#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.

Why don’t I have the same right to run for office as anyone else?

Back in 2008 and 2009, when I was awaiting trial and sentencing for threatening the President, the prosecutor kept making a big deal about how I don’t have the right to threaten people just because I disagree with their political views. Apparently, the government figured I deserved a felony conviction and 46 months in the slammer for that, because that’s what they gave me.

Well, look at Eric Clanton — he bashed several dudes over the head with a bike lock, in an effort to get his own political point across, and he only got a misdemeanor conviction and three years of probation. So he’ll have the freedom to get professional jobs, and run for office, and do everything else that non-felons get to do. Why is it a greater crime to hit the “send” button than to leave a guy bleeding out of his head?

The electorate of the Commonwealth of Virginia elected Governor McAuliffe, who then restored my civil rights, so that I could run for office. So I went ahead and exercised that right, and met all the requirements. I gathered 1,000 signatures of registered voters. Many of them were people who said, “If you’re willing to stand out here and ask for a signature to run for office, I’m willing to help you.” And they did help.

In this Greensboro News & Record article, someone writes with regard to me, “Any other time in history he would have been arrested or, at least, run out of town. What is so different today?”

Well, I thought it was the law that said, now that I’ve served my time, and the duly elected Governor has restored my rights, and I’ve collected 1,000 valid signatures, I should be allowed to run. Wasn’t it the need to uphold the rule of law that was used as justification for throwing me in the slammer for 46 months? So either uphold the rule of law, or don’t uphold it.

But it seems like people want to have it both ways. They want to punish me for breaking the law (and continue punishing me for the rest of my life), while celebrating those who break the law as long as they target someone like me (as in the case of the burglary of my home). Or in the case of Antifa guys like Eric Clanton, as long as they’re targeting evil fascist Trump supporters. That guy got let off with a slap on the wrist after doing serious violence, which sends a message to other Antifa members, “Go ahead and bash some skulls in, of people you disagree with politically; even if you get caught, it’s just a misdemeanor.”

I bet his conditions of probation were less restrictive than what the federal courts routinely impose too. It’s pretty arbitrary how federal defendants get treated much worse than state-level defendants, even though their behavior wasn’t any worse, and in many cases they could have been charged by either jurisdiction.

Also, Barbara Comstock said it’s “good news” that I was forced off the ballot, but said nothing to condemn those who resorted to some nefarious tactics to bring about that result. I guess she doesn’t care about consistent application of the rule of law either.

As far as I’m concerned, the government has forfeited any legitimacy to claim it’s being evenhanded in try to protect everyone’s right to express themselves freely. And so have many members of the public. It’s not clear that I’ll ever have the opportunity to try to even those scales, but if it does arise, I’m not sure I’ll feel any moral compunction about doing it. Why would I, especially if I target those who are affiliated with the state?


Lessons from the Oklahoma City bombing

Even most terrorists whose attacks are “successful” usually don’t achieve results on the same kind of scale as, say, the September 11 attacks. They may run over a handful of people with a truck, or injure a few hundred people with a pressure cooker bomb. Typically, though, those killed are random nobodies.

The Oklahoma City bombing killed a handful of DEA and Secret Service agents and a lot of bureaucrats, clerical staff, and civilians. Although there was a lot of collateral damage, which some people have a problem with, it did catch the government’s attention because its intended target was the government. In terms of political results, maybe it actually was a successful terrorist attack, in that it may have deterred further Waco- and Ruby Ridge-style incidents.

project_fbi_banner_03It also required the government to incur a lot of expense in beefing up building security. I have driven past the Northern Virginia Resident Agency (the FBI’s building in Manassas) many times, since it’s on the route 234 bypass that one would typically use when commuting from places like Bristow to northern Virginia. That building is a high-profile symbol of how hated our government is, that they would have to worry so much that someone is going to want to throw away his whole life just to bomb them.

Look at the security features in the photo. To get from the parking lot to the building, you have to go on foot across a bridge. This is intended as a setback so that if someone did manage to get past the gate with a truck bomb, they would only be able to get so close to the building with it.

The government has to take all kinds of measures these days to assure the safety of its people. When you go into a U.S. Probation office, you have to pass through a metal detector and get someone to buzz you in, so you can go from the waiting room to the actual office where the probation officers are. They’re making sure someone doesn’t come in there and try to gun down everyone. Why would someone want to do that, though, unless U.S. Probation has made their life such a living hell that they have a serious grudge to bear and nothing left to lose?

Likewise, when the cops come to bust someone, often they’ll arrive in SWAT gear and try to catch them by surprise at 5 a.m., when they’re likely still asleep. Why would they need to resort to those measures, if people didn’t have good reason to want to shoot back at the cops?

The fact that the government needs so much security is proof of how aware they are of the animosity and resentment the public has toward them. It also shows that they don’t really want to die, because they have a pretty cushy life, getting to have a fancy title and a nice salary with generous benefits, in exchange for doing the government’s bidding (which mostly amounts to fucking people over all day). That means in a way, they’re at a disadvantage relative to those who don’t give a fuck anymore whether they live or die, because the government has already taken from them everything that they had.

But all that security is kinda meaningless, given that it’s always possible to catch these people off guard. How much security do you figure these politicians and judges and probation officers and so on have at their homes? Probably not a whole lot. They probably rely mostly on security through obscurity, i.e. the fact that people don’t know where they live and wouldn’t know how to find out.

They probably go out various places with their families. How hard would it be for a couple guys to, say, find them at a restaurant, or out on a family picnic, and pull out some guns and quickly do away with all of them. Probably not too hard. Most of these people probably have certain patterns, e.g. restaurants they like to frequent, so it would just be a matter of figuring out the patterns and lying in wait. If you went through their trash and found some receipts or whatever, you could probably figure out what places they go to and when.

