Saturday, April 14, 2012

Here Come the Bastards

We literally live in a Bastardized society.

Our civilization was built by men invested in earning resources to provide for their families and leaving their earned wealth to their offspring. Only children legitimized by marriage to the offspring's mother could inherit his wealth.

The real destruction of marriage as a lifelong institution did not begin with No-Fault divorce, but rather the cultural shift in attitudes regarding who should receive child custody in the event of divorce. The real changes to our society began with the changing attitudes of the culture towards what the institution means and why it existed in the first place.

Marriage used to be the contract in which a man and a woman exchanged their productive capacities to benefit the family unit their marriage produced. The female traded her reproductive abilities for the male's abilities to provide material support for her and their offspring. The offspring of their marriage were HIS. That's what he traded his provisioning capacity for.

That was the original deal.

Of course, feminists have derided that original arrangement as "Patriarchal Oppression." Like most other feminist ideas, it was, of course, a lie.

The real defining facet of marriage that lead to the use of Patriarchal marriage as the primary vehicle to build civilization, was the legitimacy of the right to inherit a Father's wealth. This is why the wife took the man's last name when she took that their children would have legitimate claim to the provisions their Father acquired.

Women were never FORCED to sign this contract to have sex or to have children. They could simply have sex out of wedlock and have bastards. They just couldn't make the man who had sex with her support HER offspring, because she did not enter into the marriage contract with him in the first place.

See the difference in the original contract that served as the foundation of civilized society?

Children created in Wedlock = HIS
Children out of Wedlock = HERS

This was the true incentive that promoted monogamous marriage, which resulted in the investment of men into the building up of society. They had something to work for - their heirs. When Men OWNED their children through marriage, they work themselves to death to make sure his heirs are taken care of when he is gone.

The biggest subversion to the institution of marriage was not no-fault divorce. Nor was it the changing of cultural attitudes that shifted the idea of default custody from men to women.

The real blow came from the loss of stigma for illegitimacy.

The equalization of legal rights to a man's provisioning capacity, in the name of his offspring whether he was married or not.

Now, Child Support means women can get pregnant under any circumstances and decide whatever she wants to do...and the law says he pays, legitimate or not.

We now live under a system of Bastard Subsidization.

And like anything else you subsidize, you will get more and more of it.

How's that been working out for us all, eh?

We now live in an age for which any woman who finds herself in the vicinity of a rich and famous male, has the opportunity to hit the Bastard Subsidy jackpot....just get him to have sex and get pregnant and voila, a court ordered payment for at least the next 18 years.

Take for instance, the recent case of most likely future Hall of Fame football player, Warren Sapp.

“Do you think I wanted to declare bankruptcy?” Sapp tells Gary Shelton of the Tampa Bay Times. “Do you think if there was any other way possible I would have done it? It was either this or go to jail. Those were my choices.”

Sapp explained that a construction deal gone bad resulted in 100 percent of his NFL Network earnings being garnished for 11 months. “You tell me what to do,” Sapp said. “Do you keep working without a check? If you don’t pay your child support, you go to jail. This wasn’t something I wanted to do. This was something I had to do.”

Here's a former Super Bowl Champion who played close to a decade and earned millions of dollars. Forced into Bankruptcy because child support was taking 100% of his present earnings as a NFL Network TV Analyst and Pundit, after he lost his initial money earned when he was a player.

This is a stark example of how "imputed income" literally traps men into poverty and indentured servitude. There is almost no possible way for Sapp to ever again earn the kind of money he made when he was a high profile star player in the NFL. Ever since he retired, he's been working for far less money as a TV personality than he used to make as one of the best Defensive Tackles in the game.

But the family court system that enforces the Bastard Subsidy system requires him to keep paying the unmarried women who bore his illegitimate children levels of child support as if he were still an active NFL player capable of earning millions of dollars annually.

It seems like the default attitude of most people influenced by mass media society who hear about the cases of the likes of Sapp, automatically assume that he deserves what he gets, HE SHOULD'VE KEPT IT IN HIS PANTS.

This is the cultural attitude that feminists have fought long and hard for - to give women the ability to have all the choices of reproduction, and men all of the responsibilities and consequences for whatever choice she makes.

Of course, this is not going to change anytime soon. To suggest otherwise would a) hurt illegitmate children's feelings (the poor little bastards), and b) make women responsible for their own choices once again.

Thus, we await the inevitable collapse of the formerly civilized Patriarchal society that has been irrevocably bastardized.



