When autoeroticism with an infant is sanctioned by a society of deviants

Many are the strictures placed on what can be said and what can’t be said in matters sexual. The anatomy of breastfeeding, naturally, is no longer discussed, for a little digging – a wee-bit of knowledge – would reveal that only biological females can breastfeed successfully, by which I mean, sustain the infant so that it grows and develops on a diet of breast milk. Having breastfed my own daughter successfully until she voluntarily rejected that dependence (at 9 months), I know.

What I remember of the breastfeeding experience is a mother-baby cocoon, with baby occasionally taking a break to smile, play with mom’s hair, burp. While breastfeeding is a much better formula for mother-child bonding than baby formula—gender-appropriators forget that baby nurses to survive, sate hunger and grow.

Thus, a member of the sexually exotic community who claims to no longer be woman cannot sustain an infant through breastfeeding because “he” doesn’t produce breast milk, having had the mammary glands removed. What then is the purpose of such showy displays of “chest-feeding”?

If it is not for the purpose of sustenance, then unsuccessful breastfeeding by a transgendered individual becomes merely an experience, even a production, in furtherance of that individual’s ego-bound gender- and sexual fulfillment.

And worse: I suggest that, in breastfeeding, sexually exotic individuals are often engaged in indecent exposure or some form of sexually charged exhibitionism, if in public.

In my day, we breastfed in private and were modest about it. No one feels comfortable around a woman – much less a “man” – who insists that her mammary glands are not sexual object, foisting them on bashful company.

Is this man-woman, then, engaged in the “natural” act of breastfeeding, or is this something far more sinister like a sexual experience with an infant? Is this not tantamount to titillating oneself, using the baby to get-off?

Since the individual described in the article and discussed in my July 2022 podcast, “Bearded Men Breast Feeding In Public: Paternal Or Kinky?”, is not sustaining the infant – I suggest he is not a successful breast-feeder, as the well is dry.

And given that, by self-admission, the person’s main project is his/her gender identity, I venture that this character is deriving unacknowledged sexual pleasure from fixing a child on to his secondary sexual organs.

The baby here is a prop. The breast feeding is near-sexual. And a society of deviants is sanctioning such autoeroticism, or self-pleasure, with an infant — an infant who has no agency.

WATCH “Hard Truth,” “Bearded Men Breast Feeding In Public: Paternal Or Kinky?”

©2023 ILANA MERCER
WND, July 21

*Image as a screen picture, via Guardian

The post Bearded Trans Men Chest-Feeding: Paternal Or Sexual? appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Bearded trans men chest-feeding: paternal or sexual?

Many are the strictures placed on what can be said and what can’t be said in matters sexual. The anatomy of breastfeeding, naturally, is no longer discussed, for a little digging – a wee-bit of knowledge – would reveal that only biological females can breastfeed successfully, by which I mean, sustain the infant so that it grows and develops on a diet of breast milk. Having breastfed my own daughter successfully until she rejected me (at 9 months), I know.

In any event, a member of the sexually exotic community who claims no longer to be woman cannot sustain an infant through breastfeeding because “he” doesn’t produce breast milk, having had the mammary glands removed. What then is the purpose of such showy displays of “chest-feeding”?

If it is not for the purpose of sustenance, then unsuccessful breastfeeding by a transgendered individual becomes merely an experience, even a production, in furtherance of that individual’s ego-bound gender- and sexual fulfillment.

And worse: I suggest that, in breastfeeding, sexually exotic individuals are often engaged in indecent exposure or some form of sexually charged exhibitionism, if in public. In my day, we breastfed in private and were modest about it. No one feels comfortable around a woman – much less a “man” – who insists that his or her mammary glands are not sexual object too, foisting them on bashful company.

Is this man-woman, then, engaged in the “natural” act of breastfeeding, or is this something far more sinister like a sexual experience? Is this not tantamount to titillating oneself, using the baby to get-off?

Since the deviant described in the article and discussed in the podcast “Bearded Men Breast Feeding In Public: Paternal Or Kinky?” is not sustaining the infant – is not a successful breast-feeder, as the well is dry – and since, by self-admission, the person’s main project is his/her gender identity, I suggest this character is deriving unacknowledged sexual pleasure from fixing a child on to his secondary sexual organs.

The baby here is a prop. The breast feeding is near-sexual. And a society of deviants is sanctioning onanism with an infant: A grown man here is likely using an infant to pleasure himself. An infant has no agency, hence onanism.

A reader at the Unz Review asserted that women, too, get aroused during legitimate breastfeeding. Ridiculous. And, if so, disgusting distaff! Put a lid on it. Curb yourself, will you?

What I remember of the breastfeeding experience is a mother-baby cocoon, with baby occasionally taking a break (these gender-appropriators forget that a baby nurses to survive, sate hunger, grow) to smile, play with my hair, burp. This is a much better formula for mother-child bonding than baby formula.

Wrote another: “That is one of the sweetest descriptions of the mother and child bonding experience I’ve ever read. Nothing prurient at all. Just love. The hair part got me.”

WATCH “Hard Truth,” “Bearded Men Breast Feeding In Public: Paternal Or Kinky?”

SUBSCRIBE here to support our truth telling and get notice of new “Hard Truth” content

©2022 ILANA MERCER
Unz Review, July 7
The New American, July 10

The post A Society Of Deviants Sanctions Onanism With An Infant appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

The media scrum framed the Trump impeachment circus, round two, as an “emotional” affair.

Headlines homed in on the “emotion” surrounding the trial. “It Tears at Your Heart. Democrats Make an Emotional Case to Senators — and America — Against Trump,” blared one of many hackneyed screamers, this one from Time.

The case made by the managers “was both meticulous and emotional,” came the repetitive refrain.

Democrat Jamie Raskin, a representative from Maryland and a lead impeachment manager, sniffed “emotionally” as he related what to him was a heartbreaking tidbit: His (privileged) daughter expressed fear of visiting the Capitol again, presumably because of the January 6 fracas. That made Jamie cry.

