I want to elaborate a little further on what I said earlier, about how autists tend not to be good at grasping unspoken rules. One of the unspoken rules of society is that, regardless of what the written rules are, and regardless of what principles people may claim to uphold, ultimately the strong get to trample the weak. The strong will often find some lofty principle to justify the trampling, but when it comes time to apply the same principle against the strong, that's when you find out that it's not to be taken at face value. (For example, when Trump didn't prosecute Hillary, we saw that he didn't actually care much about the principles he raised during the campaign to justify prosecuting her; it was more important not to piss off Hillary's powerful allies.)
If you argue in court, "I shouldn't be punished for smoking pot, because it's safer than alcohol, most of the public agrees it should be legalized, etc." the court will say, "The law's the law. We're just here to enforce the law. If you don't like the law, then work to change it."
However, if you then argue to the court, "Shouldn't I have a jury trial? The Constitution says that the trial of all crimes shall be by jury, yet here I am being tried by a judge," the court will quote an appellate ruling that basically says, "True, the Constitution says that, but it would be impractical to apply that rule in misdemeanor cases."
Well, yeah, but it's also impractical to think you can improve society by busting people for pot. What it boils down to is, the pot smokers have been a politically weak group for a long time, which is why their rights have gotten trampled. There's no good argument for why concerns about "health," "safety," "order," etc. trump the pot smokers' individual liberty.
But the rule of law only applies to those who are too weak to fight against it. Congressman Dan Burton's son got caught transporting seven pounds of cannabis from Texas to Indiana, and
got probation. I'm sure the courts justified that by appeal to some lofty principle like, "He comes from a good family that will probably influence him not to re-offend." There's probably a grain of truth to that, but ultimately, of course, it came down to using political connections to influence the court.
But we put "LIBERTY" instead of "POWER" on our coins and in our founding documents because liberty sells better. It's easier to get people to pay taxes and join the military when you say that it's for a cause that's nobler than all the causes people who might resist this government want to fight for.
A lot of times, though, liberty is just a means to an end, viz., power. For example, the politicians don't want to completely take over every sector of the economy, because they don't want the economy to collapse the way the Soviet Union's did, since then they'd lose their power. But when trampling on some liberties is seen as a way of getting more power, politicians will usually be glad to do that. The weak might not be a major asset to the government anyway, even if they were left alone, so why not go ahead and trample them, if doing so will help build alliances with the strong?
It's the same way with relationships. Yeah, a girl will open her legs to you when it's convenient to her to do so, and she'll say she's with you because of love. But if it becomes inconvenient for her to be with you, then love no longer holds the relationship together, which reveals that love was not the highest value driving her behavior. Rather, her devotion was a means to an end. She wanted the benefit of your power.
I guess most men are aware that women's love is conditional, but they don't usually go around saying it explicitly, outside the manosphere. Regrettably, autists tend not to get those kinds of memos till it's too late. They focus on being good, because they're told that's the highest value; but actually, that was a fiction into which they were indoctrinated by those who wanted to manipulate them.
When a woman says, "I love you," she's not only telling you her present emotional state, which is subject to change, but also setting you up to be manipulated into thinking, "I have a duty to stay in this relationship for the sake of the love that we share!" If you try to dump her, she'll say, "But I love you!" and start crying. If she dumps you, you won't be able to say, "But I love you!" and manipulate her into staying. It's the same as how the government will cite the rule of law to demoralize you from fighting against it, and making you feel a sense of duty to obey; but you can't cite the rule of law to get the government to obey the Constitution, UNLESS there are powerful people who want the Constitution upheld in that instance. (That's why it was such a loss when the ACLU got taken over by feminists and SJWs.)
Although I supported Trump, I knew all along that he was a pragmatist whose principles would be subject to change, depending on which way the political winds are blowing. The only way to get him to keep his promises, is to make a credible threat to withdraw support and keep him from getting re-elected. That's why I suggested
elsewhere, it would be a good idea for the alt-right and/or the far-right to form a political movement that consists of many more candidates than just Trump. For one thing, he can't implement his whole agenda unilaterally; he needs the help of some Congressmen who have an alt-right agenda. If they don't have that agenda, then he's going to end up making deals to get a few high-priority items through, and sacrifice the rest.
An abundance mentality also demands having other potential Presidential candidates to run against Trump in the 2020 primary if need be. One wouldn't want to get one-itis and say, "If Trump cucks out, all is lost!"
![[Image: laugh4.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/laugh4.gif)
![[Image: laugh3.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/laugh3.gif)
![[Image: NvmL4_s-200x150.gif]](https://m.popkey.co/36a134/NvmL4_s-200x150.gif)
![[Image: 58612714.png]](https://www.viralviralvideos.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/58612714.png)
