Dutch Divorce Rate Skyrockets In Response To Alimony Reform

[Mr J]

What Marxists want is UBI, everyone to get paid 10 grand or so just for existing, and then whatever they make on top of that from their job if they have one they get to keep after after taxes.
What this would mean for relationships is an unemployed or underemployed woman could cohabit or marry an employed man without being dependent on him.
As national socialists, we believe every able-bodied person should work for a living, and that patriarchy, where women serve men who protect and provide for them, is a valuable institution.

It's about the dignity of people versus their enslavement. UBI is enslavement living on a government reservation.

They want to replace everybody with robots and machines living on the reservation collecting their UBI.

As for me I just want to return dignity, jobs, and opportunities back to men getting women to have children in large numbers so that we can have nation states full of collective pride once again.

[Mr J]

Women or females are sexual capitalists, mercenaries, and biological prostitutes. They are the living and breathing embodiment of sexual crony capitalists with their out of control biological sexual hypergamy.

As individual identities they're purely economic entities for hire, rent, or to own only, there is nothing sexually altruistic about them whatsoever.

Like any out of control capitalist monopoly in order to destroy it you need laws, regulations, and state sponsored interventions. Today's sexual capitalists of modern women need to be completely reined in on.

Women need to be regulated and controlled otherwise their out of control nature will destroy entire societies, civilizations, or nations.

[Aegean]

Women are Nature's genes filters, and man's meme filters.
They keep out of the gene-pool defective genes, and can be indoctrinated into ideologies to serve as methods of filtering out those that do not abide by memetic ideals.

This is why they are often resented by males. They are nature's agencies that can be converted to ideological agencies.

[Aegean]

There are different qualities of women.
Keeping with the 'filter' metaphor:
Some with a finer mesh; others with a wider gaping mesh.
Some self-loving, others self-hating; some intelligent, others simple; some more aware others completely oblivious.
Some with sensitive detection others with an insensitive, borderline numb, detection.
This determines what kind of filtering agency they are, and how successful they can be.
In general females have an evolved intuitive sense of detecting pretence and lies, but they are also prone to be swept away by a talented male pretender and liar.
It's like the arms race. Sophisticated weapons to evade detection follow sophisticated weapons to detect them....and so on.

Lust is the chemistry of self-deception - a form of self-induced madness, permitting the overcoming of all skepticism and detection of bullshyte.
Pathos that clouds the rational and the intuitive mind. The effect does not last long.
We may say it is a radar jamming technology to permit intruders to pass through.
I'm mixing my metaphors.

[Gloominary]

What Marxists want is UBI, everyone to get paid 10 grand or so just for existing, and then whatever they make on top of that from their job if they have one they get to keep after after taxes.
What this would mean for relationships is an unemployed or underemployed woman could cohabit or marry an employed man without being dependent on him.
As national socialists, we believe every able-bodied person should work for a living, and that patriarchy, where women serve men who protect and provide for them, is a valuable institution.

It's about the dignity of people versus their enslavement. UBI is enslavement living on a government reservation.

They want to replace everybody with robots and machines living on the reservation collecting their UBI.

As for me I just want to return dignity, jobs, and opportunities back to men getting women to have children in large numbers so that we can have nation states full of collective pride once again.

Socialism ought to help the people help themselves, help them become financially independent (self-employed) and interdependent (social corporatism) rather than dependent on big business or government.
Socialism ought to increase both positive, and negative rights for the people rather than exchanging positive for negative.
UBI is about perpetual dependency and increasing positive at the expense of negative rights.
Those who give can also take away.
The objective is to exterminate 90% of us or more (especially whites, since we're hardest to enslave), since they don't need most of us to run the machines and enslave the rest.

[Gloominary]

Of course women are selfish, they put themselves (and their children) first and others second or not at all, just as men are selfish.
Women fantasize about being with handsome, charming and capable men, just as men fantasize about being with charming, beautiful and capable women.
Women look for good protectors and providers, whereas men look for good nurturers.
If a woman winds up with an ugly, broke bloke, it's because she's settling, she doesn't think she can do much better or her bio-clock's ticking, she doesn't have a lot of time left

If a guy loses his job, becomes an alcoholic or otherwise takes a step or two further down the socioeconomic ladder than where he was when she met him, or conversely if she manages to improve herself or run into some money, then there's a good chance she'll leave him for something better, even if they invested a lot in each other (and their kids), and of course the courts are skewed in favor of women, further enticing them.
On the other hand, she may just try to bang some other dude on the side.

