Review of   Dale Spender   Women of Ideas.   (And what men have done to them).

'From Aphra Behn to Adrienne Rich'.   First published 1982.

---

Disappointingly, all her work looks like controlled opposition, manipulated by the usual quasi-eternal suspects. Nothing very helpful resulted for British or Australian people, though gains in technology obscure this.
      I've aimed at a thoroughly 'revisionist' review, which many readers will never have been exposed to; I hope they will have th courage to face the facts, even in the face of Jewish strangleholds on knowledge.
      The whole subject repays serious study. Here's some of it.

---

Biographical info:   (Partly taken from her books): Dale Spencer (born 1943) was brought up in Australia, and has a sister Lynne. She has gained ‘degrees in English, Education, and Sociolinguistics', actual qualifications not given. She ‘taught in Australian secondary schools for nine years and has been involved in teacher training.’ So she left Australia aged about 30, around 1973. She has expressed dislike for the Vietnam War—many young Americans and Australians were given, for the first time in their lives, not money, but equipment and weapons, travel and uniforms and food, and bribes with the prospects of rape and cheap prostitutes, gifts from Henry Kissinger.
      I remember being told in c. 1975 that many single women left Australia, despairing of the poor quality of young male Australians. Probably this wasn't unusual. Earls Court in London was nicknamed 'Kangaroo Valley'.
      London's Fawcett Library is mentioned; it no longer exists where it was, but seems to have been subsumed by the LSE into the Women's Library, part of the Jewish infiltration into London's official academic life since the 19th century, including people like Soros.
      As far as I've followed the topic, she lectured at the Institute of Education; I remember meeting Barbara Tizard, who adopted a black girl and was part of the Jewish education thrust. Education was, or is, part of the London University assemblage of buildings including the School for Tropical Medicine, and SOAS, the 'School for Oriental and African Studies', though they now seem to discourage this phrase, and concentrate on getting paying students, often from exploitative but Jew-run territories.
      No prizes for guessing the intensity of their avoidance of discussion of Jews and their horrifying belief and deeds. It's impossible without genealogical research to know whether Dale Spencer home background was Jewish. She certainly seems totally ignorant of Jews, but in a world of very severe censorship that's not sound evidence. Australia has been a supplier of Jewish corruption, from Murdoch and control of goldfields to support for Jewish wars and propagandists such as Pilger.
      Publishers and career administrators and their puppets seem to have joined by 1980 to form Jew-subservient 'Feminist' groups; Dale Spender being one. These include Piatkus Books (1979), Carmen Callil (1973). imprints such as Virago, Women's Press, and Ark, and older publishers such as Routledge and Kegan Paul. Experienced researchers get to know the prevailing attitudes of such publishers. Nearly fifty years later, their work needs examination.

The Woman Question:   It's essential to grasp that British society was getting richer, through the entire century from 1800-1900 and until 1914. But increasing Jewish infiltration introduced a secret movement to ruin this in favour of Jews. All this was very much cloaked by Jewish-funded groups, chiefly the Church 'of England' and the Freemasons, both of which were bought out.
      English women with money worked for good causes, but the Jewish policy was to aim for world war (to ruin and subjugate Russia and Germany, and take assets from Britain and the USA). The 'Women's Social and Political Union' (1903, I think) looks like such a movement, at the tipping point between the two groups. Finance included 'death duties' which later impoverished families with sons killed in the 'Great War'.
      Looking back, it's clear the slogan 'democracy' was designed to allow very few parties to be controlled. So the movement for women said nothing about any other issues than suffrage. Jews found by trial that they easily had the power to change minds via newspapers.
      When you read 'Votes for Women was the headline in every paper', and atrocities had bits of paper reading 'votes for women', and a photo was produced of Davidson's death at a horse-race, you know it's been organised.
      A 1918 Act of Parliament included women of 30 or more; in 1928, all men and women of 21.

Women have often been accurately criticised for having no understanding of science, though of course many men have no understanding either. Dale Spender has an online clip where she tries to work an iPhone, finding (corrctly) there's no manual. So she thinks it's time to find out what 'digital' means. I frowned to see DS believes in the 'rule of thumb' error. She seems to wear only purple and green, the suffragette colours. Her online audiences seem mostly female, some being fat, at long-term vascular risk. It's the physical analogue of Jewish mental harm.

Manchester:   Manchester was important for its cotton mills, and had (like Leeds) a fairly secret Jewish population. The Manchester Man was a novel, by a woman, of the time. Cheetham Library is famous as a haunt of Marx and Engels. A good paper by Miles Mathis reveals Marx's family connections and wealth. The Manchester Guardian to this day has a special type of Jewish propaganda, and in fact is used by the media to advertise their jobs! The rather evasive anti-Capitalism books and pamphlets never mention financing by Jews, a tricky balancing-act of lies, subterfuge, and legal actions.

London   became a university town mostly in the 19th century, its ideology a mist of 'Non-Conformist Religions'. There were serious non-Jewish movements, notably in science, but also in social science. The Fawcett Library and early newspapers had some serious messages. The English Woman's Journal (founded approx 1850s) was 'financed by Barbara Smith' who may or may not have been Jewish. There was a National Association for the Promotion of Social Science. The Married Women's Property Act of 1870 was a very significant step, possibly deliberately suppressed. The Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) was formed in 1903, and looks like a concealed Jewish front: by 1910 it declared a "state of war" with the British Government. Emmeline Pankhurst, as is obvious now, was an agent for Jews, doing everything she could to promote European War, including a truce 'for the duration' of the war.
      All this was tied up with the 1913 Federal Reserve in the USA, giving Jews more or less endless paper money supply. The War starting 1914 led to inflation, removal of gold currency, income tax and death duties.
      Whatever views you may form (if any) please factor in the infinite callousness of Jews, happy to sacrifice many tens of millions.

Important !   Understanding Suffragists and Suffragettes and the Difference:  

Belfort Bax   The best writer on gender and law at that time (known to me in English) is E. Belfort Bax; his 1913-published book, The Fraud of Feminism (free download from e.g. archive.org), suggests to me that 'sex war' was a Jewish slogan to split Britain and the USA, either to damage them or lead to war. Unfortunately Bax is not for my taste a systematic, or numerate, writer; he was tutored in 'March of Mind' Victorianism, and taught music and German philosophy, but appears to have drawn on other people for legal material. [Note: I may be wrong about this man; I haven't looked very carefully]
      The hypothesis about Jews and women might be tested against the experiences of Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Germany—each with high Jewish populations—though there are large language barriers.

Education:   is a fascinating subject which has barely begun to be studied seriously. The methods by which Jews ruled over children have never been researched, and have been allowed to extend over much of the world.
      Women's education is traditionally imitative; maybe this will change. It's obvious that Spender has no aptitude or interest in producing independent thinkers and doers; mimicry is her aim, and achievement, which of course is infinitely saddening. Solid achievements of Victorian education (such as Hygiene as a subject) are routinely ignored. Male education is misunderstood—Greek and Latin were taught but with little result in practice or in theory. The women's educational equivalents such as (from a list) St Paul’s Girls’ School, Guildford High School for Girls, City of London School For Girls, James Allen’s Girls’ School, The Godolphin and Latymer School are ignored. The Jewish money-driven Church of England had as much effect on male education—see the figures for vicars in England. Personal contacts were the important thing, including family histories, parents, flogging and fagging.
      None of this is addressed by Spender or her fellow-travellers. Their educational theories apply to state education: so-called 'public schools' and private education by tutors, and secret Jewish education, and Jewish-derived religious education, and even technical education, are ignored. When a friend of mine was asked by Greenham Common women for expertise in electromagnetism, there was not one woman they could find.
      Unionised teachers have proved harmful; they are run by Jews. It's essential to understand this very-censored fact, if you wish to understand the modern world. Reachers' Unions and the National Union of Students perhaps do many things that ordinary unions would do&m,dash;with the exception that, if Jewish interests are involved, heavy pressure is put on members to take the Jewish side. Even if they have no idea about Jews. This is the cause of puzzling behaviour to many members. The system operates in other fields: unions will be told to support wars, for example, if thy are for Israel. Unions will be told to accept immigration, however much they oppose it. Political parties operate in the same way.
      When I say 'in Jewish interests' I mean in the way most Jews in a top-down, 'Chief Rabbi' style, consider their fiecre race bias ought to determine their conduct.
      A particularly sharp form of Jewishness comes into force when there's discussion on placing leaders. As I write, there has been a 4-part TV thing on the Post Office in Britain, nominally headed by a woman called Paula Vennells, who was clearly incompetent to occupy the position. (She was recommended in turn by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Welby, of Jew descent, to be Bishop of London). When you see such appointments, watch for the Jew influence. Similarly with nuclear experts. And with biological sciences. The science and engineering 'experts' popped up by the US system are a joke.
      And similarly with police forces. Jew and Freemason influence means they tend to neglect crimes against 'goyim' and assist Jews in their crimes. The later may be difficult to detect without inside knowledge of Jew aims; for example, illegal immigration into white, or once-white, countries has been Jewish policy since Coudenhove-Kalergi, but this is not widely publicised. So is corruption of sexual habits; Jews favour sex with 3 year old s and above.

First and Second World Wars. And More:   Simon Sheppard attempted to link feminism and war in 2014; ‘In this article I shall argue that the rise in 'feminism' led directly to two disastrous world wars. These of course involved the death of over 50 million people, with many adverse social and political effects in addition.' (Words as Weapons, showing how the suppression of information on Jews leads to misunderstanding or world issues).
      These world events have impacted on non-Jewish women, though without being noticed by the 'feminists' after about 1900, by which time the healthy analysis of the 'woman question' had been taken over by its malign Jewish perversion. In my 25 reviews of books on women, taking differing views from each other I've collected book reviews, including Virginia Nicholson's Two Million Women Without Men on the 'Great War' and its results..
      The Second World War has fortunately been subject to some Internet analysis, which has done more than the entire Anglo-American history and media establishment. My How the Master Race Won the Second World War gives some idea. The women 'useful idiots' controlled by Jews continue to praise worldwide massacres, Churchill and Stalin and Roosevelt, scientific frauds.

Review: Mainly Women of Ideas and What Men Have Done to Them:
As an intro, Invisible Women: the Schooling Scandal (cover design of a negro girl, froma group that never even developed written language) has a remark I'd hoped might be developed: page 84 says:

      '... there is a documented pattern of 'appropriation' of women's ideas in other areas. Hilary Simpson (1979) ... has shown how D H Lawrence appropriated the writings of women ... Wordsworth used Dorothy Wordsworths's diary as the source of many of his ideas ... F Scott Fitzgerald used the diaries of Zelda Fitzgerald. Marion Glastonbury (1978) indicates that the process continues today...'

I'd hoped there might be some rather intricate discussion of 'ideas' and what they are, their history and transmission (or non-transmission) by education, but of course that was a forlorn hope.

Page 104 shows the way real (or invented, or massaged) comments are deployed by Spencer; a rather sad passage with three inarticulate participants,      

	Female Student:	But why did they go to war? They didn't really have a reason. It seems such a stupid thing to have done.
	Male teacher:	Yes, well I don't expect you would understand. It's the men who make these decisions and they had lots of reasons, didn't they? Appealing to the boys.

      Women of Ideas is an interesting but not first-rate book. She seems to have spent about a year on it, advised by two librarians at thee Fawcett Library in London (no longer at the same address), writing notes which were laboriously typed for her. Her acknowledgements express great thanks to friends and family, even a few males. I'd guess her chapters took about 3 or 4 days each to write.
      Her introduction is in the tradition of Jewish introductions: long enough to include their slogans and beliefs, and also long enough to hide them. The longest illustration of this pattern is the insertion of Biblical rubbish from Jews into anyone forced or paid to accept them: existence of God, exactly one God, and no others, and in the image of Man, and not female, begotten not created, God's gift, God's forgiveness, Guod up there (looking up), someone's soul overhead ... ad nauseam.
      In this case, we have a lot of men vs women assertions: patriarchy, male-dominated society, Friedan, Millett and Greer (Jews), why didn't we know?, the suffragettes. (Suffragists isn't even indexed). The section ends with 10 pages on Aphra Behn (1640-1689), whose surname is from her marriage. Her unmarried name seems unknown, despite presumably being recorded in the marriage ceremony. Spender says apparently from a biography by Angeline Goreau that 'Aphra Behn was an adventuress ... long and dangerous voyage to the West Indies ... involved in a slave rebellion ... a spy for Charles II against the Dutch ... debtor imprisoned ... vociferously defended the right of women to an education ... sexual pioneer ... argued to Royalist point of view ... an early aboliotionist [of slavery] ... had seventeen plays produced in seventeen years ... wrote thirteen novels...' John Dryden was her friend and colleague. Both were buried in Westminster Abbey, though she was buried outside.
      Half her assessment dealt with the way Behn had faded from view, attributed to male power.
      Without looking at reference books, there are many problems with this depiction. Perhaps she was bawdy, and maybe her plays were calculated with that in mind, with a bit of help from Dryden. A female Rochester? Or perhaps she was an agent, or double agent, working for or agents Charles II in the war against Cromwell and the Dutch Jews. Maybe she was a crypto-Jew educated by Jews (though the Jews' Free School in London seems to date from 1732). I don't know, but of course neither does Spender.
      Mary Wollstonecraft comes next, 'and her foremothers'. Spender gives her a lot of attention, though largely as someone whose image may need updating. Wollstonecraft's ten pages occur later in part I, in the last section. Considering her alleged importance, these pages are disappointing: Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792. The bibliography lists an 1891 edition) is mostly discussed in a walk-through way, with extracts and comments by Spender and by others. I noted one thing: 'To Mary Wollstonecraft, prostitution in and out of marriage was work, ... forced upon women as a means of obtaining the necessary financial resources for survival.' Note the assumption that finance is the essential thing, i.e. a working system of money, presumably run by men! I'm not sure if Shelley got a mention (or Byron), but it's in keeping with this book's approach that they probably weren't. Spender's meandering failure to squeeze Wollstonecraft's essence, plus the 'French Revolution' date, incline me to think she was just another psyop, not intended to be taken seriously, in the way Godwin can be interpreted. She may well have been a distraction from the serious issues of the day.
      Sceptics will note that the publication coincided with the so-called 'French Revolution', now known to have been as Jewish as the 'Glorious Revolution' in England. So it might well have been a distraction. This chapter includes Fuseli ('both Turk and Jew'–Blake) and Rousseau and other potentially interesting persons.
      Grub Street and Bluestockings are two sections on the 18th century. By this time, the Bank 'of England' takeover had been in place for long enough to cause widespread impoverishment, but with money for the Church 'of England', imposing new rather unsustainable buildings. These events are out of the range of Spender, who attends to hack writers and women friends doing their best to run Salons in the French style. I'm afraid both sections disappointed me.

