“Peer-to-peer bullying”, “horizontal violence”, or “lateral aggression” as it is called in NHS nursing costs the health service an estimated £2.281 billion annually, according to a 2019 study by Roger Kline and Duncan Lewis in Public Money & Management. This conservative figure includes:

• Sickness absenteeism: £483.6 million

• Employer absence costs: £302.2 million

• Employee turnover: £231.9 million

• Productivity losses: £575.7 million

• Sickness presenteeism: £604.4 million

• Industrial relations, compensation, and litigation: £83.5 million

The Financial Toll of Bullying

Here’s a breakdown of the key aspects:

Compounding Costs: Litigation and Patient Harm

In October 2025, British health leaders warned of potential cuts to jobs and services in the NHS unless an extra £3 billion was found to cover unbudgeted costs, such as those those from bullying and litigation. The £2.281 billion annual toll from bullying is bad enough, but compounding patient litigation pushes it over the edge: maternity-related provisions alone contribute massively to total liabilities of £60 billion as of October 2025, with potential maternity costs since 2019 estimated at £27.4 billion in England. Kline and Lewis note that bullying deters staff from speaking up, admitting or challenging mistakes, and harms team work, directly harming patient outcomes. Maternity cases represent 41-53% of total NHS negligence payments despite only 11-13% of the caseload. Most major NHS scandals centre on maternity ward breaches of “first do no harm,” yet interventions never employ evolutionary psychology insights. Why?

A Long-Recognised Problem

NHS England has long noted the problem: a 1999 study called bullying a “serious problem” in trusts; a 2024 report quotes nurses calling the phenomenon “eating our young.” I used to work in the NHS: maternity services were talked about as the worst for bullying. This is one of those rare cases where the anecdotal evidence matches the empirical

The Pink Elephant in the Feminist Room

As readers of this blog know, I’ve long argued that female intrasexual competition is the pink elephant in the feminist room, and that feminism itself shows zero duty of care towards women—only towards feminists. As Dr Dani Sulikowski noted in our interview, evil intentions can easily be wrapped in prosocial platitudes, and hashtags such as #MeToo; #TransRightsAreWomensRights; and the ironic #ReproductiveRights. I say ironic, because when it comes to abortion, it seems (to paraphrase the prayer of Saint Michael), that feminists more resemble demons who prowl the world seeking the ruin of women’s souls.

The pink elephant in the feminist room is the subtle, status-seeking sabotage women inflict on each other, from boardrooms to wards, all while waving solidarity flags. It’s not “catty” chaos; it’s evolutionary wiring turning potential allies into unwitting adversaries. Feminism itself bears no duty of care toward women, only toward other feminists. I have detailed the empirics of this numerous times here, here, and here (and many more). Feminism champions the elite vanguard (and flatters those who toe the ideological line) while we lumpenfrau pay the price in silenced voices, shattered trust and ruined careers.

Female Intrasexual Competition in a Female-Dominated Workplace

Nursing, being a majority-female environment (90% of nurses are women), is a perfect laboratory for female intrasexual competition. A 2019 meta-study identifies classic strategies: gossiping, exclusion, hostility, invasion of privacy, with predictable outcomes like sadness, depression, burnout, and 10% developing PTSD. Narrative studies show this culture is entrenched in training, where trainees are expected to become encultured to it. Surveys of 1.3 million NHS staff show 23% experiencing bullying—peer-to-peer tactics like exclusion or undermining that start in training and deter reporting errors or collaboration, directly affecting patient safety.

Ideology Meets Bullying: The Natural Birth Crusade in Maternity

Victim payouts layer on financial strain: NHS maternity negligence claims hit £1.15 billion in 2023-24 (41% of all clinical negligence liabilities), pushing overall provisions to £60 billion by October 2025. Annual cash payments for negligence have quadrupled over 17 years to £2.8 billion, with maternity surges driving settling costs from £1.1 billion (2006-07) to £3.6 billion (2024-25).

We now see it in the NHS’s “horizontal aggression” hellscapes, where feminist midwives endanger their charges. In maternity units (also ~90% female staff), bullying intersects with the ideological push for “natural births” rooted in the Active Birth Movement founded by Janet Balaskas in the 1980s. Promoted through the Active Birth Centre, it emphasises women as “active birth givers” controlling their bodies without interventions like C-sections—emerging from “a feminist well,” as Balaskas said in a 2023 interview. This is a feminist triumph on paper, but it is actually a Trojan horse of antagonism toward “patriarchal” medicine, where evidence-based care gets branded as oppression, and dangers to women are romanticised away. The Royal College of Midwives incorporates Active Birth modules; the Centre offers hypnobirthing with no mention of related scandals.

Catastrophic Failures: The Maternity Scandals

This ideology directly contributed to catastrophic failures:

• Shrewsbury and Telford (Ockenden Review 2022): 300 babies died or were brain-damaged, 12 mothers died (2000-2019). Low C-section rates—praised under RCM “Wait and See” campaigns—delayed surgery; a “culture of institutionalised bullying” silenced whistle-blowers for decades.

• Nottingham, Morecambe Bay (Kirkup investigations), East Kent, and others: Toxic cover-up cultures, staff intimidation, conflicts between natural-birth midwives and surgeons recommending C-sections. Ockenden criticised the NHS’s “obsession with normal births.”

Towards Solutions – Or Missing the Root Cause?

Health Secretary Wes Streeting launched a national maternity inquiry in June 2025 (covering 14 trusts, due December) into “systemic failures.” Kline and Lewis recommend better capture of incivilities and bystander interventions. Ockenden calls for guaranteed C-section access, barring negligent staff, and cultural audits. The issue of evolved strategies of female intrasexual competition amplified by a toxic feminist ideology has not yet made it to the consulting room. It should. It could save billions of pounds and countless lives.

References

• Kline, R., & Lewis, D. (2019). “The price of fear: Estimating the financial cost of bullying and harassment to the NHS in England.” Public Money & Management, 39(3), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2018.1535044

• Ockenden, D. (2022). Final report of the Ockenden review: Independent investigation of maternity services at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-of-the-ockenden-review

• Kirkup, B. (2015). The report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/morecambe-bay-investigation-report

• Kirkup, B. (2022). The report of the independent investigation into maternity services at East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-independent-investigation-into-east-kent-maternity-services

• NHS Resolution. (2024). Annual report and accounts 2023/24. https://resolution.nhs.uk/services/reports-and-accounts/

• UK Government. (2025, June 23). “National maternity investigation launched to drive improvements.” https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-maternity-investigation-launched-to-drive-improvements

• Active Birth Centre. (n.d.). Homepage.

https://www.activebirthcentre.com/

• Raafat, N. (2023, March). “Janet Balaskas interview: The mother of active birth.” Nadia Raafat. https://nadiaraafat.com/janet-balaskas-interview/

• The Guardian. (2025, October 17). “NHS medical negligence liabilities hit £60bn amid surge in maternity payouts.” https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/17/nhs-medical-negligence-liabilities-hit-60bn-amid-surge-in-maternity-payouts

• Birthrights. (2025, July 24). “The cost of a broken maternity care system: NHS facing £27bn bill for maternity negligence claims.” https://birthrights.org.uk/2025/07/24/the-cost-of-a-broken-maternity-care-system-nhs-facing-27bn-bill-for-maternity-negligence-claims/

• The Guardian. (2025, May 14). “NHS medical negligence liabilities hit £58.2bn amid calls to improve patient safety.” https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/14/nhs-medical-negligence-liabilities-hit-582bn-amid-calls-to-improve-patient-safety

• How Much Compensation? (2025). “How Much Compensation For NHS Negligence?” https://www.howmuchcompensation.co.uk/how-much-compensation-for-nhs-negligence

• BMJ. (2025, October 20). “NHS medical negligence costs reach £60bn as maternity payouts soar.” https://www.bmj.com/content/391/bmj.r2211

This is after a woodcut by Thomas Bewick (1753 - 1828), a wood engraver, naturalist and artist who lived close to where I do now in Northumberland, in the far north of England. This is the original:

Another influenced by a classic historical cartoon. I studied political cartoons for my art history undergrad degree. The original “The European Balance of Power” by Daumier in 1867.

Some political cartoons:

After Dennis Stock’s 1955 photo of James Dean in Times Square

Anti-feminist and female intrasexual competition cartoons

After the famous zine

Miscellaneous cartoons

unfinished

Richard Hanania, in The Real Target of Pedophile Hysteria Is Age Gap Relationships, wants us to believe that the only thing standing between civilisational and demographic collapse is our refusal to admit that men are biologically wired to find 17-year-olds (and, by slippery extension, 15- and 16-year-olds) sexually attractive. He diagnoses the “Epstein hysteria” as simple concept creep: Ergo, first we all agreed real paedophilia was evil, then hysterical (mostly female) people started moving the goalposts until a 45-year-old dating a 17-year-old became radioactive.

He is technically correct that Jeffrey Epstein was not a clinical paedophile (a clinical diagnosis for a person with a primary sexual interest in pre-pubescent children). Epstein was a hebephile (a clinical diagnosis for people with a primary sexual interest in pubescent children (Blanchard et al., 2008)) and an ephebophile (primary sexual attraction to mid-to-late adolescents).

