You are here:   Forums
Register   |  Login

Welcome to the CAF Global Forums

ForumForumPeter Andrew No...Peter Andrew No...PAN Parent ForumPAN Parent ForumPAN Videos and ...PAN Videos and ...E007 - An Essay on Societal Programming of No Violence Against WomenE007 - An Essay on Societal Programming of No Violence Against Women
Previous Previous
Next Next
New Post
 4/29/2014 6:05 AM
 Modified By host  on 5/1/2014 9:45:26 AM

An Essay on Societal Programming of "No Violence Against Women"
by Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)

Intended Audience:
This Essay is intended to be read by the people who are on my personal email list as well as anyone else who would like to read/listen.

In this Essay the term "men" refers to men who men who were raised and live in the anglo-sphere which I define to include India because of the heavy anglo influence in India. The term "men" specifically does NOT include men who live in Germany and further east.

The term "women" will be used to mean "western women" who live in the anglo-sphere. When I wish to refer to women who live in Germany I will specifically say so. I wish it to be clear to all readers that my position is that people who live in Germany are not the subject of this essay except where specifically noted.

This essay has been published on these links. It may be reproduced in whole or in part as anyone else wishes with the sole restriction that the source article must be cited and linked so that no "out of context" quotes can be made. If you want to discuss the essay then you are welcome to discuss it on the forum.

Dated: 2014-05-01

If you like what you read? I recently created a bitcoin wallet. You can also go to our Buy Charity Page and buy me some charity.
Bitcoin: 1GxKWTnVGdPjKUkZxqKXeGPnWhQGqf5KR8

1. Introduction

I had a discussion the other day with Mark McMurtie. Basically he posted one of the standard memes that said "Real men do not hit women". Something like that.

So I said, and I quote:

"I disagree Mark McMurtrie.

Women claimed equality so I will hit a woman under exactly the same conditions I will hit a man."

I said some more but that is the basic gist of my position on this issue of "REAL MEN do not hit women". It is rubbish and I hold a different position and it is one I insist I will act on should the need arise.

Mark had a negative response to that comment. His response, to quote him, was as follows:

"Peter...please do not EVER converse with me again - and the next time I see you I will knock the fuck out of you.

I don't care for anything you say - no MAN EVER lays a hand to a Woman.......gutless snipe."

Now the first thing I want to make clear is that I have the greatest of respect for Mark. In my opinion he is the greatest living Australian today. If someone knows a "better Australian" I sure would like to meet him. Although Mark might well not describe himself as "Australian" given that is not the name of the land in his language.

But this brings up two more important issues.

  1. Equality before the law for women and men.
  2. The question of how to deal with interpersonal relationship violence, especially in close interpersonal relationships.

Clearly I am not an Original Person and so nothing I say should be falsely construed to be a comment about Original People or Original Culture. I only speak about those subjects where I can claim some knowledge and I am pretty clear about my level of knowledge in the areas I speak.

What the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation do in the establishment of their laws and their due process of law is up to them. Mark and his colleagues are perfectly well able to establish their laws. So this essay is not specifically directed to only OSTF. Indeed, it is really only that someone of Marks knowledge and experience has made this statement that I felt  that perhaps it was worth an essay.

I certainly would like to make sure Mark is well informed as to the disastrous results this attitude has had in the west before OSTF considers setting it as a standard for the Original People. Because the notion of "real men do not hit women" and the notion of "no violence against women ever" has been a disaster in the western countries in which it has been implemented.

I first realised there was more to this than met the eye back in mid 2008 when I read this article. As you can see in the study cited that the murder rate of women by their husbands barely decreased over a 26 year period whereas the murder rate of men by their wives dramatically decreased.   Angry Harry explains the phenomenon quite well so there is no reason for me to repeat it in this essay.

It is obvious that the expansion of the term "violence" to encompass "the man leaves the room when his wife is screaming at him to avoid the conflict" is an obvious ploy to be able to criminally victimise the man via the agency of the state no matter what he does.

When peaceful disengagement from a conflict is criminalised there is not much left for men to do that is not "violent", right?

But it was not until 2010 when my fav#1 educated me that I really understood what was going on. I will talk about that "education" later in this essay. It is sufficient to say in this introduction that she, as the most beautiful woman I had ever met at the time I met her, said, and I quote:

"The idea of no violence against women ever is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard of."

I was interested in why she would say that and so I asked more questions and asked her to help me understand her view of that situation. And so she did. More on that later.

2A. Equality Before The Law

One of the most fundamental questions that people face in societies is the question as to whether women will be treated as equal before the law to men specifically meaning that the same crime will require the same remedy no matter the sex of the perpetrator and the sex of the victim.

Western countries have answered this question in the negative. There are no "western" countries that ensure that remedy or punishment for crimes is equal for men and women. Indeed, in the anglo world the sex of the guilty party is the single biggest differentiator in the sentencing. Bigger than colour, even in the US, where black men are notoriously poorly treated by the US legal system.

If you are male you will face much harsher penalties for crimes than a female of the same age who committed the same crimes. Some of the excuses used by female judges to be lenient to women criminals are laughable. In one case in Melbourne, Australia, a female judge chose not to incarcerate a woman who was the "getaway car driver" in a bank robbery because "incarceration would affect her quality of life".

No kidding? Going to jail will affect your quality of life! Who would have thought?! So robbing banks is ok if you are a woman because your average female judge is not going to want to affect your quality of life. Great!

And then there is the case where a woman in the UK learned hot to make napalm and she napalmed her husband and burned him to death. Cherie Blair and one of the spice girls gave her an award and said she was a role model for all "abused women". Remember that "abuse" includes the situation that when your wife is screaming at you and being impossible to deal with and you decide to leave the room and let her cool down. That is "abuse". So according to Cherie Blair and a spice girl "abusing" a woman by leaving her alone is good cause to napalm you and burn you to death. And to point this out is called "woman-hatred" but burning a man to death is not "man-hatred".

Only in the twisted minds of western women could walking away from an augment because there is no way to win it be called a "crime" while outright vigilantism and murder is hailed as "justice" by the wife of the Prime Minister and one of the countries most famous celebrities. And, of course, if you point out the hypocrisy, indeed, ludicrousness, of the situation you are called a "woman hater" because "everyone knows" that women are not violent. After all, burning a man to death in his sleep is not "violent". She didn't HIT him so she is not violent. Forget the fact the man died in agony.

As long as women are not held equal before the law it is right, just and, indeed, necessary, to denounce western women as DEEPLY EVIL PEOPLE because of their endless claims of being desirous of equality but actually demanding and getting the "privilege" of being above the law. That I have been calling on prominent women to state that they support the idea of "equal remedy for equal crime" or "same crime same punishment" for more than 6 years now and STIIL not a SINGLE WOMAN OF NOTE is willing to say those words demonstrates just how DEEPLY EVIL western women are.

 2B. Equality Before The Law

And when I point this out and say it I am called a "woman hater". Every time someone calls me a "woman hater" for pointing this out I challenge them to produce a paper or presentation by a notable woman who has said "equal punishment for equal crime" like so many have said "equal pay for less work". For asking to point to any such public statements I am merely called a "woman hater" over and over again. That is the sum total of "argument" by men and women alike. I really is pathetic and they really do not deserve my help.

Now, in the case of the Original People the question might need to be put "Will OSTF have a policy of equality before the law between women and men". With respect to "violence against women" it will have a bearing on how men who are NOT choosing to subject to OSTF laws will deal with women who ARE subject to OSTF laws.

Because the vast majority of men who live on the land known as Australia know and understand that women are above the law the women who are subject to OSTF laws might be perceived as claiming themselves "above the law" like any newbie woman in Australia claims.

In a situation where the Original woman initiates aggression against a man who is not subject to OSTF law she runs a risk of a violent response because the man might presume that he has no recourse to law and he might take matters into his own hands.

The question that OSTF may wish to address (or may not) is whether the Original People will hold women criminals among their number equal before the law and make sure that any crime by any OSTF woman is remedied. If this is the decision taken then it would be a very good idea to communicate it widely to non Original Men to make sure they know that this is the situation and that the OSTF will ensure men the due protection of law from criminal OSTF women.

