By ilana mercer
In recent interviews, Donald Trump’s wife, Melania Trump, observed wryly that almost every malicious, lie-filled article about herself or he husband was written by a … female. Indeed, women seem to have a particular stake in bringing Mr. Trump down.
The contrast between Mrs. Trump and the many histrionic shrews prosecuting her husband is stark. In both her interviews with CNN’s condescending Anderson Cooper and Fox News’s Ainsley Earhardt, Mrs. Trump was the embodiment of “strength.”
When a liberal woman declares she’s a strong woman (usually uttered in a tart-like, staccato inflection), she’s using a cliché. Look at her actions. You’ll see that “strong” to liberal distaff means kicking and screaming until she brings others into compliance with her worldview and ways.
A “strong” liberal woman is one who hammers you about your obligation to fork-out for her Trojans and her Trivora. And if birth control fails our liberated libertine, then you’re on the hook for her abortions and abortifacients. And don’t dare doubt any of the intemperate charges leveled by this prototype liberal succubus against a man, any man. To doubt her is to harm her.
It was not without significance that Hillary Clinton’s first general election speech, in June, was before Planned Parenthood. At the time, media buried the story of one named Rajiv K. Fernando, who had donated to the Clinton Foundation and was given a seat as Hillary’s nuclear weapons advisor. Watching this, I was thinking endemic corruption, the $19 trillion debt, the dire jobs report, the terrifying prospect of negative interest rates and the fate of savers. But Hillary and her gyno-brigade in media and across the country were cheering for a universal right to taxpayer-paid dilation and curettage (D&C).
Melania Trump, on the other hand, is authentically strong.
In her refusal to impart salacious tell-all tidbits to interviewers, in the way she guards her privacy and that of her family; in her serene, gracious, and beautiful manners and bearing—Mrs. Trump exemplifies a European woman’s good breeding. She’s a class act. Her enemies are the cultural underclass.
Nor does Mrs. Trump display any of the histrionics about men exhibited by her American counterparts. There are images on the Internet of presidents being inappropriate with women. In particular, you can watch a grainy YouTube clip of Barack Obama appearing to be showing off his crotch to giggling female reporters. In another, the president, with France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, is eying the shapely behind of a young woman passing by. Much to media chagrin, Melania refused to get worked up about the 2005 Access Hollywood tape in which her husband engaged in locker-room talk.
Men will be men. If they’re not saying it; they’re thinking it.
More material than her mien were Melania Trump’s words of reason. On the Soviet-style witch-hunt launched against her husband with media mediation, she said this: “All sexual assault allegations should be handled in a court of law. To accuse someone, man or woman, without evidence is damaging and unfair.” This was the exact verdict of famed defense attorney Tom Mesereau, about the Bill Cosby pile-on. Quit the feeding frenzy. Give the man his due process. Investigate the women, counseled Mesereau, Esq., at the time.
The very embodiment of the malevolent liberal matriarchy rising is the sainted Michelle Obama. The First Lady was lauded for an unhinged anti-Trump address to the nation’s women. In a world where Americans have been beheaded on camera, women raped en masse on Europe’s streets, and Christians exterminated in the Middle East—the First Lady bewailed being “shaken” to her shallow core by raunchy words. “I can’t stop thinking about it,” groaned Michelle about Mr. Trump’s Access Hollywood indiscretion. It “has shaken me to my core in a way I could not have predicted.”
The ritualistic decapitation on the altar of a Catholic priest by Muslim migrants in France: That’s something “I can’t stop thinking about.” The machine-gunning of five Macy’s shoppers and employees by a Turkish Muslim immigrant (Arcan Cetin), in my neck of the woods: That “has shaken me to my core in a way I could not have predicted.” Again, Mrs. Obama’s pitiful case against Mr. Trump has strengthened nothing but her drama-queen credentials.
Candidate Clinton crowed that Mrs. Obama’s long whinge for women was a “compelling and strong case about the stakes in the election, about who we are as Americans.” Indeed, the implicit case Michelle put to women is this: a mammoth national debt, a shrinking job market, rising lawlessness and racial strife, an annual intake of mostly Third-World immigrants exceeding 3 million, the dangers to life and limb of importing more Islam: fuhgeddaboudit. What counts, whimpered Michelle Obama, voice trembling—yes, Mrs. Obama almost brought herself to tears—was to ferret out microaggression, and find a safe-place to hunker down.
