Category Archives: illicit sex

BBC News Not As Hysterical About Harvey Sweinstein


By ilana mercer

I’d like to better understand the American conservative media’s orgy over Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced and disgraceful Hollywood film producer and studio executive who used his power over decades to have his way with starlets.

To listen to conservative talkers, the women affronted or assaulted by Weinstein were all Shakespearean talent in the making—female clones of Richard Burton (he had no match among women)—who made the pilgrimage to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Hollywood Hills, for the purpose of realizing their talent, never knowing it was a meat market. Watching the women who make up the dual-perspective panels “discussing” the Weinstein saga, it’s hard to tell conservative from liberal.

“Conservative” women now complain as bitterly as their liberal counterparts about “objectification.”

However, the female form has always been revered; been the object of sexual longing, clothed and nude. The reason the female figure is so crudely objectified nowadays has a great deal to do with … women themselves. By virtue of their conduct, women no longer inspire reverence as the fairer sex, and as epitomes of loveliness. For they are crasser, vainer, more eager to expose all voluntarily than any male. Except for Anthony Weiner, the name of an engorged organism indigenous to D.C., who was in the habit of exposing himself as often as the Kardashians do.

The latter clan is a bevy of catty exhibitionists, controlled by a mercenary, ball-busting matriarch called Kris Kardashian. Kris is madam to America’s First Family of Celebrity Pornographers. (To launch a career with a highly stylized, self-directed sex tape is no longer even condemned.) Lots of little girls, with parental approval, look up to the Kardashians.

From Kim, distaff America learns to couch a preoccupation with pornographic selfies in the therapeutic idiom. Kardashian flaunts her ass elephantiasis with pure self-love. Yet millions of her admirers depict her obscene posturing online as an attempt to come to terms with her body. “Be a little easier on myself,” counsels Kim as she directs her camera to the nether reaches of her carefully posed, deformed derriere. While acting dirty and self-adoring, Kardashian delivers as close to a social jeremiad on self-esteem as her kind can muster. Genius!

Liberalism and libertinism are intertwined. The more liberal a woman, the more libertine she’ll be—and the more she’ll liberate herself to be coarse, immodest, vulgar and plain repulsive. Think of the menopausal Ashley Judd rapping lewdly about her (alleged) menstrual fluids at an anti-Trump rally. Think of all those liberal, liberated grannies adorning pussy dunce-caps on the same occasion.

By nature, the human woman is a peacock. We like to be noticed. The conservative among us prefer the allure of modesty. The sluts among us don’t. On social media, women outstrip men in the narcissistic and exhibitionist departments. In TV ads, American women, fat, thin, young and old, are grinding their bottoms, spreading their legs, showing the contours of their crotches, and dancing as though possessed (or like primates on heat), abandoning any semblance of femininity and gentility, all the while laughing like hyenas and hollering hokum like, “I Own It.”

The phrase a “bum’s rush” means “throw the bum out!” When it comes to Allison Williams, daughter of NBC icon Brian Williams, a bum’s rush takes on new meaning. Thanks in no small measure to her famous father, the young woman has become a sitcom star. And Ms. Williams has worked extra-hard to hone all aspects of an actress’ instrument (the body). Alison has carried forth enthusiastically about a groundbreaking scene dedicated to exploring “ass motorboating” or “booty-eating,” on HBO’s “Girls.”

The lewder, more pornographic, and less talented at their craft popular icons become—the louder the Left lauds their artistically dodgy output. (The “Right” just keeps moving Left.) “Singer” Miley Cyrus was mocked before she began twerking tush, thrusting pelvis and twirling tongue. Only then had she arrived as an artist, in the eyes of “critics” on the Left. The power of the average pop artist and her products, Miley’s included, lies in the pornography that is her “art,” in her hackneyed political posturing, and in the fantastic technology that is Auto-Tune (without which all the sound you’d hear these “singers” emit would be a bedroom whisper).

Liberal women, the majority, go about seriously and studiously cultivating their degeneracy. If “Raising Skirts to Celebrate the Diversity of Vaginas” sounds foul, wait for the accompanying images. These show feral creatures (women, presumably), skirts hoisted, gobs agape, some squatting like farmhands in an outhouse, all yelling about their orifices.

Do you know of a comparable man’s movement? If anything, men are punished when they react normally to women behaving badly.

Female soldiers got naked and uploaded explicit images of themselves to an online portal. The normals—male soldiers—shared the images and were promptly punished for so doing. And the conservative side of that ubiquitous, dueling-perspectives political panel approved of the punishment meted to the men.

