A poster called Lawrence has written a brilliant defence of the Anglobitch Thesis. As an American expatriate and former prison worker, Lawrence has unique insight into the terrible state of modern gender relations across the Anglosphere. His piece was over 10 000 words in length, and placed as multiple comments on a previous post by Legal Eagle. Here is Part II:
Like I said, every man in the Anglosphere is a target of this machine, but wealthy American and Canadian men are the hardest hit, because the US legal system gives family court judges wide latitude, which really can’t be appealed, to place arbitrarily high demands on the incomes of men who have been wealthy at any point. This is why Robin Williams committed suicide. At one point he was a very wealthy Hollywood A-lister. But after his two divorces, he was no longer pulling in that kind of money. The family courts didn’t care. They said he once made big money, and in the fantasy unicorn filled land of US family courts, that meant he could just click his feet together and make the same money again. So they made Robin pay out the nose for alimony. By this time he was sick with Parkinson’s Disease he couldn’t make anywhere close to that amount of money, and his lawyer was warning him that prison time was likely coming. So he committed suicide. Here’s another famous case, a guy in New York with same sort of situation, once made a lot of money on Wall Street and became upper class, told to pay alimony every year after that at insane high levels, lost his job in recession== then off to prison when it became impossible.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-08-26/jail-becomes-home-for-husband-stuck-with-lifetime-alimony Brendan Fraser has been hit with a similar judgement, tens of millions of dollars in alimony.
Wealthy men across the US, Canada, UK and the Anglosphere generally are hit hard like this. And yes, a lot of them wind up in prison. The incarceration rate in Canada and the UK isn’t quite as bad, but this happens there too because the misandrist structure of the laws and family courts is as bad as in the USA, and the legal systems share the same insane practice of imprisonment after court-ordered impoverishing of a man. I found this out ironically after I expatriated and was working as a Web and database planner, when my previous experience led prison systems in many countries to contract me to help with their intake software and legal briefing documents. This imprisonment of men for marriage or kids (or in these #metoo days, just for “harassment” that in reality is “any interaction with women”) really is an Anglo phenomenon uniquely. Whatever stupid idiosyncrasies the rest of the West has with feminism, they don’t throw men in prison for this.
The very worst case I saw as a prison guard was a surgeon, yes an American surgeon who was one of the most respectable guys I ever met, hard working, worked until 2 a.m. 6 days a week to save people’s lives. With all the work hours, his wife got “lonely” and started sleeping around, eventually having 2 kids that weren’t even his as he found out later. And then she filed for divorce so she could take the surgeon’s money, blow it on cocaine and stupid luxuries for herself without doing any work herself (that’s the real destination where the “child support” money goes) and sleep around with her favorite Chad of the week, all on her hard working surgeon ex-husband’s money. She won an insanely high judgment in a US family court, millions of dollars in child support and “alimony” that the poor surgeon would have to pay. Since by the court’s judgment, “she should be entitled to maintain the same standard of living after the divorce”, even though this greedy gold-digging Anglobitch is the one who filed for the divorce to steal from her hard-working husband who was actually saving people’s lives.
After a few years of doing this, and losing his house and his nice car, the poor surgeon threw out his back while helping a patient onto an operating table. He had to cut down his hours as a surgeon, and went to the divorce court asking for a reduction in the support demands, and ask that his lazy, spoiled brat bitch ex-wife get a damn job herself. But the court refused using the same delusion filled imputation bullshit they pull on other ex-husbands, claiming he could somehow make millions of extra dollars using his surgical wizard skills somehow. Which he couldn’t do in reality with his injured back, something the family court judge couldn’t or wouldn’t even try to understand. So then now the alimony and child support were demanding 120% of his income. You see, the family court system will never let you off the treadmill once they target you, especially if you earn a lot of money. Eventually he drained his savings and retirement, couldn’t make the payments at all—and he wound up in the prison where I was a corrections officer.
