Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Divorce Court Programming

As a young boy in the 80's, I was your typical American latch-key kid who's parents both worked and the Tell-A-Vision was my after school brave new world order indoctrination machine babysitter. Around my early pre-teen years, I became a daily watcher of the TV show, Divorce Court, presided over by the honorable Judge William Keene. I watched that show at 3:30pm every single day after school for probably two or three years. Winston Smith over at The Ministry of Truth Wikipedia, describes the mid-80's era of the show in their entry for Divorce Court*:

While touted as presenting real cases to television audiences, the stories from earlier versions of Divorce Court were actually re-enactments of divorce cases presented by actors.
Actors portrayed the litigants - the plaintiff, who initiated the divorce proceedings; the defendant, who either sought a reconciliation or sought a divorce decree of his/her own; and a number of witnesses, who testified on behalf of one of the litigants. Meanwhile student attorneys would argue the cases.

Each episode followed a basic formula, as follows:
- Each attorney giving opening statements.

- The litigants, along with one or two supporting witnesses, giving their side of the story and enduring cross-examination.

- Closing arguments.

- The judge's decision, followed by appropriate reactions by each side.
Many of the stories had standard marital issues: mental and/or physical abuse, adultery, desertion and other irreconcilable differences. As with most courtroom-based television programs through the ages (and to keep audiences interested), the stories were hardly the sort of the unloved wife's affair with the milkman or the husband's meddlesome mother interfering with and ultimately ruining the marriage. Rather, Divorce Court tended to present more sensational cases with "shock value."

Oh yes, watching the Tell-A-Vision day after day certainly made me believe I knew what the American Family Court system was all about.

Judge William Keene was very fair, impartial, level-headed, and he took no shit from men and women alike. He kept an orderly court and his rulings were reasonable and most times the viewer couldn't argue with the outcomes he adjudicated.

I recall many tales of adultery, cruelty, abandonment, child abuse, spousal rape, physical abuse, theft all played out in a 30 minute show....and it exposed my adolescent mind to the various vagaries of human behaviors that both men and women engage in that bring about the failure of their marriage.

I remember episodes in which a wife who slept with her husband's brother lost custody and was ordered to pay all the court fees.

I remember episodes in which the wife with held sex from her husband for several years and lost the case due to abandonment. Husband got the money, house and alimony payments.

Of course there were plenty of cases in which the husband was an abusive asshole or a philandering dirt bag, and they too got their just rewards at the drop of Judge Keene's hammer. All these hours of passively watching "dramatic portrayals of real life cases" had to have certainly shaped my ignorant and naive view of the family court system in this country.

The Tell-A-Vision sure gave me a vision.

I had been told to think that Divorce in the 1980's in America, was a case of equal justice before the law. That if as Husband or a Wife, you broke your marital vows, then you got your just desserts, and the unfairly victimized spouse got vindication and compensation. Of course it works like that! This is the land of the free and the home of the brave! We have the greatest country on the face of the Earth! Our legal system is the envy of the world! Democracy and checks and balances ensures that courts will impartially render justice without regards to race, religion, sexual orientation or gender!

All through my teens and early 20's, this was my view of marriage and divorce and the family destroyer court system.

If someone I knew had parents who divorced, it HAD to be because one or the other did something dastardly and the other spouse righteously received justice in the court of law.

Then I experienced a real up close and personal insight into how Divorce REALLY works in our Brave New World Order when close friends and families went through the meat grinder.

According Winston Smith's entry on No Fault Divorce over at the Ministry of Truth:

No-fault divorce statutes were first enacted in 1969 in California; South Dakota was the last state to allow no-fault divorce, in 1985.

In other words, his-fault No-fault Divorce had become the legal standard in all 50 States by the time the 80's era of this popular daytime Tell-A-Vision show began it's run.

I had no concept whatsoever about what No-Fault divorce really meant...until I saw my ex-Aunt run off with a motorcycle thug, leaving the kids with my uncle....AND STILL she got custody, child support, alimony when the Divorce was finalized two years later.

Wait a minute?

Shouldn't the Hawaii family court's equivalent to Judge Keene, look at the facts of the case and easily see that my ex-Aunt broke her marital vows, had an affair and abandoned her family....yet she got to unilaterally end her marriage and get cash, prizes and custody?