And when Jamie Raskin cries, normies outside Rome-on-the-Potomac laugh. Uproariously.

Impeachment managers had warned all present in the Senate chamber that evidentiary footage would be upsetting. Their presentations were “intentionally emotional,” intoned CNN’s Dana Bash, who had paired up with one Abby Phillips for the “solemn” affair. Phillips’ “coverage” of all things Trump, in scratchy vocal fry, was a reminder that the Left’s “empaneled witches and their housebroken boys are guided more by the spirit of Madame Defarge than by lady justice.”

A lady in an armadillo outfit emoted a lot. She was impeachment manager Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.). Although not particularly fashionable or feminine, there was a ton of “emotional” praise on the internet for Plaskett’s attire. Armani’s armadillo apparel was certainly a preferred distraction to the decibels of weepy rage emitted over the Trump protest.

The “intentionally emotional” affair, the last impeachment trial conducted by the Senate, had been preceded by an even more “emotionally” bizarre “healing” coven in Congress, led by none other than Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Ocasio-Cortez set up an hour-long primitive, ritualistic session conducted, putatively, to purge the pain over the January 6 protest on the Capitol.

Early in February, a coven of “prominent Democratic lawmakers, including Reps. Ayanna Pressley (Massachusetts) and Rashida Tlaib (Michigan),” joined Ocasio-Cortez in forcing such a session, with the aim of “creating space for members to talk about their ‘lived experience’” during the Capitol Hill riot.

Big League Politics, a news website, was incredulous, reporting that “congress [had] devolved into an AOC-led therapy session,” during which “House members cried while detailing their ‘lived experiences.’”

This American “thought” leader, Ocasio-Cortez, and her “harrowing” ordeal dominated the corporate press as well.

Here are some of the histrionic headlines about what Congress’s queen of #MeFirst solipsism claimed had traumatized her.

See if you can spot the operative word that animated the writers’ impoverished text:

• “AOC reveals more personal details in new harrowing video …”

• “AOC shares harrowing Capitol riot experience, reveals she’s a victim of …”.

• “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recalls her harrowing … – CBS News”

• “’I Thought I Was Going To Die”: AOC Details Harrowing Day …”

It turns out that the “lived experience” of these abreacting women might have “lived” strictly in AOC’s head, since the House Office Buildings, where AOC cowered, had never been infiltrated by the protesters.

Formulaically, Ocasio-Cortez smuggled into her “living experience” an unverified mention of a sexual assault. Well, of course she did.

It transpires that Rashida Tlaib, who provided an incontinently unhinged account of her “lived experienced” on that fateful day—the Democrat’s 9/11—was most certainly “not even in the Capitol during the breach.”

Still, Tlaib framed her trauma of January 6, as emanating from simply “existing as a Muslim” in America.

Ayanna Pressley rose along with the Tlaib Cobra to spit this venom:

… as a Black woman to be barricaded in my office using office furniture and water bottles on the ground in the dark, that terror — those moments of terror — is familiar in a deep and ancestral way for me …

… I want us to do everything to ensure that a breach like this never occurs at the Capitol (again) … But I (also) want us to address the evil and scourge that is white supremacy in this nation …

…One of the images that I’m haunted by is the Black custodial staff cleaning up the mess left by that violent white supremacist mob … That is a metaphor for America. We have been cleaning up after violent white supremacist mobs for generations — and it must end.

Note the thrust of Pressley’s words. Hers are not just injuries to an individual who happens to be a black woman: Pressley implies she was subjected to them because she is a black woman.

A man, some legislator, was then dragged in, Roman Colosseum style, to expiate before  AOC “for not initially recognizing his ‘privilege.”

It goes without saying that AOC’s castles-in-the-sky “lived experience” mocks out of meaning genuine human suffering.

More to the point: AOC and her squad of progressive Democrats are not advocating “neutral principlism”—neutrality, objectivity, and equality before the law; the noble idea of “rules grounded in law, as opposed to rules based on personal interests or beliefs.”

Differently put, AOC’s theory of justice is not metaphysical but mercenarily political. Every event to her is an opportunity—AOC’s idea being to lower the burden of proof so that events that occur only in a woman’s head can be acted upon in law.

What makes Cortez so cunningly effective is that she fights just like a girl, underhandedly. Her weapon of choice here is the guilt trip; her objective being to squeeze legislation out of her “harrowing,” “lived experience.”

Almost charming in her childish, exclusively lower-order thinking—what makes AOC’s beguiling, baby-like behavior dangerous is that she uses the idiom of emotional anguish to extract legislative leverage.

©2021 ILANA MERCER
WND, March 4
Townhall.com, March 4
American Greatness, March 7
Unz Review, March 4
CNSNews.com  March 5
Quarterly Review, March 7

The post AOC’s Coven of Spitting, #MeFirst Cobras Comes To Congress appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

The managerial elites find themselves in a pickle. The coronavirus pandemic is a serious event. Members of a serious society treat it as such; they look out for one another—and they don’t flee into conspiracy and denial in order to cope with the incongruity of it all.

Alas, courtesy of its globalist elites, America is no longer a society; much less a serious one. In the absence of solidarity between citizens, social capital—”goodwill, fellowship, sympathy”—is scarce. Hence the struggle to mount a coherent response to the pandemic.

Centrally Planned Diversity Begets Disunity

Coherence is certainly not a thing immigration policy has supplied. If anything, policy makers have cheapened citizenship.

The populations from which chosen, future citizens are drawn come to America not in search of constitution and community. Rather, the corporate state’s preferred immigrants bring their own community with them and hyphenate its members.

On arrival, immigrants are encouraged to cling to a militant distinctiveness. The only tacit agreement shared by a majority of Americans, native and newcomer, is that America’s exceptionalism obligates it to both control the world through military and moral crusades and welcome it to America.

The extent to which Americans have, nevertheless, managed to galvanize logistically against COVID-19 is a testament to just how energetic a people we are.

