Against a United Soviet Socialist States of America:

Posted on December 29, 2019


Despite what this iconography might suggest, the author of this post, a laborer, is not a neocon, and free healthcare strikes him as a pretty good idea. His false accusers, the ones who exploited the socialist laws criticized on this blog and in this post, are the entitled beneficiaries of patriarchy, and they include Trump appointees to the federal government. This is a lesson on checking your presuppositions at the door.

“He’d disregarded a fundamental principle of [the Soviet Union’s] work: the presumption of guilt.”

 “Greater Good the Greater Good the Greater Good[!]

“A single man didn’t dent the meaningfulness of their operations. The principles of their work remained sound. The protection of a nation was bigger than one person, bigger than a thousand people. […] It was essential [to] keep matters in proportion. […] The reasoning was sound and he believed none of it.”

—Tom Rob Smith, Child 44

The reader who has had any motive to scrutinize populist feminist rhetoric concerning the rights of men accused in minutes-long drive-thru civil court procedures meant to curb various abuses against women will recognize an uncanny correspondence between it and the sentiments quoted above.

The writer has read feminist writers describe the disruption or disintegration of a man’s life by false accusations as a “drop in the ocean” or a “price [they were] willing to pay.” As if it cost them or their families anything. Meredith Maran, who famously accused her father of molesting her and then wrote a book about it called, My Lie, has been quoted as reckoning that an innocent man’s being put away for life is acceptable in, you know, the interest of the Greater Good. I think I’ve also read that her dad died before she published her book, which received many critical accolades from the literary left.

This blog was recently renamed—or POV for short—and this post is meant to explain why.

For five years, 2013–2018, the blog’s author was prohibited from writing about his own 11-year case of serial false accusation by an unlawful censorship order, what’s called a prior restraint, that was imposed by a superior court judge without a trial. That was after the writer had launched this site and for two years written about corrupt “abuse” laws, the women and men who exploit them, and the damages they cause. (In the writer’s case, there was a female and a male plaintiff—who enlisted both another woman and other men to join in the turkey shoot.)

As the reader might guess, both denying defendants their freedom of speech and denying them trials are technically illegal in this country, but in accordance with the Soviet-style political dogma that informs all procedures stemming from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), civil rights violations, including denial of due process and constitutionally guaranteed protections, occur without a qualm or a ripple. Appeals are rare, and grounds for appeal or countersuit are few and may never include the allegation that the plaintiff simply lied.

(FYI for those who track political news, the Violence Against Women Act was the handicraft of comrade Joe Biden, who is today a contender for the office of President of the United States—and who has reportedly been accused by eight different women of “either [having] touched them inappropriately or violated their personal space in ways that made them uncomfortable.”)

Defendants who are lied about to the court and refuse to go quietly—because it may have cost them their careers; freedom and constitutional liberties; physical safety; and access to their home, money, assets, and children—are not uncommonly forbidden by a court on pain of imprisonment from talking about it at all, and that’s how socially prevailing American political interests prefer it. It helps preserve a lot of illusions. The Russian punk band Pussy Riot, spunky girls who flout authoritarianism from behind candy-colored ski masks, has enjoyed popular defense on NPR and among liberal activists in this country for years. The practice of censorship in the United States raises not a peep from the same “champions of democracy,” however, who this writer is convinced would roundly ridicule wronged men who engaged in similar antics here. Wronged women may be shamed or intimidated into silence, too. Sorry, the sentiment might run, but you’re collateral damage in a “battle to overthrow the patriarchy” that’s larger than you are.

From 2016–18, this writer was serially prosecuted on the grounds that he had allegedly violated the unlawful speech injunction imposed on him by the court in 2013. Two of the 2016 prosecutions sought his imprisonment for perfectly constitutional (“one to many”) public speech about documented lies.

All of the prosecutions (four of them in total) were dismissed at various stages, and the prior restraint was dissolved in a “settlement agreement” after eminent First Amendment scholar, UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh, detailed for the court its legal and practical errors, which it has never formally owned.

Like many of those who have emphasized civil rights and liberties over so-called gender rights and liberties—take Cathy Young, who was born in Russia—Eugene Volokh comes from people who lived under the Soviet regime. They appreciate better than multi-generational Americans do to what ends playing fast and loose with civil rights and liberties can lead.

Today even if by perseverance an American defendant does realize some measure of justice, the forces of suppression don’t meekly relinquish their stranglehold.

In the writer’s case, for example, the unlawful 2013 speech injunction’s noxious vapor trail has continued to influence every search engine’s returns for publications on this blog except Google’s.

This shows how effectively a false accuser, who enjoys popular favor anyway, can quash negative publicity about his or her conduct in contravention of one of the defining liberties of our democracy, namely, the freedom of speech.

As the reader may know only too well, there is no such thing in this country today as an alleged victim. Hoaxers may even have conferred upon them the exalted title “survivor.”

The author is now in communication with the other dominant search engine, which dictates the returns of at least two more. He has submitted this site for entry into its index under its new domain name. We’ll see how that goes.

Assuming the now defunct court order has been the reason for that search engine’s past boycott, if any claim of a government-ordered speech injunction is fraudulently renewed, the author may also be in communication with the court about the fraud and the person or persons who committed it.

You never know, there might still be a judge out there who would care.

Copyright © 2019

*NOTE: No blanket order of the court prohibiting all speech by a person, and in particular speech about his or her treatment by the government, is ever authorized by U.S. law.