So, what’d you think of the Kavanaugh hearings?

kavanaugh-hearing-day-120 million people watched to see how this was going to play out, because they’re going to take their cultural cues from how the politicians behave.

What we saw was, they were very careful to treat the accuser well (declining even to question her directly; they had a woman come in to give her a bunch of softball questions, in between 5-minute pep talks by the Democrats).

Then it was Kavanaugh’s turn to be questioned, and they treated him the way men typically get treated these days, when they’re facing an accusation by a woman. The Democrats said whatever they could to embarrass and discredit him, while the Republicans defended him somewhat, but ultimately have now joined with the Democrats in calling for further investigation.

So, he got attacked, but she didn’t get attacked. She actually got praised by both sides for her courage, and half of the Republicans’ criticism of the Democrats was because they said she wasn’t treated fairly.

This type of outcome is pretty predictable. The nature of rape is that it’s a hard crime to adjudicate accurately. Either a lot of guilty men will go free, or a lot of innocent men will get convicted.

More generally, we only have three options, when it comes to relations between the sexes:
(1) Male supremacy
(2) Female supremacy
(3) Separation

In the Philippines, the way separation occurs is that young women just don’t go anywhere unaccompanied by a chaperone. That’s to keep them from being raped. Their fathers would not allow them to go to a party unaccompanied by someone who would prevent them from having sexual intercourse (consensual or otherwise).

In the U.S., we decided we know better than to restrict women’s freedom in that way, so we allow them to go wherever they want unchaperoned, and that’s how they end up getting raped. Alternatively, they may make a false rape accusation against a man, and he will have a hard time disproving that he raped anyone.

Look at the situation Kavanaugh is in. His accuser can’t remember where or when the alleged assault happened, yet these allegations are still being taken very seriously. Most of the press is taking Ford’s side.

Maybe he will still get confirmed, and then he’ll become the next Clarence Thomas — i.e. he’ll have a long and distinguished Supreme Court career, but his reputation will be forever tarnished by the allegations.

I’m in a fairly similar situation to Kavanaugh, actually. My most recent ex-wife came to my door a few months ago and explicitly made an ultimatum that if I didn’t sign for a divorce, she was going to file a police report against my for rape.

She ended up following through on that threat, and the cops got a search warrant and came to my house to seize a bunch of electronics, in search of emails and other evidence that could substantiate a rape allegation.

It’s going to be the same way as Kavanaugh’s case — it’ll end inconclusively, because it won’t be possible to prove a rape did or didn’t happen. Obviously a magistrate thought there was probable cause to support a search warrant, but that doesn’t mean anything; that’s just like the grand jury system, where you can indict a ham sandwich. They hand out search warrants pretty liberally too, under the theory that if they mess up, you can always try to get the evidence suppressed later, with no harm done.

As soon as laws were passed criminalizing marital rape, the institution of marriage became nonviable, because the marital home is fraught with opportunities for rape, given that the married couple is together behind closed doors, without any witnesses present. Female nature is also to, during divorce proceedings, use whatever means (including, possibly, false rape allegations) will be helpful for securing provisioning. For years, though, the way the system worked was that the criminal courts would dismiss allegations of marital rape (due to lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt) while the family courts would accept such allegations (based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence).

Now, in this #MeToo era, we may be seeing that more and more venues are going to be accepting proof by a pretty low standard of evidence. E.g., maybe the Senate is going to credit a rape allegation, such as Ford’s, that would never stand up in criminal court. At any rate, we might see about 49 Senators say they credit it.

Of course, they’ll say that Kavanaugh has no right to serve on the court, so he hasn’t been stripped of any rights, if they refuse to confirm him. True, but culturally, influence will still have been shifted from the accused to accusers.

I would imagine that Kavanaugh will probably get confirmed next week, although given the slim margins we’re dealing with, who knows. I would also imagine my ex-wife is going to get her 10-year green card based on an I-751 divorce waiver and move on with her life, although I probably won’t be getting my electronics (iPad, laptop, etc.) back from the cops any time soon, if ever. Oh well, these are the inconveniences we have to put up with sometimes in a #MeToo world.

Even if Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed, he’s theoretically no worse off than Merrick Garland, other than that his name got dragged through the mud and Garland’s didn’t.