Here are some scattered notes, rather than blocks of review comments:–
• Spender mentions "middle-class white men" as causative agents. Under the world-wide Jew super-layer, these men are small beer and generally do what they're told.
• On censorship, Spender probably doesn't know about such things as atrocities in China, the East India Company, the 30 Years War in Europe, and such things. I can't ell if she censors or just doesn't know. However, she does at least know James Mill was the father of John Start Mill.
• She knows about the US Civil War, if a sentence or two in passing counts. This must have had effects on women, but Spender takes the Jewish line and omits them. She's more interested in the supposed 'emancipation' of slaves, but doesn't mention their redundancy, in my view prompted by the powerful new steam engines; nobody else seems to have noticed. And she doesn't mention that slaveholders were actually compensated!
• Spender, characteristically, says nothing about such things as cheap paper, mass printing and binding, typewriters, which at the time were leading technologies.
• On the 'Pankhursts', it seems in 1898 Emmeline Goulden married a Pankhurst. Anything golden suggests Jew ancestry. Her husband allegedly died, leaving 'no money, and 4 children'. So she decided to open a shop, in Manchester. Of course. The general rule is that by the last decades of the 1800s, there were huge influxes of Jews into the West. The 1913 Federal Reserve Act in the USA was the coup-de-grace. I'm pretty certain that Emmeline Pankhurst's career was Jew-funded and aimed at war—in effect, civil war in Europe.
      The WSPU has its 8 pages in Spender, dating from this time
• Matilda Joslyn Gage (1826-1898. Lived mostly in New York State). Gage gets one of the longest sections in Spender's book, which Spender evidently considered a major research effort. Gage's book WOMAN, CHURCH AND STATE: A HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE STATUS OF WOMAN THROUGH THE CHRISTIAN AGES: WITH REMINISCENCES OR THE MATRIARCHATE: BY MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE (I left it in capitals, unsure how she would have written it) was published in 1893 in Chicago, by Charles H. Kerr & Company. It's available online, for example at archive.org, which of course did not exist when Spender wrote. Spender calls in Woman, Church and State, which is misleading: it's clear Gage thought the world before Christianity had one or many 'Matriarchates', with women treated as responsible and skilled, before the Christian era with such things as 'St Paul' and scriptural evidence of women's sinfulness. Spender goes into some detail on this book, helped out by comments by Sally Roesch Wagner, presumably yet another Jew. There were clashes with Gage and women like Susan B Anthony, based (my reading) on attitude to Christianity, which most of them presumably viewed as shocking. Part of her dedication reads: Dedicated to all Christian women and men, of whatever creed or name who, bound by Church or State, have not dared to Think for Themselves. Her thought, however, stopped with Jews.
      Gage gives many examples of exceptional women (Spender prints some on p. 317, and others from 321-323. These are not sourced and rely on other people's judgments. She reminds me of Florence Deeks, a Canadian woman pioneer type, who took legal action for copyright infringement against H.G. Wells. Spender's praise therefore seems overdone.
• Ida B. Wells is in Spender on black women. There's the usual problem here, that Spender uses or may use the intentional confusion with mixed races. Remember Obama being described as 'black', despite having a 'Jewish' mother and something like a Arab father? Jews at present call them black, if they're useful for propaganda.
• William Thompson (1775-1833) gets a favourable mention as a socialist. This may have been at the time when socialism wasn't yet promoted strategically by Jews; or it may be part of that scheme. I don't know, and Spender isn't telling, if she does.
• There's some heart-warming stuff on Miss Beale and Miss Buss, and Newnham and Girton Colleges. At least they seem to have tried.

The 20th century takes up about 3/8 of the book. Anything ancient has no place in the Spender world! We have 10 pages on Emma Goldman, a Jew described as an 'anarchist' by Spender. I was interested to see Mary Ritter Beard in there, probably an ancestor of today's classics professor, who tells stories of Rome almost in a casual, guidebook fashion, superficial and unquestioning. I remember talking to a Jewish 'philosopher' and wondering how much approval and liking the Roman Empire had at the time. I didn't know that Jew have very fixed ideas on Rome, and was surprised that he should take a simple view of all the millions then.
• Dora Russell (later Countess Russell; how these people love titles!) in her Tamarisk Tree has a foreword by Dale Spencer. '57 years of writing and journalism, 1925-1982'. I don't think she's aged well. Her essays have a review feel - e.g. the one on women's lack of power starts with a comment on an NCCL document. Comments on e.g drugs etc suggest similar action to something she's read. General feeling of copying from news sources. She quotes phrases probably from Russell: 'passionate belief in matter', 'profound effect of the Greeks', and a ragbag of stuff about the past, all cliches: cave-man; those intellectual Greeks; 18th century. She had a disgusting worship of Jewish Russia: In Russia an attempt at a constructive modern synthesis has been made (1927). Sad pointlessness dominates: 'The Right to be Happy', 'In Defense of Children'

In section D, 'AND WHEN THERE WERE NONE', all the names seem Jewish—Beard, Viola Klein, Mirra Komarovsky, Ruth Herschberger, Simone de Beauvoir, Margaret Mead, 1950s, 1960s. Margaret Mead had not yet been exposed; Sartre I think hadn't either.
      There may be a few sound names; Rebecca West. for example.

Conclusions:   Perhaps I may sum up traditional opinions on marriage. Agatha Christie, at her girls' school, said it was an exciting business to speculate on who might marry you. Doctor? Architect? Racing driver?—and she picked an Egyptologist. A once well-known 19th century law case in England involved a wrongly-performed wedding ceremony in a corner of England, which implied none of the people were legally married. None of them wanted to change, says the story.
      The start of the 'Great War' in 1914 revealed some oddities: Barbara Cartland, a fluffy romantic novelist said all these men were afraid they might die—and so, for women, it was a "tremendously exciting time". Women were bribed by being paid to do war work which they probably hated; but under the paper money arrangements put together by Jews, it's what they did. Much easier than rational discussions of ways to give women more.

This leads to the top-secret Jewish question, and the almost-equally secret Freemason question. If anything is to be done, there will be in future legislation about secrecy. Until that happens, we're in a speculative world. The situation is truly amazing; in its way, it's an astonishing achievement. People are basically fairly standardised, with similar structures and features. Apparently, just one single group has convinced itself that it is infinitely superior to all others, and has developed a fantastically detailed rule-book as to what to do to others. Their outlook, modified for inferiors, has seeped and oozed slowly through the world. The secrecy is so hermetically-sealed that its separate developments are barely noticed by its victims. As just one example, Dr Lorraine Day (RIP) became well aware of Jews in her department in a San Francisco hospital. But at the same time she had no doubts whatever about the long-term Jewish-constructions about 'God' and 'Jesus'. Another example was Hilaire Belloc, greatly troubled by Jewish enrichment during the Great War, who remained a devout Catholic.

Spender's technique when pushing an opinion is to pick an example or two, hope it's accurate, and hope readers will be moved into some sort of action. In fact, any change is likely to have effects which ought to be analysed; for example, we now have a situation with ouster injunctions, no way to check affidavits, and divorces which seem to favour women (I'm not sure). We have rather absurd mixed crits such as 'Feminazis' which show serious misunderstandings. Legal systems ought to be assessed on probability bases, so the effects can be predicted society-wide. But of course this level of skill is outside Spender's range.

This book may be useful as a source-book, listing names and book-titles, before checking online.

It's tempting to think people like Spender are harmless, even if they may be batty and ditzy biddies in odd clothing. But, I beg you, please examine and grasp the Jewish issue. It really may save you life.

Raeto West   19 January 2024

Ivor Catt: Elderly male struggles with Jewish 'radfems' and 'feminazis' without understanding the issues

It's impressive, and terrifying, to watch the effectiveness of Jewish censorship. Jewish policy—this is part of their 'religion'—is never to discuss Jewish activities if they are 'negative' in the modern sense. Jewish murderers, rapists, fraudsters, thugs, schemers, medical crooks are simply not mentioned, or, if there's some mistake, are hushed up as soon as is practicable.
      Several facts in the modern world facilitate this process. World-wide co-operation and a secret language permits exchange of information. The 1913 Federal Reserve Act in the USA permits Jews to print money, and with this huge advantage they have purchased all important media channels, including the newer radio and TV. They have also been able to penetrate all professions which normally need years of preparation, including the law, education, and politics. They have also co-operated with groups who may not even know they're dealing with Jews: Freemasons and 'Common Purpose' are fairly clandestine groups, but something similar applies from centuries past to religious groups such as the 'Church of England', whose funding is traditionally obscured.

I knew Ivor in the 1990s, mainly as a protestor against what I now identify as Science fraud. (See my piece on science revisionism on this). Science fraud as a topic was perhaps written about first by Martin Gardner who contributed maths material in Scientific American.

But Catt was also a protestor against legal incompetence and in particular family law, which includes children caught up in divorce proceedings. For a short time long ago, he assembled an online listing of British newspaper items, called Ill Eagle. I haven't copied any of these to this site; this is the opening page on his site. More specific is the page on all 2002 issues which of course has names from 20 years and more old.
      What Ivor did not understand—no-one told him, or most of his associates—is that Jews have a very long-standing hatred of their 'host societies' and wish to harm them. By encouraging divorce, sexual dysfunction, harm to children, homosexuality, unwanted immigration, assaults on English girls, death in wars, poor education, selective funding of foreigners, and no doubt other things, they can work towards what they want. Or perhaps what they think they want—the whole process seems to resemble a parasitic instinct.
      Looking at many of the names he quotes from, it's obvious to Jew-watchers that many are Jews, in spite of their hush-hush policy. The Guardian and Sunday Times are Jewish-owned, their entire history showing their relentless promotion of Jewish causes. Stanko plays a large part, immediately identifiable as a Jewess probably from Polish or Russian ancestors, with some history of Jew activity on the continent. Ivor doesn't realise that Jews get selective academic promotion; he thinks she is a genuine professor. Melanie Phillips is a Jewish journalist whose life has been spent pushing Jewish causes; probably she has her own Rabbi to wag his beard at her. Dworkin is a fat Jewish American; the reason she gets publicity is, of course, that Jewish editors like her rubbish. Jewish control of money allows money to be directed to lawyers they like, who will do damage if they can. Penguin Books was and is a typical Jewish publishing company; if it's silly rubbish, for example 'LGBT', they will promote it and the suckers buy it. The legal system has many Jews at many levels, including government, and these love laws on immigration, for example, to offload the costs not so much on to taxpayers, as the more hidden process of borrowing from the Jewish bankers, over many years.
      Ivor's vocabulary includes 'radfems' and 'feminazis', and other traces of Jewish propaganda.
      This is now all many years ago. I hope more recent activists are more switched-on, though I have do doubt it, since Jew-aware people are unlikely to make a living, and 'activists' are usually funded by Jews.

-RW   21 Jan 2023

Anthony Ludovici: Woman: A Vindication (1923)

Warning! Ludovici's style is pre-1914: not well-sourced, and too ordinary for comfort. He had little idea of Jewish pervasiveness, and little of the problems introduced by the 'Fed' in 1913. And he is too oratorical, failing to get to his points. He referred to Roman Catholicism as 'the mother Church'.

The book can be read online at archive.org. I think I reviewed this book in detail, but I shan't bother now. He takes an evolutionary view, in line with people like Bergson. He is rather scathing about women's thought, giving a parable on a young woman wanting to study political economy. He thought women were evolved to want children and use their large reproductive equipment, which he compared to a rhino's horn. And this (like a female butterfly testing a leaf for her caterpillars) led to a careful weighing-up of men. A friend of mine told me that he'd learned a few things selling jewellery, and one was that women furtively survey a man's shoulders, clothes, shoes, tidiness, to decide on his suitability, or not. It has to be furtive; cannot be open. Ludovici says much the same, because of the imperative matter of selection of his qualities. (This was written before DNA was discovered). Hence by a bit of convolution women like money, and sports cars, and men with them.
      Ludovici says this is laudable; and hence the title of his book. He thinks women on their own should consider having children; after the 'Great War' he was not the only man to think this—though I know of no political movement to that end, very likely because Jews wouldn't want it.
     
      Ludovici wrote in Kegan Paul's series of small brown hardbacks Lysistrata, or Woman's Future and Future Woman at about the same time. Dora Russell's Hypatia was supposed to answer it.

Anthony Ludovici: Man: An Indictment (1927)

This follow-up book is typical of many Jew-influenced books poking fun at men. They must have annoyed and puzzled the survivors of the 'Great War', who'd been soldiers or sailors, heroic in the face of mechanical death, but also were aware that their aristocratic betters had done little. The exception must be for junior ranks from places like Eton, who died in large numbers.

Ludovici had little sense of perception of errors lurking in popular stories. He made fun of the poor quality of men—teeth, height, strength—without understanding that volunteers turned up in huge numbers, so the officials had to find reasons to turn them away. Jews of course were keen not to be called up.
      Ludovici has pages on the 'suits of armour' argument: the surviving suits of armour, he said, were built for big men. Ludovici includes stone coffins, evidence from skeletons, the size of jousting poles like small trees, all unsatisfactory. He has an interesting comment on doctors, whom he considers are biased in favour of modern men, who'd had their medical services. Ludovici was unsophisticated with such arguments. And of course had no idea that Jew-derived techniques were harmful, something coming to light only today.
      It (I suppose) goes without saying that aristocracies prefer to command rather than risk their lives. Ludovici had no mental model, that I can see, of numbers of men needed to fight other numbers of men, or of their attrition rates. He has no mental model of how many aristocrats should be expected in all populations. He had little idea of inheritance patterns. Nietzsche, whom he liked, had a similar outlook. Overall, not much help to anyone; he was just another 'individualist' who didn't see through to the big pictures.

