Saturday 28 April 2018

Anglo-American Lamestream Media Hits SFC Overdrive Button after Toronto Massacre by 'Incel' Alek Minassian

Alek Minassian in Court

The Lamestream media has been saying all sorts of things in the wake of the recent rampage by incel Alek Manassian. An article by David Futrelle appeared in Elle Magazine (that world-renowned journal of incisive social analysis) predictably calling for Manosphere blogs and websites to be banned (but if that really happened, what would our favourite blobfish have to write about?). Indeed, the British New Statesman has called for the Red Pilled community to be labelled as a hate group similar to neo-Nazis, and its spokesmen jailed.

David Futrelle Posing with his Press Agent...

However, the most laughable aspect of the lamestream response is the tacit assumption that male incels constitute a tiny minority of the Anglo-American population; and by implication, that everyone else is completely liberated. Indeed, the Lamestream media seems to assume that the average street-sweep is bouncing around in bed with models every night:
There is a valid argument that by referring to their chosen name, explaining their “ideology” and recognising them as a legitimate terror group, we are giving air to a bunch of self-loathing, lonely and hateful young men who just want to get laid – it’s a tricky line to tread. If you were the loved ones of Minassian’s victims, I’m sure incels would feel very real indeed. And how long can the basement-dwelling dregs of the internet be ignored as sex hungry nerds when between Rodger and Minassian, 16 people have been killed? Why are we always finding a way not to call young white men terrorists?
UK Independent, 26/04/2018

What utter garbage.

In my previous articles on Sexual False Consciousness,  I demonstrated that these lamestream assumptions are complete bullshit for the overwhelming majority of males (in fact, the overwhelming majority of people):

Yet in the wake of Minassian's foolish deed, almost every Anglosphere news outlet has been asking: 'What is an Incel?' as if incels constituted a tiny minority! In reality, about a third of people under thirty in the United States are incels, according to the Centre for Disease Dontrol. For despite what the media tells us, the Anglo countries remain largely repressed in heterosexual terms:

When Australian journalist Rachel Hills was in her teens and 20s, she was “consumed by sex,” she writes in her new book, The Sex Myth: The Gap Between Our Fantasies and Reality. “Not by the physical urge to have it…[but] by what it meant,” and what it meant that her life didn’t resemble the “all-you-can eat sexual buffet” everyone else seemed to be enjoying—from the characters on her favorite sitcoms to her own friends, constantly cracking dirty jokes and bragging about their conquests. It was only after an attractive, outgoing friend confided that she hadn’t had sex in two years that Hills, who is now in her 30s, began to suspect that she wasn’t the only young woman who’d been embellishing her sex life.

In fact, research suggests that we systematically overestimate the amount of sex our peers are having. Sociologist Michael Kimmel found that American male college students guessed that 80 percent of their classmates were having sex every weekend; in reality, 80 percent of graduating college students had never had sex. And in spite of frequent media panics about “hook-up culture,” rainbow parties and copulating teenagers falling out of trees, young people today are actually having less sex than they were a generation ago. For young adults, the most common number of sexual partners in a given year is one. Teen birth rates have dropped by about 57 percent since the 1980s, and the proportion of teenage girls over 14 who had had ever had sex fell from 51 percent in 1988 to 44 percent in 2013. 
In other words, media-induced Sexual False Consciousness is rampant in Anglo-American society. It infects almost everyone - men and women, rich and poor, young and old. Everyone has to keep silent when the naked emperor of sexual liberation walks abroad, pretending that they too are banging models every night. Of course, almost no one is: but none can break ranks to openly discuss the frigid hostility of most Anglo-American females, for fear of ridicule or ostracism.

And so Sexual False Consciousness persists unchallenged, leading isolated males to believe that 'everyone else' is enjoying orgies with blonde 'Staceys' every night. And more people keep getting killed, when the answer to male inceldom is perfectly obvious: mass emigration from the sex negative, misandrist and repressive Anglosphere.

An alternative road to sexual delight in the Anglosphere exists, of course - as Welshman Matthew Williams demonstrated a couple of years ago. On his first night out of jail, this psychopathic 'Chad' had no difficulty picking up a hot young waitress called Cerys Yemm. Overwhelmed by Matt's chadly charm, Cerys soon found herself as the main course of his first civilian meal:

However, unless one wants to spend the rest of one's life in a psychiatric hospital, the best route to sexual plenty is probably the nearest airport.

Sunday 22 April 2018

Disillusioned Law Professor Enlightens Us All - Part III

Here is the third and final part of the Disillusioned Law Professor's brilliant and searing critique of Anglo-Saxon Common Law, the true fountainhead of male oppression in the Anglosphere:

To make things worse, great and sustained demographic damage is done to family formation and retention by the anti-Western cultural poison of conflict theory, which casts solid families and especially white and Asian-American families as “the enemy”. There has been a lot of press on the way the birthrate in the US has been dropping sharply, but look at a graph and you’ll see, the fertility for the white and Asian segments has been in a steady fall since the 1970’s. Such drops are not unusual in the developed world and they happen in both Western and non-Western societies. But Anglo societies are also unique here in their vulnerability to the cheap labor demands of neoliberal economists, which like their cultural marxist counterparts in academia, undermine the heart of Anglo society by in effect, demanding it must be replaced for the sake of “economic growth”, “sustaining the state” or other facile claims. This too feeds the vicious cycle of white (and Asian) demographic decline, as mass immigration from hostile 3rd world cultures compounds the financial dangers of marriage and family formation in the cultural marxism-dominated world of Anglo family law, pushing down wages and value of work, making it even harder for both skilled and unskilled workers to start families.

