNectar’s video upload of a disturbing Swedish documentary called “Sweden’s Gender War.” I’ve watched a large percentage, but it’s very difficult to watch in its entirety, especially in one sitting. The reason why I picked the above comment out from so many is because it epitomises the excuses Eopyk and other "moderates" make for the failure of feminism. In the case of Eopyk this is especially true when addressing Sweden as a hotbed of radical feminism.

Eva Lundgren is a Swedish professor who made claims regarding ritualistic murders in Sweden by Satanic groups. In the documentary a girl was forced to travel around Scandinavia while being coerced by radical feminists, claiming that Satanists wanted to kill her. These feminists were part of a women’s shelter called ROKS. Of course all the Satanists were men, and the poor girl was traumatised by the ordeal. To date no one has been charged for the incident, and Eva Lundgren, linked to the shelter, has been given no conviction, or even a reprimand.

The truly worrying thing is that people like Eopyk will always be part of the injustice. They will continue to suppress the fact that radical lunatics like Eva Lundgren are still working in universities and other positions of authority. The critical skills of people like Eopyk are worn down by years of indoctrination, and in the case of Sweden, this is dominated by PC fascism, with radical feminism becoming ever more prevalent.

Just in case you think this is an isolated incident I will direct you to a channel by HammarnUT. Browse through the videos and see for yourself just how far Sweden has fallen into radicalism. When I pointed this channel out to Eopyk it resulted in a typical bout of aggressive ranting, and of course denial of any serious issues involving Swedish politics. According to Eopyk the person who made the video is a white nationalist of some sort, though don’t be surprised at this accusation. Eopyk likes to use PC shaming language all the time, and it seems almost instinctive.

The first thing that Eopyk will do when put on the defence is call someone a racist, sexist, homophobe, or other similar accusations. Only the other day Eopyk accused a person uploading a video about “Nietzsche and the Nazis” of being Islamophobic. Admittedly there are some videos relating to Palestine on the channel, but this is completely independent to the video in question.

After many months of attempting to tolerate Eopyk I was eventually forced to resort to blocking. From here I found that Eopyk would respond to many of my comments on other channels, which wasn’t uncommon beforehand I might add. Familiar tactics of harassment were used, always determined to have the last word. I tried ignoring them but the comments became ever more persistent. I tried using facetious humour to take the steam out of the situation. I even tried warning Eopyk that I would report the behaviour to Youtube. But I eventually accepted that reporting was probably more hassle than it was worth. So I avoided making comments on channels where Eopyk would likely appear.

Eopyk then resorted to making videos about me. Here is the first, and here is the second. Clearly Eopyk suffers from serious verbal and mental diarrhoea, so responding to all the issues and accusations on videos and comments would take forever. Also remember that this has been going on for around a year, so there is simply too much to get through, and believe me, Eopyk never lets up. Needless to say however, I have addressed most of the fallacies that Eopyk resorts to indirectly, and will indirectly deal with others in the future.

After accepting that Eopyk is not going to go away I decided to try something new. The other day I played along in a comment exchange, getting Eopyk to pour everything out onto one thread. See Eopyk’s bigotry for yourself here. One claim is that sex is not primarily about reproduction, but pleasure and companionship. This completely bypasses the fact that sex is pleasurable so people keep doing it, therefore reproducing life in the process. This is the primary purpose of any living organism in the grand scheme of things, no matter how much the human ego might want to believe otherwise.

Sometimes this sort of argument is designed to dismiss the belief that heterosexuality is a default phenomenon in nature, and is heavily driven by gender based feminist theory. Funny how Eopyk also believes companionship is primary, while monogamy is not a natural phenomenon. It is quite ridiculous when you consider that a relationship built over time is going to be stronger than a short-term one, especially when it comes to taking risks for one another in a survival setting. This point falls in line with the Darwinian module of reciprocal altruism, though as a rule people like Eopyk are very quick to dismiss evolutionary psychology. The explanation for this is simple; it puts a spanner in the works of the theory of "patriarchal oppression," put forward by feminists.

I simply can’t end without dealing with Eopyk’s feminist anthropological bullshittery. Eopyk buys into the ludicrous idea that matriarchal society was destroyed by the patriarchy, usually mentioning Mesopotamia, Samaria, and other historical anomalies. Here is a great link refuting this nonsense. Eopyk should really refer to Occam’s razor. The fact that men dominated in history is clearly indicative of the fact that male competition was prevalent in human evolution, allowing the human race to flourish. Making outlandish claims about matriarachal suppression is typical of the revisionist tactics by feminists.

