Exposing far-left feminist activists

The public sees it time and time again – twenty-something female activists going wild, threatening people, often violent, obstructing the public – and getting away with it. These young women are another sort of prima donna, relying on their status as young women to sail around society’s accepted rules and often what is criminal behavior.

Bettina Arndt made a video of the violent demonstrations attempting to shut down her lecture tour of Australia’s universities. The video isolates a few ringleaders of the demonstrations who are paradigm examples. The video is five years old but one could make exactly the same video featuring the current crop of young feminist ringleaders.

There really must be a lot more exposure of these political prima donnas.

For more articles and videos by Bettina Arndt go to: Blog articles – Bettina Arndt #MENTOO

Stealthing – what is that?

Recently a link appeared on my internet feed to an accusation of rape against Bruce Lehrmann. My first reaction without following the link was, ‘Here we go again.’

Poor Bruce Lehrmann. He was smashed up and down the country by the usual crowd of man-hating feminists, inside and outside the media, until Channel 7’s Spotlight program and Bettina Arndt’s commentary shot so many holes in the Higgins case that it fell into a ragged heap.

Of course, tearing apart Brittany Higgins’ case makes no difference to our constantly triggered man-hating feminists. Their world of unreason and fantasy is unassailable. Now they have a second Lehrmann case to process through their tempestuous spiteful emotions.

The link was to a report by well-known journalist Samantha Maiden, Bruce Lehrmann met Toowoomba woman at strip club before rape, police allege. As short as the report is (including an unfavourable reference to the Higgins case), it is enough to show that when more detail becomes available, it will be just as unbelievable as the Higgins case. Which won’t matter a jot to that crowd of feminists in the advanced stages of possession by man-hatred.

There is, however, more to this case than a concocted story. In his comment , Unprotected Sex, Queensland Style, Paul Collits gives a glimpse of the irrational man-hatred infesting all places where feminists have a hold. Who has heard of ‘stealthing’. Not most men, I would suggest. Most men have no idea of what hatred shadows their actions.


Unprotected Sex, Queensland Style


How to regulate the amoral generation which inhabits a hook-up culture?  Well, as the media reports, Queensland – yes, Yvette Death, again! – is about to take on the dastardly act of “stealthing”.  Yes, there is a verb, to stealth. 

It has nothing to do with bombers.  But it does have something to do with weaponising.  It is about turning unprotected sex (sex without a condom, let alone love or romance) into “rape”.  It is not without irony that Julian Assange, who knows a little about this very charge – in his case, in Sweden in 2010 – was born in the Sunshine State.

Coincidentally, at the very time that Queensland is ramping up the me-tooist-driven war on unregulated congress, that ogre of the feminist industrial complex, Bruce Lehrmann, is back on the front pages, being accused yet again of rape.  Yes, rape.  Assangian rape.  Queensland rape.  Sex without the magic plastic.  At least I think that is what he has, this time, been accused of.  As per media reports, this is the story of an alcohol- and cocaine-addled, strip-club attending accuser who discovered, weeks after the alleged subsequent sexual event and without apparently even knowing the name or identity of her stealth bombing bed-partner.  Until she saw his picture on the internet during a discussion of the Brittany Higgins case. 

Who then duly trotted off to the police.  Clearly someone, it would appear from the reported lead-up events, for whom affirmative consent (and self-control) isn’t a huge deal.  (All this supposedly happened in Toowoomba, of all places). 

Bruce Lehrmann met Toowoomba woman at strip club before rape, police allege

Bruce Lehrmann has denied the allegations, now charges.  His identity had been suppressed until recently passed Queensland legislation helpfully allowed police and media to name and, all over again, shame him.

So, what is stealthing about, and why is it in the news?  Here is The Guardian:

Removing a condom during sex without consent will be considered rape and attract a maximum penalty of life in prison under sweeping laws introduced to Queensland parliament on Wednesday [11 October].

The new laws, aimed at criminalising the tampering with or removal of a condom without consent – commonly referred to as stealthing – will be introduced into parliament as part of an affirmative consent model.