This is what gives apostles of cultural marxism, foreign policy neoconservatism and economic-based neoliberalism in the US Congress, such as Charles Schumer and Marco Rubio, and their counterparts such as Justin Trudeau elsewhere in the Anglo world, the excuse they need to claim they need mass Muslim and other 3rd world immigration to prop up Soc. Security since “the natives won’t start families for some reason”. Even though, of course, they know the true reason: their cultural marxist and globalist neoliberal circles are what created the problem, deliberately. Also take note, the same de facto law-making powers that Anglo common law hands to family court judges, also applies to the judges who, by example, overturn Trump’s immigration restrictions and thus force mass immigration upon the US and the rest of the Anglo world. Again immune to the public’s wishes and shaped only by the elite “right thought” of US law schools and PC trends. The new-comers have larger families as they’re less culturally affected by the cultural marxists’ war on families in the Anglo world. And so now you can connect all the dots—Anglo common law in its family law form is the greatest cultural wrecking ball for family formation and thus any basis for a Western society in the Anglo world, opening the door for globalist politicians and judges to impose open borders and mass migration, to displace the Western population and culture in these countries.

The civil law of the rest of the world, by stripping judges of the power to make law through the elite thinking of their court opinions, gives rise to a powerful and important shield for society from the dangerous anti-Western ideologies that the Frankfurt-School has normalized in Anglo law schools, legal journals and general academia. The very different, more practical focused structuring of European and South American and Asian universities, is one factor blocking the cultural marxist ideologues from indoctrinating family law judges in the family-wrecking anti-Western doctrines that hold power in the Anglo world. But more important, the presence of the civil law barrier means that the misandrist, anti-Western “right thought” of cultural marxist ideologues in academia and the media cannot be translated into practical force of law or weight of precedent, since judicial opinions and thus case law in the civil law world do not stand as citable law to start with. From an historical perspective, we can see the foresight of the Romans who created the civil law. In removing the power of law-making from an unaccountable elite—the judges and magistrates—whose thinking can be shaped by radical ideologies instead of the democratic constraints of statutory law, the civil law places a brake on law and courts as a whole from straying into excessively ideological territory, making them more reasonable and consistent with the will and needs of the people and the families that form the bedrock of the community.

And when get back to family courts in civil law countries, we can also see why they produce decisions that are more limited, fairer, common sense and in tune with general popular understanding. It's because they are. In the civil law world—almost all of Europe, Latin America and most of Asia, as shown on the linked map above—both the judges and the makers of statutes are much more tightly bound to a body of law forged from the careful workings of generations of deliberative bodies, which are bound to the will and demands of basic fairness as voiced by the people. Extreme, conflict theory-driven elite ideologies, which so often become trendy in the bubble worlds of American and Anglo academia, are ruthlessly walled off from the legal doctrines that translate into statutes and the decision-making of magistrates. As I stated before, and even more so with the “new common law” since the 20th century, it is in practice impossible to reform the extremist ideological doctrines that shape judges’ thinking and precedent-making in Anglo family courts. This is why expatriation into the civil law world is the only realistic remedy for starting a family.

I should note finally for this point, that although “conflict theory” is something of a catch all term, at its heart it represents a basic way of viewing the driving forces of society, and thus concepts of justice and fairness. It cannot be falsified or fought with evidence, and efforts to do so will lead to ostracism and loss of status and often livelihood itself. It’s part of why we in the academic world, who are “red pilled” as I suppose my students like to say, still have to tiptoe when we speak up. Its very nature is also why conflict theory dangerously warps otherwise praiseworthy concepts like justice and fairness in the common law and family law in particular, and why conflict theorists and critical theorists in general have done and continue to do so much damage in the Anglo world. 3rd wave feminism, cultural Marxism, critical theory and conceptions of Britain and North America as being driven by minority races and ethnic groups, struggling against an oppressive white majority (though soon to be a minority itself in the USA and most of the Anglo world)—all of these are sub-sets of conflict theory.

It is conflict theory that helps much to explain why Anglo and especially US family courts are typically so misandrist, and why white and Asian men, as disfavored groups in the social justice hierarchy, are so hard hit. Conflict theory, originally a product of the Frankfurt-School, truly has become the dominant social doctrine of Anglo academia. And it rules law schools. Those classes that law schools feature on 3rd wave feminist theory and resisting oppression by historically dominant groups? They translate into the decision-making of the judge at your divorce court, and also of the clerks and assistants who actually write the statutes that lawmakers in legislatures pass—or think they are passing. Divorce is financially, emotionally and socially wrecking for men in general, but particularly for those in white and Asian groups, and conflict theory explains why.

