It would be great if you all could promote the video so people can be inspired by John Southon's bravery. It so annoys me that I have had videos in the past attracting over 1.6 million views but due to YouTube's censorship I now reach only tiny numbers.
Please spread the word that I am looking for people to help with my researcher, which could involve payment, if necessary. see the note, below, I posted at the end of my blog and get in touch if you would like to discuss:
Sadly, my excellent researcher, Tony, is moving on - writing his own blog, Critiquing Feminism, travelling, etc and won’t be as available to help with my work. I need others who can assist with indepth research and analysis, ideally someone with a good grasp of statistics, data etc, to look for where the bodies are buried. Knowledge of AI and other useful technologies would be a plus. Please contact me if you might fit the bill. Someone retired might work best, but I really need people with occasional free hours during the day.
Many thanks to Tony for his outstanding contributions. Look forward to his blog and perhaps it can be linked here?
I'd take your research on myself, Bettina, but I am as old as the rocks and just about as helpful with technology and the New World of AI. May you find a new researcher who is as excellent as your essays. michael
It is not what puritans claim: a necessary evil, a throwback to ignorant instinct, a distraction from higher pursuits. It is not what passionless pornography suggests: a performance, a conquest, a transaction.
“Sex happens between the ears”
— Seka
Run Like Hell, Pink Floyd, The Wall
It is not what beyond feminists and military psychologists insinuate: a sublimation of violence, a channeling of aggression, a masculine dominance ritual.
“You do not know what you are missing by your microscopic examination of sexual activity to the exclusion of aspects which are fuel that ignites it. Intellectual, imaginative, romantic, emotional. This is what gives sex its surprising textures, its subtle transformations, its aphrodisiac elements. You are shrinking your world of sensations. You are withering it, starving it, draining its blood.” — Anaïs Nin
Sex is grounding. It is the return to the body. It is the acknowledgment that we are not disembodied minds, not machines, not symbols or statistics or expendable units. We are flesh. We are warmth. We are skin and sweat and breath and heartbeat.
Sex is vulnerability. It is the willingness to be seen, to be touched, to be known. It is the shedding of armor, the dropping of masks, the honesty of desire.
Sex is connection. It is the meshing of souls, the sharing of pleasure, the recognition of another’s humanity and the offering of your own.
Sex is resistance. In a world that demands you become, un-empathetic, a user, a killer, that trains you to dehumanize, that programs you to sever yourself from empathy — sex is the defiant act of remaining human.
“He was now in that state of fire that she loved. She wanted to be burnt.”
“Seka, a very intelligent porn actress once stated, “Sex happens between the ears.” That is absolutely correct. Feminists and many women are wrong, men are not ruled by their “Johnson” — & I have no idea what nicknames women give to their twats — rather, men’s and women’s brains control those erogenous zones. Your brain wants and needs sex. You are an animal and you want sex, because the nature of our species (of all species) wants sex and reproduction. You must have seen female animals going into heat (human females are in estrus (heat) once every month). You must have seen nature documentaries showing male animals dripping cum (David Attenborough was wowed).”
Absolutely nobody with a semblance of intelligence could genuinely believe the following statement:
" 1984 Duluth framework which claimed domestic violence was all about men asserting patriarchal power and control over women."
The feminists know it is a lie. They have all experienced bullying, backstabbing, physical and emotional abuse at the hands of other females throughout their lives. The idea that a vagina grants a person some kind of moral superiority is utterly absurd, yet that is what they pretend to believe, and our judicial system relies upon this fanciful, bigoted ideological trash as the basis for dealing with cases of domestic violence.
Imagine living on this earth for more than twenty years and believing women don't lie, manipulate, physically abuse and take advantage of men's susceptibility to a pretty female's attention.
The recent tragic murder of Charlie Kirk once again exposed a reality I have been screaming from the rooftops to anyone who will hear-I believe women are far more vindictive and also far more inclined to enjoy the idea of violence being perpetrated upon people they do not like. There are unquestionably more women (and by some margin) involved in the online gleeful celebration of Kirk's assassination. This did not surprise me.
When Rita Panahi presented a segment on this vile phenomenon, there were seven consecutive women shown dancing, laughing and insisting Charlie got what he deserved, shown on our television screen, yet even Rita failed to address this startling fact given the endless mantra of our DV industry, that violence is the sole preserve of the male species and females are gentle, innocent, nurturing creatures stumbling through life with eyes wide open in shock at the nasty things males get up to.