The corrupt American family court-media-feminist-academia cultural Marxist-big business-prison industrial complex had worked perfectly to ruin this poor man, and what a prize they had. A dedicated, hard working US surgeon, saving lives every day, drained of his money and reduced to poverty by a gold-digging, spoiled greedy bimbo who divorced him due to his very dedication, had kids with other men to force him to pay bullshit “child support” in addition to never-stopping alimony, his assets taken by his gold-digging ex wife and the state to grease their own corruption, the “child support” in actuality supporting the ex wife’s corrupt, hedonistic lifestyle after divorce. And then the poor surgeon himself made a literal slave in a US prison, stripped of his license and made a perpetual debtor, worked to the bone but never allowed to profit from his own efforts or hard work. That really is how it works in the US family court and prison system. That poor surgeon was the worst case we ever saw, made us so mad we were talking about how we were going to “free the Bastille” and start a revolution ourselves to stop all the corruption, Robespierre style. And free all the innocent men, and even some women, who were imprisoned this way, to feed more slaves to the machine.
Because if you’re an American man, particularly a rich, well to do, middle class or upper class man with skills, saved money, assets, wealth and a good job, that’s what you really are. Fresh meat for the Anglosphere family court meat grinder machine. Like Legal Eagle said, you are literally a slave with marriage or child-bearing in the US or the greater Anglosphere, from that day on, the state and officials have full purview over all your assets and unlimited ability to seize them. Legal Eagle saw this from the legal debate and court side, I saw the horrible result from the prison side, where men were sent after all their assets had been stolen by the family courts and their only further “value” was as slaves to the prison-industrial complex. This shit’s real, guys.
And now, in the ugly aftermath of #metto, #timesup and #nameandshamehim, you don’t even have to get married or have a kid in the Anglosphere to become a slave. Any interaction with a women, even something as casual as a glance or an innocent conversation, opens you up to charges of harassment and sexual misconduct. And given that as much as half of young white women in America find even innocent male female interactions to be harassment, you’re in great danger at any moment. Many harassment and misconduct changes now are being assembled by our corrupt legal-prison-industrial complex system to become prosecutable offenses. But even short of that, the witch-burning in social media means that any vague accusation, whether recent or months or years ago, will make you unemployable and a social pariah. You’ll lose your health insurance and ability to earn a living, and then the state will have all kinds of additional ways to brand you a criminal and toss you in jail.
Now on to one more thing Legal Eagle talked about, which is precisely why the Anglosphere poses such a unique and lethal risk to men in general, and husbands and fathers specifically, while other countries including others in the West and Europe do not, despite the poisonous fumes of Anglosphere and especially American culture. I’m not an expert in legal history or common and civil law like Legal Eagle is with his attorney experience, but as a LEO (we corrections officers are classified as this just like police officers are) we do need to understand at least the essence of the law. Our job is to enforce it after all. I’ll do like Legal Eagle and spell right out, best I can, just why the Anglosphere legal and culture tradition has turned into a monstrous machine so deadly for men, and for normal women who want to start a family, and why expatriation now is the only option.
As reminder I’m in France now, have been for years, and as a Web designer who’s often called on to help with the software used for prison intakes and legal briefings for law enforcement personnel, I also get a lot of international contract experience. I don’t want to claim the non-Anglo world is a paradise, yes we do have dumb, shrill and annoying feminists here too. But there really is a huge difference away from the Anglosphere because the feminists have nowhere the level of the power or cultural approval they do in the Anglosphere, and in France and throughout Europe, are shunned and ridiculed by even the mainstream media and society. The misandry is combatted in a lot of surprising ways, the safety nets are open to men as well as women here, the “sock it to him” attitude of the USA is throttled, people are cooler with nudity and sexuality so harassment isn’t an issue. But it’s really the legal structure that matters most in making things so lethal for Anglosphere men compared to the protections of the non-Anglo world ruled by civil law. Even if I don’t know the fine legal points of common law against civil law like Legal Eagle, I can tell you pretty specifically how they’re so different in practice, and why the civil law countries are a far better choice for Anglo men and sensible women, above all for professional and wealthy men, to expatriate to, settle down and have families.