Women aren't uniquely selfish in relationships or anything, it's just their selfishness manifests a bit differently.

The trouble isn't women so much as female supremacism, the notion women are somehow more altruistic and capable than men, that men are oppressors, which was sold to men and women by the elite for various reasons, whatever they may be, like divide and conquer, break up the family so as to make us more dependent on the state, like population reduction, like keeping women busy with careers, since much of their traditional work was made easier by machines, like making men docile, tame, henpecked and pussy-whipped, so they won't rise up and defend what's rightfully theirs.

I think the principle reason is the Jew needs to keep this idea women and minorities have been somehow historically held back going, in order for him to justify his leaching off society, so it's impossible to criticize him for it.
As long the white man is full of white male guilt, he'll never rise up and take back what's rightfully his from the Jew and his minions.

[Mr J]

There are different qualities of women.
Keeping with the 'filter' metaphor:
Some with a finer mesh; others with a wider gaping mesh.
Some self-loving, others self-hating; some intelligent, others simple; some more aware others completely oblivious.
Some with sensitive detection others with an insensitive, borderline numb, detection.
This determines what kind of filtering agency they are, and how successful they can be.
In general females have an evolved intuitive sense of detecting pretence and lies, but they are also prone to be swept away by a talented male pretender and liar.
It's like the arms race. Sophisticated weapons to evade detection follow sophisticated weapons to detect them....and so on.

Lust is the chemistry of self-deception - a form of self-induced madness, permitting the overcoming of all skepticism and detection of bullshyte.
Pathos that clouds the rational and the intuitive mind. The effect does not last long.
We may say it is a radar jamming technology to permit intruders to pass through.
I'm mixing my metaphors.

Sounds like a bunch of pussy whipped rubbish to me, unlike you I don't idealize women or put pussy on a pedestal.

I see women for the root conflict and bane of men's existence for what they truly are, a conniving cute sexual predator along with being the primary root of all human social inequality behind all the disguising mascara or lipstick.

That's the only thing the Abrahamic religions got right, the inherent sinful, destructive, malignant, or deceptive nature of women that pits men against men.

[Mr J]

What Marxists want is UBI, everyone to get paid 10 grand or so just for existing, and then whatever they make on top of that from their job if they have one they get to keep after after taxes.
What this would mean for relationships is an unemployed or underemployed woman could cohabit or marry an employed man without being dependent on him.
As national socialists, we believe every able-bodied person should work for a living, and that patriarchy, where women serve men who protect and provide for them, is a valuable institution.

It's about the dignity of people versus their enslavement. UBI is enslavement living on a government reservation.

They want to replace everybody with robots and machines living on the reservation collecting their UBI.

As for me I just want to return dignity, jobs, and opportunities back to men getting women to have children in large numbers so that we can have nation states full of collective pride once again.

Socialism ought to help the people help themselves, help them become financially independent (self-employed) and interdependent (social corporatism) rather than dependent on big business or government.
Socialism ought to increase both positive, and negative rights for the people rather than exchanging positive for negative.
UBI is about perpetual dependency and increasing positive at the expense of negative rights.
Those who give can also take away.
The objective is to exterminate 90% of us or more (especially whites, since we're hardest to enslave), since they don't need most of us to run the machines and enslave the rest.

The prevailing philosophy or ideology of our era transhumanism combined with crony capitalism is entirely and thoroughly anti human. It masquerades as being progressive or the salvation of humanity but in reality it only destroys and seeks to reduce humanity by destroying all forms of its own independent agency.

