Modern marriage doesn’t really serve much of a purpose of morality

All it does is deter the man from leaving his wife, by making him feel like he’s legally and culturally bound to her. But it does nothing to keep her from leaving him.

I don’t really get that. Society would probably shame a man who left his wife, but it won’t shame a woman who leaves her husband, even though that means she’s going to be fucking other guys in all likelihood (which defeats the point of marriage, which was to get women to be monogamous rather than getting fucked by a bunch of different men).

So I don’t see the point of why, for example, Meshelle’s mom made a big deal about how we needed to get married if we were going to sleep together. Meshelle left after a year anyway, and got a divorce, so it was no different than if we’d just shacked up for a year.

Could it be that the reason polygyny is banned is that the state doesn’t want you to become too powerful and successful of a patriarch?

If you could be banging multiple chicks and making and raising a large number of sons who would then do the same, then you could quickly establish a large tribe. Maybe that tribe would begin to become powerful enough to challenge the cultural influence of the state. The Mormons were doing something like that.

If you have a tribe bound together by blood, that could be a powerful uniting force. Hitler talked out how when a people are genetically related, they become more willing to make sacrifices for one another, because they’re making an investment in their own kind. In contrast, while the state has soft power (ideology, propagated through schools and information bureaus) and hard power (the police) on its side, it doesn’t have something immutable like familial ties on its side.

If you have a group of patriarchs who are impregnating 15-year-old girls, then after 45 years (three generations), they and their sons will have produced quite a lot of offspring, and the original patriarchs, although old, will still be around to provide guidance. That’s a good structure for effective cultural propagation.

This could also explain why the government is pushing feminism so hard these days. If they can give the wife power to rebel against the husband, and the daughter power to rebel against her father, and also encourage this kind of behavior by banning early marriage and other traditions that tend to keep women in a more submissive and family-oriented role, then it causes disorder in the family, which serves as a distraction for the patriarch, and disrupts the ability to make a bunch of children, which again hinders a patriarch from establishing a large tribe.

Maybe this is also the reason why the state has antitrust laws. Maybe they just don’t like the idea of one man having a company that’s so wildly successful that it comes to dominate an industry, the same way the government is able to monopolize the industries it chooses to control (such as the postal service). If, say, one man controls the oil supply, then he could start telling the state what to do; and they don’t want that, unless that guy is willing to be politically submissive.

In Russia, Putin can afford to let there be oligarchs in those industries because they know that if they get on his bad side, he can have them thrown in prison for the bribery and other offenses they had to commit to get into their oligarchical position, since there was a chaotic period in the transition to capitalism when a lot of that kind of stuff went on; but an American industrialist might not have so much dirt that the government could easily dig up.

Maybe too, this is why the government has banned having sex with children. They don’t want men establishing a sexual bond with children, that could bring about a close relationship that would allow them to influence those kids. It reminds me of what Orwell wrote:

We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother.

How does it feel to be behind a psychiatric Berlin Wall?

The Berlin Wall was built to keep East Germans from going over into the free world. The Soviets were worried about a brain drain if they let people freely leave to go to a place where they wouldn’t be so unhappy.

The psychiatrists are the same way. They say, “You can’t leave; if you say you’re going to leave, we’ll have the cops use physical force to stop you.” They want to keep you in this world so you can continue making contributions to this society, even if you’re not happy here.

As long as you remain alive, you’ll be under social pressure to pretend to be happy, and that will make this country look, to the casual observer, as though it’s not as inhumane and dysfunctional a place as it really is. They can propagandize all they want about what a great country this is, but suicide statistics don’t lie, which is why they don’t want you to become one of those statistics; it would serve as irrefutable evidence that there are some misfits in our society whose needs aren’t being taken care of.

The Berlin Wall was a barrier keeping ALL East Germans in. It didn’t matter what your situation was; you could be disabled, terminally ill, childless, friendless, whatever. Even if you had nothing really going for you where you were, they would still say, “You can’t leave” because it would look bad if there were massive numbers of people wanting to get out of there.

But of course, the existence of the Wall itself made terrible propaganda, because why would you need a wall unless your country was such a shithole that people would want to leave everything behind to get out? Similarly, the fact that the state needs to have laws against suicide shows that they’re worried people might have a reason to want to kill themselves.

They’re worried that not just the crazy, but the not-crazy, might want to leave; because after all, if it were only the crazy people wanting to leave, why would they care? It’s the not-crazy people they’re worried about, because some of them might make useful contributions, if they’re forced to continue participating in the daily grind. But they have to have a uniform policy across the board, to hide the true nature of what they’re trying to accomplish.

At any rate, it would demoralize the productive members of society to see their friends and family members killing themselves; they might get the idea that maybe it’s a good solution to their problems. The reality is that suicide has a lot of advantages over other means of dealing with stress, such as drinking; at least if you hang yourself, you won’t kill anyone on the roadways, or die of a bad liver. But society wants to say that a slow and agonizing life and death are both normal, even if your own body and mind say otherwise.

First world countries don’t need a border wall to keep people in, because people know they have nowhere better to go. But they have one final wall, the prohibition against suicide, to keep people from escaping the world entirely. If they think you’re suicidal, they actually will put you in a place where there’s a physical wall which they use to try to cut off your access to the means of suicide.