a. Practically speaking, “common law” means Anglosphere law, while “civil law” which comes from Roman law, is continental law, used in Europe, in South America which is continental-based, eastern Europe, and apparently in a lot of Asia, which for some reason has copied a lot of civil law practices. (I’m a lot less familiar with Asia so I’ll trust Legal Eagle’s word on that). In the USA, Canada, UK and Anglosphere generally, common law in practice means judges have much more latitude to impose harsh and arbitrary penalties, which they’ll often feel free to do if they’re riding political currents and punishing a group that isn’t “politically correct”. This also creates a toxic legal atmosphere in the Anglosphere which attracts the most militantly feminist female lawyers to become family court judges in a sort of selection process. Like I said I don’t know the fine points of common law like Legal Eagle, but I did see how it played out in practice in US family courts when we were briefed on the court proceedings for inmates who had been confined for nonpayment of child support or alimony.
And it was very clear from the transcripts that the PC memes of feminist “you go girl” culture and the spewings of cultural Marxist academic journals had found their way into the American family court judges’ rulings, where the man was automatically assumed to be a deadbeat and loser deserving punishment. Yes, even lifesaving surgeons with back injuries were thrown into this pile, and while misandrist feminist judges were the usual culprits, there were plenty of stupid male white knight family judges doing the same bullshit. I’ve heard some people claim that Jewish family court judges male and female were particularly inclined to go the misandrist route, but tbh I’m not sure I really saw this, I think they were maybe overrepresented in general among the lawyers and judges, but plenty among both the stupid white knights and the hate-filled feminist judges ready to incarcerate some poor ex-husband for child support or alimony arrears, were old fashioned Anglo Protestants. Especially up in New England where I worked early in my career as a corrections officer. It’s clearly something in Anglo culture that combines with Anglo common law to fuel this insanity in the judges, possibly the strange combination of cuck-like chivalry by some men and zero-sum radical feminist hatred, unique to the Anglosphere, that maybe one of the other commenters made a note of.
The lesson to draw here is that it’s the “playing with fire” basis of Anglo common law that makes this possible in the Anglosphere, as I’ll explain, civil law countries reign in judges and don’t let them do this. The essence of common law in practical sense, is that the law is based not just on prior court precedent but also—and this is the main point—on “broad political currents” in society that the court supposedly interprets. Despite the US Constitution, which is essentially statutory law, the common law, which predates the Constitution itself, means family court judges in the US and general Anglosphere can “go with the PC cultural flow” which family courts in France, Germany, Norway, Brazil, Chile and the non-Anglosphere in general cannot do. And when rampant misandry and “sock it to ‘em”—even against a lifesaving surgeon whose gold-digging wife had 2 kids with other men—is the cultural current, US and Anglosphere judges have latitude to “go with it” and formalize the misandry in their decisions.
The common law, I suspect, is also why the Anglosphere, and I guess Israel from what Legal Eagle is saying (haven’t been there so can’t say personally), is unique in the way judges and the state have full purview to review and seize all of a man’s assets. The civil law of the continent in Europe makes that a no-go because judges are handcuffed legally, while the common law gives Anglosphere judges a lot more power over men’s finances. Combine that with the selection for feminazi lawyers to become family court judges, steeped in the latest misandrist bile from the media and women’s studies journals from academia, and boom, you have a formula for turning “sock it to him” into formal rulings by judges to seize all a man’s assets. Especially a wealthy man, who’s a juicy and favorite target for the unholy alliance of radical feminist Anglosphere family courts with the profiteering lawyers and prison-industrial complex, particularly in the United States.
This is the “laymen’s term” explanation for what Legal Eagle was saying: Anglo common law means that practically, a family court judge in the US and Anglosphere is a little dictator with uncontrolled and unappealable power to make state pronouncements that a man must ‘pay up” unrealistic amounts that add up to more than 100% of his assets and salary. And make him a pauper. There is no restriction on the delusional imputation that a family court judge can do with spousal support and child maintenance expectations for a man.
The judge in the Anglosphere can cite, as precedent, both previous decisions but even “flavor of the moment” social movements like #metoo and whatever misandrist junk is being spilled out in US university academic feminist journals, since an Anglosphere judge has so much latitude.