Still, the credentialed, cognitive elites who’ve turned the country into this multicultural, money-focused, built-on-sand Tower of Babel, now find that many Americans—united by commerce, not creed—don’t want to go the extra mile for the strangers who make up their country.

Contrast the U.S., vis-à-vis COVID, with a more homogeneous nation like Japan (or Singapore, or Taiwan or South Korea).

Thirteen minutes and 35 seconds into this interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, Fox News’ Martha MacCallum quizzes him about Japan.

The country, 127-million strong, has had only 846 COVID deaths, and has, according to Ms. MacCallum, not implemented the social mitigation strategies seen in the U.S. and Europe.

Adjusted for population size, this is as though the U.S had suffered only 2,198 COVID deaths! For Japan to “live up” to America’s COVID cull-rate, 38,484 Japanese would have to have perished from the coronavirus.

Other than that its people sport a culture of fastidious cleanliness and have long-since adopted the etiquette of masking—you and I sense what else is afoot in Japan.

So does Dr. Fauci. Certain counties, conceded the good doctor, have “different sizes and different borders, and different infusions from outside.”

Differently put, Japan is almost completely homogeneous, with little immigration, and, consequently, a strong sense of unity. Citizens are more inclined to pull together in common purpose when there is a fellow feeling to bind them.

“The measures that most successfully contain the virus … all depend on how engaged and invested the population is,” explains Ed Young, a science reporter. All the testing, tracing and isolating are for naught if there is an “antagonistic relationship” with and between the people involved in the effort.

And America, it’s fair to say, is no longer a people in any meaningful way; it is a “Walmart with missiles,” where the fusillades we direct at one another.

Private Property In A Pandemic

In our irreparably fractious and fragmented country, polite requests by private property proprietors for customers to cover their mugs and conduct themselves considerately on private places of commerce have caused Antifa-like anger and deadly violence to erupt. Some of our countrymen have even killed or injured innocent others for such daring.

The violent urges to violate the personal space of others aren’t surprising; they’re a symptom of a society that has lost all social bonds.

“You are in violation of my f—ing constitutional rights and my civil rights,” hollered a man when he was stopped from shopping at a Miami Beach Publix for not wearing a mask.

Such people are barking mad—and clueless (and certainly not Barry Goldwater conservatives). Whatever laws have arisen to govern how private property must behave—civil rights law, in particular—these have constituted an assault on that sacred sphere, launched with the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and valiantly opposed by the aforementioned Republican).

If you support the right of the baker to choose the clients for whom he bakes cakes—you will similarly uphold the right of private property to protect customers and employees from a deadly contagious disease by dictating the terms of commerce on said property.

Given that there’s more spite than sense in the displays against responsible private-property enforcement of social distancing and masking—the idea that protest comes from a place of individualism doesn’t quite wash.

Private property is boss: it decides who comes and goes. It’s the way a free people should want it.

Private Property Is Choice, Not Force

It is the absolute prerogative of private property to compel social distancing and masking on its premises, or, to refuse it.

The operative verbs that informed the column “Real Societies Uses Prophylactics, Part 1” were: “asked to,” “requested,” “make an effort to.” In the context of social distancing and masking, these words imply good will, not force.

Good will, in the context of COVID, is a commodity that issues not from government, whose edicts are backed by police powers, but from private property.

In an ideal libertarian world, social distancing and mitigation would be voluntary, not mandatory.

Some—hopefully most—commercial establishments will choose to protect their clients, colleagues and associates by sanitizing, suiting-up and spacing consumers and employees; others, sadly, will opt not to.

Choice, or voluntarism, is the libertarian way.

It is also true that private property is delimited by its boundaries; by its borders. It is supposed to be clearly bounded and demarcated. I can do what I like on my property and you on yours. More crucially, my actions do not affect you and yours do not affect me, because each respects the boundaries and rules of private property.

Here’s the rub: A highly contagious virus that jumps from host to host and from house to house makes a mockery of the choice and voluntarism associated with private property.

Nevertheless, in a free society, the protective borders of private property are better than the State’s boot on our necks. That is if we want to breathe.

READ Part 1: “Real Societies Uses Prophylactics”

©2020 ILANA MERCER
WND, May 28
Unz Review,  May 28
Quarterly Review, June 1

The post Private Property And COVID: Choice, Not Force, Part 2 appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Ideas about liberty have evolved, thankfully.

Egas Moniz, a Portuguese neurologist, received a Nobel Prize for performing lobotomies on his vulnerable, unconsenting psychiatric patients—or victims. Today, he is the just recipient of the contempt of decent mental-health practitioners. (Those who do not hold him in contempt are not decent.)

The same fate may await Alan Dershowitz’s status as a constitutional scholar for his coronavirus jurisprudence. Dershowitz has stated that the State has the power of precedent to drag you to a doctor’s office and plunge a vaccine-filled syringe into your veins.

Inconvenienced Vs. Violated

Contra Dershowitz’s forced-vaccination violence, and contrary to the opinions of many of my friends on the Right, social distancing and masking are mere inconveniences. They are not rights-infringing. Being inconvenienced is not the same as being unfree.

That you are asked to sanitize, suite-up and give people space means only that you are inconvenienced. That you are being requested not to encroach upon others—not to rub-up against them, or expel sputum on them: This is but an inconvenience.

In the context of a pandemic, these are quotidian requests, to be associated with civility and comity. They crimp your style, not your rights. The thing that infringes on your natural rights to sustain life and liberty is the lockdown.

Sequestering you so that you cannot feed yourself and your dependents is a violation of both natural and constitutional rights.

But prevention? Please!

Prevention is about delayed gratification. When you go out on the town or to work, you have to make an effort to protect others.

After all, isn’t asking members of society to cover-up and keep a distance as non-invasive as a request can get? Give it some thought.

Real men use prophylactics: Remember that ad campaign?

The Mañana Mentality

Who can deny that we Americans have a mañana mentality? Consume in the present; worry not at all about tomorrow.