I don’t necessarily see a problem with killing their whole families, either. We’re past the days of the NAP. People make a big deal about the death of the Romanov family, as though it was unnecessary to kill the daughters; but who really cares about them? They were just foids. Their lives were a drop in the bucket, in the big scheme.

The question of which economic system we should use is much weightier, since that’s going to determine whether there will be famines killing millions. Killing the royal family is just part of completing the revolution. If you’re going to kill the father, the sons should logically die too, since they tend to follow in the father’s footsteps, or at least have some affinity for him.

The alternative to shooting up the rest of the family along with its head is that they’ll be left as widows and orphans. In the case of the girls, one alternative to execution is to force them into marriage to the conquerors. That’s not such a bad idea, I guess, but for some reason the commies didn’t do that.

From the point of view of the communists, the wives of the capitalists, or the imperialists, or whatever, were engaged in collaboration horizontal. So I can see why one might want to punish them by destroying them along with their offspring. But personally I would’ve favored just making the females rape-slaves.

Another way of looking at “failed” terrorists, and those who got caught up in stings

A lot of times, we’ve seen in the news that some Islamist tried to set off a bomb in a public place, but it fizzled; or some dude conspired to commit terrorism, but it turned out his conspirator, who was the driving force behind the whole scheme, was a federal agent. It’s easy to say, “Damn, what a dumbass; he didn’t accomplish what he set out to do, and now he’s going to be serving life in prison.”

Is it really a failure, though? I mean, they said the same thing about Captain John Brown, who got hanged for raiding Harpers Ferry. Thoreau wrote a few essays defending Brown’s actions against those who said he threw away his life for nothing.

It was undeniable that the day after the raid, slavery remained in effect; so in the minds of those who said, “He accomplished nothing,” that seemed to be objectively true. People seem to think that activism is only useful if it has an immediate positive result, in the form of drastic reforms that happen right away, rather than causing some pushback first that has to be overcome. They’re not considering how long these social movements take to accomplish their goals; they’re not looking 20 or 100 years into the future, and considering how future generations might be inspired.

These bombing attempts, whether they succeed or not, are just another form of activism, like voting in an election or holding up a protest sign at a demonstration. The only difference is, violence is typically what people resort to when they feel like they don’t have much to lose by devoting everything to their cause.

A lot of activism consists of symbolic gestures. If you vote, what difference does it really make? Maybe once in a lifetime, we’ll see a situation where an election really did hinge on one vote; other than that, it was a drop in a bucket. If you hold up a protest sign, it doesn’t directly influence policy; maybe it raises awareness a little bit and boosts the morale of your people to have you there, but that’s about it.

Well, what about these attempted bombings? They’re symbolic gestures. They send a signal that someone cared enough about creating some change, that they saw fit to try to bomb the shit out of whatever their target was. In the case of Muslims, I guess they really didn’t like U.S. intervention in the middle east, or whatever their beef is. They did get that message across, to the extent that people weren’t retarded enough to believe that they just hated us for our freedom.

But what about these domestic terrorists, who fedpost online and then get approached by undercover federal agents who say, “Yeah, let’s get together and bomb the shit out of the government”? Well, even if the dude gets caught up in a sting and sent to prison, the fact remains that he sent a message about how far he was willing to go. And now the government is going to have to expend funds on feeding, clothing, and sheltering him for the rest of his life, probably in a really expensive facility like ADX Florence.

It actually isn’t even all that hard for the government to find people who want to conspire to blow up government buildings. Maybe that’s why they quit bothering to do so many stings. They could probably put many, many more people in prison for that if they wanted to, just by doing more sting operations, because there are so many people who already have in mind that they want to attack the government, and just are waiting till they have a conspirator to help them.

It makes for terrible propaganda when the state is able to find so many people who want to do that. It shows that a lot of people have no faith in the political system to bring about change without the need to resort to violence. Those guys are a latent revolutionary force, just waiting for the right moment to act.

These days, I think what attempts at terrorism would demonstrate is that people who have been silenced aren’t willing to just sit by and accept that; they’re willing to fight back. The Ctrl-Left seems to have no problem with shutting down people’s freedom of expression, and doesn’t seem to worry that it might provoke them to want to make themselves heard in some louder way. I think the Ctrl-Left actually wants to start a fight.

Anyway, there are many forms of activism that involve going to prison without having hurt anyone. Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus is one. Gandhi refusing to pay the salt tax is another. They have a lot in common with these failed terrorists, who also didn’t hurt anyone.

So then, what makes the “failed” terrorists any more of a failure than Parks or Gandhi? Only that their cause hasn’t succeeded yet. But it was the same way for the Indian independence movement, or the civil rights movement, during their years of struggle.

The “failed” terrorists are also in a similar situation as Parks and Gandhi. The reason they didn’t harm anyone is that they lacked the power to. Had they had the power to, they probably would’ve resorted to some kind of successful violence, because it would’ve accomplished their goals more quickly.

But going to prison without having harmed anyone is still striking a blow for one’s cause. MLK did that, and no one would likely say today that he wasted his time sitting in Birmingham Jail. Lots of cannabis law reform activists (e.g. the ones who operated medical cannabis dispensaries in violation of federal law) also went to prison. So did the Suffragists; they not only went to prison but got force-fed. These are all just symbolic gestures of commitment to one’s goal; they’re a show of determination.

But that isn’t really part of our culture so much anymore. It’s our culture now to say, “We’re pretty comfy, so let’s just LDAR rather than try to fight too hard for any kind of change.”