RW 18 Feb 2022

VOTES FOR WOMEN: The North Wales Suffragists' Campaign 1907-1914
Barbara Lawson-Reay

---

By chance, I've reviewed Webb's Suffragette Terrorism below. Click here to get to it, then return here. Webb was unwittingly helpful to me, pretending to be unaware that Jews were terrorists in eastern Europe and Russia, their motives no doubt to cause wars between nations, thus assisting Jews. This is likely to be a new idea to most readers, who have been trained not to enquire into the causes of the Great War with its crop: legal preliminaries such as death duties, borrowings from Jews, deaths, poverty and disease, refugee arrangements, and Versailles arrangements, which included Jews from all the countries involved.
      The first section on Webb gives an account of the reported events, with H G Wells' summary. My suggestion is that the demonstrations were funded by Jews, accustomed to such things by the Boer Wars. I may as well summarise Wells after the war and after some women were allowed to vote for what became a one-party state with the 'national government'. Wells said: '... as Europe collapsed into war, the Vote was flung to women simply to keep them quiet, and how the only traceable consequence has been the further enfeeblement of the waning powers of Democracy. ...'
      The second section included longish comments from Webb, and from opponents, from which you may draw your own conclusions as to his lack of honesty.
I'll put another link, to Bertrand Russell's Anti-Suffragist Anxieties of 1910. Not a technically demanding article, though it is full of assumptions about remote past history and legal systems at the time. And he assumes that votes translate into action, though obviously this can't always be true. And the present two-party system, a side-effect of the first-past-the-post arrangement, can be undercut with any overall system of power—such as Jews wield.

This book, Votes for Women, was published by Carreg Gwalch with financial support of the Welsh Books Council, at Llanrwst, in Conwy. I bought my copy in Portmadog. I wish I could feel more warmth for this book. But I think the real hidden currents of change were out of the mental range of these people, mostly women, who 'deserve to be remembered'.
      The true version, as far as I can find behind the secrecy, is that Jews wanted long-term harm to civilised countries, including Europe, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire under that approximate rubric. They assumed they end on top, as suggested by the Rothschilds and others. They wanted disruption, were paid for it, and got it. They tended to support war, having no idea what that involved. They paid little attention to Lloyd George and President Wilson and others as they manoeuvred for the US' Federal Reserve, income tax, death duties, official secrets, conscription, and other moves to empower the state, particularly Jews, against the rest.

There are 9 chapters, 8 being 1914 The end of an era, and 9 The War and afterwards. The first seven chapters look at 1907 to 1913. Each chapter's contents is arranged chronologically by months. The sources seem to have been local newspapers in the National Library of Wales (I'm not certain, but there's a good bibliography). The authoress has no idea that newspapers could be inaccurate. The first date (1907) may have been selected to distract from Jewish assassinations on the continent, or such events as the Jewish-funded Russo-Japan war; at any rate, the presentation suggests ever-growing disturbances, and this seems correct.
      Emily Wilding Davison in June 1913 was something like a peak of alarm. The end-point was war 'breaking out' (Britain declared war—saying that war 'broke out' avoids that awkward fact) and the Pankhursts making peace with Lloyd George and supporting war.

The second part has Appendices A to G (seven of them) listing names of 'Visiting Dignitaries' and 'Officers, Committee Members and Supports' from Llandudno through to Carnarfon and other places. Proofread by Mr Lawson-Reay, I believe. Some of the names are well-known to people aware of the places and times, for example Emily Wilding Davison died at the Epsom Derby; she looks to me a Jewish activist, but no official publication would say so. She's one of many names listed in the index.
      A glance at the chapter on Llandudno finds Harold Stewart RATHBONE 'part of the Liverpool merchant shipping industry' . His uncle was William Rathbone, Liberal MP, anti-slavery campaigner and philanthropist' and his cousin was Eleanor Rathbone, a keen suffragist.' On slavery, Michael Portillo (Spanish Jew descent) takes the conventional view but in fact 'abolition' meant that slave-owners got huge sums in 'compensation' paid out of taxes. The entire subject is related to the invention of steam engines, whose power of course far exceeded slave manpower; it's another subject cossetted by repeated Jew lies.
      Historians of employment must find some of the accounts fascinating, e.g. Caroline Raw whose school with Mabel Bennett employed 'an art teacher, two English teachers, a music teacher and a Parisienne French teacher.'
      Leonora COHEN (p 188) has a long account; she seems to be a perfect example of a hostile Jew, born in Leeds, attacking property etc. The index gives some indication of the importance of entries; Pankhursts have many, Lytton and Evelyn Matthews, and Pethick-Lawrence listed with the Ls, as examples.
      The appendices list 'Officials and Committee Members' of the organisations; I'm not clear on what they named themselves, but 'cells' was one name used. They clearly had bureaucracies, with Presidents and AGMs, and it's easy to imagine status battles and takeover attempts. Some of these women acted during the Great War to prevent 'immorality' and counter prostitution—along the lines of Mrs Amos 'devoted to prostitution'.

Notes at the start distinguish the NUWSS ('National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies')—non-militant Suffragists, from the WSPU (Women's Social and Political Union')—Militant, Suffragettes. The latter look likely to be Jewish or freemason-funded. The notes say 'double-barrelled' surnames are listed under the second name. These were considered superior, and hereditary—one of C P Snow's novels notes a mixed English-Jew couple put the English surname at the end, so the Jewish name could be dropped in the next generation.

This is not a great book, and in the course of time and possible increase in understanding something more combative may emerge. It's of course entirely possible that parts of the surname of Lawson-Reay are Jewish, undeclared as usual, and indifferent to, or welcoming, deaths of Europeans.

It's interesting to consider how little anything practical was influenced by female votes, and the obvious suspicion is that 'votes for women' distracted from action on serious issues, for example prostitution as I've mentioned. Very probably the idea was to add another push to the forces for war, in this indirect form. And of course many people see little connection between actions and their results.
      I've just read a booklet on St Wilfrid's Church, in Preston, a Roman Catholic concern, and the booklet is mostly concerned with the original north-south plot of land, the income likely from rents of benches, the various marbles used, and the stained glass window makers in London. In a similar way, Lawson-Reay provides masses of detail, but loses sight of the objectives. But perhaps it's intended to be that way.

RW 6 Dec 2022

The title is Inferior. And so is the book.

Inferior by Angela Saini.

---

Review by Rae West 29 Sept 2020.   2017 4th Estate 'An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers'. London

---

My paperback copy says it's 'not for resale' and an 'Exclusive edition for schools from the UK crowdfunding campaign'. It has a foreword by 'Dr Jess Wade', who caims to be a physicist, and has given away copies of the book and campaigned to get a copy into every state secondary school in the UK'.
      Saini, in her acknowledgements, thanks the K. Blundell Trust for a research grant (amount unspecified) including travel; she had access to Darwin's correspondence at Cambridge, the Wellcome Library which I'd thought was taken over by Sackler, the Jewish OxyCOntin 'drug king', and two outfits with 'Intersex' in their name. Credits include Robert Trivers of speculations on the evolution of deception.
      Her claims have vague edges, something often found with women 'intellectuals'—'In 2020 Angela was named one of the world's top 50 thinkers by Prospect magazine' is one; a Masters in Engineering from Cambridge University is another (Cambridge automatically issued a 'master' to its graduates after a year, and I presume still does); 'award-winning journalist' is another. A few years ago the EU started some sort of advertising project to try to get girls (and 'minorities', who in fact are majorities in the world). The abbreviation 'STEM' ('Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics') has 'STEM Ambassadors', all perhaps stemming (apologies) from EU advertising agencies.
      The book's contents are not new, perhaps assembled since about 1950 when Jews won the Second World War and started to spread their debts, corruption, and incompetence. Saini even quotes 'Ashley Montagu' (real name something Jewish) on the 'superiority of women'. They cover health (Saini doesn't bother much with dangers of childbirth, or abortion for that matter), brain size or rather weight (a perennial issue), work (plenty of scope for statistical errors on pay), but not much substantial on mental differences. All these issues are pushed by Jews, including 'intersexuality', and Jews carefully avoid mentioning they are the most racist group in the world, as does Saini. Saini hates 'eugenics' in a laughably insane way.
      I was fascinated to find a scientific dispute between Robin P. Clarke and Simon Baron-Cohen on autism, here in which Baron-Cohen is identified as a holocaustianity fraud. One has to have sympathy with Cambridge; probably they'd lose a lot of Jewish paper money if they insisted on truth-telling. Bit sad, though.
      Saini has written for the New Scientist; I had a collection of these around the 1970s and noted they had nothing on weaponry and war crimes, or any such topic. I haven't bought it for many years; it's pitifully feeble trash. She also appears on BBC Radio, which is of course trash. Oh—and the Guardian, also trash—I wouldn't attempt to rank these by their rankness! She has a few Youtubes, a guarantee of unoriginality. She needs acting lessons: she couldn't even remember her routine Jewish lies about race.
      She appears to have been born in 1980, and therefore is now about 40. Publishing as a perilous business, especially now with Internet's ability to corrode and snipe at reputations. And it's expensive to pay for whole industries of frauds: think 9/11 and Silverstein, think of the repulsive frauds like 'Astronaut Buzz Aldrin', think of the huge scam of 'coronavirus', think of the 'Holohoax' as it's sometimes known, think of the 'Federal Reserve'. In the Middle Ages, churches had something like a monopoly of timewasting scams; now, in place of Scriptoria producing handwritten MSs, we have junk propaganda, in each case with Jews behind-the-scenes.

This book by Saini is ostensibly aimed at girls at school. I doubt it can have had any success in view of its obvious insincerity and feebleness. In a way this is tragic: the world faces crises—for example in India, ancestral home of Saini—and unrealistic bravado is not much of a response. There are vast issues of food and water, population, energy, buildings, education, which need competent people worldwide if they are to be alleviated. The era of Jewish parasitism and large-scale murder must (I hope) come to an end fairly soon.

RW 29 Sept 2020

---

Christmas 2020 had three television programmes from the Royal Institution's lecture room. On BBC4 TV. Three one-hour Christmas Lectures on 'Planet Earth'. They weren't quite 'lectures', but, rather, fun things for kids which I hope appealed more to them than to me: all of course mixed race etc, childish visual aids, technical diagrams from nowhere, outputs from unexplained machines. The kids were all at home, 'isolated' from the fake 'COVID 19' virus. The two or so assistants in the stage area wore black masks, I suppose for emphasis. The three episodes has three presenters; I suppose they'd be called 'talent' by the BBC's retards. All the supposed experts were young women; one had a Muslim name. A TV linked showed someone supposedly from Chad, videod perhaps by traditional native electric magic. The first part was presented by a 'black' as they call them, called Chris Jackson. He was supposed to be a geologist. The second, mostly on the oceans, by Dr Helen Czerski. The third, by Dr Tara Shine, on the atmosphere, with an Irish accent ('warming' as 'worming').
      The final section introduced 'greenhouse gases' as though the expression is accurate (not much glass in the atmosphere...) and assumed carbon dioxide causes heating. Incidentally, the enormous contribution of China to CO2 was ignored—I wondered if Tara Shine blushed slightly. I'd guess from the name she thinks she's a Jew—it's exquisitely amusing that simple believers should be presented as scientists. The odd fact that oil, taken from underground, then burnt, on the face of it an immense sink of oxygen, isn't mentioned, itself deserves a mention. Underground strata which once held oil don't seem to be 'sexy'. The spare CO2, in its tiny percentage form, must help plants (and the tiny creatures, of collective vast biomass, which photosynthesise). A possibly Muslim woman seemed to think electrolysis of water might be helpful, though the vast volumes, their explosive nature, and the huge amount of hardware doesn't sound very unpolluting to me. I don't think anyone mentioned 'nuclear power': this is in a state of phased retirement, so the Jewish frauds can hold on to their loot—see the insane cost of 'nuclear power' and other articles in nukelies.org . Another non-mention was I think power stations in South Africa, in very serious difficulties: they can't get the staff, the supposed customers don't pay, that sort of thing. Still, the audience all thought they knew what 'batteries' are.

Here's an article on my site from a real scientist on Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? which (believe it or not) was recorded by me 25 years ago at Kew Gardens in south-west London.

RW 30 December 2020

Social Media Debate on Jewish Media: Texts I Noticed

Note on the difficulty of multiple causation; very likely people have evolved to concentrate on single threats

=====================
Passer by: January 8, 2016 - 4:52 am

I could discuss that. I believe that there is a connection between feminisation of society and third-worldization of society.

Men evolved to protect the perimeter against males from other (mainly patriarchal) tribes (chimps do the same). Having women make decisions about the perimeter results in what we see – open borders, multiculture, diversity, “tolerance”.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/37574195_Social_exchange_and_solidarity_In-group_love_or_out-group_hate

https://business.rice.edu/uploadedFiles/Newsroom/Press_Releases/Research/VikasDonations.pdf

Women, for the most part, care about resources and smoothing conflict over. They evolved to fill that role. Stockholm Syndrome is more pronounced in female captives. Women were frequently taken captive by (or in some cases traded to) other groups, and so they evolved to smooth things over with distant groups (whereas their male kinfolk were simply killed)

So, women tend to vote for resource redistribution and being nice to everybody (including those who aren’t in their group), and for helping everybody in need, regardless of their group (say hello to refugee crisis).

Women are also more mainstream. They do not like extremes. So you will rarely see them taking political positions where they risk being called a bigot. Women prefer safer and non-confrontational political positions, where society will approve their behavior and pat them on the back.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=445_1430428588

For every five men in a far right party you will be lucky to see one woman. You will see lots of women in pro-refugee/pro-immigration groups though.

Have a look at pro-immigration demonstration (lots of women) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8c3_1442068850

and anti-immigration demonstration (very few women) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a6b_1442695250

In Scandinavia for example, women vote for the pro-immigration parties, while men vote for the anti-immigration parties. In Sweden, women were only 35 percent of those who voted for the anti-immigration party, the Swedish Democrats party.

“The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists.”

You can check this article by Fjordman, where he argues that Swedish feminists, by popularizing victim-mongering behavior, quotas/affirmative action, by supporting the welfare state, and by being against “bigotry” and “hate speech”, created an environment that is particularly well suited for the spread of other parasitic groups who also, like the feminists, behave like victims, demand quotas/special treatment, demand more welfare handouts, and want to silence criticism and free speech.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1300

When German feminists protested against the recent migrant rape wave in Germany, they tried to change the subject from German vs Arab issue into men vs women issue, implying that all men are to blame for what happened in Cologne. It is hard for a feminist to be pro white, because it is very easy to jump from gender equality ideology into racial equality ideology, from anti-sexism to anti-racism, from male privilege to white privilege, from condemning patriarchal oppression in the past to condemning colonial oppression in the past. Both ideologies claim that they support the oppressed weak vs the strong, the oppressed victims of men or the oppressed victims of white colonizers.

