Perspectives on the First World War – a very contrarian Memorial Day message

This one isn’t going to be your typical feel-good holiday message.  Oh no it isn’t.  What I have to say might be pretty disturbing.  That’s because I’m still pretty disturbed by all that.  Yes, it was a century ago, and now I’m in a fine mood!  This is going to get very bitter, so please turn away if it’s not for you.

President Wilson, why did you put my neighbor through this?

So how should we consider the First World War, trendsetter for Memorial Day?  I may be getting on in years, but I’m not old enough to remember it personally.  However, I did know someone who certainly did.  This elderly fellow was a neighbor back when I was a kid.  He had been blinded by a gas attack.  That’s right – either it was when he was still a teenager, or not long after, and that’s how he lived until the end of his days, may peace be with him.  So this fellow was one of about 204,000 wounded in action on the American side.  As for about 116,700 others, they weren’t so lucky, because they DIDN’T COME BACK AT ALL.

America got off a lot easier than many other countries, because Woodrow Wilson inserted out proboscis into that one toward the end.  What higher purpose did it serve?  Will someone tell me what we gained?  I’ll spare you the history lecture; none of that was our fight.  The way I see it, the only parties who gained were some armaments manufacturers and financiers who made a heap of bread off of the whole deal.  I imagine the coffin makers got quite a lot of business too.

So in the final analysis, let the holiday serve as a warning not to trust globalist politicians like Wilson.

Birds of a white feather

None of that helped Britain either.  Still, during WWI, the British had a special recruitment effort to get extra meat for the grinder.  There were women who handed out white feathers to men who weren’t yet enlisted.  The message was essentially to call them chicken because they hadn’t yet signed up to dodge shells and machine gun bullets in a muddy trench with rotting body parts strewn everywhere, and maybe choke on poison gas.  I can imagine the moral righteousness these women felt handing out their fucking white feathers, thinking they’re Boadicea, while they weren’t the ones in harm’s way, or even in any danger of getting a single scratch.

Here’s the grim tragedy of what happened to one of the guys who took the bait.  To go directly to the story, fast forward to 3:33 here:

As for the one handing out feathers, if she did wrong after all circumstances are considered, then she’s already had her nose rubbed in it in the afterlife.  Still, if I could step into a time machine and go back a century, I’d warn him.  If that wasn’t possible, I’d have a few things to say right after she pulled off this stunt.  It would go like this.

What to say to someone who says “Let’s you and him fight”

Hey, why are you handing that feather to me?  You figured I’m suitable cannon fodder too, but actually I’m not from your country.

No, you wait right here.  I want to talk to you about the last guy.  Because of what you did, he’s going to enlist tomorrow.  Great, you say?  There’s just one problem.  HE WON’T COME BACK.  I’m from the future – I know these things!

Oh, do you think his coming demise is Kaiser Wilhelm’s fault?  What about your role in it then?  What are you going to say to his wife and three children?  Are you going to be there to help support the family and raise the children?  Well, I didn’t think so.  For that matter, what about all the other men you’ve pressured to go on a one-way trip?  Hey, just you wait right there – don’t make me cram that white feather right up your nostril!

How dare I talk to a lady that way?  Now that you mention it, I have an answer for that.  Courtesy died too over the next century – “collateral damage” as we call it these days – but that’s a pretty minor matter.  I’ve spent long hours researching why the civilizational wasteland in my time got to be the way it is.  This is where the train ride to hell began.  The “war to end all wars” that they sold you on – which you’re selling to other people now – leads directly to a worse war.  That in turn sets off a chain reaction of events that leaves both your country and mine in very bad shape, and whether or not either of our countries will be around another century yet is anyone’s guess.  We got suckered into the same World Wars, and after that it’s been one spit-in-your-eye war after another, thanks to the politicians and the money men.

There’s a lot else that happens too during all that, like the loss of your country’s empire.  In fact, if you went forward to my time, you would wonder why Britain doesn’t look like Britain any more.  For that matter, the USA sure isn’t the same as when I was a kid.  Still, we don’t have all day to talk about the many ways things will go to hell because of what’s happening now.  So for the moment, I’d just like to recognize you for your efforts at leaving that man’s three precious little girls without a father.  Bitch.

Divorce law is a racket for legalized theft

The following arises from a short debate with someone elsewhere.  I’m not going to point out where it is, or even the site on which it originated.  It is not my intent to embarrass or call out the other participant.  I’ll assume – most likely correctly – that she has her heart in the right place about most things, but hasn’t yet come to realize how evil (or how unattractive) typical leading feminists were, especially the Second Wave.

The third and fourth waves aren’t much better, since they haven’t rejected gender antagonism.  Camille Paglia is the only major feminist I can think of who is interesting or personable.  (Naturally, lots of the rest regard her as a heretic.)  As for the others, they are tedious at best, and usually a few French fries short of a Happy Meal.

Basically, even among some Red Pilled folks, there’s still some misinformation out there that needs to be corrected.

Divorce patriarchal style

Let’s flash back to the 1880s for a moment, the “bad old days” of patriarchy.  Divorce was difficult to obtain, since there needed to be proof of significant fault:  abuse, cruelty, neglect, abandonment, addiction, incarceration, infidelity, and so forth.  A marriage was (and still is) a promise “till death do us part”.  Therefore – much unlike now – there had to be something constituting contractual default in order to justify dissolving it.  Moreover, there was cultural and religious pressure not to get divorced.  It made sense to do whatever was necessary to make things work, since a failed marriage was a badge of shame.