[Mr J]

Of course women are selfish, they put themselves (and their children) first and others second or not at all, just as men are selfish.
Women fantasize about being with handsome, charming and capable men, just as men fantasize about being with charming, beautiful and capable women.
Women look for good protectors and providers, whereas men look for good nurturers.
If a woman winds up with an ugly, broke bloke, it's because she's settling, she doesn't think she can do much better or her bio-clock's ticking, she doesn't have a lot of time left

If a guy loses his job, becomes an alcoholic or otherwise takes a step or two further down the socioeconomic ladder than where he was when she met him, or conversely if she manages to improve herself or run into some money, then there's a good chance she'll leave him for something better, even if they invested a lot in each other (and their kids), and of course the courts are skewed in favor of women, further enticing them.
On the other hand, she may just try to bang some other dude on the side.

Women aren't uniquely selfish in relationships or anything, it's just their selfishness manifests a bit differently.

The trouble isn't women so much as female supremacism, the notion women are somehow more altruistic and capable than men, that men are oppressors, which was sold to men and women by the elite for various reasons, whatever they may be, like divide and conquer, break up the family so as to make us more dependent on the state, like population reduction, like keeping women busy with careers, since much of their traditional work was made easier by machines, like making men docile, tame, henpecked and pussy-whipped, so they won't rise up and defend what's rightfully theirs.

I think the principle reason is the Jew needs to keep this idea women and minorities have been somehow historically held back going, in order for him to justify his leaching off society, so it's impossible to criticize him for it.
As long the white man is full of white male guilt, he'll never rise up and take back what's rightfully his from the Jew and his minions.

It's more than reproduction or children, the fact that women's sexual instinctual impetus is always drawn to men's power, dominance, affluence, and social standing ensures that there will always be human inequality, violence, and conflict. This is why sexual equality is fucking ridiculous because there is no reproductive equality, without reproductive equality there can never be any kind of sexual equality between men and women. Even more interesting is how modern feminism discusses sexual equality yet completely ignores reproductive inequality or how women's sexual reproductive behavior is always predicated on the continuance of male social inequality itself.

[Gloominary]

The prevailing philosophy or ideology of our era transhumanism combined with crony capitalism is entirely and thoroughly anti human. It masquerades as being progressive or the salvation of humanity but in reality it only destroys and seeks to reduce humanity by destroying all forms of its own independent agency.

Yea, the new plutocratic, scientific/technocratic, progressive, Jewish/non-white and matriarchal tyranny as opposed to the ole autocratic, religious/theocratic, conservative, non-Jewish/white and patriarchal tyranny.

[Gloominary]

Of course women are selfish, they put themselves (and their children) first and others second or not at all, just as men are selfish.
Women fantasize about being with handsome, charming and capable men, just as men fantasize about being with charming, beautiful and capable women.
Women look for good protectors and providers, whereas men look for good nurturers.
If a woman winds up with an ugly, broke bloke, it's because she's settling, she doesn't think she can do much better or her bio-clock's ticking, she doesn't have a lot of time left

If a guy loses his job, becomes an alcoholic or otherwise takes a step or two further down the socioeconomic ladder than where he was when she met him, or conversely if she manages to improve herself or run into some money, then there's a good chance she'll leave him for something better, even if they invested a lot in each other (and their kids), and of course the courts are skewed in favor of women, further enticing them.
On the other hand, she may just try to bang some other dude on the side.

Women aren't uniquely selfish in relationships or anything, it's just their selfishness manifests a bit differently.

The trouble isn't women so much as female supremacism, the notion women are somehow more altruistic and capable than men, that men are oppressors, which was sold to men and women by the elite for various reasons, whatever they may be, like divide and conquer, break up the family so as to make us more dependent on the state, like population reduction, like keeping women busy with careers, since much of their traditional work was made easier by machines, like making men docile, tame, henpecked and pussy-whipped, so they won't rise up and defend what's rightfully theirs.

I think the principle reason is the Jew needs to keep this idea women and minorities have been somehow historically held back going, in order for him to justify his leaching off society, so it's impossible to criticize him for it.
As long the white man is full of white male guilt, he'll never rise up and take back what's rightfully his from the Jew and his minions.