Note on clinical terms
Paedophilia corresponds to the primary sexual attraction to pre-pubescents, Tanner stage I-III. Typically aged under 11.
Hebephilia corresponds to the primary sexual attraction of pubescents, roughly, ages 11 or 12-14.1 : Tanner stage II-III
Pedohebephilia: corresponds to the primary sexual attraction of both of the above. Ephebophilia: Primary sexual attraction to mid-to-late adolescents, Tanner stage IV.
Teleiophilia: Primary sexual attraction to sexually mature adults in a particular age range (20–40) Tanner stage V
Gerontophilia: Poorly defined term around the primary sexual attraction to aged 70+. No Tanner scale.

Further note: I am definitely on some watch list after my online spellcheck searches today!

Hanania is also technically correct that post-pubescent teenagers (Tanner stage V) can trigger normal male sexual interest. Neither of those technical truths does the work he wants them to do.

Let’s start with the facts he keeps sliding past:

The 2008 Palm Beach grand-jury documents and the 2019 federal indictment (PDF) describe dozens of victims. The youngest confirmed recruit was 14; many others were 14 or 15. The median age was nowhere near “two months shy of 18.” When your argument requires pretending the typical Epstein victim was a first-year university student instead of a secondary-school pupil, you have already conceded the real case is indefensible.

Hanania’s entire piece rests on two logical errors I (and many of my betters) have spent decades explaining to feminists about their arguments:

The first is the naturalistic fallacy. Best example of this is on the adaptive or by-product hypothesis on rape. It goes like this:
Feminists: “If rape is found to occur in nature, it is justified and defensible.”
Me (and others): “No, description is not prescription. An ought is not an is.”

In his article, Hanania runs the mirror-image version: because normal adult men feel sexual attraction to fertile teenage girls, calling powerful middle-aged men who act on that attraction with 14- and 15-year-olds “predatory” is supposedly “lying about biology.” Same sin, different beneficiary.

The second is evolutionary mismatch denial. We, in the West, live in ecological release. High nutrition creates fat, which triggers hormones, which triggers menarche in human females far earlier than at 13–15 as in our pre-ecological release ancestors. Note, puberty and menarche are not the same. In subsistence cultures closest to our ancestorial environment, puberty can begin three or four years before menarche. Girls can become interested in sex and even explore with peers but the risk of pregnancy is low. In the West, these two events often correspond. There is no ‘safe’ exploration phase, and certainly not when adult predators are lurking. Finding a physically sexually mature 14- or 15-year-old sexually attractive is not a disorder; it’s just a calibration that made sense in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA) and is now mis-calibrated because of modern nutrition. This was not the normal case for human in the EEA. Modern nutrition triggers adult-level fertility cues at 13–15 while the prefrontal cortex while the prefrontal cortex (impulse control, risk assessment, resistance to coercion) finishes maturing at 23–26—exactly the schedule it has had for 300,000 years (Arain 2013; Steinberg 2010, Hrdy 2000). Every pre-modern society that could afford to wait did wait; average age at first birth in hunter-gatherers, historical Europe, and modern natural-fertility populations is 19–22, not 14–16, because younger mothers and their babies died at horrific rates. Raising the age of consent was not a denial of biology; it was one of the first great victories of civilisation over biology.

The harms of “lying about biology,” according to Hanania, are political distraction, a stigma on normal male sexuality, a slippery slope to banning DiCaprio’s 23-year-old girlfriends, and—above all—worsening the fertility crisis. (By the way, I watch Megyn Kelly every day and, while I do zone out when she begins to talk about pop culture, she talks way more about Meghan Markle (see my interview with Dr Dani Sulikowski here). But notice what is missing from that list: the dramatically higher rates of coercion, child abuse, infanticide, child abandonment, and lifelong trauma when young teenagers become mothers. The same fertility cues that make a 15-year-old objectively attractive also make her and her children objectively vulnerable.

Hanania’s most revealing move is to present the fertility crisis (which is real and something I am working on) as the trump card that justifies dismantling the age-gap taboo. He is remarkably specific about direction: older men with much younger women = good (“at least has the potential to lead to children”); older women with much younger men = not even worth discussing. It’s true that post menopausal women don’t have children, but simply older women? How old? A woman’s fertility peaks at age 25 (Geary, 2021). He even floats, half-seriously, that we should stigmatise attraction to older women and older men should be encouraged to suck it up and date college girls for the future of humanity. Hanania is a 40-year-old man. As Mandy Rice-Davies, a teenage call-girl embroiled in the 1963 Profumo Affair, famously said… “He would say that, wouldn’t he?”

What he once again never mentions is that male fertility is not immortal. Paternal age above 35—let alone 45 or 55—is associated with sharply rising risks of de novo mutations, autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, childhood leukaemia, low birth weight, miscarriage, and premature birth (Khandwala et al., BMJ 2018; Urhoj et al., 2017; Reichenberg et al., 2019). Sperm do not age gracefully. Hanania’s “pro-natal” policy is, in practice, a dysgenics accelerator for the next generation.

More importantly, it is not even necessary. In every Western country surveyed in the last twenty-five years, young adults say they want, on average, between 2.1 and 2.4 children — at or above replacement level (GSS 2022; European Social Survey 2020–22; ONS 2021). The gap between intention and outcome is real, but it is not caused by a lack of desire for children. The gap between intentions and outcomes is structural and cultural, but it is not solved by handing the entire supply of peak-fertility women to middle-aged men who missed the boat the first time round.

The real poison is not “hysteria about paedophilia”; it is the decades-long feminist and progressive campaign that has brainwashed girls to see marriage and motherhood as oppression and taught boys that they are inherently toxic. The antidote is to get feminism out of our schools and institutions, stop demonising normal young men, and rebuild the conditions under which young men and women can assortatively pair off, marry, and start families with each other—not to clear the field so that middle aged men can cosplay as Bronze Age warlords.

If the age-gap taboo had been erased when Hanania was 25, my bet is that he would have been the first to call it gross and exploitative. Now that he is ageing, it has magically become the only realistic solution to civilisational collapse.

History, evolutionary anthropology, psychology and biology show the line on sexual consent moves for a reason, and it almost never moves downward. In 1957, rock ‘n’ roll’s first great wild man Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousin and was called a paedophile and cancelled, even though the only law he broke was bigamy. Ages of consent have been raised and close-in-age (Romeo and Juliet) exemptions added. The system has self-corrected. No serious person is coming for your 19-year-old dating a 28-year-old. What we are coming for—what we have always come for—are the mature men and women who treat 14- and 15-year-olds as consumable commodities.

The very title of Hanania’s intellectual touchstone betrays him. Vladimir Nabokov did not write Lolita to celebrate the beauty of the “nymphét” or to argue that 12-year-old Dolores Haze was a willing participant in a tragic romance. He wrote a savage, first-person indictment of Humbert Humbert’s self-serving rationalisations. Nabokov’s point was never “she was biologically mature, therefore it was fine”; his point was that a middle-aged predator will always find a way to dress up his deviancy as destiny. Yet seventy years later, half the internet treats Lolita as though it were an aesthetic mood-board for age-gap relationships rather than a horror story about how sophisticated language can be weaponised to groom both a child and an audience. Hanania’s essay is just the latest high-IQ footnote to that same misreading.

Then we have the image from the film American Beauty that Hanania chose himself to illustrate…what? American Beauty (1999) is literally the modern cinematic companion piece to Lolita. The whole point of the movie is that Lester is a creepy, self-deluding predator whose “attraction to youth” is not noble or biologically pure; it is a symptom of his midlife crisis and moral rot.

For a man who claims to be defending ‘basic biology’ against hysteria, choosing this still, with Kevin Spacey leering at a 16-year-old while fantasising about deflowering her, is an almost comically tone-deaf own-goal. The film portrays Lester as a contemptible, self-deluding creep who is mercifully murdered before he can ruin another child’s life. It’s not an ode to youthful beauty; it is a black comedy about how that obsession destroys everyone it touches. Hanania has unwittingly captioned his own thesis with its refutation.

Precision about language does matter, but it is not a shield for predation. Hanania’s essay is a masterclass in motte-and-bailey; in his dreams it’s thot-and-bailey: defend the motte of “17-year-olds aren’t pre-pubescent” while quietly retreating to the bailey that therefore nothing much was wrong on Epstein Island. It won’t work. The line is where it is for the same reason seat belts and antibiotics exist. Civilisation is what happens when humanity matures enough to say, “Yes, I feel the urge, and no, I’m still not going to do it, because I’ve seen what happens when everyone does.” There is a dysgenic tipping point, but the answer to it is not to throw the teenage girl out with the baby and the bathwater.

There’s no concept creep about the term paedophilia. Most people have not heard of hebephilia and ephebophilia, and while more could be done to inform people of the difference, using it for Hanania’s casus belli is pure sleight-of-hand. The public is not suddenly forgetting that paedophilia means pre-pubescent children and deciding, in a fit of collective madness, that a 45-year-old sleeping with a 22-year-old is the same thing. What the public is reacting to, viscerally and correctly, is the spectacle of rich, powerful men treating 14- and 15-year-old girls like disposable toys. That reaction is not “concept creep”; it is the immune system of a healthy society finally kicking in.

