The title “your honor” used in court is very ironic

If I’m having a conversation with a friend, or even a stranger, I don’t have to call him “your honor,” because it’s just assumed that I have a basic level of respect, or at any rate am willing to feign it for the purposes of smooth interpersonal relations. Even if there’s a guy I really look up to, I’m probably not going to address him by some honorific.

In our society, we’ve mostly done away with a lot of those titles. You probably don’t call your boss “sir,” for example, unless you’re in the military or something. It’s kind of old-school.

Yet judges want to be addressed as “your honor”. I think it’s because they’re paranoid people might think they’re not very honorable, so therefore they need people to constantly verbally reinforce and reassure, “Yes, I honor you.”

If their behavior were plainly honorable, then there wouldn’t be a need for this constant butt-kissing. The judge would just be confident in his own knowledge of his honorableness, and in the fact that intelligent and observant people must be aware of it as well; and not need others to continually reaffirm it explicitly.

If anything, if you’re confident in yourself, you’ll be more likely to expose yourself to being criticized, and maybe even speak in a self-deprecating way. E.g., these guys who aren’t bad-looking, who show up to a ratings megathread and say, “I’m ugly, aren’t I?” They don’t worry people are going to say, “Yeah, you’re pretty ugly,” because they already looked in a mirror and saw they look fine. They’re just fishing for compliments. (Same, of course, with these thots on Facebook posting status updates, “I’m so ugly!!” Talk about worship-bait.)

It’s actually the uglier girls who are the most likely to be vain and ask rhetorically, “I’m pretty all right-looking, aren’t I?” and constantly admire themselves in the mirror (even bringing a mirror to their workplace) from every angle and talk about their beauty sleep and so on. Elliot Rodger wasn’t bad-looking, but he seemed to think he was Chad-tier (which was why he couldn’t understand why girls would go for obnoxious brutes).

Anyone who demands that others kiss their butt 24/7 probably doesn’t do anything to merit that much praise and adoration, or they would not be anywhere near as insecure.

Some might say, “Well, it’s not the judge, but the office that you’re respecting.” That, too, though, is just showing insecurity. The office of Senator, or Secretary of State, or President is also supposed to be honorable (in fact, I think “The Honorable” is the way they’re supposed to be addressed in correspondence), but they don’t mind if you call them Senator, or Madam Secretary, or Mr. President, or whatever; in fact, that’s considered an appropriate form of address.

Theoretically, then, you should just be able to call a judge “Judge” without it being disrespectful. They’re appointed by the executive and legislative branches, so theoretically that makes them LESS important than those politicians, not more, since their power comes from them. Really, it just gets back to the judicial officers’ paranoia about being marginalized as powerless and unimportant, since they don’t have the power to pass or enforce laws, the way that other branches of government do.

They’ve really seized a lot of power that they didn’t have a right to, by claiming the right to say that the Constitution says X when it plainly says Y; and everything they’ve built up is founded on this house of cards. They serve to legitimize what the other branches of government do (which is actually usually illegitimate), so they have to defend their own legitimacy.

So they have these elaborate rituals of decorum to reinforce their sense of authority. At the Kavanaugh confirmation Senate floor vote, you may have noticed there were people screaming and disrupting the proceedings. Nothing serious happened to them. You can even call your elected representatives all kinds of names, and not be punished severely for it (although a legislator who insults another legislator during a debate may be told to sit down). But if you insult a judge in the courtroom, you can actually be sent to the slammer for contempt.

What this is all about, really, is that most people who go to court leave the courtroom feeling like an injustice was done, and they might be inclined to mouth off to the judge if it weren’t illegal. Even if they got the result they wanted, they probably had to pay a butt-ton of money to some lawyer (who is buddy-buddy with the judge and even with the opposing lawyers) to make sure they got “justice”; and they probably had to wait a long time for their hearing, and then take a day off of work, etc. It’s as inconvenient as going to the DMV, yet we’re supposed to glorify these judges because they’re so high and mighty.

Well, I don’t call the DMV worker “your honor” because I’m so happy we have them around to issue me a driver’s license and some license plates. I don’t even call the Commissioner of the DMV “your honor”. What’s the point? He’s just an overpaid bureaucrat who got his position through political connections. Judges are the same way. They’re political hacks who are put in power to advance the agendas and interests of whatever politicians helped put them on the bench.

And to secure their “independence,” they serve a fixed term during which they can’t be fired, which makes them kinda like these unionized teachers or factory workers whom management can’t fire without risking a strike. There’s nothing really all that special about them; they’re just another kind of tenured employee.

