Decline of the western society

A 1958 interview with Aldous Huxley.   The man was on the ball.   Dictatorship does not need to be cheesy brutality.   It can leverage human mentality and that is what we see in the west and most
of the world today.   People think they are free, but dance to the propaganda music of the fake stream media and get distracted by BS like tranny toilet privileges instead of how much money
their employer pays them.

In terms of drugs, it has been the food profile that has served the purpose.   Since the 1970s we have had the high carb low fat hysteria.   Dosing up on sugars and carbs (same thing as
sugar as far as the metabolism is concerned) is a form of pacification and result in degraded mental function.    Saturated fats are important for proper brain function.    Polyunsaturated processed
oils do not have the same microphysical properties and when used for deep frying or margarine are trans fat poisons.    People who have problems with the officially sanctioned diet (food pyramid)
note improved mental acuity when going to a more natural diet that is not carb-centric.    So in addition to the dumbing down of education, propagation of nonsense via fake stream media propaganda
(training the masses through Goebbels style repetition of inanity), we also have the pacification of sheep through diet advice.

Back in 1958, westerners could project all of their phobias onto the USSR and the commies.   But they were not immune from totalitarianism themselves.

GarryB wrote:

Don't even try to pretend that sex justifies a female $50,000 per month in alimony. Also note how alimony is always assigned to some ridiculous
standard of peak income. So even if the man goes bankrupt he still has to pay $50,000 per month to the crotch spreader.

Perhaps more men need to talk about women being the weaker sex... needing support after relationships end... do you think front line femenists would take the bait?

The picking the top income to set the number is just normal western business practise... every CEO wants to get paid what the CEOs of Apple and Microsoft get paid.... that is just normal... and also why privacy only applies to income levels and parking spaces and other perks of jobs that are already too well paid anyway compared to the people on the floor actually doing the work...

A company can pay some CEO millions of dollars per year. But some divorced shmuck is not always a millionaire and even if he is the alimony is set high enough to drain his millions. This was
the case with Robin Williams who took his own life not just because comics have a propensity for suicide, he was divorce raped.

Feminists have achieved legal control. Such rulings are Kafkaesque abuse of jurisprudence. But if you listen to 3rd wave feminists whine, they are all oppressed by the patriarchy.
Clearly their definition of the word "oppression" is not the dictionary one. What I see is legalized extortion of male assets to feed lazy, entitled parasites who think that participation
earns them 50% (and even 100%) of the man's assets.

Firebird wrote:Western society really is in decline.
It seems every advert today in Britain has to have a black, an Asian and a homosexual.
Its no different to how Hitler used to have blue eyed blonde people in adverts etc.
Same formula in light entertainment with presenter "quotas".
And if its kids on the news in schools its one black, one white, one Asian.
The media is riddled with the (LMAO) "oppressed group" of homosexuals.
And I counted 60% of "experts"/presenters on BBC news as black or Asian, bearing in mind they are supposedly just 1 in 7 of the population.

Womens "football" is given a high profile on the news. But NO ONE WATCHES IT!! Neither men or women actually like it!
The Establishment's arrogance is breathtaking. But the real discrimination in Britain isn't race, sex or sexuality. Its social class. You can see that how upper class idiots earn millions  and talented people of normal backgrounds are doing shite like working in call centres. And you'll NEVER see someone read out the news in Britain if they don't talk with a plum in the mouth private school accent. To me the political system is a joke. Its just one gang of likeminded muppets. With  a few outsiders used to discredit alternative approaches (eg Diane Abbott!!)

This is happening all over the West. But people in Britain seem particularly dumb and subservient.
Why are people so subservient?

I think it is a blend of physics and biology. Entropy dictates that mediocrity is the norm. So the IQ (hard to define but real) Gaussian peak is shifted down and it has a rather large spread.
Humans may have evolved through natural selection in an anti-entropic way, but there has been no evolution essentially over the last 50,000 years. And certainly none
in the last 200+ years. It also looks like humans are a species of pack animal like Chimps and other primates. So there is a genetic component which makes the
majority into sheeple with a few alphas leading them around. The entropy induced low IQ cannot fully explain the subservience. The apathy is a feature and not
a bug. Few people really think for themselves and I have a hard time trying to imagine what sort of mentality they have. The notion of turning on a TV and getting
my opinions from fake stream media news makes me cringe. But most people appear to never get past their teenage mental development.

Nice rant that gets to the core of the entitled prats who are the cannon fodder for PC totalitarianism. Coddling is not good for children. And that is not
the same thing as advocating abuse. Pandering to child vanity is grotesque.

"Patriarchy" and the "oppression" of women.

Wow. So a female is entitled to a theoretical career and money from that career which she "gives up" for marriage and child rearing.
I have questions for the c*nts in this UK court: is the man entitled to the money he would not have spent on his wife and her children
if he had chosen not to marry the female? Why is this BS privilege being afforded to the females? What makes them more special
then men? Equality? What equality.

Yeaaaaaah getting married is often a death sentence in modern times.

crod wrote:

kvs wrote:

Wow.   So a female is entitled to a theoretical career and money from that career which she "gives up" for marriage and child rearing.
I have questions for the c*nts in this UK court: is the man entitled to the money he would not have spent on his wife and her children
if he had chosen not to marry the female?    Why is this BS privilege being afforded to the females?   What makes them more special
then men?   Equality?  What equality.

Speaking as a lawyer, you have grossly misinterpreted the legislation via that video. It works both ways. Let me explain...