If the OSTF remains silent on this matter then it is reasonable to assume that most men will assume that OSTF women also consider themselves above the law just like newbie women. This is only going to lead to situations where more violence will be used against OSTF women rather than the man asking for the remedy to the crime via whatever lawful process OSTF puts in place.

In short, OSTF has a decision to make regarding equality before the law for women. And to make no decision and to say nothing is most likely to be interpreted as Orginal women are to be treated the same as newbie women, which is above the law.

Of course, men around the world are all faced with the same decision. WiIll you treat women as equal before the law? And in the anglo sphere as well as many european countries the answer is clearly that women are above the law and men have no due protection of the law merely for the asking.


3A. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

The "equality before the law" topic is very much like beating a dead horse in anglo countries. 99.9%+ of women and 99.7%+ of men have no problems at all with women being granted the privilege of being able to commit crimes against men with complete impunity. No one even bothers to argue this point any more. They just shout "if you point out the truth you must be a woman hater".

Well, no, they don't say QUITE that, they say "you are a woman hater" and just leave it at that. No argument, no evidence, no nothing. Just denounce, denounce, denounce and denounce some more. All baseless.

You would have thought that after 6 years of yelling the same thing without a shred of evidence these morons would get tired of repeating themselves. But they seem to never tire. Their hatred and delusions run deep and they are going to keep telling lies just as long as I present the truth. I guess they have nothing better to do with their lives.

  • Holding criminals in governments accountable for their crimes? No, that's not worthy of their time.
  • Stopping the poisoning of the food, water, air supplies? No, that's not worthy of their time.
  • Helping to stop the massive levels of male suicide all across the anglo world? No, that's not worthy of their time.
  • Tell the truth about women? Criticse women fairly and justly? YOU ARE A WOMAN HATER!!! THAT is worthy of their time! LOL!

I could not make this up if I tried. It is simply not worth engaging with women, or men, on the topic of "equality before the law". No one is interested in it except the very small number of men who, like me, have come to understand the destructive consequences of not holding women equal before the law. Destructive consequences paid for by men, children and even women. But women have no concept of "cause and effect". It is really quite amazing to see women who have been the cause of their own problems absolutely, with 100% conviction, be absolutely unable to connect the effects they are suffering with the causes of their suffering.

To women, seemingly, the universe is a totally random chaotic cosmology and there is no such thing as "cause and effect". Really. I have stopped talking to women about these things because when you look in their eyes you can see that they have absolutely no idea that the actions they took are the cause of the effects that they are now suffering.

In all my life I have never seen a woman actually "get it". If anyone wants to try and contradict me on these points? By all means write some essays and make your points. Bring me some evidence that the average woman can connect the dots and understand "cause and effect". Don't try just saying "if you do not accept women can understand cause and effect you are a woman hater". The "if you do not agree with me you hate all women" argument is totally futile and I am not going to respond to it any more. For people who want to try that argument I would recommend they read the appendices of my book How To Be A Good Wife.

My direct, first hand experience, tells me that women simply have no idea of the concept of "cause and effect". Sad to say really. I had thought much better of women until 2007.

3B. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

In this section I wanted to relate some stories and relate the damage that "never hit a woman" and other such sexist, discriminatory, bigoted mantras causes to everyone in the society into which it is injected.

It seems that men who repeat the mantra "it is never ok to hit a girl/woman" or "real men do not hit women" either do not understand the damage they are doing, or they DO understand the damage they are doing and wish to do so anyway. It would be interesting to challenge men as to whether they understand the damage that such mantras create.

Let me start with a little of my own story. My story is very public and so you can go and read about my story in the books I have produced on this link.

When I was very small, so small I do not remember it so I must have been only 3 or 4 years of age, my father must have told me that "it is never ok to hit girls". When I was a little older my father told me many times "you have to learn to stand up for yourself, if some other boy is picking on you then you have to stand up for yourself, you can't expect others to stand up for you."

Of course, as the third of three boys I the bigger and stronger boys who were picking on me were often my brothers. Obviously being older than me they were bigger and stronger than me until i was about 17.

So from a very young age I was told "if a boy hits you then you hit him back and you stick up for yourself". I was also told "if some boy is bullying another boy than you help those less able to help themselves." Which meant violence of course. Indeed, on my very first day at school a little boy was being bullied by a bigger boy and I stepped in and fought the bigger boy and beat him. We became friends because he respected that I defeated him in a fair fight.

I was also told "never hit girls. If you hit girls for any reason, even if they hit you first, you will be punished." My father is a real white knight mangina and taught me to be similar. It was quite a dis-service he did me in that regard.

But the question that my father, and most men, never ask is this. What message do we send to our very small and impressionable boys when we say:
  • "If another boy hits you then you stand up for yourself."
  • "If a girl hits you then you must tolerate it, you must never hit her back, you must never hit a girl for any reason. If you do you will be severely punished."

Well, of course, a 3 or 4 year old boy is going to immediately come to the conclusions that girls are smaller and weaker. They are going to come to the conclusion that, for whatever reason the adult has not explained, girls are more fragile, more prone to be injured, more prone to be damaged in some way so they must be treated more carefully.

Little boys might come to the conclusion, as I did, that girls are more like "china dolls". They must not be played with roughly because they are weak, fragile, breakable and generally not the same as boys.

The obvious conclusion that any small boy is going to come to is that girls are "not as good as boys since us boys are told that we have to be careful of the girls".

Gee....way to go dads telling our little boys that girls are not as good as boys.

3C. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

In Australia when I was growing up us boys loved competitive sports. We liked to test ourselves against each other and see who was the best, who was the toughest, who could beat who. It was all great fun.

One of the games we played at school was a game called "red rover cross over". This was a game where you had to run across a field and not be tackled by the boys who were in the middle of the field. It would start with just one boy in the middle and he would have to tackle another boy. Then the two of them might tackle a third boy. This went on until there was just one boy left to tackle. Obviously being the last on to be tackled was the "winner".

Naturally, us boys were always looking for a way to do better at this game. Most boys used the strategy that they should ran around or away from the boy trying to tackle them. This seems like a good strategy when you are 5 or 6. But I was a very smart boy. I looked for a different strategy and found one.

My new strategy was to run directly at the boy who was trying to tackle me and to try and knock him to the ground or crash into him so hard that he didn't want to tackle me any more. Basically, my strategy was to hurt so many of the boys by crashing into them as hard as I could that they would be reluctant to tackle me in the future. This showed that I had thought about how to win more games in the future and not just this game.

My strategy was very successful. I became feared by the other boys. Most of the other boys would not even attempt to tackle me until later in each game. Because I was not being chased to be tackled that much early in the game I had more energy to try and break tackles later in the game.

Of course, these were the days when feminism was just being introduced into the schools. The early 70s. And there came a day when we were told "you boys have to let the girls play in your games too". We protested because we said we feared we might hurt the girls. Remember, most of our games were rough games and we were told "never hit a girl".

How could we play a rough game and not hit a girl? Even if we hit her by accident and she cried and went to the teachers and lied we knew we would be in trouble. I can remember being 6 years old and protesting to the teachers that "if we let the girls play in our game it will ruin our game. Why can't they play their own games? We do not want to play their games. We leave them alone. Why can't they leave us alone?" That was 1970. It shows how far ahead of the curve I was.


3D. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

We were told that we had to allow the girls to play this game "red rover cross over". And so we did. The very first girl who ran towards me to try and tackle me I turned towards her and crashed into her and knocked her to the ground, just like I did the boys. I also laughed at her incompetent attempt to tackle me.

Sure enough. She started crying and the girls on the sideline ran over to help her. They called me names like "you are a bully", and said "you hurt her". I went over to the girls and explained "no one told her she had to play this game. She can stand on the sidelines if she wants to. But this is our game. If she comes on to our field and plays our game then she has to be able to deal with our game."

The girl came back into the game but she never came near me again. A few more of the "boyish" girls joined in our game and every time one of them tried to tackle me I used my normal tactic. I crash into them as hard as I could.