So not surprisingly, German feminists in Cologne protested both against sexism and against racism, mixing them into one.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/06/09/2FD1A3CD00000578-0-image-a-3_1452072178035.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3386673/Women-Cologne-lockdown-council-admits-no-longer-safe-wake-African-Arab-mob-s-rapes-declares-upcoming-carnival-no-area-females.html

If you need more information about this issue, you can check my posts here. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/09/wanted-strong-men/

===============================
JEWISH WOMEN

Karen T January 8, 2016 - 8:07 am | Permalink

Bella Abzug, Susan Brownmiller, Gene Boyer, Phyllis Chester, Andrea Dworkin, Rian Eister, Susan Faludi, Betty Frieden, Shulamith Firestone, Emma Goldman, Lucy Kamisan, Gerda Lerner, Robin Morgan, Annie Meyer, Maud Nathan, Karen Nussbaum, Letty Pogrebin, Geri Palest, Anita Pollitzer, Ernestine Rose, Gloria Steinem, Rose Schneider, Naomi Wolf, and this is merely a sample. Google Jewish Feminists for a much longer list.
      The White woman is not the thorn in the White mans achilles heel, but another unwitting tool in this all out assault coming from all directions, and if White men persist in indicting his natural allies, mothers, sisters, lovers, they too are unwitting tools.

===============================
Rerevisionist

I think this is too simple. All Swedish media are dominated by the Jewish Bonnier family, who pump out lies about Swedes all the time. (NB they have an animus against Sweden for being neutral in WW2, instead of warring against the horrid Nazzies, as of course all goyim should do, preferably dying in the process). The central bank money is presumably controlled by Jews; I can’t be bothered to check. Jews love lending money to governments, as they get interest, and also control over the country. The women you speak off aren’t particularly employable, and are offered pseudo-jobs of the sort you describe.
      In other words, they are paid to work at soup kitchens, shout slogans etc. How many of them train as doctors and move to Africa? How many go to Africa to help? How many give away their money to invaders? How many give up their houses to help? How many offer to train the invaders in useful skills? How many work for them? How many bequeath their assets to invaders? These are genuine markers of altruism. And I’m guessing there are something like zero of them.

---

Note that the Daily Mail (mentioned above) is a 'newspaper' printed in Britain, but of course Jew-controlled, is garbage, which had for example supported mass atrocities by Americans in Vietnam, frauds by Jews, and atrocities in the Middle East. In simple language, it is shit.

Some whites have been led to believe that (for example) women caused the First World War. Heretical.com is one. In fact there were many criminal outbreaks before the 'Great War', mostly due to Jews. See this piece on the use of suffragettes by Jews.

Ann Oakley & Ann McPherson & Helen Roberts: Miscarriage [1984]

---

-About 400,000 miscarriages supposedly in UK every year; much commoner than I'd realised. I wonder if this book sold well? Some emphasis on physical abnormalities e.g. of uterus, of chromosomes. Infertility has two pages only in the index ('sterility' is omitted). Lots of stuff on hormones - these seem acceptable as mass discourse topics, though how they're detected etc isn't made clear. Toxic exposure (lead, anaesthetics) gets a small mention. Section on Ectopic pregnancy. And on 'trying again'. Fertility pills seem not to be mentioned anywhere.

Ann Oakley: Taking It Like A Woman [1984]   LONG REVIEW!

---

Blurb says she's 'one of our foremost feminist writers.' This book is more or less autobiographical. She is an undeclared Jew. It's depressing to watch as the post-1945 Jewish war victory spreads. Libraries, Universities, Departments grow. Her intellectual contribution is negligible; she occupies a lightweight niche something like that of a Victorian vicar, preoccupied with nothing much, but receiving her stipend and no doubt complaining of its insufficiency. Her accounts seem accurate, and her blinkered views just as accurately captured. I made these notes in about 1990; now I'd identify the pushes against the family, the faked Cold War, the evasions of the US Empire, the fake of the Labour Party, the gullibility of nuclear campaigners, the secret Jew networks, and of course the ignorance of paper money, debt, official but evasive budgets, the extraction on money by Israel.

---

    - Other titles: 'Sex, Gender and Society' [?1972], 'The Sociology of Housework', 'Housewife', Joint editor of 'The Rights and Wrongs of Women', 'From Here to Maternity', 'Women Confined' [1980], and 'Subject Women'. Notes at the back also have: 'Creative Women in Changing Societies' 1980 pp205, and 'Interviewing Women: a contradiction in terms?' 1981 pp 207, and 'Living in the Present: a confrontation with cancer' 1979. She was brought up in a 'late Edwardian monstrosity' in Acton, went to a poly in west London, and after Oxford seems to have lived part of the time in Ealing. [Of her educational establishments, she only names Somerville; oh. I found Chiswick Polytechnic gets an indirect reference]

---

    - Unindexed, though the chapters have notes though without page numbers: Liv Ullman, Sheila Rowbotham, 'Rise and Fall of CND' (Observer 1964!), Account of the Ban-the-Bomb movement, Philip Slater's Pursuit of Loneliness stupidly dated 1975, titles on psychotherapy, women, depression, suicide (175-177: 'Against all the evidence - of their own creative power, of their sensitivity and genius - women feel they are worthless creatures.'), Marcus Aurelius, Mehta's Fly and the Fly-Bottle, David Cooper's Death of the Family, Laing oddly absent, Adrienne Rich, Erving Goffman's Asylum, Betty Friedan (pp70, 73), Germaine Greer, Simone de Beauvoir, Verena Stefan, Susan Sontag, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on cancer figures, and others quoted.
    - Blurb says: '.. 'breakdown' and analysis before she went up to Oxford, which amazed those who knew her' [pp 34-5 have some of her diary notes
    - Father was 'eminent..' [and we can work out, though with some effort, he was Richard Titmuss; he wrote several books most or all I think with his wife: 6: Poverty and Population (1936), Our Food Problem (1939), Birth, Poverty and Wealth (1943). No indication that she even opened them.
    - She I imagine 'read' English at Oxford (how she got there isn't revealed, I think, though there's some reference to difficult questions on entrance exams about which she says she wasn't happy with them (though incidentally she got the right answers): she quotes Aldous Huxley's Brave New World with approval: 4 'We must claim the right to pain and passion'/ Sylvia Plath gets a few lines/ so does T S Eliot's East Coker/ and Donna, sung by Joan Baez and others [Note: unconscious scientific ignorance:] about a calf bound for slaughter and how it's better to grow wings and fly away. I find on page 36 she went to Somerville, Oxford, to do Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. I haven't yet read this chapter: the question is, will she say anything at all about the work she did there, if any, or just write about women and men?
    - in fact, she does, on pp 36-42, provide some sort of overview; she seems not to rate Oxford highly, though of course hasn't anything to suggest to improve it: philosophy was then in linguistic throes and she read Augustine & Aurelius (and I think was later influenced by existentialism, no doubt through Simone de Beauvoir); economics which she disliked and began to 'grapple uncomprehendingly' with; not much on politics except Marx, Weber, 'an appreciation of Ralf Dahrendorf's Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society.' 40: 'Why did no one incite us to read Marx? .. accepted body of doctrines.. In 'Theory and Working of Political Institutions' and 'British Political and Constitutional History since 1865', the two elements of the politics syllabus.. in our second and third years we were 'farmed out' to more exciting intellects.. these were always men.. though now I wonder why Somerville.. should have harboured such mediocrity.' She wrote two essays and attended two 1-hr tutorials a week for most of her 3 years (p 47). 45 she won the Somerville College PPE prize for a long essay 'The Family and Industrialization'. [There's an amusing point somewhere where a Somerville woman says in effect their graduates have changed the world, and listed second-rate novelists. And cp my notes on Rantzen] She 'first saw Robin at a seminar on Marxism.. 1964.. Beatles..' 47: married in Caxton Hall Registry Office..' 48: '.. card index of aides memoires.. 'Growth and the Trade Cycle', 'The Keynesian System', 'Liberty and Punishment', 'Good and Bad Acts', 'Pressure Groups', 'Social Stratification', 'Durkheim and Merton on Anomie'. ..'
    - Note: I think her father gave her the idea of 'writing books' and suggested perhaps an underlying amateurism or pragmatism which equates publication, or being well-known in a small circle, with serious work. 7: 'His work was always difficult to classify... he had no professional academic training.. persisted in calling himself a student of society.' See under DEATH below for his supposed achievements. 1: '.. a world away from academic papers and investigations, house improvements and clean laundry.' Also somewhat hypocritical attitude to socialism and poverty: no indication that this is anything other than a sort of self-pity, with plenty of thoroughly class-conscious and class-rooted statements throughout, including remarks on 'The Third World'. [I wrote earlier: .. daughter of a Labour Party official or intellectual; did PPE at Oxford; despite the title, mainly self-congratulatory and 'feelingist' stuff. Similar type to people like the Tizards (he was a postman from New Zealand, I'm told) but with a different slant. Cp also Webbs, with 'lower class' male]
    - She's keen on the idea of her own terrific individuality, though it's hard to see why. Blurb says: '.. Marriage at twenty.. first two children in the late 1960s
    - a time when there were no social supports for combating depression.. made a case study.. in BBC's Television Doctor.. decided to go for her PhD. [This seems to involve Open University work] Along with forgoing her academic credibility, she gained recognition of domesticity as a legitimate area of study. .. joined a women's liberation group in Ealing and initiated feminist research. .. conceived three more children, only one of whom lived.. This is the merest outline of a life which has so far never embraced easy answers..' and 2: 'This book is about my life, but it is also about others
    - for it would be arrogant to suppose I'm unique; I'm not. ..'
      35: 'He [psychoanalyst] ventured the opinion that if life treated me gently.. I would have no further major problems. It did not, and I did.'
      She says she was toilet trained early, like many of her generation, and that this must have had some effects. This shows the way thoughts can be influenced by theory. It occurred to me watching people in supermarkets and through introspection that of course peoples' decisions are often very silly: junk food, stuff which is eye-catching, thoughts of delicious sweet food/ and money
    - the contradiction between wanting others to give it to you, but not wanting to spend yourself/ attitude to new people and unconscious weighing of them
    - any of these things and many more examples of course: adventurousness? Aggressive competitiveness? Herd feeling?
    - must surely be more important than the results of toilet training. But Freud didn't talk about money training or part of the herd training.
    - She consistently ignores the economic dimension of life in this book, which gives it a strange lopsided quality. See for example pp 119-122 giving examples of three women having affairs. Another oddity is her refusal to face female conflicts; describing adulterous etc women she typically doesn't consider the rival wife; see e.g. 122; cp my notes on letters to Eve from Rhodesian friends, where exactly the same outlook appears: ".. his wreck of a wife.." (Though on 14 she mentions competition between women for high status men, I think she implies 'as Nancy Chodorow and others have shown' though in the sense of rivalry with her mother for her father's love. 193 says There is a law.. 'that mothers and daughters could not teach each other, could not inherit, could not relate. ..' [Marge Piercey])
    - Joke: following from latter, it would be amusing to consider the reaction of e.g. young working class woman to lack of economic stuff in this book, or the idea that nearly all marriages are a mistake!
    - She takes for granted that all men screw around, and implicitly therefore that women do; I recall a similar attitude in Mary Winchester and in Margaret.
    - She has an odd attitude to the family, in view of her admission e.g. that she became pregnant mainly through curiosity: 'A historian friend of mine remarked.. as a foreigner.. it has taken him by surprise to see how deeply embedded were the values of the established church in the lives and minds of people.. no firmer proof.. than that the family has become the repository of religious values, a religion apart. Families.. are not sustained by love, by enjoyment, by relaxation, by passion. They are sustained by commitment and decision and loyalty hard-gathered from the once-good times; .. future welfare is placed above present happiness.. Families are nothing other than the idolatry of duty.'
    - NHS: She footnotes someone's alternative theory that treating the plebs like shit is a result of patriarchal set-up, or something
    - Somewhere she mentions that the very language of history excludes the poor etc.
    - I found the style of this tiresome: blurb says '.. chronicles the battle between love [seems to mean sex and 'finding herself'] and the family.. scenes of confrontation and intimacy.. interweaves the account .. haunting and disturbing love affair, blending fiction and memoir seamlessly..' She writes things like: 'Visions are not for solitary figures in supermarkets, lonely travellers, tired husbands and wives. They are not for public consumption. And they are not intended to make real hearts bleed.' and like 54: 'the other day I saw a man plugged into a tape recorder..' and like 1: 'It is the end of a summer that had no proper middle or beginning. .. a boat holds a man and a woman. They are almost middle-aged, but quite good-looking still: probably professional people, middle class, not suffering from any obvious kind of deprivation.
      What is most striking about them is their vitality. Everything about them is alive..
      .. There is little passion in professional urban circles in the 1970s. ..'

