Debtors prisons are an essential tool of our new public policy.

Earlier this month Christopher Mathias at Huffington Post connected the Walter Scott case to our new family model in: One-Eighth Of South Carolina Inmates Were Jailed Over Child Support Payments. Walter Scott Was One Of Them.

But Scott, who was killed on Saturday by police officer Michael Slager in North Charleston, South Carolina, had also long struggled to pay child support. In 2008, he went to jail for a full six months after falling behind by $6,800 in child support payments,according to The Associated Press. Scott spent one night in jail in both 2011 and 2012, again because he owed thousands in child support. At the time of Scott’s death, there was awarrant out for his arrest due to failure to make child support payments. (Scott also had a history of convictions and arrests for other offenses, according to The Post And Courier, a Charleston paper.)

The knowledge of the arrest warrant for failed payments is likely what spurred Scott to run from Slager on Saturday during a traffic stop over a broken taillight.

“He said that’s what he would do, he would run, because he’s not going to jail for child support,” Scott’s other brother, Rodney, told MSNBC.

In a video shot by a bystander, Slager can be seen shooting Scott — who was unarmed — eight times as he ran away. Scott died, and Slager is now facing murder charges.

Mathias presents astounding statistics on the number of men who are incarcerated in South Carolina at the order of family court judges:

In 2009, Patterson conducted a survey of 33 county jails in South Carolina, which found that one out of every eight inmates — or 13.2 percent of the inmate population — was behind bars for contempt of civil court after falling behind on child support payments. In Charleston County, where Walter owed his back payments on child support, Patterson’s survey found that over 15 percent of inmates had been imprisoned for not paying child support. In a handful of the other counties studied, the figure was as high as 20 percent.

Men caught in this system do not have basic due process rights:

Turner’s case ended up in front of the Supreme Court, which ruled in a 5-4 decision in 2011 that the right to counsel only applied to criminal cases, not to people in civil or family court proceedings.

As capricious as this all sounds, there is a method to the madness here.  These men are being imprisoned to sustain a very recent and profound social revolution.  They are being imprisoned to facilitate the destruction of traditional marriage so that a new family structure, one instead based on child support, can take the place of marriage.  To understand this, you need to understand the four key objectives which are being achieved by imprisoning so many men.

 1)  Create the illusion that unwed mothers are not in fact irresponsible welfare queens.  

This is crucial to the moral acceptance of unwed motherhood.  For our new system to function as desired, single mothers must be absolved of all social stigma.  Our new system goes to great lengths to absolve single mothers of stigma, and part of this is removing the stigma of welfare paid to single mothers.  The new assumption is that financially secure unwed motherhood is a right of all women, and that any welfare payments unwed mothers receive are really just child support by another name:

Out of the $105 billion in child support debt nationwide, the government claims half so it can seek to recoup the costs of welfare benefits provided to low-income families.  Our current welfare program, called Temporary Aid to Needy Families (“TANF”), requires custodial parents applying for benefits to cooperate in establishing child support obligations against the absent parents and to simultaneously assign the resulting child support payments to the government.  Mothers, fathers, and children all become government debtors—the mothers and children owe their child support rights and the fathers owe the payments until the welfare benefits are repaid in full.

As Mathias notes, very large numbers of the men in prison for unpaid child support are poor.  These men are in prison not because they refused to pay, but because they couldn’t afford to pay.  More to the point, they are in prison because unwed motherhood causes tremendous harm to children and our society.  In order to absolve the mothers themselves, we must transfer the entire stigma and responsibility to men.  A crime against children requires that someone be punished harshly.  The men in prison for child support are in this sense sacrificial lambs, being punished in order to absolve all unwed mothers of their moral responsibility for the suffering of their children.

2)  Enforce the new quota based system.

A marriage based family structure creates natural incentives for men to work hard to support their families.  We have replaced the Western/Christian marriage based family system with a soviet style system, and just like the soviet system our new system requires threats of imprisonment for men who don’t produce as much as the state thinks they should.

3)  Facilitate the removal of the father from the home to “empower” women.  

The aim of our new child support based family model is to enable women to destroy their families but still receive the benefits which previously only came with marriage.  Child support (and the threats of imprisonment which sustain it) is designed to allow women to have children with men who are unfit to be husbands, and/or to eject a husband from the home.  South Carolina divorce attorney Gregory S. Forman explains that in cases where the couple is married the child support process generally can’t start until the wife ejects the husband from the home in Five Ways to Get a Spouse Out of the House:

When a marriage is no longer working, one spouse typically wants the other spouse to leave. However, until the parties actually separate, the Family Court lacks the power to determine custody or support issues (though the court can, under circumstances noted below, order one spouse to leave and then set custody and support). Thus, absent a written separation agreement, there are important strategic advantages to staying in the house…

It is quite common for unhappy wives to ask their husbands to leave. Since the husband is typically the person with the financial obligations and the wife will typically be the residential custodial parent, it behooves the husband to remain in the home until he negotiates a separation agreement with financial obligations he can meet and parenting rights he can accept.

Forman goes on to describe the legal strategies wives most commonly use to get their husbands out of the home so the whole process can begin.  Number one on his list of legal strategies is for the wife to claim* domestic abuse.  This both ejects the father from the home and converts him from (nominal) head of household to child support payer:

The two major advantages to Domestic Abuse actions are that they are provide prompt access to the court and that there is not a high threshold to prove domestic abuse. Hearings must be set within fifteen days of the filing of a petition (§ 20-4-50 (b)) and can be set within 24 hours in an emergency situation. § 20-4-50 (a). The definition of abuse includes “assault, or the threat of physical harm,” so an actual physical harm does not have to be proven. § 20-4-20 (a)(1).

In addition to providing the abused petitioner possession of the marital domicile, the Domestic Abuse order can also provide for temporary spousal and child support, custody and visitation.

Not surprisingly, this process is frequently manipulated by wives in exactly the way it is designed to be used:

Since Domestic Abuse orders are quick and efficient methods for getting a spouse out of the house, they are subject to abuse. Spouses will often attempt to prompt or instigate fights in order to call the police and set up domestic abuse proceedings. Since much domestic abuse becomes a “he said/she said” swearing contest, it is important to protect a client from false allegations of domestic abuse. In situations in which a client might be subjected to false allegations of domestic abuse, the purchase of a small hand-held tape (or even video) recorder is useful. Then, whenever the other spouse attempts to prompt a physical altercation, the client merely needs to hold the recorder up and start recording (announcing “tell it to the nice Family Court Judge, honey” when the client begins recording, adds an entertaining-though not always calming-touch).

Note that men are guilty until proven innocent in this case, and that it is well known that wives will commonly act as aggressors in order to claim victim-hood.  Forman’s Marie Antoinette-esque solution to “let them carry tape recorders” overlooks the reality that the system is working precisely as designed.  Iraq war vet Joseph Kerr describes how the system is designed in “What Do You Do When A Girl Hits You?”

Finally it was going to end. She wanted to move out of state with the kids and had no interest in discussing sharing custody. “We’re not discussing it, you can’t stop us from leaving. Sign it or I’ll get a lawyer and make you sign it.” She handed me a do-it-yourself version of divorce papers.

I reached out to some divorce lawyers. This life sucks for me, for the kids, for everyone. What do I do? “It’s a game of chicken in your house now,” the he said. “Neither one of you can leave with the kids, and the first one who leaves without them is a step behind in trying to get custody.”

Is there a worse possible way to resolve such a pending disaster?

Then the email confirmation — plane tickets, one adult, two children, one way, leaving soon. Tomorrow morning would be different, but sleeping on the couch was normal. I ended up on the ground next to the stairs. She kicked my head into the solid wood base. I blacked out, came to, stood up, bleeding. My daughter was screaming, “Stop hurting daddy!”

Kerr made the mistake of going to the police after the assault.  He was then arrested because all it took was for his wife to claim that he threatened her, and the process kicked in as designed:

“You wife is telling a bit of a different story, as happens a lot in these situations, she says you threatened her.”

“We’re going to take you into custody now.”

“Stand up and put your hands behind your back.”

An hour later I was handcuffed to a hospital bed waiting for CAT scan results to know if my head was bleeding.

After being released from jail with an order to not contact his wife or his children for a year, and with his bank accounts drained, Kerr asked his lawyer what he should have done in this incident.  Her response:

“Run. Run and don’t go to the police.”

Kerr tells us this wasn’t his wife’s first assault against him:

She grabbed me and ripped my shirt. Her nails cut my face. I bled. I tried to walk out the door. She blocked the door. I was a gym-every-day, active duty Marine, fearing someone a fraction of my size. If she had a penis I’d have a dozen ways to put her on the ground. Instead, I was left to sneak out a bedroom window and spend the night in a parking lot.

This is a well known pattern, as Web MD notes in their article Help for Battered Men**:

 “We tell men if they have to be in an argument, do it in a room with two doors so they can leave; a lot of times a woman will block the door, the man will try to move her, and that will be enough for him to get arrested.”

In the past our family structure was designed to keep families intact.  Our new family structure is designed primarily to break them apart.

4)  Dis-empower husbands and fathers in order to empower wives and mothers.

The overarching goal of the new system is to empower women, and in order to do this power must be taken from men and given to women.  Fundamentally, the objective is to create a system where women can become mothers without being beholden to a man.  The most obvious incarnations of this involve single motherhood.  However, the system is also designed achieve the same goal in a more subtle way, by making husbands powerless for those women who wish to remain nominally married.  All of the machinery designed to crush the father and remove him from the home can also be used to change the power dynamics within marriage.  The mere threat of using this cruel system is as feminist economists Wolfers and Stevens delightedly explain a “potent tool” for wives to use to gain power over their husbands (emphasis mine):

The mechanism examined in this paper is a change in divorce regime and we interpret the evidence collected here as an empirical endorsement of the idea that family law provides a potent tool for affecting outcomes within families.

*Forman says “prove” instead of claim, but then goes on to describe how claims are generally taken as proof.
**Archived here in case the article is edited to remove the advice.

See also Vox Day’s post Child support is modern debt slavery

This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Child Custody, Child Support, Domestic Violence, Fatherhood, Feminists, Threatpoint, Weak men screwing feminism up, Welfare. Bookmark the permalink.

170 Responses to Debtors prisons are an essential tool of our new public policy.

  1. Pingback: Debtors prisons are an essential tool of our new public policy. | Manosphere.com

  2. Novaseeker says:

    A- yup.

    All of this is true, although the legal details will differ slightly depending on where you live (not only the state, but also the local courts in the state). But generally speaking the system is intentionally stacked against men because it’s designed to bend over backwards to protect women from the small number of men who are physically abusive — that is, the idea is that we would much rather err on the side of treating all men like violent abusers, even if we get a lot of “false positives”, than have a system which is more balanced, but as a result lets some abusers through the cracks. The irony, of course, is that in many cases of actual male on female domestic violence she actually never calls the cops for various reasons — all of them known as “battered wife syndrome” and so on, and so the law, in bending over backwards the way it does to err on the side of creating false positives, nevertheless fails to address many of the actual situations of abuse anyway. The result is that much of the application of these laws is tactical in the context of divorces, where the husband was never physically abusive in any way.

    Keep in mind that in many states if you raise your voice to your wife in an argument, she is entitled to use that as a basis for saying she felt threatened for purposes of kicking your ass out of the house, even if you made no threats of violence at all. This is where the “goading” comes in, in the sense of the following scenario: husband learns of wife’s affair, husband screams at wife in obvious anger, wife calls cops saying she feels threatened, husband is removed from house, and loverboy is in husband’s bed later that night while the kids are asleep down the hall. Totally permitted under the rules in many states and completely unjust at the same time. But again, the idea is that we would rather tolerate injustices like this in order to err on the side of being protective — something which creates a rather obvious situation of “moral hazard” on the part of the protected women, who will abuse the power this gives them when they want out of the deal.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that any touching at all in a situation like that is an assault and will get you arrested. This is why lawyers have to advise guys in crazy ways like saying “no, you can’t simply push her aside if she is blocking the door, you have to open a window and jump out” and so on — something which makes no sense whatsoever, because the woman is engaging in what is called “constructive imprisonment” to begin with, but in a domestic situation that doesn’t matter, because the rules, again, bend over backwards to err on the side of punishing men for anything they do in this situation other than running through an open door or window (and that gets punished as abandonment as well, but at least not as DV).

    The law is a disastrous mess, but most people, including almost all self-styled social conservatives, are 100% in support of these laws because daughters.