Not so in the non-Anglo world, especially in Europe and South America which is continent-influenced and where civil law rather than common law prevails. This is really where continental civil law from Europe shows its virtues—it’s in its essence more rational than Anglo common law, and by its very nature it imposes strict limits on what a judge can do, and how much of a man’s assets a judge, and thus the state, can review and effectively take control of. Again guys like Legal Eagle will know about this more than I would, but after being in France for a while and trying to master my French, I read a French language book that talked about how the Romans came up with law. They were almost scientific about it, a lot of philosophy and long term thinking, and that’s the heart of civil law that dominates almost every country outside the Anglosphere. Above all the Romans were realistic about how human passions of the moment could corrupt the law courts, and they were very frank about how women in particular, would too often get caught up in what we now know as misandrist hate campaigns like #metoo and the “sock it to him” hatemongering of divorce courts. That’s why civil law in effect protects men from harm and makes marriage and family formation possible outside the Anglosphere, and that’s true even in countries that, like in Scandinavia, have opened themselves up too much to many of the stupidities of Anglo-American culture. Despite this, the civil law tradition even in Scandinavia shields men in actual practice, something they don’t have in common law-dominated Anglo clountries.
In the practical terms of family courts themselves, family court judges in civil law countries are kept on a much tighter leash than common law Anglo countries, so the PC feminist “flavor of the moment” is irrelevant—the statutes are what matter, not vague prior “precedents” or media-driven memes like in the Anglosphere. That’s why, like Legal Eagle said, child support in the non-Anglo world is strictly capped, why alimony is almost nonexistent. The non-Anglo world is much safer for men in general, especially for upper-class and wealthy men, because the caps are kept deliberately low by the civil law legislative process. This stupid Anglo standard, that after divorce “a woman should be entitled to maintain the same lifestyle as during marriage”? The non-Anglo countries call bullshit on that. By civil law codes, if a woman files for divorce, she then has to get off her ass and earn her money herself. And they HATE gold-diggers in Europe, which the civil law formalizes. It doesn’t matter if the man has been a millionaire surgeon, like the poor unfortunate inmate I worked with, or a billionaire industrialist—a divorcing spouse is not entitled to his fortune, whether he made it before or during the marriage. She’ll get only enough to provide basic support for herself and her kids given cost of living, and beyond that she has to work. A wealthy husband will customarily contribute more to help her get job prep at the start, and a husband who’s having tough times or just lost his job will be given a break to get on his own feet.
Generally the civil law that Legal Eagle talks about, means that men in the non-Anglo world can marry, have kids, divorce if it comes to that, without putting their assets at risk. Because not only is there no alimony, but child support is kept low and works differently, as the woman filing for divorce is expected to work and do the supporting herself. Again this shows the rationality of the civil law which is developed by community leaders with long term thinking, as opposed to divorce law and family court judges with a feminist chip on their shoulder, swayed by the PC whims of the moment. The “playboy rule” that I and I think Legal Eagle are describing above, is done this way for a reason. It discourages divorce for one thing, so non-Anglo Europe and South America have much less of it than the Anglosphere. It also encourages shared custody, since a woman gets no advantage from profiteering through the child support bullshit which usually just supports a custodial parent’s excessive lifestyle. It means men don’t go to prison, since child support is low, it doesn’t “rack up” and there’s no alimony. It also means that lawyers, judges, states and the prisons don’t get to be gluttonous greedy pigs like in the US, UK and Canada, since you can’t profit from the divorce process, like I saw time and time again with all the poor ex-husbands sent to the prisons I was assigned to.
This in laymen’s terms is what Legal Eagle was saying in his first point, the civil law of Europe, South America, east Europe, everywhere outside the Anglosphere is a far better protection of a man’s assets, wealth and freedom than any prenup, because it totally changes the math and economics of divorce, takes away the incentive for it, prevents profiteering and makes custody shared. That’s why, even if feminists and dumb Anglo culture get into non-Anglo countries, they’re tightly shackled in what they can actually do. It really is true, I have seen this. Feminism and dumb Anglo-PCism are laughed at in France, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium and east Europe, and whiny feminists especially here in France are vocally mocked and marginalized, but they do have some currency in Germany and Scandinavia, which makes them a little too vulnerable to stupid PC fads and feminist farts from the Anglosphere. (Although as I’ll get to below, Nordic and German feminism really is a breed apart from misandrist Anglo feminism).