This is where my Uncle explained to me what "No-Fault" divorce was....or at least how his attorney explained it to him. If the man does something, it can and will be used against him in a kangaroo court of the family destroying arm of the law. If the woman does something...why, it's NO FAULT DIVORCE!

Prior to that, I really did believe the portrayal of Divorce Court TV was really how Divorces worked in this country. I had no idea Divorce Court TV in the 80's was a television show about At-Fault Divorce. But it only began it's daily syndicated Network Tell-A-Vision run after No-Fault Divorce became the standard M.O. in all 50 States.

I now believe Divorce Court TV was deliberate, subversive  PROGRAMMING designed to indoctrinate men into thinking that there was nothing to fear from the Divorce Court system if they were not abusive cheaters, and just hard working husbands who did their duty and provided for their families. Besides, all the billable hours of the attorneys and expert witnesses, and the salaries of the court employees all depend on enough men getting married first, so that they can then pay for their services when they get divorced....

Divorce? What, me worry? If she cheats,
Judge Keene will make sure she gets what deserves!

* Ever since Wikipedia's Editors saw fit to erase the page for Thomas Ball's family court protest by self-immolation, I have resolved to no longer link them in blogging or commentary.



Professor Mentu said...

"His-fault divorce."

Brilliant, and stolen for one of the static pages I'm writing at UMan.

Johnycomelately said...

Alan Watt of cuttingthroughthematrix has a good website examining 'predictable programming' and details how desired events are pre-empted so they become self fulfilling prophecies.

Showing divorce tv and high lighting celebrity divorces conditions the mind to accept it as an inevitable outcome.

A bit like how 70s cop shows put police in situations where they had to break the law to issue 'tough justice' paved the way for accepting homeland security.

Anonymous said...

Well, the folks at Wikipedia were pushing for donations again.

I ain't giving them a damn thing.

ClarenceComments said...

Minor correction:

New York was the last state without "No Fault Divorce" and, as of 2010, that is no longer the case.

Keoni Galt said...

Well Clarence, take it up with Winston Wiki...since I took the quote directly from the Wiki Page "No Fault Divorce" in which they say SD was the last to allow it in 1985.

Mentu - I came up with that because we have a joke here in Hawaii that is similar.

In HI, we don't tell Polack jokes...we tell "Portagee" (Portuguese) jokes - but it's the same thing. You can tell any Polack joke in Hawaii and just substitute Portagee and it works.

So anyway, here's the joke, which is riffing off of Hawaii's No Fault Auto Insurance law:

You heard of the new Portagee car insurance policy?

"My Fault" insurance.

Anonymous said...

I got to see the destruction of this policy. A friend's wife ended up hooked on meth - managed to hide it till checks started bouncing, then she decided to kill the children and take off.

My friend came in to a house with the gas on, and the kids passed out, and wife gone. He got them out, and the house cleared and she admitted to her mother she "didn't want the children to not have a mother" so she wanted them dead.

Of course he divorced the crazy b*tch. A year goes by and she shows back up - wants the kids, and she gets them, and a restraining order against him. So now he can't go in and save the kids. Her parents testified against her - the judge still gave her the kids. She killed all three of them - successfully this time.

The judge isn't held accountable for murder which was as a direct result of her actions. Nope. No accountability for women - only punish the men.... That is divorce today... Punish the men...

The only sane choice is not to play - and never marry... At least not in this crazy a** country...

papabear said...

Have you seen the Greg Swann guest post at Free the Animal?

Anonymous said...

Every word that comes out of the US media is a lie. The US media is programmed by skillfully trained and disciplined propagandists who faithfully follow the ideologies and interests of their masters in Washington and Wall Street.

This is the reason why people can see the disaterous divorce policies with their own eyes and still not believe them, because the MSM has beaten propaganda into their heads since they were children.

Anonymous said...

This is an obvious case of distractive programming.
And there are still persons out there who deny the existence of a conspiracy

El Bastardo said...

I got the family court shaft in your state Keoni; I went in completely naive, and came out dazed and confused.

I came to the table with a reasonable offer since I was military and the child was under 6 mos; she got primary physical, we both got joint legal, split the travel costs; and since I could deploy she would get the tie breaker clause.