As I write, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has stormed a stage somewhere for Hillary Clinton. Phony Pocahontas is hollering about the power of “nasty women” to immiserate. Clinton and Warren make for a resentful, domineering, power-hungry pair, who’ve made it big in life through the use of state power. The human backdrop to their displays of female force invariably looks the same.
Whereas Trump rallies are packed with hope-filled, beaming faces; a Clinton-Warren affair is festooned with malevolent-looking, aggrieved women and their frightened, low-T houseboys. The background music: enfeebled squeaking courtesy of a female pop “singer” like Katy Perry, whose out-of-tune yelps and bedroom whispers would be unheard, if not for the marvel of Auto-Tune. (Auto-Tune is the “holy grail of recording” that “corrects intonation problems in vocals or solo instruments, in real time, without distortion or artifacts.” It was invented by a male engineer.)
Shudder.
If this melodramatic, neurotic message is the voice of America’s women—and legions of Republican women have seconded it—then count me with HER, with Melania against Hillary’s malevolent matriarchy.
***
ILANA Mercer is a paleolibertarian writer and thinker based in the US. Her weekly column was begun in Canada in 1999. (See Articles Archive.) Ilana is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June 2016), the first libertarian book of Trump, and of Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow ilana on https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer & on https://www.facebook.com/PaleolibertarianAuthorILANAMercer/
Subscribe to ilana’s new YouTube channel
Absolutely spot on.
Those same so-called reporters seldom mention Melania Trump’s ability to speak four or five languages and that she could, therefore, make those detractors sound somewhat under educated were she to deploy the talent more often.
Maybe today’s increasingly shrew-like female reporters find the Trump ‘family’ itself something they deep down want but equally deep down sense they’ll never get. Hell hath no fury.
You’re with her Ilana and I’m with you.
Justice is not blind. If it was truly so, Mrs Clinton would already be in prison. She knows a pardon from Obama will be hers should prison keys start jingling. She can afford to keep grinning.
We are living through strange times.
I’m sorry: although Hillary is imperfect, the alternative is far worse. Trump is a hater and does not have the interests of the Folk-Who-Matter at heart.
And if you needed further proof (which you don’t) that appalling crimethinker and Trump-apologist Paul Gottfried is at it again on the hate-site VDare, spewing bilious conspiracy-theorizing in time-honoured antisemitic fashion.
Don’t let him post any of his crimethinkfulness here, Dr Gabb. Unit 8200 would have to add another black mark to your file and GCHQ would take another step towards turning the Gabb List into the Grabb List.
Well, I’m on the Gabb List myself and I have not received any visits from black-clad paramilitary units in the dead of night. I did once have Special Branch at my door, years ago, but it was rather an anti-climactic experience. This disappoints me greatly as I had been promised an exciting and dangerous life as a dissident, with the potential of pulling hot women and perhaps one day the opportunity to write my memoirs – with the added bonus of maybe beating Richard Blake on the bestseller lists. Instead, all I get is a couple of boring, middle-aged detectives asking me if I’d like to hate a chat. (I declined, and have seen neither sight nor sound of them since). Had I known, I would not have bothered.
On the point in hand, that essay by Gottfried is devastating – I agree. It is what I would call a ‘denialist admission’ (I just made that up). Gottfried admits what is going on, but improbably and unconvincingly denies there is any shared interest among the minority group.
However this blog is not the place to discuss it further, or even allude to it. I mention it now only to politely impress on you, as an ‘internet friend’, to please kindly respect the owners of this site. I think you have indulged the patience of the Libertarian Alliance long enough. They are patient and civilised people and will not want to ban you, and if they have to ban you anyway, they will do so only reluctantly. You are therefore abusing their civility.
However this blog is not the place to discuss it further, or even allude to it.