Lizzy Page and Clementine Ford both made an appearance, and both made the most appalling comments about Charlie's murder. Page (who works in mental health) said Kirk became a "human water fountain" and that such violence is more than acceptable when directed at people who say hateful things. Ford said political violence is a good thing and should be used more often to eliminate such "pieces of shit" like Charlie Kirk.
There was no outrage expressed about these two prominent feminist voices saying such shocking words in support of murder and bloodshed. These same two creatures lecture boys on the toxic nature of their online heroes- Andrew Tate and other similar you tubers who speak about masculinity. Not one of the men often referred to as toxic (and the inspiration behind that sick Netflix series Adolescence) by feminists have ever expressed such disgusting views about murder. None of them have ever advocated violence. Yet boys are routinely lectured to be teachers and the media about their terrible role models.
We live in a time where the hatred of and demonization of males has become an accepted fact of life, no different our awareness that the sky is blue and grass is green. That slime bag Albanese will no doubt pose side by side with Clementine and Abbie Chatfield and other mentally disturbed female psychopaths when the next Federal election rolls around , handing out tens of millions in funding to feminist causes, while expressing disgust over male violence and abuse.
I have read a couple of history books in recent times in which the writers of that period noted that the crowds at public executions and torture were dominated by women. One such time was when the most horrendous execution in history in the eyes of many, took place in Paris, France.
The execution was witnessed by 18th-century adventurer Giacomo Casanova, who had coincidentally arrived the same day of the attack, and he included an account in his memoirs:[20]
We had the courage to watch the dreadful sight for four hours ... Damiens was a fanatic, who, with the idea of doing a good work and obtaining a heavenly reward, had tried to assassinate Louis XV; and though the attempt was a failure, and he only gave the king a slight wound, he was torn to pieces as if his crime had been consummated. ... I was several times obliged to turn away my face and to stop my ears as I heard his piercing shrieks, half of his body having been torn from him, but the Lambertini and the fat aunt did not budge an inch. Was it because their hearts were hardened? They told me, and I pretended to believe them, that their horror at the wretch's wickedness prevented them feeling that compassion which his unheard-of torments should have excited.
— Book 2, Volume 5, Chapter 3
I have read other accounts in which men expressed their distaste over the number of women present and the fact that when many men turned away when the horror became too much (four horses attempted to tear his limbs from his body- the women did not flinch. One claimed a woman only expressed sympathy for the horses when the executioner began to whip them. She felt nothing for the man who had been brutalized for four hours.
I know that women played a huge role in the French Revolution and always occupied the front rows when the heads were being lopped by the guillotine.
These were occasions when women were "caught with their pants down" so to speak. We get to observe them when they don't think anyone is watching.
I think the myth of natural female empathy, gentleness and a nurturing instinct are a gross misrepresentation of reality. I know many fine women. I am married to the most beautiful human being I have ever known. But I do not walk about with any silly notion that women are in any way my moral superior or less likely than their male counterparts to be violent or abusive.
The NSW education department is no doubt like ALL other states , controlled by man -hating feminists , men teachers like John Southon are always at risk. But what John says is true “ we need to have open debate on the issue of domestic violence” , this is what worries the feminists who want to control the subject.
But we have seen cases like this before and the lesson is that appeasing the radical feminists doesn’t work , it’s time we engaged them in a war of ideas , and start from an extreme point of view , the devils advocate , and say that , violence is not bad , violent men have been very useful in the survival of the human race from prehistoric times to the wars of the last century.
If not for “violent “ men Hitlers Nazies would not have been defeated .
You don't have to look hard on social media to find dozens of women openly and unashamedly using physical & emotional coercion/manipululation to get what they want. And in most cases, they are rewarded handsomely.
Some of the more identifiable/high profile examples include: Brittney Higgins, Bridgette Macron, Giselle Bunchen, Blake Lively, Melania Trump, Amber Heard, etc., etc.
It has been my observation that young women greatly outnumber men in promoting nefarious causes. They are given to screaming their opprobrious derangements in public as we can see every day on our TV screens in the pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Yet, this is only one example of female fanaticism and extremism, evident also in the male-female domestic narrative.