There are some additional features to this, beyond the weapon of Anglo common law itself, that can help explain why the family law situation and societal structure in the Anglo world have become so hostile. One is that residents of the Anglo world are, disproportionately, in countries where the white population is descended from settlers instead of the indigenous people, in Australia and North America. This makes them especially vulnerable to the attacks of injustice levied at the heart of conflict theory, and in a bitter irony, Britain has been swept up in the same Anglo settler guilt narratives of its former colonies, which in turn translates itself into the common law. The civil law countries of Europe and the heart of Asia in particular, in addition to the protection of the civil law itself, have the advantage that the people there are native to the land, so this essential line of conflict theory has no power there. An additional irony is that, as I indicated before, not only men but countless women and families in Anglo societies are also harshly targeted, particularly from the white and Asian groups, no matter how much we try to pretend this doctrine does not exist. It absolutely does, and it’s a direct outcome of the Frankfurt-School and conflict theory doctrines.

3: On the profiteering of the “business of divorce”, it appears that previous contributors have mostly covered this, and I’ve referenced it a good deal before. But it should be stressed here, that as responsible as the corruptions and perversions of common law-based Anglo family law have become in making family formation unviable in the Anglo world, the crippling damage of Anglo family courts would not be possible without the profiteering the system allows and encourages. It is unfortunately true, that the rich profits of divorce for attorneys, courts and even government jurisdictions that effectively have shares in the divorce profits, create a perverse and dangerous system of incentives for it. It’s a major part of why divorce is so common and so utterly damaging the Anglo world, in sharp contrast to civil law countries outside the Anglo world, where it is not only far less frequent, but much less damaging and simply quieter and simpler overall.

Go up and down the list of things that differentiate the world outside the Anglo countries in the realm of divorce, and you can see the societal benefit that results from making sure that circling vultures can’t profit from it. Mediation is the standard approach, couples usually have a waiting or “cool-off” period, the default in custody is sharing of child-rearing, prosperous and financially successful spouses hold on to what they have saved up (not to mention their homes and cars), alimony is minimal or (in most countries) forbidden outright, child support is leashed according to strict formulas and halted at a low maximum, the “living standard during marriage” practice leading to ludicrous alimony demands in Anglo countries is mocked and rejected, gold-digging is harshly scorned and legally forbidden, millionaire and especially well-off spouses are protected from major asset loss (the “playboy principle” I believe some other contributors have called it), divorcing spouses are not allowed to profit from wealthier spouses but are given social support to land on their feet… This is all made possible because divorce cannot be a source of profit in these countries.

These features are all but universal for divorce outside the Anglo world, in otherwise radically different cultural spheres. Italy, France, Spain and the Mediterranean world, Austria and Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltics, Finland and Scandinavia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland, all throughout South America and central America, across eastern and southeastern Asia. Even in India, Sri Lanka and Nepal, which do have some features of common law from the period when the British administered portions of their countries, the divorce system more-and-more follows the continental civil law model. This is in measure due to the civil law itself (and customary law in places like South Asia and South America). But it’s also due to the economics of divorce being such a complete contrast outside the Anglo world. They disallow profit-making in the divorce process, and this not only makes it more humane and far less of a wrecking force, but also makes it happen much less. In addition as I know has been mentioned before, correctly, you cannot overcome the predatory American and Anglo family court system by importing a spouse from overseas or “marrying religiously”—so long as you are in an Anglo country, your marriage will be chipped away at by a system that is designed to make it fail, and then you will suffer disaster when the family courts step in. Expatriation, again, is unavoidable for family formation.

4: The embarrassing failure of law schools to impart knowledge on the new economic situation in the US in particular, as a way of more intelligently determining maintenance imputations. This one likely needs little elaboration, but suffice to say, this failure is at the heart of why the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia and the Anglo world in general persist in the grotesque practice of sentencing ex-spouses to prison for contempt, unheard of outside the Anglo world. My son was at recurring risk of this despite being otherwise prosperous, as are millions of American and other Anglo men after their divorces. This is partly because of the perversions of the common law system covered before, which permits such extremes in child and spousal maintenance imputations unlike civil law systems. But it’s also because judges in family courts are unacceptably ignorant of real-world modern economics and even the notion of fluctuating income.

I have been far from alone among legal faculty in calling out for curricular reform to better address courses on finances in law school, perhaps because such truly useful coursework is crowded out by all the conflict theory courses that have become the norm since Frankfurt-School disciples took over US and Anglo academia. But the terrible result is that, in practice, too many judges especially in family courts are still stuck with a dangerously outdated, 1950’s view of permanent, stable jobs and steady employment, with little understanding of how uncertain income can be year to year. There is little understanding of not only the gig economy, but also the waxing and waning of business profits, contracts, extra jobs and the variations in income from one year to another. This is why imputations for alimony and child maintenance in American and other family courts are often so outrageous. The judges too often truly are ignorant of the realities of varying income and the difficulties of maintaining steady employment, will often impute wildly unrealistic expectations of annual income, and then send an ex-spouse to prison when they unavoidably fall short. Again, the strict limitations in civil law countries grant another layer of protection against this, another reason why expatriation is necessary.