I think it’s precisely the place to discuss it: this is the blog of a libertarian organization and free speech is the most fundamental of all freedoms. But I will follow the example of Paul Marks and make this my last post on the blog. It’s an absurd situation, of course. Dr Gabb is like an avowed enemy of malaria who refuses to admit the relevance of mosquitoes and claims that Stormfront is the only appropriate venue for those who think otherwise. At the same time, he is good friends with the medical entomologist and mosquito-expert Paul Gottfried, who posts about mosquitoes at VDare, not Stormfront.
Well, I’m on the Gabb List myself and I have not received any visits from black-clad paramilitary units in the dead of night.
Give them time. As Adam Smith said: “There is a lot of ruin in a nation.” The Folk-Who-Matter can’t turn the UK into the USSR overnight. They didn’t turn the USSR into the USSR overnight either. But they’ve certainly imported a lot of willing helpers here. Tony Blair was especially useful with that.
Instead, all I get is a couple of boring, middle-aged detectives asking me if I’d like to hate a chat.
An interesting Freudian slip and further confirmation of the psychopathology the Libertarian Alliance are feeding.
I mention it now only to politely impress on you, as an ‘internet friend’, to please kindly respect the owners of this site. I think you have indulged the patience of the Libertarian Alliance long enough. They are patient and civilised people and will not want to ban you, and if they have to ban you anyway, they will do so only reluctantly. You are therefore abusing their civility.
I agree that they are patient and civilized. That won’t help them against people who are neither. I know Dr Gabb has a family to support, but how is he helping them in the long term by keeping quiet himself and wanting me to be quiet too? He himself has said that our elite want a slave-state. They will get it unless there is resistance. Silence is not resistance. It is acquiescence or complicity.
Evangelium Secundum Iohannem Gabbum: Et Gabbus gavisus est cum gaudio magno, quoniam Supercilium Enochi post Paulum Marksum ierat in tenebras exteriores, ubi est fletus et stridor dentium. (Apologies for any faults of scansion, grammar, tense etc.)
Enoch – Please reconsider your decision not to post again. The phony ‘Libertarians’ here may not wish to hear your views, but they are very much needed. You are quite correct to say that those think that they are protecting themselves and their families by keeping quiet are deluding themselves.
There is a clear agenda to destroy us and all we value and cherish. It has happened elsewhere in the past, and the evidence against those behind it is overwhelming.
One notices the clear absence of any support – or comment – for the Britain First leaders currently being severely punished by the PTB for making a small stand against what is happening.
[quote]”I know Dr Gabb has a family to support,”[unquote]
I will ignore the rest of what you say and just focus on this. For me, the above is the key point.
People here have families and responsibilities. I do not, but I have a conscience and I don’t want somebody’s life’s work or livelihood harmed because I wanted to indulge in rants about a personal obsession.
I favour free speech and I am an absolutist in the matter, but exercising one’s liberties can turn sour when it gives way to selfishness and childish indulgence. I have the liberty to say what I like, but it’s not always wise to exercise this liberty. There are situations when moderation is called for – if only for reasons of tact and basic consideration.
This site is the private property of the Libertarian Alliance. We must respect the rights of the owners and also we must understand that they have wider responsibilities in the real world.
If you don’t get this, then that’s likely to be because you don’t have any real responsibilities and so can’t empathise with people with do.
It’s not directly my business, but personally I would prefer if you don’t post here again, as it’s getting annoying. I would also support a decision to ban you, as in this case I think it would be justified.
“People here have families and responsibilities. I do not, but I have a conscience and I don’t want somebody’s life’s work or livelihood harmed because I wanted to indulge in rants about a personal obsession.”
When people start using the term ‘rants’ for views they disagree with, or want to suppress, then I think it’s time to leave them to it. It’s the sort of thing one has come to expect from agenda-driven rags like the Daily Mail. The views expressed were not ‘rants’, they were perfectly correct opinions. Furthermore, they were opinions that are expressed here fairly infrequently, unlike your own sounding off which seems to have moved into 24/7 mode.
I don’t think that I want very much to occupy the same space as someone who favours banning others for speaking the truth, so I’ll do as I said – and leave you to it.