The defining characteristic of the Unites States is debt—public and private, macro and micro. America is a debtor nation. Ours is a credit-fueled, consumption-based economy, not one founded on savings, investment and production.

This creed pivots on instant gratification, on the Pleasure Principle. Unless something is pleasurable, it excites suspicion and is deemed unworthy of pursuit.

Mañana certainly epitomizes the state of our pandemic preparedness reserves when the Wuhan Flu arrived.

Without going into the perverse incentives operating in the  safety-net hospitals, “Making the case for investments in material and hospital planning has long been challenging as most people have difficulty envisioning a major disaster,” admits Dr. Eric Toner, an authority on pandemic preparedness, from Johns Hopkins University: “Hospitals are also under pressure to keep margins thin and eliminate spending on staff and supplies that aren’t used all the time.”

Even if the US government were as enlightened as Singapore’s, which distributed reusable masked to all households—too many Americans would refuse to wear them on the grounds that you can’t take a good selfie, or that it’s momentarily inconvenient.

Look good today, worry about COVID-19 tomorrow. And, “my rights”: If something is not pleasurable, it is often mistakenly considered an infringement of rights.

To equate liberty with petulant incivility is a mistake; it cheapens liberty.

Let us, then, suspend the mañana mentality and think beyond pleasure and convenience. And let us all retain a redeeming belief that, in America, your body is your property alone and nobody can pump you with potions without your consent.

©2020 ILANA MERCER
WND, May 21
American Greatness, May 23
Unz Review,  May 21
Quarterly Review, May 26

The post Real Societies Use Prophylactics, Part 1 appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

His wife, a hero of sorts only in the TV series “Suits,” had hightailed it to Canada, leaving Harry Windsor, formerly known as Prince Harry, to deliver a concession speech.

Make no mistake—no matter the moola they rake in, Harry and Meghan Markle have been sorely defeated and deflated.

Earlier in January 2020, the stumblebum Sussexes had smugly announced to the public that they “planned to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.” The unavoidable implication of that sleight-of-hand was that “this institution” (the monarchy) was just not “woke” enough for the two’s exquisitely honed sensibilities.

Gallantly has Harry tried since to make his subjects believe that it is he, not Meghan Markle—his meddlesome, divisive, American wife—who had attempted, and failed miserably, to outsmart Queen Elizabeth II.

But the crass and callous rollout production, lacking in etiquette and contemptuous of royal protocol, fell flat.

So deeply silly was the Sussexes Instagram statement, that it had brainy royal correspondents and members of the queen’s bench snickering that Harry and his Hollywood wife must have been getting bad advice from friends across the Atlantic, who knew nothing about the workings of the British monarchy.

A woman of impeccable class, HM the Queen, aged 93, handled the Markle tantrum with great kindness—even though the couple had informed the world of their antics, before apprising the queen and other members of the royal family.

Wrapping up Markle’s failed brinkmanship, Harry unleashed a load of bafflegab, peppered with oddly fatalistic phrases such as, “after so many years of challenges,” “there really was no other option,” and, sadly, “it had come to” this.

Translated: After two years of royal toil, my wife has had enough. She cracked under the duress of being dressed to the nines, served the food of her fancy, watched over and catered to, housed in a palace of her own design, and showered with her heart’s desire and a title.

These were paltry rewards for Markle’s herculean efforts. In a word, Meghan prefers the life of a celebrity to that of a public servant.

Despite two years of torturous toil, Harry and his “hardworking” bride were prepared “to continue serving the Queen.” Alas, rambled Harry, that “unfortunately, … wasn’t possible.” The Queen was having none of it.

No wonder. Her Royal Majesty embodies mettle. She has lived a life of dedication and duty. Still in her teens, before being crowned, Elizabeth had joined the military, during World War II, where she “drove a military truck while she served.”

Translated, again: Meghan and Harry (the man of the house here comes first) had hoped to serve the queen on their own terms. Her Highness went hardline, the outcome of which is that, for mindlessly following Meghan, Harry and his boorish bride have been stripped of their status as “working members” of the royal family, have forfeited their “HRH” titles and the honor of traveling on behalf of the queen. Their names have been expunged from the court circular. The Sussexes are also in the bad books of the prince of Wales. Prince Charles, after all, pays for his son’s lavish lifestyle.

According to Alastair Bruce, ABC News’ royalty consultant, and himself a military man, Prince Harry will also lose his honorific military patronages and titles, including “his title as Captain General Royal Marines,” which was especially dear to Harry.

Granted, life at Frogmore Cottage, in Windsor, a place beyond picturesque, didn’t quite cut it for Meghan. But, since it was renovated largely at public expense, down to a yoga studio, a staircase for Meghan’s grand entrances and original paintings from the queen’s own collection—the pair will have to reimburse the Sovereign Grant fund.

That the British monarchy stands for the last vestiges of ancient English tradition is not in dispute. But what do the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stand for in this tawdry saga? The Economist magazine, whose sources crown Meghan Markle as the “principal agent of the current debacle,” tethers “Harry and Meghan to … Marx”:

Markle, the Economist reports, is a “product of an entertainment business that has done more than any other industry to fulfill Marx’s prediction that ‘all that is sacred’ would be ‘profaned’ and ‘all that is solid’ would ‘melt into air.’”

The Communist Manifesto predicted and celebrated that crass commercialism would subject national institutions “to the revolutionary logic of the global market.” “The Sussexes,” muses the Economist’s Bagehot column, “are … embracing capitalism in its rawest, most modern form: global rather than national, virtual rather than solid, driven, by its ineluctable logic, to constantly produce new fads and fashions.” [Emphasis added.]

In 21st-century capitalism you accumulate followers in order to monetize them. … In a 21st-century-capitalist society you are propelled around the world in pursuit of the latest marketing opportunity.

To date, the queen has foiled Meghan’s mindless plan to brand the term “Sussex Royal.” Believe it or not, the two twits had gone and hired a branding agency—the same one that caters to the children’s channel Nickelodeon—and had tried to trademark a Sussex Royal logo.