5: The strange puritanic side to US and Anglo culture. I believe your contributors have covered this in detail and I confess to knowing not so much about it, but from the little I do know, I believe you have a point. My take on it, the puritanic essence of so much of Anglo culture turns sex itself into something dirty and shameful, and the currents of sin and shame then join with radical conflict theory ideologies and the perversions of Anglo common law to create an environment in which otherwise successful spouses, husbands in particular, are immediately presumed to be objects of blame, guilt and undeserved punishment. I do also believe this is behind many of the “metoo” movement excesses, which incidentally have hit many US law schools recently even when the accused are innocent. It is more evidence that the 3rd wave feminism of the Anglo world, even outside the anti-Western poisoning effects of its cultural marxism links, is especially toxic and hateful. In my travels, from eastern Asia to South America, Sweden to Russia, Germany, France, Italy, yes I've met "feminists" but they're tame and even pleasant compared to the Anglo version. The feminists there just seem to want to have the freedom to do their thing, do unusual jobs and maybe be a little more sexually flirty, you don't get the misandry and hatred of the "Western oppressors"—conflict theory again—that's the norm for feminists, and what my students like to call virtue signallers or "social justice warriors" (the SJW I believe is the acronym) in Anglo societies. But it is another part of the range of factors that make the Anglo world unviable to start families in, making expatriation unavoidable.

To finish up, I would like to be more optimistic about family formation prospects in the Anglo world, as I have been reared in it. Despite its flaws, I still find much to like in some of its legal and societal doctrines. But the worsening perversions of the common law as expressed in the corrupt, family and career-wrecking family courts are such a fundamental breakdown in such a fundamental element of society, that for now, expatriation really is essential to start a family. My wife and I have even stipulated that we will support our other children’s plans to marry and start families only on the condition that they expatriate, and they are already learning the languages and taking the other preliminary steps to make it happen.

When choosing your country, whatever you do, don’t be distracted by ludicrous and grossly inaccurate headlines about the supposed dangers of other first world countries in the civil law world. Your chances of suffering in a terrorist attack are less than 0.01%, and quite against all the nervous wringing about demographic change, every country in Europe is 90% or more populated by the same peoples native to their countries for centuries. (If anything that is the primary challenge with expatriation, since immigration is tightly controlled in Europe—look for ancestors and contact employers especially if you have special skills, which my daughter is currently doing.) Earn money in the US and save up if you must, but think of it as a posting abroad even if you were born here, because if you want a family, it is too dangerous to attempt one here. I hope this will change, but for the reasons I went through before, this will not happen easily with common law, and will likely require radical reform.

Another advantage of civil law countries like France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Italy, Scandinavia, Asia or South America is that you need not fear financial disaster from medical illnesses, university study (as my own US law students can regrettably attest with their horrible loans) or crime, which is much lower in Europe. You’ll also have more vacation time and leave to be with your kids and families there. It’s worth a reminder that especially if you are an American, still caught up in the rhetoric and battles of the Cold War, that you should be careful not to confuse the social based capitalism—also called social market based capitalism or capitalism with socialist features—with cultural marxism. They are fundamentally different phenomena in every way. As I said, even the main economic marxists like Lenin and Stalin hated the cultural marxists and considered them to be decadent slobs, and economic marxists often emphasized social cohesion and strong families and communities.

But the social based capitalism of Europe and much of Asia isn’t economic marxist and certainly not communist either. It’s a well tested and proven system to improve educational and work opportunities as well as the health of the people, and in fact it depends on strong families and communities that rational, civil law-based family law makes possible. The enemy of family formation is not the political left or the right itself, as I made allusion to above, these terms aren’t specific enough and easily confuse different things. The enemy of viable Western societies is the dangerous, convenient alliance of conflict theory-based cultural marxism with immediate term, low wage obsessed big business neoliberalism, both of which for their own reasons, want to break up strong families, make them too expensive or dangerous to form, promote 3rd wave feminism and trap a society’s people in social aimlessness, as an excuse to replace them demographically with hostile groups imported through mass immigration. The opposition to this sick and dangerous anti-Western alliance isn’t strictly right or left in economic terms, and it certainly isn’t neoliberal libertarianism or radical capitalism, both part of the problem. It is a more mixed ideology that focuses on and supports strong families and communities, opposing mass migration that would hurt the social fabric, protecting the environment and people's health, incorporating some socialist elements but also encouraging economic competitiveness, starting businesses and capitalist motivation. In practice in Europe and Asia, this social based capitalism has now become the plank of what are being called the populistic or nationalistic parties there, some with a European or Asian regional “continent-wide” philosophy that goes beyond a single nation. But regardless, the dominant and most popular parties support strong families and rational family law, support some socialist assistance to encourage mobility of the citizens, oppose mass migration and support the fruits of reasonable capitalism, all held together by the rationality of civil law tradition.
The societies you’ll expatriate to are just more humane and reasonable in general, something that then spills over into the realm of family law. My faint hope for the Anglo world is that the inevitable demographic conflicts to come, fueled by the damage done by the family courts, media and the cultural marxists who have given rise to the anti-Western ideology behind them, will finally break the back of the Frankfurt-School. Because it will take nothing less to break the power of the subversive ideologies that have taken hold in Anglo-American academia and mass media as elite thought. But this will take many years to run its course, and you don’t want to wait that long to start a family and get your career going. When you put everything together, you’ll have better prospects in every way for your career and family to stay together in the civil law countries, better protection against financial disasters and better conditions in every other way you can think of. So start making preparations before you've started your family, even more so if you already have one.