I say, “Tear down this wall!”

So I was thinking of taking on the psychiatric establishment

I’ve been getting fucking over by psychologists and psychiatrists for many years now. Here’s a partial list:

  • 1996 — Kaiser Permanente shrink prescribes Paxil for depression; it induces erratic behavior, resulting in my getting convicted of four misdemeanors; another Kaiser Permanente shrink provides his opinion to the juvenile court that Paxil did not, and could not have, caused such behavior; years later, evidence is released that Paxil is not actually safe for young people, as it induces suicidal behavior How Many Suicides Happened Because of Paxil’s Misleading Safety Study? – The Atlantic
  • 2009 — A government shrink diagnoses me with several mental disorders, which serves to discredit my statements that my threatening the President was the result of political beliefs rather than mental illness, rendering the whole act, and the years of my life that I sacrificed for it, pretty much pointless, given that the narrative is that I was not an idealist trying to advance his cause, even if it meant he had to suffer persecution for it; but rather simply some nutcase who couldn’t think straight
  • 2015-2016 — Court-ordered shrinks find that I have mental disorders that make it unsafe for me to have custody of my daughter; the court uses this as the basis for why I should not be able to exercise parental rights

It’s time for the final fight against the shrinks. I need to fight now for my right to die. The arguments for why I should be allowed to die are actually stronger than the arguments for why I should be allowed to remain free in society as a living person, because if I die, I can cause no harm to society, while if I’m free, then presumably considerations of risk of harm to others are relevant.

So my plan is, I’m just going to stop eating or drinking anything, until either someone notices and tells the cops that I’m killing myself, or I just pass out and someone calls 911 and says that I’m unconscious and not waking up. Upon questioning, I would just say that I was attempting to kill myself.

The Code of Virginia says that if I get involuntarily committed, I have to right to appeal to a jury of seven persons. § 37.2-821. Appeal of involuntary admission or certification order

What I want to do is let a jury of my peers weigh in on the issue of whether they think it’s a sign of mental illness if a person wants to kill himself, or if it’s possible to simply be a misfit and therefore have a rational reason to want to die. The whole point of having a jury trial is to take power away from the psychiatric establishment and put it in the hands of laypeople, who can hear both sides (both the person accused of having a mental illness that makes him a danger to himself or others, and the shrinks who are making that accusation), and decide.

Last time I went before a jury, it didn’t go too well for me, but that may have been partly because I fucked up the jury selection; there was a guy I should have struck from the panel based on stuff he said during voir dire, and for some reason I didn’t, and he ended up becoming the foreman and probably the driving force behind their decision. Maybe this time I can do better.

If I lose, I could serve six months in a mental hospital. § 37.2-817. Involuntary admission and mandatory outpatient treatment orders

Big deal; I served 46 months in prison, so 6 months is only 13% of that amount of time. It’s probably worth it to go on the offensive against the psychiatric profession for a change, by arranging a pitched battle like this. I need to fight them, to put them in their place, and stand up for the individual’s right to make his own decisions, including about whether he wants to continue to live.

The reality is, dying is a rational choice right now, because I have nothing else left to do. I can’t hold a job, and I can’t do anything further politically, through the electoral process, by running for executive or legislative branch offices. So I have to instead fight for liberty through the judicial branch; and this is how it’s done. Before, I sought the support of the people at the ballot box; the next phase is the jury box.

My thought is, if the jury rules in my favor, that will be a rebuke to the psychiatric establishment; it will make them lose face, because the laypeople rejected their notions. It will delegitimize them, so that they no longer have as much influence.

I could sit at home and be a caregiver for my dad. But I won’t get any respect from society for doing that. They will still consider me a loser. I just don’t like being in that situation, of facing constant social disapproval, and mockery, and contempt, etc. At this point, I’m not even considered a significant villain at all, but just a petty villain, now that I’ve been forced to quit most forms of politics.

As usual, I’ll probably fight alone. And maybe I’ll just get written off as a lunatic, and my voice will be lost, as the shrinks succeed in discrediting and silencing me once again. Oh well; that’s how it goes sometimes.

We’re at a point now where the liberty movement has been mostly co-opted by the opposition, and the remaining hardcore elements are no longer well-organized and ready to support the individual who actually does fight for his liberty rather than just talk about it. Oh well; it is still the duty and role of individual to fight for liberty on his own, then.

From what I’ve seen, the courts are just a rubber stamp for the psychiatrists and psychologists

Let’s suppose you want to kill yourself, and your argument is that your suicide would be rational. The shrinks think otherwise; they think you have a mental illness that makes you a danger to yourself.

You go to court to find out whether you’re going to be committed to a mental hospital. Guess what, the courts are going to rely on the testimony of the shrinks, who are the “expert witnesses” in the case. So really, it’s like the shrinks, rather than the judges, are the third branch of government. We’re judged by shrinks.

And to some extent, the shrinks also serve as a legislature, since they determine what’s to be considered a mental illness. They vote on what’s going to be included in the DSM-5, which is like our statute book of thought patterns you’re not allowed to have, unless you want to potentially be considered mentally ill and therefore subject to have the shrinks regulate your life by throwing you in a mental hospital or whatever.

And unfortunately, Libertarians no longer have a platform plank saying that they oppose this.