“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” -- Orwell, '1984'
Nothing new under the sun. Same old fem-fascists, same old world. Women, btw, were Hitler's biggest and most vocal backers. Ain't gonna hear about that in the woke 'history' books. Can't have people thinking that females are not perfect.
I have been told that there were women who screamed in chorus at Adolf Hitler:" Our Jesus! Our Jesus!" In a very recent documentary on TV that was indeed confirmed.
Fascist female nature in this respect also was reflected when the Beatles hit in early '64, though in that case it was adolescent girls. The Beatles, now, they didn't mess around with politics but went straight for the female jugular. The phenomenon of personality-cult worship, especially under strong emotional impact like music provides, is necessarily fascist.
Screaming girls en masse certainly is predictive of a proto-feminist society, as was the Cult of Romanticism that dominated popular music and film in the Fifties and Sixties. These paved the way for the gynarchy, and it is no coincidence that JFK -- the Christian king -- was publicly disposed-of by elements and agents of that rising gynarchy as the Executive Branch coup was effected.
Sorry to say that one of your statements is hard to agree with ie "people are not stupid". Hopefully there will come a time when those attacking someone for simply giving an opinion (which here is a simple pointing out of the truth) will themselves feel the force of the law. They can disagree sure, but not try to exert PUBLIC coercive control. (Translated as shut up or else).
I refuse to believe that most people, other than young women, are taken in by the feminist claptrap. I know very few dare voice their dissent but the common sense is there -- if only we could harness it !
Yes, many (silently) reject the male-hatred and the twisted cant of feminism, but go along because -- in the West -- many millions of people are HEAVILY incentivized to support, or at least to tolerate, our gynocracies.
To take merely one example, the dads of daughters have received billions, possibly trillions, of what essentially are transfer payments from male wealth and the feminist State over the past century, particularly in Amerika and the anglo nations. Daughters are first-class citizens in most of the West, and they automatically go to the front of the line. What line? EVERY LINE. For the rest of their 'oppressed' lives.
Many millions of persons are locked-in to our matriarchies not for ideological reasons, but because it is their financial and psychological interest for woman-rule to continue. Acceptance of feminist ideology is just a part of why feminism rules over our nations. There are numerous practical reasons why people don't dissent. And those reasons are not an accident, they have been institutionalized for cunning and selfish reasons -- the State, the corporations, the endless NGOs, for example, THRIVE off the matriarchy and depend for growth upon it. This isn't just about people being skeered to speak out.
100% agree Bettina. People who have not been indoctrinated by the feminist diatribe see straight through the bullshit, but such is the power of these feministic ideologs, the fear of people or their families being doxxed is a huge disencentive to sharing a different opinion.
well what man wants to speak out publicly and have his life history examined for fake signs of "toxic masculinity"? I am seeing many signs of toxic misandry but apparently sexism is fine if only males are the victims.
"Shutting down any challenge to their warped narrative and seeking to isolate and shame people who speak out."
This is chronic in (un)civilized society. It's transparently evident what people (men and women) are doing when this transpires: seeking or maintaining control and dominance.
Open debate of facts, context, truth don't matter to them. This isn't an intelligent, credible, trustworthy approach and look. It's not influential or persuasive to more evolved thinkers.
Domestic violence doesn’t always mean being hit, and it doesn’t always come from men. Women can be abusers too. They use coercion, manipulation, and control to break their partners down — mentally, emotionally, physically, and financially. That’s what I lived through with my ex-wife.
She didn’t just stop at the relationship. She carried the abuse into the family court system, using it as a weapon to keep punishing me long after we separated.
Living Under False Allegations
She accused me of assault, stalking, and intimidation. Every allegation was false, and eventually proven to be false. But while those lies dragged on, I was forced to live like I was guilty. For months, I wasn’t allowed to spend time with my children the way a father should. I could only see them at their sporting events — standing on the sidelines, unable to hug them, unable to take them home.
I asked about pressing charges for perjury. My lawyer told me to “accept the win.” That’s the problem: she could lie in court with no consequence, while I was left carrying the weight, the stigma, and the cost.
Coercion and Control
People think coercion is only about shouting or physical threats, but it can be quieter and more calculated. She controlled me financially through endless legal action. She controlled me emotionally by alienating my children from me. She ignored court orders, knowing the system puts the burden on me to enforce them.
That is domestic violence too. When one person deliberately manipulates the system to keep the other under control, that’s abuse. But because I’m a man, the law didn’t see me as a victim — even though I was.