  3. Pingback: Debtors prisons are an essential tool of our new public policy. | Neoreactive

  4. feeriker says:

    The overarching goal of the new system is to empower women, and in order to do this power must be taken from men and given to women.

    No. The overarching goal of the new system is to fully empower the State. Women in general, and simgle/divorced mothers in particular, are simply the most conveniently pliable “useful idiots” (h/t to V.I. Lenin) in achieving this goal, their castrato-mangina-white knight enablers being close behind.

    The PTB are all too well aware that men who are left in peace to leverage masculinity to build and lead strong families, or, worse still, communities of strong families are a direct threat to the power and influence of the Progressive State and must be destroyed at all costs.

    Expect this loose confederation known as the “manosphere” to eventually become a target of the State’s predatory violence, as it is really the only source of men’s resistance to the State and its status quo of slavery (“churches” having long ago been brought to heal).

  5. feeriker says:

    Sorry, brought to heel.

  6. enrique432 says:

    Dalrock, thank you for continuing this discussion that some of us have been having for 20 years (myself for 15). You point out much of what Baskerville touched on in his seminal work (Taken into Custody), and what other fathers’ rights groups have been saying.

    Discussions and arguments about CS with both women and White Knights, tracks VERY CLOSELY to discussions about false rapes in several aspects:
    *
    1. Like the “it keeps real victims from coming forward” argument of White Knights, Betas and the Feminist meme, instead of “it actually hurts, damages and destroys REAL people (falsely accused men, ala Duke Hoax), going after fathers for CS like fugitives, even if the most obviously ridiculous situations (men who lost jobs, got multiple sclerosis and couldn’t work), avoids the more obvious “inconvenient truth” — which is that we seek to double down on punishment to men, even when these same women who were part of that whole “two to tango” meme feminist used 25 years ago to thwart shaming of women, cannot support their children financially. Never mind my own personal story (an ex with a college degree who has earned NO MORE than $5,000 a year to support our children). Millions of women across the country who are single moms do in some cases NOTHING to support their own children, but instead receive welfare and CS and are patted on the head, while in every aspect they are similarly situated to the fathers who cannot pay (except the fathers often have a legitimate reason, like being laid off). This is notwithstanding the double standard of women who routinely do not pay CS when assigned CS orders, and NOTHING happens to them. No one wants to admit womens fault, even where appropriate, but will instead focus even MORE on men, or other societal ills to avoid assigning blame.

    *
    2. For years the feminist meme, effective and sensible, I admit, was that you should not make light of “pool hall” rape, college rape, etc (all the stereotypes, some of which I am sure have happened) because it could be your daughter, sister, mother, etc. Yet, we live in a country where men have been completely devastated, their children removed from their lives, jail, financial ruin, suicide, death-by-cop (as in your article), and unlike “Good Men” who cast off that “caveman” thinking and stood up for women against rape and rapists, you cannot find hardly a SINGLE woman in the United States or the Western World, save a few, that ever said “What happened to my son was an outrage and I plan to march on the Legislature to end this madness”. Nope. We live in country where men have been forced to pay CS for children everyone knows are not his (even Judges have admitted this while forcing CS), a country where 15 year old male rape victims have been forced to pay CS to their 30-something female gym teacher rapist who became pregnant, the whole “turkey baster” CS case (been several actually)…and of course, your run-of-the-mill men who were simply Frivorced and destroyed financially by CS…and yet no gallant mothers have come forth, no sisters who went to law school have “fought the man”, no daughters who grew up took up the mantle–to protect men and fight against the inequality and stupidity of child support laws.

    So where are all the good women? My answer to my own rhetorical question I have asked many women when this topic comes up is this: Women, even 50 year old mothers, do not stand up, even for the men in their lives (sons, brothers, etc), because they know they may someday need to rely upon those unfair laws…like a man who is a rapist doesn’t necessarily want to enforce “college rape laws” (even sensible ones, like don’t have sex with a woman unconscious), because he privately knows he may someday want to rely upon the lack of social care or concern, or laws. And it is not just for personal reasons women don’t fight against it, women don’t care about anyone but themselves, and society has told them, as with men, to always put women first. It is MEN who have always paid the price for other men’s freedoms–women simply don’t care.

    There is much more I could say on this topic, but I have marveled at how far we have come along to not have a “revolution” in thinking on this matter. I personally spread Red Pill awareness to all men I encounter and women alike, especially when I hear some 45-60 year old mother or father talk about how 30-something college grad/daughter “Susie just can’t find any good men who want to get married these days”…of course the reasons have to do with the cock carousel and all that, but a much subtler, friendly red pill to swallow is for me to mention, “well, a lot of men these days have seen the abuse their uncles, brothers, other friends have endured under family law and don’t want to lose their kids, house, money, etc etc”. Craft it however you will, I’ve never had a single person get mad that I’ve said it, because it appears they all know you cannot argue against that reality–it is THAT obvious to everyone what’s been going on for decades now. Unintended consequences.

    Sorry so long.

  7. greyghost says:

    This is what reality looks like and how it works. All of you righteous types talking against MGTOW. All you fellas thinking you can just find a low fuck count slut. This is what it is by law “women are like water and assume the shape of the container she is in. Lets take a good look at this container they voted themselves.
    Let’s quote some verses from the bible now and talk about sin. It is in the law with real guns and real death.
    If you are a man and want kids and family you get a surrogate. The rest is just bullshit. I got righteously scolded for a comment I made. As if on que Dalrock post up this article post up this article. (the man knows how to show reality) When I comment this where I’m coming from right here. My comments and ideas and reasoning are meant to keep all young men and children from living this crap. This is all legal and by law with the full backing and cheering on by the so called Christian church. Here’s what it looks like in the black community

    Harsh language

  8. ddswaterloo says:

    This is a great article. This injustice and evil must be stopped. This cannot go on.

  9. Minesweeper says:

    May the God in heaven judge all who conceived and are involved in this abomination. Words fail me.

  10. hoellenhund2 says:

    The overarching goal of the new system is to empower women, and in order to do this power must be taken from men and given to women.

    Power is given to women -> society goes to shit.

    Why doesn’t this surprise me? >Yawn<

  11. TGP says:

    Dalrock– You are doing God’s work. Thank you so much.

  12. earl says:

    ‘No. The overarching goal of the new system is to fully empower the State.’

    Exactly. One of the surest ways for this to happen or eventually happen is to give women a vote.

  13. Minesweeper says:

    greyghost – great vid! Depressingly familiar.

    feeriker – i disagree, the state only intervenes because the mom wants it that way, she want her swat team on command, cause she needs protection from the bad man…if the mother told the state to GTFO of my family, my husband will take care of this. They would never show up in the 1st place.

  14. earl says:

    Well you can save yourself a lot of trouble by eliminating:

    1) feminists
    2) promiscuous women
    3) single mothers
    4) divorced women
    5) obese women
    6) women that take some form of medication for mental illness.

    The few times I went against this advice was enough to make sure I never get involved with any of these women again. That’s why I set the bar high.

  15. retrophoebia says:

    @Earl:
    Exactly. One of the surest ways for this to happen or eventually happen is to give women a vote.

    I never get tired of sharing this paper – if you haven’t seen it, it’s an eye-opener:

    “Using cross-sectional
    time-series data for 1870–1940, we examine state government expenditures
    and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate
    state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state
    laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government
    expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns
    for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing
    over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary
    to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something
    that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American
    government started growing when it did.”

  16. enrique432 says:

    TFH: She was a stay-at-home for a couple years, we divorced, I was the generous “blue pill” guy who thought he was Alpha. As the years have gone by, I have paid to the penny what the law says I owe, and my children live comfortably (because they have lived in her father’s what is essentially “ancestral” home…that I am sure she will be taking when he passes)…I used to have a fun game, which I realize is a waste of time, which on or about every January 1st, I would ask said Ex (who is actually not a malicious woman like some Ex wives): “Will THIS be the year that you decide to financially support your children by working 2,080 hours a year, like the majority of parents/fathers?”

    It actually became a joke, and while she still had *some* shame, she was mildly uncomfortable with the truth–but as the years passed I got on with life, married a S. American, have a total red-pill life, had more kids, etc. It only comes up about once a year now, as far as finances and in fact just did the other day–she asked for some money for dental (I pay all their health care premiums, CS, etc, anyhow), and I did what all Red Pill aware men should do, I constantly co-op the feminine imperative:

    Ex-Wife: This latest dental issue XYZ will cost about $1100, I was wondering if you could help with that and driving lessons for Dearest 17.5 year old son.

    Me: Well, gosh Ex-wife, like I’ve said before, I already pay you about $25k a year (tax free to you, btw), and pay for their health care…my beautiful S. American wife and I work full-time…let me just ask you, have you worked 40 hours a week this last year, for a total of 2,080 per year, or do you still think that my wife and I should hand over my (her) money so you can continue to not work full time while we do, to support the children that you and I have? She wants to know…she says, like she always does, “Just let her (ex) file…I’ll come to court and ask the court to tell me as a woman why this would be the case”

    Ex-Wife: Sheesh, nevermind.

  17. Boxer says:

    Dear TFH:

    Plus, what you think she is on Day 1 is not what is after 10 years and 1 day. Nothing about your filtration process indicates that you can avoid Jenny Erikson risk. She married at 19, so that is pretty traditional. Look what she did after the 10-year mark.

    That’s exactly right, and it’s why I’ll never get married.

    It’s not just ho’s like Jenny Erickson. There are women going into the divorce courts who are 50+ years old (they’re not the norm, but the cotton tops are represented there). Imagine marrying someone in your twenties or thirties, raising kids with them, paying all their bills, and waking up one day to find she stole it all on a whim.

    Part of the brutality of the current regime is in its randomness.

    Boxer

  18. Boxer says:

    Grey Ghost:

    Glad someone else knows who Tommy Sotomayor is. I have followed him for years. He’s as good at the youtube thing as Thugtician and Barbarosa, and he puts out videos much more frequently.

    This is a very important article, if only to remind us all how insane the current status-quo is. Fifty years ago, if someone predicted that one in nine prisoners would be in jailhouse because they owed money, that man would have been laughed at.

    Incidentally, the USA is the product of an internal revolution, which aimed to do away with debtors prisons. Why are these faggot judges not being named and shamed as traitors to the revolution? Seems like a good project next July 4 for any concerned parents, to go out to the parade and hand out leaflets. Not that it’s likely to change anything, but it might raise awareness.

    Boxer

  19. Minesweeper says:

    @Boxer
    “Part of the brutality of the current regime is in its randomness.”

    Its not random, an marriage nowadays exists on a knifes edge. You are just waiting for gravity to take over, all it needs is a little push.

    Heard of the term divorces clusters ? There is a reason for that and it actually occurs.

  20. jew613 says:

    Enruque432, what is your ex wife’s plan once the child support gravy train derails?

  21. Novaseeker says:

    The random factor is the woman in question.

    When a woman marries in the United States, one of the wedding gifts is a fully loaded lethal legal weapon provided by Papa State, with the following note: “You may never need to use this, but Im giving it to you just in case you do, and, believe me, it’s a lethal weapon — it’ll kill him dead. Just remember me in November *wink*”.

    The randomness comes from whether any particular woman decides to use it — either to blow up the marriage or as a threatpoint to achieve leverage and control while staying married (it can be effectively used either way). Not all women do blow up the marriage with it, but a larger number of women do use the threat to assert leverage in the marriage — a smaller number does neither.

  22. earl says:

    ‘Nothing about your filtration process indicates that you can avoid Jenny Erikson risk. She married at 19, so that is pretty traditional. Look what she did after the 10-year mark.’

    Did you read the whole story about what happened leading up to that marriage? There was the part where she said she hit the guy before he proposed to her. From the way she made it sound she never dug the guy in the first place and that it was all coming from him.

  23. earl says:

    It’s more of a state of heart with these women.

    I wouldn’t get married to a woman who either outright says she’s a feminist or makes a point that ‘she’s the boss’, ‘she makes the rules’, ‘mentions she has a crummy attitude or hates men in general’, etc. I can’t fix her soul or change her heart.

  24. earl says:

    Where did I say my criteria leads to a high probability? I live in a city and I can wipe out ~90% of the women I see on a daily basis based off my criteria alone. Girls aren’t shy from having tattoos, multi-colored hair, abnormal piercing, or being overweight. Then to listen to them talk pretty much cements it.