This concludes the learned Professor's brilliant contribution to this humble blog. I'm sure I speak for everybody when I say how privileged we are to have a genuine intellectual and legal expert contributing to our corner of the web, on such an important topic. It is also intoxicating to know that law students are asking their professors to address the questions we raise here - I have always said that the only way forward is to focus on the finest young minds; and it seems that strategy is paying off. Who rules elites ultimately rules the masses; and who has the youth has the future.

One question I would like to raise is this: to what extent does Common Law contribute to Anglo women getting away with serious crimes in general? While the learned Professor and other erudite contributors have a lot to say about Divorce, we all know that Anglo-American women can abuse children, commit theft and even murder people with almost complete impunity in America and other Anglosphere countries. Not only the courts but also the police and other related agencies largely turn a blind eye to this behaviour. To what extent does the Common Law tradition sustain this appalling state of affairs?


Friday 20 April 2018

Disillusioned Law Professor Enlightens Us All - Part II

Here is the second part of the Disillusioned Law Professor's searing critique of Anglo-Saxon Common Law, the true fountainhead of institutionalized misandry in the Anglosphere:

1: Now for the point by point, starting with a clarification on just why the Anglo common law in its post-20th century form, wreaks such havoc on families and ruins so many in crippling divorces, with far more than half of Anglo marriages falling apart.
The essence of what Mr. Kshatriya and the Blog contributors have discovered here is correct: that is that the Anglo common law system confers enormous power to the judiciary in notable contrast to civil law systems, which are governed more by statutes and broader democratic and popular will. This is what the common law, in both its pre and post-20th century forms, means at its heart: the judges’ cumulative decisions and opinions create concrete, enforceable mandates of law in conjunction with, and often beyond anything contained in statutes and written constitutions. There was a time early in my career when I would have touted the advantages of the common law, at least for certain areas such as property negotiations and riparian rights (water management). But after learning and comparing the common and civil law systems, and in particular seeing how the divorce process has otherwise devastated the finances and emotional state of my once prosperous and happy son, I have come to conclude that there are certain areas where the modern form of the common law has become dangerous, family law being the most prominent.
And unfortunately as I will explain below, the dysfunction and corruption of Anglo-American common law in the divorce court context has reached dangerous proportions with no effective remedy to correct it. This, in practice, is at the foundation of why expatriation from the Anglo world has become unavoidable for marriage and family formation. As I indicated at the start, more broadly there is no realistic prospect in the short or long term of reforming the structures, cultural influences and legal decision-making patterns that have forged modern Anglo-Saxon family law. Not even a Constitutional Amendment, or any other sort of reform driven by popular impulses or collective action. Here is why.
The essence and power of the common law foundation of Anglo family law, in key regards, transcend even the U.S. Constitution itself (and its counterparts across the traditionally English-speaking nation states). You’d have to reform the basic substance and modern interpretations of the common law to achieve substantive change in the dreadful career, finance and family-wrecking dark heart of Anglo family law.
No statutory change or act transformed into a law, whether by a legislative body or a referendum, could repeal or reform it because the essence of common law resides in the collective thought and inclinations of judges, who are empowered to effectively make the law quite unlike magistrates in civil law societies and, in some areas, can operate effectively unconstrained by popular will or democratic wishes.

So where does the intellectual basis of judge-created common law come from? The answer, of course, is largely in law schools and the elite thought of the US and wider Anglo academia. Future judges in US and other Anglo family courts are schooled and molded by the elite doctrines of what is taught in law schools, including the seminars and proliferating academic publications dedicated to conflict theory, and cultural marxist and 3rd wave feminist theory in particular, part of their broader takeover of academia in the Anglo world. Thus these doctrines, regarded as extreme minority opinions and fringe ideologies to the American and wider Anglo general public are, horrifically, the intellectual core of the thinking that molds Anglo judges that have all but complete power over you and your financial survival in a divorce court. Unless you change this elite academic culture, which is now virtually impossible, you cannot change the dark heart of American family law and common law in general.

The US Constitution, along with its state and provincial counterparts in the US and wider Anglo world, is silent or flexibly interpretable enough in key areas that the common law system has great latitude, and family law is regrettably one of them. There is thus no popular brake on the common law-based family court excesses—the change can only occur at the level of elite culture and the elite training of attorneys and future judges at law schools. Thus the grim conclusion: since common law-based family law in practice is made by judges, and also in practice often supersedes statutory law, the victimized broader Anglo populace is all but powerless to correct the excesses or protect themselves. This in fact is a valuable lesson for law students and legal scholars, because it gets at the historical heart of how and why civil law diverged so sharply from common law: even before democratic government became the norm,

The forefathers of civil law in the Roman Republic recognized it was dangerous to empower a permanent and aloof elite, such as judges in courts shaped by abstract legal and societal theories, with crafting laws beyond popular scrutiny. Even though the Roman Senate was itself elitist and not much guided by the broader plebeian population, nevertheless the earliest civil law jurists understood that judges’ opinions in themselves should not have legal force. Instead the deliberative bodies of a republic (or a democracy in the Greek model), which at least had the ear to the ground of popular concerns, should be the places where law was very carefully crafted. This is why civil law moderates judges’ effective lawmaking power, and a natural, obvious ethical proposition of the populace—divorce is bad, it should be discouraged and not made profitable—translates so easily into family law and real legal decisions in the civil law world. And this is also why the worsening nightmare of family courts, and the predatory “business of divorce” in the US and wider Anglo world, are resistant to popular reform, and have no effective remedy. It would essentially take a complete collapse and restructuring of societal institutions, or even a Syria-like civil war that struck universities and higher educational institutions themselves, to bring about a chance in the elite bubbles that, in practice, forge Anglo common law and thus family law.