The Toll It Takes
This kind of abuse drains everything. Your money, your time, your energy, your self-worth. It chips away at your relationship with your kids. It leaves you exhausted and hopeless. And all the while, the system stands by, telling you to keep fighting while offering no real protection.
It’s no wonder male suicide is so high. Men are being broken down by family violence that looks different, but hurts just as much.
The Silence From Lawmakers
I’ve emailed members of parliament, telling them what’s happening — not just to me, but to thousands of fathers. I’ve explained how women use coercion and false allegations to abuse men, how court orders are ignored without consequence, and how children are alienated from good fathers. Not one reply. Not even an acknowledgment.
Why I’m Speaking Out
I don’t share this story for sympathy. I share it because it needs to be heard. Domestic violence isn’t just caused by men. Women can and do abuse their partners, using control, manipulation, and lies to destroy lives. The system enables it, and fathers and children pay the price.
I survived, but I’m still paying for it every day. Until the law recognises that men can be victims too, and that women can be abusers, nothing will change. And more families will be torn apart.
Glad you tried to inform the ‘lawmakers’… despite the fact that they stonewalled to not respond. EVERY time someone informs them surely a crack will form and the floodgates open revealing the unjustness of the system of law
We have to be careful not to commit exactly the same crimes we ar eaccusing others of commiting.
“They killed the guy whose mantra was, ‘let's talk about it,’"
Who are they? There is no organised movement or group of people who advocated killing Charlie Kirk. There is a huge problem of polarisation and demonisation of opponents throughout US politics but in terms of main stream parties the most extreme language advocating or implying that violence is justified is almost all from peopel who would support Charlie Kirk. Saying 'they' implies that there is an organised group or perhaps all those who opposed Charlie Kirk are in some way responsible. Its nonsense. It is already clear it was a lone individual. This is no different than blaming all men every time some nutter does something awful.
The reality is that Charlie Kirk made his living by being controversial and on occasion he made some outrageous provocative remarks. That absolutely should not result in his death but it understandably led to some people having strong negative views of him. People should avoid strong language about him and treat him with respect now he is dead but even if people don't that is a far cry from being involved in his killing.
Its clear that there is a problem with political violence in the US and the extreme polarisation in the US seems to have spread to infect other countries but I don't think the violence has, at least not yet. Politicians and commentators are not being regularly assassinated in the UK and Australia. The CATO institute claims there have been 25 political killings in the US in 2025 so far. It also claims that this level is low! There have been 15 assassination attempts on US presidents or presidential candidates in the last 100 years! The trend in the UK by comparison perhaps upward with two killings in ten years. It would take more a century and a half to have the level of political killing that is routine in the US every year. The levels of violence and the culture surrounding violence is so different in the US that its meaningless to generalise this incident to have significance outside the US. Politically motivated killings are unfortunately normal in the US.
It appears to be more and more likely that there was a chat group that to which the murderer and his boyfriend who was becoming a woman belonged that spoke of assassinating Charlie Kirk. The FBI are investigating about 30 individuals.
Also, the gloating and the rejoicing by many thousands on various social media sites is a clear sign that many on the far left actively and poisonously hate conservatives.
I fear that is unfair to say Charlie made his living by being contraversial. Some would say the same about me! I believe Charlie was movitated by a desire to promote civilised discourse, as I wrote and to try to persuade people to consider his conservative views, which were very much inspired by his religion. I have seen clips of him saying things I disagreed with but I doubt if they were said simply to provoke. That's doing him a great disservice, in my view.
Right, Charlie Kirk was a great man in the making , with courage and charisma in the same vein as JFK he could have gone far , what a tragedy for the free world .
the U.S. has tens of thousands that belong to the 'tin foil hat' brigade. Now give them unresricted access to high-powered military assault/sniper rifles and ammo.
It would be great if you all could promote the video so people can be inspired by John Southon's bravery. It so annoys me that I have had videos in the past attracting over 1.6 million views but due to YouTube's censorship I now reach only tiny numbers.
Please spread the word that I am looking for people to help with my researcher, which could involve payment, if necessary. see the note, below, I posted at the end of my blog and get in touch if you would like to discuss:
Sadly, my excellent researcher, Tony, is moving on - writing his own blog, Critiquing Feminism, travelling, etc and won’t be as available to help with my work. I need others who can assist with indepth research and analysis, ideally someone with a good grasp of statistics, data etc, to look for where the bodies are buried. Knowledge of AI and other useful technologies would be a plus. Please contact me if you might fit the bill. Someone retired might work best, but I really need people with occasional free hours during the day.
