George Hook Said Nothing Wrong

show more
Comments (24)
Sorted by:
  • [ – ] beatle1 reply I dont know if anyone noticed but we are not heading to 1984 Orwelian dystopian future... we ARE in 1984 Orwellian dystopian future. We LIELARLY have thought Police in Western European countires.
    • ironrope parent reply upvoted for truth
    • Sharpwing parent reply Not yet. We have Urasia, but the center piece of the story "Oceana" has yet to exist. There's still hope, don't give into hysteria and don't clam up just to please these selfish unsatisfied human beings.
  • [ – ] GoodTimeHolzy44 reply Originally feminism was about granting females responsibility and thus power. 3rd wave feminism has completely changed that and now only cares about casting women as perpetual victims. George Hook is empowering women by telling them about their own responsibility. This is proof that modern feminism is interested in keeping women in their state of dis-empowerment so they be used to further the globalist agenda. The last thing they want is healthy, independent, unafraid women.
    • [ – ] 3DMaster2 parent reply No, feminism has never sought to give people responsibility, quite the contrary, no feminist, with maybe a few 2nd wavers who are better described as anti-feminists, has ever sought to give women more responsibility, give men more responsibilities, sure, strip women from responsibilities, sure, giving them more, never.
      • [ – ] AmandaAnderson_1 parent reply Actually back in the day it had it's merit. Feminism opened the doors for women to hold jobs, have equal opportunities in education, the ability to obtain the same pay for the work, fight sexual harassment in the workplace, and bring predators to justice. In the 80s it helped pass laws that allowed women to obtain a divorce without the husbands consent and forcing sex on your wife is considered rape. Martial abuse cases were finally brought to justice and the police finally had the ability to make moves on domestic violence against women and children. But in the past 20 years it's become a social joke.
        • [ – ] Sharpwing parent reply The problem with divorce as that we allow the law to reside over marriage. This was always a system used in kingdom politics and we turned it into our tradition, but the true mistake we made was allowing the courts into our bedrooms, into our households. Feminism did it's job allowing women the right to vote, the rest is up to them. Feminism should make Women independent and Egalitarianism should teach these independent souls that there's strength in numbers. Yet again, we fall into the same trap of allowing Government and Corporate Press to decide these things. What about the State? What about the independent press, done by the people, for the people? These are not questions you will ever see asked on TV. Again we see the same message towed by Corporations, Activists, Government and Journalists: "Believe us and don't ever question what we say." It's a scary time to be alive if you ask me.
          • AmandaAnderson_1 parent reply Agreed. The problem is too much government in our lives telling us what to do and how to live. An operation 100 years in the making.
        • [ – ] 3DMaster2 parent reply > for women to hold jobs Bullshit. Women were always able to have jobs, no one stopped a woman from doing so; in fact ever heard of the family names: Webster or Brewster? You see that 'ster' bit, like in seamster? That designates a female version of that profession, a female weaver, and a female brewer. And not only did they have jobs they gave themselves the family name that designates their profession, they never got married, did have children, and raised them well enough, and made enough money at their professions, running their own business no less, that they founded dynasties that last even today, spread around the whole world. >have equal opportunities in education Bullshit. Rich men and women got an education, poor men and women didn't. Some poorer children got lucky to become an apprentice to a master craftsman. If by some sheer luck a poor family managed to make enough money to actually educate one of their children, it would be their first born son. Not because they hate...mored women, but because their instincts told them to. To maximize your chances of as many your genes to pass on, and knowing that women can get married and married to someone higher up in society on her fertile womb alone, and their son needed the social standing before women would be interested and if forced by her family be interesting in staying faithful; it would be in both men's and women's best interest to boost their first born sons as high as they could; marry off their daughters, and steel their other sons for a harsh life and willing to take risks, and then kicking them out as soon as possible. As such, our societies are heavily influence by our instincts to propagate our genes, not some hatred and oppression of women. Women could, and would, if the opportunity, the wealth presented itself be educated... and even rule entire empires, kingdoms and countries; indeed, the only people who have managed to put their stamp on the whole world so completely that entire eras are named after them are women. There is no Henry Age, or William Age, but there is an Elizabethan