  25. The United States won’t last forever. Society will simply gradually fall away like a Sand Castle from the relentless tide. Dalrock’s article simply illustrates the crumbling fabric of our civilization. It is not an “if” but simply a “when’ it all comes apart.

  26. “Then the email confirmation — plane tickets, one adult, two children, one way, leaving soon. Tomorrow morning would be different, but sleeping on the couch was normal. I ended up on the ground next to the stairs. She kicked my head into the solid wood base. I blacked out, came to, stood up, bleeding. My daughter was screaming, “Stop hurting daddy!””

    This is just heartbreaking! It’s bad enough for the guy, but to think those kids have to grow up living with their father’s abuser is horrible…

    As a point of interest, you may like to know that the CS system here in Australia is pretty different. I haven’t had any personal experience with it, but from what I have heard, Child Support Australia can state what a man should pay in CS, but it is up to him to pay it or not. It is based on his income, but he can change his income with CSA by just telling them it has changed, no evidence needed. And nothing really happens if he doesn’t pay.

    So most of the “you can be a single Mum – go gurl!” rhetoric is based on the assumption that a woman will get no CS. It’s all, “well, you should make sure you’re never out of work for long when you have kids, so that you can support yourself if your marriage breaks up.”

    (Happy for anyone who has experienced CSA personally to clarify here!)

  27. feeriker says:

    feeriker – i disagree, the state only intervenes because the mom wants it that way, she want her swat team on command, cause she needs protection from the bad man…if the mother told the state to GTFO of my family, my husband will take care of this. They would never show up in the 1st place.

    Absolutely wrong. The State exercises its authority whenever and wherever it wants to, against whomever it wants to, regardless of what any mere citizen has to say about the matter. Whenever any so-called “crime”* is committed, it is committed against the State – NOT the individual. This is why prosecutors will proceed with charges against someone even if the actual victim of the crime the makes it clear that they do not want charges pursued. That victim is told that it is effectively “out of [their] hands,” that it is the State that has been trangressed against. This is of course nonsense. It is also the pretext by which the State exercises its unlimited power. While women collectively, along with armies of their sperm-waste mangina enablers, provide that pretext, they cannot revoke it. For many, it becomes a double-edged sword. The Thomas Ball case provides an excellent example. The daughter and wife who no doubt thought that the hammer of the State would at some point benefit them, at their descretion, probably never imagined that it was something that they couldn’t keep locked in a toolbox if they didn’t want or need it. They discovered to their detriment and too late (at the cost of a father and husband’s life) that it doesn’t work that way. The hammer has a mind and will of its own that pays no attention to anyone or anything else, especially not those who think that they control it.

    (* Not necessarily as defined by the Natural Law)

  28. Minesweeper says:

    @freeriker, well its only that way because other women have campaigned heavily for it. Other women produced and pushed studies that said a woman can’t understand her situation while in it (being so feeble minded or brain washed or under his control etc…), I really doubt the western states (unlike communism) wants to utterly define the family and what is acceptable within the confines of a home, if they did they wouldnt have needed feminisms to wage war against gov oppression as they saw it .

    They are far more interested in votes and tax $ and military campaigns, tbh they really coulndt give 2 sh8ts about what is going on, they have let the women define what they require to shut the hell up, altered the system to accommodate, then walked away to let it rip, while focusing on kicking hell out of foreign lands, I mean isn’t that their role in the world after all ? The man wages war in a desert somewhere, the women keeps the house and kids (literally).

  29. theshadowedknight says:

    Before you see any improvement, you will see blood. How many of you are willing to see this through? I am not even talking about the fighting, just the legal remedies. Shooting all the bastards that turn to crime, flogging the women responsible, banishing the degenerates and traitors. The legacy of this system will endure for at least a generation afterwards, if sufficient ruthlessness is practiced. If not, then much longer, assuming that anything is salvageable.

    The wolves are circling, and they have to be fed.

    The Shadowed Knight

  30. Scott says:

    Rollo-

    Those “financial abuse tactics” have been a staple of the insidious way the system convinces women they are being abused since the Duluth power and control wheel first came out. I was teaching my DV guys that every one of those arrangements was abuse back in graduate school (almost 10 years ago now).

  31. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Novaseeker sez:

    The randomness comes from whether any particular woman decides to use it

    That’s correct. Divorce is at best a horrible necessity, which in a sane society, would be tolerated in only the most extreme case. The freakshow that exists today makes marriage a game of russian roulette (with two of the six chambers loaded). I admire and support the men who dare to take this challenge on. You all have my respect. No freakin’ way I’d do it myself, though.

    Then TFH sez:

    Adding the rest of your filtration criteria, you are left with about 10-20% of possible women who might, maybe, give you a life that is better (even if only slightly better) than if you never marry at all.

    Feigning disinterest, I think you’re being overly pessimistic. There are actually lots of benefits to marriage in a patriarchal society. In the first place, a marriage allows people to finally get on with adult life, and go about building a family. Before marriage, in a sane society, there is no one to have sex with (outside of traveling to a brothel or skid row) and unmarried people are always equated to children, assumed to have something wrong with them.

    Sharing expenses and labor, and just the psychological growth that happens (one has to mature enough not to aggravate someone else — and this has immense peripheral benefits) is not easily quantifiable, but it is an important civilization-building factor.

    10-20% probability. That is it. If you think it is higher, based on your filtration criteria, you are wrong.

    Sadly, I think this is about accurate. It’s largely artificial, though, as you point out. Remove the divisive threatpoint and the social meddling, and people will likely find it much easier to get along with one another.

    The upside for us is that we don’t really have to do anything. The status-quo is collapsing due to its own internal contradictions, and families will organically become healthier with the removal of the ideological apparatus from the lifeworld of the couple.

    Boxer

  32. earl says:

    ‘The upside for us is that we don’t really have to do anything.’

    The whole feminist dogma was based off government funding. It’ll collapse on it’s own…so I haven’t lost hope. But we are still in the decline phase where more girls than not are still latching onto the system.

  33. Spike says:

    ”Men are mavericks. Women aren’t. Men unionize. Women don’t. If you have a workforce of women, you will get a docile and compliant workforce. It isn’t a good workforce of innovation and production .Ä man will not work for the State. A woman will work quite happily for the State”’
    – Erin Pizzey.
    -Exactly what the first cultural Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, wanted. The Long March Through the Institutions is complete.

  34. Dave says:

    I wouldn’t get married to a woman who either outright says she’s a feminist or makes a point that ‘she’s the boss’, ‘she makes the rules’, ‘mentions she has a crummy attitude or hates men in general’, etc. I can’t fix her soul or change her heart.

    Better still, you should look at what these women do, not merely what they say or leave unsaid.
    Most times, you can only extrapolate (e.g. a woman who does not respect her parents, especially her dad, will have problems respecting you. A colleague broke up with a girlfriend after she called her mpther a bitch during an argument.)
    As more men wake up to feminist stupidity, more women will adapt, and deny being feminists, though they are in full agreement with the feminist ideologies.
    Any woman who says she is committed to “women’s rights”, or who does not know how to cook and not willing to learn, who believe in divorce for flimsy reasons, who expect that the man should equally share household chores, etc, is probably a feminist.

  35. You need to accept that what you are seeking is statistically improbable. 10-20% of women, tops.

    No way is it that high. Especially if Earl wants a woman who is Catholic, or at least a church-going Christian. That knocks the percentage down to 20% or so already, before applying any of his other filters. I’d put the percentage of women worth taking a close look at at closer to 1% of the general female population. Dropping with age, of course, so maybe higher at 18, but lower at 30+.

    Having said that, I’m not anti-marriage, even now. But I think a man will have to check out a lot more than 10 women if he’s hoping one will be a unicorn.

  36. Retrenched says:

    The American government is at war with fatherhood – which is to say, it is at war with the American family.

    Either the American government (in its present form) will collapse, or the American family will. The two cannot coexist — that has been made clear.

  37. Retrenched says:

    Sad to say — and apologies to the many good women out there — but in democracies where women outnumber and outvote men*, it’s inevitable that the female id will ultimately become the supreme law of the land and the highest moral standard, replacing whatever the standard happened to be prior to female suffrage (the Constitution, Ten Commandments etc).

    * – For those who wanna say “but women have had the vote for almost 100 years!”, keep in mind that they did not become the majority of voters until 1981.

  38. JDG says:

    Marriage worthy women in the USA? I’m going to be generous and guess less than 5% when I take into consideration the following:

    A 2002 survey of about 12,500 men and women found that 97 percent of people who were no longer virgins at age 44 had sexual intercourse for the first time before they married.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121901274.html

    Furthermore, if 97% of the under 45 populace fornicated before marriage, what other red flags will be found in the women of that group?.

    For perspective, 5% of 1/2 of 318.9 million is a little less than 8 million (again being generous because 3% of 159.45 = 4.78). So perhaps 5 to 8 million women under the age of 44 have NOT already given away what should have been saved for any future husband. How many of those women are under 26, willing to cook and clean and submit to a husband in everything?

  39. the bandit says:

    Well you can save yourself a lot of trouble by eliminating….

    After you apply those filters, I think Cail Corishev’s 1% estimate is unrealistically high.

  40. Don Quixote says:

    seriouslyserving says:

    April 26, 2015 at 7:23 pm
    As a point of interest, you may like to know that the CS system here in Australia is pretty different. I haven’t had any personal experience with it, but from what I have heard, Child Support Australia can state what a man should pay in CS, but it is up to him to pay it or not. It is based on his income, but he can change his income with CSA by just telling them it has changed, no evidence needed. And nothing really happens if he doesn’t pay.

    Having spent 16+ years dealing with the Australian Child Support Agency I can tell you your information is incorrect. The ACSA gets its figures directly from the taxation office, and bases what you pay on their figures [available from their website]. Any woman who complains about her ex-husbands payments can get the money directly taken from his pay by his employer, you never even see the money. All employers must comply with these laws.
    The Australian system isn’t as bad as the American stystem, they don’t jail you. They do ensure your slavery until your children finish school and/or university. There are no loopholes, so many men have no incentive to work. And I have often heard of ~deals~ being done to avoid the system but these don’t amount to much, if they did then taxation office would be all over it.

    And the ACSA are a nightmare to deal with, so much so that after a few years of being harrassed by them I insisted that any and all correspondance be in writing only. No phone calls under any circumstances.

  41. Random Angeleno says:

    A cousin told me about a friend of his who really wanted to get married when he hit his mid 30’s. This fellow lived in a major metropolitan area, had enough red pill to know he had to be in charge and was good looking enough to use online dating. He ended up meeting over 40 women in a 3 year period from the time he set out to do it before he met and married the only woman who passed all of his filters *and* would accept and respect his leadership. Just one, that was it, think about that … FWIW, I never met the couple; the cousin thinks the woman is probably 1-2 points below him in SMV, but she is several years younger and does not have a weight problem.

    For the rest of us who don’t get anywhere with online dating, that *one* might as well be a unicorn. A lot harder to date 40 eligible women in real life. Many of us don’t even meet that many …

  42. Random Angeleno says:

    Will just say that provoking a husband to violence as a tactic to kick him out of the house is in no way limited to South Carolina. Happens all over the US. Best a husband can do is to start recording all conversations when things begin going south.

  43. feeriker says:

    “Any woman who says she is committed to “women’s rights”, or who does not know how to cook and not willing to learn, who believe in divorce for flimsy reasons, who expect that the man should equally share household chores, etc, is a feminist.”

    FIFY

  44. feeriker says:

    That is another place for Earl to look for a bride, as he had two daughters. But they probably were not virgins.

    Worse than that is the fact that they’re professionals with post-graduate educations in a STEM field (medicine). This means that they’re stratospherically hypergamous (women, especially in fields like medicine and law, DO NOT “marry down” and respect the lower-value men they marry). They will also approach prospective husbands in the same manner they approach job applicants or competitors (“see how big MY dick is – let’s see YOURS!”).

    The only realistically viable options as husbands for Tom’s daughters are older doctors, probably widowed or divorced with grown children, or retired doctors at least two decades older than they are. To set Earl up with the likes of one of Tom’s daughters would be doing him a terrible disservice, to say nothing of setting him up for a lifetime of marital misery.

  45. @Don Quixote

    Right, I got quite a lot of that wrong then! Thank you for correcting me.
    Sorry you’ve had cause to know the system so well.

    My info was all second-hand – a few years ago I spent quite a bit of time on a Mums forum, and there was lots of “kick him out on his ass!” advice being doled out, and lots of “but don’t expect any child support!” in equal measure.