Many thanks to Tony for his outstanding contributions. Look forward to his blog and perhaps it can be linked here?
I'd take your research on myself, Bettina, but I am as old as the rocks and just about as helpful with technology and the New World of AI. May you find a new researcher who is as excellent as your essays. michael
What is sex, really?
It is not what puritans claim: a necessary evil, a throwback to ignorant instinct, a distraction from higher pursuits. It is not what passionless pornography suggests: a performance, a conquest, a transaction.
“Sex happens between the ears”
— Seka
Run Like Hell, Pink Floyd, The Wall
It is not what beyond feminists and military psychologists insinuate: a sublimation of violence, a channeling of aggression, a masculine dominance ritual.
“You do not know what you are missing by your microscopic examination of sexual activity to the exclusion of aspects which are fuel that ignites it. Intellectual, imaginative, romantic, emotional. This is what gives sex its surprising textures, its subtle transformations, its aphrodisiac elements. You are shrinking your world of sensations. You are withering it, starving it, draining its blood.” — Anaïs Nin
Sex is grounding. It is the return to the body. It is the acknowledgment that we are not disembodied minds, not machines, not symbols or statistics or expendable units. We are flesh. We are warmth. We are skin and sweat and breath and heartbeat.
Sex is vulnerability. It is the willingness to be seen, to be touched, to be known. It is the shedding of armor, the dropping of masks, the honesty of desire.
Sex is connection. It is the meshing of souls, the sharing of pleasure, the recognition of another’s humanity and the offering of your own.
Sex is resistance. In a world that demands you become, un-empathetic, a user, a killer, that trains you to dehumanize, that programs you to sever yourself from empathy — sex is the defiant act of remaining human.
“He was now in that state of fire that she loved. She wanted to be burnt.”
― Anaïs Nin, Delta of Venus
https://griobhtha1.substack.com/p/love-as-grounding-a-valentines-day
Love
It
He was a Zionist pig. How's that for free speech?
"125 years of proud Zionist terrorism — all documented; and never forget the Right to Rape!"
https://griobhtha1.substack.com/p/dear-zionist
English - Arabic - Hebrew - French - German - Chinese (traditional) - Russian - Spanish
“Seka, a very intelligent porn actress once stated, “Sex happens between the ears.” That is absolutely correct. Feminists and many women are wrong, men are not ruled by their “Johnson” — & I have no idea what nicknames women give to their twats — rather, men’s and women’s brains control those erogenous zones. Your brain wants and needs sex. You are an animal and you want sex, because the nature of our species (of all species) wants sex and reproduction. You must have seen female animals going into heat (human females are in estrus (heat) once every month). You must have seen nature documentaries showing male animals dripping cum (David Attenborough was wowed).”
https://griobhtha1.substack.com/p/x-rubicon-learning-to-fly
https://griobhtha1.substack.com/p/x-rubicon-learning-to-fly
Absolutely nobody with a semblance of intelligence could genuinely believe the following statement:
" 1984 Duluth framework which claimed domestic violence was all about men asserting patriarchal power and control over women."
The feminists know it is a lie. They have all experienced bullying, backstabbing, physical and emotional abuse at the hands of other females throughout their lives. The idea that a vagina grants a person some kind of moral superiority is utterly absurd, yet that is what they pretend to believe, and our judicial system relies upon this fanciful, bigoted ideological trash as the basis for dealing with cases of domestic violence.
Imagine living on this earth for more than twenty years and believing women don't lie, manipulate, physically abuse and take advantage of men's susceptibility to a pretty female's attention.
The recent tragic murder of Charlie Kirk once again exposed a reality I have been screaming from the rooftops to anyone who will hear-I believe women are far more vindictive and also far more inclined to enjoy the idea of violence being perpetrated upon people they do not like. There are unquestionably more women (and by some margin) involved in the online gleeful celebration of Kirk's assassination. This did not surprise me.
When Rita Panahi presented a segment on this vile phenomenon, there were seven consecutive women shown dancing, laughing and insisting Charlie got what he deserved, shown on our television screen, yet even Rita failed to address this startling fact given the endless mantra of our DV industry, that violence is the sole preserve of the male species and females are gentle, innocent, nurturing creatures stumbling through life with eyes wide open in shock at the nasty things males get up to.