So endemic is distaff degeneracy these days that “protesters” routinely disrobe or perform lewd acts with objects in public. Vladimir Putin is a great man if only for arresting a demented band of performance artists, Pussy Riot, for desecrating a Russian church.

If men flashed for freedom; they’d be arrested, jailed and placed on the National Sex Offender Registry.

Talk about the empress being in the buff, I almost forgot to attach an image of this celebrity, bare-bottomed on the red-carpet. Rose McGowan is hardly unique. Many a star will arrive at these events barely clothed. (Here are 38 more near-naked Red-Carpet appearances.)

Expect a feminist lecture about a woman’s right to pretend her bare bottom is haute couture, rather than ho couture, and expecting the Harveys of the world to behave like choir boys around her. Fine.

Being British, BBC News anchors are not nearly as dour about the Harvey hysteria as the American anchors. A female presenter began a Sweinstein segment by saying men claim the coverage of the scandal is excessive; women say the opposite. “That’s why we’re covering it,” quipped her witty male sidekick. She roared with laughter. That’s my girl!

Look, Harvey is a lowlife. But Hollywood hos are not as the sanctimonious Sean Hannity portrays them: “naive, innocent young things,” dreams shattered.

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube.

Advertisements

Left-Liberalism’s Homo-Eroticism


By ilana mercer

A Norwegian male was raped by a Somali asylum seeker. The last term—Somali asylum seeker—is something of a contradiction like the first (Norwegian man). The asylum-seeker honorific is given to practically anyone from the Dark Continent or the Middle-East who washes up on Continental Europe’s shores. Read more

This is the last thing we’ll say about Max Clifford


David Davis

I couldn’t resist this. Mainly because I have read all or most of the works of the Director’s dear and close friend Richard Blake. Blake writes in clear and disconcertingly-real and presently-verifiable ways, about the duplicitous political-classes of the various nations in his stories. Today’s subject is not really Clifford but the British-PoliticalEnemyClass, and how it views its servants and running-dogs and the like.

I wrote on facebook and in GUIDO:-

http://order-order.com/2014/05/09/nonce-watch-clifford-to-be-transferred-today/
It’s interesting to have watched the slow-motion-traincrash of the BritishPolitical-EnemyClass, in the process of traincrashing one of their own creations in public.

Max Clifford’s “career” would not have existed in a classical-liberal-minimal-statist civilisation, in which was a high degree of citizen-curiosity and critical-analysis-ability of situations presented to them. Indeed, many such situations, such as “married footballist and “family-role-model” beds good-time-girl met in club” would not have _been_ presented to such a population: why? Because they would find it (a) unremarkable and (b) nobody else’s effing business, being a private matter between the footballist, his wife, and his pickup.

The pretty young woman, having had the footballist-family-man-and-role-model for-youth, for a little time, would have got nowhere in news terms, for nobody would give a stuff. Young footballist-males are chosen for their prowess on the “field”, which means also that, like Gladiators, they may well also have an insatiable appetite for pretty and submissive young women, to f***.

Islam may also have a take on this, but I cannot do it now here on this post, and that will wait for another time and an interpretation (carefully-guided by a “scholar” – I have one in tow for me to do it. He is a Hafiz, even – this one.) And it will be about what the Koran says about what gentlemen are allowed to do to ladies, and why, and under what conditions. (He’s memorised the entire Koran in at least one literary tradition: that is what “Hafiz” means.)

Therefore Clifford must have been created, as I argue on GUIDO (see paste below) to further the destroying-aims of the BritishPolitical-EnemyClass. To see them therefore trashing him is almost funny, if it was not terrifying. I think of the scene in the great arena in Read more

Life versus art


Gill_Prospero_and_ArielIt has been reported that pressure groups representing the survivors of rape, sexual violence and childhood sexual abuse have called upon the BBC to remove a statue by the sculptor Eric Gill that adorns its London headquarters. The statue, from 1932, is a depiction of Prospero and Ariel, the latter depicted as a naked boy. This is not a new demand.

While the BBC has, entirely properly, refused this demand and pointed out that Gill, for all his sins, remains a major British artist whose work is widely regarded as of importance, this situation illustrates a phenomenon among the Left that is worth examining further. Read more

The “Football Association” is now a “Court” – official.


David Davis

A private “Sports Governing Body” (whatever that is for) has set itself up as a “Sondergericht”. It has issued a “judgement – a Fatwah, if you like –  and attached a “fine” – a strange sum: £220,000….Makes you wonder how it was arrived at? No?

