Modern Divorce
Posted by Socrates in Bolsheviks, divorce laws, jewed culture, jewed law, law, Socrates, Western culture at 4:11 pm | 
Permanent Link
One divorce worth mentioning is singer Paul McCartney’s. His soon-to-be-ex-wife may get up to 60 million pounds from the former Beatle [1]. Why so much? Modern divorce laws favor women more than they should. Worse, divorcing today is easy, thanks to something that was created in 1917 by the Bolsheviks and adopted later on by America: “no-fault” divorce. It’s a trend throughout the West which began in earnest in the 1970s. Predictably, no-fault has caused gentile divorce rates to skyrocket (and of course has increased the profits of the disproportionately-Jewish legal profession) [2][3][4][5]:
[1] about McCartney’s divorce proceedings: [Here]
[2] see the Bolshevik/Soviet law “Decree on Divorce,” December 1917. It led to by-mail “post card divorces.” England created a by-mail divorce provision in 1973
[3] more about “no-fault” divorce laws: [Here]
[4] divorce rates in Europe have roughly doubled since easy-divorce laws were created. Divorce was illegal in Spain, Italy and Ireland until recently
[5] “Law is something of a Jewish calling, in a sense, the house specialty.” — from the book “Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality” (New Haven/New York; Ticknor and Fields, 1982) by Jewish author Gerald Krefetz
12 February, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Jewish Humor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEHMuOPRaLE
12 February, 2008 at 4:55 pm
THE JEWS HAD IT PLANED FROM DAY ONE…..
The Jewish Plan for Genocide of USA White ISRAEL COHEN (1912)
“We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negros. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.”
Israel Cohen, A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century, 1912. Also in the Congressional Record, Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957
12 February, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Sir Paul was quite to fool to marry that gold digger without a prenuptial aggrement. He has been married for about 2,000 days and is reported at risk for $150 million. The best Las Vegas hooker can be had for far less than the $75,000 per day that this works out to be. These hookers never bitch at you and never have a headache.
13 February, 2008 at 12:10 am
Regarding Paul: a lot of older White men, 60 years old and thereabouts, still think it’s the mid-20th Century. Never occurred to them that the world has changed, including their world.
I’ve noticed most men stop at 35 years old in wondering what the world is like. You know the type: today he thinks Amurca is the Greatest Nation on Earth, and certainly the richest (50 trillion in debt). Thinks the way to get a good job, so you can start a family like everyone else, is to put on a clean shirt and knock on factory doors. Thinks he and fellow whites somehow hurt po blacks (i.e. he saw “Roots”), so: “we oughta help ’em a little.” CANNOT be shown otherwise. The cerebrum calcified at 35, and it ain’t coming back.
The old are useless. Only young men who struggle in the real world, and whose minds are alert and alive, only men who don’t have it all figured out and who are open to new experience and new thought, can win the fight against the kike. The geezers are the ones who made the Kwa.
13 February, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Well, I’m older than 35, and you’ve just told me that I’m “useless”. That’s interesting to know (Iguess). What’s wrong with my brain, that it hasn’t calcified yet? Am I abnormal?
The young, on the other hand, tend to be cocky, hotheaded, and inexperienced, and generally don’t have much depth of knowledge (which takes a long time to get). Nevertheles, the absolute certainty of their convictions is exceeded only by their paucity of experience.
You sound very much like the hippies of the 60s whose mantra was, “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.” Probably you don’t remember that. I do.
Actually, I think we need both kinds: over thirty and under. It takes both wisdom and enthusiasm to accomplish anything and do it right. Neither one is worth much without the other.
14 February, 2008 at 6:24 am
I said most. The calcified don’t do nuance.
“You sound very much like the hippies of the 60s…”
No, that’s not calcified. Do you also respond to Ron Paul supporters with: “I fought for my country in Vietnam, and you punks who are anti-military will learn better when you grow up” ?
The Greatest Generation (***NOTICE: PRESENT COMPANY EXCLUDED – IN OTHER WORDS, THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU***) mostly sucked jewish dick. They still don’t know what’s going on, even AFTER their experience. McCartney smoked pot for 45 years, but what’s the others’ excuse?
There is a solution to the jew problem.
14 February, 2008 at 10:44 am
Sgruber says “most men” are essentially brain dead by 35 [not necessarily due to any organic condition however]. Ein opines the young “tend…” Both are correct. I have 40+ years of experience beyond voting age, including are more than most on the farm, in the “metros,” in jungles and in deserts and confirm that I’ve conformed to both of the above descriptions most of my life.
Read old man Pierce on “The Importance of Leadership.” Few, young or old, are original thinkers and Dr. Pierce makes a good case for why that is a good thing. I keep reminding VNN readers that the American Revolution was fomented by maybe 2% of colonists and opposed by many– maybe most initially. Don’t lose heart. That is the “human nature” of those whose genes you submit are worth preserving.
