#MeToo is both terrorism and guerrilla warfare

Terrorists tend to strike at soft targets, and guerrilla fighters tend to ambush. The idea of hitting a soft target is that it’s easier than hitting a well-defended “hard target,” yet the attack can indirectly achieve the same political goal. The idea of an ambush is to negate the enemy’s superior strength through the use of surprise.

So for example, Democrats were upset that Merrick Garland didn’t get a fair hearing in the judiciary committee, but they couldn’t strike back directly against the Republican Senators responsible for that, since a lot of them won’t be up for election till 2020; and even then, a lot of those Senators will be hard to beat since they’re from Republican strongholds. Those Senators were “hard targets.”

So instead, they struck at a soft target, which was Kavanaugh. He wasn’t directly responsible for keeping Garland off the Supreme Court; but he could be more easily attacked than those who were responsible. They considered him guilty by association, because he was playing a role in grabbing control of that Supreme Court seat; so they viewed him as deserving of a false rape accusation, if that was what it took to stop him.

And the way they struck at him was by ambush. They waited till a moment when an attack wasn’t expected, and then made the accusations, so that they could wreck his reputation via the media before Kavanaugh or the Republicans could effectively respond. Then at the confirmation vote before the full Senate, a bunch of protesters in different parts of the gallery disrupted the proceedings.

Of course, that didn’t stop the vote from going forward; it just served as an annoyance. The nature of guerrilla warfare is that all you’re doing is resisting; you’re trying to slow down the enemy and make life harder for them. When they drive you out, you just retreat to safety and later show up somewhere else, to strike at them again.

More broadly, femoids and feminists tend to use these types of tactics to strike against men. What femoids really don’t like is that they can’t get Chad to commit to them; they feel like they have a right to Chad. Since they can’t attack Chad directly, though, they’ll instead attack a weaker target, such as betas or incels. Chad can wound them by pumping and dumping them; but they can wound a beta by leaving him, or an incel by rejecting him.

What femoids do is play Chads and betas against each other. First they ride Chad’s cock and then tell betas, “Chad manipulated and betrayed me!” which makes betas feel sorry for them and wife them up. Then they complain to the Chad police officers, “This beta maritally raped me!” That gives them an opportunity to extort the beta for a bunch of betabuxx or whatever else they want from him.

They also play betas and incels against each other. They get the betas to scoff, “Incels could just ascend” and they get the incels to scoff, “Betas are just a bunch of cucks.”

Femoids like to try to ambush men whenever possible; e.g. the restraining order system is set up to let them go to a judge behind their husband’s back and get an order that will let them show up with a cop at an unexpected moment and kick him out of the home. The point of this is to put him at a disadvantage through the element of surprise.

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.

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.