When that immune system fails (when police, councils, and prosecutors look the other way because they are terrified of being called racist or “sex-negative”), thousands of working-class British girls get gang-raped for years. That is exactly what happened in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, and a dozen other towns. The grooming-gang scandals were not caused by an excess of paedophilia hysteria; they were caused by its opposite: adults in authority refusing to enforce the very civilisational guardrails Hanania now wants dismantled in the name of fertility and “biological realism.”

We also discuss Meghan Markle Derangement Syndrome (using clips from ), the facial morphology of psychopaths, normal and abnormal narcissism, and how much we miss Joan Rivers.

, a once reliable intellectual, decided to write about “the Kirk case” The Right’s Post-Kirk Crackdown Has a Familiar Mob Logic by drawing on game theory, positing Charlie Kirk’s assassination as a “communal outrage”: a viral incident that can escalate into disproportionate retaliation. The essay revealed an inexorable decline in moral character, the reasons for which I cannot philosophise over but have witnessed since 2016. In the essay’s theoretical overreach and a narrative arc that prioritised diagnosis over humanity, it was notable for its conspicuous lack of condemnation for the gleeful bloodlust expressed by the left on BlueSky and its near-total absence of sympathy for Kirk, his family or the genuinely grieving MAGA community.

The “communal outrage” model, plucked out of the ether from Thomas Schelling and John Tooby, was, I suppose, a ‘clever’ heuristic for explaining viral escalations, but it was applied with a sharp pencil point to the right and completely rubbed out on the left.

Pinker’s historical analogies—the USS Maine igniting war, the Reichstag fire birthing fascism, George Floyd’s death fuelling “violent” protests—were invoked to underscore the dangers of disproportionate response, yet they served primarily as foils for the post-Kirk “crackdown.” Why not dissect how the Floyd incident, which Pinker nodded to as leading to “a wave of firings, de-platformings and cancellations,” mirrored the very mob justice he was now fantasising about from MAGA? In 2020 over 2000 businesses were looted, dozens of people were murdered, 17,000 arrests made, a $2 billion insurance hit that disproportionately ravaged minority-owned businesses. New York Times editor James Bennet was forced to resign after defending a Conservative op ed in the very outlet that published Pinker’s intellectually flashy but analytically shallow puff piece. His warning, “we should be wary of throwing around scare words like ‘fascism’ and ‘civil war’,” rang hollow after 1,500 words of escalating alarmism.

Pinker was one of the first to lose his mind to TDS, (which I do not find genuine but wholly cynical and strategic) and the usual hysterical rhetoric of Trump and MAGA being supposed existential threats to American democracy were repeated here. He mocked the canonisation of Kirk but spared his readers any reference to the sanctification of Floyd. If the essay’s condemnation was partial, its sympathy was practically absent. Pinker opened the essay with Kirk not as a flesh-and-blood father, husband, and conservative activist gunned down mid-sentence at 31, but as a “pugnacious and divisive” caricature whose death unleashed “a furious assault.” Genuine grief was reframed as a reason for Conservatives to unleash a furious assault. Where was it? Where was the acknowledgment of the raw horror for Kirk’s family, who buried him amid threats of their own? Or for the MAGA rank-and-file, many of whom saw in Kirk a scrappy everyman battling elite condescension; the kind Pinker served up here in barely disguised contempt.

The essay’s shallow psychologising treated the assassination as an abstract hypothesis on outrage dynamics, with Kirk reduced to a “pre-eminent symbol” in a dominance contest. Sympathy, that essential bridge to understanding, absent.

Dr. Pinker, heal thyself.

In other news:

• Matthew McConaughey has a new book out & is doing the podcast carousel. He’s an idiot! I challenge anyone to put his words into Kamala Harris’ mouth & be able to tell the difference. Alright, Alright, Alright!

• Palestine is the loss leader for the Islam brand. Those losses are felt by the non-radicalised people of Palestine and Western civilisation.

  But it gets the fascist-istas through the door.

• The UK Labour Party can only be currently understood via the lens of Conquest’s 3rd law:

“The behaviour of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.”

Reform are far from being the best option for British conservatives but the catastrophe of Starmer’s leadership & party means they will likely be the next government. Farage needs to ally with Tommy Robinson. He will not last long if he doesn’t.

• Finally, just watched the pro-Antifa movie One Battle After Another directed by the once great Paul Thomas Anderson. He’s just officially become the Leni Riefenstahl of his age. And this was not even a documentary. It’s a fascist wet dream. What a way to go!

Subscribe now

The terms “fascist”, “racist”, “Nazi”, are being constantly used by mass media and elected officials to slander and dehumanise conservatives, centrists and British patriots. Trump has been targeted by at least three “lone wolves”. Charlie Kirk was murdered by a “lone wolf” who wrote the word "fascist" on a bullet. Then the left celebrated.

It’s the beauty of free speech that we can see these demons in their true form. I don’t know if the rhetoric will simmer down in the US, I doubt it, but I do know that in the UK the rhetoric is being ratcheted up.

Donald Trump is a constant target, but so is Elon Musk and Tommy Robinson. These names will be on some lunatics list, and the left are betting on it.

After Charlie, it must now be established that using language like this against political rivals are hate crimes, and explicit incitement to violence, stochastic terrorism, and murder. I’ve taken it upon myself to use our new British online hate crime laws against the people who created them. This post is a request that you do the same.

The link below will take you to a hub where you can report an online hate crime and it will be sent to your regional police headquarters. You will receive a crime number via email.

https://www.report-it.org.uk/your_police_force

Most of my targets have been media and MP’s. The MP’s are great because you can get all their details, all their social media, on the House of Commons website.

I’ve kept my message short, providing a URL of the tweets/posts and screenshotting as a backup.

Here’s an example:

I am deeply offended, distressed and intimidated by this post by Adam Shockat MP and am reporting him for hate crimes.

The terms “fascist”, “racist”, “Nazi”, and others etc are used by mainstream media and serving politicians to slander and libel conservatives and British patriots. Charlie Kirk was murdered by a person who wrote the word "fascist" on a bullet.

It must now be established that these are hate crimes and an incitement to violence, stochastic terrorism, and murder. We must stop this hateful rhetoric and make people who incite violence against innocent people accountable for their actions.

Above all, be sure to state you are “offended, distressed and intimidated”.

Will it be effective? I don’t know. But we have to do something. We know they want Tommy Robinson dead. If anyone has any better ideas in the mean time, share them in the comments below. Lets talk. Lets strategize.

If you like, you can start with Sadiq Khan’s lovely post featured above. I also added “xenophobia” to the list.

Thanks,

Paula

I’m thinking of calling this tribute Moan F. Givers. Lemme know what you think!

*

Open your ears; for which of you will stop
The vent of hearing when loud Rumour speaks?
–Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part II.

Nearly a decade ago, Charlie Kirk began his extraordinary career as Donald Trump Jr.'s bag man. Around the same time, Claire Lehmann was launching an online magazine based on a forum I created on 2008 called Darwinian Gender Studies (DGS): Critical Thinking Not Critical Theory. Lehmann had been a trusted admin in the forum for years, but just as she was launching Quillette, she attempted to destroy it. Out of the blue, she accused a fellow admin of “misogyny” after he criticised feminism. You can judge for yourself here if that accusation was justified. In my opinion, it was not. One look at the flimsy evidence and weak, emotional arguments she created against this man is proof of that. She'd been secretly scheming with others, collecting allies (as evidenced in the link). Following the female intrasexual playbook, she couldn't go after me directly without risking her own reputation at the time, so she chose an easy target–a man–though her main objective was me and the forum I had created. It's my belief she wanted to destroy the forum so she could pretend Quillette was an original idea with no inspiration or precursor. To date, every time she is asked about the inspiration for Quillette, she lies by omission. All while insisting she and her magazine stand on “truth” and “principles”.

Many of you might find this information of little worth. That’s fine by me. I’m not here to turn weasels into wolves. But some discerning minds among you might find it very valuable indeed, because it tells a story that goes way beyond this personal anecdote, and takes us right up to the tragedy that unfolded at Utah Valley University's Fountain Courtyard this last week.

On the coattails of Quillette, a cottage industry of supposed "centrist" and "heterodox" media emerged, all keen on diagnosing a culture war but providing little in the way of a cure. This was odd, as many of Quillette’s first writers had been members of DGS, and by that time we had spent seven years predicting the then-nascent culture war, studying its etymology and spread. We had also identified the problem–feminism. Feminism is THE vector of the culture war; it is the vein through which all its cohorts—wokeism, intersectionality, CRT, and trans ideology—are mainlined. This was around the time of GamerGate 1.0 and, in 2014, I had written one of the most popular defences of GG at the time, which was supported and re-tweeted by Christina Hoff Sommers.

Gender, pronouns and trans lunacy were still to come. Feminists first tried to weaponise Title IX against men with a “rape culture on campus” narrative. When that didn’t work, they pivoted to using Title IX against women by leveraging transgender ideology. This was all predictable at the time, but as Lehmann explicitly told me, after I offered to write something for the outlet, “I'm just not interested in gender."

“You cannot imagine what sorrow and anger seize one's whole soul when a great idea is picked up by some fools and dragged into the street, and one suddenly meets it in the flea market, unrecognisable, dirty, askew, absurdly presented, without proportion, without harmony, a toy for stupid children.”