No doubt the queen’s bench has put Meghan and her American pettifoggers in their proper place.

Once upon a time, a dolt from Tinseltown imagined she was a match for the queen of England.

The End.

©2020 ILANA MERCER
The Unz Review, Quarterly Review,
American Greatness, WND.COM,
The Ludwig von Mises Centre for Property & Freedom,
January 23 & 25

* Image courtesy of The Unz Review.

The post Queen Elizabeth Beats Hollywood And The Stumblebum Sussexes appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Throughout Brett Kavanaugh’s ordeal, Democratic women and their house-trained houseboys had attempted to derail the decent part of the process, rendering a U.S. Senate Supreme Court confirmation hearing a small-minded, mean-spirited, undignified and gossipy affair.

In tenor, the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing resembled a tabloid, a woman’s magazine, or the female-dominated, Trump-watch panels, assembled daily by the Fake News networks.

As to the women folk in the Gallery: They were plain gaga. These libertine “ladies” appeared constitutionally incapable of abiding by standards of decency and decorum, as demanded in such a solemn setting.

Thank our lucky stars we must that Democratic distaff are not yet disrobing, as do their Russian heroines. Pussy Riot, the Putin-hating, all-girl pop band, specializes in desecrating holy places and flashing holey places.

This kind of abandon, albeit moderated, extended to liberal lady senators. Sen. Kamala Harris and her soul sisters in the US Senate conducted themselves like kids who can’t quit interrupting the grownups, nagging for license to break protocol, so as to harangue and harass the “bad” man in the chair.

On the day the Democrats lost—and Kavanaugh won his seat on the High Court—a primal, collective, atavistic howl rose from the Senate Gallery’s female quorum.

In response, a journalist in attendance quipped that this is “what the Left sounds like.” He ought to have stated the obvious. Sure, there are a few male eunuchs among these girls gone wild. But this is predominantly what women of the left sound like.

Half-truths tend to bleed into wholesale lies if uncorrected. So, let us be frank. The sounds emanating from the uterine core of the Democratic Party are the subhuman grunts and growls one hears from animals in estrus or mid-feed. Something is terribly wrong with them.

This sound of willful insanity has spread throughout the land. It has signaled to the hordes of ill-bred Democrats across the country to holler at the moon. Or, harass and hit other Americans.

This is the same quorum that donned genitalia-shaped dunce-caps and took to the streets in a tantrum over Donald Trump’s election. On January 21, 2017, a day after his inauguration, millions of them marched in the Women’s March.

Lest anyone forget, this is the same XX-rated cohort whose “leader,” the menopausal actress Ashley Judd, rapped lewdly about her (alleged) menstrual fluids at an anti-Trump rally. Cheering her were libertine grannies in pussy dunce-caps. Women of a certain age used to command respect. Now … just look at them.

Since Mr. Trump’s election, more than 42,000 seething females, says The Economist, “contacted EMILY’s List, a political action committee devoted to electing pro-choice Democratic women.”

Half the Democrats’ first-time House candidates this year are women, up from 27 percent in 2016 (and far higher than the Republican share of less than 20 percent). From a field that includes Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar, the Democratic presidential ticket in 2020 will probably include at least one female candidate.

As has The Hill forewarned that “women are poised to take charge in a Democratic majority. … Female lawmakers [will be] in the driver’s seat for some of the most pressing issues facing Congress.”

A Democratic takeover promises to be a bitch for ordinary men.

Beware! Dem witches are preparing to mount their brooms and swoop down on Deplorable America.

This is what the dominant, dominatrix wing of the Democratic Party sounds and looks like. You can’t fix ugly. The issue with these left-liberal females is how uncouth, shameless, vulgar, and cruel they are.

In conduct, these Democratic women are more feral than female.

The Democratic Party has come to be controlled by hysterical women and their domesticated man servants.

The anti-Trump protest ongoing is not cerebral or visceral, it’s gynocentric. And it’s expressly anti-male.

Yet, how did Republicans respond when these Democrat pack animals retreated, grunting and growling, baring bloodied fangs, from their prey, from Mr. Kavanaugh?

Most quipped, genteelly, that Democrats had overplayed their hand: The American People were hip to their antics.

Less-passive Republicans labelled the Democrats the party of mob rule.

Is that all you’ve have got? Hardly fighting words.

For heaven’s sake, Democrats have handed Republicans a winning issue. A huge winning issue. It is that that the Democratic Party, high and low, is dominated by militant, man-hating women. And they’re on the war path. In the words of Hawaii’s Sen. Mazie Hirono: “I just want to say to the men in this country: just shut up … for a change.”

Republicans can’t just mutter in a muted manner about “mob rule,” and ignore the rival party’s gift to them!

True, Democrats demonstrate daily that they’re not for the rule of law, but for the law of rule, mob rule.

But more crucially, Democrats consistently show that their party is, very plainly, hostile—even dangerous—to men.

The Dominatrix Party is out of the closet as a party whose very ideas pose a danger to 49.2 percent of Americans.

Republicans should use it, or prepare to lose it.

©2018 ILANA MERCER
WND.com, The Unz Review, Quarterly Review,
Townhall.com, American Greatness & Reckonin’
October 18

The post The Dominatrix Party, AKA Party Of Man-Haters appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

I recently traveled to Texas to speak about South Africa, at the Free Speech Forum of  the Texas A & M University.

To travel from the Pacific Northwest all the way to College Station, Texas, without experiencing more of the “Lone Star State” was not an option.

So, after driving from Austin eastward to College Station (where I was hosted by two exceptional young, Southern gentlemen), I headed south-west to San Antonio. There I lingered long enough to conclude:

The Republic of Texas is a civilization apart.

Ordinary Texans—from my brief travels—tend to be sunny, kind and warmhearted. Not once did I encounter rude on my Texas junket.

On the Pacific Coast, however, kindness and congeniality don’t come naturally. State-of-Washington-statists are generally aloof, opprobrious, insular. And, frankly, dour.