Oh Christ! You do know that I (broadly) agree with Enoch’s Eyebrow, don’t you? My point is that you are abusing the civility of the owners of this site, whose rights should be respected. If you’re sat in my living room and I tell you that I don’t want you to discuss a certain issue while you are in my house, I’d expect you to assent or leave. I wouldn’t expect you to indulge in a pompous, self-indulgent rant about your free speech rights. In my view, you’re acting like children and doing your side of the argument (which, let me remind you, I also happen to be on) no credit whatsoever.
As I see it – and this is just my take as a user – this blog is a space for intellectual debate, not propaganda. That means we engage issues with a certain discipline and broad-mindedness. When I come here, I try to drop the hubristic conceitedness and arrogance of the propagandist.
[quote]”Men will be men. If they’re not saying it; they’re thinking it.”[unquote]
What about women? I’m afraid I don’t share the enthusiasm of others here for the article as I think even in her defence of Trump, the author reveals her latent anti-male sexism and adopts a position that, for all effect, is little different from Trump’s detractors. Again, it’s a typical female thing of assuming moral exceptionalism – we are asked to believe that women are these angelic asexual beings. Women thus assume the role of policing men while refusing to acknowledge that sexual relations are a two-way street. If Trump is boorish, his female admirers are surely willing.
The same female trait is evident in discussions of Rotherham. The women are assumed to be non-consenting in moral terms, but whatever the legal position, the reality is that in the majority of cases, the ‘victims’ consented (albeit that they were legally underage). This raises important and uncomfortable questions, which are never honestly addressed due to the misplaced chivalry of men (especially white men).
Going back to Trump, I am conflicted about the privacy aspect of this, and my sympathy for Trump is limited. Trump is entitled to a degree of privacy, but he has put himself in the frame and he has to now accept that any expectations he may have had of leading a relatively private life must now diminish. I do think we need to know what politicians and other powerful people are discussing privately. To borrow some terminology from Neil Lock, these people are claiming moral privileges over us, and that being the case, I would like to know where they live, where they work, where they sleep and who is, what they eat, and where they send their children to school. Not because I am specially interested in these thing, but because I want to know if the people who are telling me how to live are enforcing a single standard in their own private lives.
Trump has also made great play out of the supposed corruption of Hillary and the moral character of his other political opponents. In my view, this is a mistake, for two main reasons:
(i). First, there is no evidence that Hillary is a ‘crook’. If she were, she would not have been protected. Even if she has broken the law, or lied to or misled Congress, these offences, serious as they are, in their own right do not make her crooked. Don’t misunderstand – I strongly dislike Hillary Clinton and could exhaust a dictionary throwing insulting adjectives at her. I do think she is a traitor and a war-monger, among other things – but those are political crimes.
(ii). Second, I refer you all back to what happened in Britain during the mid-to-late 1990s. Faced with a conservative electorate, the Labour Party under Blair and certain leftist helpers in the media and the Establishment started attacking the Conservative Party and the Major government for ‘sleaze’. The whole sleaze thing was more hot air than substance, but we needn’t go into it here in any detail. My point is that having brought down a democratically-elected government partly on the basis of mud-slinging, the Left then found themselves in power and quickly realised there is always a price tag attached to such strategies. The Labour government became seen, justifiably or not, as one of the most corrupt ever, certainly putting the Major ministry in the shade on the sleaze front. Compared with Labour, the Conservatives (who I concede could be corrupt, due to their business connections), started to look like candidates for sainthood.
I think something similar will happen with Trump. As a businessman, he is extremely vulnerable to corruption allegations. Nobody succeeds to the extent he has without having committed some wrong-doing, and he is not a saint. It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump himself is secretly hoping he loses the general election on the 8th. – and I wouldn’t blame him. If I were Trump, I’d be stuffing the ballot boxes with votes for Hillary. Can you if he wins? The Beltway liberal media are going to have a field day investigating him. It’ll make the Clinton pseudo-scandal industry look like a modest market stall by comparison.
Enoch–You are a fool of epic proportions. If there ever was any credibility to any of the rest of the tripe you spout you just destroyed it by endorsing one of the worst women ever to have lived–let alone tried to lord over a major nation.