  46. Looking Glass says:

    This is a hard question to ask, as an American, but it’s getting harder to ignore: was our society more “just” pre-1960? That’s all-inclusive, even with Jim Crow Laws.

  47. embracing reality says:

    Child support slavery. Married or single, having intercourse and therefore the possibility of impregnating an empowered amerikan princess is now, for a man, the risk of possible imprisonment (not counting those who get shot dead by the police first.) Never mind though, yeah, those MGTOW are freakin idiots! Son, you got to mount those heifers, getcha sum.

  48. A Regular Guy says:

    @ Earl

    “Well you can save yourself a lot of trouble by eliminating:

    1) feminists
    2) promiscuous women
    3) single mothers
    4) divorced women
    5) obese women
    6) women that take some form of medication for mental illness.

    The few times I went against this advice was enough to make sure I never get involved with any of these women again. That’s why I set the bar high.”

    It’s sad when the above is considered these days as “setting the bar high”.

  49. pukeko60 says:

    This means that they’re stratospherically hypergamous (women, especially in fields like medicine and law, DO NOT “marry down” and respect the lower-value men they marry). They will also approach prospective husbands in the same manner they approach job applicants or competitors (“see how big MY dick is – let’s see YOURS!”).

    The only realistically viable options as husbands for Tom’s daughters are older doctors, probably widowed or divorced with grown children, or retired doctors at least two decades older than they are. To set Earl up with the likes of one of Tom’s daughters would be doing him a terrible disservice, to say nothing of setting him up for a lifetime of marital misery.

    Divorced older doctor here says: did that once and ended up raising the boys. Not again.

  50. Lol, I might get angry and frustrated with my lonely lot in life but damn…. this is some fucked up shit!

    I keep saying it.. there is no such thing as marriage anymore. It doesn’t exist.

  51. Slowly but surely, the warning of “Don’t stick your dick in crazy.” is changing to “Don’t stick your dick in ………”.

  52. pukeko60 says:

    I was reading backwards, and then met Tom.

    Last year, there was a man called ‘Tom’ with two daughters who were half-Filipino, and both were MDs currently doing residency. He was so desperate to marry them off that he came here to advertise them. But he started out with a ‘weak men are screwing feminism up’, and ‘man up so that you qualify for my daughters’ approach. He even challenged me to a duel for saying that SoCons are economic leftists in matters of male-female transactions. That approach didn’t endear him to commenters here, of course, but he mellowed a bit over time. That is another place for Earl to look for a bride, as he had two daughters. But they probably were not virgins.

    Tom’s kids are so single.
    1. First rule if you are a professional is do not, ever, screw the crew / dip your pen in the ink etc. I’m senior in my field. ALL, and i mean ALL students/ residents are off limits. Nurses, doctors, psychologists… the lot.
    2. By the time they get their ticket (did I add that there is no board eiligble in the commonwealth? you have to get the fellowship, and most people will fail the exams at least once) they are often in their 30s and… tired. And bitter. And with baby rabies. The only thing attractive about that is Baby Rabies: I love kids. But raising another set starting in your 50s….
    3. They are seriously in debt. If not from their medical school, then from setting up a practice. Which still has to be serviced if / when they have babies.
    4. To keep their professional status they cannot stop working. No, I am serious: if you take a year off in my country you lose currency and you have to prove you are still competent. It is not just a matter of paying your licence fees and fellowship fees (which add up to about 3.5K, by the way) but you have to demonstrate you are working so many hours and still do the same amount of CME.

    I have great respect for my femaie colleagues. My GP (family physician for you Yanks) is female. But they have a very hard life, and the wiser among them decide to be a wife first and treat medicine as an interesting hobby while their kids are small.

    And those are the women who generally remain happy, sane and with their husbands.

  53. Pingback: Debtors prisons are an essential tool of our ne...

  54. Great article. Finally someone pointing out that Walter Scott’s crime was non-payment of child support and that he would go to prison for that. This is why he ran off, and thus very much to blame for him getting shot. Unlike Michael Brown, and Trayvon Martin, it seems that Walter Scott was not a dangerous criminal, just a deadbeat criminalized by the feminist system.

    Dalrock, do you agree that feminism is the main reason why white women don’t have kids? Feminism tells women to work and have a carreer, to put off children to the very end. And it gives women so many rights and entitlements, that any decent hard working middle or upper class man would be best advised to MGTOW, to go their own way and stay away from women and offspring. Lest he could be bankrupted and arrested.

  55. Dave says:

    The only realistically viable options as husbands for Tom’s daughters are older doctors, probably widowed or divorced with grown children, or retired doctors at least two decades older than they are.

    I hate to break it to you: these women consider older doctors to be less than themselves, going by their computation. The minimum qualifications they look for in a guy is that he is a doctor, with at least the same qualifications, never married, and within 5 years of their ages. If he is older, divorced (or even widowed), is not as specialized as them (e.g. if she is a cardiologist and the prospective husband is a general practitioner), he is considered less desirable for marriage.
    Of late however, it seems this is changing. I recently listened to the lament of several medical students who were unhappy because they could not find prospective husbands. Although they seem to be a bit more reasonable than the average MD, they still had their chips on their shoulders. I bet they might need to walk a few laps round the proverbial mountain before they learn the value of a man.

    The flip side is that most male doctors are not very keen about marrying fellow female MDs, because the latter are often useless as wives, and tend to be arrogant and highly opinionated. Not exactly the types of people you would want on your team. Moreover, they are considered to bring no significant comparative advantage into a marriage.

  56. Dave says:

    It is not just a matter of paying your license fees and fellowship fees (which add up to about 3.5K, by the way)

    That sounds pretty high. Which country is this? I am guessing UK?

  57. Beeker says:

    “The whole feminist dogma was based off government funding. It’ll collapse on it’s own…so I haven’t lost hope. But we are still in the decline phase where more girls than not are still latching onto the system.”

    Unfortunately, collapse is unlikely to happen, at least due to federal government finance reasons. The US federal government (and so is the UK, Canada and Australia, and any another state that issues its own currency) is Monetarily Sovereign.

    See:

    http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2009/05/another-misinformed-article-about.html

    http://mythfighter.com/2009/09/12/144/

  58. Pingback: Is Imprisoning Men for Child Support a Way for the Government to Detroy Traditional Marriage? | Dr. Helen

  59. earl says:

    @ TFH:

    Part of what you brought up is the father’s role in his daughter’s life. A daughter who has no positive male role model in her life is certainly going to be a high risk candidate…but I never thought about the daughter who has the overbearing father as one too. It’s hard to respect a father when his leading statement is about weak men and that men have to prove themselves to his daughter. Might as well prepare them for spinsterhood with that attitude.

  60. earl says:

    Certainly a father shouldn’t allow his daughter to marry a drug addict or a guy headed for prison…but to make every guy weaker than she is isn’t going to help her cause.

  61. Spike says:

    Don Quixote says:
    April 26, 2015 at 10:04 pm
    seriouslyserving says:

    April 26, 2015 at 7:23 pm
    As a point of interest, you may like to know that the CS system here in Australia is pretty different. I haven’t had any personal experience with it, but from what I have heard, Child Support Australia can state what a man should pay in CS, but it is up to him to pay it or not. It is based on his income, but he can change his income with CSA by just telling them it has changed, no evidence needed. And nothing really happens if he doesn’t pay.

    Seriouslyserving: I too am from Australia. I can tell you that The Don is right. My work colleague with whom I have worked every day for 6 years, is exactly under this regime. Before his wife frivorced him he was hard working, driven and ambitious. His children were then taken away from him where they live with mother and her new boyfriend. He has his pay docked before he sees it. If he gets a pay rise, it gets indexed to go to Mum. This has had a terrible effect on him. he no longer has drive, ambition or a desire for his work to succeed. He is basically a shell going through the motions of work.

    It makes you wonder just how many men -how many fathers, brothers, sons, uncles and cousins have to be thrown into the gutter, how many children thrown into the meat grinder of welfare dependancy and child abuse, for the relevant authorities to have the penny drop that divorce is rotten to the core?

    In Sydney, the Family Court is on Goulburn St. Opposite it is the Masonic Centre, which runs all of Australia’s Freemasonry. My guess is this: the children that go into the divorce Grinder are the Masonic Judge’s sacrifices that they must produce to get up The Ladder at The Lodge. So they rule family break-ups and then go across the street to ritually offer their actions as sacrifices to Satan. How else can you explain the wilful evil of it all?

  62. Greg C. says:

    Unjustly condemned and led away like a lamb to the slaughter. We turned our back on him and looked the other way. He was crushed for our rebellion. It was our sins he had to carry, for he had done no wrong. “UNITED STATES FAMILY COURTS ~ Destroying families since 1950

  63. earl says:

    ‘In Sydney, the Family Court is on Goulburn St. Opposite it is the Masonic Centre, which runs all of Australia’s Freemasonry. My guess is this: the children that go into the divorce Grinder are the Masonic Judge’s sacrifices that they must produce to get up The Ladder at The Lodge. So they rule family break-ups and then go across the street to ritually offer their actions as sacrifices to Satan. How else can you explain the wilful evil of it all?’

    Given how dehumanizing these judges and lawyers become…I wouldn’t put it past them to do that sort of thing.

  64. @Beeker. You are wrong. Every single civilization collapses or is swept away. Every last one of them.

    It won’t happen to today or tomorrow; it will be many decades from now, but it will inevitably happen. The seeds are being sown now, by suppressing male breadwinning earnings it will ensure the fertility rate stays below replacement.

    Western governments are only solvent only for the moment. What is not solvent is the below replacement fertility rate for most first world nations. Population decline will begin in the 2050’s. As the population ages that means growth decreases, tax revenue decreases, the GDP lowers, but the welfare state’s burdens increase. The whole economic system will change to a more labor valued system (scarcer commodity) from a finance/capital system.

    I very much disagree with your assertion that this will last forever.

  65. Looking Glass says:

    Greece is in the full out process of collapse as we speak. (Initial Capital Controls already in place) The “End” will come a lot faster than most expect, but the US will probably be the last to go. The “Full Faith & Credit” bit comes backed up by the world’s most powerful military. It goes a long ways.

    Plus, the scariest bit is unleashing our banks upon an enemy. I think that’s far worse than the 4th ID knocking on your border.

  66. rugby11ljh says:

    That was a real good read.

  67. doclove says:

    Dalrock wrote a great article and is virtually correct in all his assertions, and TFH is right in the few corrections he stated to improve Dalrock’s ideas. I mean no insult to the Protestant Christians as I realize they will have differing ideas and sensibilities than me. The Social Conservatives are the useful idiots and dupes of the feminists. We should remind them of it then ask them whether they are aware of this or unaware of this and ask them if they are willing to change and how so. Remind them that we have the right to judge them on their responses and mock them as socialists and feminists if they do not. Tell them that anything which could truly be called marriage in the USA died in the 1960s Vietnam War era, real Protestant marriage in the USA died in the 1860s American Civil War era and real Christian marriage which is traditional Catholic died before the USA was even colonies of England in the early 1500s under King Henry 8 of England during the Protestant (Reformation) Revolt .What we have now is a licensed boyfriend girlfriend relationship which we fraudulently call marriage which has many but not all characteristics of indentured servitude or slavery in which the man is the slave and the woman the master. Letting homosexuals marry is merely mocking the dead institution of marriage in this world. Marriage does not seem like it will be resurrected from the dead any time soon here in the USA in this world. That’s just my opinion. Yes, I am Catholic. Is there anything else you want to know?

  68. doclove says:

    This Child Support System is the most evil form of prostitution which has ever existed. It makes venereal diseased especially if they have HIV-AIDS streetwalker whores who also act as murderous thieves look like honest whores with a heart of gold by comparison. The reason for this is at least men go to the street walker expecting danger because society warns him of this whereas men go to get married thinking their wives are good women with society lying about how women really are and how the system truly works.

  69. Novaseeker says:

    The “Full Faith & Credit” bit comes backed up by the world’s most powerful military. It goes a long ways.

    Also automation advances in the next 20-30 years will have a role to play in terms of the ability to absorb population declines while maintaining productivity. Of course, there will be lots of inequality, which will be the real source of instability. In order for the whole house of cards to collapse, the US has to collapse, and that isn’t just around the corner. I fully agree that all things come to an end, and that there is a “cycle of regimes”, but in this case I think that the cyclical change will happen more slowly than others seem to think, and that the technological developments are a wildcard going forward.