Southern historian Dr. Clyde N. Wilson tells of receiving “a package containing a chamber pot labeled ‘Robert E. Lee’s Soup Tureen.'”

It came from … Portland, Maine.

Unkind cuts are an everyday occurrence around here, where the busybody mentality prevails.

Stand still long enough, and they’ll tell you how to live. They’ll even give chase to deliver that “corrective” sermon. A helmeted cyclist once chased me down along a suburban running trail.

My sin? I had fed the poor juncos in the dead of winter. (Still do. Bite me, you bully.)

Having caught up with me, SS Cyclist got on his soap box and in my face about my unforgivable, rule-bending. Wasn’t I familiar with the laws governing his pristine environmental utopia?

Didn’t I know that only the fittest deserved to survive? That’s the natural world, according to these ruthless, radical progressive puritans.

Yes, mea culpa for having an exceedingly soft spot for God’s plucky little creatures.

When a Washington statist gets wind of your core beliefs—why, even if your use of the English language irks His Highness—he will take it upon himself to fix your “flaws,” try to make you over in his sorry image.

For the distinct cluster of characteristics just described, Dr.  Wilson aforementioned uses the term Yankee.

The professor, whose métier is American intellectual history, was described by Eugene Genovese as “an exemplary historian who displays formidable talent.” Another stellar scholar, Thomas Landess, lauded Wilson as “a mind as precise and expansive as an encyclopedia.”

Duly, Dr. Wilson makes the following abundantly clear: By “Yankee,” he does not mean “everybody from north of the Potomac and Ohio.”

“The firemen who died in the World Trade Center on September 11 were Americans. The politicians and TV personalities who stood around telling us what we are to think about it are Yankees.”

“Yankee” as a designation belongs to “a peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and a penchant for ordering other people around.”

“A perversity of character,” said Thomas Jefferson succinctly of the Yankee character.

Indeed, “Puritans long ago abandoned anything that might be good about their religion but have never given up the notion that they are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.”

The cover of Wilson’s “The Yankee Problem: An American Dilemma” is bedecked with the quintessential Yankee mugs of Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush and John Brown, each a murderer in his or her own right. The one butchered with his bare hands. The other two killed by proxy.

The contemporary face of the fanaticism alluded to here is pundit Richard Painter, who is the spitting image of Brown. A Republican until Trump, Painter is now a member of the anti-Trump high-command at MSNBC.

In zealotry, Painter could pass for the terrifying Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens.

A broader truth hit me in the solar plexus during the sojourn from the American Deep North to The South. On hand to better contextualize it is my friend, Clyde Wilson:

Texas is still a Red State, despite a large number of minorities. That is because Texas, as you observed, Ilana, has a real culture. That means that there is a reality there that minorities can identify with and assimilate to. Unlike, say, Chicago or New Jersey or L.A., where they simply become aggrieved ‘victims,’ clamoring for special benefits, that being the only culture present.
The peculiar character of the Yankee was observed by Tocqueville in the 19th century and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th. The first great American novelist, James Fenimore Cooper, wrote a whole series of books about the New England Yankees who spread into and destroyed the unique culture of his home country of Upstate New York.
Plenty of Northerners, like Governor Horatio Seymour of New York and Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, blamed the War between the States on New Englanders, and not the South, which simply wanted to be let alone.
One cannot really grasp American history unless you understand how Yankees have dominated and distorted it since the late 18th century.

©2018 ILANA MERCER
Quarterly Review, Townhall.com, The Unz Review, WND.com, The Ludwig von Mises Centre for Property & Freedom, Constitution.com,
Power & Market Blog & The Abbeville Institute.
May 10

The post Texas Vs. The Pacific Coast: Explaining The Yankee Mindset appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

“Taking a knee” stands for the specter of beefy, pampered athletes—they’re not sportsmen—wealthy beyond belief, striking a political pose on the football field, during the playing of the national anthem.

First to kneel when he was meant to stand was Colin Kaepernick. The reason the San Francisco 49er knelt, in 2016: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

Like Kaepernick, current kneelers are not Copernicus. It’s hard to fathom what they actually want. A non-player activist has since narrowed the kneeling to “ending the killing of black men and black women by the police.”

To question the debasing of the English language, in this context, is probably considered racist, but I’ll take one for Team English. At first, I knew not what on earth “take a knee” meant. Commentators and anchors discussed this god-awful expression without explaining it. And my connection to American football is as weak as the connection Americans have to one another.

I grew up on a sports diet of basketball and real football—the kind Pelé played without a dog muzzle and with dazzling footwork. South African rugby, too, was faster and more fun than American football. Nevertheless, I root for my home team, the Seattle Seahawks.

Why so? We all inhabit this busy mart called America, but are united by nothing meaningful at all. The football fetish in America has intensified in the context of a country whose inhabitants agree on little else than the importance of The Game. Consequently, come playoff time, we come together fleetingly and superficially, to make a religion out of our respective professional football teams.

“Take a knee” must have originated in some linguistic botching, a lazy collapsing of alliteratively related words and phrases. I mean, you can “kneel,” “kneel down,” or “get down on your knees.” You most certainly can “bow down” or “take a bow.” But, “Take a knee”? It sounds like an adaptation from “take a p-e.” Actually, I’m not far off. The Giants’ Odell Beckham Jr. “had been flagged … for unsportsmanlike conduct when he celebrated a touchdown by impersonating a dog urinating.”

English and etiquette aside, the act is melodramatic. You get down on your knees to pray, to beg for forgiveness or beg for your life. What these N.F.L showmen are doing is strike a pose—choreographed for prime-time television. When the players kneel, link arms, sulk in their locker-rooms, during the playing of the national anthem, they’re acting not as sportsmen but as showmen.

A sportsman used to embody a certain set of shared values. He set an example in his steeliness, resiliency, strength and singular focus. The spoilt men of the N.F.L. stand unafraid in the presence of … what? American moms, dads and their kids?