Eventually one of the girls complained to one of the teachers that I was "playing too rough". I was called up before a teacher and told to "take it easy on the girls". I was defiant and I said no. I would not take it easy on the girls. I told the teacher that if a girl was on the field I would treat her just like any boy on the field. If the girl did not like how I played the game then she could leave the field. The teacher, being a man, decided that he had asked me to comply and I had said no. I had presented the argument that I was playing the game by the rules and the spirit of the game and playing it fairly. So to try and punish me was not responsible towards me.

Over time the other boys also got tired of being asked to "go easy on the girls". So we started attacking them more violently and more harshly than we would attack each other. We did not like being told we had to change what we had to do just because the girls wanted to play our games. When we were brought up before teachers for being "too rough" we all stuck to our guns and told the teachers we did not like the girls playing our games and we just wanted to be left alone to play our games. We pointed out "we do not demand you let us play the girls games, why do you let the girls demand that they can play our games and then tell us how we should play. We do not like this."

But a lot of damage was done by the teachers asking us to "go easy on the girls". We had developed the opinion that not only were the girls weaker, they were also "snitches" and they were not able to "stand the heat of the kitchen". I remember at that time that if you really, really wanted to hurt another boys feeling you would say to him "you play this game like a girl". "You play like a girl" became one of the most cutting and hurtful remarks one boy could make to another boy. It was that way because the girls were so bad at our games.

3E. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

I, for one, was very resentful every time I had to defend myself in front of a teacher over these constant "you have to go easier on the girls" discussions.

Now. Many people would now say "If a boy said to another boy "you play this game like a girl" he is somehow being "sexist" and displaying a "bad attitude" towards girls."

Well? Is it true or not that girls and women play games like girls and women rather than like men? Let us just check this out in the real world for a minute. HHmmm?

We have women's golf, women's, tennis, women's soccer, women's only events in the Olympics. These are facts that are not up for dispute. In women's sports men are excluded based on sex alone. This is discrimination, sexism an bigotry. According to the legislation of most western countries any women's sports where there is prizemoney up for grabs that excludes men based on sex alone is illegal. Denying a person the opportunity to earn their living based on their sex has been declared a crime in most of the western world. And yet such high profile events as the OLYPMICS and WIMBLEDON no less commit this crime in the name of "equality".

So looking at the real world. A boy saying to another boy "you play this game like a girl" as a cutting insult is a perfectly reasonable and TRUE thing to say because girls and woman are so pathetically bad at sports that they BAN MEN in order to be able to even play the game in the first place. Women know that if they did not BAN MEN from their sports they would not even be able to get a game.

And at the very same time women demand to BAN MEN from their sports they are claiming that any man who thinks their should be male only spaces is obviously a "woman hater" and the women will do all they can to destroy his life.

Yes. The hypocrisy is THAT BLATANT and yet women, AND MEN ALIKE, will not address this blatant hypocrisy when it is pointed out to them. They carry on with total garbage comments like "the women have to have a chance to play the sport too". Really? Why? Why do women have to have a chance to play the sport too? Indeed? Who is denying them the opportunity to play their sports? All we are saying is that if there is MONEY to be made playing the sport that MEN can not be BANNED while it is agreed that in other areas of society women can not be banned from occupations where they have an opportunity to earn their living. In short? We are saying "stop it with the blatant hypocrisy, we are sick of it".


3F. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

I, for one, have see this blatant hypocrisy be pervasive in my society since I was a 5 year old. I,  for one, am quite sick and tired of the lies and the hypocrisy of western women and it is not "hatred" to point out the lies and the hypocrisy and to denounce liars and hypocrites where ever they may be, whatever sex they may be.

I, for one, am pointing out that "take it easy on the girls" is not only very destructive of the boys opinions of the girls, it is destructive of the self esteem of the girls and destructive of their futures.

Let me give you a really good example of how destructive this nonsense of telling girls "you can do anything, you can be whatever you want to be" is to them.

I met a really lovely young Romanian woman a few years back. She was quite tiny at about 160cm tall and she could not have been 40kgs ringing wet. She was a small dainty woman. She was 23. I asked her at one time "what do you do for a living". She responded with "I trained to be a cook".

So I asked her what she meant by "trained to be a cook". She commented that no one had told her how hard the work of being a cook in a restaurant was and that she had found that she could not do it because of her light stature so mostly she did just a bit of the light cooking and spent most of her time actually being a waitress in the places she worked.

We talked about this for a bit. I asked her "Did no one tell you that cooking in restaurants is hard work and that you were too small and too frail to be able to do that for a living?"

She said "No, no one told me that."

So I asked her another question. "Tell me, did people actually tell you that you were strong and empowered and could be independent and you could do any job you set your mind to? Did people tell you things like that?"

She nodded wistfully and said "when I was growing up you have no idea how many people told me "you can be anything you want to be"."   

So I asked her: "Tell me this. Do you think those people did you a favour or did you a dis-service? I mean, now that you have spent a few years in college learning how to be a cook only to find out that you can't physically be a cook, do you think they did you a favour? Do you think they were your friends?"

3G. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

She looked at me hard and said "You know, you are right. They were not my friends. They did not help me. They did not "do me a favour" as you say. They lied to me and because I believed their lies I wasted three years at cooking school. I lost three years of my life because no one told me I should not do that and explained to me why I should not do it. Now you put it that way, I am angry at those people."

So I said to her: "Well, do you know that in the west if a girl like you was 16 or 17 and said to me "I want to be a cook" and I said "that is not a wise idea because you will not be able to physically be a cook due to your small frame and light weight so you are better off to choose something else" I would be called names like "sexist" and everyone would tell the girl "you can be anything you want to be". Did you know that those of us who would be your friend and would give you good advice would be attacked by those who would lie to you and betray you?"

She was shocked. But as the realisation settled in she commented: "That is really amazing. The older men who would give us good advice will not give us that advice because other women, who claim to be our friends, attack them. That is really amazing."

This young woman went to some "cooking school" for three years to learn how to be a cook in a restaurant as her chosen profession. And in all that time no one told her that she was too small and too slight to perform the work of her chosen profession. They were not her friends.

They did not have her best interests at heart. And here she was, 23, 5 years down the track, and having to figure out what she was going to do. She had no chance to go back and study at a different vocation for another three years because now she needed to pay for herself. Those who let her choose "cook" as a profession betrayed her.

I will give another example of how "go easy on the girls" is destructive on women and men alike. This will be brief because it is covered in more detail in my video series Women in the Workplace.

I joined IBMs International Software Development Centre in Sydney Australia in 1986. IBM Corp had awarded IBM Australia some software development contracts to develop systems to be implemented in 21 countries including Australia, Japan and Canada among others. These development projects were awarded in 1983 and started in 1984. If we were successful we would be rewarded with more opportunities to bid on more development projects.

3H. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

Naturally all the leading IBM countries wanted these sorts of contracts and so competition for future contracts would be stiff. We would be competing with other IBM countries. So we wanted to do a good job. I was a junior on the first system that was ready to be delivered called COBRA. Our management impressed on us the importance of our work. If we were to do well there would be great career opportunities for us all. If we were to do badly then it would be inevitable that the work would go elsewhere. IBM Corp had countries lined up hoping that we would fail, not least of which was Japan. IBM Japan was VERY keen to take this work off us.

So we worked our hearts out. The "normal" working day was 9am to midnight for quite a few of us. We wanted to get the best possible result we could get and we were prepared to put in the work to get it. COBRA 1.0 was a smashing success. The promised rewards for the team members were forthcoming. I was very lucky in that I had arrived in the last year of the project and had still benefited from the work of others in the preceding years. Sometimes you have luck and you make the best of it.

Unfortunately COBRA 2.0 was something of a disaster that was only rescued in the massive amount of patches that were applied to it after it was initially released. We had some inkling of what might have gone wrong with the project. But the project team had been very secretive and had not let those of us who had worked on COBRA 1.0 get involved. It was pretty clear WHY they did not want us involved in the end because their extensions to the base product was garbage.

Having had the experience of COBRA 2.0 being so bad those of us who had sacrificed so much on COBRA 1.0 demanded to be involved in COBRA 3.0 and we would not take no for an answer. We made the point that if there were another disaster like COBRA 2.0 we might never see COBRA 4.0. We made the point that is was our jobs on the line and we had every right to defend our jobs from incompetent work.