Age and Victorian Age. Thus there is only two things working together that gave women the equal opportunity in education, and remember, the difference between them was only one: the first born son was the only one who had an advantage, but also gave other sons the same opportunities: the industrial revolution, and capitalism. > the ability to obtain the same pay for the work Bullshit. Men, before the 1940s got a breadwinner bonus, it was effectively his wife's paycheck for all the work she did around the house. The only real problem with that, the unquestioning assumption this was going to be the men. Feminists came in, and as usual lied about it, claimed the patriarchy hated women and loved men and just willy nilly gave them more money because penis. And society, as usual, when women bent over backwards and gave in, got rid of it. Of course, to earn the same money to provide for wife and children as expected by the wife, men went to work harder and longer to make up the difference. And thus, making the gap between the husband becoming the breadwinner and the wife becoming so only bigger. Now feminism could have been honest, and say, "here's this breadwinner bonus, it's just handed to men without thought, shouldn't we give it to every breadwinner regardless of their sex." Well, then the gap would have been smaller, it would be more likely for women to be breadwinners, as a result, it hurt women to be able to earn the same money, not gave it to them. Part of the present day earnings gap between men and women, can be laid squarely at the feet of feminism. >fight sexual harassment in the workplace Bullshit. Feminism was not required to fight sexual harassment in the workplace, first of all, most if not all of it, a person can handle on their own without a movement, the few cases that would require a change in laws, would by no means require the laws to be so ridiculously overwrought, men now effectively have to walk on egg-shells and remove all personal effects from his workplace lest he risk being sued for sexual harassment, or straight up fired by HR. Without a violent, hateful, sexist movement pushing their hateful nonsense, the change in laws would no doubt be a hell of a lot more sane. >bring predators to justice Bullshit. Do you really think that before feminism rape was legal? Are you insane? A man raped a woman, a judge didn't get to make a decision, the local menfolk would hunt the guy down, hang him, possibly torturing him beforehand, then hung him high a nice central place, then when another stranger entered the village they could point to the corpse, and tell him, "That's what we did to the last (attempted) rapist." And before you go, "Yeah, but what about the marry your rapist laws," sweetheart, rape used to mean theft. The sex you thieved, raped from a woman, was sex you had without paying for it, with lifetime servitude, as in marriage. That law was created back when rape still meant premarital sex, and nothing more. Language drift turned rape into the brutal sexual assault we think of it now, back then they had a different term for that. Those laws were shotgun weddings put into law, and like the south can tell you, those men didn't rape those women, those women screwed him senseless behind or in the barn. >In the 80s it helped pass laws that allowed women to obtain a >divorce without the husbands consent Bullshit. Women have always had the ability to get divorced from the husband without his consent, but back then we didn't have no-fault divorce; as in neither man nor woman could get a divorce without first proving the other partner did one of the no-nos that allowed the break of a marriage. And women had more of them, and easier ones, than the men had. For example, no sexually satisfying the wife was grounds for divorce for wives, the wife not sexually satisfying the husband was not grounds for divorce for the husbands. >forcing sex on your wife is considered rape. Bullshit. People thought entirely differently about marriage and sex, most notably through feminism, we stripped all responsibilities from women, and expanded the responsibilities of men; men are now responsible for the choices women make under the influence of alcohol, even if the man was even more drunk than the woman. Back then, though, both men and women was still considered have duties, responsibilities to one another. One such responsibility, as shown above with the grounds for divorce, is having sex with your spouse. And thus, marrying a man, automatically meant consenting to sex the moment you finished the words, "I do." This is a very different thing from just willy nilly getting to brutally sexually assault your wife, more on that below... >Martial abuse cases were finally brought to justice and the >police finally had the ability to make moves on domestic >violence against women and children. Bullshit. Back in 1908 a senator proposed to bring back the whipping post for abusive husbands only, because putting them in prison deprived their wives of his income. A man that battered his wife, let alone brutally sexually assault her, could be counted on to get beaten possibly all the way to death. By contrast, if he was battered by his wife, he could find himself tarred and feather and riding a donkey backwards while the whole village jeered him.