What we have here are men who belong to a fraternity famous not for good works, but for scandals, excesses and brutality. Ray Rice knocked his wife unconscious on camera, Michael Vick ran an unspeakably cruel dog-fighting ring. Adrian Peterson whipped his son (who probably needed it). Aaron Hernandez and Jovan Belcher committed the ultimate sin. On and on.

The most righteous players of the showy pro football lineup are not those parading their pigment burden to the nation; they’re sportsmen like Aaron Rodgers, Eli and Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady, who give oodles to charity without a song and dance.

To be fair, Colin Kaepernick has recently donated $1 million. It’s safe to assume, however, that not a penny did Kaepernick donate to white families whose sons were killed by cop. For example: Erik B. Scott, a decorated ex-Army officer, West Point grad and Duke University MBA, who was shot to death by Las Vegas cops. Erik’s father, Bill, is an ex-USAF officer and former aerospace journalist, who consults on the topic of police brutality. But while Bill, a rightist, seeks justice for all, the National Football League racists care only for their own tribe. Likewise, the Left awakens to “the epidemic of police brutality in every state of the union” only when black lives are concerned.

The tribalism of “kneelism” sums up the state of the progressive project. Like the Antifa Idiocracy, N.F.Lers are generally not the smartest. Bereft of the faculty of logic or reason, these excitable, histrionic hulks can’t debate or argue effectively. Lacking words or wisdom, the kneelers resort to inappropriate displays and gestures aimed at the self, at self-aggrandizement.

Kneeling is the ultimate selfie, beamed to the country and blasted by the president himself.

In more ways than one, “taking the knee” is like taking a pee. It’s a waste. It speaks to the inward-looking, ego-driven, vain posturing of the Left and its perpetually seething, predatory racial coalition. They’re bent on extracting something from innocent, ordinary Americans who owe them nothing.

Pontificating about patriotism is probably misplaced. The opening ritual at the taxpayer-subsidized pro football games is no more than a test of manners and etiquette. The Black Lives Matter players are expected to make nice during the national anthem, nothing more: “Stand up straight and don’t pull faces.”

You needn’t believe in the song; you just have to be polite about it. Even if he opposes the monarchy, the British republican still musters a bow or a curtsy for the queen. He has the good breeding to respect protocol and the feelings of others.

Partaking in civilization entails knowing there is a time for everything. There is a time for activism and a time to do what you’re paid to do.

Mostly, pro football players are just fools and possibly knaves. Underpinning their cretinous case against “America” is a confusion of category. Kneelers are protesting “a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

A country—America in this case—can’t oppress people; only specific individual Americans can. Erik Scott’s story is the story of the best of America gunned down and rubbished by the worst. Did his father, Bill Scott, blame all his countrymen? No. Braveheart Bill pursued the culprit and the cops who covered for him.

You can’t blame a collective for harm done to you, unless each individual within that collective has harmed you. Seattle Seahawks: There was no need to insult the fans in Nashville—where my former team played the Tennessee Titans—unless each one of them had damaged you in some palpable, provable way.

The Seahawks dissed the fans to show they “oppose those that [sic] would deny our most basic freedoms.” But which fan in that Nashville stadium denied any one of the Seahawk players his “most basic freedoms”?

Number and name them or shut up and play.

©2017 ILANA MERCER
The Daily Caller, The Unz Review, WND.com,
The Ludwig von Mises Centre for Property & Freedom,
The Liberty Conservative, Constitution.com.
September 28

*Image courtesy The Guardian

The post “Taking A Knee” Is Akin To Taking A Pee appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

©2016 By ILANA MERCER 

The Iowa caucuses are upon us. Every sentient human being who has lived through The Trump Revolution thinks Donald J. Trump, the enfant terrible of establishment politics, will likely win the Republican caucuses, come February 1.

As of January 27, an Iowa Monmouth University Poll places Trump at 30 percent to Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s 23 percent, up from 19 percent last month. At 41 percent nationwide, Trump’s lead is double that of Cruz, his closest rival.

Other than news emanating from the Me-Me Megyn Kelly megaphone—most media predict a “huge” turnout among Republican caucus-goers, enthusiasm that’s hard to associate with Ted’s pompous, preachy sermons. (“Inauthenticity” is how Rand Paul put it.)

Still, not all media have learned to refrain from projecting their innermost desires onto and into their reporting. So when The Donald upset the political applecart again, January 26, some still posed numbingly stupid questions that ignore the candidate’s trajectory:

“Will Trump’s big debate gamble be brilliant or disastrous for his campaign?”

“Will Trump’s Boycott Play as Tantrum or Principled?”

The special-needs media’s professional retardation is a source of lots of laughter on Twitter:

CNN’s Ryan Lizza, “Trump is basically winning a multi-front war against every power center of the Republican Party.”

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough: “Anyone thinking Trump loses this game of chicken hasn’t been paying attention for the past 6 months.”

“Trump just shot Fox News in the middle of 5th Avenue,” tweeted another, alluding to Trump bragging he “could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and [he] wouldn’t lose any voters.”

And: “So it turns out Fox WILL be hosting an undercard debate.”

Here’s what just happened: Donald Trump had not expected to be subjected again to Megyn Kelly’s ministrations, after the anchor’s missteps during the first prime-time Republican debate, in Cleveland, Ohio, last year.

The consensus among very many outside the Beltway bubble was that the smug Megyn Kelly had been rude and overbearing during that debate, clobbering Trump with sub-intelligent, war-on-women questions.

Donald Trump had implicitly, at least, expected the network to rethink its decision to unleash showy Ms. Kelly, once again, on the occasion of a Republican debate, scheduled for January 28.

It’s hard to believe Kelly’s higher-ups at FNC are so stupid as to put her in the moderator’s chair again. Given the woman’s profile, I suspect Fox’s Golden Goose had henpecked the boss, Roger Ailes, to have at it again.

Kelly’s central focus is to be center-stage. This her unbecoming conduct over months has made clear. “The Kelly File,” Megyn’s eponymous show, has persistently ignored news about the news-maker of the day, Donald Trump. Yet just this once, Kelly elected to extensively cover Trump’s decision not to attend a debate moderated by herself, to whom she referred adoringly as “yours truly.”

