Alienation of affections

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/28/jilted-husband-awarded-8-8m-after-suing-wifes-lover.html

I wrote a post ages back on the old laws that protected marriage.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/which-laws-kept-marriages-intact/
“Protection from adultery is the crucial means of safeguarding marriage for future generations.”

Protection from cheats is one.

Marriage is a contract. Yes, you should be held to your oath of monogamy.

Holding the seducer responsible doesn’t divide the house.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/std-free-blood-tests-before-marriage-kept-it-good/

Also counts under criminal conversation. “Open marriage” cucking is effectively already illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversation

Way more expensive than a hooker.

Viking welfare system including child support

http://www.academia.edu/161539/A_Medieval_Welfare_State_Welfare_Provision_in_a_Twelfth-Century_Icelandic_Law_Code

If Vikings think providing is the manly thing to do, what’s a modern soyboy’s excuse?
They also had divorce and actually, a very very lawful society. Turns out you can’t conquer other peoples if you fight unfairly with your own kin.

Call it chivalry if you want but fathers who invest in their kin group have better fitness.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/rk-and-trivers-parental-investment-theory/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/r-types-polyandric-and-k-types-monoandric/

And women don’t cheat because they’re ovulating, idiots.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/female-fertility-doesnt-encourage-cheating/

We don’t have a naturalistic fallacy excuse either!

You can’t have a patriarchy without fathers who take responsibility.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/interpersonal-deprivation-from-single-fathers/

Extra credit:

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/link-feminism-as-the-death-of-self-respect/

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/women-notice-how-you-treat-the-rest-of-us/

The legal serfs

https://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/content/legal-fiction-how-they-control-us

“The answer to that dilemma is simple. The system can be used for our overall benefit. The bad guys have taken control of it and they are quite deliberately using it for their benefit at our expense. They are using it to fine us excessively and needlessly to feed their greed, to tax and persecute us; keeping us on a tread mill of servitude and making our lives a misery in the process. We have a right to take the benefits and reject the liabilities when the balance has been distorted to our detriment – which clearly it is.”

“We, the British people have right to govern ourselves, we have a natural instinct to want to preserve our sovereignty and our independence… but we have been lulled into thinking that we need the permission of a powerful elite to secure it… we do not.”

When did British morality die?

The recent interest in the Eisenstadt v. Baird case

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/438/case.html

might make it look like I’m picking on the Yanks. OK, I was, but I can also pinpoint a moment we were morally doomed too.

1977.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45

Subsection (1) above shall not affect the offence of conspiracy at common law if and in so far as it may be committed by entering into an agreement to engage in conduct which—

(a)tends to corrupt public morals or outrages public decency; but

(b)would not amount to or involve the commission of an offence if carried out by a single person otherwise than in pursuance of an agreement.

Anything “consensual” goes, quite a powerful label.

We could technically make online porn illegal over night, since it’s cinematographic and children frequently view it, which is not only grooming but corrupting.

(3)In section 2 of that Act after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

(4A)Without prejudice to subsection (4) above, a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence at common law—

(a)in respect of a cinematograph exhibition or anything said or done in the course of a cinematograph exhibition, where it is of the essence of the common law offence that the exhibition or, as the case may be, what was said or done was obscene, indecent, offensive, disgusting or injurious to morality; or

(b)in respect of an agreement to give a cinematograph exhibition or to cause anything to be said or done in the course of such an exhibition where the common law offence consists of conspiring to corrupt public morals or to do any act contrary to public morals or decency.

(4)At the end of section 2 of that Act there shall be added the following subsection:—

(7)In this section ” cinematograph exhibition ” means an exhibition of moving pictures produced on a screen by means which include the projection of light.

(5)In section 3 of that Act (which among other things makes provision for the forfeiture of obscene articles kept for publication for gain) at the beginning of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words

Subject to subsection (3A) of this sectionand at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

(3A)Without prejudice to the duty of a court to make an order for the forfeiture of an article where section 1(4) of the Obscene Publications Act 1964 applies (orders made on conviction), in a case where by virtue of subsection (3A) of section 2 of this Act proceedings under the said section 2 for having an article for publication for gain could not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, no order for the forfeiture of the article shall be made under this section unless the warrant under which the article was seized was issued on an information laid by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Wonder why nobody wants to see plays anymore?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/54

Abolition of censorship of the theatre

1Abolition of censorship of the theatre.