Lizzy Page and Clementine Ford both made an appearance, and both made the most appalling comments about Charlie's murder. Page (who works in mental health) said Kirk became a "human water fountain" and that such violence is more than acceptable when directed at people who say hateful things. Ford said political violence is a good thing and should be used more often to eliminate such "pieces of shit" like Charlie Kirk.
There was no outrage expressed about these two prominent feminist voices saying such shocking words in support of murder and bloodshed. These same two creatures lecture boys on the toxic nature of their online heroes- Andrew Tate and other similar you tubers who speak about masculinity. Not one of the men often referred to as toxic (and the inspiration behind that sick Netflix series Adolescence) by feminists have ever expressed such disgusting views about murder. None of them have ever advocated violence. Yet boys are routinely lectured to be teachers and the media about their terrible role models.
We live in a time where the hatred of and demonization of males has become an accepted fact of life, no different our awareness that the sky is blue and grass is green. That slime bag Albanese will no doubt pose side by side with Clementine and Abbie Chatfield and other mentally disturbed female psychopaths when the next Federal election rolls around , handing out tens of millions in funding to feminist causes, while expressing disgust over male violence and abuse.
I have read a couple of history books in recent times in which the writers of that period noted that the crowds at public executions and torture were dominated by women. One such time was when the most horrendous execution in history in the eyes of many, took place in Paris, France.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert-Fran%C3%A7ois_Damiens
I found this quote most interesting.
The execution was witnessed by 18th-century adventurer Giacomo Casanova, who had coincidentally arrived the same day of the attack, and he included an account in his memoirs:[20]
We had the courage to watch the dreadful sight for four hours ... Damiens was a fanatic, who, with the idea of doing a good work and obtaining a heavenly reward, had tried to assassinate Louis XV; and though the attempt was a failure, and he only gave the king a slight wound, he was torn to pieces as if his crime had been consummated. ... I was several times obliged to turn away my face and to stop my ears as I heard his piercing shrieks, half of his body having been torn from him, but the Lambertini and the fat aunt did not budge an inch. Was it because their hearts were hardened? They told me, and I pretended to believe them, that their horror at the wretch's wickedness prevented them feeling that compassion which his unheard-of torments should have excited.
— Book 2, Volume 5, Chapter 3
I have read other accounts in which men expressed their distaste over the number of women present and the fact that when many men turned away when the horror became too much (four horses attempted to tear his limbs from his body- the women did not flinch. One claimed a woman only expressed sympathy for the horses when the executioner began to whip them. She felt nothing for the man who had been brutalized for four hours.
I know that women played a huge role in the French Revolution and always occupied the front rows when the heads were being lopped by the guillotine.
These were occasions when women were "caught with their pants down" so to speak. We get to observe them when they don't think anyone is watching.
I think the myth of natural female empathy, gentleness and a nurturing instinct are a gross misrepresentation of reality. I know many fine women. I am married to the most beautiful human being I have ever known. But I do not walk about with any silly notion that women are in any way my moral superior or less likely than their male counterparts to be violent or abusive.
End of rant.
The leftists can't survive truth.
We need to keep exposing their wicked ways.
The NSW education department is no doubt like ALL other states , controlled by man -hating feminists , men teachers like John Southon are always at risk. But what John says is true “ we need to have open debate on the issue of domestic violence” , this is what worries the feminists who want to control the subject.
But we have seen cases like this before and the lesson is that appeasing the radical feminists doesn’t work , it’s time we engaged them in a war of ideas , and start from an extreme point of view , the devils advocate , and say that , violence is not bad , violent men have been very useful in the survival of the human race from prehistoric times to the wars of the last century.
If not for “violent “ men Hitlers Nazies would not have been defeated .
god bless Pearl, she speaks the truth about feminist sexism and anti male bullying.
She certainly will be blessed.
You don't have to look hard on social media to find dozens of women openly and unashamedly using physical & emotional coercion/manipululation to get what they want. And in most cases, they are rewarded handsomely.
Some of the more identifiable/high profile examples include: Brittney Higgins, Bridgette Macron, Giselle Bunchen, Blake Lively, Melania Trump, Amber Heard, etc., etc.