Queensland to make stealthing illegal under new affirmative consent laws

Yes, life!  A longer sentence than for murder.  For child molesting.  Stop laughing, this is serious.  Apparently.

Read the rest here …

Feminism and the Occult

In the previous post (an interview by Pearl Davis with Rachel Wilson) Pearl made reference to Rachel’s book which is available on Amazon – Occult Feminism: The Secret History of Women’s Liberation. She also made reference to the video about the book. See below. I highly recommend both book and video. Rachel uncovers an essential element of feminism most people are unaware of.


Should you see ‘Barbie’?

Why Barbie Is Worth Seeing

The heartless soromance, silly as it is, tells deep truths


(This review is months late because I waited until, watching the movie at home, I could pause to groan aloud and check the time remaining, both of which I did frequently—as my husband can attest.)

I have changed my mind about Barbie. When I discussed it last week with my good friend Tom Golden (you can see our conversation here), I advised against viewing it.

I now recommend giving it a watch, not for pleasure or even ideological interest—it is too dull and humorless for that, with a senseless plot, wooden dialogue, and a coy voice-over—but for clarification. The high-grossing movie offers a vivid encapsulation of our culture’s view of men and women, complete with its own inadvertent self-subversion. Watching it is a leaden but useful reminder that feminists really are this self-destructively stupid, and really do want to destroy “patriarchy,” by which they mean masculine freedom, self-respect, and leadership. They no longer even pretend to value equality.

Men and boys (and the women who love them), take a good look.   

In Barbie, men are at best second-class citizens who by movie’s end, in an improvement over their former nullity, are content to follow banal female directives about their attitudes and identity. In a jaw-droppingly condescending scene after the failed Ken Rebellion, Ken is counseled on how to find himself. He is told that it’s okay to cry (as he bawls like a baby) and is admonished to “figure out who you are without [Barbie/woman].” He and the other Kens seem grateful for the puerile admonition and willing to be male on Barbie terms: sexless, rudderless, effeminate. They certainly can’t be equal, the film makes clear, because they make a mess when they’re in charge.

Keeping men in check means shielding them even from images of patriarchal (meaning competent, self-directed, masculine) men: Ken runs amok only after seeing a world (the “real world”) in which men are allegedly respected merely for being men, one of the more risible feminist lies in the movie. Feminists have never understood that men earn respect. But in the feminist vision, any possibility that men may perceive themselves as essential to their society—and as owed acknowledgement for the goods they bring—must be suppressed. Only women are essential.

Perhaps the feminist director of Barbie intended the portrayal of the Kens to reflect the situation of women under patriarchy (one searches in vain for a coherent analytical perspective). In Barbie Land, Kens are objects (not sex objects since there is no sex or even heterosexual desire) who exist only to compete, fruitlessly, for Barbies’ attention.

In the real patriarchal past, of course, women were never so reduced precisely because of male sexual longing, love, familial affection, chivalry, religious ideals, empathy, reasoning about justice, and the desire for procreation. All such longings or allegiances are absent from Barbie life. If the Barbies desire children and family—never made clear in the movie, though perhaps gestured to in the final scene when Barbie, now human, visits her gynecologist—theirs will likely be families without Kens. Whether in the real world or in Barbie Land, men are peripheral at best, dangerous at worst, and often mildly contemptible and tiresome with their “egos and petty jealousies.” The only good thing about Kens is that they are easy to manipulate.

The disdain is fathoms deep.

Read the rest here …

The apostate pope

Archbishop Viganò: Catholics must seriously consider the possibility that Francis isn’t the pope

Archbishop Vigano, Tue Oct 3, 2023 LifeSiteNews

We must ‘take seriously, very seriously, the possibility that Bergoglio intended to obtain the election by means of fraud… in order to do the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ gave a mandate to Saint Peter and his Successors to do.’

