The TV Tarts’ Reign Of Terror, Part 1

The particular CNN segment I was watching concerned Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. It was meant to help terminate the controversial anchor’s career.

I recognized the sourpuss, dressed in marigold yellow, who was presiding over the seek-and-destroy mission, targeting the ultra-conservative Mr. Carlson.

She was no other than Poppy Harlow.

It transpires that years back, Carlson had routinely called into a Howard-Stern-like shock-jock radio show and made naughty comments, some about women. Women were “extremely primitive,” he had quipped.

To watch the countless, indistinguishable, ruthless, atavistic women empaneled on CNN, MSNBC, even Fox News—one cannot but agree as to the nature and caliber of the women privileged and elevated in our democracy, and by mass society, in general.

They’re certainly not women with the intellect and wit of a Margot Asquith—countess of Oxford, author and socialite (1864-1945). Would that women like Mrs. Asquith were permitted to put lesser “ladies” like CNN’s Ms. Harlow in their proper place.

When asked by American actress Jean Harlow how she pronounces her first name, Margot Asquith shot back, “The ‘t’ is silent, as in Harlow.”

Naturally, you’d have to have a facility with the English language to know what a “harlot” is.

You’d certainly need an education, as opposed to a degree, to recognize the next character referenced.

TV’s empaneled witches and their housebroken, domesticated boys are guided more by the spirit of Madame Defarge than by Lady Justice.

If parents saw to it that kids got an education, not merely a degree, the brats would know who Madam Defarge was.

But our uneducated ignoramuses no longer seek out the greatest literature ever. This is because the best books were penned by the pale, patriarchal penile people. Given this self-inflicted ignorance, few younger readers will know this most loathsome of literary icons, from “A Tale Of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens.

Madame Defarge is the bloodthirsty commoner, who sat knitting, as she watched the en masse public beheadings of innocent aristocrats (17,000 of them) in Paris, during the Reign of Terror, aka the French Revolution, whose symbol ought to be the guillotine. (Another 10,000 perished in prison sans due process.)

America’s modern-day Madam Defarges are the harridans who shrieked in vengeance on TV when a sentencing Judge, T. S. Ellis III, dared to cite Paul Manafort’s “otherwise blameless life.”

Manafort, formerly a Trump campaign adviser, will be jailed for seven-and-a-half years for non-violent “crimes” excavated by Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller, and committed against that most wicked of government departments, the Internal Revenue Service. That a broken, frail, wheelchair-bound man might not die in jail enraged the wicked, pitiless witches of the  networks.

Cheered on by our contemporary Madame Defarges, Manafort’s next sentencing Judge, an angry female, failed to limit her ambit to the application of the law, namely to sentencing. Instead, she lectured the defendant for a demeanor that displeased her, and for an inadequate display of contrition. Judge Amy Berman Jackson subjected a visibly broken Mr. Manafort to a vicious tongue-lashing.

For that the TV harpies rejoiced as one.

Not one bit did the ugly landscape that is the collective mind of TV’s liberal women care that Manafort had also been subjected to double jeopardy. In contravention of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, prosecutors simply tweak or reword an indictment just enough to twice or thrice put a defendant “in jeopardy of life or limb” “for the same offense.”

The cable coven was having none of this compassion stuff (that’s for immigrants who murder Americans, not for elderly white men who had worked for Mr. Trump). Mercy? What’s that! Manafort had stolen from the government, shrieked one NBC harridan (the IRS itself being a thieving, corrupt and oppressive entity).

Undeniably, this reign of terror on TV is dominated by women. And they’re as flippant about a new arms race with Russia as they are about jailing individuals for crimes created in the process of conducting a Mueller-like inquisition, with its “storm-trooper tactic” and overweening, extra-constitutional powers. (Is Maria Butina still in solitary, by the way?)

Likewise, the attitude of TV’s females to alleged sex crimes is to drop the word “alleged” and dispatch the accused: guilty! In the lexicon of these feral creatures, whom we watch day-in and day-out gesticulate and fulminate, to be accused of a sex offense is to be guilty of it (unless you’re a ruthless illegal alien who’s raped a helpless cow). Due process? That’s too much of a high-minded abstraction for the average tele-tart.

Then there are the phrases these women deploy and the direction their impoverished discourse invariably leads on the ubiquitous panels:

“It’s not normal!”

“Look at what President Trump just said. Look, he shows more affection toward dictators than democrats.”

“Look at the ‘untraditional nations’ he is befriending, look at the war he is not prosecuting. It’s not normal. Help. Restrain him. Make him ‘normal.’”

The “not normal” refrain issues from the uterine bowels of the tele-tart. It is a visceral cry for conformity, uniformity of thought at all costs.

Never mind that the path to some kind of unity in this fractured, broken country of ours is through peaceful disunity. That, these radical females consider dystopic. They’re unprepared to accept respectful disunity, or accord an opponent respect. It’s a fight to the death—though not theirs.

**

Next: “TV Tarts: Cringe Factor Ad Infinitum, Part 2.”

©2019 ILANA MERCER
WND.com, The Unz Review,
Quarterly Review, Reckonin‘
March 21