On this point, I also wanted to make a clarification regarding some confusion my students have brought up on this topic. Any L1 student starting up at a law school learns early about the principle of stare decisis, Latin for "let the decision stand", and thus some of my students have been confused by the very accurate points you and your contributors have been making even before my elaboration above. How can judges in the United States, Canada, Britain and other nations classed as "Anglo" have so much power to make arbitrary decisions, or incorporate radical Anglo-American feminist theories (which are indeed thoroughly misandrist by contrast to the rest of the West), when stare decisis supposedly requires them to follow precedent? Doesn't stare decisis mean they should follow older and long-established customs, including prior judges’ rulings, that are less misandrist?

The answer is no, and Mr. Kshatriya and his contributors are indeed right that judges in divorce courts have rather excessive powers particularly in the realms of monetary imputation and purview of a spouse's finances, and that alimony and child support payments can and regularly are harshly assessed. The answer to this confusion is that the common law since the 20th century has been quite different to what it was before. Most of you (referring to my law school students) have, or soon will encounter the treatises of critical 20th-c jurists such as Frankfurter, Holmes, Brandeis, Dworkin, Fuller, Wechsler and Bickel. In a gradual process of great significance, these legal scholars (several of them Supreme Court justices) re-interpreted the very concept of common law, to make it more flexible and responsive to modern scholarship. Since then, stare decisis and precedent don't mean what they did in the 18th or 19th centuries. Although prior case law remains greatly important in guiding future decisions, the evolution of these scholars' ideas in practice has meant that judges today have a lot of latitude in setting precedent based on prevailing social theories. Their ideas became so influential that they've now come to dominate the concept of common law across the English-speaking world, not just in the United States.

I don't in any form want to blame these scholars for the latter day corruption of common law, as they did not have the modern madness of American family courts in mind, and at least in the medium-term, their thoughts on the common law did help to make it more responsive to the fluid challenges of contract law and technological advance.

Unfortunately, once the common law's previous restraints had been cut-- restraints which predate the US Constitution itself, and based on custom instead of statute-- the dangerous perversions of the Frankfurt-School (cultural marxism and ideas of "political correctness" on university campuses) and in particular, the harshly adversarial ideas of 3rd wave feminism were able to exert themselves through this "new form of common law". And it has become a horribly destructive force in the family courts of the English-speaking world. In effect, "precedent" can be almost arbitrarily set by family court judges on the basis of what are considered to be "commonly agreed upon principles" in legal elite professional circles but which, in reality, are often little more than radical feminist theories (the Anglo-Saxon versions of them) that have been arbitrarily lent prestige by their appearance in academic journals. Moreover, since so much of academia in the USA, Canada and Britain (mainland Europe and Latin America have a different university structure) has indeed been taken over by such 3rd wave feminist and cultural marxist radicals who are on the payroll as serious "scholars", result is that common law precedent in Anglo-American courts, which affects all of us, is in effect being "set by precedents" derived from the most radical, misandrist theories of these sorts of feminist academic journals.

This includes law schools, where "feminist legal interpretations" and others based in the conflict-theory approaches of the cultural marxists (not to be confused with traditional economic marxists, who often disagree quite bitterly with the "cultural" form) powerfully and concretely influence the pool of "acceptable" legal thought from which judges in actual courts draw their citations and make their decisions. It is an extremely undemocratic process that defies popular will and common sense, but this is the inherent danger with modern common law-- it allows, in effect, law and policy (which by definition in common law, are set to a large degree by judicial decisions and opinions) to be set by tiny legal elites with, often, extreme ideological biases shaped by radical-leaning Anglo feminist journals in universities and law schools. And in fact, the readers and supporters of such journals are also the ones most likely to be drawn to family law.

So in practice, US and broadly Anglo-American family courts get the worst of both of these worlds. The "flexible precedent" approach means that Anglo family court judges are able to reject traditional standards of fairness or impartiality in favor of openly misandrist and conflict theory driven lines of thought as are advanced in legal feminist journals and cultural marxist literature in general. And yet, the stare decisis tradition of common law, at least in areas that don't have a vocal ideological elite base pushing a new series of precedents (such as 3rd wave feminism), means that the worst of the old precedents do stay in place and don't adapt to the modern world. This explains the bizarre contradiction of American divorce courts, where women are considered powerful and independent and men are often presumed in advance to be deadbeats, yet at same time, women are "helpless and innocent" enough to be awarded lifetime alimony, outsize levels of child support (that all too often just support a lavish lifestyle) and where the bizarre standard of "maintaining the quality of life before divorce" is still followed.