    - 2: 'None of us can hope to solve our basic problems: why we are alive, how we should be born, behave, think..'
    - 2: [Note: words: Oakley confuses 'discomforted' with 'discomfited']
    - 3: 'The questions I had in mind .. included..:
      1 What makes someone into a feminist?
      2 What sort of person is a feminist?
      3 How can a feminist be part of a society organized in terms of sexual difference and 'the family'?
      4 What is the nature of the love between men and women?
      5 How do we deal with the fact that we're not going to live for ever?'
    - 6: 'No family is conventional when you take a hard look at it, ..'
    - 7: '.. parents.. worked together.. on a poignant unpublished manuscript.. Crime and Tragedy.. dedicated to 'those who laid down their lives that others might uphold the Divine Right to use Bombing Planes'. It reminds one that the passionate idealism of youth is either new nor, depressingly, lasting. ..'
    - 7: 'The late 1940s marked a period of retrenchment for women's position in the labour force. 'Good' mothers then and in the 1950s simply didn't work outside the home.'
    - 8: 'I went to school at the age of four.. private establishment.. We said our prayers with our eyes oddly raised to the skies of Chiswick, ..'
    - 8: 'A powerful memory is of an arithmetic test I did one day at the age of five. The sums were written on the blackboard.. I looked at them and thought I would do the most difficult ones first. But.. I got into a terrible muddle and cried.. When I returned after lunch I found I was the only child who had not only done all the sums but who had got them all right. .. The lesson .. was for me that following the conventional pattern may be safer, but it is unlikely to be the route to the highest achievement of all. .'
    - 10: 'At six I went to.. a Girls' Public School.. It was always held against my father, who for most of his life was an ardent socialist (in 1950 he had become the first Professor of Social Administration in Britain at the London School of Economics (RW
    - Surely nonsense? Webb was, for one?), a place with an erroneously radical reputation), that he never sent me to a state school. My strongest memories .. are.. of being a social outcast. .. Thin.. squint.. Titmouse.. no real friends..'
    - 11: [description of Girls' Public School: classrooms, staff of the school, essays on Men of the Stone Age, motto .. 'serve and obey' which 'did seem to me deeply significant as a summary of its philosophy..'
    - 16: [MENSTRUATION:] '.. One by one my classmates 'started' .. tell-tale bulge in their navy-blue knickers.. Sept 15, 1957. I was tremendously happy and excited.. But .. my mother.. confined me to bed and brought breakfast on a tray. I wanted to tell my father and she said I mustn't. .. I thought, if being a woman is a good thing, why isn't there a public celebration..?'
    - 17: '.. privileged middle-class girl.. I knew no boys. .. I had actually never spoken to a boy my age. .. It does, I think, account for a certain difficulty in accepting men as fully human..'
    - 17-18: [FIRST KISS and first love or 'love' going to cinema etc
    - Date with Disaster and Carleton-Brown of the F.O./ Her kiss was more memorable than loss of virginity/ He was a Catholic; 24 she wrote to the Catholic Information Centre. She says he was 'an extremely bad Catholic'.]
    - 19: [Labour Party, Richard Crossman, Peter Townsend later Prof, John Vaizey later Lord and R H Tawney there from time to time] 'I remember well how my father, Brian Abel-Smith and Peter Townsend, in their work demolishing the notion of Britain as a post-war haven of class equality, were known.. as the 'Holy Trinity'...'
    - 21-22: [Socialism, National Campaign for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, CND; she has nothing on the actual arms situation, but quotes the text of the song 'Don't you hear the H-bomb's thunder.. Ban the bomb for evermore' and newspapers on the supposed preponderance of teenagers in the movement.] '.. when I began to relax my limbs in Whitehall, they grew horrified instead. My mother told me that if I got arrested she had no intention of bailing me out of prison. I thought this cruel; ...'
    - 22-23: [SEX: She quotes Sylvia Plath, The Bell Jar (qv) on losing virginity, and Schofield 'The Sexual Behaviour of Young People'; the latter apparently said 'for girls.. to become sexually experienced.. required a much greater repudiation of the family and striving for personal independence.' I simply don't know if this is true; consider e.g. Judith Robinson, who implied the opposite, 'tawdry' Audrey, and Margaret.]
    - 31: [Aged 15 diary notes about being womanly]
    - 33: [Description of her 'analysis']
    - 35: '.. I found some of her [Karen Horney's] thought pre-dated Freud..'
    - 36: [OXFORD in 1962; Blackwell's, Fresher's Fair, Gaitskell's daughter, Labour Club, etc etc]
    - 42: [Description of Oxford by 'James Morris, later Jan']
    - 43: '.. I did not want to leave Oxford without at least the prospect of getting married. .. Even today there are few girls who envisage an entirely marriageless future. .. in 1968 [i.e. aged c 24] I wrote in my diary: "Oh God, why am I not married and happy with two kids? .."
    - 46: 'I felt that Robin was coming down in the world by marrying me, though according to the Registrar-General, chartered accountants and university professors' families both belong to social class 1.'
    - 49: [Writes novels, gets rejection slips: both on women, mothers, babies]
    - 54: '.. The problem is feeling too much. .. As a woman, in the first place, my emotions rule my life. .. There is nothing that I do or think which is not inspired by feelings. .. I want to know why I am like that. I ask a friend, a psychoanalyst, why women are like that; she doesn't know..'
    - 55-56: [Quote saying 'there are few feminine wiles better documented than the willingness of young women to build up the male ego by underplaying their own talents..' [Jessie Bernard, 'Women and the Public Interest', 1971]'
    - 58: [Pregnancy and birth aged c 23; lots of stuff about clinical hospitals, giggling medical students, being left alone, nurse taking bell away, needing stitches, panic that medical students had found defects, etc etc] 'Curiosity had been my main motive for wanting a baby; I had a tremendous desire to find out if I would conceive, how I would look..'
    - 61: '.. pethidine.. After that a fog descended. .. Life was oceanic; I was tossed from one gigantic wave to another..'
    - [DRUGS: Oakley seems to know a surprising number of them by name: pethidine; 68 & 120 stelazine and imipramine. 70 antidepressants, tranquilizers. 104 oblivon. Elsewhere e.g. 131, 140 valium]
    - 63: [Son now 72 inches etc etc/ Oakley impressed by growth rate of foetuses and babies. Note absence of female input in child-rearing, e.g. 64: Dr Hugh Jolly, self-appointed British paediatric adviser to mothers, says that mothers have to fall in love with their babies or there is no mother-child bond. ..'
    - 66: [HOUSING ETC] 'We had.. bought a small house in Chiswick with help from our families. .. curtains.. hoover.. mice.. nappies.. Robin earned £1,000 a year as Assistant Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Bedford College, University of London. ..'
    - 67: [I noted this earlier, before buying this book; its apparent selfishness and self-indulgence irritated me:] 'About the same time, I wrote a list of all the things I wanted most in the world but didn't have. 'a Mini or eleven hundred (car)/ a Hotpoint automatic washing machine/ lots of cupboards/ two more babies/ three pints of cream/ two garden chairs/ a mincer/ a side on my bath/ a wig for the baby/ some gin/ a new bath hat/ some white boots for next winter/ a pushchair/ a cleaning lady/ a portable television/ some huge meals in posh places.'
    - 68: [DEPRESSION:] '.. GP.. should have told me that around four-fifths of women in our society are depressed after birth, a third some of the time. .. March 3rd 1969.. BBC television..'
    - 70: [New Statesman ad for work: phoning to advertise a publication 'which would presumably raise their profits' and 'market research' into paint and bras.]
    - 73: '.. Hannah Gavron.. 'The Captive Wife'.. 1966.. worked at Bedford College... killed herself..'
    - 74-75: [Department of Education; GETTING GRANTS: long correspondence for money for her research into housework]
    - 75: [Article in New Society, 'Deprivation of Paternal care' called after John Bowlby; they called it 'The Myth of Motherhood']
    - 76-80: [She visits a women's meeting in Ealing, with two American speakers, Debbie and Elyse; then a Chinese meal ten years later: one has a baby, one is an HGV driver, one's a vegetarian librarian, Elyse, an acupuncturist, a silversmith, dental receptionist who 'felt she had less education than the rest of us', and Oakley]
    - 81ff: [Passages somewhat like Virginia Woolf's 'The Waves', but they combine descriptive flattening and coalescence with domestic detail] '.. We make tea and observe that it is raining. .. I am on the telephone yet again to a publisher.. a sick child, an Open University Unit to complete.. advertisements in the local paper.. You ask me if I have ever slept with anyone else since I married your father.. you of the unkempt room and melodramatic tempers, of the too-quick retort and hidden Mars bars.. Elastoplast and Oxo cubes.. The salt has been forgotten.. There is a knife missing and the dishwasher is still churning away like the Queen Mary ..' / 101 has more domestic stuff, which evidently Oakley believes to be a part of nature: '.. welcome background.. creak of the pipes, water running in the kitchen, the hiss of the central heating controls, cars outside in the streets. ..'
    - 92-95: [Chapter 'The War between Love and the Family I', which turns out to be a woman's view of a 'relationship' with someone else's husband, written of course from a self-justifying point of view. Mensa mags have a couple of rather similar pieces] 'A man cannot love a woman the way a woman loves a man. That is one point. .. the 'package' of his wife and children. .. yes, she can see why one would not want to lose that. But, on the other hand, consider her own position in this love affair. She is an unequal partner in this relationship. His wife doesn't know.. However, her husband does know.. what her lover and she are able to share together must be determined not so much by what his wife can bear but by what he thinks she can. .. How can one compare love for a child and love for a man? .. On one hand they are a man and a woman enjoying a torrid international love affair
    - really enjoying its dangerous deceit, the hours prized [note: word] away from anything else..'
    - 98: '.. It's like Doris Lessing's Four-Gated City in which the [sic] nuclear holocaust is prefaced by the breakdown of all domestic appliances. .'/ 179: '.. consider this: that the nuclear catastrophe when it comes will not come upon us out of the blue.. It will be a consequence of a million other disasters, trivial mistakes we all, in our time, have made. ..'
    - 104-112: [DEATHS: Mainly her father; also 109 grandmother; and near death 108 of young girl allergic to 'iodine dye'. He died of cancer which was described as 'treatable' which Oakley didn't realise wasn't the same as 'curable'. I think it was lung cancer, in his NHS 'tiny mean hospital room', though there's a puzzling reference to 'dry rot at the top of your ribs' and students being allowed four-letter words if "cancer" was uttered
    - R M Titmuss, in 'Social Policy', 1974. 111-112: service in St Martin-in-the-Fields with Crossman and Wilbur Cohen, ex-Secretary of the U S Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, and Trevor Huddleston, Bishop of Stepney. Apparently he was compared to 'Lloyd George, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Churchill, Queen Elizabeth I, and Seebohm Rowntree', and was 'pensions advisor to the Labour party, Deputy Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, creator of health and social services for Mauritius, influential friend of Julius Nyerere, critic of income tax dodges, charismatic teacher.'
    - 116: [Note on China taken from M H Kingston. 'The Woman Warrior' 1981, generally suggesting horridness etc of Chinese]
    - 116: [Example of what I take to be 'existentialist' influence:] '.. The question is: can love exist without oppression? And, if it can't, who is being oppressed? The question is: why, if my utopia doesn't contain men, are you my utopia?'
    - 117: '.. Our lives are organized around men. .. men belong to the world, they own it, they run it, its representation is in and comes from their heads. Women have difficulty owning even their own wombs, which is important, because within these organs lies their only countervailing kind of power. ..'
    - 118: 'Adolescent boys are a distraction to adolescent girls.. [Note: unconscious ignorance:] Marriage for women is almost always a mistake. Married women without paid work are the unhappiest people in the world. But the mental health of men is improved by marriage. [Source for this is Jessie Bernard, 'The Future of Marriage' 1973, New York
    - Note: American attitude to measurable mental health] Why is this? It is easy to see why. If you're a woman, marriage promises everything and guarantees nothing. .. men go out in the storm and the rain [this is in reference to a supposed Arapesh saying] to see what's around. What they end up with is both kinds.. the little unselfish domestic ones and the selfish dry-breasted ones. That way they get the best of both worlds.
      But women don't. Women, of both kinds, suffer. .. As mistresses.. I speak as a wife and as a mistress, for that is what all women are. ..
      Three women I know are wrapped up in the consequences of men's bifurcated mystique of women: the feminine and the feminist. All three women are married and all three are mothers. All are in love with another woman's husband.

      [SEX RELATIONSHIPS: 119 ff gives account of man fucking two women, from their point of view; then a woman 'married to a gentle, professional man' fucking another (married) man ['.. they found that they couldn't live without one another (to use the well-worn phrase, which.. hides the fact that it's scarcely ever true)'] who however goes off with another woman, not his wife ['No, he didn't want to talk about talk about it. He didn't want to face facts or feelings of any kind with anyone']; the third 'analyses the distress.. All three women are equally upset.. All three men involved have double vision. All seek the conveniences of marriage and the freedom of the sexual chase. All three women want sexual joy and security to be combined in the same person: their image of men is an integrated one. Therefore the desires of men and women are incompatible. .. 'bitchiness' of teenage girls together: .. This is how they have seen their mothers behave. It is clever to make pointed and salacious remarks about other women. ..
      Feminists know that we women should put each other first. .. But it isn't easy, because women can be their own worst enemies. ..'
      [182 has another long sex relationship, this time supposedly fictional involving the authoress and chap who flies a lot; seems to me indistinguishable from Mills and Boon: '.. You pretend to be overendowed with the ability to act while cowering passively in the shadow of your dilemma: your family or love? .. I threw away your ring.. "I'll lie again," you said. "Anything to keep this relationship going. I can't get you out of my mind or my life." But you didn't try, did you? ... Yes, I know you love me. I know this isn't just any relationship. But I am not just anybody....']