In no uncertain terms did the judge put that to rest and said I could fight, but that judge informed that that bench would force me to lose! The judge said this court will not let you do that. I could take it to the court of appeals if I wanted; then smiled!

Needless to say my ex has been insanely bold; how could she not, I am just lucky she actually lets me talk to my kid. She can do whatever she wants, wehave fought in numerous states now.

She laughs her ass off, I suffer the heart break. Now that the kid is over five, and in a different state I have a chance; she is not laughing anymore! :)

Anonymous said...

Wow, I wonder how PMAFT, RooshV, and the rest of the PUA manginas are going to feel finding out 'Divorce Court' isn't real. Might make them think twice about whether the garbage they see on the Playboy Channel is real either? LOL

I love the way Roosh got applauded by Futrelle for attacking the Men's Movement. Manginas and Gamecocks: a matching pair---totally suited for daytime TV together! LOL

Anonymous said...

In the last few years, Internet news told of a woman in New York state who was refused a divorce because she had no valid cause. So, wiki is wrong if if says 1985 SD.

Anonymous age 70

Retrenched said...

I remember Ferd writing about when NY finally adopted no fault divorce. That was a couple years back, when he still worked in Albany (I think).

Retrenched said...

@ Anon @ 8:55

I wouldn't include PMAFT with Roosh in a list of so called PUAs. He's actually blasted Roosh several times for his opposition to the MRM.



Anonymous said...

I certainly would. He seems fairly free about bashing other MRAs who don't tow the PUA Party Line to his liking. But he's really such a non-entity in the MRM that he's hardly worth mentioning anyway.

As for RooshV and the rest of these mangina dipshits: they're finally showing their true colors (to wit, feminocentric). The only real difference between them and guys like Futrelle is that Gamesters want to be on top during sex. They both are against empowering men, and bow to the pedestal princesses on cue.

Hopefully, more men will see them for the frauds they are, and not the self-appointed 'leaders' they claim to be.

Anonymous said...

Get married. Warm welcome women into the men's rights movement. It's all good! Duh!!

Anonymous said...

Well, why not? According to RooshV and the rest of his toadies (who bow to Roissy like he's some kind of second Mohammed), anybody who isn't out there 'Gaming the Grrlz' isn't a real man! According to some of these other bozos, you're not a real Christian, either.

Just look at the topics on the sidebar here from the leading Gametards:

Danny504: 'Training a Future Wife'

Danger & Play: 'The Perils of not Learning Game.'

Chateau Heartise: 'Street Kiss Close Analysis'

Rollo Tommassi: 'Girls on the Side'

Badger Hut: 'Another Damn Girly Song about Game'

Hooking Up Smart: 'Hot and Mean vs. Hot & Nice; What Do Girls Want?'

Dalrock: 'Beauty Taming the Savage Beast.'

Krauser: 'I Bang My First Leggy Byelorussian'

These poltroons sound like a bunch of junior high-school punks sitting around a locker room bragging about conquests they never had and lecturing the younger guys on their 'techniques' that never really got any results.

And they shame the rest of us as losers? LOL Does the crap they're writing about have the slightest thing to do with advancing men's welfare? No, it's all about submission to the Almighty Vagina and shaming other men as far as these guys are concerned.

Anonymous said...

'Get married. Welcome women into the mens movement'

I wonder how many of these married PUA/Game advocates want their daughters to date and marry guys who practice Game/PUA? Interesting question.

Anonymous said...

Wow---the Gameboys seem to get quiet when they get confronted with reality. It's easy to sit behind the safety of a 'ban button' and write snarky articles about other MRAs, but a lot different when they're called out on it.

How can it be otherwise? Just like the women they worship, emotion and not logic rule their ways of thinking.

Leaders of men? A bunch of manginas---nothing else.

Anonymous said...

As proof of this, I see Professor Men-titz above, whose been reading these comments but hasn't got the balls to say anything about it in the open, has jumped on RooshV's bandwagon.

It seems he's become so infatuated with an internet slut he's seen on some PUA blog, he thinks he win points by going 'Team Woman' and shaming other men.

It doesn't work for Futrelle and it won't work for you either, Prof.

