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.


  1. I haven’t been following this saga. Ok, Mr W is no gentleman, and ok, he used his power to lure starlets onto the ‘casting couch’. And that’s a news story?
    Apart from that, what you say is depressingly true. What happened to feminine beauty? What happened to the subtly erotic?
    And hands up, who else checked out the link to the “39 near-naked red carpet appearances”?

  2. Dr. Gabb will know better, but if I am not mistaken I believe the origin of the word ‘scandal’ is Greek – skándalon is the root word, which means the trigger of a trap.

    The trap was laid for Harvey Weinstein decades ago and now he must pay the Piper. They are all trapped in some way, these important people – especially politicians, who I suspect are subject to organised and systematic blackmail.

    “Don’t worry, those pictures of you holding a spliff at a student party are safe with us. Yes, I agree, those Fleet Street bastards would have a field day. Total hypocrites. Had the lawyer on them myself once or twice. Oh yeah. About a tax return and my mother-in-law’s Liechtenstein Trust. Expensive. Now about that Brexit thing….”

    Most of these women, being young, will not have realised or understood the implications of a Hollywood career or the nature of the people working there. They will have been ambitious, perhaps desperate, for a film career, and when confronted by this man’s demands, might have taken the line of least resistance.

    Thus the trap was set. There is at least one audio recording. There WILL be pictures. Videos. Lots of them. Normally it would only have come out when he died, but they needed to call-in somebody’s chips, and for some reason they alighted on Weinstein, who has “gone into therapy”, as if it just dawned on him that he has a problem. Right.

    Is it rape? No. Mr Weinstein’s sex with these women was consensual. What we are confronted with is unseemly behaviour, and perhaps instances of what is regarded in civil law as sexual harassment. There are also allegations that he exposed himself in front of actresses, but I do not see how these can be proved unless Weinstein confesses. There again, the criminal courts nowadays, at least in England, seem to take the word of women sometimes in sex cases, especially when there is an alleged pattern of behaviour.

    Of course, some of these actresses will be exaggerating, even lying outright. Even most of them. Women lie impulsively – it’s their nature. That won’t stop the law however.

    Money will make this go away. That’s what these women want, whether they are truthful witnesses or not. Just throw money at them.

    The underlying themes are:

    (i). the sex war between men and women;
    (ii). organised minority interests – a sort of nationalism – in critical areas of society. (For goodness sake, don’t mention this to John Pate or Neil Lock, they’ll start up the LibertarianBot Euro2000™ Model – it malfunctions sometimes and spews out stuff about collectivism and right now has a programme that calls anybody who disagrees with it “dumb”).

    On (i), women are physically weaker and as a class can be more pliant and exploitable. At the same time, women now hold the delusion that they can be equal to men, and the notion has caught on. The consequences are predictable.

    On (ii), nothing is to be done, as even the most stellar intellectuals in society deny the existence of organised minority interests as a phenomenon. They ignore the sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church – another example of the same sociological phenomenon.

Leave a Reply