–Fyodor Dostoevsky, Demons

The subsequent suppression of all we had learned and studied in DGS about the fraud of feminism, its Trojan horse strategies, its protean shape-shifting, its malevolence towards men and women alike, the meaningless trope of “equality”--meant that the subsequent succession of middle-class careerists in "new media" could nurture the culture war for as long as it was profitable. Many even got into bed with feminists. Soon, the full horror of woke and trans ideology was allowed to reach its full flowering, and the harms done in its name (chemical castrations, unnecessary surgeries, mass delusion) were allowed to wreak havoc across a generation of young people, the culture war cannon fodder.

Root causes were not examined. Only symptoms. This was perfect for the new woke and anti-woke industry alike. Those on the left profited from NGO corruption, those on the centre and right profited from a reactionary response. Both were profiting, and neither had a serious interest in stopping the gravy train.

This is the dynamic of the Baptist and the Bootlegger.

"Baptist and Bootlegger" was coined by economist Bruce Yandle, to illustrate how special interests cloak self-serving agendas in the language of public good. It is important to know that today, the “baptist” and the “bootlegger” are interchangeable identities. Originally based on the prohibition era, it describes a strange bedfellow political alliance where seemingly opposing groups—moralists (prohibition Baptists, who advocated for temperance and prohibition for ethical reasons) and gangster profiteers (bootleggers, who illegally sold alcohol for gain)—teamed up to advance a common policy that fiscally benefited both. In the micro culture war, "Baptists" and “Bootleggers” can either be outraged lib moralists like Graham Linehan waking up after drunk tweeting to find his West-end play needs some tweaks; trans activists shaking their blue gory locks against “phobes”: opportunists on both sides being as offensive as possible for pay, or actual people with no skin in the game losing livelihoods because they sang along to a rap song and said “nigger” out loud. Look there! I wrote it ‘out loud’.

Point being, there’s no difference. In the meta-culture war, there’s even less difference.

Part 2 tomorrow…
Edit. Addendum:

*By Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America - Charlie Kirk & Donald Trump, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=134984195

The Westminster Declaration makes three calls to action.

• We call on governments and international organisations to fulfil their responsibilities to the people and to uphold Article 19 of the UDHR.

• We call on tech corporations to undertake to protect the digital public square as defined in Article 19 of the UDHR and refrain from politically motivated censorship, the censorship of dissenting voices, and censorship of political opinion.

• And finally, we call on the general public to join us in the fight to preserve the people's democratic rights. Legislative changes are not enough. We must also build an atmosphere of free speech from the ground up by rejecting the climate of intolerance that encourages self-censorship and that creates unnecessary personal strife for many. Instead of fear and dogmatism, we must embrace inquiry and debate.

We stand for your right to ask questions. Heated arguments, even those that may cause distress, are far better than no arguments at all.

Jean discusses his experiences in the NGO sphere, the moral and ethical cowardice, tricks and corruption he has found there and his refusal to play the game by intersectional (woke) rules; how the terms “freedom of expression” are being used against freedom of expression; how Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter (now X) was essential in exposing the complicity of governments with tech to censor freedom of expression; how community notes work but are under attack; how you can draft a non-woke code of conduct & terms of service for your business and how it’s vital you have the spine to do it; of how universities are now advertising courses for “accredited” podcasters, and finally, we talk about the legacy of The Westminster Declaration as we enter a new age.

Follow Jean on X @JFQueralt

“Public confidence in the criminal justice system is central to the rule of law. If the CJS does not inspire confidence, there is a fundamental risk to how society views the effectiveness of justice.”

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, 2021

Feminists often claim that the UK rape conviction rate is less than 2%, perpetuating the ultimate rape myth of a failing justice system riddled with institutional misogyny. This figure is derived by conflating all complaints made to the police with eventual convictions, a method not applied to other crimes. If other crimes were calculated similarly, their conviction rates would also appear abysmally low, around 6%. When originally writing on this subject in my May 2023 article Feminist Lies and Damn Statistics!, the UK rape conviction rate was 62%, higher than for crimes like threatening to kill, attempted murder, manslaughter, and GBH. Today, the Crown Prosecution Service data summary reports that it has fallen to 59.8%, though this increased 3.2% from the previous quarter. As you can see, rape conviction is a long way from being under 2%.

In 2010, a government report by Baroness Stern, The Stern Report, found that such misrepresentations could deter victims from coming forward. The report garnered only two mainstream write-ups in The Telegraph (see headline image) and The Guardian (below). None of the recommendations by Baroness Stern were adopted by feminists or the media, who continue to recycle these statistics twenty-five years later.

This false negative also permeates political discourse. For example, in 2021, feminist politicians exploited the tragic murder of Sarah Everard to undermine confidence in the justice system.

Labour MP @RosieDuffield1 is recorded in the Hanson Record (a written record of proceedings and debates in Parliament), stating that rape convictions were at a “shocking all-time low”. Another feminist MP, @angelaeagle claimed rape has been “effectively decriminalised.” Media outlets, including @guardian, @thetimes, and the @BBC, constantly repeated these claims, with the BBC allowing then Deputy Labour Leader @AngelaRayner (now Deputy Prime Minister) to assert a 1.6% "charge rate" for rape in 2023, without providing context or correction.

Friends of Sarah criticised the feminist adoption of her as a mascot for misandry. Feminists didn’t care. They objectified and silenced her in pursuit of their own gratification, just as her murderer had.

Decade after decade, as feminists and the media continually inform victims they only have a 2% chance of achieving justice, they are also informing offenders that they have a 98% chance of getting away it. Who is going to feel more “empowered” by such messages?

In 2017, feminists petitioned parliament, claiming that “rape myth” acceptance by jurors was leading to wrongful acquittals. Their “research” however, was based on mock juries and surveys, as all feminist research in this area is.

They demanded an investigation. Boy, did they get it!

Professor Cheryl Thomas QC was commissioned, and her subsequent research, using real jurors, found little evidence of juror bias and confirmed that juries convict more than they acquit in rape cases.

Thomas’ 2020 report, The 21st Century Jury: Contempt, Bias and the Impact of Jury Service, reiterated that the true conviction rate of 62% (at that time) should be publicised to encourage victims to pursue justice, and warned (per Stern) that false narratives harm victims by fostering distrust in the system. Were these results and recommendations accepted by feminists? Of course not!

In 2021, the same myths were used by feminists in Scotland to end jury trials for rape.

What about Rape Crisis, the most prominent organisation for victims of rape? Do they share the good news? That victims have a 60% chance of achieving justice? No. They have changed the messaging slightly, but not to anything encouraging. This was their website in 2023:

And this is their website today:

…and they call these “informed statistics”.

They are still using the “end-to end” statistical model, meaning dividing all reports with all eventual convictions, despite Baroness Stern’s 2010 report warning that it deters victims from coming forward. They even site this as a problem themselves, stating that 38% do not have faith in the justice system when they themselves are the ones with the power to change this!

Feminists leverage vulnerability to promote feminist identifiction and activism.

As I explain here, the primary goal of all feminisms, from radical to intersectional, is to “dismantle patriarchy”, not help women. Eroding public confidence in the justice system is just one facet of that.

The 2023 book Tackling Rape Culture: Ending Patriarchy argues that dismantling patriarchy within the justice system is essential for achieving feminist goals.​ This includes perpetuating now-debunked “rape myths” about low convictions, jury bias, and victim-blaming.

The author, Jan Jordan—Emerita Professor of Criminology at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand—lists “silencing” and “objectification” as two main mechanisms of rape culture yet, by chosing to use the tragedy of Sarah Everard in chapter one, appears oblivious to the fact that this is exactly what she has done to Everard herself.

In a 2022 publication by Jordan, Women, Rape and Justice: Unravelling the Rape Conundrum, she asks herself four questions:

1. Why, more than half a century of feminist action later, does

   the prevalence of sexual violence show few signs of abating?

2. Despite multiple reviews and reforms, why do so many women still

   fear speaking out?

3. Why (do) those who do speak out still risk being blamed or disbelieved and…

4. Why, for those who report rape to the police, are the chances of seeing an attacker convicted appear even less likely now than earlier?

This is not a “conundrum”, Jan. The answer to the first three questions is feminist rape myths. The assertion in question four is a flat out lie.

It is not “rape culture” that produces and disseminates rape myths. It is not “patriarchy” that silences and objectifies victims. It is feminism itself, and it leverages female vulnerability as a means to an end.

Without climbing into the almost impenetrable thicket of feminist theory, the concept of “gendered”, “asymmetrical” vulnerability has long had significant implications for feminist activism by shaping its strategies and goals. Between the Dworkinesque “victim” and Butleresque “survivor” narratives, all feminists agree that vulnerability can and should be leveraged in raising the feminist consciousness of the average lumpenfrau.

The above book, published in 2014, discusses using vulnerability to aid feminist activism. In the book below, Katariina Kyrölä, Associate Professor in Media Studies at UCL, discusses employing vulnerability to advocate for social change, consciousness-raising, and resistance against ‘patriarchal’ norms. Ingrid Ryberg, Senior Lecturer in Gender Studies at Gothenburg University, asserts that vulnerability is instrumental in collective feminist activism against ‘patriarchy’.

The above 2018 paper discusses challenging feminist stereotypes and reminding women of their vulnerability to recruit feminist activists:

“[E]ducators or interventionists hoping to promote change may want to promote a more favorable “prototypical feminist” (thereby increasing feminist identification) and also may provide information about vulnerability to sexism (in order to motivate women to engage in feminist behaviors).”

