#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.

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.