*Example: let's assume that the male is the predominant home carer that gave up his career (or didn't have one to begin with - it doesn't matter) to raise the family, with the woman the main financial provider. If the relationship breaks down, then the male is entitled to be to be financially remunerated by the female and also provide child support until the children reach the age of 18 (where applicable). The settlement will include all assets including the consideration of future pension entitlements etc. This example is in the most simplistic of forms but you get the picture. There are so many different permutations it becomes quite complex, emotionally draining, time consuming and expensive.

Same applies to same sex and de-facto relationships btw - where a country's constitution facilitates such relationships. Most western nations do.

The UK has moved, much like most other countries in recent times towards a no fault approach where mediation is the preferred method of resolution, thus saving on costs and court time. The mediation process will normally conclude with consent orders signed by both parties and submitted to the responsible court with jurisdiction.

Child access is also split evenly where applicable though there might (usually) be different circumstances that results in a different arrangement.

* I am not a UK admitted solicitor however UK family law is pretty consistent with other western nations.

No fault divorce already gives females alimony and 50% or more of the combined assets during marriage.    This is a new precedent setting ruling
which you completely misrepresent as established process.   It goes beyond no fault divorce laws to assign a new category of compensation
based on a "what if" scenario.   But only for the female.   She is somehow able now to claim some potential revenue for a potential job
she would have had if there was no marriage.   Clearly this ruling is Kafkaesque abuse of jurisprudence since it treats the compensation
from asset splitting and alimony not being sufficient.   So the wife of Bezos got her billions from asset splitting even though she did
not earn a cent of it, but this kangaroo court "ruling" adds her gender additional rights to dig into a man's pocket for hypothetical losses.

Don't insult the intelligence of people posting here by pretending this is within the scope of existing law or precedent.   This is a completely
new interpretation of female "rights" during divorce which is total nonsense.   Personal decisions have final bearing on claims.   Females
can't have their cake and it eat too by both choosing to

1) marry

2) have children

and then cop out when they are not happy with their decisions.   This ruling is utterly ridiculous since it ignores the existing over-compensation
of females at the expense of men (e.g. alimony on top of asset splitting; if it was "no fault" divorce, there would be no alimony.   Alimony is
by definition fault based and makes it male fault divorce) and pretends that the female is somehow being conned into marrying and having
children when she decides to make those choices.    If the state feels women are too oppressed by marriage and child bearing, then it should
cough up the money itself to "compensate" them.

My question to this kangaroo court stands: if the female can claim "what if" compensation, why cannot the male claim the same sort of
compensation?   Marriage is not a slavery contract for females where men extort their efforts.   The male pays the bills if the female is
not working.   Do these kangaroo jesters. and their apologists like you, really think they are credible with such BS?   Clearly this ruling
should be applied to males since under the wife's "what if" they have a corresponding "what if" where they do not pay those bills.

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1305530505077706756

Twitter conveniently censors all of Biden's child molestation videos in the name of "saving the children". We wouldn't want proof
of his pedophelia to confuse the voters in an election. You can bet your last penny that if these were videos of Trump then
they would not only not be removed, they would be "trended".

GarryB wrote:You can't evade this shit even if you choose not to get married, because if you live with a partner more than a set period of time you are essentially married and if one partner then wants to leave they get half of the collective assets.

Recently in New Zealand they changed the rules so you only can leave with essentially what you brought in to the relationship... have heard of a few guys that lost valuable gun collections because their now ex-spouse wants half the value... just really nasty shit... and they don't care about the money... they just want him to sell the things he likes because he didn't pay her enough attention so she cheated on him...

"No fault" divorce is one of the biggest human rights abuses of all time. It is a distortion of the concept of "no fault" as with car accidents. In the case of car accidents there is not
litigation but equal coverage including for serious injuries. In Canada it is possible to litigate in some provinces but bulk of the coverage is no fault. But divorce is something else.
The assets of the male before marriage should clearly have no role in any divorce split. But that is exactly what you have with this Kafkaesque law. That is divorce pillage, pure and
simple. How are these pre-marriage assets of the man related to the female? No fault means that neither party is penalized for divorce, but you can see that this is not the case
and the man is penalized by having the female get a windfall through claims on assets she never helped to accumulate.

In some US states it is possible to sign prenuptial agreements to secure unrelated assets. But in other states the courts have decided that such agreements are null and void.
Even if such agreements are possible, the mere fact that they are needed shows that the divorce laws are broken. But asset splitting is not the only problem with the misnamed
"no fault" divorce laws. The female gets alimony on top of her asset grab. So she is rewarded twice at the expense of the man. Alimony is pure obscenity where the kangaroo
family courts set it at some capriciously high level based on a one time peak family standard of living. So the female gets an absurdly high salary for doing no work from the man
for life even if the man becomes poor and loses his job. Alimony is never set at some minimum such as $10,000 per year. It is always above the average income level. That
is why men commit suicide or run off to other countries. It is a f*cking yoke and to call this "no fault" divorce makes Orwell cringe.

If it was really no fault divorce, then neither party would get anything like alimony. Only fair asset splitting would be involved, namely the assets accumulated after marriage and not
before. Child support is another problem but I have made my case.

The rot in the US entertainment industry is terminal. Also, "white privilege" is a phony construct designed to oppress normal whites.
All sorts of degenerates and sodomites are promoted and can act above the law, but supposedly people like me who earned their
degrees with actual studying and effort are "unfairly advantaged". Maybe because people like me do not go around abusing other
people and pretending to be victims. Real victims are basically never heard. But today we have fake victims using their fake
victimhood to oppress normal people.