A previous 2004 paper by Zucker, Disavowing Social Identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist, but… addresses vulnerability to suffering, suggesting that such experiences can serve as formative events that contribute to feminist identity. ​ However, it emphasizes that it is not the experience of suffering itself, but the recognition that the suffering is due to sexism and its injustice, which may raise consciousness and lead to feminist identification.

Thankfully, the 2021 push to end jury trials for rape in Scotland was met with furious backlash and scrapped in 2024.

Yet, here we are in 2025 and a new front has opened up, this time with a man recruited to throw us off the feminist scent perhaps, suggesting trial by jury could be suspended for cases "such as sexual assault, racially or religiously aggravated strangulation, harassment and child abduction." The justification? Post-COVID backlog. Don’t fall for it!

Since 2019, the UK government has spent over £1.3 billion in taxpayers’ money jumping through endless feminist hoops to address a supposedly “misogynist” justice system. Yet 25 years after The Stern Report, feminists refuse to do the one simple thing that would help more victims achieve justice: tell the truth.

Feminists see rape culture, rape myths, jury bias, and patriarchal oppression with the same zeal that Abigail Williams saw Goody Proctor with the Devil. The fact is that no matter how much money is spent, feminists will never be satisfied because their goal isn’t justice—it’s dismantling the structures delivering it.

Philip lost his seat in the 2024 election which saw the Conservatives lose power to the Labour Party. Philip left politics after this and is now working in the private sector.

In this podcast we talk about Philip's long tenure in parliament, his advocacy of men and women’s equal rights, his adventures on the board of the Women and Equalities Committee, his hope he can one day meet Donald Trump, plus…

Liz Truss

Trump’s tariffs

Kemi Badenoch and the future of the Conservative Party

Reform

The Farage and Lowe feud

Tommy Robinson

Two Tier policing

Starmer’s response to the Southport massacre

Activist judges

The TV show Adolescence

*I mistakenly called the Women’s Equality Party the Women and Equalities Party, mixing it up with the Women and Equalities Select Committee which we talk about elsewhere.

The parable of the five arrows found in ancient tales from Asia to the Americas teaches that unity is strength. As told in the Secret History of the Mongols, a mother gives her quarrelling sons one arrow each, which they snap easily. She then wraps five arrows together and gives her sons the same instruction. None can break the bundle. The lesson is learned: Alone, each brother is weak, but together the brothers are invincible. This lesson echoes in the Iroquois Confederacy, where five Native American tribes united under a common goal to live in harmony. This in turn inspired the founding fathers vision of a unified republic and the democratic principles within it. Today, Douglas Murray and Dave Smith share a common goal in their desire for peace in Israel and Gaza, yet their dialogue concentrates on their differences, rather than this common goal, rendering their debate, and the wider debates springing from it, moot. Like the brothers in the parable, their–and our–strength lies in unity, not division.

Joe Rogan may have intended to have “an intelligent conversation between two people who disagree,” but the episode only deepened the divide between Murray and Smith. Despite their shared centre-right alignment and mutual desire for peace, neither of them leveraged this common ground to propose a unified path forward. Murray correctly framed the starting point of the current debate as beginning with the October 7th 2023 massacre. This was the flashpoint that ignited Israel’s military response and created the ensuing plight of Gazan civilians, which Smith rightly highlights as a humanitarian crisis. It is an indisputable fact that one event directly led to the consequence of the other. Had the events of October 7th not occurred, Murray and Smith wouldn’t even be sitting across from each other in Rogan’s studio, each clutching a broken arrow of their own making.

Smith’s insistence on kicking the ball into the long grass of history derails the debate and could be seen by many as justifying the October 7th atrocity, a morally unconscionable conclusion for all reasonable people. While the past can offer context, it cannot dictate the present or justify the massacre. Those people were primary targets not collateral damage in a military operation. Smith points to Israel’s historical role in facilitating Hamas’s creation in the 1980s, as it was hoping to counter the more radical Palestinian Authority—a fact that’s true but incomplete. What Israel didn’t foster nor could have envisaged was the Hamas that later wrote a 1988 covenant stating its intent to kill all Jews and destroy the state of Israel, a genocidal mission that defines Hamas today. That is the Hamas Israel faces now, and it’s the Hamas that carried out the October 7 attacks. By dwelling on historical grievances, Smith sidesteps the urgent reality of the present conflict, missing a chance to align with Murray on a shared starting point and a shared goal: stopping the violence and securing peace for both Israelis and Palestinians.

• Point of agreement missed: a massacre occurred which started the current Israeli assault on Gaza. Let our debate start here.

For his part, Murray, also derailed the debate with tangents of his own. His decision to begin with the Churchill debate—a historical sideshow involving another Rogan guest, Darryl Cooper, and his revisionist take on World War II—was, I believe, a mistake. Murray’s focus with credentialism also muddled his argument. Primary sources do matter, and Murray had them, having spent years in the Middle East researching his book, On Democracies and Death Cults.

Smith, relied entirely on secondary sources like World Bank reports, and hence did lack the on-the-ground perspective to match Murray’s depth, a flaw that weakened his analysis. But Murray’s gatekeeping—who gets to speak and who doesn’t—shifted the focus to an irrelevant elitism contest, not the urgent crisis at hand. Rogan only really interjected to defend Smith and they both dismissed Murray’s concerns about pro-Hamas sentiment, often sighing exasperatedly, “no one is saying that.” No one in that room, sure. But in the wider world, this is undeniable. A quick scroll through X or a glance at campus protests reveals vocal radical pro-Hamas rhetoric—not just pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist sentiment, but explicit support for a group whose charter calls for the extinction of Israel and the genocide of Jews in the Levant.

From the burning of synagogues in Australia to chants of “From the river to the sea” at campus protests in the US that echo Hamas’s genocidal aims, the evidence is stark—yet Smith and Rogan barely acknowledged it. It would have taken little for them to concede this reality, or to admit that such hatred is often cloaked as pro-Palestinian or anti-Zionist activism.

Instead, Smith doubled down on historical debates, revisiting the checkered origins of Zionism—a moot point in today’s context. Zionism, at its core today, simply means believing Israel exists and has a right to continue existing. By that definition, I’d expect both Rogan and Smith to call themselves Zionists.

To continue to frame Zionism historically as a dirty word is to implicitly endorse the alternative: the annihilation of a nation and its people. Let’s look at The Troubles in Ireland for a lesson: Unionists and Republicans, both once tied to terrorist factions, set aside appeals to the past to forge peace. That process would have failed if either side had clung to historical grudges.

• Point of agreement missed: There has been an increase of antisemitic rhetoric and violence around the world.

What’s happening in Gaza today is a humanitarian crisis, but Hamas’s primary responsibility for it cannot be sidestepped by appeals to history. The facts are clear: Hamas, whatever its origins, now exists to exterminate the Jewish population in the Levant. It uses Gazans as cannon fodder for its political and ideological aims, ruling with an authoritarian grip that suppresses dissent, restricts press freedom, and commits human rights abuses against political opponents, including Fatah supporters, journalists, and activists. Hamas justifies its actions with appeals to God—a logic that mirrors radical Jewish settlers in Israel who do the same. If one finds the latter absurd, as I’ve heard Jeffrey Sachs argue, then the former must be equally so. For peace to be possible, Hamas must disavow its genocidal charter. It won’t. This leads to a third missed point of agreement: the need to free Gaza from Hamas’s grip, a step that would serve both Palestinians and Israelis by dismantling THE fundamental barrier to peace.

• Point of agreement missed: Free Gaza from Hamas.

Murray, Smith, and Rogan, despite sharing common goals, each weakened their arguments by brandishing singular, brittle arrows that snapped under the stress of their own making. Their debate fixated on historical grudges, procedural jabs, and dismissals of inconvenient truths, rather than binding those arrows into a bundle for peace. Their shared desire to end the violence in Israel and Gaza could have been that bundle—unbreakable had they chosen unity over division. They might have called for a ceasefire to halt the bloodshed, paired with humanitarian aid for Gaza and security guarantees for Israel, while defending Israel’s right to exist and acknowledging its imperfections, showing a fractured world what collaboration can achieve. Instead, their clash on Rogan mirrors a broader failure in today’s discourse, where media, even unwittingly, often amplifies conflict rather than fostering solutions. In a world desperate for answers, the image of them in Rogan’s studio—each clutching a useless broken arrow—reminds us of the parable’s timeless lesson: true strength lies in what we build together, not what we tear apart.

I’m a big fan of Joe and he’s a subscriber to this newsletter. Maybe he can invite Murray and Smith back to bind their arrows together for a new conversation, one that focuses on the urgent issues of today: the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Israel’s right to exist, and Hamas’s degeneracy toward both Israelis and Gazans.

I will begin to paywall articles after this one. I’ve built my audience over the last year with free content and hope I have proven to you that I deliver quality content that is worth paying for. My subscriptions are set at the lowest price Substack allows. Please become a paid subscriber and help me continue to deliver unique and thought provoking content. I have some cracking stuff coming up. Don’t miss out!

“Men who are truly generous are always ready to compassionate when the misfortune of their enemy surpasses the limits of their hatred.”
Alexandre Dumas. The Count of Monte Cristo. 1844 -1846

This sentiment looms large as we observe the current trials of Blake Lively, allowing us the opportunity to watch the mechanics of human blood sport and female intrasexual competition in real-time.