Besides, you would think that if matriarchal societies were so prosperous they would have brushed off masculine culture and flourished. Clearly this didn’t happen. Instead, over 2000 years later we have feminist anthropologists digging around in the dirt for figurines and other evidence to prove that the patriarchy destroyed feminist communes. The evidence to prove this is questionable at best, and downright laughable at worst.

Eopyk constantly regurgitates relativist nonsense about the perception of reality, uses moral relativism to justify statism, and worships at the altar of Mesopotamian mysticism. Combined with economic socialism and an educational indoctrination by the Saudi Arabia of feminism Eopyk is a perfect candidate for a cultural marxist. The label will never be accepted, but since Eopyk likes to use PC shaming language at every turn I think it is well deserved. It would be a good idea to block Eopyk if you come across this person on your travels. I would also recommend making an online proclamation exposing this character if the harassment persists, because I can assure you that Eopyk will not go away quietly, and will tirelessly harass MRAs and others with leftist propaganda.

This is RockingMrE – over and out!

UPDATE (08/02/12): After over a week of silence (where I hoped that perhaps this was the end of the matter), Eopyk has decided to make a blog responding to this one. Dear God! It is a rant-and-a-half, using typical tactics of muddying the waters in a deluge of incoherency. Eopyk seems to feel that referring to ad homs from those belonging to the same ideological group constitutes an argument.

Among typical nonsense, Eopyk claims that HammarnUT compares gay people to beastiality (I've seen no evidence of this what-so-ever), as well as a hilarious attempt to use bonobos to suggest that some apes support Eopyk's biological (un)reality. Leftists have been using the bonobo propaganda piece for decades now, with no conclusive evidence to prove the alleged observations. Here is an article that exposes this agnotological lie.

Other than this I would like to add that it is fruitless addressing Eopyk on any level any longer. The main purpose of this blog was to try and get Eopyk to understand that this behaviour is harassment. It hasn't appeared to work. But the bright side is that if you let a fool talk long enough they will always show their true colours ;-)

UPDATE 2 (10/02/12): With all the evidence to prove that Eopyk is a Cultural Marxist I have missed the moneyshot. Eopyk identifies as a Cultural Materialist. Read Eopyk's channel description here. Just in case it is edited I'll paste the relevant extract below:

"A indivudual who wants more love,democracy,peace,creativity,free thinking. I am also a pre treatment Male to female transsexual and a agnostic atheist,naturalist, consequentialist,existentialist,secularist and yeah also an epicurian to an extent and a sex-positive feminist and a cultural materialist"
Cultural Materialism is directly affiliated with the Frankfurt School, and the Cultural Marxist's that started it. This is game, set and match with regards to Eopyk's cognitive dissonance, amygdala anxiety and muddying of the waters. Eopyk ticks every box that would define a Cultural Marxist, and a lying one at that, since Eopyk has literally attempted to deny that Cultural Marxism ever existed on many occasions.

Another one bites the dust!


  1. Hi! My name is Marco Aurélio and I sent you a message on youtube as "Biliquinha" about Olavo de Carvalho, remember? Well, I've been following you for a certain period, mainly because our points of view are basically alike and, honestly, I'm trying to learn from you. And I study some of Olavo's thoughts also, and they are incredibly similar to yours (including how you interprete the Frankfurt school). Only exception is that he's a kind of conservative catholic or sort of... difficult to classify him. But I'm commenting here about Jasmine, for I was reading the whole dialogue you had with her (him). Man, what a figure! She (he) definitly has serious psychic issues! But when (he) she affirms not to be marxist/leftist/communist/socialist, I think he´s (she´s) meaning it, although by all means he (she) is it. Jasmine is a transgender, so I think relativity must be a matter of survival for him (her).Well, since sex is not relative, I think I should better call him "him"! The political correctness has caught me... lol Sincerily, I think you're wasting your valuable time arguing with him. BTW I still would like to know your opinion about Olavo de Carvalho, so please allow me to let here the link to his webpage: http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/index.html

    And a last question: is this background pic on this page a four Baphomet's head picture?

    aurelivs@hotmail.com - Marco Aurélio on Facebook

    1. Hi Marco. Yes I remember you. First I would like to clarify that I believe that there are valid biological reasons for being transgender. I talk about this on my video "Deconstructing Gender Studies." Whether Eopyk is a genuine transgender, or someone who has been terribly abused by a disgustingly misandristic Swedish education system is another matter. But none-the-less I am sympathetic to biologically transgendered individuals - it can't be easy.