This latter standard is an outrage for a modern country, as it encourages what's popularly known as "gold digging"-- a husband who is well-off and responsible is perversely hit much harder in divorce than a true deadbeat, since his higher earnings and potential earnings, from skill and education, make him liable to be drained of millions of dollars, yet if his earnings or business success falter in a given year, the imputation is not adjusted, and he can be sent to prison. This is an old and dangerous relic of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, which the rest of the world has jettisoned or never had in the first place—profiteering of any sort from divorce is strictly taboo elsewhere, and child support and alimony (if it even exists, which it largely does not elsewhere) are deliberately set very low to discourage divorce filings, to encourage d divorcing spouse to find productive work and to encourage successful and skilled spouses to marry without fear of financial calamity.

Yet the modern form of Anglo common law has installed this perverse, obsolete, contradictory practice into standard family court decision-making at the same time that Anglo-American 3rd wave feminist theories assert that those same high-earning men are reviled as deadbeats and worthless members of society, incapable of custody of kids and unworthy of respect from society or the courts. This is also why US family courts too often, in practice, are quite hostile to the well-being of actual families and regard family-oriented women with such contempt. They are merely reflecting the doctrines of 3rd wave feminist academic theories that dominate the legal journals, seminars and lectures where Anglo and especially American law students learn what are “acceptable grounds” in crafting decisions.

Adding insult to injury, in the minority of Anglo jurisdictions where family judges are bound by expressly written statutes in deciding asset division and maintenance payments (Britain in particular is notorious for this), these statutes almost without any exceptions presume fault and financial responsibility on the man’s shoulders, whatever the actual circumstances. In fact I should stress here, I do not have a problem with judges using their reflection and sense of individual judgment to consider individual circumstances and special cases. I do not agree with statutory “3 strikes” laws that make punitive demands devoid of considering circumstances. But such fairness and rationality are not what modern Anglo common law instills in family court judges. The power of conflict theory and cultural marxism in Anglo legal scholarship means the weight of precedent creates an anti-family, anti-male and anti- “good man and woman” standard de facto for both statutes and case law. It is thus that the decision process for divorce cases in any Anglo country will almost always follow the perverse demands of the cultural marxist orthodoxy.

Result? The latitude of judges in common law systems, together with the conflict-theory basis of their doctrines, makes their power to impute financial obligations on financially successful spouses, particularly ex-husbands and fathers, dangerous in any real world context. Yet, as if the irony couldn’t get any more bitter, even the minority of statute-driven family courts in the Anglo world are still stacked against you. In such cases, even the small potential relief of having a more reasonable family court judge, not steeped in the family-wrecking doctrines of concept theory, is almost always nullified by the statutory demands of custody assignment, child support and spousal maintenance. To contrast, judges in the civil law world do retain power to apply rationality and humane judgment on a case by case basis. Civil law does not mean judges have their hands tied, it simply means that they cannot, and thus have no incentive, to legislate from the bench. Court decisions do not become citable precedents in case law. Thus it is that legal decision-making is based on the more democratic and rational foundation of carefully considered statutory law with input from the people, as opposed to judicial elites in the Anglo world who have their legal thought shaped by the radical, irrational, misandrist and anti-Western conflict ideologies that mold them in law school.

The very fact that judges’ decisions in civil law countries do not figure into the weight of precedent—with judges having no power to “make law” through case law—thus means that judges in Europe, South America, most of Asia and the rest of the civil law world are freed up to be more humane and more reasonably consider realities as they are on the ground in family law cases. By way of hard contrast, and as you have correctly realized Mr. Kshatriya, the very power that divorce court and general family court judges in the United States and Anglo common law world possess, in fact makes divorce law and family law judges a kind of priestly, undemocratic elite in the Anglo world. They need not be rational or respond to realities as they are on the ground, and their power to make law means they can indulge the radical ideologies and orthodoxies of “right thought” and political correctness in law school to create heavily misandrist and anti-family law through their written opinions. This is why the takeover of academia by the Frankfurt-School and its anti-Western, anti-family ideologies of conflict theory and cultural marxism are so dangerous. Again as you have observed, the common law of the Anglo world gives them the power to translate their radical ideologies into concrete law-making and case precedents that are doing more damage to family formation in the Anglo world than any other factor. To see why, I need to explain a bit more what conflict theory, the heart of cultural marxism, is within the family law context.

2: The cultural marxists and critical and conflict theorists know how the judicial law-making power of Anglo common law suits their purposes in the world of family law. As their goal is the weakening of the West and its institutions and families, mainly those for white American and Asian-American communities with more stable family structures that help maintain a functioning society, the Anglo common law system gives the Frankfurt-School cultural marxists a weapon to convert their radical, dangerous anti-Western ideologies into concrete practice that has terrible real world consequences. So it is little surprise that the Frankfurt-School ideologues have made such a co-ordinated effort since the 1960’s to take control of law schools and the faculties and institutions of US and Anglo academia in general. By shaping what becomes “right thought” in academia and law schools, they have gained the power to decide the thinking of the “elites” in legal scholarship, just as their general hold on academia has helped to shape a mass media culture that stigmatizes white and Asian-Americans and their counterparts across and about the Anglo world. Demanding the decision-makers of these societies swamp themselves into cultural collapse with mass immigration from the 3rd world or suffer the career ruin of being tagged “racist”.