  70. Also automation advances in the next 20-30 years will have a role to play in terms of the ability to absorb population declines while maintaining productivity. Of course, there will be lots of inequality, which will be the real source of instability. In order for the whole house of cards to collapse, the US has to collapse, and that isn’t just around the corner. I fully agree that all things come to an end, and that there is a “cycle of regimes”, but in this case I think that the cyclical change will happen more slowly than others seem to think, and that the technological developments are a wildcard going forward.

    Things have a habit of happening when you least expect them to. The US of A is a ticking time bomb. You really think you can leave an over 3000km border open and nothing will happen? I would go so far as to suggest that your leaders are praying for something to happen, that will give them an excuse to go hardcore on your asses. It is what it is. The American military will be used against you and yours as surely as it will be used against other countries. You can count on it.

    Automation, including military, will really be your death knell. Automation will not save you or any one of us.

  71. As for America’s military, it’s been laid waste to by a bunch of cave dwellers. It’s a sad sack of shit, propped up by huge expenses and greedy corporations. It won’t win a war against the likes of China or Russia any time soon.

  72. rugby11ljh says:

    @femisnisthater
    Check out this book
    War is a racket by Samuel butler two time medal award winner and look up pogo.org
    12 company’s get the most funds from then the us congress. It’s in their last report.

  73. AnonS says:

    It seems like the best thing for churches in many cases is to have their members sign private marriage agreements without legally marrying them. And then have the first child fully adopted by the father. Then if they want additional legal marriage benefits the first child is considered fully the father’s.

    There is a risk in the women backing out of the first adoption and going the CS route (at least you’ll know sooner right at birth) but maybe bringing back non-refundable dowries when the women and her family have to pay the man and only get it back after adoption.

  74. doclove says:

    I wonder how much decriminalized and lightly yet sensibly regulated and taxed legalized prostitution would work to help men avoid the mess we are in now, More men would tell women to change their behavior or else face the consequence of being ignored or punished is my opinion. St. King Louis 9 of France outlawed prostitution for 2 years and finally repealed his prostitution prohibition. St. Thomas Aquinas was a professor at the University of Paris plus was born a few years before and died a few years after St. King Louis 9 of France. The two saints were contemporaries of each other. St. Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that prostitution should be prohibited by Christianity and the (Catholic) Church as it is a sin equal to but not greater and not lesser than any other kind of fornication and adultry, but should not be prohibited by the civil government. He thought prostitution was like a Serpentine(ancient and Middle Ages septic tank or sewer system) which prevents the stinking up of the most beautiful palace ever built and a necessary evil to be endured to prevent a greater evil from occurring and a greater good to occur. He truly believed that sex should only happen in marriage and that any violation of this should be handled if at all on Earth only by the Church and not the civil government. St. Thomas Aquinas agreed with his fellow Doctor of the (Catholic) Church named St. Augustine of Hippo who lived about 400 years before him and said virtually the same things regarding prostitution. St. Augustine of Hippo thought prostitution was wrong too and thought any one engaged in any sex outside marriage ran the risk of burning in hell forever. However, St. Augustine of Hippo said’ ” If you outlaw prostitution in the towns then lust will overthrow society!” Lust has already overthrown society here in the USA in my humble opinion. There seems to be little to no distinction between marriage and prostitution and cock carrousel riding sluttery in my opinion either.

  75. DeNihilist says:

    Nuff said –

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.ca/

    re: college sex in this day and age.

  76. hoellenhund2 says:

    Also automation advances in the next 20-30 years will have a role to play in terms of the ability to absorb population declines while maintaining productivity.

    Undoubtedly they will. I wonder about their extent. One theory is that the pace of innovation has been decelerating for decades, and this won’t change anytime soon.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324461604578191781756437940

    Then again, there’s not much need to maintain productivity in times of demographic implosion. There are fewer and fewer mouths to feed, after all.

  77. Gunner Q says:

    feministhater @ 9:08 am:
    “Things have a habit of happening when you least expect them to. The US of A is a ticking time bomb. You really think you can leave an over 3000km border open and nothing will happen? I would go so far as to suggest that your leaders are praying for something to happen, that will give them an excuse to go hardcore on your asses.”

    No need for them to pray for it. In about 10 years, all the fatherless boys of America will be the fatherless young men of America. The crime rate is destined to skyrocket.

  78. Novaseeker says:

    Things have a habit of happening when you least expect them to. The US of A is a ticking time bomb. You really think you can leave an over 3000km border open and nothing will happen? I would go so far as to suggest that your leaders are praying for something to happen, that will give them an excuse to go hardcore on your asses. It is what it is. The American military will be used against you and yours as surely as it will be used against other countries. You can count on it.

    Automation, including military, will really be your death knell. Automation will not save you or any one of us.

    That may be, but the idea is about “collapse”. A scenario where an automated techno-military goes authoritarian isn’t a “collapse” with a “hard reset” which many hope for.

  79. Phillyastro says:

    @Doclove – I concur. I’d rather lose bread than one’s life.

    For a prostitute’s fee is only a loaf of bread, but an adulteress goes after a precious life. – Proverbs 6:26

  80. ace says:

    “JDG says:

    Furthermore, if 97% of the under 45 populace fornicated before marriage, what other red flags will be found in the women of that group?.”

    Isn’t “fornicated before marriage” redundant? Sorry, but had to point it out. Has a nation ever survived with this many (almost all) loose/loser females? I understand that all countries have a certain population of promiscuous women; 20%, 30% even 50% but 97% (basically 100%) is outright shocking…even for the US.

  81. feeriker says:

    The flip side is that most male doctors are not very keen about marrying fellow female MDs, because the latter are often useless as wives, and tend to be arrogant and highly opinionated. Not exactly the types of people you would want on your team. Moreover, they are considered to bring no significant comparative advantage into a marriage.

    Of course not. To repeat:

    A career woman is a man’s competitor, NOT his soulmate or helpmeet. When she obsesses over her qualifications (and nearly alll of them do, since it’s the only thing they have going for themselves), she is saying to a man “this is how big MY dick is – let’s see yours, pal!” Her innate solipsism will not allow her to realize that the traits that she finds attractive in a man are NOT the same as what a man finds attractive in her; in fact, men find these characteristics in a woman REPULSIVE. No msn wants to deal with soul-crushing, demoralizing, wearying competition and political strife in his workplace for 8 – 12-plus each day, only to come and deal with more of it from his wife/GF for the remaining 12.

    And yes, those doctors are absolutely correct: their she-colleagues are not only useless as wives, but probably toxically harmful, for all the reasons cited above. The same applies to she-colleagues in just about every other profession as well.

    A word of thanks to those who brought up the points about Tom’s 30-something physician daughters being basically unmarriageable. I hadn’t thought about those points, but they make perfect sense. I see lots of cats and dildoes in both of their futures.

  82. @AnonS

    What actually works is “come out from amongst them, and be ye separate”. Paul called out the Corinthians to stop filing lawsuits against each other. The most common kind of lawsuit that I can think of amongst self-proclaimed Christians are suits for divorce/separation or spousal/child support.

    The cure is simple: do not marry someone who believes Christians can sue one another. Do not marry in a church that believes Christians can sue one another. Do not marry someone who is not a member of a church that believes such. And if you can’t achieve these goals, celibacy is a better option than Marriage 2.0.

    As far as filing for state-recognised marriage licences goes… I don’t see any advantage to not doing this anymore, given that the support model has almost entirely shifted from an alimony-based one to a child support-based one. A “normal” divorce actually isn’t that bad in most states; what makes it bad is when something like DV claims enters the picture. And that can happen in a non-marriage-licence cohabitation sort of situation.

  83. @Cail Corishev

    I would argue that the only women who will make excellent wives are ones who are already committed Christians, so earl’s filters simply improve his chances, not lessen it.

    Christianity (outside of the Jerusalem Church) context was primarily a religion of slaves and women. Eventually, Christian women got a reputation as being good wives to the bought they were sought after.

    If the church were operating correctly today, the same would be true today. (Although I argue that most so-called “Christian” women are not followers of Christ, and most of the “church” is apostate.)

  84. hoellenhund2 says:

    Whoops, try this one –

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.ca/2015/04/what-is-rape-culture.html

    That was a surprisingly good article, although the authors can’t seem to let go of the assumption that when young women are left on their own, they basically become helpless and passive victims of aggressive male sexuality.

  85. feeriker says:

    If the church were operating correctly today, the same would be true today. (Although I argue that most so-called “Christian” women are not followers of Christ, and most of the “church” is apostate.)

    Yup. THIS.

    I try to imagine what First Century believers would think of today’s western “church” if they were to be miraculously raised from the dead and given a grand tour of the present. I would not doubt that the first observation that most would make would be something to the effect of “a church that is not suffering or under persecution for His sake is one that shall suffer corruption and that shall taste as of sand, rather than salt of the earth.”

  86. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I’d think that one advantage of a male MD marrying a female MD is that, should she frivorce him, she’d likely get no alimony, and less child support, because she has a lucrative career of her own.

  87. @Red Pill Latecomer

    Men shouldn’t marry based on how good they’ll come out in the divorce. Who wants to marry a female MD if the entire marriage is utterly miserable, even if she doesn’t divorce you?

    The criteria here is that marriage needs to be better than celibacy. Right now, this is often not the case.

  88. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Most single mothers are not marriage worthy, I agree. But a small exception might be made for single mothers due to widowhood.

    I say a “small” exception, because I assume that widows with children are vastly outnumbered by mothers who are single “by choice” or by frivorce.

  89. Scott says:

    To be fair, Phyllis Schlafly was on the right track in her 14APR column:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2015/04/14/the-killing-in-south-carolina-n1984624

  90. Dalrock writes, “The overarching goal of the new system is to empower women, and in order to do this power must be taken from men and given to women.”

    Dear Dalrock,

    You are always bold enough to walk the twenty miles, but then you stop one foot short of the Truth. Why is that?

    What you meant to write was, “The overarching goal of the new system is to empower the bernnakaififierlozozlzlzo State, and in order to do this power must be taken from men and given to women.”

    Also, why do you never link to any of Stephen Baskerville’s wonderful work?

    I have linked to his videos and books dozens of times here so everyone knows you have watched/read them.

    http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943

    “Taken into Custody’ exposes the greatest and most destructive civil rights abuse in America today. Family courts and Soviet-style bureaucracies trample basic civil liberties, entering homes uninvited and taking away people’s children at will, then throwing the parents into jail without any form of due process, much less a trial. No parent, no child, no family in America is safe. The legal industry does not want you to hear this story. Radical feminists, bar associations, and social work bureaucracies have colluded to suppress this information. Even pro-family”” groups and civil libertarians look the other way. Yet it is a reality for tens of millions of Americans who are our neighbors.”y

    Hey Dalrock! That kinda sounds like what you’re finally saying!🙂

  91. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The phenomenon of “drop off centers” is also interesting: http://www.wikihow.com/Drop-Off-an-Unwanted-Baby

    A women not only has the absolute right to abort a baby before pregnancy, but even after pregnancy she can get rid of the baby — and all her legal and financial obligations — by leaving it at a designated drop-off center.

    Imagine if men had an equal right to “abort” or “drop off” their financial obligations.

    The rationale is that it’s “in the child’s best interest” to give women the right to drop off a baby, because otherwise she might murder the baby.

    Imagine if men said, “I must be freed of all my financial and legal obligations to my wife or child, or else I might murder them.”

    What court or legislature would take that argument seriously? Yet it’s identical to the argument used for women.

  92. @Red Pill Latecomer

    Please do not confuse widows (whom God holds in high esteem) with single mothers. Widows are not widows by choice.

    Last year at church, some fellow (who is a potent force trying to bring churchianism into our congregation) proposed sharing the widows’ fund with a single mother in the church. Fortunately, one of our leadership immediately smacked him down, stating matter-of-factly that so-and-so’s husband is living. Without stating more words, he made it VERY clear that we aren’t about to start a single mother preservation society.

    This leader is a deacon, whose biblical office is to take care of widows in the church. And part of taking care of widows is ensuring that single mothers don’t pollute the waters by stealing their identity. Their husband DIED – show some respect to the man!

    I would gladly take a bullet for any of the widows at church.

  93. earl says:

    ‘The criteria here is that marriage needs to be better than celibacy. Right now, this is often not the case.’

    Exactly…which is worse as of now??? Some pangs of loneliness and sexual urges unfulfilled, or every risk that a man gets in marriage including the possibility of loneliness and sexual urges unfulfilled.