About this time we were being forced to accept "quota women" in the programming staff. These women were FAR below the skill level of the men. When it comes to code it is not "a matter of opinion". Either the code works or not. Either the programmer followed the specifications they were given or not. And the women were not following the specifications. Their code didn't work. And even it did it was inefficient in the extreme on projects where code efficiency was critical.

3I. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

In those days we had a process called a "walk through". This process has been removed from the lexicon of programming today for the very reasons I am about to explain. The idea of the walk through was for reviewers to read the code presented by the programmer and to criticise the code so that improvements can be made to make it better.

Of course, among the men, just like the games of "red rover cross over" these walkthroughs were highly competitive events. Whereas 6 year olds crash into each other on the playing field us men would "crash into each other" in terms of our ideas and skills in the coding area. If someone came up with a better idea than you had you would be thankful and you would take the point, "on this topic I have been beaten today, I need to improve".

Of course. You, dear reader, know what happened next. When we criticised the work of the women they would start crying and run to the toilets to sob their woes away. We were called "bullies" and we were "sexist" and we "hated women". When, in reality, we were just doing our jobs and we wanted the highest quality product so we would get to KEEP our jobs.

And, by now, you know what is coming next. Yes, that's right. We were told "go easy on the women" just like we were told to "go easy on the girls" when we were 6 playing "red rover cross over". I protested to my management vigorously but to no avail. At Christmas 1989 a manager finally admitted to me that there were "women quotas". This was in total contradiction with two of the founding principles of IBM:

  1. Respect for the individual
  2. Pay for performance.

In 1980 I told this manager that I would be leaving the IBM International Development Centre and leaving the software development business that I had spent 8 years of my life mastering. I was the youngest system architect in IBM Australia and here I was saying that I was going to leave that behind. He asked me why I might consider leaving behind skills that stood me in good stead for the remainder of my life.

I told him: "The development centre is going to be shut down and all these jobs are going to go away. When that happens? All these people will be out looking for a job. There are not that many spare jobs out there in IT in Sydney. So when that happens? I do not want to be one of them. I want to go and work where my compensation, my reward, is tied more directly to my efforts and where women can not spoil what my efforts to support my family. That means IBM Marketing."

I told him that I thought the development centre had about 5 years before it would be shut down. I was out by a year. It was wound right back inside 6 years and 500 of my old colleagues lost their jobs in the 92-95 period. In late 93 the unemployment rate among IT people in my area was 25%. The big firms were also laying off IT people. It was impossible to get a job in that area in those days. Many of my friends lost their houses. Pretty much every one of my old colleagues who lost their houses had a wife and children.

3J. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

So many people like to say "Well, we are only firing men. It does not matter. They are just men." No one seems to stop and think that 90%+ of the men who were fired had a wife and children and that firing the man brought hardship on the wife and children too. That seems to be conveniently lost in the conversation.

So, the "go easy on the girls" attitude that was prevalent on the playgrounds that I played on as a 6 year old in 1970 had morphed into "go easy on the women" in one of the worlds leading companies in one of their International Development Centres in 1989. And the result was the collapse in quality of the products and the closing down of the development centre which cost 500 jobs, AUD50 MILLION in foreign income for development fees, cost many men and their families their homes and generated a whole bunch of resentment towards the women software developers.

For the want to "protecting the delicate egos of a few fragile, china doll women" AUD50 MILLION in foreign income was foregone. I sure hope that the women whose husbands lost their jobs and their houses felt great about how "go easy on the women" was put in front of feeding her children and putting a roof over their heads. Which is exactly what happened.

People today laugh about how unreliable software is. Bank glitches are routine. Systems being down are routine. Is there anyone in the western world who does not know how buggy and how unreliable most software is now? Ask yourself dear reader, have you had direct experience of poor quality software that crashes and loses what you were doing? Have you had direct experience of "the ATM is down" or "the computer for processing your credit card is down"? Well? Have you?

Did you ever wonder why it is that the software is so buggy, so bad, so fragile? It is so that we can protect the delicate egos of the oh so fragile "equal women" who can "do anything a man can heels.....dancing backwards". That is why we have such buggy software.

It has often been said: "If we built aeroplanes like we build software we would have to create an island in the middle of the Atlantic so that jumbo jets could land to reboot their computer systems half way."

It has also often been said: "If we built buildings like we build software then buildings would spontaneously fall down after about 10 years."

The quality of software is a disgrace when compared to the quality of buildings or aeroplanes. And the cause of that vast difference in quality is very simple. Women are widely present in software development and they are all but absent from the design and construction of aeroplanes and buildings.

Dear reader, think about it this way. When you get on an aeroplane or when you are on the 50th story of a building would you like it to be designed or constructed by people who, if you criticise their poor quality of work, go running to the bathroom crying and then demand from the "boss" that the "nasty men go easy on them" and stop criticising poor quality work?

3K. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

Well? Do you? Would you want to risk your life using a product where the designer or constructor was "gone easy on" because she was such a china doll with such a fragile ego? Or when it was your life at risk would you like your aeroplane or your building to be designed and constructed by people who took the attitude:

"The most important aspect of this product is quality meaning reliability and safety. We will not compromise the quality of this product. If you can not stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

You know. It's funny. When you ask women if they would like to put their life at risk so that some woman who was not competent could have a job she didn't deserve the women say "no". They want their aeroplanes and buildings to be safe. But when there is no ones life at risk? The women demand that "the nasty men go easy on the women".

Now. There is an angle of this I want to be clear about. What do you, dear reader, think the men think about "quota women" and what do you think men think about "equal pay for less work" rather than "pay for performance"? What do you, dear reader, think men make of being systemically handicapped so as to bring their income down to the levels of women who are incompetent to do the job they are being paid for?

If you guessed that men resent this then you would be correct. But what happens if a man speaks out? He is a "woman hater" and he is attacked and all efforts are made to ruin his life. In my video series Women In the Workplace I talk in detail about how I have seen women attack men who speak out.

Women constantly talk about "men must respect women". Well? Respect is a two way street. Women have not treated me with even the most basic of respect over my entire lifetime. For a start women do not respect freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

How many times have you heard "do not speak like that in front of a lady"? Well? That is abrogation of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech. 

How many times have you seen a woman call a man "sexist" for saying something she disagrees with? How many times have you seen a woman start gossip or tell lies about a man who has said something she disagrees with? We all know that women do these things commonly.

Every time a woman attacks a man rather than debate the idea expressed. Every time a woman goes around behind a mans back rather than debate the idea expressed. She is dis-respecting the man. And that happens every day in the west.

3L. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

When women complain to me "you have to respect women" I say "respect is a two way street and women do not respect me". The women try on "if you respect women first  then maybe women will show you respect". Nope. I have shown due respect to women all my life. In return they have lied to me and now they have openly hated on me.

Western women are not worthy of my respect and they shall not be getting any respect from me for the remainder of my lifetime. I might feign respect so as to do business with them. But in my heart? I will never, ever, ever again respect any western women with just one exception. And old friend of mine who has earned and retained my respect for nearly 30 years now. 

If western women have a problem with me refusing to show them any respect? They can "suck it up". I cover his issue in another essay called An Essay on Lack of Respect Shown By Western Women. If women wanted my respect? They would have earned it. If women wanted my respect? They would have shown me the respect I have earned across my lifetime.

The next two stories I would like to relate are related in other works I have produced but they are worthy of repeating here for those who have not read those other works.

When my former son Joshua John Nolan was about 9 months old his older sister, Josephine Marguerite Nolan, was 2 years and 9 months old. Josephine had taken to the habit of dragging Joshua around by the head. Joshua would shriek his displeasure at this and Josephine would laugh and cackle and keep dragging him around like a rag doll.

My wife Jennifer asked me what she thought we should do about this new habit. I told her to leave the children alone. I told her that Joshua had to learn to look after himself. He was not being harmed or injured, he was just being inconvenienced and when he learned to stand up for himself he would.

This went on for a few weeks. Then one Saturday afternoon I was sitting in my rocking chair and reading my newspaper keeping one eye on the children playing in front of me. Out of the corner of my eye I saw Joshua start to pull himself up on Josephine's shirt front. I stopped reading my newspaper and looked on with some interest as Joshua had never stood up before by himself. This might be one of his first efforts at standing up and I wanted to see it.