    - 124: 'If my aspirations had been for a husband, a house and two babies by.. twenty-five, by the time I was thirty they were rather different. .. I might have echoed Dora Russell's words.. that two babies and three books by my thirtieth birthday enabled me to feel I had done rather well. ..' [125: first book was 'Sex, Gender, and Society' written in six weeks]
    - 126: [APPLYING FOR MONEY: Cp EU] '.. I designed a simple study of first-time motherhood and applied to the Social Science Research Council for money to do it. The application was initially deferred, and then accepted.. I had to gain entry into the medical world.. I spent about a year in that hospital, and I learnt a lot.. took me some time to recognize.. my own ambition to be a doctor.. Why had medicine never been suggested to me as a career? .. profound miseducation of obstetricians and gynaecologists. [Diane Scully 'Men Who Control Women's Health' 1980] .. male doctoring is ultimately about control over women.. nowhere more true than in the domain of reproduction. .. doctors are human beings too.. jargon.. '.. attempt to integrate oneself in the field is not without negative consequences. ..' .. In other words after two hours of a busy ante-natal clinic I too would sigh.. 128: The first woman I saw having a 'normal' delivery .. gave me quite a shock. .. epidural.. machine.. wires.. just lying there.. 130ff: [Pages on her own pregnancies and abortions (in the medical sense) which make her complaints at other women's excessive discussion of their babies seem insincere. Long tale of misdiagnosis, though I'm not quite sure of what: 'He found a ruptured tubal [sic] pregnancy. .. haemorrhaging internally.. Two pints of blood were extracted from my abdomen..' 134: '..twins were diagnosed.. contractions.. went to the lavatory and passed the fetus.. It hung there.. I looked at it in horror. It was an alien object. ..'
    - 137-146: [CANCER OF THE TONGUE; apparently the source of an article; 'I had many letters in response to my BMJ piece'. She was treated with radioactive wires made of 'a substance called iridium' she says; 141 says she got radiation burns, ulcers all round her mouth: 'I would have liked to have been told about them in advance.' 'Illness is either a visitation from the Divine for personal wrongdoing, or it is a condition of human beings with a specific physical cause. Or it is a process set in train by an unquiet mixture of forces in the head as well as the body... Why had all these things happened to me? ..'
    - 143, 177: [Susan Sontag 'Illness as a Metaphor' 1977. See note under Sontag]
    - 149: '.. Lines from Lamartine's 'Le Lac' .. 1817 perorations to the tubercular Julie..'
    - 152: [HOUSEWORK and classic obsessional tendencies.. 'I am now (I think) able to regard housework as just another task to be done. ..'
    - 158: A Things that annoy you about me... (One is 'That I'm always right when we have a disagreement..; another is 'That I'm so bloody efficient and good at everything..') B Things that annoy me about you
    - 161-165: [MORE ABOUT HOSPITALS; Resigned old patients, three conspiracies against patients, arrogance of doctors, waiting. Her tongue cancer hasn't recurred]
    - 172: '.. France.. suggestive of much older peasant habits. Medieval shepherds' families in Montaillou, a village not far from here, never washed: a strong odour was a good sign, a sign of humanity. De-lousing was a companionable act; .. children often died but not without being first treasured and later mourned. [Cp. Book on Papua New Guinea, where new-borns aren't specially greeted; they mayn't live] Time was marked visually, aurally, or simply physiologically: .. sunset.. sleep. cock.. etc'
    - 178: 'In a patriarchal and patrilineal society, children only belong to men because women tell men they provided the sperm to start them off, but who actually did so must remain, to all men, a matter of conjecture. ..'
    - 181: [More existential:] 'Actually, there were four possible solutions.. viz: death
    - physical, of one or both/ death
    - of the relationship/ life
    - living together/ life
    - living apart'
    - 186ff: '.. I still bore the burden of three misconceptions: that domesticity and the public world are for women opposed fields of labour, that illness is a punishment for misdeeds.., and that the greatest misdeed of all women is infidelity to marriage and motherhood [sic]. I therefore resigned from every committee I was on.. .. It was logical now for me to seek.. an academic position with more administrative responsibility, more duties to do with overseeing the work of other people rather than doing my own.. 188: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit.. among the six core staff positions was one for a social scientist.. I have achieved all of what I dreamed about.. Successful work
    - even a degree of international repute; love, friendship, marriage, motherhood. And yet, and still, I am not satisfied. .. Yes, I know I am Ann Oakley.. the author of six books, Wellcome Research Fellow at the NPEU, Honorary Research officer in the Department of Sociology, Bedford College etc.. mother of three children and friend to various adults in my social network.. [Existential:] Is writing easy? If it's easy, then it's hardly an achievement. If it's difficult, then I'm a masochist. This is what Thomas Mann said about writing in Tonio Kröger: the urge to write is a curse born early in one's life 'by your feeling yourself set apart, in a curious sort of opposition to the nice, regular people; ..'
    - 189: [Error: she thinks Darwin wrote 'The Origin of the Species'. And 'Expression of Emotion.'
    - 192-4: [Dreams, typically of having children; described in semi-real-life way]
    - 196: 'In my own life I can see the significance of some factors, viz: being born to parents who did not in their own personalities conform to conventional gender role stereotypes.. ; [14: '.. my father's 'feminine' gentleness and my mother's 'masculine' anger; my father's lack of education and my mother's middle class origins..'] perceiving the difficult reality, for my mother, of a traditional marriage; having a close intellectual and emotional relationship with my father; imbibing in childhood the.. sentiments of socialism, i.e. a moral condemnation of social and economic inequality; receiving conflicting expectations from both my parents and my formal education.. marrying and bearing children and caring for them myself.. but.. also.. a brilliantly successful career..'
    - 197: '.. To see groups of dark-suited, busy, pugnacious and self-important men at conferences, in the street, in hotel lounges, sitting lined up an aircraft being served drinks by lipsticked stewardesses, is to be made more sharply aware that it is men who rule the world... If any one of them makes any kind of sexual overture to me, my anger can't be borne: it makes an impotent, inarticulate wreck of me. ..'
    - 199: '.. Mary Ingham commented that 'Intellectually we demanded to be equals; deep down, emotionally and sexually, we were still looking for the awe-inspiring Mr Right.' .. Alexandra Kollontai.. in 'A Great Love'.. became involved with [sic] a married Russian economist called Maslov in 1909; .. French-born Bolshevik woman called Inessa Armand, who was having an affair with Lenin..' [Cp PC notes somewhere on Trotsky who was I think fancied by Isaac Deutscher's wife]
    - 201: 'Male-dominated culture has designated as female all labours of emotional connectedness. .. the greater sensitivity of women means that they possess an enhanced capacity to relate to others and find themselves very often in the position of being the only ones able to carry out this life-saving task. ..'
    - 204: [FINAL PARAGRAPH:] 'Life is worth living. Not because there is nothing else, but because of what we may give one another; pain, joy, anguish, peace. It's not an easy journey. You may even call it an adventure. It doesn't matter about the problems, the contradictions. In our hearts we understand everything. We understand it's the struggle that counts.'

RW review written c 1990

Ann Oakley: The Men's Room [1988]

---

Novel by the same Ann Oakley as above; presumably written to try to make money. The title must be based on 'The Women's Room', an American book the author of which I forget, since the title has nothing prima facie to do with the contents. (Though the phrase does occur once).
The 'imprint' is Flamingo, of Fontana, itself part of Collins (and presumably now of HarperCollins).
[NB: I found in 1996 this was made into a film; I'm sure if I noted its date anywhere]

---

    -About academic sociologists in north London and their kids (and the importance of A-levels, travel expenses, library book stealing etc). Interesting to try to work out how the hierarchy maintains itself; e.g. there's a male, a 'computer programmer', and a female 'junior researcher' who are evidently considered inferior.
      Each chapter has a motto from de Beauvoir's Second Sex.
      Very women's view comments; clothes are noticed (with conditioned gasp! horror! stuff); certain amount of trade name stuff though not in the same world as Irma Bombeck; familiarity with trade names of tranquillisers; some familiarity with disease as expected since women spend more time on this; e.g. endometrium problem, sort of over-heavy period.
      Changes due to progress of women: some fields of knowledge opened up - e.g. it was discovered that the cervix [+ Lat. of the womb] doesn't look like a nose.
      Quite a lot of sex writing, but it doesn't sound properly convincing to me; perhaps it was vetted or added by a man friend?

    -SOCIOLOGY: Some random remarks:
    -6: '. Regent's College.. As [sic] the college had grown, its premises had not, and the sociology department had been moved round the corner.. the other departments.. tended to discount it and could do so more easily if it wasn't there.. But the effect on the sociologists.. was to give them a quite audacious sense of their own grandeur. They might have become like a gentleman's [sic] club, swanning time away in armchairs under tomes of Durkheim's ..'
    -15: '.. and most of them you've never read. They're just a symbol. A cultural symbol. A product' 'Who sounds like a Marxist now? Such materialism, from the lips of a liberal economist!..'
    -20: '.. Denby's review article on 'Political Marriages: Conflict and Collusion' came back.. dimly from the unread recesses of the Sociological Review. ..'
    -59: 'Mark assumed the junior researcher would be female.. she was. The post, when advertised, drew fifty
    -six replies.. because there weren't many jobs around. Delia Cook wore black dungarees.. Her father was a bricklayer. She had a first-class degree from Sussex. ..'
    -126: '.. fourth floor of the Social Science library in WC1. ..'
    -128: '.. talk to the Whiteman Foundation about the funding of his project on the sociology of everyday life. ..'
    -129: 'Want to apply for a readership,' .. 'Do you?' .. The request struck him as absurd, given the shoplifting misdemeanour and [his] general lack of qualification for such an elevated and expensive position. ..'I'm fifty. .. Can't wait for ever.'
    -131-2: '.. he launched into a soliloquy on the UGC and its underlying and overlying agendas, outlining the points of possible conflict, where the department needed especially to impress. .. getting together a batch of documents about the external relations and internal workings of the department
    - its essential democracy and accountability, its worthy research record, the great teaching it did, its amazing esprit de corps. '.. our postgraduate degree record.. work out our completion rates.. new option we're doing on the social economics of the household
    - no one else is doing that.. we're not doing badly with the overseas students, either. They'll want to know we're raking in the money.' ..'
    -133: '.. Roger Strangeway, the Foundation's Research Director..' [always capitalised]
    -136-7: ' ...'Everyday life is non-philosophical in relation to philosophy and represents reality in relation to reality,' read Mark. 'The study of everyday life... exposes the possibilities of conflict between the rational and the irrational in our society and our time...' He paused, with his finger on the page, in order to think about the point. He was sitting in the New York Public Library reading Lefebvre's Everyday Life in the Modern World. Strangeway had told him his project lacked a theoretical rationale. 'Now that doesn't worry me.. But.. We're talking here about something that's going to cost at least three million dollars. I think you need to tighten up on your theory.' ..'
    -140: 'Margaret Lacey was waiting to see him, anxious to tell him how well the UGC visit had gone. .'
    -149: '.. The rest of July and August were occupied with costing the everyday life project. How much did notebooks cost in Alma-Ata? Sixteen plane trips to Trieste. Should Italian fieldworkers be paid the same as Swedish ones? What about the unions? ... How many interpreters were required to cope with the minority dialects of South China, supposing it proved possible to include South China? ..'
    -151: 'Rose's first task was to unravel the shoplifting project. Swinhoe had years of unanalysed data on the social background and self-professed motives of several thousand shoplifters in towns across the country, including Glasgow, so Scotland wouldn't get left out. Since McKinnon hadn't managed to run off even the simplest tabulations..' [Chap who left sabotaged the figures in some unspecified way which Oakley wouldn't grasp.]
    -172: '.. she got a job in a medical research unit in a London hospital. The job.. was to serve as the unit's sociologist: to give their research a sociological perspective, and do research of her own; also to teach medical students. ..'
    -301: '.. 52.. She holds a senior university position in social science research, a personal chair: not the one she had had her eyes on in the beginning.. She has published six or seven books, she heads the editorial board of a left-wing academic journal and has acquired a solid reputation as a theorist in the health and illness field. ..' [300, same woman: '.. brought along.. a new book.. Being and Doing: Feminist Existentialism and.. [Her] mood is not, however, up to the onslaughts of feminist theory. ..'
    -Joke: Russia: 219 '.. Mark ['exuberant' Professor of sociology] read the bundle of material.. He learnt that Russia was twice the size of China and spanned eleven time zones; however, only 53 per cent of Russians were really Russians. The rest were ethnic minorities. These included the Khazars of Central Asia, who'd been having conflicts.. with their Russian hosts since the sixteenth century. Kazakhstan had its own customs and its own culture.. it had been created an autonomous republic by the Central Executive Council of the USSR in 1924. Together with Siberia, it formed about 70 per cent of the total area of the Soviet Union [this seems misleading; Siberia must be about 5/6 of RSFSR] much bigger than K for this to be true], although it contained at the moment only 16 per cent of its people.'
    [Note: reference books: Amusing to check this; Whitaker of 1987 doesn't list Russia as a geographical entity, but seems to conflate RSFSR with Russia. Siberia is not listed as an entity at all! though mentioned as a source of raw materials etc. There isn't even a map showing the regions!]
    -241: [Note: meme:] '.. I suppose you think voting should be compulsory? It is in Australia and Belgium, you know. I wouldn't mind having proportional representation
    - the Nazis only got 37 per cent of the vote and it enabled them to get power. What a wonderful system! ..' [NB this is the heroine supposedly ruthlessly attacking a male architect]
    -304: '.. early 1980s. Margaret Thatcher was systematically eroding the quality of life in Britain, schools were shut much of the time, hospitals were closing, the universities had become bastions of relative poverty. Feminism, real feminism, was nearly underground. ...'
    -306: [Rather sad perfunctoriness about author's conditioned attitude to 'culture'; e.g. heroine occasionally puts on Mozart, 43 someone goes to a prom, but actually notices and comments on Dire Straits, but:] '.. Celia Johnson and - who was it? - in Brief Encounter had had Rachmaninov; the music in Casablanca [this film also mentioned 150] hadn't been bad either, and that old film [sic] about the Danish writer Karen Blixen she and Mark had seen.. had had a similar emotional musical strength. [Then dialogue between Robert Redford and Meryl Streep as recorded by Oakley follows]. [302 has another film - Peter Sellers trying to piss, with his leg in plaster] [29 has dialogue on not mentioning contraception, or peeing, in films] [15 someone says all the great writers were poor. Madame Bovary gets quite a long mention. So does Roald Dahl. 283 lists Patricia Highsmith, Dorothy Sayers, the radical feminist science fiction writer Olanda Hughes, Jane Austen, Shakespeare, Donne, W H Auden, Sylvia Plath, Emily Dickinson & Proust [though only Swann in Love seems to get read]

RW review written c 1990

ERIN PIZZEY: SCREAM QUIETLY OR THE NEIGHBOURS WILL HEAR [1974]

I wrote these notes in 1995. I was aware of Ivor Catt's work on family law, though neither I nor him knew of the Jewish issue. He worked for a number of years on the issue of fathers' rights, but, largely because of his blind spot, got nowhere.
      This book was a Penguin Special on women being beaten up; mostly (without overview) a collection of unpleasant stories. I know now that 'Penguin Specials' indicated some collaborative Jewish pressure group was weighing in. In short, a red flag. See for example my reviews of Penguin Specials urging the Second World War, and post-1945 on capital punishment, evils of capitalism without mentioning Jewish money control, race relations (of course!)

- Anyway; here is a Penguin Special on women being beaten up; mostly (without overview) a collection of unpleasant stories, and with a number of important points, which presumably led to changes in procedure:
      - uselessness of solicitors who e.g. would say a divorce couldn't be had for two years, despite the fact there is explicit provision along the lines of unusual cruelty;
      - uselessness of supposedly helping bodies; e.g. statement in one place that if an emergency call is received it's ignored for 24 hours, by which time it will have gone away (usually);
      and legal system which appears callous and indifferent and inactive - she mentions a few solicitors who act promptly, but typically there are delays over whole weekends etc when bailiffs and tipstaffs don't want to work. Or custody or access rights given to men with history of violent assaults.
      - [Note: conflicts of interest:] internal conflicts among supposedly helping bodies: e.g. local authorities won't rehouse women who leave in desperation; the Chiswick refuge tended therefore to attract women who needed rehousing and this seems unfair on its borough; social workers vs hospitals vs police - in many cases hospitals wouldn't inform police and/or social workers; e.g. a surgeon who'd mended a woman's nose half a dozen times but who took no interest in reporting the cause of this
      - psychology of certain type of man: realises women want to get married; is very charming; then starts to beat new wife up and also deliberately gets her pregnant as often as possible so she's immobilized. When criticized or whatever appears very contrite and thus many social workers etc tend to side with them - no doubt to avoid difficulties for themselves.

- Note: important to bear the following in mind when hearing criticisms of legal system biased in favour of women (and presumably children too, though this isn't usually ever mentioned)
      [Note: population: One wonders whether huge families of in some cases brain and psychologically and otherwise damaged children is another cause for state action on this point]
      - [Note: class interest:] extension to 'middle class' men; some examples given of e.g. bank manager, I think; plus comment that so long as it was seen as working class inarticulate behaviour only, nothing much would be done
      - [Note: 'fairness':] At the very end is a comment on the cycle of violent behaviour and such men being trapped etc - perhaps just added on as an afterthought and sweetener.