It's more than reproduction or children, the fact that women's sexual instinctual impetus is always drawn to men's power, dominance, affluence, and social standing ensures that there will always be human inequality, violence, and conflict. This is why sexual equality is fucking ridiculous because there is no reproductive equality, without reproductive equality there can never be any kind of sexual equality between men and women. Even more interesting is how modern feminism discusses sexual equality yet completely ignores reproductive inequality or how women's sexual reproductive behavior is always predicated on the continuance of male social inequality itself.

I don't think women are much less faithful to men than men women.
Insofar as statistics can be trusted, women initiate about two thirds of divorces, but men commit about two thirds of adulteries.
If we took away women's legal advantages (abolish child and spousal support, etcetera), they'd probably initiate divorce about as often as men, perhaps even less often.
I don't think it's necessary to change or reduce women's status to that of big children or slaves in order to keep them loyal to men.
What I advocate is full legal equality between men and women.

However, once they have a taste of true equality, many of them may prefer to be treated like big children, where they have more positive rights (freedom from poverty and so on), but fewer negative rights (freedom of choice and so forth), where they're under the care or guardianship of men (fathers, brothers and/or husbands, etcetera) and/or the state.
Perhaps we could give women a choice, collectively/democratically or as individuals, whether they want the same rights as men or exchange some negative rights for positive ones, but they shouldn't be given more of both like they are today, nor should they be given fewer of both, like property or slaves.
I'm not a misandrist, but I'm not a misogynist either, women are of course different in some ways, different strengths, weaknesses, needs, but they're not better or worse.

[Kriswest]

Have you guys ever sat down to speak with a female on an equal attitude or do you just presume all females are identical?

[promethean75]

do you just presume all females are identical?

well I mean c'mon man

[barbarianhorde]

[Gloominary]

Let's not kid ourselves, of course women look for more than one thing in men.
Looks, personality...
Women vary to some extent too e.g. for some women intellect is important, for others it's not, as long as he's smart enough to be a good provider.
Too much intellect could even drive some women batshit, be a real turn off, especially for simpler or insecure women.

Given the opportunity, a woman will choose a middleclass guy who's charming and handsome over another middleclass guy who's an ugly jerk, but given the opportunity, would a woman choose a working class guy who's sweet and handsome over a middleclass guy who's an ugly asshole?
9 times out of 10, if not 99 times out of 100, women will ditch the working class hero for the middle or upperclass douchebag, especially when she's ready to settle down.

Yes, women aren't exactly the same in every way.
Yes, many women are about more than, just money.
And yes, there are a few unicorns out there...somewhere I'm sure, maybe, but you can bet your bottom dollar that for most women across times and places, money is paramount, everything else is secondary, tertiary or inconsequential.

She may fall in love with the working class guy...but chances are she'll grow to resent him, try to change him.
He's a 'fixer upper', she'll think to herself, one of her 'projects' she's working on.
And in time he'll pick up on and grow to resent her resentment, which will make them resent each other all the more, and they will struggle to keep their relationship afloat.

Most women will ditch the man their with for a significant raise in socioeconomic status...and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or that men are any 'better'.
A lot of men will ditch the homely gal for the blonde bombshell, no matter how sweet, smart and devoted to him the homely gal is, but that's the way it is, however we don't lie to ourselves about male nature the way we do about female nature.

It's not about what a woman says, so much as what she does.
Women don't want to be known as gold-diggers, that's another part of what makes women, women.
They want to seem sweeter, more innocent or sophisticated than what they truly are, and they'll lie, even to themselves, in order to appear as such.

[Urwrongx1000]

It's more than reproduction or children, the fact that women's sexual instinctual impetus is always drawn to men's power, dominance, affluence, and social standing ensures that there will always be human inequality, violence, and conflict. This is why sexual equality is fucking ridiculous because there is no reproductive equality, without reproductive equality there can never be any kind of sexual equality between men and women. Even more interesting is how modern feminism discusses sexual equality yet completely ignores reproductive inequality or how women's sexual reproductive behavior is always predicated on the continuance of male social inequality itself.

Well-said

[Urwrongx1000]

Have you guys ever sat down to speak with a female on an equal attitude or do you just presume all females are identical?

Gloominary has said, several times, countless times, that females are different.

Can you read?

[Aegean]

I presume that what looks different, behaves differently, smells, feels, sounds different, must be ….the same.