I just got done cleaning out my room, which had a bunch of John Gottman books lying around

51M9B43SMML._SX316_BO1,204,203,200_For example, this book and this book. What I notice is, there’s nothing in there at all about how you need to make money to financially support your wife, or she’ll dump you. There’s just a bunch of stuff about how you need to submit to your wife and cater to her emotional needs. So I don’t know how people can say it’s basic common sense that you need to provide for your wife, when texts about how to make relationships work don’t mention it.

I still look at life mostly as a collaboration

If there’s rivalry between opposing groups, I view it mostly as friendly rivalry.  Yeah, some people want to destroy the existence of our people, but they can’t do it without our help. Our biggest threat is ourselves.

Anyway, there are certain rules to the friendly rivalry. In my view, the bounds were overstepped by those who took my stuff and forced me out of the race. That’s why you don’t see me creating new sites or running for office anymore.

If I become part of the collaboration by joining the friendly rivalry, it’s under the condition that it stay friendly, civilized, etc. I’m actually volunteering effort because I want to help. If people don’t want my help (which they indicate by demonstrating that my participation is unwelcome), then fuck them. They can suffer the consequences of not having me be involved.

Then they’re stuck with the stale politics as usual. I don’t care; I can LDAR as long as I need to. As soon I have some someone to help me, I can go ER. If there’s no one to help me, that’s not my fault.

Even rape is usually a collaboration. Usually the rape “victim” put themselves in a situation where they would be vulnerable to getting raped, because they wanted to get raped.


With Shaun Brown kicked off the ballot, there are no independent U.S. House candidates left standing in Virginia

It turned out that Shaun Brown got kicked off the ballot after all, and that it’s now too late for her to litigate to get her name back on it.

I don’t like how the Democrats handled this. It seems like they could’ve challenged her petitions a lot earlier, so that she could’ve had more time to litigate her case. We may see more of this type of shenanigans in future elections, but I guess I don’t need to worry about it too much, since I apparently won’t be running. It might mean I have fewer choices on the ballot when I go to vote, though.

Anyway, like I was saying earlier, no Whigs made it onto the ballot, and I’ve withdrawn from my election, so with Brown also out of the race, that leaves no independents left on any Virginia ballots for U.S. House this year. Three “Libertarians” (Pete Wells, Joe Walton, and Stevan Porter) did make it onto the ballot for U.S. House, but that’s it.

I dunno; fuck electoral politics anyway. It’s so hard to get any consistent support. But like I was telling the BBC the other day, I’m a pioneer, not a leader, so that would explain that.

Anyway — if you’re doing ballot access petitioning, it’s going to be all the more important to turn in more sigs than you need, because we’re now in an era in Virginia where opposing parties may take you to court to challenge your petitions, the same way they do in other states.

It’s not looking good for Comstock

The Dems point out that she usually votes with Trump, but on the other hand, she was a NeverTrumper (and for a bad reason — the Access Hollywood tapes), which is why she attracted basically two primary challengers. (Both Shak Hill and I served essentially in that capacity, attacking her from the left.) It’s never a good sign when you get primaried; Lingamfelter got primaried too last year, and he also lost.

She hasn’t taken a stance in support for Brett Kavanaugh. Instead, she got on what may turn out to be the wrong side of history, by supporting the #MeToo movement.

On the other hand, Wexton doesn’t seem to have any major drawbacks. Even though her commercials have rhetoric saying she’s in favor of a bunch of anti-man stuff (e.g. collecting child support, getting tough on sex offenders, and keeping guns away from “domestic abusers”), she hasn’t really been a feminist SJW. Her legislation isn’t really all that extreme (it seems like mostly housekeeping rather than anything substantive), and most of the cuckservatives probably would’ve voted for the same bills. Heck, the Republicans even say that she voted against helping victims of domestic abuse (HB 1, HB 484), although that too seems trumped up.

And she’s apparently been willing to plea bargain with sex offenders, even pedophiles, supposedly, also that’s pretty run-of-the-mill. All prosecutors in northern Virginia tend to plea bargain. When it comes right down to it, there’s not much difference between her and Comstock.

What’s a bad sign for Comstock, though, is that she turned down the League of Women Voters debate. I don’t necessarily like having a league of women voters (men wouldn’t be able to set up such an organization for themselves), but to not do the debate seems like cowardice and maybe even acquiescence to defeat.