  94. Pingback: Hmmmm  Time for a sin tax on single motherhood… | Honor Dads

  95. earl says:

    “The overarching goal of the new system is to empower the bernnakaififierlozozlzlzo State, and in order to do this power must be taken from men and given to women.”

    This should be stamped as every retort as to why women’s suffrage is never a good idea.

  96. anonymous_ng says:

    All choices have presumably more positive and less positive attributes. I make this point frequently to my kids by telling them that both the best and worst thing in my life at present is the absence of a woman.

    Thing is, on balance, I enjoyed being married, but it wasn’t a 90/10 good/bad split, more like 60/40. Now, I really enjoy not being married to her and the split is more like 70/30, but part of that calculation is my kids.

    Of course, my experience has been relatively benign albeit somewhat expensive which colors my perspective on things, and let’s not forget that my experience was driven mostly by my ex’s character and personality with a leavening of fortuitous circumstances in my professional life.

  97. JDG says:

    ace says:
    April 27, 2015 at 10:39 am
    Isn’t “fornicated before marriage” redundant?

    For most people these days yes, but In the Old Testament, “adultery” properly referred to a married or betrothed woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband. The Greek, Roman, and Hebrew concept of adultery was substantially the same. “The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery.”

  98. OKRickety says:

    ace says:
    Has a nation ever survived with this many (almost all) loose/loser females?

    Did you mean “loose/looser females”? It does fit to a degree as I think being loose means they (both women and men) lose .

    TFH says:
    Effectively, 10-30% of US men in their prime working age are under a 70-80% tax rate.

    What is the source of this statistic? The highest USA income tax rate is 39.6% (e.g. single filers with income > $406,750). This, of course, is only on the top dollars (I would expect the Adjusted Gross Income and various deductions would reduce the total income tax rate considerably). Adding taxes for personal property, real estate, and sale, I would not think the total tax rate would reach 70%.

    John Nesteutes says:
    Please do not confuse widows (whom God holds in high esteem) with single mothers. Widows are not widows by choice.

    I understand the distinction, but how do you describe a widow with children, as opposed to a widow without children?

  99. JDG says:

    Last year at church, some fellow (who is a potent force trying to bring churchianism into our congregation) proposed sharing the widows’ fund with a single mother in the church.

    If he is showing a pattern of moving away from Scriptural teaching, you guys may want to nip this one in the bud.

  100. anonymous_ng says:

    @OKRickety, “I understand the distinction, but how do you describe a widow with children, as opposed to a widow without children?”

    I would do just as you did.

  101. AnonS says:

    @John Nesteutes

    “The cure is simple: do not marry someone who believes Christians can sue one another. Do not marry in a church that believes Christians can sue one another. Do not marry someone who is not a member of a church that believes such. And if you can’t achieve these goals, celibacy is a better option than Marriage 2.0.”

    That does nothing to remove the loaded gun that the state gives the women. Having the women put the child up for adoption before legal marriage and having the father adopt, disarms the child support system because the child is no longer joint marriage property but fully the father’s.

    Not suing only works if both agree to a Church arbitration process, if one sins and doesn’t submit then they are treated like an outsider and can be sued.

    “As far as filing for state-recognised marriage licenses goes… I don’t see any advantage to not doing this anymore, given that the support model has almost entirely shifted from an alimony-based one to a child support-based one. A “normal” divorce actually isn’t that bad in most states; what makes it bad is when something like DV claims enters the picture. And that can happen in a non-marriage-licence cohabitation sort of situation.”

    DV can enter marriages just as easily. I assume if there is no marriage and the man owns the house, he can write up whatever lease agreement he wants for her and remove her for trespassing.

  102. PuffyJacket says:

    The Social Conservatives are the useful idiots and dupes of the feminists. We should remind them of it then ask them whether they are aware of this or unaware of this and ask them if they are willing to change and how so

    It should be obvious by now that social conservatives throw all rational thought out the window as soon as the discussion switches to our misandric, anti-family laws. Short of God himself appearing before mankind with a 100% rock-solid mathematical proof of the error of our ways, no amount of logic and reasoning is going to seep through to them. The only meaningful strategy is to allow them (and their daughters) to eat the “crap sandwich”, so to speak, and to mock them in the process.

  103. Minesweeper says:

    @OKRickety says: April 27, 2015 at 1:18 pm
    “TFH says:
    Effectively, 10-30% of US men in their prime working age are under a 70-80% tax rate.

    What is the source of this statistic? The highest USA income tax rate is 39.6% (e.g. single filers with income > $406,750)”

    Seriously ? He is meaning regular tax + alimony + child support. Its all removed at source by the state or jailtime awaits. Just like regular tax.

    Want to lose the male drive to succeed, tax them into oblivion. Myself I got out from alimony, only 1 child so my effective tax rate to the ex+gov is 50%, and I feel absolutely damm all desire to work.

  104. feeriker says:

    OT, but a must read. Fred Reed’s latest:

    http://fredoneverything.net/MeatBourse.shtml

  105. Random Angeleno says:

    Men shouldn’t marry based on how good they’ll come out in the divorce. Who wants to marry a female MD if the entire marriage is utterly miserable, even if she doesn’t divorce you?

    Used to be men were more than willing to marry down. That’s how a lot of pretty women escaped their lower income childhood environment. But that set up a scenario in which men could be raped through their wallets via alimony payments. So what happens now? It is a lot less common for men to marry down, UMC or higher men now prefer to marry their equivalent among women so as to avoid alimony. Doesn’t do anything about child support though.

    In one critical way, child support is more pernicious than alimony. Look at your IRS Form 1040 instructions: alimony is deductible by the payer and is reported as taxable income by the receiver. Whereas child support is not deductible by the payer nor does the receiver pay tax on it. So (1), since child support is in addition to the income taxes paid by the payer, not a reduction of them as with alimony, it is common for men in the middle and lower income brackets to be effectively in the 70-80% tax bracket; and (2), it is a tax free source of income to the receiver which in the vast majority of cases are women. Dalrock wrote very seminal posts awhile back about how the children represent the cash and prizes resulting from divorce; this is the meat of it right here.

  106. @JDG

    He won’t be in leadership, for sure. He has a Ph.D, and there is a deep, deep distrust of higher education. (The funny part is the “churchianity” I think he’s trying to bring in is Doug Phillips-style patriarchy; I think this is virulently toxic, but it’s interesting it comes paired with his having sad feels for Random Single Mom whom we’re supposed to feel bad for because her husband left her.)

    It is rare (in plain Anabaptist circles) to run into a minister or even a deacon who has a bachelor’s degree. The consensus is that every place that elects such people to leadership ends up going in a progressive/liberal direction.

    Most ministers I run into seem to have manual labour jobs (often own their own business, but not always), a bunch of well behaved and cute kids, a wife with a sweet disposition, absolutely no outside seminary or college education, and lots and lots of family and business ties in the local community.

    Incidentally, wives whose husbands leave them are expected to be taken care of by their family (often their husbands’ family). Keep in mind that leaving your spouse means excommunication from the community. If a man leaves his wife, his parents probably won’t speak to him anymore, and will dedicate financial resources to taking care of the abandoned wife. Experience shows this creates proper accountability (e.g. if the wife actually pushed the husband out of the home, his parents aren’t going to be on board with going along with that).

    As far as single moms go… out of wedlock pregnancies are so rare that when they do happen, the kid always gets given up for adoption, or the single mom leaves the community. Good riddance. (Or there’s a shotgun wedding.)

  107. pukeko60 says:

    FInal comment of medics: these ere NZ figures: registration fee medical counil c %700, college fee $ 2600, medical insuracen however is quite low at $1700. If you make under 50K there is a discount. By way of comparison, the average house price here is 200K ourside of Auckland, and 700K in Auckland.
    Lcally, most of my younger female colleagues are marrying tradesmen. Because my generation all married doctors, and that did not work. Including the New Miss NZ: she is engaged to a teacher with a huge businees / enterpreneur streak. http://tvnz.co.nz/entertainment-news/otago-medical-student-crowned-miss-new-zealand-6300999

  108. OKRickety says:

    John Nesteutes says:
    Please do not confuse widows (whom God holds in high esteem) with single mothers. Widows are not widows by choice.

    I sympathize with the plight of widows, and I know that God believes in justice for widows (and orphans), but I do not believe that God holds all widows in high esteem. I recommend reading what Paul writes about widows in 1 Timothy 5:3-16. He certainly states his concerns regarding the behavior of widows (v. 6) and, specifically, younger widows (v. 13). Before the church helps a widow, Paul first expects that her family will take care of her if at all possible. He also provides a list of qualifications for eligibility (v. 9,10), including being at least 60 years old. He then specifically excludes “younger widows” (less than 60 years old) from assistance, instead telling them to “get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach“. In fact, I think that quote is a great teaching for all women, not just widows.

  109. @OKRickety

    I stand corrected. When I think of widows, I think of widows who are widows indeed. We don’t have any widows who are under 60. Generally speaking, their kids take care of them first.

    Remarriage is fairly common for people who lose a spouse provided they aren’t positively ancient when it happens. (Under 60 seems to be the case, I’m guessing it’s just what happens organically.)

  110. I need to link this to a thread in /r/marriedredpill. “India Guy” needs to see this one.

    For the rest of us I want to say enjoy the decline but the way I really feel is: “Come Lord Jesus. Come soon.”

    Until then, I hope this defective, evil structure is burned to the ground.

  111. @Bluepillprofessor

    Why not occupy until he comes?

  112. OKRickety says:

    TFH says:
    Effectively, 10-30% of US men in their prime working age are under a 70-80% tax rate.

    I now understand that you are considering Child Support to be a “tax”. Since I don’t see anything in the main article supporting the numbers you give, I had supposed that the statement came from another source.

    TFH says:
    The highest USA income tax rate is 39.6%

    This is also false, since there is a 3.8% Obamacare Tax that is in addition to Ordinary Income Tax, so the top rate is 43.4%.

    I would be astounded if anyone with an income > $400,000 did not have medical insurance and thus avoid the 3.8% Obamacare tax.

  113. Mark Citadel says:

    “as feminist economists Wolfers and Stevens delightedly explain a “potent tool” for wives to use to gain power over their husbands (emphasis mine):”

    This really is depraved isn’t it. Are these people really any different from Valerie Solanas deep down? They’re just openly wicked.

  114. Random Angeleno says:

    @OKRickety
    You are still ignorant regarding the implementation of the Obamacare 3.8% income tax on high earners. This tax is applied regardless of the state of the taxpayer’s insurance.

    To be fair, the 3.8% tax is applied to investment income. That is, dividend income and all capital gains whether from stocks, bonds or real estate (including the sale of one’s primary residence).

  115. Don Quixote says:

    da GBFM lzzzzzzzlzlz (TM) says:
    April 27, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    What you meant to write was, “The overarching goal of the new system is to empower the bernnakaififierlozozlzlzo State, and in order to do this power must be taken from men and given to women.”

    Hey good-books, here is a poem I thought you might like to include in your repertoire:

    The Gods of the Copybook Headings
    By Rudyard Kipling

    AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
    I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
    Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

    We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
    That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
    But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
    So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

    We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
    Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
    But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
    That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

    With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
    They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
    They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
    So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

    When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
    They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
    But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

    On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
    (Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
    Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

    In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
    By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
    But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

    Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
    And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
    That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
    And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

    As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
    That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
    And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

  116. HBKS says:

    @Beeker

    The US is about to lose its full monetary sovereignty once the TPA/TPP passes.

    Even with monetary sovereignty, a country can still collapse. The MMT folks are right to point out that the US can never technically go go bankrupt, but it can still experience high inflation or even hyperinflation as it devalues its currency to pay its debts.

  117. OKRickety says:

    Please excuse my ignorance of the 3.8% “Net Investment Income Tax” (I have learned something today). You are right; I am not in that income bracket, nor am I a tax or financial expert. As a result, perhaps it is understandable that I thought this was something else, since it was referred to above as “3.8% Obamacare Tax”.

    I will gladly concede that the financial burden on divorced men paying child support is extreme. In fact, I have been in that position myself until recently.

    Now, if you will continue to pardon my ignorance, I really do not understand the basis for the numbers given in the statement “Effectively, 10-30% of US men in their prime working age are under a 70-80% tax rate.”

    Based on data from Citizens for Tax Justice (see here), the total tax burden ranges from 17.4% of income for the lowest 20% to around 30% for those in the top 20% of income.