          • [ – ] AmandaAnderson_1 parent reply In fact looking back at your rhetoric, obvious insults, condescending attitude, and unintelligent questions it is clear you have an ace to grind with feminism. If so don't take it out on me son cuz you're not that observant. Many of your "village justice" beliefs sound European and 1700 era at most in structure. You twisted everything I said from word one.
            • [ – ] 3DMaster2 parent reply :lol: Obvious insults? That's impressive considering I haven't made a single insult. Unintelligent questions? Again impressive, considering I didn't ask any questions. Twisted everything you said? That's also impressive, considering I haven't done anything of the sort. You just parroted the feminist myth about how horrible men were to women in the past, and all I did was counter that with some true facts about history. That's not twisting what you said, that's refuting what you said, with logical arguments, evidence and rationale. And what happens when you come across the novelty of someone one not rolling over and nodding along with your baseless feminist myth assertions about the past that you claim are so obviously wrong and stupid? Did you bring counter arguments, counter evidence? Nope, straight to the thinly veiled ad hominem attacks, indeed, indeed coming straight out of the catalogue for male shaming tactics that most feminists stopped using three years ago, because after y...moreears of repeatedly pointing out we made whole catalogue of the nonsense they finally realized that shit doesn't work. It's almost nostalgic. The funny thing, is that in your first post YOU had axe to grind with feminism, or did you forget that whole bit about them having become a joke?
              • [ – ] AmandaAnderson_1 parent reply I forgot nothing and said it had become a joke, yes. Nowhere in their did I trail off any feminist myths about how horrible men were either. Unlike you I'm not stuck in some Nifty Fifties commercial about how life was better back then. There are some truths you must face. First life is unfair. You must face it. You did not recite one single solitary historical fact. You gave us all your opinion. In fact the only axe to grind against feminism is your own. I like that you have something to say but can you produce something other than the same tired MITOW sounding, condescending attitude that your opinion equals fact and I'm just a feminist blah blah blah? Criminalization of martial rape started in 1969 and by 1993 was illegal in all 50 states. Attached to these decade long, hard won laws included domestic violence and child abuse. But was not punishable in divorce court until 1981. I have more years, more laws, more timelines if you'd like. Feminism HAD it's merit back in the day. Do y...moreou remember THAT being apart of it? NO you just launched into your long winded tirade of how "bullshit" everything I said was. Obviously you don't remember the dumb and rhetorical questions you asked. It must pain you to know that I won't roll over to your ego and your large opinion. Guys like you have a chip on your shoulder. Kid I am much older than you and read actual books, laws, and history. Just because your sore about college girls not wanting to Gove you the time of day doesn't automatically make your disappointment a virtue signal to "take down any woman who has an opinion!" Lol, you're out of your league. Go back and reread my original post and take it as it without doing the "feminist thing" of trying to read between the lines and insert a different definition. See there, I just showed how you have become what you hate. Also go back and read your original response. Take it all in. Because if you are going to do this you will continue to make yourself look reactionary and uneducated.
                • 3DMaster2 parent reply You, and other, will keep believing the feminist lies about history, and they will continue to have a shield they can hide behind.
          • [ – ] AmandaAnderson_1 parent reply Your sumations of always and never give away that all of this is your opinion of things because of how unfair you feel your world is today. While you may not like what I've said all can be looked up as true. It's sad how upset you are that I dare say anything but it's only bullshit to you and that's just you.
            • 3DMaster2 parent reply I've look them up a hundred times over, and every single time I keep finding they are lies and reality was entirely different.
          • [ – ] AmandaAnderson_1 parent reply To which time framed are you calling bullshit from? You seem to be all over the timeline. There is an ugly side to reality it's called reality. I have recorded family history of women not allowed to hold jobs, get education, own land, divorce, get justice for martial abuses. These things did happen whether you like it or not. Just like child rape laws had to change because victims like boys were shamed into not talking and girls who got pregnant were shipped off to convents. You call bullshit on everything yet it's your opinion you operate off of. I bet you think I'm a feminist too, don't ya? Lol, I'm a woman who is lucky enough to have a family history of how the world operated before our time. Lucky enough to have family members who didn't treat each other this way from the old country.