Classic neo-Liberal "logic".
This, of course, only applies to humans, because if it applies to all life then Evolution Theory is debunked, and we're back to Abrahamic Cosmo-theory.

[Mr J]

Have you guys ever sat down to speak with a female on an equal attitude or do you just presume all females are identical?

I've talked to enough women in a single lifetime to assess that a majority of women are the same across the whole full spectrum.

[Mr J]

Today I've come up with a new label, 'biological natural prostitutes ' or 'BNP' for short regarding women.

[Mr J]

Of course women are selfish, they put themselves (and their children) first and others second or not at all, just as men are selfish.
Women fantasize about being with handsome, charming and capable men, just as men fantasize about being with charming, beautiful and capable women.
Women look for good protectors and providers, whereas men look for good nurturers.
If a woman winds up with an ugly, broke bloke, it's because she's settling, she doesn't think she can do much better or her bio-clock's ticking, she doesn't have a lot of time left

If a guy loses his job, becomes an alcoholic or otherwise takes a step or two further down the socioeconomic ladder than where he was when she met him, or conversely if she manages to improve herself or run into some money, then there's a good chance she'll leave him for something better, even if they invested a lot in each other (and their kids), and of course the courts are skewed in favor of women, further enticing them.
On the other hand, she may just try to bang some other dude on the side.

Women aren't uniquely selfish in relationships or anything, it's just their selfishness manifests a bit differently.

The trouble isn't women so much as female supremacism, the notion women are somehow more altruistic and capable than men, that men are oppressors, which was sold to men and women by the elite for various reasons, whatever they may be, like divide and conquer, break up the family so as to make us more dependent on the state, like population reduction, like keeping women busy with careers, since much of their traditional work was made easier by machines, like making men docile, tame, henpecked and pussy-whipped, so they won't rise up and defend what's rightfully theirs.

I think the principle reason is the Jew needs to keep this idea women and minorities have been somehow historically held back going, in order for him to justify his leaching off society, so it's impossible to criticize him for it.
As long the white man is full of white male guilt, he'll never rise up and take back what's rightfully his from the Jew and his minions.

It's more than reproduction or children, the fact that women's sexual instinctual impetus is always drawn to men's power, dominance, affluence, and social standing ensures that there will always be human inequality, violence, and conflict. This is why sexual equality is fucking ridiculous because there is no reproductive equality, without reproductive equality there can never be any kind of sexual equality between men and women. Even more interesting is how modern feminism discusses sexual equality yet completely ignores reproductive inequality or how women's sexual reproductive behavior is always predicated on the continuance of male social inequality itself.

I don't think women are much less faithful to men than men women.
Insofar as statistics can be trusted, women initiate about two thirds of divorces, but men commit about two thirds of adulteries.
If we took away women's legal advantages (abolish child and spousal support, etcetera), they'd probably initiate divorce about as often as men, perhaps even less often.
I don't think it's necessary to change or reduce women's status to that of big children or slaves in order to keep them loyal to men.
What I advocate is full legal equality between men and women.

However, once they have a taste of true equality, many of them may prefer to be treated like big children, where they have more positive rights (freedom from poverty and so on), but fewer negative rights (freedom of choice and so forth), where they're under the care or guardianship of men (fathers, brothers and/or husbands, etcetera) and/or the state.
Perhaps we could give women a choice, collectively/democratically or as individuals, whether they want the same rights as men or exchange some negative rights for positive ones, but they shouldn't be given more of both like they are today, nor should they be given fewer of both, like property or slaves.
I'm not a misandrist, but I'm not a misogynist either, women are of course different in some ways, different strengths, weaknesses, needs, but they're not better or worse.

Women will never go for any of that voluntarily.

It's like an old saying I've come to understand, "Don't ever count on a woman to volunteer herself for a lifestyle with less entitlements or a lesser standard of living especially after she's acquired the opposite.

No, there is only forcing women to meet such terms as your pathetic democracy is unable and inefficient to convene what is necessary.