When I’m Principal Secretary of State For War, in the Democratic-People’s-English Revolutionary-Liberalist-Party’s*** first government (minimal-statist, conservative, libertarian) private institutions that have previously and triumphalistically-set themselves up as “judges and juries” under the current climate of rampant GramscoFabiaNazism, will find themselves “under investigation”.

I do not believe in amnesties for socialist behaviour, adopted and deliberately pursued with malice-afforethought, and in the face of all empirical evidence that such behaviour was designed on purpose to kill, destroy the effective lives of or otherwise harm as many people as possible.

The FootBallAssociatioNazis will be “hauled in for questioning” by the War Secretariat’s “Operational Services Department Personnel (Domestic Division)”. A version of a reverse-PPI-Claim will be applied to their staffs, who will be “invited to re-imburse John Terry the sum of £220,000 plus interest plus 8% plus a “sum to be decreed” for “damages”.”

I said something similar on Facebook a couple of minutes ago. In case any blogreaders here can’t read Facebook, I have posted the text of my piece there:- Read more

Sex and Disease


by DJW

We keep reading stories of HIV positive men who infect large numbers of partners, but why is it up to the state to tell us what we should do in intimate contact? so what if the man (eg http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046347/Monster-gave-HIV-left-life-sentence-says-mother-infected-man-slept-hundreds-women.html) was HIV+. The decision whether to wear rubber insulation was up to him and his sexual partners. And women who sleep with people they don’t know without marrying them first – well they are taking the risk. So what is the problem? What next? A law forbidden kissing when you have the common cold? I am totally opposed to the idea of “safe sex”. The real safe sex is sex between a man and his wife – and everything else includes risks of various types and that is all there is to it.

 

Paedomania


By D.J. Webb

I don’t have any interested in drawings of children being raped,
but I know of no legitimate law where people could be imprisoned for drawing
such a scene. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002181/Ex-leader-paedophile-pressure-group-person-convicted-making-drawings-children-raped.html

I have no objection to throwing the book at paedophiles, and
would consider penalties much, much stiffer than any contemplated by our leading
political parties – including the death penalty in many cases – but we have
seen

1. viewing pictures on the Internet equated with actual
child rape (in a free society the police would have to have good reason to
believe you had actually engaged in sex with a minor before viewing anything on
your computer anyway, and the possession of an easily copiable computer image
should not be actionable at all, no matter how repugnant it makes the person
downloading it).

2. the judicial insistence that all child nudity, including
nudity where there is no sexual component, is pornographic, including pictures
of children wearing no clothes at the seasides, whereas, no matter what the
motivation of the adult taking the photographs (eg a paedophile could be using
a camera on the beach), the image is simply not pornographic – unless the judge
himself is a paedophile… (actually…. I could believe that).

3. and now the drawing of imaginary pictures depicting
paedophile scenes is equated with physically raping a child.

4. It is worth asking (I don’t know from the article) the
presumed age of the children in the drawings: there are “children”
above the age of sexual maturity simply because the law says they are children
(eg the age of consent varies from country to country), and then there is the
real hardcore paedophilia of people who target those who are actually children.

I’m not suggesting eg 15 year olds should be subject to
predatory behaviour, but that there is a difference between eg rape of a 7 year
old (too young to know what is happening) and apparently consensual sex with
someone a week before his/her 16th birthday, who is biologically mature, old
enough to know what is happening, and only a “child” because we
choose to keep young people in education until they are 16.

It is easy to go down the kneejerk route and say that all such
people should have no rights – but we should think of how close the state is moving
into all our lives. When the state can monitor your drawings… there is really
no private sphere left. You will notice the case in that article is described
as a “landmark” case – in other words, a case making new case law
that will begin to be more widely applied. While it is true that the Coroners
and Justice Act 2009 does say “references to an image of a child include
references to an image of an imaginary child”, so this is not one of the
cases where new laws are being made by judges, statute laws that are an abuse
of power are also of great concern to me.

We have a very strange state! We read a while back of how a
young adult who raped a 6 year old was not given a detentionary sentence,
because the Christian parents “forgave” him (but real forgiveness
relates to forgiving something done to yourself: it was simply evil for the
parents to forgive “vicariously” on behalf of their child), only for
him to then rape a 7 year old – so real cases of paedophilia don’t necessarily
get condign punishment, whereas on the other hand, these drawings, which do not
include any violent act on any child, are subject to punishment. Does anyone
understand this?

« Older Entries