---

Thus my puzzled notes in 1995. Looking back, there are obvious omissions:
    (1) On Race, Jews and their collaborators worked hard to force immigration into Britain. Combined with their campaigns against 'racism', the Jewish media made it seem that they were entitled to housing, money &c.
    (2) White males were targeted by Jews. Many of course had been killed fighting for Jews, under the influence of Jewish propaganda. They were used as a taxable resource, though of course most had no understanding of the methods by which they were swindled.
    (3) On race, it was important to Jews to suppress all mention of violence by alien races. Rapes of white women were ignored. And violence against their imported women were suppressed, too. All this is natural to the Jewish deception mindset.

© Rae West   1995 and 2021

50 Shades of Grey.   2015 movie

Review: Rae West   28 Jan 2023

---

This review is really for people who haven't seen this movie; just like me, before I found this in an Oxfam shop.

The male lead looks a bit like Colin Firth, and the female lead a bit like a brunette Amanda Seyfried. Just so you know. He turns out to be an amiable bearded Celt (I think). An odd aspect of the film is the number of voice actors, about twelve of them. Better than aluminum-voiced western-hemisphere voices. There's quite a bit of blue-screen work; with that intense deep blue; I wonder if their trade press has fights with green-screeners.
      A casual glance made me think the male was called Dakota, well-suited for jokes about flyover territory, with Jamie named in the style of some woman singers, but in fact the names are the other way round. The action mostly takes place in Vancouver; I have no idea why (or why not). The very urban cityscape appears to be Vancouver. Even the helicopter (with the shrouded fan on the back, so people don't get cut up) was filmed there.
      The color-grading is generally blue-grey (eyes and background) or brownish (hair and furniture and umber tones), varied with some outdoor coloring, and with white indoor bedding.
      Billionaire surroundings are entirely modern, largely float glass (British) only visible edge-on. I didn't find this very convincing: we have his own grey skyscraper entrance, but not much more. I thought the music wasn't adapted to very rich tastes; but who knows. Maybe they like 'easy listening', or employ their own orchestral players. I'd guess E L James isn't very interested in the fine points of corporation ownership and shares; in her world as interpreted by scripts and the director, Sam (who is female), a billion is much the same as a million, and share values stay much the same.
      'Anastasia' seemed to me to have an easier acting task: she had to walk nicely, and open her mouth and close her eyes, with sinuous movements, to signal bliss. But 'Christian'/Jamie had several more-or-less incompatible roles. He had up to age 15, I think, an older 'dominant' woman. He chaired a meeting, which no doubt billionaires do, but might have been given more lines showing his impressive grasp of the finances of a telecomms empire: at one point he said "I'll send a check" to Anastasia who wanted money back for her old car. He did a James Bond sequence, specifying his gin & tonic. He (I think) bit open a condom package, and elegantly spat it out, which looked a several takes shot to me, and I suppose was a nod the the Jewish HIV fraud. I haven't read the books and have no idea if this reflects E L James, who had a few parts in the bonus stuff: she looked a bit hard-edged to me, like a biker chick. At least, that's what I thought at first, but she's shown at a book-signing session in Vancouver, wearing what looks like a wig, and otherwise different, so she might have a stand-in. I'd have liked to hear her talk, but the bonus had nothing.
      The main part of the plot is the S & M stuff; the first I heard of that was in a Dire Straits song a long time ago. In the film, 'Christian' unlocks a door, with a suggestion of naughtiness; a model railway perhaps? But 'Anastasia' finds a room, quite small, furnished for S & M. I'd guess the set-dresser bought (or rented) from a store; much of the material was less vicious than it might have seemed, which seems to be a correct observation. And there was emphasis on the firmly obligatory nature of the submissive's commands on giving the code word. No rape, which is a relief; maybe that, or perhaps choking, or knife play, waits for following two films.
      The other parts of the plot supply the framework: she is in their final year for her degree, I think in Vancouver, and has a room-mate, presumably cast as the less-attractive girl. 'Christian' asks her whether Thomas Hardy, someone else, or Jane Austen led her to take up lidder-a-chewer. (This postdates the time Austen was shown not to have written 'her' stuff; bit of a black mark!) She collects her degree, the ceremony being addressed by 'Christian', who funds them to some extent, in what seems an unlikely way. This, I'd guess, allows for future plot twists. There are meetings with family members, and 'Christian' reveals he had a hard life. Cynics will wonder whether this could be even approximately true. Anyway, this DVD ends with 'Anastasia' turning him down, for flogging her six times. My edition was supposed to have an alternative ending; but I couldn't find it. This is now eight years in the past; all the actors are 8 years older; I'd guess about 10% of the participants are dead.
      I wonder whether 'Anastasia' and 'Christian' refer to Jew hostilities against Russians and Christians. Forbidden fruit? And in Jewish finance is very obliquely referenced. I suppose not. And I doubt if the situation in Canada gets any sort of indirect mention. I couldn't see anything like that: no funding for immigrants, for example. Sigh. Very unlike the real world. It had an '18' certificate. How much was under legal control I don't know: you see more on porn sites ("Porn is a Jewish Psy-op"–Eugene Michael Jones). I couldn't help but wonder if 'Christian' had a large 'package', perhaps circumsized, but it was not shown.

Fascinating escapist stuff, a world where the biological facts are rather buried: nothing on digestion, nothing on old age. A world where Jews don't call themselves 'philanthropists' and arrange frauds and plan mass killings between goyim; a world of women who know little but at least show a residual interest in reproduction. I haven't followed the next parts of this series (and have no idea how many books actually sold) but would expect Christian Grey's tearfully heart-breaking early life to emerge fitfully, while Anastasia in 'Jane Austen' mode realises how wonderful he is. I can't imagine the ending would be anything other than happy.

The Iron Lady

2011.   Meryl Streep and a lot of middle-aged male actors, including Richard E Grant, Roger Allam.   c. 110 mins.

Margaret Thatcher ('MT', 1925-2013 and Prime Minister 1979-1990), and Dennis Thatcher ('DT', 1915-2003). Actors: Meryl Streep and Jim Broadbent (plus two more of them when younger). There seem to have been at least four producers, plus unspecified sums from the 'National Lottery' presumably as one of its 'good causes', which I think included funding a life of two Jewish crooks, the Krays.

Abi Morgan: Screenplay.   Director: Phyllida Lloyd.   Costumes by Consolata; see the DVD's extra stuff on this, naturally considered important by the largely-women team.

---

Curiously repellent movie. It's regarded as a visual treatment of Thatcher, with facts at a minimum. Largely shows Thatcher in the years after DT's death, as she approached 90, accompanied by her ten-years-older husband as an intermittent ghostly presence. Broadbent seems to have been directed to be an annoying asshole (US spelling), in which he succeeds. In life, this part of her life was almost as long as the "eleven and a half extraordinary years" in which she was Prime Minister. We have some short flashbacks, combined with some then-current visual material plus intercut new stuff which Abigail considered fitted in.
      The notes below are more-or-less in sequence from the film, but I've added Jew-aware material not of course present in it. The film successfully omits everything significant in understanding the period. No doubt that was the intention. I'd guess reviews of the time praised the acting styles. In my view the film is worthless trash.
      I had intended to review Sophie's Choice as an example of Jewish lies, but I can't find a copy. Perhaps just as well!

---

FILM NOTES

• The film starts with what looks like a bagwoman getting a small plastic container of milk in an immigrant-run shop. There's a puzzling inconsistency in the film, which makes fun of Thatcher's parents for running a shop, but seems keen on immigrants doing something similar, except of course for their subsidies.
• The King and I musical occurs now and then: Rogers & Hammerstein, Yul Brynner described as a 'gipsy from Vladivostock'.
• She signs a few hardbacks of her life, which are given to her, perhaps to save on extras. Forgetfully, she signs as Margaret Roberts. Flashback time—
• Her father, who became mayor of Grantham (or something) describes himself as self-reliant, and regards a 'nation of shopkeepers' as praise. (Abigail misses the Adam Smith reference).
• She gets a place at Oxford University. For chemistry, in fact, though this isn't mentioned or even hinted at. I believe she worked on cell surface structure, now known to have been a fake. It seems to have left her with suspicions about science and academics.
• Scene with Carol Thatcher: old Thatcher with tatty hair hears carers say "It's taken 8 years to get her to let his things go .. sometimes forgets to take her pills". Unlike the Blairs, who made a lot of money, MT is shown as impoverished.

• Another flashback scene: Grand Hotel, Brighton: flames and noise, and presumably reconstructed colour video or film. This was before 9/11, so probably they had no advance warning to set up cameras. Voiceover: "The IRA claim responsibility". Then a scene of MT saying "We must never give in to terrorists".

• Scenes vaguely related to the younger Thatcher actress's candidacy for Dartford in 1950. She failed. I haven't looked up her election record, or tried to determine to what extent she was subsidised by anonymous types.
• Proposed to by "a moderately successful businessman" as opposed to a grocer's daughter. Then twins, Mark and Carole. Then Finchley in 1959, Mrs Margaret Thatcher elected MNP for the Conservative Party. Implication, of small car with stickers, of low budget campaign.
• House of Commons scenes with statues, leaded glass roof, only men, no lady members.
• Actor playing Airey Neave (odd name unexplained) friendly; then she's Secretary of State for Education. Speaking on union paymasters and teachers.

• "One must say the unsayable. Run as party leader!" She's shown being groomed as party leader; the Prime Ministerial ambition being thought impossible at the time. Michael Foot, 'Labour' leader about then—his manner and intonation well-acted—may have been planted to keep voters little choice. She's shown given a TV interview: "Americans are unafraid of success"—an astounding lack of knowledge of US life.
• Schemes of being groomed: hat ... pearls ... hair ... voice ... and talking to small business people. There a suggestion of Hitler influence: small shopkeepers resenting Jews is part of their mythology. The word 'appeasement' catches it perfectly. Put the 'Great' back into 'Great Britain' has a similar feel.
• Airey Neave car bombed scene which must have been reconstructed. The 'Irish Liberation Army' claimed it. More than 30 years later, I doubt if anything has come to light. Maybe after fifty?
• 1979 General Election with TV graphics and the 'swingometer'. Conservative win. Then the 'St Francis of Assisi' quotation.
• "'What we think, we become' my father always said to me." A bit of Kipling: "The female of the species is more deadly"
• The end of the Cold War with Reagan and Thatcher. And demolition of the Berlin wall. It's painfully clear now that the whole thing was rigged up internationally by Jews. Who were tired of leeching of Russia and wanted to leave owning their raw materials and move away.

• Anxious cabinet man: "... draft budget has been leaked ... budget cuts ... if we don't cut spending we will be bankrupt"
• Miners and police fights shown or reshot. Bombs detonated: "The IRA have claimed responsibility." Grand Hotel Brighton speech shown being worked on alone by MT without any colleagues. Explosion,

• The European single currency is another issue, not seriously shaped. The poll tax (not all taxes)—"if you live in the country you must pay for the privilege". It occurs to me that Thatcher's statement that people are afraid of being swamped is unmentioned. Thanks, Abigail. Jews are the chosen people of their own 'G-d', after all. Anyway Geoffrey Howe resigns, MT fails to get outright win as party leader under (I take ot) newly made up rules, the Conservative Party's constitution being a mystery. She leaves, saying in the manner of Biden, that she'd left the country "in a much better state than when we took office."
• DT, the ghost, finally leaves with his suitcase. Thatcher groups herself with Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. Correctly enough

---

Abi (Abigail) Morgan (b 1968) is credited with writing the screenplay. A glance online gives as films: Shame (2011), The Iron Lady (2011) and Suffragette (2015), and Brick Lane. On suffragettes (as opposed to suffragists) and the link with the Great War, see for example my review of Simon Webb's Suffragette Bombers
      She has 'worked for television' ... 'Sex Traffic', and The Hour, Skinned, Sleeping Around, Splendour, Tiny Dynamite, Tender. I'd be surprised to find the 'Sex Traffic' includes Jewish traffic in girls, but Abigail is a wonderfully honest person, so perhaps it does. Her mother is listed as Patricia England; she's described as Welsh, working in London. She is said to have two children by Jacob Krichefsky. She was given an OBE in Elizabeth's birthday honours list. Probably regards herself as a Jew, therefore.

Phyllida Lloyd, director. The Iron Lady was funded by Britain's 'National Lottery'; four producers are listed. She is said to have directed Mamma Mia! in 2008. The 2017 Mamma Mia! - Here we go again seems to have had her as one of the 'producers'.

---

© Raeto West   6 February 2023

Bride Wars

2009.   Kate Hudson & Anne Hathaway   c. 85 mins   28 scenes

On its face, simple enough story about two neighbor girls from New Jersey, friends for life so far, who fall out in competitive wedding mode, but are reconciled when they find fighting is dumb. One blonde, one brunette is one distinguishing feature. The other is that one's a successful lawyer—money-making— with a 'stylish wardrobe' and the other teaches and wants the best in life ... for everyone else, as the cover notes put it.

Those people skilled in identifying money streams for movies could predict how the balance works, subsidies and hidden incomes and remuneration. I'm not one of those—if they exist—and will just note a few guesses.

Diamonds and gems generally look to me rather like coloured glass, but nobody is allowed to say that. This may be a contribution of Africa to the world. Certainly Japan had no such tradition, but may be in the process of acquiring a fake tradition. Inevitably our actresses say "Gee, it's real beautiful" , in this case Tiffany's getting the attention.
      The marriage ceremony site and the whole bridal magazine complex is the my next consideration. Being Jewish, there's no planning for weddings in church. But they both choose a hotel, one where their parents (I think) were married a number of years back. Here we have the primacy of th Plaza Hotel. I checked it was still there, in an architectural style vaguely suggesting a 19th-century cotton mill, or warehouse. I have no idea to what extent this was product placement. There are lots of hotels in New York and lots of visitors; competition may be fiercer than I'd guessed.
      Wedding dresses are also part of the scene-setting in the movie. They pushed Vera Wang; perhaps it was part of a big promotion. I don't know, but imagine in thousands of years in the future something similar will occur, if cities and life survive. In the Special Features, there's only one deleted scene, The Perfect White Dress, which is solely an ad for Vera Wang's chic, sophisticated, elegant &c wedding dresses. For some reason the link foxinternational.com cannot be reached.
      And we have wedding planners. I found websites with a few dozen of these, all heavy with white flowers bought wholesale. The movie made up their own; Marianne StClaire or something like that. I suppose the real elite have their own planners, their own rituals, and their own family banks.
      I feel a certain agonised sympathy for brides and their hubbies subjected to these pressures. Just me, I expect. Men may feel the best day of their lives was paying off the mortgage; women may feel the same about their marriage.
      Even the bridal chorus has its associated difficulties. Wagner (from Lohengrin) has been partly stolen by Mendelssohn.