[Gloominary]

Alimony and no-fault divorce make things really easy for women.
A lot of women will marry or cohabit with a working or lower middle class guy for a while.
They may even have a kid or two of, his (we hope).
Then, if he's failing to move up the socioeconomic ladder or if he's just not physically attractive or charming enough and she's got looks and charm, she'll dump him, take much or most of what he has, raising her socioeconomic status in the process, and try to go after a middle or upperclass guy.
She may even date the middle or upperclass guy while she's still with the working or lower middle class guy before moving in with and marrying him.
The working or lower middle class shmuck will pay spousal (and child) support for years while she gets to enjoy a higher standard of living on top of it.
She may even try to raise her status in this way a third or fourth time, why not?
Let's face it, the system is rigged in favor of women, caters to their most ignoble instincts, and they wouldn't be able to rig it without the gullibility and naivete of men, and the twin ideologies of feminism and chivalry.

[Mr J]

Alimony and no-fault divorce make things really easy for women.
A lot of women will marry or cohabit with a lower middle class guy for a while.
They may even have a kid or two of, his (we hope).
Then, if he's failing to move up the socioeconomic ladder or if he's just not physically attractive or charming enough and she's got looks and charm, she'll dump him, take much or most of what he has, raising her socioeconomic status in the process, and try to go after a middle or upperclass guy.
She may even date the middle or upperclass guy while she's still with the lower middle class guy before moving in with and marrying him.
The lower middle class shmuck will pay spousal (and child) support for years while she gets to enjoy a higher standard of living on top of it.
She may even try to raise her status in this way a third or fourth time, why not?
Let's face it, the system is rigged in favor of women, caters to their most ignoble instincts, and they wouldn't be able to rig it without the gullibility and naivete of men, and the twin ideologies of feminism and chivalry.

There's only one way to change things and your democracy isn't the answer Gloominary.

One of these days you'll see things my way, that I'm certain of. Give it time

[Gloominary]

Alimony and no-fault divorce make things really easy for women.
A lot of women will marry or cohabit with a working or lower middle class guy for a while.
They may even have a kid or two of, his (we hope).
Then, if he's failing to move up the socioeconomic ladder or if he's just not physically attractive or charming enough and she's got looks and charm, she'll dump him, take much or most of what he has, raising her socioeconomic status in the process, and try to go after a middle or upperclass guy.
She may even date the middle or upperclass guy while she's still with the working or lower middle class guy before moving in with and marrying him.
The working or lower middle class shmuck will pay spousal (and child) support for years while she gets to enjoy a higher standard of living on top of it.
She may even try to raise her status in this way a third or fourth time, why not?
Let's face it, the system is rigged in favor of women, caters to their most ignoble instincts, and they wouldn't be able to rig it without the gullibility and naivete of men, and the twin ideologies of feminism and chivalry.

And to top it off, women have the audacity and nerve to call this, oppression.

And millions of soy boys and white knights believe it.

Unbelievable

Of course some of them are just playing along, and that's part of how men play women.

Women and men play each other, but men don't have the system behind them.

[Gloominary]

Alimony and no-fault divorce make things really easy for women.
A lot of women will marry or cohabit with a working or lower middle class guy for a while.
They may even have a kid or two of, his (we hope).
Then, if he's failing to move up the socioeconomic ladder or if he's just not physically attractive or charming enough and she's got looks and charm, she'll dump him, take much or most of what he has, raising her socioeconomic status in the process, and try to go after a middle or upperclass guy.
She may even date the middle or upperclass guy while she's still with the working or lower middle class guy before moving in with and marrying him.
The working or lower middle class shmuck will pay spousal (and child) support for years while she gets to enjoy a higher standard of living on top of it.
She may even try to raise her status in this way a third or fourth time, why not?
Let's face it, the system is rigged in favor of women, caters to their most ignoble instincts, and they wouldn't be able to rig it without the gullibility and naivete of men, and the twin ideologies of feminism and chivalry.

And to top it off, women have the audacity and nerve to call this, oppression.

And millions of soy boys and white knights believe it.

Unbelievable

Of course some of them are just playing along, and that's part of how men play women.

Women and men play each other, but men don't have the system behind them.

If this is oppression, I hope I never live to see what the, emancipation of women looks like.