3M. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

Anyway. Once he had managed to pull himself up on Josephine's shirt front and got to his full height he swung his little head back and then forward and head butted Josephine with the top of his head right on her nose! Of course Josephine immediately pushed Joshua away and started screaming. I think she was screaming more from the indignity of being head butted by her little brother then the pain itself. It just took her as a shock. Joshua, for his part, was now sitting on the floor laughing his little head off. I have rarely seen a little baby cackle like that. He knew what he had done and he thought it was very funny.

Just then Jennifer comes running into the room to see what all the noise is about. She asks me what happened and I explained to her what had happened. She asked me what she thought we should do about Joshua head butting Josephine. I told her I was surprised at the question because the answer was obviously nothing. He had finally "stood up for himself" and this is as it should be.

After settling down a bit Josephine came to cuddle up on my lap and talk about what had happened. She complained "Daddy, did you see, Joshua hit me!" I could see she was about to try and claim victim status.

I said to her words to the effect, remembering she was 2 years old at the time:

"Sweetie, you have been annoying Joshua dragging him around like a doll. You know that he did not like that but you did that anyway. Sooner or later he was going to hit you for annoying him.

Today you have learned a lesson. If you annoy your little brother and he tells you to stop and you do not stop then he is going to hit you. And so he should.

You have to learn to play with your little brother and be nice to him. He is only a baby. You have to lean not to annoy him. You have to learn how to get along with him. Ok?"

So there you have it. There are two things to take away from this story.

  • À nine month old baby boy can very easily put a little girl two years his elder in her place. Naturally Josephine was much bigger and much more mobile that Joshua. But he head butted her right on the nose and he made his message clear.

    "You annoy me past my tolerance and I will hit you to tell you where the boundary is."  

    So much for "boys are equal to girls" and "women are equal to men", right! LOL!!
  • Little girls have to learn that if they provoke a boy past his tolerance that it is perfectly ok for the boy to hit the girl to show the girl where the boundary is. A boundary where, if she crosses over, she can expect some form of violent retaliation to push her back over the personal boundary that the boy is entitled to as his own space, be that physical, emotional, or psychological. It is normal and natural and even a 9 month old baby boy knows he has the right to self defense.
3N. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

So as you can tell, dear reader, when I stopped to think about how did I want to raise my children with respect to "boys never hit girls" I decided that I would not teach my son what I was taught by my father. I had decided my father had done me a dis-service on that point and I decided I would teach my son that if a girl hits him  then he hits her right back. Joshua was taught this from the time he was 9 months old and I am sure he still has that view of the world today. Hopefully the manginas have not gotten to him with the "never hit girls nonsense".

The second story I want to relate about Joshua and the innate intelligence of little boys which seems to be completely missing from adult women and men is this one.

For reasons you can read about in my free book How to Be a Good Wife our dog Phoebe was on a near starvation diet so that she would lose weight. She was a little terrier, colley cross so she was a small dog. At the time of this incident Joshua was less than 2 years old. I think he was about 18 to 20 month old.

One day I was taking care of the children and I heard Joshua scream out on the back patio where Phoebe had her basket. I ran out to investigate what had happened to Joshua. When I arrived at the scene Phoebe was looking as guilty as a dog can look. So I asked Joshua what had happened.

Joshua pointed to Phoebe and said "Dog bit me!"

I could see from his body language that he was trying to say that the dog bit him for no reason. So I turned to Phoebe and growled at her a little bit and asked her "Phoebe, did you bite Joshua"?

She lowered her ears and put her tail between her legs and sulked. It was very clear she had bitten Joshua and she knew she might be in trouble for doing so. She was clearly very anxious about the situation. But Phoebe was about 7 or 8 years old at this time and she had never bitten anyone. It was clear that something had provoked her and the only witness I had who could talk was Joshua. So I decided to put him to the test.

I said in a very stern voice:

"Joshua, Phoebe has never bitten anyone. I think you did something to her. Now, if you lie to me? I will spank you. I want you to tell me. Did you do anything to Phoebe to make her bite you?"

Joshua immediately hung his head and said:

"Yes, daddy, I was eating her food."

So I said to Joshua. "Ok, I understand. Do you know that if you take her food she might bite you? And if she does it is your fault?"

And he confirmed he knew this. So I told him to go in to the house and get himself an apple to eat. I told him that Phoebe is sick and because she is sick she is very hungry. I told him never to take Phoebes food again because if she did she might bite him again. He got up all smiles and ran back into the house to get his apple.

3O. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

Phoebe, in the meantime, had witnessed this conversation and realised that she was not in trouble. Once Joshua had gone I patted her on the head and told her everything was ok. Her ears pricked up and she wagged her tail and she was obviously very relieved that she was not in trouble. I went inside and brought out some more of her dog biscuits and gave them to her one at a time while patting her on the head and stroking her stomach as she so liked. I wanted to her to understand that I knew she had bitten the child because he was stealing her food and that she had done nothing wrong and was being compensated for her loss of her food and given some love and affection. This was important for her as she was obviously distressed at the situation.

Now. What lessons might adult men and women learn from this interaction from a boy less than 2 and a dog that they seem not to be able to learn for themselves?

  1. If you provoke a dog by stealing its food when it is very hungry it might bite you.
  2. If the dog bites you under these conditions the dog is not at fault, the person stealing the dogs food is at fault.
  3. The person who is so hungry that dog biscuits look like something that might be nice to eat could probably do with some food of his own.
  4. The dog that was caused injury, harm or loss, being the stealing of the very food she needs, should be compensated and shown a little love and affection, some care and concern, so that she understands that biting the boy was not "wrong" in any way, shape or form.
  5. The dog needs to be told that biting the boy was "ok" in that he had crossed the boundary of taking her food and a little nip on the hand was her best avenue of stopping him from doing that. (The nip on the hand was so slight it did not even leave a mark so she was very gentle about it.)

Those are the lessons that are there to be learned from this little boy and this little dog. But let us look at what happens in the western world. A woman can steal a mans children, steal his house, steal his car, stealing a large portion of his future income, slander him, call him names to all and sundry, destroy his life in every meaning of the word. And if he so much as even TALKS about what she is doing he will be further hated on and victimised.

3P. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

In short, a man will be treated far worse than your average house pet of a dog. Indeed a man will be treated far worse than your average stray dog in the street.

If that same woman were to walk down the street and see a stray dog and pick up a stick and corner the dog and start beating it with a stick? She could go to jail for "animal cruelty". But no matter how much criminal victimisation she inflicts on a man, even if she drives him to suicide, she will not be punished in any meaningful way.

And if you do not believe me on this point then I recommend you read the story of Christopher Mackney. Christopher Mackney was one more man who killed himself being driven to suicide by a cruel and vicious wife, Dina Mckney, using the criminals in the family courts to do her dirty work. He wrote a suicide letter right before he killed himself. The suicide letter made it on to the web in some men's rights groups as well as on Henry Makows web site.

That would be the end of it you would think, right? She has driven the man TO DEATH by taking from him everything he loved and lived for. She destroyed his life, his hopes, his dreams so completely and utterly that he killed himself. What else could she do to his memory? Well she actually hired lawyers to get about 30 sites to TAKE DOWN HIS SUICIDE NOTE.

Yes, you read that correctly. Having CRIMINALLY VICTIMISED THE MAN TO DEATH she dis-honoured his memory by trying to suppress HIS SUICIDE NOTE. I found this story and ran with it on Crimes Against Fathers. We also posted it to 4chan and many other places. The CAF entry is on the front page of google results for Dina Mackney and I will not be removing that entry in this lifetime.

So here is a question for you, dear reader. If a boy less than 2 years old can figure out that if you steal the food from a dog that is hungry she might bite you and that is his fault and not the dogs fault. Why is it that adult men and women can not figure out that if you steal a mans children, steal his house, steal his future income, endlessly criminally victimise him and lie about him and destroy his life as he knows it as much as is possible HE MIGHT REACT VIOLENTLY?

Really? I would really like some people who read this and think about this question to answer me why they can't figure out what a boy less than 2 can figure out.

3Q. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

And the efforts to hate on men who even SPEAK about the criminal victimisation they are suffering by men so close as THEIR OWN BROTHERS tells you just how pervasive the man hatred in society is today.