14 February, 2008 at 11:14 am
From a biologist’s perspective, men are attracted to women with symmetrical features, strong, slender, with broad hips and with breasts thinking them desirable but not understanding it is the probability to bear solid offspring they are seeing. Women are similarly attracted to those characteristics that insure what they need to get the job done. Both become perverted, distorted, when pandered-to by the mass media of entertainment and the sexes frequently end up resenting each other’s emphasis on so called superficialities, especially if they don’t possess them. However, both have value toward the survival of the race.
My wife loves Jane Austin novels. Last night she had me watch a PBS release of Austin’s Persuasion: “Unhappily unmarried at age 27, and dealing with family financial peril, hope is fading from Anne Elliot’s (Sally Hawkins, Little Britain) life. Circumstances bring Captain Frederick Wentworth (Rupert Penry-Jones, Casanova), a dashing naval officer she once deeply loved, back into her life eight years after Anne was persuaded by her family to reject his marriage proposal. Having returned from sea with a new fortune, Wentworth is surrounded by swooning women while Anne broods at the periphery, longing to be in Wentworth’s favor. Now Anne comes face-to-face with the deep regret of her old decision, and her abiding love for Wentworth, as she wonders if a long ago love can be rekindled.” One can learn a lot about women, human nature, and life from examining such enduring knight in shining armor rescuing damsel in distress fantasies.
Similarly, entirely too many men become obsess on chasing and conquering women but not knowing what to do with them once they’re caught other than to sexually abuse them, spiritually wound them, and move on to another. Something like catch & release but with barbed hooks, I suppose. Never mind that we’re not raising enough solid offspring to even replace ourselves much less compete with the rising tide of non-White voters.
The usual suspects who have exactly that in mind, play to a woman’s weakness with the lure of the prize of the marital home, child support (a euphemism for alimony), and the children without having to put up with all the troublesome sex anymore. Both are greatly contributing to our genocide.
15 February, 2008 at 12:55 am
Am I alone in thinking that, in some truly tragic manner, Libertarians are slaves to their freedom?
New America
An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!
15 February, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Libertarians are slaves to the freedom they think theirs is by right but which is illusory and if real would implode the society.
16 February, 2008 at 7:00 am
Bad White slave owners is always a popular theme on television.
This CBS program is currently being aired again and again. It is a typical emotional appeal that plays fast and loose with facts– a dramitization for television for which the usual suspects are renowned.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206951/
Sally Hemings: An American Scandal
• CBS Television (2000) (USA) (TV) (original airing)
• Alpha Media (2003) (China) (TV)
• Bridge Entertainment Group (2005) (Netherlands) (DVD)
• Echo Bridge Home Entertainment (2005) (USA) (DVD)
http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/sallyhemings.html
There are only two known descriptions of Sally Hemings. The slave Isaac Jefferson remembered that she was “mighty near white. . . very handsome, long straight hair down her back.” Jefferson biographer Henry S. Randall recalled Jefferson’s grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph describing her as “light colored and decidedly good looking.”[5]
http://www.upress.virginia.edu/books/gordon-reed.html
Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (Charlottesville, 1997).
Now updated with a new author’s note about the recent DNA study confirming the Jefferson-Hemings liaison
“Short of digging up Jefferson and doing DNA testing on him [which was not done and, though there is circumstantial evidence that Hemmings offspring are related to a Jefferson, the so called DNA “study” would not be sufficient evidence to convict Thomas Jefferson in a court of law ] and Hemings’ descendants, Gordon-Reed’s account gets us as close to the truth as the available evidence allows.” –Joseph J. Ellis, author of American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson
http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html
That a Jefferson-Hemings relationship could be neither refuted nor substantiated was challenged in 1998 by the results of DNA tests conducted by Dr. Eugene Foster and a team of geneticists. The study – which tested Y-chromosomal DNA samples from male-line descendants of Field Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson’s uncle), John Carr (grandfather of Jefferson’s Carr nephews), Eston Hemings, and Thomas C. Woodson – indicated a genetic link between the Jefferson and Hemings descendants. The results of the study established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last known child born to Sally Hemings. There were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time, and a few of them are known to have visited Monticello. The study’s authors, however, said “the simplest and most probable” conclusion was that Thomas Jefferson had fathered Eston Hemings.
http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/dnareport2.html
Assessment of DNA Study
The results clearly show that the male-line descendants of Field Jefferson and Eston Hemings have identical Y-chromosome haplotypes (the particular combination of variants at defined loci on the chromosome). Scientists note that there is less than a 1 percent probability that this is due to chance. Thus the haplotype match is over one hundred times more likely when Jefferson and Eston Hemings are genetically related through the male line. This study by itself does not establish that Hemings’s father was Thomas Jefferson, only that Hemings’s father was a Jefferson.