Yet despite this, the actual process of marrying and divorce in Germany and the Nordic countries has the same legal structure, with the same statutory protections as men enjoy in France and the Mediterranean, and it’s because those countries also follow the civil law instead of the common law of the English-speaking countries. If the feminist harpies from the Anglosphere came to Germany or the Nordic countries, they could bleat all they want, but they have no power to ruin a man in a divorce as is routine in the Anglosphere. And so men in Germany and Scandinavia, especially upper class and wealthy men, have their assets walled off and protected from the state the same as we do in France. If a woman files for divorce in northern Europe as much as France or southern Europe, she doesn’t get to do any gold-digging, and if she has a rich husband, she isn’t entitled to his wealth. The statutory limit is deliberately kept low to discourage divorce and encourage custody sharing, and if she still goes ahead and files, she is responsible for getting off her ass and getting a job. No freebies on a husband’s dime, whether he’s rich or not so rich.
b. The different feminisms of the Anglosphere as opposed to the non-Anglosphere. I know Rookh was bringing this up as a main topic, and when it comes to things like sociology and cultural history I’m really not too familiar, so I can’t really comment with the depth a lot of you guys have here. But I can say this from direct observation, the feminism of Scandinavia and Germany really is a world apart from the hate-filled, virulent misandrist madness of the Anglosphere, and ironically it further serves to help northern European men and protect them from divorce or #metoo-like harassment witch hunts. This isn’t so easy to explain to people in the Anglosphere because the cultural framing of reference in Europe is so different, but I guess here’s the essence of it.
Consider for a moment a European country infamous for its loud, obnoxious feminists, say Norway, Sweden or Finland. For the poor guys stuck in the Anglosphere, as I was until I expatriated, when we hear “feminists” even overseas, we instantly think of the vitriol-filled, openly misandirst American, Canadian or British harpies like Emily Lindin at Teen Vogue. For those who don’t know, she was the disgusting bitch in the middle of the #metoo witch-hunting who wrote on Twitter a few months ago, ““if some innocent men's reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.” This is the character of Anglosphere feminism: it’s shrill, resentful, spiteful, malicious and clearly full of hatred, less concerned with helping women than with doing damage to Anglo men in any way possible. (If these crazy feminists really wanted to help women, they’d campaign against the oppression in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia).
So what about the feminists in Norway, Sweden, Germany, Denmark and Finland which had feminist traditions even before North America? It really is a totally different form of feminism. The feminists up there in Nordic-land and Germany can be shrill and loopy in their own way, yes. But up there, the feminism isn’t misandrist, and they aren’t obsessed with this “evil oppressive patriarchy” the way Anglosphere feminists are. For the Nordic feminists, it’s more about true independence, sexual freedom and yes, actual egalitarianism. They hate the #metoo thing up there because they think it makes women look weak. They hate alimony for the same reason, in fact of all ironies, it was Nordic and German feminists who led the push decades ago to abolish alimony and restrict child support. And even to help institute paternity leave as well as maternity leave to encourage fathers to be with their young kids. It sounds crazy to us in the Anglosphere because “feminism” here is something so much nastier and misandrist by definition, but the feminists up in Nordic-land in Germany in general aren’t misandrist and in fact do a lot of things that are very husband and father-friendly. Yes, they can irritate sometimes with their own “you go girl” talk and be a little standoff-ish at times, but to a surprising extent, most of them are actually reasonable, and mainly focused on making sure that girls and women have opportunities to explore and be creative—without doing this at the expense of boys and men.
And you’ll be relieved to know that despite the cultural excrement floating in from the Anglosphere, Anglo-style feminism really isn’t catching on there. That’s in part due to the fact that German and Nordic universities are structured so differently, they focus on gaining real skills and frown on Anglosphere bullshit like gender and women’s studies programs that for the most part are just high tuition welfare for PC feminists and administrators. But it’s also because the northern European feminists just plain don’t like the Anglo style of feminism. (And like I said, the French, Austrians, southern and eastern Europeans just don’t like feminism at all).