For example. When my children were kidnapped and being abused and my mother was being abused by the criminals in the Toal family my own brother, Christopher, said to my face "I do not want to discuss these issues with you". So I let him be.

When it came time for my mothers funeral I refused to go because my cowardly father, John Thomas Nolan, had decided he was going to dis-honour the memory of her life by inviting the criminal Toal family, the very people who abused her, to her funeral. When I got the email informing me of my mothers death I returned the email to Christopher informing him that I was going to keep my word I had given my father and that I had no intention of attending my mothers funeral.

Christopher commented that "If I wanted to exempt myself from the love of my family that was my choice."

To which I replied: "Oh, you mean the love of my family such that when my children were kidnapped and abused my so called "loving family" did not even wish to discuss the issue with me let alone offer me support? You mean THAT "loving family".

Christopher. The next time you choose to be so sanctimonious I recommend you get to firmer ground before you open your mouth."

Of course I have never heard from any member of my "loving family" since and that is perfectly ok with me.  If a "loving family" is one that stand by and remains silent as your children are kidnapped and abused and your house is stolen then I truly wish nothing to do with such people.

3R. The Damage "Never Hit A Woman" Causes

I have no intention of attending the funeral of my cowardly father, John Thomas Nolan, and he knows that full well.  He can invite the criminal Toal family to his funeral. Including Bill Toal who is now a suspected Paedophile for sexual assault against his daughter Suzanne. An accusation that Suzanne has not denied she made for nearly two years.

They can go along in their lives without any help from me, thank you very much. If anyone wants to take a look at the open letter I wrote on the event of my mothers death you are most welcome to read it on this link.

This is how men are treated when their very children are kidnapped and abused. And yet we have this mantra is society "it is NEVER ok to hit a woman"?

Really? Not even when she kidnaps your children, steals your house, slanders you, perjures herself in lying about you, steals your future income and destroys your life as you know it? Not even THEN it is ok to hit a woman? Really?

Whereas, in return, these "equal women" will slap you or kick you or bite you if you say something that is true that they don't like? They will slander you and lie about you and try and get you attacked by other people just because they don't like you speaking the truth?



And people ask me why I left the west and do not want to live there any more? When a man like me can be treated so poorly by his own father and brothers? You think I would want to LIVE among people like that?

Why? Why would I want to live among people like that?

4A. Words of Wisdom from Fav#1

In this next section I want to share some words of wisdom from the woman I refer to as my fav#1 online. You can read more about her in my book How to Be a Good Wife on this link.

In 2010 we had some serious discussions about a possible future. One time we were together she was tired and irritable and she had to get up early the next day to travel. So she was not in the best of moods. As happens she snapped at me.

At the time I was learning to become "alpha" and so I decided that this was a good time to test our my "alpha training wheels" in dealing with a woman snapping at me like that. I will copy the excerpt from a previous book so that I get the quote more accurate. The conversation when like this.

Peter: "I have told you once before. Speaking angrily to me like that is totally unacceptable. I won’t tolerate it. You have to apologise right now and never do that again."

For me? That was the most stern I had ever spoken to a woman in my life. I thought I had done a pretty good job of being "tough" on her. I will never forget her response. A look of hysteria came over her face and she burst out laughing. She just burst out laughing! She said:

Sue1: "Peter. Do you think THAT is going to make me behave? No. It won’t. A man has to put his woman in her place. When she is angry to him like that? He needs to stomp on her and put her down so that she will not try doing that again for a long, long time. If he does not do that? She will fight him all day every day. She will make his life miserable until he learns to put her in her place. Do you not know this?"

Peter: "Sue1. I have told you. I grew up in a house with three boys. The only woman in the house was my mum. Tell me, how do you think I would have gone if I tried to ‘stomp on my mother’ and ‘put her in her place’?"

Sue1 (She looked at me with a deepening frown and concern, a very worried look) : "Hmmm".I can see that you and I are going to fight a lot when we are married."

Because she was already tired and out of sorts that night I decided to discuss these topics with her later. Over the next few months we talked about this a lot. I wanted to find out her views and how things worked in her culture since I was seriously considering her as a possible wife.

4B. Words of Wisdom from Fav#1

When I told her that I had been brought up with the mantra "boys must never hit girls" and "men must never hit women" she was shocked and aghast. She said "the very notion of saying a man should never hit a woman is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard".

To paraphrase some of our conversations these are some of the things she said to me.

Sue1. "When your daughter was little, did she ever deliberately break the rules you had set down for her so as to be spanked? Did she ever misbehave deliberately knowing she was going to be spanked?"

I said sure, she did it a lot, even up to the time I left the house when she was 16.

Sue1. "That is what I would expect. It is normal. I did the same. My girlfriends did the same. For little girls their father is a very important figure. He is the symbol of strength and also the symbol of all the good things that come into the house. Our food, our clothes, our toys. These are things that are important to little girls and we see they call come from our fathers, not our mothers.

We see our fathers as our protectors and our providers. We see our mothers go to our fathers when they need protection or need something. We see that we will be in that position one day.

So this view of protection and provision we have in our minds is very important to us as little girls. But it is normal for us to worry if this will always be so. Little girls worry "will my daddy always be here for me"? Especially when we see other little girls who do not have a father.

When we worry we get insecure and we lose the sense of protection and the sense of strength about our fathers. So we are naughty to the point we know our fathers will spank us. Sure, it hurts a little bit but not much. That is no the point.

The point is that by being spanked we feel our fathers strength. We feel he can protect us and provide for us. It is very reassuring. And so we cry a little and we pretend like we are really hurt. Then we ask to cuddle up to our fathers so we can feel loved and protected. We do this over and over again as little girls because we need the re-assurance.

4C. Words of Wisdom from Fav#1

And so it is with us as women.. Sometimes we get worried "will our man always love us, will he always be here for us"? And so we are "naughty" to the point where he has to do something about it. We are looking to be spanked or disciplined in some way like a little girl but we can't possibly tell our husbands this is what we are looking for. He is supposed to know. In the Ukraine all men know this is what we do.

So our man is supposed to spank us or hit us a little bit, just enough to make it all realistic for us, and then we cry a little bit and then we cuddle up again and we feel safe and secure knowing our man loves us. We know he is big enough and powerful enough to protect us and provide for us.

I am the same. You can be sure that when we are married I will be naughty and I will make you spank me. And I will not only need it, I will enjoy it. You have to learn how to do this or I will fight you all the time when we are married."

There is a lot of wisdom in her words. When we talked over these topics I recalled how my daughter, Josephine, was wilful to the point of blatant disobedience. One of the areas she was most disobedient around was the area of bed time. She would simply refuse to go to bed to the point she had to be grounded for a week and then spanked and carried to her room and put into bed. She would then ask if we could cuddle up on her bed and talk which we would. She always seemed to be much better after these episodes even though she would be grounded for a week or so afterwards.

Of course, because my mother never told me this is how little girls were and that it was normal and natural I took these events to be very negative. If my mother or my wife had told me the same thing that Sue1 had told me as I was raising my daughter I would have known to spank her sooner and not ground her because I would have known what she needed.

Since I did not know what she needed because no woman was generous enough to tell me these confrontations were quite distressing for me. No father likes to spank his children but every father knows it has to be done when they child is blatantly disobedient. A level of discipline is required to be maintained in the household.

Further, Sue1 talked about how, if a man does not show his strength and power over his woman on some sort of regular basis she will eventually come to worry if he can protect her and provide for her. She will eventually lose all respect for him.

4D. Words of Wisdom from Fav#1

She will fight him and provoke him until he responds. If he never responds she will divorce him and try and find a man who will respond to her provocations because she has this inherent need to feel her mans strength. I was very surprised at how she described all this because the sort of behaviour she was describing that women do and the results if they are not disciplined in some way, like little girls are, so closely matched the behaviour of Jennifer.

This sort of thing is substantiated in new studies and experiences being released about so called "violent husbands". In the vast majority of cases the "violent husband" has been provoked into defending himself by a violent woman. She lies and claims that the man is "violent" and he is sent off to "anger management therapy" where he is told he is the cause of all the problems and that he must avoid responding to any provocation by the woman at all.