(1)The M1Theatres Act 1843 is hereby repealed; and none of the powers which were exercisable thereunder by the Lord Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household shall be exercisable by or on behalf of Her Majesty by virtue of Her royal prerogative.

(2)[F1In granting, renewing or transferring any licence under this Act for the use of any premises for the public performance of plays or in varying any of the terms, conditions or restrictions on or subject to which any such licence is held, the licensing authority shall not have power to impose any term, condition or restriction as to the nature of the plays which may be performed under the licence or as to the manner of performing plays thereunder:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent a licensing authority from imposing any term, condition or restriction which they consider necessary in the interests of physical safety or health or any condition regulating or prohibiting the giving of an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism within the meaning of the M2Hypnotism Act 1952.]

Health and Safety overtook the concern for public morality.
That’s why actors can get naked and perform sexual acts in a play.

There’s our own Race Relations statute (we never used to need one….) and hate speech was only written in once the original protection of the natives, White Christians, was written out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Immigration_Act_2008#Blasphemy

That is the year we officially became second class citizens in our own country.
It just so happens to be around the time left-wing batshittery became intolerable.

No such thing as common law marriage

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42134722

NEWSFLASH: You want the benefits of marriage, you have to actually get married.

There is only living in sin.

Stupid is as stupid does.
You don’t have tenancy rights without signing a tenancy agreement.
Neither do you have employee rights without signing an employment contract.

You lost everything, years of your life, because not once did you think to fucking Google it? I searched this years ago and the Government did their job, it’s the top of the first page. You don’t just get to assume you have rights by the power of wishful thinking. Nah, I don’t buy it, you deserve to be miserable. You know who doesn’t? Any children, tiny tot ATMs.

That’s the real secret. Married couples have less rights to benefits than “cohabiting”.

The kids are still gonna be screwed up, the same as single parents.
Children need the security of marriage.

Room mates don’t have rights. It’s like claiming the town bike is cheating. Nope! They owe you nothing! A girlfriend or boyfriend owes no fidelity.

Marriage is literally a vow of monogamy. No legal right to the latter without the former.
Engagement is the fringe case with a verbal contract. Cohabiting means jack shit.

How many people even know engagements have a time limit? After a couple of years, specifics vary, the proposing partner can claim you never intended to get married, because you delayed and the verbal contract was rescinded. ASK A LAWYER.

Why do women take up more government resources?
Which sex is left holding the baby? Blame deadbeats, they ain’t paying for their little splunk junket. We are. Everyone else.

Bringing in bullshit laws would make modern marriage even more useless.
People need incentives. And price controls for wedding basics would help.
I was planning a wedding recently and OMFG. They’re just flowers. Stick bridal before something and the price goes up 50x.

For the scaredy boys?
Single male friends don’t want you to get married for the same reason single female women don’t want their friends to get married to quality either: less attention, less time. They are replaced as a primary social obligation in your life.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-reasons-marriage-scares-men-arent-what-you-think/
Married men are happier than bachelors, some are frenemies trying to put you off the Best Woman For You, like you’ll get a second chance. If she’s the best option, the prospect of fucking her repeatedly isn’t a trial.
Re-marrying? Having seen the stats? OK, don’t bother. If you couldn’t make it once, you can’t do it again.

It’s easier to write a sitcom doofus fucking up if there’s no wife to help him.

Society is homogeneous

Source: Fascist goy for tolerance and understanding: reloaded

Related modern scientific terms:

Kinship, ingroup preference, genophilia.

Multiculturalism is divide and rule. Begin with colonialism and once the wedge is driven, crack it open.

Inb4 women shouldn’t inherit, “feminism did this” – you give them too much credit.

Where women are excluded from inheritance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law#Some_tenets_of_the_law

bachelors aren’t human.

Consider carefully.

Individual rights apply to men and women, or nobody.
That’s literally how they work.

nb Those saying Down with Western Civ?

Can’t grow their own food.

Peter Thiel and intellectual rights under Trump

Too much shop but you might get a tickle.

The question is understandable:

How do we reward innovators?