As to why this is, I have my own theory. I know a lot of you guys have talked about how the crazy Puritan tradition in the Anglosphere, or maybe the Victorian era, is responsible for making the Anglo version of feminism so toxic by making sex itself an item of scarcity that women gain power by making rare, and that pushes the societies to harmfully separate the genders from an early age so they don’t understand each other. Now, I’ll say I think there’s something to this. Repressing male-female sexual interaction in the Victorian or Puritanical tradition does lead to a lot of societal perversions directly and indirectly. Directly, I feel like we saw this in the Victorian period, and today in Afghanistan with the sexually repressed Pashtun tribes that make young women unavailable for sex before marriage, resulting in men’s schools and clubs plagued by homosexual weirdness. More importantly, I feel like this does contribute to the “men are evil” misandry of family courts and #metoo extremists since it paints any sexual association as evil, and since men in general are more associated with sexual interest towards women, it means that Anglo feminists frame their misandry with a lot of Puritanical shaming and disgust at sex itself.
And the different, more freewheeling attitudes of Europe towards sex and sexuality are truly a lot different, which probably steers the culture sharply away from Anglo-style feminism, even among the feminists there. Before my fiancée joined me in France—and I’ll admit it here, even after we got married—one of the places I loved to go was up In NE Germany. Tbh German, Polish, Czech, Swedish and Finnish girls are sexy as hell in general, something about that Baltic area, and these gorgeous ladies never have hang-ups about being sexy, attracting men, even being nude or out in thongs in public. When you talk to them, many will say they’re feminists, but their coziness and lack of frigidness around being sexual totally changes what feminism means to them. FWIW I see the same kind of thing down in South America when I’ve been there, particularly down in Brazil, which is the one country I would have chosen if I didn’t wind up in Europe. Crazily hot women, independent, often say they’re feminists but it all means something a world away from Anglo feminism. (In Brazil, when a girl says she’s feminist what she really means is she likes to be the one in control in bed). So from that observation I think you guys are right, the way that Anglo feminists have been conditioned to view sex itself as dirty and nasty, a hang-up from our Puritan tradition, may contribute a lot to the nastiness and misandry of US and Anglo feminism.
Still, I think there’s something else at work in the Anglosphere which has to do with Anglosphere history. Most countries in the Anglosphere were settled by invading British colonists who pushed out the natives and took slaves. That’s the history of North America in essence. But this all changed in a nasty and bloody way for the Anglosphere that was very different from Latin America, where there wasn’t the history of open and hateful group conflict like there was in America’s civil war in later history. It just seems like the lines are more blurred in Latin American countries. So North America, in particular, has had this nasty history of rival ethnic and racial groups, displacing the natives and fighting bloody wars against each other, and never came to an understanding about it. And then cultural Marxism came, whipping up and playing on these conflicts as a wedge against the West, and it found its most fertile ground in the Anglosphere. The malicious Anglo feminists of US divorce courts and #metoo seem to borrow a lot of that group warfare language, and maybe that combined with the Puritanism has made the Anglo strain very ugly and hostile.
c. This one’s simpler—the media culture of the Anglosphere is a world away from what we have in Europe, especially in France. That’s part of why #metoo never caught on in France, Italy or the rest of Europe outside the UK. We just don’t have that kind of voyeuristic “gotcha” culture that plagues the Anglosphere. Some anonymous commenter was whining that Catherine Deneuve, Laetitia Casta, Brigitte Bardot and the other French women luminaries were harshly criticized in the media after they came out against #metoo. This guy obviously hasn’t been to France and doesn’t speak French, because he’s totally wrong on this. Deneuve, Casta and Bardot all speak for the overwhelming majority opinion of both the French masses and the French elites, who find the #metoo stupidity and the misandry of US and Anglo family courts to be a laughing stock at the very least, and a threat to society that should be shunned. This view is shared by 96% of the French people, and the French media openly mock the few French feminists who try to imitate the Anglo feminists, and whose own attempt at #metoo here fell totally flat. Caroline de Haas in particular is roundly ridiculed by French women even more than men as being totally out of step with French culture and reality in general, and she wound up being a punchline humiliated by comedians all over the country after her lame response to Deneuve.