In some of these cases the man is then "super docile" and does as he is told he "should do" which is to avoid any response at all to any provocation at all. In some of these cases the women, quite literally, attack the man violently because they are trying to get a response out of him. They complain "he is like a robot, he does not respond to anything". These women are starting to realise that the lie of "there is no reason to hit a woman, every" is destroying their ability to bond with their man and feel his strength and power and know that he can "protect and provide".

If you, dear reader, bother to read the articles of men in the man-o-sphere you will find that the name for this sort of behaviour is called "shit-testing". The women make up "tests" for the men to "pass". They will irritate the men and provoke the men until the men respond in the way they desire.

There are a lot of men writing about women in the man-o-sphere now and how to deal with women on the basis of evolutionary psychology.  This is where the while "Pick Up Artist" industry has come from.

Since women are being far more difficult to deal with than they were in times past, and since men communicating with other men has become much easier, men have started something of a "nuclear arms race" with women around the topic of evolutionary psychology. Of course, there can only be one winner in such a situation and that will be the men. What we are seeing is the willingness of men to lie to women to get what they want from women as much as women have lied to men to get what they want from men.

4E. Words of Wisdom from Fav#1

In the past men have warned women of the men who are "players" and "liars". But since women have made it so clear that they are willing to lie to men, even lie in court to steal from men women have brought upon themselves the result that men are starting to take the position that men lying to women is perfectly ok. This can only leave women as the losers and that is what is going to happen.

This all leads us back to the whole question of "what damage does it do to say that a man must never hit a woman no matter what the woman does"?

As fav#1 so wisely pointed out. Many women will provoke a man until such time that he reacts to her provocations. Just like Jennifer, she will not stop just because the man asks her to please stop as I did with her many times. The woman will provoke the man until he responds in some way or another.

In my case the provocations that Jennifer subjected me to were so incessant that even though I spent large amounts of time away from home she would find ways to irritate me and make life difficult for me. That this lead to me losing my temper with her in 2002 at the age of 38, 26 years after the last time I lost my temper as a boy of 12, shows just how incessant such provocation can be. That a man can live for 26 years without once losing his temper but be provoked by his wife to lose his temper? This is what women are like. A woman who knows her husband so well that she knows just what buttons to press, just what hurtful comments to make, just how to couch rejections so as to provoke him. This is what men face today.

In the face that there is nothing that the man can say and nothing that the man can do in the western world the only option left is to divorce the woman and break up the family. This is, of course, exactly what the criminals in government want because then they get to impoverish the man and make sure he is never a threat to their hegemony.

They get the woman hooked on "the state as husband" and they get to increase the level of communism and welfare state intrusion into the lives of the people. Men are routinely jailed for the bogus crime of "not paying child support" and other nonsense.

4F. Words of Wisdom from Fav#1

The whole idea of "there is never any reason to hit a woman" while there is no other workable alternative offered to deal with the atrocious behaviour of western women is a path to the destruction of the family and the vastly increased intrusion of the state into the lives of the people.

If you, dear reader, take my example as a fairly standard example that is well documented in How to Be a Good Wife? You will see how I even went to the extent of taking Jennifer to marriage counselling and the Landmark Forum three times over so as to propose to her that she start acting like a decent human being towards me. This was all to no avail. If a woman wanted to be cruel and abusive to a man then she has carte blanch to so in the west today. There is no social condemnation of a woman in the west no matter how badly she behaves towards men. Therefore there is nothing left to do but to divorce such women with all the social ills that come with a divorce.

The governments of the day in the west have created a situation that is quite hopeless and where it is absolutely a "no win" situation for a man to get married. And so the men are not marrying. Women are just going ahead and popping out children to any thug they can find to impregnate them and the bill is sent to the men who are not married and did not want children and did not want to get involved in the whole disaster area called marriage anyway.

The other people who are paying for a lot of these "heroic single mothers" who went and deliberately got themselves pregnant by some bad boy thug are the women who are "strong and empowered" and are now out in the workplace.

I wonder how working women like paying taxes for single mothers sitting at home with their cigarettes, alcohol and and drugs with their endless string of "thug boyfriends".

I am sure we will be hearing from these women "complaining" how it should only be men who should have to pay for single mothers for whatever reason these women will come up with.


5A. The Hypocrisy of "Domestic Violence"

Because this essay was inspired by the comment Mark McMurtrie made to me it is entirely appropriate for me to bring up a situation that affects both many members of the Original People and many members of the "newbie" people in Australia.

This situation applies around the anglo world but let us specifically talk about the New South Wales Police in Australia.

In 1997 My then wife, Jennifer, made a false claim to the local police that she was "fearful" of me. As a result I was assaulted, badly injured and incarcerated by the local police. I was put into a 6 feet by 3 feet cell with a man who had blood all over him. He could have had hepatitis. He could have had aids. He could have had any number of diseases.

The assault was launched on me from behind by one of the gorillas masquerading as a police officer. This was after I had agreed with both officers that I was more than willing to come down to the station and make a statement that Jennifer had lied to them peacefully and under my own steam.

I told both officers that they were in big trouble for assaulting me. They claimed to be under orders. So when I got myself out of my cell I demanded to see the station chief. The station chief told me that his officers were blameless and that he had personally put them under orders to arrest me using the ELEMENT OF SURPRISE AND MASSIVE FORCE to ensure they were not injured in the arrest.

He told me, to my face, that the officers were under orders to arrest me before they left the station meaning it did not matter what I said or what they found. They had their orders based solely on the FALSE claim of Jennifer that she was "fearful" of me.

I asked the station chief why he would issue such orders. He told me that this was now the legislation passed by parliament and that if I did not believe this then I should hire a lawyer and ask him. These were in the days before the internet was widely used and legislation was not widely available.

So I did hire a lawyer because the process was that we had to go to court and Jennifer had to repudiate her false allegation under oath before a magistrate to strike the unlawful arrest from any public record. The magistrate questioned Jennifer and my lawyer at length to make sure that Jennifer was not "covering up" for me. Both the lawyer and Jennifer testified that she was now telling the truth and that the allegation was the lie, which was the truth.

So, in 2008, when I was getting divorced. I asked my lawyer for divorce, Justin Dowd, to give me a copy of this legislation because I could not find it on the NSW Parliament web site. Justin Dowd charged me some AUD500 to "research" this piece of legislation.

When he asked me what I was going to do with this legislation that allegedly says that police officers are REQUIRED to use THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE AND MASSIVE FORCE in arresting men based on a woman claiming to be "fearful" of a man alone I told him I was going to paste it on my web site.

5B. The Hypocrisy of "Domestic Violence"

He then refused to give me a copy of this legislation. So I asked him to refund my money, which he duly did. You, dear reader, might want to ask yourself why it might be that a man who went on to be the PRESIDENT OF THE NSW LAW SOCIETY would refused to hand over a claimed piece of legislation that is used to make TWENTY TWO THOUSAND ARRESTS PER YEAR.

You can read about Justin Dowd on this link.

You can read how he tried to deny the existence of common law on this link.

You can read about how Catherine Burn, the Deputy Commission of New South Wales Police could not present this legislation to me either on this link.

You, dear reader, might want to ask why it is that the DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE can not produce a copy of legislation  that is used to make TWENTY TWO THOUSAND ARRESTS PER YEAR.

Those would be very good questions to ask.

But there is another twist to this. Every year the man hating criminals in the New South Wales Police make a big deal of the WHITE RIBBON CAMPAIGN and they go on record and make a big fuss about TAKING AN OATH NEVER TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

So let me make this very clear.

This bunch of scumbag criminals who call themselves the New South Wales Police are SUCH SCUMBAG CRIMINALS that on one hand they make 22,000 arrests, 80% of whom are men, every year, and they use MASSIVE FORCE AND THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE against the men.

This often leads to the sort of serious injuries I suffered. And this perfectly ok by these scumbag criminals calling themselves "the New South Wales Police" while at the SAME TIME these scumbag criminals proudly pose for photographs that say "take the oath to never use violence against women".


And women who do not denounce such lies and hypocrisy I denounce as DEEPLY EVIL PEOPLE.