“Yours truly” was the theme of the January 26 segment.

And the guests stampeded to her studio for a chance to genuflect to Kelly and diss the front-runner for the umpteenth time. This time it would be different. This time, Trump was going down.

Kelly’s “Breaking News” coverage entailed parading other candidates past and present to berate Trump’s actions—to call him a coward, running scared of a woman; to question the candidate’s commitment to Iowans, label him as someone who doesn’t show-up, when Trump has been in Iowa all along, showing Iowans The Love.

Especially asinine was the snarky Millennial-like press release Fox News chose to put out in response—a release that cemented Donald Trump’s decision to do something more useful and foil the Megyn Kelly extravaganza.

The notice was too frivolous for actor Sean Penn to have penned (we recently discovered Penn could write). Perhaps the ghost writer was goofy, late-night show host Jimmy Fallon?

We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings …

Come again?

Actually, the network’s juvenile jab at Trump sounds remarkably like … Megyn Kelly. In an attempt to shape news, not report it, Kelly has reported minimally on the newsmaker-in-chief. But the anchor has been consistently snarky in her sparing “coverage” of Trump, over the months.

Nasty nightly are Kelly’s sidekicks, Chris Stirewalt and Howard Kurtz (“Howie,” as Kelly calls him). Together, the three berate Trump and his lumpenproletariat, including any media that cover him. Kelly has bitched about “rerun” interviews; and congratulated herself on air for not being “all Trump, all the time,” when she, in fact, covers Trump hardly at all.

But you’d have to see the Kelly cobra in action to appreciate the venom with which the following words were spat out:

“Many more men like Donald Trump than women. Hispanics and African-American are not crazy about Donald Trump.” His base consists of whites without college degrees.

“He’s very smart at manipulating some media.” (Here Kelly pulls a face to distinguish herself from the pack).

“Fact checking Donald Trump is like picking up after a dog with diarrhea.” (A favorite Kelly File guest gets guffaws.)

“Is the front-runner on the GOP side an honest person?” (That’s Kelly floating suggestive ad hominem.)

So, is Kelly a consummate professional or is she a consummate self-promoter, preoccupied with the production that is Megyn Kelly? Differently put, how professional is Kelly? Not very.

It matters not who was right or wrong during the first round—did Trump object illegitimatelyto the so-called piercing arrows in Kelly’s intellectual quiver? Or was the candidate legitimately offended by the anchor’s foolish identity politics on display?

A serious journalist with a grasp of the enormity of the Trump Revolution; a journalist who didn’t wish to give up on ever again interviewing the candidate, or forever forfeit access to a possible future president, a journalist with gravitas would have labored less at promoting herself and more on mending a professional relationship.

Not Kelly. And Kelly’s colleagues and bosses are enablers; they’ve taught her everything about ratings, make-up and hair. (Yes, your new hair is magnificent, Megyn Kelly. Glad you got rid of the old, matted shag that likely needed extensive reviving before each show. You’re a pretty girl. But boy, are you vain and a tad vacuous. The way you always bring the Kelly File show back to … yourself. Does that take skill or just all-consuming narcissism?)

Alas, not much have her mentors taught Kelly about off-camera, unglamorous, shoe-leather journalism.

Namely, you are not the story. Your job is to get the story.

So what did our lady so fair do over the holidays to fix her professional faux pa? Kelly took her sassy keister to Vanity Fair, where her pictures were splayed over the glossy magazine’s pages. Trump, she told the You-Go-Girl journalists at VF, had attempted to woo Ms. everybody-wants-me Kelly. Now what do you think about that!

Suppose Trump had tried to curry favor with Kelly. Is that something a professional who still wishes to interact with her subject shares publicly? No! Kelly’s actions all along have been those of a woman who sees herself as a personality first. As an ego in an anchor’s chair, or a woman scorned, Kelly is game to go up against Trump.

As I noted, “The Kelly File” has kept up a barrage of hostilities against Trump, since the August fall-out. The man has a case against Kelly.

For a time following the much-needed dressing-down and time-out forced by her snarling attack on Trump, last year, Kelly was slightly more serious, more demure. She has since rebounded with a vengeance. After Vanity Fair, off our fair lady rushed to make hay on the Charlie Rose show, where she was utterly charming, as she indubitably is. Until you stop to analyze her actions.

The onslaught of Kelly charisma has become tiresome and off-putting.

With Charlie Rose, Kelly, as always, brought it back to herself: She told the interviewer how Fox News boss Roger Aisles had liked “the package: the smarts, the looks, the voice.” Her words about herself.

During the Rose interview, we learned from motormouth that because she’s so cute (presumably), she was given a stripper name by her sources when investigating a story about a stripper who cried rape.

When she first burst on to the Fox News scene, years ago, Kelly announced in an interview that she was beautiful inside and out. She left out boastful.

As to Fox and friends’ brave stand for their freedom of press and against Trump’s freedom of association: Contrary to Geraldo Rivera’s confused assertion, Donald Trump had not dictated to Fox News, but dissociated from the network this once.

“Lol [laughing out loud], Donald J. Trump isn’t scared, he’s efficient with his time,” tweeted Alec. Trump will be holding a competing (fundraising) event in Iowa. If the competition to Fox News takes it upon itself to send in the cameramen—Trump’s event will probably trump the specter of “two Cubans arguing,” in ratings (as another tweet taunted).

Fox News has since compounded its problems by using “terrorizing” to describe the Trump campaign’s “vicious attacks” on Kelly. That’s underhanded.

The Left is going to love Megyn Kelly even more for supposedly intimidating Donald Trump. For Kelly to love herself more is impossible.

©ILANA Mercer
WND, Quarterly Review, Praag.org,
The Libertarian Alliance &  The Unz Review
January 29, 2016

The post The Me Myself And I Megyn Kelly Production appeared first on ILANA MERCER.