It has been my observation that young women greatly outnumber men in promoting nefarious causes. They are given to screaming their opprobrious derangements in public as we can see every day on our TV screens in the pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Yet, this is only one example of female fanaticism and extremism, evident also in the male-female domestic narrative.
You are very observant!
“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” -- Orwell, '1984'
Nothing new under the sun. Same old fem-fascists, same old world. Women, btw, were Hitler's biggest and most vocal backers. Ain't gonna hear about that in the woke 'history' books. Can't have people thinking that females are not perfect.
I have been told that there were women who screamed in chorus at Adolf Hitler:" Our Jesus! Our Jesus!" In a very recent documentary on TV that was indeed confirmed.
Fascist female nature in this respect also was reflected when the Beatles hit in early '64, though in that case it was adolescent girls. The Beatles, now, they didn't mess around with politics but went straight for the female jugular. The phenomenon of personality-cult worship, especially under strong emotional impact like music provides, is necessarily fascist.
Screaming girls en masse certainly is predictive of a proto-feminist society, as was the Cult of Romanticism that dominated popular music and film in the Fifties and Sixties. These paved the way for the gynarchy, and it is no coincidence that JFK -- the Christian king -- was publicly disposed-of by elements and agents of that rising gynarchy as the Executive Branch coup was effected.
Sorry to say that one of your statements is hard to agree with ie "people are not stupid". Hopefully there will come a time when those attacking someone for simply giving an opinion (which here is a simple pointing out of the truth) will themselves feel the force of the law. They can disagree sure, but not try to exert PUBLIC coercive control. (Translated as shut up or else).
I refuse to believe that most people, other than young women, are taken in by the feminist claptrap. I know very few dare voice their dissent but the common sense is there -- if only we could harness it !
Yes, many (silently) reject the male-hatred and the twisted cant of feminism, but go along because -- in the West -- many millions of people are HEAVILY incentivized to support, or at least to tolerate, our gynocracies.
To take merely one example, the dads of daughters have received billions, possibly trillions, of what essentially are transfer payments from male wealth and the feminist State over the past century, particularly in Amerika and the anglo nations. Daughters are first-class citizens in most of the West, and they automatically go to the front of the line. What line? EVERY LINE. For the rest of their 'oppressed' lives.
Many millions of persons are locked-in to our matriarchies not for ideological reasons, but because it is their financial and psychological interest for woman-rule to continue. Acceptance of feminist ideology is just a part of why feminism rules over our nations. There are numerous practical reasons why people don't dissent. And those reasons are not an accident, they have been institutionalized for cunning and selfish reasons -- the State, the corporations, the endless NGOs, for example, THRIVE off the matriarchy and depend for growth upon it. This isn't just about people being skeered to speak out.
It must be something in the psychological structure of young women. Completely abnormal!
100% agree Bettina. People who have not been indoctrinated by the feminist diatribe see straight through the bullshit, but such is the power of these feministic ideologs, the fear of people or their families being doxxed is a huge disencentive to sharing a different opinion.
well what man wants to speak out publicly and have his life history examined for fake signs of "toxic masculinity"? I am seeing many signs of toxic misandry but apparently sexism is fine if only males are the victims.
"Shutting down any challenge to their warped narrative and seeking to isolate and shame people who speak out."
This is chronic in (un)civilized society. It's transparently evident what people (men and women) are doing when this transpires: seeking or maintaining control and dominance.
Open debate of facts, context, truth don't matter to them. This isn't an intelligent, credible, trustworthy approach and look. It's not influential or persuasive to more evolved thinkers.
Domestic violence doesn’t always mean being hit, and it doesn’t always come from men. Women can be abusers too. They use coercion, manipulation, and control to break their partners down — mentally, emotionally, physically, and financially. That’s what I lived through with my ex-wife.
She didn’t just stop at the relationship. She carried the abuse into the family court system, using it as a weapon to keep punishing me long after we separated.
Living Under False Allegations
She accused me of assault, stalking, and intimidation. Every allegation was false, and eventually proven to be false. But while those lies dragged on, I was forced to live like I was guilty. For months, I wasn’t allowed to spend time with my children the way a father should. I could only see them at their sporting events — standing on the sidelines, unable to hug them, unable to take them home.
I asked about pressing charges for perjury. My lawyer told me to “accept the win.” That’s the problem: she could lie in court with no consequence, while I was left carrying the weight, the stigma, and the cost.