      Eopyk basically uses relative philosophy to counter absolutely everything, just like all Cultural Marxists. There is no absolute or objective truth in Eopyk's mind, which is the typical worldview for a leftist. Sometimes I think that Eopyk genuinely believes this propaganda, but there are times that I feel that Eopyk just reacts in a pre-programmed fashion, trying to deconstruct anything that disagrees with the leftist viewpoint through the education Eopyk has been fed. It would take a huge re-education to change Eopyk’s arguments, and there have been many times that I have been shocked by Eopyk’s lack of critical skills – I’m not sure there is much critical skill left in Eopyk’s mind, and the blog and links shows this.

      Relating to Olavo de Carvalho, it appears to be all in Spanish, and I don’t speak any I’m afraid. And yes, you are right. It’s pointless arguing with Eopyk. But as I show in the blog I had to make a stand because Eopyk is a very nasty leftist that constantly harasses people. It appears though that Eopyk has finally gotten the message though. Hopefully I wont have to deal with Eopyk again. But needless to say Eopyk doesn’t just “give up.” Some people need to be stood up to before they get the message.

  2. Apparently this is because I feel that keeping children out of daycare is best in the early years of development.

    OK, this isn't the main point of your post, but this is so very important, and I'm glad you see that.

    Sending children off to be raised throughout half the day for 13 or so years mainly by their peers of the same age and state propaganda vs. raised by a natural mix of mature adults and children of varying ages and not being indoctrinated is another important issue to consider, but be that as it may, early attachment is so critical.

    Research shows that school before age 7 is not really needed for anything except convenience of the parents. Finland does this, beginning formal education at 7, and whatever our problems with Scandinavian feminism, this is a wise decision.

    1. For the record the quote was supposed to say "Apparently this ISN'T because I feel that keeping children out of daycare is best in the early years of development."

      I changed it on the article now anyway. Oh, and good points you made. I agree with them. Can you post me a link that shows formal education is best from 7 years and onwards? I would really appreciate it.

    2. Ah, that was so clearly what you meant to say that I had corrected it in my mind without realising you'd phrased it otherwise.

      And sure. This search will give you some information to get you started (including articles in your nation's major newspapers.

      I see that there are claims that bright children benefit from starting school at age six, and that's interesting.

      I think the mechanism for starting children at 6-7 instead of 4-5 will be that the emotional benefits they grain from greater parental investment and attachment outweigh any minor gains their immature brains would gain from formal study that early.

      But the converse of that is an interesting case to look at.

      You may be familiar with unschooling advocate, Dayna Martin.

      I was a big fan of her ideas when I first heard her and have made several positive comments about her ideas. Honestly, I was emotionally touched by her approach.

      But I had to step back from my emotions when I saw her on Wife Swap and think about the situation dispassionately. I comment on that here. Please click the link and read that comment. (You may find the other comments on that thread interesting, especially the comments left by some anonymous commenter on May 6th of this year.)

      Notice that I asked her one extremely softly-worded question, and this lead to an banning (presumably proceeded by an emotional reaction), despite my past copious and glowing support of her philosophy.

      Do you think my question to her was unreasonable?

      Anyway, it's an interesting case because it is the flipside of educating children earlier.

      I do find your thoughts on these social and human development subjects of interest, however much we disagree about a single other matter.

    3. Here is the Wife Swap episode in question, and if you were to watch just one episode of that show, this would be the one. It's quite the contrast in approaches.

      You will probably need a proxy server to see it from outside of the USA.

    4. For the record Dayna Martin's methods have never sat well with me, and to explain this adequately I will need to delve into the area of parenting myself via a video or site post in the future. Briefly however, her methods fail to factor in the naivety of children, and how children cannot behave like adults because humans develop rational capacity as they grow older.

      I couldn't use your link because it's only available in the U.S. But I found my own and saw first-hand that while the other wife's methods were far too authoritarian, Dayna's were too far the other way. Ironically it would be somewhere between Dayna's and the other mother's methods that would be the best mix. I will address this in the future.