This situation affect Mark McMurtrie and the Original People because many tens of thousands of Original Men live in New South Wales.  The Original Men are getting VIOLENTLY ASSAULTED by the criminal scumbags calling themselves "the New South Wales Police" for all manner of false allegations or simply no reason at all. And yet these same criminal scumbags promote "no violence against women ever".


5C. The Hypocrisy of "Domestic Violence"

Well? I wonder how Original Men feel about the idea of "no violence against women ever" while they are being assaulted and injured by these criminal scumbags? Do Original Men feel that "real men never hit women" is perfectly ok while at the same time "real men bash the shit out of Original Men with complete impunity"?

If you are an Original Man? Feel free to comment on the essay and share your opinion about the idea that it is perfectly ok for cops to bash the shit out of you but it is NEVER ok for cops to hit a woman.

There are no people I despise, no people I am more determined to deal with most harshly, to the full extent of the law, than the criminal scumbags who called themselves "Police Officers" in Australia and Ireland. They are paid their salaries to "protect and serve" the people who pay their salaries. And yet they have been WILLING CRIMINAL SCUMBAGS who will go in to a mans house and CRIMINALLY ASSAULT HIM AND INJURE HIM merely because they were told to.

The criminal scumbags called "Police Officers" in Australia are in for a very bad time once we get to dealing with them properly. This is for sure and for certain. I will not "forgive and forget" these disgusting, subhuman parasites who took their money for oppressing and criminally victimising their fellow Australians.

Further, their refusal to answer my call to clean out the criminals among themselves is a total, complete and utter disgrace from which they and their families will never recover. I will see to it.

But for the purposes of this essay it is enough to point out that the people of New South Wales are so hypocritical on the point of "equality" that they openly support and advocate the used of MASSIVE FORCE using the ELEMENT OF SURPRISE against MEN who are FALSELY ACCUSED OF MAKING A WOMAN "FEARFUL" while that the same time they claim "NO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN EVER".

And then these women wonder why the young men of today are becoming hyperviolent? Really? Women are so stupid they can not figure that out EVEN WHEN A MAN TELLS THEM?

The stupidity of western women that I have seen presented over the last 6 years has beggared my belief. And when I call them stupid for not listening to the fact of the matter they claim they are just as smart as men and claim I am a "woman hater" for calling them stupid.

Well? As I pointed out above. My former son Joshua, at less than two years of age, knew and understood that if he took the dogs food of her while she was hungry that she might bite him and that it was not the dogs fault for retaliating to the provocation.

5D. The Hypocrisy of "Domestic Violence"

My former daughter Josephine, at two years and none months, was smart enough to figure out that if she tormented her little brother and she persisted past his tolerance he would hit her (or head butt her as was the case) and it was HER FAULT that he did this and that she was to "play nice with her little brother" and she was not to torment him beyond his tolerance.

And yet, ADULT WOMEN in Australia claim to be SO STUPID that they can not figure these things out for themselves.

And WORSE. The VAST MAJORITY OF MEN in Australia are SO STUPID that they think "no violence against women ever" is some how a good idea when my fav#1 and many other women will tell them "that is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard of".

Now. Men in the west who read this essay have a decision to make.
  1. Are you going to continue to take the man-hating, sexist, discriminatory, bigoted position against OTHER MEN that violence against women is NEVER justified while openly taking the position that violence against men is COMMONLY JUSTIFIED?
  2. Are you going to continue to take the WOMAN-HATING, sexist, discriminatory , bigoted position AGAINST WOMEN and claim that they are SO STUPID they can not figure out when to stop provoking a man? That they are SO WEAK AND PUNY AND FRAGILE that they are china dolls who can not stand some push back from a man they are provoking?

    Because to say "no violence against women ever" is also very demeaning and insulting for women. It beggars belief that women are SO STUPID that they do not realise they are being issued a deadly insult every time someone says "no violence against women ever". That is a deadly insult because it is the implicit claim that women are VASTLY INFERIOR to men and are to be put on the same level as CHILDREN for their "protection".

Further. By saying "no violence against women ever" while not giving men any other mechanisms or tools by which to deal with violent, aggressive, nagging, hateful women men are GUARANTEEING that more women will be killed violently as the men who do snap and lose their temper know that they might as well kill the woman because killing her is not going to be any worse on him than simply hitting her. His life is effectively over should he hit a woman in the west.

The "no violence against women" mantra is extremely detrimental to women. Far more so than most men have bothered to ever consider.

5. Summary

What are the major ideas that you might wish to take away from this short essay? They can be summarised as follows:

  • To say "no violence against women ever" while simultaneously advocating the use of violence against men is man-hating, sexist, discriminatory and bigoted against MEN.
  • To say "no violence against women ever" while simultaneously advocating the use of violence against men is man-hating, sexist, discriminatory and bigoted against WOMEN. It is also insulting and demeaning against women because it clearly communicates that women are inferior to men.
  • Even as small boys we were able to understand the mantra of "go easy on the girls" spoiled our games and created resentment of girls by boys.
  • When it came to the professional world the mantra of "go easy on the girls" leads to resentment of women by men. It also leads to failure of businesses areas or business initiatives because the men start to fall off in their dedication and commitment to the work because "respect for the individual" and "pay for performance" is no longer being observed.
  • A little girl who is less than three years old can understand that she needs to "play nice with her little brother" yet grown women AND MEN in the west have not learned the same lesson. Think about that.
  • A little boy who is less than two years old can understand that if he steals the food off a dog and the dog bites him at the provocation that the dog is not at fault but that he is at fault. And yet grown women AND MEN in the west have not learned the same lesson. Think about that.
  • By criminalising the normal low level of "violence" in intimate relationships the Illuminati is promoting divorce and the social ills that go with it because men have no tools by which to deal with violent, aggressive, cruel, vindictive, nagging or otherwise difficult to deal with women.
  •  By criminalising the normal low level of "violence" in intimate relationships the Illuminati is promoting higher levels of severe, even deadly, violence because the "in for a penny in for a pound" mentality comes into play. The man might as well kill the woman because his life is over anyway. 

I, for one, denounce this idea that women need some sort of "special protection" from men via such mantras as "no violence against women ever". The mantra of "no violence against women ever" is in direct contradiction to what women have claimed they wanted for the last 100 years. "Equality".

Now, sure, western women truly are such liars and hypocrites that they will spend 100 years shouting as loudly as possible that they want "equality" while simultaneously demanding "no violence against women ever" and never calling for "equal punishment for equal crime".

In my 50 years I have come to learn that there is no end to the lies and the hypocrisy that western women will present to men. That is the choice of western women. They choose to be liars and hypocrites in the 99.9% majority and they are perfectly entitled to that choice.

However, MEN, who go along with these lies, who go along with this hypocrisy? These men are man-haters and female idolatrors and they deserve absolutely no respect. Further, they deserve all the criminal victimisation heaped on them by the very women they know to be liars and hypocrites.

I have absolutely no sympathy for any man who take the position of "no violence against women ever" who is then screwed over in the family courts and has his life destroyed by the very woman he put on a pedestal.

And my wife Jennifer used to criticse me:

"You put women on a pedestal. They are not all like your mother you know."

She said that many times. I just did not know she was talking about herself.

The "no violence against women" mantra is bad for women, bad for men, bad for children, and bad for the social interactions of people because it will inevitably lead to more violence because resentment will build by men towards women for unresolved slights by women against men. This can be understood by children. It is an indictment that it can not be understood by adults in the west. 


6. Sales

I hope that you liked this essay on this topic. If you do then feel free to donate some bitcoins or to Buy Me Some Charity.

Feel free to pass this essay along to other men and let them read through this so that they too get the idea of what we are talking about.

As always? You are invited to buy my books and you are invited to buy my emailer program if you want a very handy mass email program for your business. This is the emailer I use myself in my business.

Best Regards

If you would like to be removed from this list please just reply with unsubscribe in the text.
If you would like to have a friend subscribe please suggest they write to

Previous Previous
Next Next
ForumForumPeter Andrew No...Peter Andrew No...PAN Parent ForumPAN Parent ForumPAN Videos and ...PAN Videos and ...E007 - An Essay on Societal Programming of No Violence Against WomenE007 - An Essay on Societal Programming of No Violence Against Women