Notice for example the tears of the misandrist mainstream American and other Anglo media about how #metoo has failed completely in France. They know the media and culture of Europe spit on the Anglo delusions of cultural relevance in areas like this, and it burns them up inside.
In fact it’s gotten so hostile and humiliating for these Anglo feminist imitators that they’re now set to leave France, setting up in, where else, the UK and Anglo provinces of Canada. In all their whining and butthurt, they say that the Anglo countries are more receptive to their shrill misandrist feminism, which itself is telling.
d. Hinting at this before, but something else that makes the Anglo brand of feminism such a wrecker for men and society, is the Anglo obsession with money and profits over people, and the stupid worshipping of big business and corporations. This may sound money coming from me because I’m a business owner, a hard-core capitalist and was considered right of center when I was in the US. But these ideology driven lines in the sand confuse more than they reveal because they’re too damn broad. Yes, I am a capitalist and fully support free markets for most things in society. But the problem is, too much of what the US and Anglosphere calls “free market capitalism” isn’t really capitalism at all, it’s more like lazy cronyist style fake capitalism. This in reality is more like socialism for the oligarchs and super rich buddies of people in power, like the third world corruption that rules shitholes like Mexico (yes, I said it) where a few families hold 90% of the wealth and brutally oppress the masses, extracting their wealth for themselves.
This is what the US is becoming as it embraces this fake oligarch capitalism rather than true free market capitalism, and it’s exactly what I saw working as a corrections officer with the prison-industrial complex in the United States. Like I said above it’s a big part of why we have the world’s highest rate of incarcerating in the US, the prisons here are in essence slave labor camps and plantations that constantly need fresh bodies and more slaves, and it’s a big part of why the divorce court insanity is so awful in the US and Anglosphere. For the Anglosphere, every part of the miserable divorce process, and now the #metoo screaming, is a chance to profit.
Family courts provide a lot of profit for the lawyers, judges and the states too like Warburton was showing. Gold-digging ex-wives get huge profits from alimony and child support just like the states. And then when the Anglo man’s assets are drained dry, especially a wealthy Anglo man who’s such a rich target, he’s sent as a slave to the prison-industrial complex to extract his slave labor and further profit, both private and public prisons do this. Another reason the Anglosphere is so deadly for a man who wants to hold on to his wealth and start a family. It’s just like healthcare and college in the Anglosphere, the marriage and divorce court system, and now the “harassment industry” after #metoo, is another place for the most corrupt oligarchs in the US to make big profits.
There’s a term for what the Anglosphere has now that economists use, it’s something like “rentist seeking”. I’m not sure exactly and economics overall is one of my weak points from college. But whatever the term is, it has something to do with asshole oligarchs, profiteers and parasites in essence skimming off the wealth that real producers in society produce, like manufacturers or that surgeon who got sent to my prison after impossible child support and alimony demands. It’s yet another reason to expatriate out of the Anglosphere, the culture no longer values real capitalism, it’s more about profiteering and extracting money from people who do real work. Which is exactly what American family courts, and Anglosphere family courts generally are set up to do.
This is maybe another less noticed reason why the non-Anglosphere is much safer and more welcoming of men, and of women who want to start families, than the Anglosphere. Business and free market entrepreneurs are greatly valued in France and Europe, but they care about real capitalism here, not the cronyism that’s become the big thing for the Anglosphere. This is another reason why the non-Anglo European and South American countries, and yes this includes Germany and Nordic-land, so strongly oppose the insanity of US divorce courts, discourage divorce and prohibit alimony. They just see this as part of the crazy profiteering and cronyism that’s consuming the Anglosphere economies from the inside, parasitically. They hate the idea of divorce lawyers and ex-wives, let alone courts and prisons making profits off something so terrible as divorce. And they realize there are lots of things in society, like divorce and health care, where profiteering is a terrible thing. So they forbid it, and it’s another reason divorce rates are so much lower in Europe, while divorces in general cause minimal damage to those involved in it.