Another thing is, usually your elected bodies, all the way down to the local school board, will televise their hearings; but court proceedings (especially at the federal level) aren’t televised. It’s because the judges don’t want the scrutiny, since if people saw what went on, they might not respect them as much.

We might as well just face the reality that the judges aren’t particularly respectable or honorable. They’re just tools of the establishment, for imposing the will of the establishment. In that respect, they’re not much different than these cops who get off on their power trips.

Another stupid ritual I saw today was that we were expected to rise not only when the judge entered the courtroom but also when he left. I can understand standing when he enters, since the goal is to get people to end their conversations and put down whatever they’re doing, to focus on the proceedings that are about to start; but what’s the big deal about when he leaves? In the future, I’m not even going to bother standing for that, unless I’m already on my way out of the courtroom anyway.

To the average person, the judge is the face of tyranny

Most people don’t want the legislative hearings where their representatives consider the evidence for why, e.g., pot should be illegal, and then vote for it to remain criminalized. But there’s a good chance at some point they may be in a courtroom when a pot case is being heard, and witness the judge throwing the book at someone for it.

Judges have the discretion to be lenient, and since they’re not up for election as often as the legislators are, theoretically they have more independence. But they often will not do the right thing, but rather will assist in implementing tyranny. One of the few examples we’ve seen lately where judges have been doing the right thing lately is that some judges have been departing downward in child porn cases, but those should not even be felony offenses to begin with.

When I think about the property that was taken, for the most part it was a bunch of trash

E.g., my laptop didn’t have an HDMI port, and my tablet was too big (phablet size would probably be more ideal). Just like my phone is a little too small to want to sit for hours reading a novel on, that tablet was too big. Being the Goldilocks (I even have the blond hair, in sparse amounts) that I am, I need something in the middle.

It’s one of the reasons why initially maybe I didn’t take the legalities of the case more seriously, opting to focus instead on the culture war (much as in my political campaigns, I primarily focused on the culture war, using a run for office and the structure of elections more generally as a venue for education. Although one might argue, if you’re going to do that, you might want to offer a little bit more of a shadow defense. Oh well; it’s just a matter of calibration, then. These campaigns, whether they’re a run for a seat in the legislative branch, or a motion for a remedy to be granted by the judicial branch, are always going to have some imperfections. There’s always going to be stuff that could’ve been done better.

And at this point, I’m kind of used to my property, and my data and my access thereto, being permanently taken away and/or destroyed, anyway.  In 2018, that’s the kind of stuff that happens (not that search and seizure hasn’t been an area where abuses by the police have been going unchecked by the courts for a long time). Fortunately, equipment has become so cheap that it’s easy to replace; unfortunately, the fact that its cheapness makes it available to the masses means it’s also on the cops’ radar screen more.

It’s kind of like how when I think of the loss of Meshelle, I have to acknowledge, she was and is a pile of trash too, for the most part. The foids that are available in the modern mate market, even if they may have started out with potential many years ago, are not of very high quality to the betas and so on to whom they are briefly and/or partially available for purchase (which may be reneged upon by the other party without refund) at exorbitant prices.

Well, anyway. We’re back to looking at life as a collaboration. People can either accept what I have to offer (and what exactly, and how much, that is, can only be determined by giving me, or allowing me to have, a chance); or reject it, e.g. by tying my hands from doing anything.

The way Thoreau looked at it too was that the state was pitiable, although I don’t give them quite so much credit or generosity in that way. I think when he wrote that, it was probably a lot of COPE. One wishes that one could be so detached and let stuff go like that, without feeling upset about it.

I mean, in a way it makes sense — those who have nothing to offer don’t get the pleasure of doing anything meaningful; yet they’re probably able to convince themselves that fucking over other people IS meaningful, or maybe they’re psychopathic enough not to care. It is true, though, that at a society-wide level, these fuck-ups that are allowed to happen are going to come back to haunt said society.

There was something else I was going to write, but I forget what it was. Fuck. Normally I’m able to remember, but I got called away and forgot. I should’ve jotted down a quick note to remind myself.

Roosh actually made the right decision in not getting married

I don’t understand why any man would put himself through the kind of hell I’ve had to go through, just for the sake of getting some pussy. It really is better just staying single, or having a long-term relationship rather than a marriage. Marriage just causes more drama.

On the plus side, remember what Thoreau wrote, “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” Maybe that’s where I’ll be. But on the other hand, he wrote, “If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person.”

Notice he talked about “a little,” not a lot. Remember Philip Sebolt? What can he do these days? Even Rules for Radicals says it’s not good to remain behind bars for too long.