Bride Wars has flickers of Jewish schemes here and there. After the wedding dress fight scene, the two women decide fighting is "dumb". One says "I'm awake!" in prevision of the 'woke' campaign. There's a same sex marriage scene, previewing another Jewish scheme.

The ending has both pregnant and due on the same day. I expect there was intense debate on that.

My feelings on this movie weren't very positive, but I did take away an impression on the longevity and intensity of DNA and its origins and results, and the astounding fact that human beings, with their malleability and flux and sillinesses, despite assaults and debilitating attacks, have the robustness go on, seemingly forever. So thanks, girls.

Rae West 4 Feb 2023

Two Weeks Notice

2002.   Hugh Grant and Sandra Bullock.   c 90 mins.   28 scenes   Writer Marc Lawrence

I'm not aware of ever noticing this film (or 'movie' if 'film' is too early for you). While inspecting of charity shop DVDs, I wondered what happened to Hugh Grant, not realising how old this was. At the time he was still at his peak. But maybe it contributed to (what I take was) his downward path. Bullock is listed as producer. I have no idea if Grant has tried his hand at risking money. The intro has AOL Time Warner, surely a marker of some sort; the writer appears to be yet another New York Jew. The intro sequences show a 'No Nukes' child, probably an intra-Jew joke.

Promoted as a 'RomCom', the 'Rom' part being obvious enough, but the 'Com' revolving around local New York, and property companies, and somewhat disguised Jewish interests. At the time, New York's skyline had been modified by Silverstein, but there's nothing about it, which must have annoyed the propagandised audience. The multiple specialists in Jewish frauds seem to have failed to confer.

The universe of discourse is parts of New York, including Coney Island, named in remote times for rabbits rhyming with 'honey'. 'Community Theatre 27th precinct' and 'Brooklyn's Renaissance', assumed to have started!, got a mention. So in effect did destruction of landmarks; a little-known side-issue of Jewish power; the movers hate whites, and like shaking their products away. And N’York as a giant Jewish ghetto.

The writer evidently likes scene-setting from the start (or 'get-go'): "I am an attorney" is Bullock, here called Lucy Kelson, no doubt to avoid a Jewish lawyer style name. She and two others are opposing a wrecking operation by lying down in the road—just like Hitchhiker's Guide. The 'US Constitution' is worked in, to show how patriotic Jews like to appear. There's a giant wrecking-ball that Sauron would have avoided and looks an unrealistic device for demolition. But I suppose opening scenes have to make an impact.

Trump (before his mock-political stuff) and I think Zygmund brothers got a sentence, but the main point of the property empire imagined as assembled by Hugh Grant and his fellow but thin-on-top actor is to appear non-Jewish in their Wade Corporation. There's not much on the sort of thing Jane Jacobs protested against (perhaps).

Hugh Grant is supposed to be a goodie through donating millions to a medical center's pediatric wing (which he confused with pediatric—one of the subthemes is 'IQ', of which Hugh Grant is supposed to be deficient compared with Bullock).
      This 'segues' into being driven home (by a black actor, interested in chess, and living with his mom—several points being inserted there) and into another scene with his elder brother who gives a comic list of previous attorneys and now wants someone from 'Yale or Columbia or from CONUS'. 'Hire a real attorney by tomorrow.'

The ‘tikkun olam’ (transliteration into English) shows throughout in various details: 'Saving the whales', 'Homeless legal aid fund'. Her mom, a law professor strangely with little money and supposedly high principles. Her father, perhaps another lawyer, lists the satisfying victories in the USA: "civil rights, equality for women (except 'Shiksas'), fair housing" though absent-mindedly forgets to mention funding and discrimination for blacks, family destruction, hatred of whites, Jewish landlords—and that's just in the USA. As he ruminates meditatively, "as long as people can change the world can change".
      Bullock talks of "a degree in yenta". Her "heroes are Clarence Darrow, Thorgood Marshall, Ruth Ginsburg". Well, she can't list them all... What about Wilson's advisors, through the neocons.
      She cried when Bush won—both of them. The two-party system is assumed, not even implied. There was an odd passage about 'chiropractors': very odd. I'd guess it's another Jewish fraud.

There's filler material on Wade's phone calls, the bride on a stage throwing bouquets, impact reports and non-recyclable paper, all backed by easy-listening music non-stop. So where do you come off?

Raeto West   4 Feb 2023

Bridget Jones's Diary

Here's a tiny ten-year window into Colin Firth, Hugh Grant, Richard Curtis, and lots of others:
1993 Four Weddings and a Funeral, written by Richard Curtis
1999 Notting Hill, written by Richard Curtis, based around an implausible bookshop, in a Jew-approved-for-others multirace area with a history of race violence.
2001 Bridget Jones's Diary. 27 songs in 93 minutes for 'product placement' types.
2002 About a Boy including Rachel Weisz (later acting a fantasy Deborah Lipstadt), and Nicholas Hoult (now 30)
2003 Love Actually, commentary Curtis and others

Helen Fielding's diary (some of it on the DVD) started in 1995 in the Independent and soon developed a cult following. Or so claims the DVD; sceptics may point out that the Independent was a new start-up, presumably aimed to help Jewish neocons to get others to kill Iraq; the BBC promoted the Independent, but its sales were tiny. Fielding was a 'restaurant and food critic'. Andrew Davies and Richard Curtis commented.
      A blurb somewhere says ‘Bridget Jones's Diary is a 2001 British-American-French romantic comedy film directed by Sharon Maguire (it took three years) and written by Helen Fielding, Richard Curtis, (and Andrew Davies who wrote Pride and Prejudice on TV, the version with Colin Firth, in 1995). I had to look them up on Internet—the Playbill fount tiny credits on my DVD are nearly unreadable.

I looked up what's online about Curtis (apparently married to Emma Freud); it seems likely he's another Jew who received what's regarded as a good education in Britain. Sharon Maguire featured largely on the factual parts of the DVD. She did an English and Drama degree, and a 'postgrad degree in journalism' which seems to have taken a year. I've just noticed (June 2021) that a Ben Maguire is the CPS prosecutor in a case against Alison Chabloz, the keyboard player/ guitarist/ songwriter. Maybe the Maguires are another Jewish family. But let's hope not.
      Sharon Maguire appears on the DVD. I had no idea that the London background scenery was computer-generated; I suppose by then software allowed buildings to be invented from a map, with detailing and textures and colours selectable fairly easily. She mentioned an edit suite, things you 'have to kind of settle for.' She said the scene where Zellweger said she'd rather wipe Saddam Hussein's arse than work for him, Hugh Grant as Cleaver, the publisher or agent or whatever was a 'wish fulfilment scene ... leaving a job'. Helen Fielding on Breakfast TV (started 1980 in embryonic form) had humorous anecdotes. A lot of the story seems to have been her life story:–
      Sharon Maguire was a first-time director, a friend of Helen Fielding. Judging by her commentary, her budget was on the low side, typically two takes in hasty circumstances. She talks of 'rushes' (notably of Hugh Grant in an Anglo-Japanese embrace—though it could be Jew-on-Jew; maybe 2000 had some Japanese world plot?) and I think the film was partly digital and partly 35mm. Maguire doesn't say much about the techniques; most of her commentary, in her very well-spoken voice, is about persons, though she mentions a locked-off camera, steadicam, and an aerial shot.

Why Zellweger was given the job is a question skated over in the informative part of the DVD. I'd guess she was part of the group of Jews in Texas, west coast immigrants, of the same stock that spawned Lyndon Johnson, described (not of course on the DVD) as a 'full Jew on both sides'. Another point worth mentioning is that, under Jewish money control, not only can aliens be given more money than locals, but Jews can up to a point take their pick. I remember listening to a then-young woman, who was pregnant by one of the Chosen People, and who wouldn't marry her—being unaware and uneducated in the realities of Jewish parasitic wealth.

Based on publicised Jewish themes, Curtis (after Blackadder) might be expected to leave a trail including homosexuality, immigration, anal sex, anti-white family material, mixed race adults, and replacement by non-whites in all non-Jewish jobs. Much of this is present in all these films, but in Jones there is a woman-making-a-career element, and there's also Jewish activity for immigration into white countries, represented by the highly-paid barrister Colin Firth, and a made-up Kafir Ogani-Eleanor Healey case, which everyone is supposed to have heard of. This presumably was fairly realistic; many immigration cases seems to have had a couple of dozen barristers, taking Jewish paper money. I would guess such a plot-line would be viewed more uneasily now: Firth defending Muslim rape gangs, or Jewish pornographers and perverts, or absurd money-laundering art, might not work.
      It's quite painful to reflect that many women must view news presentation—reading heavily-censored bullshit (there was a short video of BBC tricks by Nick Griffin, on Bitchute, before Bitchute was revealed to be owned by a Jew called Vahey who supports mass murder by Jews)—as a positive career for the new empowered woman. The film is almost half-way through when she determines to start a new life, from publication, to TV. She thinks she's finally in a job showing her intellect. "No self-esteem - no confidence .. trying to find her confidence - begins to find her self esteem". Inner voice says: am now a hard-headed journalist - ruthlessly committed to etc. Firth: "I came to congratulate the new face of British current affairs". On Zellwegger's humble rented flat in south London, imagined as near Borough market, with its cast iron and Crystal Palace style. Maguire said "This is what a 30-something's life is like - believe me!" It all reminded me (slightly) of Withnail and I. "Loneliness, but dressed up as comedy".
      At the time, mass invasion by aliens had been planned. They were well-funded, the result being that many immigrants were housed before Britons, and also were given handouts by the Jew schemers behind the scenes. Though I doubt whether there's be much filmic mileage in Bridget tempted to shag tinted foreigners, however much Curtis might have leaned to such a project.

The infinitely sad lifestyle—the fatuous imbecilities of press releases, the junk unsubstantiated 'documentaries', the money thrown away, the refusal to consider anything informative—must I imagine repel any person with intelligence and guts. The 'successes' resemble parasitised creatures acting against their own interests, like caterpillars on cabbages eating to support ichneumon flies. I suppose the pecking-order provides some solace: Bridget's mum has an affair and a sort of career demonstrating things on daytime TV, as supported by Alan Sugar, starting with an egg-peeler made to resemble a dildo, a TV life ridiculed in a slack sort of way.
      The 'blue string soup' scene led to blue soup parties, we're told. Hugh Grant's Anglo-Japanese subplot seemed unconvincing to me; I suppose twists and turns have to be implausible. The book has more than three friends. The fight scene is not in the book. Scenes of fumbled expressions of feelings, though a scene in which Bridget said she loved Firth was excised. A 90 minute romcom. It ended with Hugh Grant fumbling around with male impersonators of women, possibly a payback by Maguire to anonymous men in her past. After all, it's hard to believe Grant would have such difficulties.

---

Prompted by Miles Mathis on families and actors, I noted the backgrounds of some of these people: Curtis got a First (in English), though ever since I found out that A J Ayer was awarded a First despite, not because, of his performance in final exams, I've been sceptical about these things; and of course in the US Jews are awarded professorships more or less ad lib. Nicholas Hoult, shown as attending a London school containing unwanted immigrants—but wanted by Jews—is a specimen of another such conflict. Looking at Love Actually we see a comic wedding with Keira Knightley and some presumably half-caste actor (i.e. not 'black'), part of course of the Jewish push for miscegenation of non-Jews, which has infected all visual advertising. As is the financing by Jewish paper money of fake refugees: in Germany, they get more money than working Germans, no doubt to the delight of such 'Chosen people' as Merkel. They must love idle but financed aliens, though not in Israel of course. Come to think of it, a comedian was promoting drugs—hilarious. The homosexuality—early-death risks and all the rest—is a fascinating instance of universal Jewish media dominance; I read, and believed, that every single instance of on-screen homosexuality was treated favourably, in about the years looked at here. The odd thing about Love Actually was how little love was in it. As with Erich Fromm's book The Art of Loving. I doubt if Jews can even think of whites without some manipulative scheme inserting itself. How they must hate whites.

Rae West 15 Dec 2019

---

Christmas 2020-New Year 2021. Radio Times the (((BBC))) mag, has a piece on Helen Fielding, including a photo of her plus a much larger image of Zellweger 20 years younger than now. It's fascinating to read the inbred stuff of Jewish lies. I'd guess she's just another Jew with a cover story. 'Studied' at Oxford, knew Curtis, presumably got a degree, worked as a journalist, sweetened the Jew-project of the absurdly-named Independent, married a now-dead person on the Simpsons, comments on sexual politics, comments on the absurdly-named 'human rights' industry. Something worrying may have happened in the USA; she talks of community and 'the solid core of decency' in Britain, which Jews are working to destroy. Amusingly she comments on Keir Starmer, another (((Labour Party))) Jew, who she's quoted or misquoted as saying he's good, decent, and intelligent. Not intelligent enough to know about 'COVID'. The only thing he's done is make people realise that Keir Hardie must have been another Jew.

9 Feb 2021

Educating Rita   1983

• Michael Caine & Julie Walters
• From a play by Willy Russell; Produced & Directed by Lewis Gilbert; Music by David Hentschel, Produced by John Gilbert.

---

Stage play promoted to film, with experienced director, musical hopes, and probably avoidance of tax

---

Says it was filmed in Dublin; including Trinity College; I suspect this was for tax reasons, since the Irish Republic offered inducements to actors and artists. But it looked like London University.

The screenplay started on stage, it's said; It's probably possible to work out what parts work on stage—indoor demolition of wall, scenes in the Doctoral room, party scene, irrelevant suicide scene, though the more extravagantly-extraed scenes might not fit.

Michael Caine earlier starred in spy thrillers: Jewish Cold-War stuff, omitting wars. This seems to have been a reinvention, with Julie Walters I think as a Liverpudlian. I glimpsed her in 2020 at a celebration of Downton Abbey, BAFTA awards plus no solid information, nothing on Fellowes the supposed solo writer, and the oily presenter whose name escapes me. But in the film she says she's 26.

There's a subplot with her hubby, and Rita not wanting a baby—always popular with Jews—but wanting what's called 'education'. This evolves around fat books, the Open University, English-only literature (nothing old), and correct answers. I imagine the film was met with stony reactions from students of English at advanced and further levels; the timing is vague, but it seems Rita got remarkable results in about a year.

The music is composed in two styles: one, a not very good pop song, rendered without enthusiasm in a pub; the other, title music with some sort of synth. I think someone hoped for success with these.

Lewis Gilbert directed a surprisingly large number and variety of films, including some James Bonds.

This is something of a tear-jerker, but not for reasons you'll readily find discussed.

Rae West - 18 Aug 2020