On this topic I know Legal Eagle said Switzerland was a little different, and yes I have heard of the Swiss being unusual in the nasty, sometimes US-style divorces they have there. But as I understand it, that’s because Switzerland is a bit of an oddball, the last country in Europe to given women voting rights while still having paternalistic “protections” for women that haven’t caught up to the reality that women work these days. It’s more of a legislation lag than anything else, and as Switzerland is a civil law country too, that’s correcting itself. The Swiss absolutely do not profiteer from divorce the way Americans and other Anglosphere countries do, the Swiss are sharp eyed capitalists in the traditional sense.
And another reason why the Europeans and South Americans hate Anglo profiteering creeping into very inappropriate places, like divorce and family courts—when people aren’t valued, eventually the society changes out the people and the demographics change. This is a big reason why the US is already a majority non-white country in its school-age population, with the rest of the Anglosphere following suit. Corporations in the US don’t want to train or support American workers, they want bigger profits fast, and the best way to do that is to import surplus labor through mass immigration to depress wages. Short term profit, long term disaster and civil conflict. France has a totally different perspective. I know the US media likes to go nuts over all the trouble French Muslims supposedly cause, but in reality they’re only around 3 percent of the population and actually dropping as Muslims and Africans leave what’s becoming a very culturally strict society now, which I think someone else mentioned. The same goes for the Swedes, Dutch, Germans, Italians all of which are much tougher on immigration than Trump could ever dream to be. By refusing mass immigration this means they have to invest more in their own people and not profiteer off them. Which means none of this parasitic bullshit the US loves to pull in things like family courts and healthcare.
e. The last point, and sort of a follow-up on the previous one about what makes the non-Anglosphere more suited for men and families than the Anglosphere, it’s the safety-net traditions here. Now, again I know Americans get confused about this because they’re so used to calling this “socialism” and looking at French social programs in just left leaning or right leaning terms. But the French social assistance programs are more properly seen as ways of making sure society stays harmonious, and this extends to things like family courts and divorce courts.
Part of why US family law is so stressful, and divorce court judgments are so harsh and devastating for men, is that there just aren’t good safety nets in the US and Anglosphere, so Americans are always at each other’s throats trying to extract money anyway they can. It’s like a state of constant downward mobility and anxiety, and this contributes both to the tendency for Americans to divorce, and the grasping and nastiness of divorce itself there. In Europe, people in general are just less stressed and happier because people aren’t constantly stressing about going broke from hospital bills or college costs the way Americans are. This also reduces the divorce rate and stops the ugly side that Americans show when divorce hits.
One thing I haven’t mentioned yet, is that my wife is actually American herself, and she moved to France with me. There have been a number of expat conferences in the US recently drawing American expats in, across the world, to spread their wisdom to other Americans thinking about expatriating. (A lot of people at my conference are aware of Rookh’s site, so I’d say there are at least thousands of men lurking specifically to find about expatriating from the misandrist mess the US and Canada have become). Anyway, one of the guys I talked to in the US conference talked about how he and his wife in Washington State nearly divorced after the costs of their first child, who needed specialized care, nearly made them insolvent.
This kind of ridiculous economic stress from healthcare, daycare, college tuition is a lot of what pressures so many couples to actually go ahead with divorce in the Anglosphere, and it’s something we’re freed of in Europe. My wife and I also had a complicated birth here in France for our first child, and yet it cost us nothing. That’s right, $0 other than the parking and lunch. So something that would have stressed us out like crazy in the United States or another Anglosphere country, here in France was just a minor little annoyance, and we’re just happier and more secure here than we could ever be in the US. There’s an irony for you, I married an Anglo girl from America when I went to France, but by being in France, she avoided becoming an Anglobitch—she and I are 100% French now. So if you want to marry your sweetheart in the US, make sure you both settle down somewhere else!
As bonus, we don’t even pay more taxes here in Europe even though Americans assume that. Our healthcare costs so much less, and for that matter our family courts are much quieter and less expensive, plus with far fewer inmates there’s much less need for what I did in the US as a corrections officer. So things just cost less in Europe than the Anglosphere and less taxes are needed. I actually pay less in taxes in France than what I paid while working Rhode Island in the US! It really is not just worth it, but essential to expatriate out here or to other countries outside the Anglosphere. You can have a real family and real quality of life here. With normal relations between men and women actually loving each other and enjoying each other’s company.