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/11/21/patent-views-peter-thiel-mean-trump-administration/id=74741/

The article is sound but I was drawn to this

comment
“Well, as Paypal and Facebook co-founder and investor, Thiel had no use of patents
He should try to invest in tech startups which develop something actually useful to people 🙂 (something like Dyson vacuums or Segways or VR headsets etc etc)
I am not saying that Paypal is useless or bad (aside from the fact that any smart 12-year old can open a paypal account and abuse Ebay – I had a BIG problem with that a few years back) – but it’s trivial, it would have come in one form or another regardless of Peter Thiel or Elon Musk
Bottom line: if you feel that you invented some unique and commercially viable technology you will not publicly share it with others unless there is at least some promise of eventual reward for your efforts”

It is interesting to note that Elon Musk and others who can afford it operate based on trade secrets to avoid publishing patents. I think that set know the system is flawed and needs to side with the creators.

He pointed out he might as well send them to China personally, which highlights the problem with fraud and infringement, essentially theft.

We need to stop basing STEM on the assumptions of Communism.
R&D is expensive into trillions, none of those people will work for free to see someone else profiteer. Capitalism comes from ‘to capitalize’, a VERB.

STEM is not academia, these people can’t be bribed into the public sector and don’t really care about a public that insults them.

Either you own what you make, whether it’s a widget or the blue of the widget, or property rights have exceptions depending on your line of work, which is silly when the huge megacorps are throwing their weight around on owning rounded corners.

https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/

But what is patent infringement, if not theft? Inventions are property AND the first object of government is to protect them. So said America’s founders. All such court decisions relegate inventions to second class property, at best, and encourage if not legalize their theft. Does America need another war of independence…from SCOTUS? These are the sort of decisions that make a growing number of Americans believe appeals in patent cases to SCOTUS should be ended. Do they know what they are doing? Has the court become a safe harbor for thieves? They show no respect for or even recognition of property rights.

Those who bribe the politicians want to weaken the underdog, the capitalist competition that might overtake them.

All these decisions do is make it easier for our much larger competitors to rob and crush us. Show us a country with weak or ineffective property rights and we’ll show you a country with high unemployment and a weak economy. Congress must now act to restore property rights in America. When thieves win America loses.”

Most of the thieves operate from Asia, especially China.
The Western governments do not care. Then they cry out in horror when STEM progress decays.

The journalists opposing patents never want to forsake their own IP, the copyright, which is unfairly granted automatically.

Briefly on domestic abuse and self-defense

Domestic abuse is never acceptable.

I repeat for the slow among you-

Domestic abuse is never acceptable.

There is no excuse for it.

Here comes the reasonable objection What about self-defense?

Well, actually fighting back should be the last resort.
I keep seeing repressed rage MRAs salivate over the prospect of hitting a woman because ‘she started it’, or ‘she deserves it’ and they seriously think that’s how the law works and that the law is somehow unjust, while out the other side of their mouth they claim women are inherently weaker as a sex, physically. …Errr, yes, these two facts may be connected, shocker! Women are not physical equals! Which means different legal standards are not sexist, but in fact, based on biological reality. And totally fair. And the MRAs wonder why Paul Elam was exposed as a domestic abuser and deadbeat? Those who virtue signal the loudest on domestic violence often have a history of it. This is a common pattern with men who claim victim. What do you think abusers do, in the legal system? They always gaslight, they always try tu quoque, they always pretend they’re the ‘Real Victim Here’. The sob story is always Mummy Was Mean To Me so All Women Are Evil. Few variations, as if anything justifies abusive behaviour as an adult (and they always go after women because we are the physically weaker sex, a man might actually fight back!). Good parents aren’t supposed to be your friends. They sound like typical entitled narcissists and fall for Just World Fallacy, even applying it to other people’s abuse e.g. “Elam told her she had asked to be raped, and that she had slept with his friend because she was bored with her marriage.” So don’t give them a second of sympathy.

Back to the topic.

Men can inflict disproportionately more force in a fight per blow, they were evolved to kill other men, that’s why they need to hold back in all but life-threatening situations (the same rule does apply to women equally but rarely applies in practice as women rarely have that potential for overpowering). The law on self-defense hinges on disproportionate force for this reason, it’s never necessary. If it were necessary, that would be easily proven as a life-threatening situation and therefore it would have become necessary.