While it’s true that we learn a lot about human nature from spontaneous real-world events, it’s also clear that such a study design as this would never pass a modern academic ethics board. Of course, neither would any episode of Punk’d or Noel Edmunds’ Late, Late Breakfast Show.

As we saw with the social media mobbing and suicide of Love Island UK presenter Caroline Flack in 2020, the mortal risks of online bullying and cancel culture are high. More tragic is the fact that Flack died just before Covid and lockdowns hit. Had she waited just two-weeks, the public humiliation of her trial would likely have been itself cancelled, and her personal scandal subsumed and forgotten under the news cycle of the global pandemic.

But ethics in the service of public amusement has a tenuous reach. Online mobs are the black ops of civilisation. Our species’ taste for human sacrifice has entered the digital arena. Are we not entertained?

Though Lively is accused of being a bully herself, so are more of us than are willing or honest to admit, and because of this foible of human nature, the pile-on is in danger of becoming a murderball.

A murderball is not a deadly soirée in Game of Thrones, it is a fatal female swarming manoeuvre in bees. When a wasp attacks a beehive, the hive smothers it at the centre of a suffocating ball. Similarly, when a hive decides to reject their queen, her daughters kill her in the same way.

We see a similar strategy in cancel culture and online mobbing—events that have become sporting fixtures on social media. While they are not as precisely scheduled as the footie, they are guaranteed and not constrained to a season. The games welcome all comers and the team with the most anons & ‘bots firing relentless salvos across time zones wins. Cancel culture is a fabian strategy: a war of attrition where direct conflict is avoided in favour of exhausting an opponent.

Elon Musk's purchase of X and his decision to remove the muzzle from free speech—allowing people to express biological truths without fear of deletion—plucked the sting from the tail of organized political mob attacks for a while. But the mobs and the inclinations are still there.

Species of matriarchal Hymenoptera: bees, wasps, and ants are often represented as epitomes of female cooperation. The early 20th-century feminist Charlotte Perkins Gilman loosely modelled the eusocial matriarchal utopia she created in her book Herland on such dynamics. In the book, men suddenly and inexplicably disappear—happily only after building the infrastructure of a large, advanced civilisation.

Then just as abruptly, an elite caste of women develop the capacity to reproduce through thelytokous parthenogenesis, where female queens produce female embryos from an unfertilized egg.1 These infertile offspring are born into fixed hierarchical castes, such as workers and soldiers. Female choice, one of the most powerful mechanisms of Darwinian evolution, is eradicated. Yet for many feminists, this is the model of a feminist utopia. It’s not a coincidence that all feminisms scorn the idea of female choice and “choice feminism” which emphasises a woman's right to self autonomy.

But as the murder ball attests, even in actual eusocial insect species, deadly female intrasexual competition still occurs. The fated all-female utopia is actually a dystopia. Today, via social media, we have the opportunity to study this on a large scale for the first time in human history.

“There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women:"
Madeleine Albright. Keynote speech at Celebrating Inspiration luncheon. 2006

In our evolutionary history—and remembering we are adapted to the past not the present—being ostracised from the group was likely a death sentence for women. It’s not pleasant for anyone, but this selection pressure has left women with an especially deep and adaptive terror of social ostracism. Blake Lively, like Amber Heard before her, today finds herself under the intense scrutiny—mostly by other women—for her hubris and ambition.

Timeline of Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s It Ends With Us Drama

Lively started her mainstream career as an actress in the 2007 TV series Gossip Girl and then transitioning to movies. She married Deadpool star Ryan Reynolds in 2012 and they became a Hollywood power couple.

On January 2023: Lively joined It Ends With Us as the lead actress, playing Lily Bloom. Baldoni, was already entrenched as the project’s key figure having bought the rights to the book in 2019 via his company Wayfarer Studios, taking the role of exec. producer and male lead. He welcomes Lively to the cast. Later, Lively also asserts herself in a co-producer role, setting the stage for creative tensions with Baldoni during filming and postproduction.

The film’s promotional campaign began in August 2024 ahead of its August 9 release, and seemingly out of nowhere Lively began to face mounting bad press with critics accusing her of trivializing the movie’s domestic violence theme by focusing on aesthetics rather than its serious issues. Rumours of on-set conflict with Baldoni surfaced, alongside a 2016 interview showing her curtly dismissing and humiliating a female reporter, Kjersti Flaa, in a press junket.

At the film’s August 9 premiere Baldoni and his family are relegated to a lower-profile area, while Lively’s edit of the movie—allegedly unseen by Baldoni—screened in the main theatre. The clash over artistic control then became public. On December 4, The Hollywood Reporter names Lively on its Women in Entertainment Power 100 list, recognizing her as an “actress and producer.” She’s quoted saying, “Women are quite literally kicking ass in male genres,” with It Ends With Us cited as her first producer credit. December 20, Lively then files a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department against Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios, against Baldoni detailing sexual harassment, misconduct, and a retaliatory smear campaign that fuelled the summer’s bad press.

In response, Baldoni filed a $400 million lawsuit in January 2025 against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and their publicists, alleging defamation and extortion. He is also suing The New York Times, claiming it colluded with Lively’s team to damage his reputation.

Flaa has a YouTube channel currently focused on documenting Lively’s bad behaviour. I can’t blame Flaa for this reaction as she was the person at the receiving end of Lively’s snark. Having a personal gripe with someone who has personally hurt you is understandable. The pile-on less so. It’s also okay for people to receive criticism for bad behaviour, but I’m more interested in the vicarious schadenfreude that hundreds and thousands of others have bought tickets for.

Dumas’ sentiment at the top of this essay does not apply in contemporary murderballs or female intrasexual competition. Candace Owens and Megyn Kelly, for example, have no obvious skin in the game but are jumping on the bandwagon with glee. Owen’s target isn’t Lively however, it’s her husband, Ryan Reynolds. As Owen’s said in the video linked above, “It’s going to be fab!” Entertainment value, not justice, is all.

I never watched the Depp/Heard car crash. I study bullying and female intrasexual competition because, as a female with Asperger’s Syndrome, I’ve experienced a lot of bullying by other females and grew up in a house the full of women (myself being the youngest) inundated with vertiginous selection pressures—paternal death, domestic violence, abuse, neglect—which contrary to the movie being discussed, didn’t have a happy ending. But I’m more on a par with Dumas’ sentiment. Just because I’ve suffered, doesn’t mean I take pleasure in seeing others suffer beyond the needs of justice being met. I’m a rare bird, I guess.

Many years ago, pre-Quillette, when the centre right was aligned in 2014, I wrote a popular critique of Anita Sarkeesian who was leading the first mainstream charge of institutional cancel culture and woke ideology against gamers (a battle which came to be known as #GamerGate): I also posted a defence of her against mob culture on social media to which the journalist Cathy Young responded, aghast, “Why are you defending her?!” The old rule of playing the ball and not the wo/man was being slowly erased, even then. Today, it’s completely gone.

The Lively/Baldoni case is ongoing, with trials scheduled for March 2026. Both sides have rejected mediation. The situation continues to draw significant attention, blending Hollywood drama with legal intrigue. Except these are not fictional characters, they are real people. As has recently noted, people have a hard time distinguishing between the two these days. The institutional facilitation of Trump derangement syndrome by people who who claim to be humanists (Sam Harris), philosophers (Daniel Dennett), psychologists (Jon Haidt), and intellectuals (Steven Pinker) has helped let loose the dogs of the culture war. Now, is there anyone who can put them to heel? I see a direct parallel here to the rise of pro-Hamas antisemitism after October 7th and growing intolerance on the right.

As I have asserted many times before, cancel culture is manifest female intrasexual competition and as the evolutionary psychological research attests, unlike the humanity expressed in Dumas’ quote, it doesn’t cease until the target has been eliminated.

It’s not something I can take pleasure in.

Notes on this essay:

For more on the failures of our intellectual class, see

The Trump 2.0 administration has unleashed a classic rock vibe—a bold, populist realism—into politics to disrupt the prog-rock labyrinthine noodling of the globalist establishment. It’s working.

While MAGA are having a rollicking time in the Metallica mosh pit, the liberal ancien régime can do little but cover their refined Yes-men ears, wincing as the Crimson King’s wall, on which their prophets wrote, begin to crack.

Brace for lyrical rock metaphors and artistic licence!

Epitaph is a sprawling, melancholy piece from the 1969 album In the Court of the Crimson King, by prog-rockers King Crimson.

Confusion will be my epitaph / As I crawl a cracked and broken path…

To this soundtrack, I see the globalists’ progressive vision crumbling against the onslaught of Trump’s classic rock challenge. The globalists pursued soft power—and mineral wealth—through stealth: NGOs, green agendas, funding LGBTQ uprisings, and fueling race conflict all to subvert norms and upset the balance of power from within. Trump’s Metallica-esque power chords and DOGE’s thumping bass have put paid to that!

…And I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying

Literally, in the case of MEP Christoph Heusgen.

I can’t help but envision a darkly comic scene with Ursula von der Leyen, Klaus Schwab, Tony Blair, and cronies, drowning their sorrows in a Brussels speak-un-easy bar. As the alcohol flows, they become evermore bitter and turn their claws on one another. It’s always someone else’s fault. The energy in the Trump Metallica mosh pit—which embraces robust personal agency—easily overwhelms this frailty.