Featured Image

(LifeSiteNews) –– Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has released the following statement on the ongoing theological debate over the status of Pope Francis and the papacy. In many ways, this is his most pointed criticism yet. His Excellency argues that given the devastation caused by “Jorge Mario Bergoglio” on the universal Church — which stems from his embrace of the “cancer” of Vatican II — and given the role the Saint Gallen mafia played in the 2013 conclave, Pope Francis does not have and never did have the intention of serving as the head of the Catholic Church.

Rather he hid his intentions from electors with the end goal of using the authority of the papacy to undermine the Church and to make it the “handmaid” of the New World Order. “I believe instead that his acceptance of the papacy is invalidated, because he considers the papacy something other than what it is,” Viganò remarks. He continues: “I would like us to take seriously … the possibility that Bergoglio intended to obtain the election by means of fraud, and that he intended to abuse the authority of the Roman Pontiff in order to do the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ gave a mandate to Saint Peter.” The Archbishop also states that he disagrees with Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s view that “universal acceptance” of Francis as the pope makes him the pope. His Excellency points to the historical example of Clement VII in the 14th century to support his argument. While admitting the current situation is “humanly irremediable,” his goal in publishing the letter is to “get to the root of the question” and to find a common starting point that can lead to a “remedy [to] the disconcerting, scandalous presence of a pope who presents himself with ostentatious arrogance as inimicus Ecclesiæ, and who acts and speaks as such.”


A fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos.
Numquid colligunt de spinis uvas aut de tribulis ficus?

Sic omnis arbor bona fructus bonos facit; mala autem arbor fructus malos facit.
Non potest arbor bona fructus malos facere, neque arbor mala fructus bonos facere.
Omnis arbor quæ non facit fructum bonum exciditur et in ignem mittitur.
Igitur ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos.

By their fruits you will know them.
Does anyone pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit; and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
Therefore By their fruits you will know them.

Mt 7:16-20

In this speech I will not try to give answers, but to pose a question that can no longer be postponed, so that we bishops, the clergy, and the faithful can look clearly at the very serious apostasy present as a completely unprecedented fact, one that cannot be resolved, in my opinion, by resorting to our usual categories of judgment and action.

The evidence of the ‘Bergoglio problem’

The proliferation of declarations and behaviors completely foreign to what is expected of a pope – and indeed in contrast with the Faith and Morality of which the Papacy is the guardian – has led many of the faithful and an increasingly large number of bishops to take note of something that until some time ago seemed unheard of: the Throne of Peter is occupied by a person who abuses his power, using it for the opposite purpose to that for which Our Lord instituted it.

Read the rest here …

Pope Francis’s obfuscation

Below Our Sunday Visitor reports on Pope Francis’s reply to the ‘Dubia’ about Church teaching five cardinals sent to him. The report shows (whether the reporter meant it or not) the Pope’s usual tactic of stating Church teaching but then adding qualifications that undermine it or at least provide a platform for agitation to undermine it.


Pope responds to cardinals on blessings for homosexuals, female priests

by Justin McLellan, Our Sunday Visitor, October 2, 2023

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Catholic Church, in pursuit of “pastoral prudence,” should discern if there are ways of giving blessings to homosexual persons that do not alter the Church’s teaching on marriage, Pope Francis said.

Writing in response to a “dubia” letter delivered to him by five cardinals seeking clarification on doctrinal questions, the pope addressed issues surrounding the authority of the synod, women’s ordination and blessing homosexual unions in a letter made public Oct. 2.

Marriage is an “exclusive, stable and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to conceiving children,” wrote the pope. “For this reason, the Church avoids all kinds of rites or sacramentals that could contradict this conviction and imply that it is recognizing as a marriage something that is not.”

But pastoral charity also is necessary, and “defense of the objective truth is not the only expression of that charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, encouragement,” he added. “For that reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern if there are forms of blessing, solicited by one or various persons, that don’t transmit a mistaken concept of marriage.”

Pope Francis added that decisions made in specific circumstances should not necessarily become a norm regulated by a diocese or bishops’ conference, noting that “the life of the Church runs through many channels in addition to regulatory frameworks.”