Following one of these “at fault” divorces, there was a division of property, almost invariably at the man’s expense.  Moreover, the ex-wife got alimony, which amounts to an allowance “to support her in the lifestyle which she has become accustomed”.  (Being spoiled sounds like a personal problem to me, but yanno…)  This means continued benefits of a relationship that last long after it’s over.  The major assertions supporting all this were the following:

• If a marriage ends, it’s probably because the husband did something bad
• Ex-wives are owed retroactive payment for all the housework
• Women are delicate flowers needing special protection and can’t fend for themselves (remember, this is still the “bad old patriarchy” here)

Even back then, these justifications were pretty dodgy.  Women are capable of doing bad things, just as men are.  For just one item, all those milkman jokes existed for a reason.

For the second assertion, some people even then called BS on it.  (I do recall one of these.  It’s in rather stilted Victorian prose, but I’ll boil it down to the essentials and add some of my own spin.)  If ex-wives are owed back wages because they were doing the cooking and cleaning, what were the ex-husbands doing all throughout?  That’s right; they were buying the groceries and paying for the housing.  If not for them, there wouldn’t have been any food to cook or house to clean.  If it’s legit to claim back wages for light housework, shouldn’t it be legit to counter that with a claim for back rent?  In that case, the equation would go the other way!  If I ordered takeout every day (rather than buying groceries) and hired a maid service for housework (assuming that I couldn’t handle it myself), the extra money I’d pay would be much less than my house note.

Finally, it’s a big feminist lie that women were incapable of getting work.  It’s true that women had great difficulty breaking into high-status professions back then:  doctors, attorneys, business executives, and all that.  Well, guess what?  Most men didn’t get well-paying white collar jobs like that either.  Back then, most of us were farmers, factory workers, miners, sailors, railroad crew, and so forth.  (Welcome to the proletariat!)  As for women, they had their own niches – seamstresses, nannies, teachers, milkmaids, etc.  If that didn’t suit a divorcee with expensive tastes, she could marry for money again.

And on that note

I’ve done both blue collar and white collar work.  In the former, I’ve baked in attics, pushing heat exhaustion day after day.  I’ve been in cramped cabinets fixing plumbing problems, which I consider to be even worse.  I’ve taken electric shocks, been cut, been burnt, fell through a ceiling, suffered some hearing damage, been in a hazmat suit to remove asbestos, got exposed to toxic fumes a couple of times, and let’s not even get started about my radioactive waste story.  As for white collar work, it pays better but the corporate BS, obligatory ass-kissing, snotty customers, and other soul-destroying crap I’ve had to put up with sucks more than construction.

I want to get a Ouija board and summon Betty Friedan back from hell to tell me more about how the kitchen is a patriarchal torture chamber!  Someone like me put it together and made it look pretty, and that wasn’t a walk in the park.  Contrary to what feminists will tell you, being a full-time homemaker rather than a full-time employee is a privilege.

Divorce modern style

So around the 1960s or so, we got “no fault” easy divorce.  “Irreconcilable differences” were enough to break vows of “till death do us part”.  Meanwhile, divorce got destigmatized.  Religion has been disparaged continually, and fewer people take it seriously.  In fact, feminists did quite a bit to encourage YOLO divorces, and so do bottom-feeder “family law” attorneys who make their bread and butter from breaking up families.  Often that leads to a worse outcome for the women over the long term, but let’s not let facts get in the way, shall we?

In the short term, there are cash and prizes for oath-breaking.  (This is the only area of the law in which someone is rewarded for breaking the terms of a contract.)  The property division is still there, by which means ex-wives can acquire half of whatever the husband has ever worked for, property that she did not earn.  This is legalized theft.  Anyone who can look at all the facts and say it’s fair likely has a bad case of Princess Complex.  Alimony is still around, even though feminists tell us that women are strong and independent and don’t need no man.  They can compete with us in any field of work now.  (There are lots of professional organizations and even special laws to facilitate this.)  Why does this “cash and prizes” racket still exist?  What the children go through during all this is even worse, but that’s an entire topic of its own.  Thanks, feminists!

The divorce industry is a “something for nothing” proposition, thanks to our legal system, much like a “slip-n-fall” claim leading to an exorbitant settlement over a minor scrape.  I’m a Fascist, so I don’t cotton to unearned wealth.  The arrangement was somewhat more workable in the 1880s when there were legal and social barriers to divorce, but much has changed since then, and sex roles have been overturned.  The existing law amounts to having one’s cake and eating it.  That’s what feminism is all about lately, despite all the disingenuous rhetoric about equality.

The ultimate effects

Naturally, this is a major disincentive for marriage.  Divorce rates are about 50% now, and they have been ever since “no fault” divorce was implemented.  It’s basically a coin toss.  For a guy, heads means nothing bad happens; tails means he gets taken to the cleaners in court.  Where’s the upside?

This is why marriage rates are half of what they were.  Even Blue Pill guys are well aware of this racket.  Anyone who puts a ring on it is taking a gamble that he will escape the odds; hopefully it works out for the best.  Marriage is still a benefit if there are children involved, or if one is strongly religious.  If not, then it’s a gamble in which the only way to win is by not playing.  If we want to get the social benefits of marriage back, then – no matter how difficult this is – there need to be reforms to make divorce law fair.

This won’t be easy, because feminists will scream like they’re undergoing an exorcism if someone tries to reform it.  Unfair divorce laws are merely one part of the problem, in fact.  Although society has rolled over to feminist demands for the last seventeen decades, they still claim that Western women are oppressed.  The truth is that after this continued dialectic, today’s generation of women is the most coddled one that has walked the planet.  (Would a little gratitude be too much to ask?)  It’s time to start tuning out the feminists.