The Unforgiven is a raw ballad that could carry the voices of many people stricken by the globalists’ Covid edicts. Up to 28 million people may have died from Fauci’s funding of a Frankenstein virus. Their mourning families and the rest of us were forced into isolation while the elites partied in contempt of us all. The uncontainable energy unleashed by this is behind Trump’s election.

I’d love to have been a fly on the wall when Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016, or observed talks between H.Clinton and Obama in 2024 after the Biden firewall finally collapsed…

…also the realisation that Kamala Harris was an empty suit.

The old progressive US regime via USAID & countless NGO’s have pursued soft progressive power by throwing taxpayers’ money after old rope—funding trans pantomimes, horrific experiments on animals, modern art appreciation classes in Somalia, and playing geopolitical terrorist bingo with a spinning globe, where one mans terrorist is also their freedom fighter, depending on which country their finger lands. This was an experiment that went too far, crashing into a free-for-all of corruption.

Enter the soft rock of Zelensky and Ashley St. Clair.

I know these are serious issues, but this is a part-parody. As the saying goes, you have to laugh or you’d cry!

There’s a saying about crapping in your own backyard. Clearly, Zelensky hasn’t heard of this. Nor has Ashley St. Clair. In the Oval Office today, Zelensky didn’t just piss on his chips, he defecated on them. Now, no one will trust him when he offers to share any flour or potato-based snack. They’re never going to get to ‘smores.

To run with the metaphor, Zelensky is on the final countdown for Ukraine, and in the hierarchy of rock, he’s soft rock Europe. Everyone will know Europe’s The Final Countdown reached number 8 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, but it was not a song that inspired change but capitalised on it.

Similary, Ashley St Clair is a woman who had a biological child with Elon Musk. It’s no secret Musk is a natalist who wants to have as many children as possible. Hot women are a great proxy for good genes — well, they were until cosmetic surgery. Talking about pissing on your own chips, lasses.

Musk has said he always looks after his biological children, but pauses when he thinks the mother is making astronomical demands that have nothing to do with the offspring at hand.

So I end with joining these two soft rock, performative postures of both Zelensky and St. Clair. Zelensky broke protocol by addressing and actively arguing with Trump and Vance after they had made a verbal deal to sign the formal one. This is the only reason Zelensky was invited to the Oval Office. If, during the argument, Zelensky then insulted Vance under his breath, that’s a further infringement of trust. Thousands of lives were set to be saved by the deal. Zelensky could not help himself but to try and cause a scene in public. This is exactly what Ashley St. Clair did. St. Clair is the hot cover star of Zelensky’s soft-rock mediocre album.

It’s a timely reminder about human nature. To many—even most—people, saving face is more important than saving lives.

This power playlist is feral, not refined, as are humans.

*Thanks to an old boyfriend (and still friend) from the late 80s/early 90s (Neil) who was a prog-rock fanatic & probably never realised I was listening.

**I’m working on a couple of long essays. These will be paywalled. This is a short piece of entertainment while I’m drafting them

While interviewing social scientist Eric Kaufmann last year about his book Taboo: How Making Race Sacred Produced a Cultural Revolution, he explained how sanctifying minorities over decades fueled mainstream progressive policies like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). These policies, he argued, aimed to protect “minority self-esteem,” spawning speech codes and, ultimately, the current assault on free speech. His mention of minority self-esteem piqued my interest, given one of social science’s most consistent findings over the past 60 years: the Black Self-Esteem Advantage (BSEA). Curious, I asked Eric if he knew of this research. He didn’t.

BSEA refers to the well-documented and highly replicated phenomenon where people of sub-Saharan African descent report higher self-esteem and well-being than those of Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, or Northern European descent. This trend holds across all ages1. When broken down by sex, White and Hispanic men report higher self-esteem than their female counterparts, while Black men and women show similar levels. No statistical significance was found in levels of SE among Asian men and women, but they emerged with the lowest levels of all.

In the progressive “intersectional stack” of grievance, Black individuals—especially Black women—are placed at the pinnacle, while White, cisgender heterosexuals languish at the bottom.

Yet BSEA research reveals a twist: Unlike other groups, Black self-esteem relies less on external validation—like approval from others, appearance, family support, competitive success, or moral virtue—than on intrinsic factors. These include subjective confidence, God’s love, and self-assessed interpersonal charm or attractiveness. In short, it’s less tied to meritocratic benchmarks

The reasons why Black men and women have higher SE are somewhat speculative. The two studies I looked at for this article mentioned several hypotheses that could explain the phenomenon but offered no definitive conclusions. ​ Some of these explanations included:

• Self-Protective Properties of Stigma: Attributing setbacks to systemic prejudice shields self-esteem.

• Stronger Group Identity: A robust racial identity bolsters confidence.

• Cultural Endorsement of Individualism: Greater emphasis on personal agency enhances self-worth.

• Intersectionality: The interplay of race and gender reinforces self-esteem.

• Positive Social Comparisons: Comparing favorably within their racial group lifts morale.

More research is needed, but as it stands, this research challenges the liberal social science narrative Eric critiqued—a narrative that assumes Black egos are fragile and need safeguarding. Instead, the data shows Black men and women have the highest self-esteem while simultaneously claiming the most grievance.

This disconnect has real-world implications, especially as corporate DEI initiatives peaked over the last four years, amplifying Black feminist tropes in politics and workplaces. When DEI beneficiaries—particularly Black women—face scrutiny for underperformance, their reflex is often to invoke stigma’s self-protective shield, blaming racism or sexism rather than owning shortcomings. Two high-profile cases illustrate this dynamic.

What you talkin’ about, Willis?

First, we have Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Willis indicted Donald Trump for conspiring to unlawfully change the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election in Georgia and thus violating Georgia's RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act. If convicted he faced up to 25 years in prison. Co-defendant, Michael Roman, subsequently accused Willis of impropriety in hiring Nathan Wade as special prosecutor on the case, giving him a salary way above his pay grade, lying about the fact she was having an affair with him, and benefiting kickbacks from the aforementioned wages of sin.

Willis did not have to testify, but she did and gave us the spectacle of her entering the Georgia Court of Appeals with all the confidence and air of Cleopatra entering Rome.

What followed was a masterclass in BSEA and stigma deflection. Facing damning evidence, Willis leaned on her identity as a Black woman as her ultimate shield. When pressed for receipts to prove she reimbursed Wade for lavish trips (negating kickback claims), she claimed she paid him back in cash. Where did the cash come from? The bank? Cash App? Paypal? An ATM? Nope. From a cash stash she always kept in her house - up to $15,000! Her father taught her to always keep cash handy, a tip she urged all women to follow. Defense attorney Ashley Merchant pressed for clarity:

Merchant: The money you paid Mr Wade, the cash, in October of 2022, you do not know where that money came from?

Willis: I do know where it came from. It came from my sweat and tears!

Righty-o!

Basically, she paid him from a vague stash of thousands under her mattress. To many, that would smell like money laundering. Willis equivocated further by framing demands for proof as attacks on her sacred Black womanhood. Disqualified from the Trump case due to impropriety, she later took to a church pulpit, decrying racism and sexism—never mind the affair with a married man or misused taxpayer funds.

“Ghetto SuperMayor”

Then there’s Tiffany Henyard, elected mayor of Dolton, Illinois, in 2021 and supervisor of Thornton Township in 2022. Her tenure has been a whirlwind of alleged corruption: financial mismanagement, embezzlement, intimidation, and fraud. Dolton’s $5.61 million surplus evaporated as spending spiked—police costs alone jumped 21%. Critics allege Henyard repurposed officers into a 24/7 security detail and “personal valets,” costing taxpayers over $1 million.

Henyard’s response? Unshakable confidence and deflection. Dubbed the “Ghetto SuperMayor,” she’s dismissed critics as racist and sexist, leaning on her identity rather than addressing the charges. Her swagger exemplifies BSEA, but her governance raises questions about competence.

Takeaway

These cases highlight a paradox: while “woke” DEI policies aim to dismantle systemic barriers, they’ve also elevated individuals whose inflated self-esteem—untethered from merit—can mask overconfidence. Black women, often DEI’s poster children, may overestimate their abilities, and when challenged, they fall back on systemic excuses rather than self-reflection. This isn’t to deny racism or sexism but to suggest that BSEA complicates the narrative. As we critique woke ideology, we must also confront this subtler issue: unchecked self-esteem in DEI hires risks prioritizing identity over capability.

My next essay will tie in these arguments to what I see as the rise of female chauvinism in our culture and the covert hierarchies within it.

The interview was recorded on the day Iraqi dissident and anti-Islamist activist Salwan Momika was murdered in Sweden. Niyak mentions this and the many death threats he also receives.

In my interview with Nayak, he reports that at his first arrest in March 2024, the Met Police refused to say that they arrested him because of his sign, but rather that they were arresting him because he was inciting the mob and allegedly assaulting a woman at the demo.

He was later de-arrested after footage revealed he was the one assaulted. No further arrests were made, however.

The interview: Background

English is Niyak’s third language so I am supplementing the interview with these notes.