Coercion and Control
People think coercion is only about shouting or physical threats, but it can be quieter and more calculated. She controlled me financially through endless legal action. She controlled me emotionally by alienating my children from me. She ignored court orders, knowing the system puts the burden on me to enforce them.
That is domestic violence too. When one person deliberately manipulates the system to keep the other under control, that’s abuse. But because I’m a man, the law didn’t see me as a victim — even though I was.
The Toll It Takes
This kind of abuse drains everything. Your money, your time, your energy, your self-worth. It chips away at your relationship with your kids. It leaves you exhausted and hopeless. And all the while, the system stands by, telling you to keep fighting while offering no real protection.
It’s no wonder male suicide is so high. Men are being broken down by family violence that looks different, but hurts just as much.
The Silence From Lawmakers
I’ve emailed members of parliament, telling them what’s happening — not just to me, but to thousands of fathers. I’ve explained how women use coercion and false allegations to abuse men, how court orders are ignored without consequence, and how children are alienated from good fathers. Not one reply. Not even an acknowledgment.
Why I’m Speaking Out
I don’t share this story for sympathy. I share it because it needs to be heard. Domestic violence isn’t just caused by men. Women can and do abuse their partners, using control, manipulation, and lies to destroy lives. The system enables it, and fathers and children pay the price.
I survived, but I’m still paying for it every day. Until the law recognises that men can be victims too, and that women can be abusers, nothing will change. And more families will be torn apart.
Glad you tried to inform the ‘lawmakers’… despite the fact that they stonewalled to not respond. EVERY time someone informs them surely a crack will form and the floodgates open revealing the unjustness of the system of law
We have to be careful not to commit exactly the same crimes we ar eaccusing others of commiting.
“They killed the guy whose mantra was, ‘let's talk about it,’"
Who are they? There is no organised movement or group of people who advocated killing Charlie Kirk. There is a huge problem of polarisation and demonisation of opponents throughout US politics but in terms of main stream parties the most extreme language advocating or implying that violence is justified is almost all from peopel who would support Charlie Kirk. Saying 'they' implies that there is an organised group or perhaps all those who opposed Charlie Kirk are in some way responsible. Its nonsense. It is already clear it was a lone individual. This is no different than blaming all men every time some nutter does something awful.
The reality is that Charlie Kirk made his living by being controversial and on occasion he made some outrageous provocative remarks. That absolutely should not result in his death but it understandably led to some people having strong negative views of him. People should avoid strong language about him and treat him with respect now he is dead but even if people don't that is a far cry from being involved in his killing.
Its clear that there is a problem with political violence in the US and the extreme polarisation in the US seems to have spread to infect other countries but I don't think the violence has, at least not yet. Politicians and commentators are not being regularly assassinated in the UK and Australia. The CATO institute claims there have been 25 political killings in the US in 2025 so far. It also claims that this level is low! There have been 15 assassination attempts on US presidents or presidential candidates in the last 100 years! The trend in the UK by comparison perhaps upward with two killings in ten years. It would take more a century and a half to have the level of political killing that is routine in the US every year. The levels of violence and the culture surrounding violence is so different in the US that its meaningless to generalise this incident to have significance outside the US. Politically motivated killings are unfortunately normal in the US.
It appears to be more and more likely that there was a chat group that to which the murderer and his boyfriend who was becoming a woman belonged that spoke of assassinating Charlie Kirk. The FBI are investigating about 30 individuals.
Also, the gloating and the rejoicing by many thousands on various social media sites is a clear sign that many on the far left actively and poisonously hate conservatives.
I fear that is unfair to say Charlie made his living by being contraversial. Some would say the same about me! I believe Charlie was movitated by a desire to promote civilised discourse, as I wrote and to try to persuade people to consider his conservative views, which were very much inspired by his religion. I have seen clips of him saying things I disagreed with but I doubt if they were said simply to provoke. That's doing him a great disservice, in my view.
Right, Charlie Kirk was a great man in the making , with courage and charisma in the same vein as JFK he could have gone far , what a tragedy for the free world .
the U.S. has tens of thousands that belong to the 'tin foil hat' brigade. Now give them unresricted access to high-powered military assault/sniper rifles and ammo.
We have 340 million odd people. Some of us are very odd. You can find an example of almost anything you want.