The ugly twin to this effect in law schools is the cultural marxists’ takeover of legal institutions and journals that have “normalized” misandry as well as hatred of families, responsible and good-earning fathers and mothers, and in general spouses who make actual good mothers and fathers, They are the ones who suffer the most in the perverse world of American and Anglo family courts, and that’s no accident—our law schools, under cultural marxist influence and empowered by the judicial precedent-making of Anglo common law, have deliberately shaped elite legal thinking to reflect the anti-Western, anti-family orientation of the Frankfurt-School and the disgusting alliance of the anti-Western left with the neoliberal, family-hating, open borders and “business globalist” right (as opposed to segments on both left and right that value families, communities and tradition). Thus the agony that good parents and spouses, especially good husbands and fathers of white and Asian-American stock, routinely suffer in divorce court. They are the “enemies” in the conflict theory model of the world as put forth by the Frankfurt-School, since their family formation is the very bedrock of the US, Canada and other Anglo countries as Western societies. That is why they must be broken.

It is no exaggeration to take note that Anglo common law in the realm of family law and divorce, is the most powerful gift that cultural marxists have been handed in their drive to bring down Western societies, as it allows them to directly translate their conflict theory ideologies into actual case precedent that has the force of law across the Anglo world. Citizens of Anglo societies, especially productive family-oriented white and Asian citizens targeted as “the enemy”, are punished harshly in Anglo family courts with unreasonable and financially wrecking child and spousal support imputations that in reality, are also massive wealth transfers to the predatory and disgusting family court monster itself (both the lawyers and the court and state, as I’ll get into).

Thus is it that good families and men in particular in the Anglo world, are perversely forced to pay for the very state instruments and predatory financial interests as I’ll get to below, that are engaged in a subtle but full scale war to make family formation too dangerous to consider in the Anglo world. A ripple effect and intentional one at that, is that good, intelligent, educated and high earning men, especially, are discouraged from starting families and drift into MGTOW. Which is understandable, except that of course it leads to a collapse in the birthrate and overall fertility of the educated, and particularly white and Asian segments of society. It also weakens the fabric of society in classic “idiocracy” fashion by discouraging the most responsible segments of society from procreating, and giving a perverse advantage to the irresponsible, to those with nothing to lose and especially, those from foreign 3rd world cultures imported to the Anglo world to displace the (mainly) educated and skilled white and Asian-American segments that are forced to subsidize their own demise.

To better understand this, pick up a biography book at some point and read about the great inventors, scientists, composers, thinkers, leaders and poets from 3 centuries ago, in the West and other parts of the world. What you will find unsurprisingly, is that they were disproportionately the products of strong families with educated and intellectually driven parents. This does not mean that such families were perfect of course, there was plenty of infidelity and even polygamy and polyandry in many of these families, parents and spouses messed up then just like today. But the combination of community and society incentives meant that people had their eye on the bigger picture, they would get past such stumbles and incentives, financial and community, were made to ensure that educated and skilled people would be encouraged to start families and raise many children.

The Frankfurt-School founders were well aware of this fact and they set out, with deliberate plan in mind, to create institutions in the West to remove incentives for educated and skilled people to start families, and to penalize them financially and in other ways, if they did. Not only does the fertility rate of the targeted communities drop as a result, but the quality of the Western societies targeted is also relentlessly worn down in a vicious cycle. The motivated, high-achieving people that do great things and help a society take pride in itself, in effect are prevented from being born. Thus making the targeted society more vulnerable to the manipulations and insidious undermining of the Frankfurt-School ideologues and less able to see the big picture of the ideologies that are damaging them.

The main ideological product of the Frankfurt-School founders’ anti-Western program is what has become called conflict theory, that overlaps closely with what is popularly known as cultural marxism, political correctness, critical theory, white privilege theory, multiculturalism and the “diversity” obsession of Anglo academia and media. Including diversity officers and administrators who are paid quite handsomely for their work in shaming and weakening the fabric of their host societies while our students are buried deeper in debt from their tuition.

This is one of the advantages of becoming a professor, something I did not realize while working privately before that. To a reasonable, fair minded person, the extreme cultural marxism that results from conflict theory would appear to be simple madness, but I’ve been to enough campus events and lectures, and read enough journals both legal and outside the law field, to see how the theorists of the Frankfurt-School in its modern form operate. They’ll try to deny there’s a common ideological link to their constant rants about white guilt, white privilege and the war against the oppression of the West—such irony as the cultural marxists are the privileged elite of academia living high on their indebted students’ forced “contributions”. But regardless, what truly makes the Anglo world so uniquely vulnerable to the doctrines of conflict theory, is the practical law-making power through Anglo common law that’s given to judges molded by the “right thought” doctrines of conflict theory in the law schools. The shame factor of the puritanic strain in Anglo society makes their job easier, as I’ll get to.

 The final part of this brilliant exposition will be posted soon.One thought occurs to me, however - if teaching or practicing law has become a dishonourable profession in the Anglosphere, why continue to do it?