But it does illustrate the point: the failure of Roissy, Dalrock, and the rest of these self-appointed 'male leaders' to denounce RooshV shows their agreement with him. It also shows that they are genuinely pro-feminist and anti-male.

Anonymous said...

I previously wrote: "Get married. Warm welcome women into the men's rights movement. It's all good! Duh!!"

And should have also included, "become a pickup artist!".

Never on a popular men's rights site will you find an article entiltled: "Seek Reality; Not Women".

The reason being, because it's a movement filled of *almost* nothing but women.

Few are men, few can say with no compromise NO, to women. Any woman (masculine enough to be considered a man intellectually) worthy of being a sociable part of the men's rights movement, would refuse. She would understand the short term, but more importantly, long term, consequences of it. She would refuse, and on her independent own, speak bitter (refused by all) truth about women in general, and about essentially all women who want to "contribute" to the movement.

Men's faults are univerally known and acknowledged; this wouldn't be her focus.

Yea, she would be more of a man than you typically come across in the movement as current. Where ARE the men in this "men's movement"?

Anonymous said...

Well, according to RooshV and Professor Men-titz, the men who built the movement that they are leeching off of, aren't 'real men'.

The real men, according to them, accept 'the reality of feminism' and behave accordingly. Some of these dipshits even brag about how receptive feminised women are to Game. To anybody with a brain, that alone would set off alarm-bells, but these guys' self-worth is so centered on female approval that they're blind to everything else.

Retrenched said...

OT... what the hell happened to Snark's blog? Now it looks like a blog devoted to trends in women's fashion... WTF???

. said...

I just can't believe anyone hasn't said it yet...

"What chou talkin' bout, Willis?"

Good God, I am getting old!

Anonymous said...

Maybe Snark's just getting on board with the 'New MRM'. Since the new MRM is all about pedestalizing women, it's important for guys to make sure the princesses have all the up-to-date fashions and stuff.

Plus if there are any good pics on there of babes in their 'unmentionables' the PUAs can exchange them and brag about their imaginary conquests some more LOL.

Anonymous said...


You should post this letter which surfaced on the internet in 1999:
"Dearest Citizen of the World,
I believe the time has come to reveal to you some of the perplexities you have faced in recent decades. It is well for you to understand some of these things so that you might know how to behave in the New Order now taking shape on the earth. We want you to be able to become fully involved and integrated into our new society. After all, this is for your best interest if you will do.
(...)", the rest is here: http://www.debv.com/rantdkv081206.htm


Anonymous said...

In Mississippi, the only way to obtain a 'no fault' divorce is for both parties to agree on the divorce and settle all property/custody issues themselves.  The primary way, according to the advice of most attorneys here, for fathers to get custody (or more custody) is to not allow his wife to get a divorce and wear her down until she agrees to his demands, which isn't a very effective strategy.   If one party disagrees to the divorce or the father wants to fight for his children, then the case goes to trial.  The judge will often bifurcate the proceedings into divorce and property/custody issues.  If no divorce is granted on fault based reasons, then the judge can keep jurisdiction, in which case he makes a quick custody decision, or he relinquishes jurisdiction, in which case you are refiling and fighting to see your child.  

My friend has been going through a divorce for several years (separated that long) and been through 2 judges.  His wife was not granted a divorce by either judge.  The second judge didn't give either of them a divorce based on adultery, even though both admitted to it after their separation, because both of them were at fault.  She has retained physical custody even though she's been a shithead.  

That said, getting rid of 'no fault' divorce will most likely only prolong the inevitable- an eventual divorce, mother custody and massive attorney bills.  Even though Mississippi doesn't have the typical 'no fault' divorce laws, it still has one of the highest divorce rates in the nation.  The only real solution as I see it are to go back to the old laws, those found in Blackstone, and grant automatic full custody to father.  Had my friend gotten full custody at the first temporary hearing, it would most likely have saved their marriage.  

It's definitely not about justice.  It's about what's in the best interest of the child which is heavily skewed to favor the mother.  

Anonymous said...

New York was definitely the last state to enact no-fault divorce in 2010. As a NY state licensed attorney that is accurate. But even with the new law, no fault only is available if both parties consent. if one party contests the divorce, grounds must still be shown.

Badger said...

Who is this anonymous dude who keeps having a comment conversation with himself?