Niyak was born in Iran in 1986 and was an IT expert. He escaped from Iran in 2014 after he was suspected of being a whistleblower after information about the use of black-market parts in the commercial aviation industry was leaked to the media. He attempted to publish this information twice. The first time he was punished by being demoted from his IT manager role to that of a baggage handler at the airport he worked at. He then gave the information to a journalist while on holiday in Europe for two weeks. Whilst in Europe he was checking the mainstream media for the information to come out but saw nothing. Upon returning to Iran his passport was seized and he was turned away from work. He was then interrogated by a member of the government. He managed to pay someone to get him out of Iran and was granted asylum in Germany where he began to work for Deutsche Telekom. In Iran, he was charged with being a spy.

Seven years later, in 2021, China and Iran signed a 25-year cooperation deal. For the first time, Niyak put himself front-of-camera as an independent journalist and recorded a protest outside the Chinese Embassy in Dusseldorf. He sent the footage to Persian media sources and was spotted and targeted by Iranian intelligence services once more. In Iran, his father and brother were taken into custody and interrogated.

Niyak was then befriended by an Iranian man in Germany who said he had the connections to take dissidents back to Iran. After Niyak came to the UK he discovered this man was an agent of the Iranian Islamist Intelligence Corps trying to tempt him back to Iran to face prosecution.

Niyak tells me how he does not feel safe in the UK today and is stunned by the behavior and double standards of the Met Police and how they have tried to destroy his reputation. Niyak lost his job this year because of his anti-Hamas activism. He has 14 years of experience in IT and every day he applies for numerous jobs without ever receiving a response. He knows this is because as soon as anyone googles his name, his activism, arrests and false charges of assault come up. He still had, at the time of sitting for the interview, two open cases against him for violent offenses which he denies. He finds the treatment he has received from the Met Police similar to that of living in the Islamic Republic.

Bananas across the barricades

In May 2024, Niyak was arrested on a charge of a “hate crime” for eating a banana at a pro-Palestine demo. It was for this charge that draconian bail charges were set.

The context? As reported in Reason and Western Standard in the US, after pro-Palestinian protestors at UCLA declared a ban on bananas because one of their number had a supposed banana allergy, pro-Israeli demonstrators began waving bananas across the barricades “like settlers waving machine guns.”

The incident was also satirised on Instagram

Niyak brought a banana to a London protest in satirical support and the rest is now ridiculous history.

Niyak told me that in the custody suite after his arrest, a Met Police officer informed him that his possession of a banana and a Saint George flag of England was racist and that if no member of the public had made such a complaint against him, the officer would personally. The conditions of his bail for this arrest, as reported by The Independent, included excluding him from attending any protest relating to Palestine and banning him from the London boroughs of Camden or Westminster. These charges still stand though the “wholly disproportionate” bail conditions have since been lifted on appeal.

Humorously, in this post on X, you can hear a Met Police officer saying “I know Mr. Ghorbani has got bananas with him, something he has been arrested for before.”

The Met Police have made him infamous by using exactly the same strategies they used against Tommy Robinson.

Niyak is a big fan of Robinson and talks of the love and support he witnessed at the Unite the Kingdom rally.

Niyak also gives his opinion of Trump and the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan.

Islamists vs Socialist Materialists.

Elsewhere in the interview, Niyak talks about the parallels he sees between Iran in 1979 and Britain today. Between a young monarchy trying to placate dual radical elements in society that are both intent on revolution. Both promised utopia, their alliance delivered Hell.

He talks about the alliance between Islamists and materialist socialists in Iran at that time: The socialists wanted to overthrow the monarchy, as did the Islamists, but after they had both succeeded, the Islamists started to cull the Godless socialists.

This is exactly the future we are looking towards with the West’s socialists (Starmer in the UK & socialist progressives in Europe) thinking they are bringing in fellow travelers from Muslim countries who (as Niyak explains) love the fiscal benefits given to them for future votes, but who have a further hand to play.

The UK will soon have a young monarchy. Will King William have the strength to hold fast to British patriotism, culture, and values before the dual assault of materialist anti-monarchy socialists and anti-monarchy state Islamists? This is the question of our times.

*Yesterday, 15th February 2025, The Daily Mail exclusively reported that the Met Police had endangered the lives of three Iranian dissidents, including Ghorbani, after a civilian contractor within the organisation posted a photograph from a police field report that contained the personal details of Ghorbani, Mahyar Tousi, and Mark Birbeck, founder of OurFightUK. The unnamed contractor has been arrested and since bailed.

The idiom “fur coat and no knickers” was a figurative and derogatory slander deployed to cast shade on a woman of superficial elegance and class. I say was because this week it ceased to be metaphorical and became literal. For those who missed it, I am talking about Bianca Censori’s appearance at the 2025 GRAMMYs. Ostensibly, the Grammy Awards is a major annual event in the US entertainment calendar, meant to honor outstanding contributions to non-classical music, the other events being the Acadamy Awards (for movies), the Emmy Awards (for theatre) and the Met Gala (for posers). Censori caused a censation (sorry) when she dropped her fur coat to reveal a totally transparent dress and, yes, nay knickers or underwear of any description. I pitied the soft furnishings.

Not since 2014, when Kanye West’s previous ‘Hottentot’ wife broke the internet with her nudes has the media been so enthusiastically appalled. Being versed in evolutionary theory, back then I couldn’t help but draw attention to the atavistic nature of the images and use one in a presentation about species’ differences in the secondary sexual characteristics of females and the unique phenomena of hidden ovulation in humans, specifically.

Incidentally, I’ve always wondered at the fact that feminists tell people not to “slut-shame” women whilst calling the person they are defending a slut. I’ve an interview in the can with evolutionary psychologist Tania Reynolds who specializes in this kind of female self-deception: supposedly defending a woman while also revealing information that harms their reputation.

Unlike Kardashian’s, Censori’s turn was more front-facing once the fur coat was off. Kim also showed her mim, but that’s yesteryears news. I have broached the subject of a lady’s poached eggs from an evolutionary perspective however. If you’re interested click below.

In other news, now Trump is at the helm and signing off executive orders faster than Lia Thomas at a girls’ swimming gala, the news cycle is hard to keep up with. In just two weeks, the Biden administration’s woke crops have withered under a hefty dusting of DJT. Notable mentions include:

Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government

Unleashing American Energy

Securing Our Borders

Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity

Declassification of Records Concerning the Assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation

Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling

and the most controversial

Implementing the Department of Government Efficiency aka DOGE

Free speech is unarguably the bedrock of a functioning democracy. One should always be wary of those who want to censor you, even if you’re Kanye West who, as I write, appears to be having an episode: An episode of what is more difficult to tell. Just yesterday a New York Times article reported him declaring he had autism rather than bipolar disorder. It’s common for people with bipolar and other less attractive diagnoses such as cluster A and B personality disorders to seek out a different diagnosis. This is very common in the woke “neurodivergent” movement and is known as “diagnosis surfing".” If you have the money, finding a doctor who will give you the autism diagnosis you’re after is just a matter of time. Unfortunately, people with manipulative personality disorders are exactly the kind of people you need to keep easily manipulated people with autism far away from. Worryingly, Kanye also said that since the ‘autism’ diagnosis, he had stopped taking his bipolar meds. What we’re seeing might be a consequence of that.

Wednesday saw TDS aficionado and fading intellectual Sam Harris write,

“It is…ominous that our political culture now celebrates figures who are obviously unethical—liars, bullies, and conmen—many of whom see no reason to even pretend to harbor deeper values or virtues.”

Is he talking about himself? Of course not. Strangely, for someone who is constantly thinking about himself, he has zero self-awareness. He’s talking about Trump and hallucinating about the “further atrocities” Trump will commit this week. He also includes the “vile” Elon Musk. “President Trump has said and done a thousand things that should make it impossible to admire him as a person—and he will commit further atrocities this week. Elon Musk has achieved a similarly vile orbit—lying with abandon, making common cause with racists and lunatics, and pointlessly defaming ordinary people—it seems, just for the fun of it.”

Harris seems to have forgotten the times he has defamed “normal people”, specifically one Sarah Braash whom that other supposed moral titan Jon Haidt defamed on Harris’ podcast as a racist. All calls for him to address the issue are ignored. Braash was an early victim of cancel culture and unlike the celebrity victims has had no high-profile defenders, exoneration, or career offers. As a “normal person,” she finds she cannot get a job, lives in a tiny studio apartment, and is mocked and derided for the mental health difficulties she has developed since her cancellation. The very people who say they live and work to help such victims dismiss her because of her mental health difficulties. They are fond of telling her to get therapy, somehow missing the fact that without a job one has no health insurance to get said therapy. I’ve written about this in much more detail in the link below.

Subscribe now

What Harris doesn’t understand is that Donald Trump is a hero to people who have been bullied. He is the most bullied person on the planet. They threw everything they had at him. He's an inspiration. That's what progressives, leftists, & never Trumpers like Sam Harris don't get.

Lastly, I’m currently editing a long interview with Iranian dissident and anti-terrorist activist Niyak Ghorbani who has been arrested by London’s Met Police a total of eight times in the last ten months for, among other things, holding up the sign below at a pro-Palestine rally…

…and eating a banana. Yes, Niyak was arrested for eating a banana and threatened with the charge of a “hate crime.”

This lunacy apart, Niyak has some interesting things to say about the parallels he sees between the UK now and 1979 Iran, the year Iran fell to the Islamic State.

Here’s a clip. Carry on with your weekend and I will see you next week!