So I’m gonna give this asshole one more chance

Judge Whisenant denied my motion this morning, so I’m gonna wait till next Thanksgiving and then file another motion saying it’s been 14 months since the cops seized my stuff, and they should’ve had enough time to go through it and give my property back. That is of course, assuming I don’t catch a case because of this stuff.

Next year, once the leaves are off the trees, and the Democrats have their trifecta, and people are making their plans to get together for turkey and pumpkin pie, it’ll be time to file that motion.

By that point, I’ll be able to say Meshelle hasn’t been heard from in more than a year, and that she presumably moved on with her life. So I will express to the court that I too want to tie up the last remaining loose end so I can close that chapter of my life as well.

I’m not going to make reference to my previous motion, either. I’ll just pretend like it never existed. The less said about it the better.

So that I remember what was taken, though — there was:

  • Blue HP Stream
  • Grey/silver HP Elitebook 6930p
  • Toshiba laptop
  • iPad
  • Samsung mobile phone
  • iPhone
  • Thumb drive
  • Several SATA hard drives


When there is a state of war between the sexes, is there any such thing as “crimes against women”?

During peacetime, if you deliberately kill someone, it’s a crime. But in wartime, to kill the enemy is just an act of war. The only “war crimes” are those that the two sides have agreed to criminalize, because they don’t want to escalate the war beyond a certain level of cruelty. But war is inherently cruel and disruptive, and some have argued that the best way to prevent war is to maximize the cruelty so that it will be so terrible that people will prefer to settle their differences peacefully. Also, typically “war crimes” are only prosecuted if the side that commits them loses, because the winning side is in a position to arrest whom it will and judge the accused.

We’re pretty much in a state of war between the sexes that’s disguised as peacetime. It’s kind of like cyberwarfare, where lives can be lost due to intrusions that exploit weaknesses in the software (e.g. if a tyrannical regime hacks a journalist’s email account and finds out who the dissidents are, so they can be sent to the gulag), but it doesn’t appear on the surface like war because the guns aren’t usually fired. Nonetheless, the guns are ever-present, and we live under their shadow.

A lot of times, wars are over some kind of boundary dispute. Or they’re because a country feels like its people, scattered abroad in enemy territory, are being oppressed. Or it feels like another country is hampering its people’s ability to prosper, and reducing them to slavery and poverty.

Typically a country that is robbed of its territory likes to get that territory restored to them, because they have a connection to that land. During the many years in which they possessed it, they came to rely on its unique characteristics for military, economic, cultural, or other purposes. The manner in which their civilization evolved was in accord with the nature of the place where they lived. (Notice that even today, blacks prefer to live in the Deep South even though they’re free and could move about to other areas; they got used to living in that area and even their skin color is well-suited to it.)

Historically, men had ownership rights over women’s pussies. That was part of our territory. All that we ask, in seeking to bring about a return to patriarchy, is that the borders be redrawn to what they were before this war between the sexes began. But to have that, we have to force the other side to surrender, so that we can decide the terms of the relationship that will exist.

Otherwise, they’re going to draw the borders in a way that will favor them — and currently, the way they’ve drawn those borders places incels’ and betabuxxes’ wallets within their own territory, so they can have financial control and enslave men for their own purposes.

Right now, the go-to strategy for most men is to try to appease the enemy; to offer them tribute and hope to be ruled over benevolently. It’s more advantageous, though, to force the other side to be the ones submitting. Surrender has the downside that there’s no guarantee that the terms of the surrender will be respected once you’ve laid down your arms. Femoids certainly aren’t known for their honesty.

So then, how do we go about waging this war? Propaganda is one way. One wants to bolster the morale of one’s own side while demoralizing the other.

Then of course there’s the Coke bottle.

Have you noticed, you don’t see too many sex offenders writing under their real names on the Internet?

The reason is, they usually are under some condition of supervised release calling for restriction and/or monitoring of what they do on the computer.

This is invisible censorship; these people truly are the voiceless because they aren’t given any right to publicly dissent. They might as well grab a gun and shoot up the government, but I guess they figure they have too much to live for outside of prison.

If I were to become a registered sex offender, I wonder what I would do? One thing’s for sure — this is yet another unorganized constituency. They aren’t even really represented by NARSOL, since that group has gotten taken over by femoids and cucks.

My court hearing is on Wednesday morning

See my earlier post; also, my post.

This prosecutor sounds like a total bitch, by the way. In a child pornography case where the defendant was sentenced to eight years in prison, she complained that the sentence was too lenient; and in a domestic violence case where the defendant received the statutory maximum of 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine, she complained that sentence was too lenient as well.

UPDATE: Court sucked.