            • [ – ] 3DMaster2 parent reply Nope, they didn't happen, never did; especially not at a time when your relatives are still alive, so any woman in your family claiming they've been oppressed are lying to you. And if they're telling you your great auntie twice removed who lived a 100 years ago was oppressed, they're also lying to you.
              • AmandaAnderson_1 parent reply Again you take what I say out of context and yet you read between the lines to insult me then insert your own idea of what I was saying. That is a very fem thing to do. My families history of hundreds of years of events in the world and the making of this country are not lies. Just because you think you know everything about everyone's life doesn't make your fantasy real. Come back to earth. My father is still alive and very old and can confirm when their weren't laws to protect the vulnerable. I never said anything about oppression, you threw that in. It is becoming clear you just want to argue and insult sans reality and facts. It really isn't your duty to try to correct everyone on the internet because you "think" they are wrong. I'm 4th gen here in the States. My ancestors were Scanadinavian. I have more recorded history to pull from than you have opinion.
  • [ – ] hcvertigo reply God damned outrage culture. The man makes good points about taking all possible precautions for your own safety. I was a mechanic for 10 years. I know you don't trust the floor jack to hold the car up while you are changing the tires. Because occasionally the floor jack gives way and someone gets injured. A pretty girl follows a stranger into a hotel room from a near by bar? Sounds like the start of either a porn or a police report.
  • [ – ] Castielthesexyspacechicken reply Feminism = Victimhood Don't you know, they can't be bothered with being responsible for their own safety and actions.
    • giyga parent reply Basically leftism as a whole ideology is founded on the false premise that one group is oppressed by the heterosexual, white christian male population. It all started with Marx and his proletariat bullshit, and the "oppressed subject" can vary, be it the environment, animals, women, black people, indigenous, and the list can go on. Part of its propagation I believe has to do with the fact that it is easy to delude ourselves into those narratives.
  • [ – ] mattytripps reply One of vox day's rules for dealing with sjw attacks is never to apologize
    • hcvertigo parent reply If you apologize you lend them legitimacy and strengthen their position thus giving them authority over you.
  • DarkQuark reply If you cannot be a perpetual victim then reason sets in that your life sucks because of you.
  • [ – ] Martin_Willett reply This is ageist bigotry. A younger man wouldn't have been treated like this. His comments seem perfectly reasonable. While rape is always the fault of rapists it is not unreasonable to consider prudent risk mitigation. Similarly, I am dead against people being attacked for their political views but if you go on an extremist march which is expecting trouble from Antifa you must take _some_ responsibility for significantly heightening the chances that you would be assaulted.
    • [ – ] GoodTimeHolzy44 parent reply Yes, many younger men have been attacked and deplatformed for being alleged rape apologists.
      • Martin_Willett parent reply This is particularly evil because the intention is clearly to end the man's career. They think if they create a big enough stink he'll just retire and they can claim that as a scalp for the progressive cause. If he was in his thirties he'd probably fight back hard and stand his ground, reiterate his nuanced position and win the day.
  • [ – ] TenderBabyMeat reply If it's acceptable for that unfunny sow, Kathy Griffin, to hold a press conference and she'd her crocodile tears and apologized for the tasteless presentation of her political message then weeks later publicly rescind that apology, then I certainly hope Mr. Hook here takes a cue from her and does the same. His words and overall expressed sentiment have been embarrassingly misrepresented and portrayed. These self-inflicting professional victims that are crying and attempting to twist what Hook actually said in an attempt to force it to conform to their own narrative NEED to be called on their bullshit and be told "NO" when they attempt to rewrite history and the free expression of other people. It is time to start calling these people out, be they strangers, friends, or even family, and informing them that it is not acceptable for them to repaint the portrayal of any event to suit their purposes. We live in an age of readily available information. Anyone can search to find out as in th...moreis instance exactly what was said. A rational person can see those words and interpret it for exactly what he was trying to convey. And when the person you call out tries to spin it further (and they will), it's time to tell them that you will not accept their use of a metaphorical word highlighter as they try to focus solely on their seemingly endless list of buzzwords that they cobble together drawn almost completely out of context. Do not accept this behavior, you rational thinkers! Draw the line!
    • blazedu parent reply But i absolutely agree, if the people near you start spewing this nonsense, confront them, educate them and stop the ideology from spreading.