    How do you get from 30% to “70-80% tax rate”?

  118. feeriker says:

    Even with monetary sovereignty, a country can still collapse. The MMT folks are right to point out that the US can never technically go go bankrupt, but it can still experience high inflation or even hyperinflation as it devalues its currency to pay its debts.M/I>

    Correct, and that’s exactly where we’re headed. While the U.S. can indeed never technically go bankrupt, having monetary sovereignty over a currency that is for all practical intents and purposes wallpaper/toilet paper counts for nothing.

  119. A person wouldn’t go bankrupt either if we could issue our own credit cards….

    The point though is that eventually people would stop accepting our self-issued currency because it had zero productive capability behind it.

  120. Pingback: The Government Wants Children to Suffer | Spawny's Space

  121. Random Angeleno says:

    @OKRickety, you have a question about how a man gets to 70 to 80%. You definitely missed my comment above at 2:32pm. Let me repeat a critical portion of the last paragraph for your benefit:

    Look at your IRS Form 1040 instructions: alimony is deductible by the payer and is reported as taxable income by the receiver. Whereas child support is not deductible by the payer nor does the receiver pay tax on it. So (1), since child support is in addition to the income taxes paid by the payer, not a reduction of them as with alimony, it is common for men to be effectively in the 70-80% tax bracket; and (2), it is a tax free source of income to the receiver which in the vast majority of cases are women.

    On second thought … it might not add up to 70% in the initial computation of total tax burden plus child support, but add in the cost of maintaining a 2nd household and you’re there. Of course they don’t call it a tax but it is effectively the same as a tax as it is extracted from the man at the point of a gun.

  122. OKRickety says:

    @TFH,

    Until then, you are being exceedingly obtuse. Are you a woman, by chance?

    I said “I will gladly concede that the financial burden on divorced men paying child support is extreme. In fact, I have been in that position myself until recently.” In case there is any doubt in that statement, I am a frivorced man who had to pay child support (for only 1) and alimony until recently. I didn’t like it, I don’t like it that others have to do it, and I’m here to learn and have information to help inform non-reading men of the dangers they may likely be unaware of.

    Minesweeper says:
    regular tax + alimony + child support. Its all removed at source by the state or jailtime awaits. Just like regular tax.

    For what it’s worth, Alimony and CS are not always removed from the paycheck in Oklahoma. I paid everything by check directly to my ex-wife. I don’t know, but maybe the state would have taken it directly if I hadn’t paid. I expect it would have required a court order to do that.

    I asked How do you get from 30% to “70-80% tax rate”?

    I understand that CS and alimony are not “taxes” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code. I am not asking where the IRS shows a 70-80% tax rate, because I know it doesn’t exist.

    In my case, I was paying about 20% in alimony (maybe I got off easy) and about 10% in CS (only 1 child). It would have been about 15% in CS if there were 3 minors. So, with 3 kids, I would have had a total tax burden of about 30% + 20% + 15% for a total of 65%. Still not 70-80%, but I’ll call it ballpark.

    That’s all I wanted you to do, because I didn’t understand how you got there.

  123. OKRickety says:

    @Random Angeleno

    Yes, I missed that portion of your comment. I thought the comment was only directed toward the question of who to marry (M.D.s and all that), so I skimmed over it.

    Well, at least you seem to have some doubts on the “70-80%” statistic. Thank you. I think it’s a little high, but there is no doubt that divorce is harmful to the financial well-being of the man (and, according to studies, apparently even more so to the woman).

    You also recognize that there is a difference in alimony and Child Support in its impact.

    I’m not sure how the cost of a 2nd household has anything to do with taxes, but I’m not asking for an explanation. It certainly is a cost associated with dividing one household into two.

    If my original question had been answered with “the sum of your total tax burden + alimony + child support is 70-80% of your income”, it would have been a lot easier. Maybe it was clear to everyone else (although I greatly doubt that), it wasn’t to me.

    Bottom line: I hate the financial impact of divorce and I hadn’t realized the full extent of it, even in my own case.

  124. Joshua says:

    OkRickety, What about sales tax, property tax, gas tax, vehicle usage tax? There are more taxes than income tax.

  125. OKRickety says:

    @Joshua,
    I called it “total tax burden” because, per your question, there are many other taxes. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the total tax includes “all federal, state & local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate, etc.)”. See the table here for the numbers (year 2011) I used above.

    Add alimony and Child Support to the “total tax burden”.

  126. Minesweeper says:

    OKRickety
    So what was your total tax burden ?

    So you pay 30% income tax, so your down to 70%
    Then 30% alimony + CS, so is that 30% of the original or 30% of the remaining 70% ?
    If 30% of the original amount, you are now down to 40%

    What do you pay in property tax ? fuel tax, car tax, vat tax,? for alot even this is another 15%. if you pay property tax after you’ve paid income tax, make sure you include the full amount required for you to pay. Dont forget health insurance and whatever, which is taxed at source in most places that are advanced.

    if you are now down to 25% of your income that is yours. Im not in the US so I dont know fully how it works over there.

    If so Your tax burden is 75%.

    Get a spreadsheet up, put it all in, calc the taxes, put in your alimony+CS, you will probably be horrified with the amount they have legally taken from you, this isn’t like paying for your childs christmas present or holiday with you, thats still on top. This is taken by force. Which is horrendous.

    Its quite surprising how little they leave you with.

  127. OKRickety says:

    @Minesweeper,

    So what was your total tax burden ?

    It is very difficult to determine my individual total tax burden because of all the various taxes. I doubt that anyone could calculate it accurately.

    Why? Well, for example, calculating sales tax would require a record of every purchase and the sales tax for that particular location (which varies by state, county, and city). It would be much the same for fuel tax.

    Rather than attempt that, I think it makes sense to use numbers from a source that claims to be able to determine the average. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the total tax includes “all federal, state & local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise, estate, etc.)”. See the table here. According to it, my total tax burden (for 2011) is about 30%. (Note: According to this group, the USA had the 3rd-lowest total tax burden in 2010 of the 20+ countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, so we in the USA have something to be thankful for.)

    So, for me, my total tax for 2012 was 30% “total tax burden” + 15.8% alimony + 13.4% CS for a total of 59.2%. Much more than I would like, but not 70-80%.

    In actuality, I suspect that my “total tax burden” was less than 30%, but I can’t prove it. I can tell you that my Federal income tax was 4.9% of my gross income, and my Oklahoma state tax was 3.1% of my gross income.

    Although no one else has mentioned this idea, I do not consider all of the Child Support I paid to be a “tax”. If I were still married, I would have been paying my son’s support, so I think any amount additional to his actual needs was “forced additional alimony”. For example, if my share of his actual needs had been $400 per month, then a state-mandated amount of $700 meant my ex-wife would have gotten $300 each month of “forced additional alimony”. The $400 each month was forced, but I believe I should pay for what he needs (it’s not his fault we’re divorced).

  128. Joshua says:

    Its a tax because you don’t get a choice or a say. No one tells a father who is still married to the mother how much to spend or how to spend it.

  129. Minesweeper says:

    OKR
    Well, consider the extra you pay over what it would normally cost as a tax. i.e. you will pay for the childs room at her house, but be expected to fund the room at your house out of your own pocket.

    No-one is saying a fair split of a childs costs are a tax, its the undeserved benefit given to the mother and that is generally as her wishes. If you both funded their rooms and split the food, clothes, holidays 50/50, ie no-one pays the other generally, which is how it should be. In that case, also the gov child benefit should be provided to both as well(laughs out loud), if the mother is encouraged to split the time with the father 50% as she dosn’t gain financially from not. The child benefits, the father benefits, only the mother dosn’t. Which is why it is the way it is.

  130. The One says:

    This was said by another a while back, I repeat it again. For those who want to get married, find a single mother. Have her transfer legal custody of the kids to you (if not next). Marry her in a church service (not legally). Now you are legally protected from any child support payments. This of course only works if you don’t want your “own” children

  131. JDG says:

    This of course only works if you don’t want your “own” children

    Wouldn’t this defeat the main purpose for having children for most men?

    This of course only works if you don’t want your “own” children

    Until the single mother changes her mind and sues to have custody reinstated to herself. Then your goose is probably cooked.

  132. The One says:

    I never heard of a single case of sueing to reclaim custody after voluntarily giving it up. Even so, I don’t see why your goose is cooked. Legally her status should return to its former state, collecting child support from another man, not you. What exactly does she gain, her situation becomes worse, not better.

  133. Pingback: A Feminist Societal Implosion | The Red Moon Journal

  134. greyghost says:

    Use a surrogate and hire a nanny. Check this guy out.
    http://www.szdaily.com/content/2010-12/03/content_5140134.htm

  135. @greyghost

    If one has to resort to using a surrogate, why bother having natural children at all?

  136. “That was a surprisingly good article, although the authors can’t seem to let go of the assumption that when young women are left on their own, they basically become helpless and passive victims of aggressive male sexuality.”

    They’ll never let go of it, because that would imply that women have actual responsibilities, and we can’t rightfully have that.

  137. greyghost says:

    John
    Because they are your natural children. The question is if surrogacy is available why bother with a wife. It isn’t like you are getting sex or anything else if she has kids as hostages.

  138. John Nesteutes says:

    @Chris Dagostino: Yes, that’s the core of the problem here. Even around Dalrock, people regularly trumpet that (a) women have no moral agency and (b) aren’t capable of acting morally / being regenerated or born again.

    @greyghost: They’re your natural children with one of their parents being a random egg donor who has abandoned them… single parenthood has a lot of attendant problems. Growing up without a mother is as bad as growing up without a father.

    If you aren’t going to have a natural family with two natural parents, why bother passing on your own genes at all?

    Are you aware of the many problems that arise later in life for children conceived IVF?

  139. John Nesteutes says:

    @greyghost

    Don’t marry a woman who plans to use kids as hostages.

    That’ll involve separation from our culture, most likely, since our culture teaches women to do that.

  140. Minesweeper says:

    @John
    “Are you aware of the many problems that arise later in life for children conceived IVF?”
    What are these ? Ive seen maybe one article, but nothing concrete. Do you have better info ?

  141. John Nesteutes says:

    @Minesweeper

    Essentially, there is a cluster of problems that show up in adolescence which can be measured across dimensions like age of first having sex (yes sociologists consider the lower this age, the more dysfunction), teenage pregnancy, age of first drinking alcohol, illegal drug use, juvenile delinquency, and so on.

    These problems pop up for kids who are adopted at significantly higher rates than children of natural parents, after socioeconomic and other demographic factors are accounted for. But they also show up in children of certain fertility treatments, specifically, IVF. If the eggs are a donor from another woman the natural mother, all these factors get worse.

    The Austin Institute’s recent published research on children of same-sex couples shows the same dysfunction for children raised in two-parent lesbian homes, and to a lesser degree in single-mother homes. (As far as I know this dysfunction doesn’t manifest in two-parent homes composed of two gay males.)

    I don’t have good references on this handy. I learnt about all this from a NICU nurse who has to take care of these unholy offspring when anything medically goes wrong. It got to the point in California that they had to pass a special law to remove the option for both parents to abandon an artificially conceived child who has medical problems. (The IVF babies would then up on Medicaid, costing inordinate amounts of money, and are difficult to foster/adopt out.)

    I believe @BradA has alluded to a lot of the issues he ran into with the kids they adopted. Pretty heartbreaking stuff.

    Another giant issue none of you folks thinking about surrogacy have considered is that false DV/abuse claims can arise from daughters in addition to wives. A single father who intentionally chose surrogacy is going to be at the mercy of the courts the first time his little princess is angry she can’t stay out late with her friends, and one of her friends suggests calling Child Services and saying daddy touched her.

    A poster around her had a friend who had that exact situation (normal, non-divorced family). The girl later recanted, but they had years of trouble from having to live in two homes since he wasn’t allowed contact with her until she turned 18.

  142. Minesweeper says:

    @JN
    Ok, what about a IVF male-female married young couple who can’t conceive naturally – who bring up the child themselves as a married couple in a complete family?
    I thought you had info regarding the genetic changes, what you’ve listed sounds like environmental rather than any changes due to IVF vs natural.

    And yeah to ever adopting a girl or being a step dad to one, as a man you would just have a target on your back.

  143. Pingback: Black Fathers [Don’t] Matter. | Dalrock

  144. James K says:

    It would be interesting to know Walter Scott’s annual bill for child support. How long had it taken him to fall $6,800 into arrears?