Restrain if you cannot physically leave but in all other situations leave, leave the first time they pull this and preferably report it. This advice on leaving applies to women too. Don’t stick around and reward them with your company or they will keep doing it. This is a standard enshrined in law but based in unchanging biology and case exceptions prove the rule e.g. A female MMA must hold back her physical force too, and those who abuse their boyfriends are also evil as the males, e.g. Ronda Rousey. If men were really the cool-headed and rational sex as they claim to be, they wouldn’t have such dismal control of their ‘temper’ that characterizes small children. There’s no such thing as ‘temper’, in fact. You aren’t being possessed and suddenly lack legal responsibility for your own fists (even psychotics are responsible for answering to their crimes). Neurological studies have shown giving in to violence is a choice when risk is flagged by the limbic system, fight or FLIGHT is engaged, and choosing to be violent once makes the person more violent in the long term by reinforcement looping. People will weak impulse control will often falsely claim their desire to harm or kill others was ‘too strong’ and overpowered them, with no thought to how that applies to their literally overpowering their literal victim. “I’m the Real Victim (TM) Here” bullshit again.

Either women are physically weak and need male protection by evolution

or

they’re equals in a fight and OK to attack, you don’t get to claim both.

Sports alone prove which is truth. We can’t need men and simultaneously not need them for the most basic provision (physical security) and that’s why deadbeats like Elam are such scum – r-types revoke the provisions they owe their offspring, such as physical and financial security, the most masculine and selfless provisions possible. It’s no coincidence they’re necessary for the healthiest children. To address a common myth: The problem with the children of single mothers isn’t the single mother herself – it’s the absence of the securities of a father. In this way, deadbeat fathers are always worse than single mothers, because women are always left holding the baby and the ‘man’ gets to leave physically or financially under specious pretense. I hate to say it, but to prove it, see how well children fare if one parent dies. That’s right – they need the father more.

TLDR: Standing against domestic abuse doesn’t make you a feminist, they don’t even care, it’s another funding exercise for them. It makes you someone who hates those that exploit perceived weakness to treat human beings as a rag doll for their personal failings. It just so happens most domestic abusers are men, and in fact, the figures in this one crime are skewed because the abuser’s best legal defense strategy is to file a counter-claim, this is almost always done. However, looking by injury, it is mostly men. However, such people exploiting others are always scum, as exceptionally strong women are also held to the same standard based on physical merit, making it not technically sexist legally or in theory, but totally fair. You should be against abuse on principle, whatever the sex of the people involved.

The sexes don’t have to be the same physically to get the same legal protections. They just need to be the same species: human.

And if you ever wanted a typical case study of the life and history of a psychopath, Paul Elam fits the bill better than any other American I’ve seen. Multiple divorcee, always blaming others, never learning lessons, accused of abuse by multiple partners, children by many partners, refusing to support said children, drug use, alcoholism, fantasies about violence, trying to provoke people verbally as an excuse for violence, middle-aged white male, persecution complex, entitlement complex, superiority complex, jail time served, anti-justice, will commit perjury in court out of hatred, low-class occupations their entire life, inability to commit to a job employed by others, nomadic and so on. It’s alarming how perfectly he fits the profile.

Consider this;

“the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk [through] life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign”

thatsjustsickewwtfgrossno

Behold, the blatant misogynist in MRA clothing, using SJW victim-signalling with the sexes reversed. #GiveYourMoneyToMRAs They’re all parasites using others’ victimhood as a sanctimonious platform for their own ego and grifting. If they couldn’t make money, they wouldn’t be there.
Actual white trash like this usually has a heart attack from all the clogged hate at his age. The world will be a better place. At least there’ll be plenty of historical evidence why he was trash. You can’t say he’s misquoting himself.

Comic: Justice is ableist

justicevsocialjustice

How dare she wear that blindfold, she’s mocking the blind!
Scales must be equal whatever the weights, innocence at any size!

Note how Justice used to be depicted with sword in hand, before the soft modern depictions removed it, ready to defend or dole out real justice, by force. If you won’t fight for freedom, you don’t have it.
Without force, there can be no Justice.
Equality under the law. No one above.

h/t Captain Capitalism