    • blazedu parent reply Sadly, Kathy is a brave stunning woman while Geoge is a disgusting white male. The double standard is amazing like that.
  • [ – ] ironrope reply wow... people might not bite at this one. george hook seriously spoke like a father/grandfather towards a daughter/granddaughter (like you said...) in my experience in asking women - actually asking them - most women are "reasonable enough" (ha) to admit that women are, at some times, voluntarily putting themselves in irresponsible danger and run crying "victim" when their "roam freely" card runs out... anyone with half a wit understand that socialization and interaction with many people holding severe consequences. one of such being: rape. any loving and responsible parent would inform their children rather than shield them; what will happen when your shield will not be there to block the sword? will your daughter be able to manage, or will she be surprised when she is scorned by the blade?
    • smithpolly parent reply Ironrope : Do you think a woman is voluntarily putting herself in irresponsible danger if she doesn't wear a burka?
  • [ – ] Jesser1975 reply "Misogyny should not be normalized"? What about misandry? That's equally bad, and they're committing that sin by saying that the man is victim-blaming for asking women to be cautious. You wear a safety belt in case your car crashes. You wear a helmet in case your bike is hit by a car. You should avoid going into a private room with a man in case he's a rapist. Men should also heed that warning about women, because we're equally capable of evil.
    • [ – ] AmandaAnderson_1 parent reply I agree. Men should also have this warning because the hot chick you bring back might slit your throat and rob you. The warning about strangers should come from Fathers but Mothers as well. Why aren't Mothers telling their daughters to be more cautious. Why aren't Fathers telling sons not to treat women this way. It's not a linear responsibility, it's everyone's responsibility.
      • Jesser1975 parent reply My husband and I made sure to tell both our son and daughter that if they treat their significant other like shit, we'll completely ostracize them, and pretend that they're dead. They're now adults. It seems to have worked.
  • Castielthesexyspacechicken reply Burn, burn, burn the witch!!! He turned me into a newt,,,,,,,,,,,, well I got better
  • microfree reply As said before by someone here on vidme: I sometimes take the shortcut home through the rifle range. It's not my responsibility to not get shot, it's clearly the shooter's responsibility to not shoot me.
  • [ – ] samjip reply I'm surprised they are not "survivors" rather than merely victims. The only way you can be safe on this subject is to keep your mouth shut.
  • Bonanny reply Insanity is running rampant! He needs to get his own blog and tell these people to suck his d!ck!
  • RayOfHope reply He phrased it wrong! He should have said "she's obviously a fucking whore and got what she deserved"
  • JVanDevender reply Makes sense to me but I'm not a weak minded cultist
  • CryptoAndMarkets reply Mike Cernovich has the sane approach you do on this. If you apologize when you don't need to, it just gets gasoline thrown on the fire. Great video Dave!
  • CommonSense__ reply End your cable subscription tomorrow. Bleed the MSM dry !
  • paddymcgrory reply I have daughters and I agree with the old man 100%
  • AmandaAnderson_1 reply Yeah we had that here with our own old fart radio personality. The man said that a woman's basketball team had "nappy hair". These words branded him a racist and cost him his entire career. Funny cuz I tell my own children they have " nappy hair" when they don't brush it. Looks like Ireland is trying to copy American SJW outrage and ideology.
  • 3DMaster2 reply "Spikes her drink, which sadly happens..." Really? Where? Because I've never seen it, apart from tv movies, cop shows, and dramatic re-enactments of a woman's sob story, even though the police report said the toxicology showed no drug except alcohol in her system.. I think it's more likely a man gets slipped something in his drink than the other way around.
  • DisgruntledAnon reply "Adrian Serle" made me immediately think of ABDL.....I'm too far gone. Damn you Surley and your cutesy blog.
  • blazedu reply Yep, girls aren't responsible for their actions at all. None. I would hate to be represented by any of these horrible groups like feminists or BLM. And of course, when fucking a white male points it out, he must burn at the stake. If you met someone and in the same night go into a private place, you are taking the risk of anything that may happen. You don't know the person and you can't even know if he has aids. Don't be dumb, don't do stupid shit like this and don't follow the group mentality that teens are very susceptible to.
Download the Vidme app!