The pope’s comments came in response to a “dubia” letter dated July 10 seeking clarification on doctrinal questions written by five retired cardinals: U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, Mexican Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah and Chinese Cardinal Joseph Zen.

Read the rest here …

Pope Francis is challenged

Five cardinals write Dubia to Pope Francis on concerns about Synod, Catholic doctrine

Cardinals Burke, Brandmüller, Sarah, Zen, and Íñiguezto have published a new Dubia to express grave concerns to Pope Francis about the Synod on Synodality and possible attacks on Catholic doctrine.

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Five prominent cardinals have submitted dubia to Pope Francis about the Synod on Synodality, asking five urgent questions about possible attacks on the Church’s doctrines, including the possibility of homosexual blessings, the weight of teaching afforded to the synod, female ordination, and the necessity of repentance in sacramental Confession.

Broken to the Catholic public on October 2, news of previously private correspondence between five cardinals and Pope Francis, expressing grave concerns about the upcoming Synod on Synodality, was revealed. They highlighted the urgency of the synod as a catalyst for the intervention, noting the synod as an event “which many want to use to deny Catholic doctrine on the very issues which our Dubia concern.”

The Dubia have been written and submitted by Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, former prefect of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences; Raymond Leo Burke, former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura; Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, former Archbishop of Guadalajara; Robert Sarah, the former prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; and Joseph Zen, the former bishop of Hong Kong. Both Brandmüller and Burke were signatories of the previous Dubia submitted to the Pope in 2016 about Amoris Laetitia.

Veteran Vatican journalist Sandro Magister wrote that the five cardinals recognized the late Cardinal George Pell “shared these ‘dubia’ and would have been the first to endorse them.”

READ: Vatican and Cardinal Fernández fire back at cardinals’ new dubia about the Synod on Synodality


Magister provided a copy of the letters and a history of the events which led to the correspondence emerging now. (The correspondence is also found on Messa in Latino, on the site of America TFP, and is produced below.)

The five cardinals first wrote to the Pope on July 10, presenting him with five Dubia. This, according to Magister, Pope Francis responded to in writing on July 11, which was received by the cardinals on July 13. 

According to Magister, the seven-page letter in Spanish bore Francis’ signature but “the letter displayed the writing style of his trusted theologian, the Argentine Victor Manuel Fernández,” who was made cardinal on September 30 and assumed control of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on September 11.

Read the rest here …

Fake church in ascendance

Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) is no small organization. They say they are ‘the peak body and representative association for Catholic Religious Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life in Australia.’

To state the obvious, their announcements tell us what the majority of religious in Australia think about Church teaching and Church matters – Church government in particular. Below is a media release promoting the tour of Dr James Alison, ‘a prominent Catholic theologian.’

Dr Alison’s tour will be, first, ‘to nurture truthful dialogue in the Church regarding matters LGBTQIA+.’ Despite the woolly language that follows, this means normalizing homosexuality. Second, it will agitate ‘for a more inclusive, participatory and synodal Church which dialogues.’ This means a system of participatory democracy, a flat-lining of Church management in direct contradiction of the present hierarchical Church and one in which everyone has a say.

It is the sort of ‘democracy’ which pretend-sister Nathalie Becquart has visited Australia several times to promote. See my previous comments about this political sister.

A Church of participatory democracy is as much a fraud as Natalie Bequart. Dialoguing is browbeating until everyone agrees with the leaders of whatever assembly is in question, but the assembly meant is synodal. There were embarrassing examples of it at the recent Plenary Council.

To demonstrate that the CRA and Dr Alison are not at all embarrassed about promoting inconsistencies and contradictions, we find below that Dr James Alison ‘will be sharing a vision of an inclusive, psychologically healthy Christian life that is scripturally based, theologically orthodox, and ecclesially grounded.’

The push to normalize homosexuality is a push to overthrow Church teaching as it stands Scripturally and theologically. Indeed, the CRA wants to replace the present Church with one entirely different – one of their own making.

I wish these people would be for once straightforward about their aims.


Continue reading Fake church in ascendance