. said...

Thanks for the link, HL.

I'm working on a four part series directly addressing the subject you are writing about here. It will follow Marriage 1.0 to Marriage 2.0 and end with Marriage 3.0.

I'm glad I've still got some old-time allies like you around, kickin'the lies away. Makes me feel good.

Let’s Rock

Carnivore said...

The linked to NO MA'AM article is excellent. Clearly explains the fraud.

Anonymous said...

The real destruction of marriage as a lifelong institution did not begin with No-Fault divorce, but rather the cultural shift in attitudes regarding who should receive child custody in the event of divorce.

Right on target. That was the moment the rot set in. As soon as men were enticed into a contract that obliged them to continue keeping their side of the deal, but without any reward (ie the kids were no longer theirs), the rest followed. And what a steady, rotten decline it has been.

Full credit to Rob Fedders for persisting the way he has, and marking the path right back to the first, filthy event in the great fraud the bitches have pulled on us all.

HeligKo said...

Right on. This is also the conclusion that I have come to from reading through history. The part to understand is this didn't happen by accident. First they got the psychologists into the courts, and gave them power to push this very feminist idea.

dienw said...

You should enjoy this piece of work.

"Did we hook up at a Megadeath concert? I'm pregnant - woman's search for father of her baby on Craigslist "

. said...

Thanks for the kind words directed towards my work, guys.

For those interested, I keep this little tidbit around and re-read it often to keep my eye on the "big picture" (the forest) and then I try to cut down a tree:

The main weapon used to fight this war is Critical Theory, which was defined by a student of the Frankfurt School as the "essentially destructive criticism of all the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family,patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, and conservatism."

Heredity is what HL is addressing here. It was also well known not to piss around with heredity in the past - ie. inheritance laws are to remain tax free (tax has already been paid on that inheritance when Dad created it - don't "double tax" it).

Once men pass mid-life, the "piss & vinegar" starts to leave them. But, if he has children, the old man will work like a mule right into the grave specifically because he can benefit his offspring by doing so.

Heredity is extremely important to the male psyche. Without it, we would all retire at 40, or at least severely cut back on wealth creation - heh, kinda like me.

Undermining heredity is a massive blow to Capitalism.

Chris said...

Hi Keoni.

You forgot one thing... the young bastards are

a. Angry. They have been told that everything is there fault by femmies all their life and there is no father or uncle around to instruct them in the development of a shite detector.

b. Misguided. Without a consistent male older figure around, they have no real model of masculinity. Apart from MTV and movies. (Ghey and Gheyer). In addition, they have learned from their Mum the power of victimhood, not realizing that only the femmies can use it.

c. Undisciplined. They have not seen their Dad get up, go to work, come home exhausted, and do it again, and again. These things matter.

d. Desperate. Women want to mate or marry up, despite any denial from the femmies. But the bastards are behind the eight ball. Because those young men who have Dads in their lives learn discipline, get guidance and how to manage anger (assuming he has a spine) and do better from junior high on. Which means that they are getting the scholarships, acheiving in the hard courses at college, getting the jobs, and become the objects of desire.

While the mother of our young bastard is wondering why he is in prison. She has forgotten that (as Elvis taught) poverty has consequences.

. said...

@ Chris,

You might be interested in reading Philalethes' essays.

He gets into it - in specific detail - of how important it is to separate boys from "mother." He says if boys aren't separated, they remain "aborted" at the "woman level" and never grow past women and into the men we must become - which is "higher" than the woman. Cutting the apron strings is essential, and it is not even bad that it is a struggle to escape "mother," for manhood that is not "won" is not really manhood.

He is a good writer and he is humble - He claims he himself is not truly a "man" in the sense he describing.

It's good stuff. It clearly defines what "the female principle" is and what "the male principle" is.

Boys raised without a father-figure are double-whammied, when looking at it from Philalethes' viewpoint.

He's a smart man. I re-read him about every six months.

cassius said...

The biggest subversion to the institution of marriage was not no-fault divorce. Nor was it the changing of cultural attitudes that shifted the idea of default custody from men to women.

The real blow came from the loss of stigma for illegitimacy.

It is not the loss of stigma of illegitimacy, but the reversal between illegitimacy and wedlock.

Mother custody is marriage as illegitimacy. Child support is illegitimacy as marriage.
Alimony is divorce as marriage. Sexless marriages are marriages as divorce.