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

I wrote these notes in 1995. I was aware of Ivor Catt's work on family law, though neither I nor him knew of the Jewish issue. He worked for a number of years on the issue of fathers' rights, but, largely because of his blind spot, got nowhere.
This book was a Penguin Special on women being beaten up; mostly (without overview) a collection of unpleasant stories. I know now that 'Penguin Specials' indicated some collaborative Jewish pressure group was weighing in. In short,

a red flag. See for example my reviews of Penguin Specials urging the Second World War, and post-1945 on capital punishment, evils of capitalism without mentioning Jewish money control, race relations (of course!)

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

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

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