    It would also be interesting to know his annual income. Was his child support assessment sensible, or was it based on imputed earnings that he could not possibly achieve?

  145. @Minesweeper

    My comments about IVF applied mostly to using the natural mother’s eggs and the natural father’s sperm. I don’t remember what the data was on egg donation.

    Basically, if God makes a couple barren, it’s not good for them to try to overcome that via artificial means. The proper response for a barren wife is to fast and pray. There are a number of barren wives in scripture.

    A lot of “infertility” these days, too, is just old age and/or being fat. Trying to have kids in your late 30s is gross, disgusting, and unnatural, and the kids bear the consequences.

  146. Minesweeper says:

    @John Nesteutes
    You made alot of comments re lesbians, gays etc, not the norm family arrangement. Have a look over your post again. Maybe you want to redo it ?

    I’ve never heard that view point before regarding barren couples. Not sure if thats a scriptural basis at all. I do know a christian missionary couple who got together early 40’s, had hormonal help but not IVF, conceived 2 lovely kids who are a credit to their kind.

    I do know of others who have conceived late 30’s or early 40’s, I think your viewpoint is erroneous, what age was Sarah again ?
    Although a 300lb woman trying to conceive is disgusting (so is the sex) and very dangerous for both, esp considering she will probably gain another 75lb during the pregnancy.

  147. @Minesweeper

    There will be edge cases of people who have kids in their 40s and don’t have birth defects, and there will be edge cases of women who marry in their 40s and have OK kids from IVF.

    The statistics I was bearing out looked at IVF amongst straight married couples, no donors. The point I was making was that the level of dysfunction in the kids in adolescence rivals that of single mothers. (The Austin Institute survey I looked at focused on non-traditional family arrangements, and found a consistent pattern of dysfunction.)

    Most of the issue seems to happen when babies get born premature and have to spend their first few months in a NICU. And that’s a huge risk with IVF, and is a big risk with pregnancy in a woman’s 40s, period. I learned this from a NICU nurse.

    I’ve never heard that view point before regarding barren couples. Not sure if thats a scriptural basis at all. I do know a christian missionary couple who got together early 40’s, had hormonal help but not IVF, conceived 2 lovely kids who are a credit to their kind.

    Well, I don’t want to judge them, but generally I think waiting until your 40s to have kids is a dangerous and unkind thing to do to your future kids. I don’t know about problems from hormonal fertility treatments (other than general preterm risk for age 40+ pregnancies).

    Barrenness was considered a curse in the Old Testament. Nowadays, barranness is considered a blessing, and most couples sterilise themselves for their early 20s so they can “have fun”.

    I do know of others who have conceived late 30’s or early 40’s, I think your viewpoint is erroneous, what age was Sarah again ? Although a 300lb woman trying to conceive is disgusting (so is the sex) and very dangerous for both, esp considering she will probably gain another 75lb during the pregnancy.

    Sarah was considered a miracle at age 90. Post menopausal.

    I think that, in general, we should hold up the proper age to have children to be early 20s, and discourage thinking 40s is the norm. It’s especially harmful if your first kid is in your 40s.

  148. Pingback: The Political is Personal |

  149. Pingback: Speaking of “kidnapping on a large scale”: debtors prison plus priests who encourage divorce | Throne and Altar

  150. Daniel says:

    Dalrock, I wish I knew your name, but completely understand the need for anonymity, these are treacherous waters you have courageously taken it upon yourself to tread. I’ve been fighting this exact battle, this article so intimate to my situation that it reads as an autobiography or day by day account of my nightmare that began essentially when my children, twin boys, were born. I knew then that I lost ANY freedom I once had as a human being, I was now a commodity, property of the State and subject to the whims of my now ex-wife. No matter the unjust, unreasonable demands set forth by my ex-wife (jailor), I was expected to fall in line with whatever she said or thought or else… You guessed it, she would ruin my life and the lives of my children to ensure I paid for my “sins.” The extent to which she will put my children through hell and chalk it up to “your father did all of this…” as the default excuse to any action she takes it makes it easy for anyone who knows her to console her as she “bravely” struggles to endure the MOST noble of causes in United States History, “Motherhood.”

    It’s been a long and difficult 2 years since I’ve spoken to or seen my children, as they moved 1,500 miles away on the whim of my ex-wife and her parents, it was a struggle I face my entire marriage. Her parents wanted them to live with them, and as fate would have it, my worst fears just happened to come true 2 months after getting my FIRST real job as an actuary making real money. Convenient, yes, but who’s the Judge to determine that anyways…

    I started a company in an effort to gather the funds necessary to take on the person who would use the enormous support payments I am forced to provide her to fund her defense or prosecution. I would have to quit my job as an actuary bc I wouldn’t be able to meet my billable hour quota, study for and pass my exams and run a business, I had already failed my first exam while at my company and failing another would result in termination and $1,500 I would have to come up with working as a clerk in retail… I was willing to take the chance bc the status quo was unacceptable, if I went to jail if it failed so be it, but since she wouldn’t let me talk to them, and I knew she’d simply say like always, “He can call them any time he wants, he can visit them whenever he wants,” but refuse my calls and refuse my visits under the condition my children had a play date, that they “Made other plans,” such that i would have recourse, if I tried, it would be tons of money just to hear the judge say, you need to let him see his children, in which she would say I am, then continue her torture and abuse.

    Since there is no Attorney General’s office for Visitation, there is no means of enforcing it without representation unlike support payments in which the State takes it upon themselves to collect, I had no money for an attorney, and couldn’t file anything without the means to take it to court if they did, I had to file a petition to amend the support order, at this point I was making substantially less money than before anyways, so if it worked out I’d have ON record that I said “I want to see my boys, she won’t let me, I’d like to amend the visitation to ensure I can;” and if I was lucky, I would catch a little relief from support payments just enough to allow for the travel expenses she promised a judge she would split but had her lawyer remove from the final order.

    I went to court, and sure enough, I was dead in the water. I didn’t have a chance to utter a word, literally, the first thing out of her mouth was that I hadn’t talked to my children in 2 years! I was dumbfounded, I knew she was awful, but I didn’t honestly think she’d attempt to make a lie so blatant on that scale? She knew she refused to let me speak to them every time I called, and got to the point she sent people to my home to threaten me and my new girlfriend that if I contacted her she would send people back.

    As soon as I tried say that’s not true the judge yelled, NO! Quiet! She told me to answer her question, “Had I not spoken to them in 2 years?” I attempted to explain and she said, NO! Yes or no? I had to say no under oath, with no opportunity to explain that she wouldn’t let me. She then slammed the gavel as my exwife proudly walked out in victory, myself, crushed, defeated in a way I had never been before. How could a loving father be this unable to be a part of his children’s life?

    There was absolutely NO recourse, as I aimlessly walked around town to the courthouses, searching for people to talk to, maybe someone would have some advice. however, the only advice I received was the same advice I’ve always received, no matter whom was giving it; “You need an attorney,” but that’s the rub, if you don’t have enough for $1,500 per month in support, how on earth can I go to the court room with an attorney and say I have no money? In this case, I really had no money for an attorney regardless. My family was all broke trying to keep me out of prison at the outset due to the $1800 + $1500 in spousal and child support payments initially awarded, not including the cost of continuing to see my children. My brother, fighting a war a half a world away for another people, in the name of the democracy and freedom and human rights we espouse, yet deny millions of fathers every day in plain sight. He gave me all his combat pay to pay my debts. I defaulted on my student loans which I got to fund my exwifes lifestyle while I studied, as I was on the GI Bill and didn’t need any loans, it went to her debts, and was saddled with repaying it myself.

    I was out of sorts, it was over, I had always contemplated suicide but I thought there was hope, but when I went on line to commiserate all I found were insane articles about how dads are deadbeats if they can’t come up with the insane 50% or more after tax income redistribution they were enslaved to pay. People defended it like it was a human right? Like I was livestock, but worse, bc people at least recognize the livestocks value as a living organism. Websites like “DivorcedMom.com” espoused their hatred of the idea of 50/50 custody bc it might allow fathers to lower their payments to mom, if not stop them altogether, and the brazen way they spoke of it was terrifying. it goes to show you how messed up everything really is… Yet whenever you engage with someone one on one about the struggles of the father NOT ONE CAN GIVE YOU AN ANSWER OTHER THAN “Get a lawyer.” that’s the key to my life, my human rights, a lawyer I can’t afford knowing I’m here bc I’m tapped out financially.

    I wanted to die, depression is the inability to see a future other than the bleak outlook of the current difficulties. And for fathers handed over to the state as mules, but treated worse, it’s a bleak one… Especially if there are children he cannot see.

    MOST astonishing is the absurd assertion I read that claimed that fathers who pay support are more likely to see their children, claiming/arguing that the more support we charge fathers the more they’ll see their children, claiming it integrates them into the life of the child.?!!! That was CRAZY! Especially since it’s so very logical the opposite, those father’s that pay support, that can I should, pay it, we want to pay it, well we want what’s best for children, not to mention the stigma of a father who dare say the money is NOT going to his children, those fathers, they simply want to be with their children, thus those types of fathers pay whatever they are told to just to see their children. So try and claim that bc I pay my paycheck to my ex-wife to sue me I’m more likely to see my child is the most insane argument I can’t imagine who ever let that get printed is sane by any stretch of the imagination.

    Sorry, so long here, as one lady put it who did’t like the content, “we have too much time on our hands,” obviously like most who are not enslaved to this system, she didn’t understand what a human rights violation this is for us, to be slaves, indentured servants to the one person on earth with whom we cannot trust to use our money in the best interest of our children, as they’ve already used it to surgically remove the father? People can’t understand why we are so caught up in this injustice, as they don’t see it as such at all.

    The government did the most brilliant thing they’ve ever done calling it “Child Support,” Child, it’s for the children and what kind of monster are you to not be on board of what’s for the “Children.” And finally, the best part, “Support,” as though this is directly translated to shoes, food, shelter, etc. And you’d have to be a SUPER monster to try and get around giving your children shoes, no? So the instant you say you need a reduction this support you are a monster. Politicians run on how much support they’ve been able to collect. It’s off the rails. We are a long way from even acknowledging the problem, BUT you sir, are my hero, the bright light in this horrific game.

    Anyone else involved in reform always starts out by saying, “Yes, fathers should pay support and those that don’t are monsters.” Negating any possibility for an honest discussion of the issues and problems with the system, as it were designed however. It’s Child Support, so to write about it critically would make you critical of caring for children, you lose.

    PLEASE DO NOT STOP! I’ll help in any way I can. This blog is the one thing that gave me hope. Enough hope to not kill myself. That there ARE some people who see the truth for what it is, and the fact that what you write is SO universal, proves it is not as they say, “a few bad apples,” but rather the norm that conduct themselves this way in today’s motherhood example, it’s upon this “Mother’s Day” the national holiday in which is celebrated to the point they just have a father’s day to support mother’s day, it is now that we need to keep it up. Please don’t give up hope anyone reading this man’s blog, support him, get together, form groups. It’s the civil rights plight of our time, and i’ll go down swinging before I leave this earth not having made this the center of attention in politcal reform, I will dedicate my life to it. I have you sir to thank for that, and for those on “DivorcedMom,” I wish nothing but worst in quest to remove fatherhood from the family only replace it with garnished wages.

  151. Society does not know how to handle evil women (a subgroup), so it pretends they do not exist. It’s mentally easier that way.

    Society does know how to handle evil men (the subgroup of criminals).

  152. Pingback: Unhappy? Make your husband put a deposit into Dr. Harley’s Bank. | Dalrock

  153. Pingback: Don’t blame Heartiste for the equation of Alpha with virtue. | Dalrock

  154. Pingback: Why aren’t men responding to economic signals? | Dalrock

  155. Pingback: How Conservatives Helped Ruin the “Sanctity of Marriage” | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy

  156. Pingback: Disrespecting respectability, dishonoring the honorable. | Dalrock

  157. Pingback: Is it robolove or robolust? | Dalrock

  158. Pingback: Replacing hubby/daddy with a government check | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy

  159. Pingback: Misandry over Reason | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy

  160. Pingback: Commitment issues | Dalrock

  161. Pingback: Not enough cash and prizes. | Dalrock

  162. Pingback: What Prager and Wilcox are selling. | Dalrock

  163. Pingback: Entropy and the pumps. | Dalrock

  164. Pingback: The mysterious male marriage premium. | Dalrock

  165. Pingback: Honor Dads

  166. Pingback: Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 1). | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s