By Olivia Pierson

From her perfected facial expression of a cute little doe caught in the headlights of a car, to her highly affected baby-voice, Dr. Ford’s performance of a sex assault victim on the verge of a spiritual collapse, due to an event 36 years ago, just does not ring true to me.  What she strikes me as, more than anything, is a squid squirting out ink as a camouflage. Her “ink” consists of soft, vulnerable, feminine emotions which plume around her manipulating everybody to go easy on her because she’s delicate and close to breaking.  It’s called playing the victim, the operative word being ‘playing.’

The Democrats who vowed they would prevent Judge Kavanaugh from becoming a Supreme Court Justice by any means possible have found the perfect spectre of female victimhood in Dr. Ford - and we know how much they adore fake victims.  They don’t love real victims however, like Juanita Broadderik. Women like Mrs. Broadderik don’t serve any of their purposes.  Women like Dr. Ford do. Spectacularly.

This is a woman who comes off as one who would be afraid of her own shadow. A scaredy-cat type, who is obviously very intimidated during her hearing in front of the judicial committee and indeed the whole of the American nation - and who wouldn’t be?  That’s intimidating stuff to bear for anyone.  I don’t hold that against her in the least.  

What I do find objectionable in her testimony against Judge Kavanaugh, is the fact that she claims with “100 percent certainty” that he sexually assaulted her, thereby “drastically altering her life” at fifteen years of age, but then she forgot about such a life-altering incident until 2012, when it apparently resurfaced in a therapy session with her husband.  How can this be true for a woman with a bachelor’s degree in experimental psychology, a masters degree in clinical psychology, a masters degree in epidemiology and a PHD in educational psychology?  How can this woman who is so highly educated in psychology be someone who fails to get therapy along her life path for something she claims was so “drastically life-altering” in her teens?

What I also find objectionable in her testimony is that Dr. Ford claims to not know the exact house where the incident took place, how she got there or how she got the six odd miles back to her parents’ house, yet she categorically states that she only “drank one beer.”  She states that she never told anyone about the incident (before 2012) not any of her friends or even her parents.  She says she didn’t tell her parents because she didn’t want them to know she was drinking beer with boys.  Fair enough. But why did she not tell her girlfriend Leland Keyser who was also at the house with her when the incident took place, and was probably also drinking beer with boys?  Dr. Ford says she feared for her life when Kavanaugh was supposedly on top of her with his hand covering her mouth.  So she has what she thinks at the time is a near death encounter, which she escapes from, and fails to mention this to her friend who was also at the small gathering (and perhaps even gave her a ride home)?  That too makes no sense.  The most objectionable aspect to Dr. Ford’s statements about Leland Keyser’s presence at this gathering is that Keyser herself has submitted to the judiciary committee a written statement saying that she has absolutely no memory of being at such a gathering or of ever meeting Brett Kavanaugh.

This whole hearing with Dr. Ford strikes me as a highly perfected performance to sound as victim-like as possible.  She herself, as well as all the Democratic senators fawning over her, use the language of “reliving the trauma” by having to recall it for the hearing.  Oh please!  I’ve heard actual rape survivors, one of whom was raped at knifepoint when she was fifteen, recall such incidents with very little emotion on display because it is so far back in their pasts and they’ve learned to live with the memories dispassionately for the sake of their own wellbeing.   In comparison, Dr. Ford’s insufferably overplayed emotional vulnerability and pain, as if she were recalling something that happened yesterday instead of 36 years ago, just seems utterly faked and more like squid ink.  An emotional cloud of camouflage. 

f you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​ ​

By Olivia Pierson
​[First published on Incite 18/9/18]

Obama’s favourite puppet, Joe Biden, has said that he and the former President decided to break their silence about President Trump’s performance after what happened in Charlottesville a year ago.  Biden stated:

“We have leaders who at the time when that occurred, when these guys were accompanied by white supremacists and Ku Klux Klan … making a comparison saying there are good people in both groups…What has become of us? Our children are listening. Our silence is complicity.”

On August 12th, 2017, Unite the Right protesters organised a protest, obtaining an official legal permit to do so, over the removal of a General Lee statue standing in Emancipation Park (previously called Lee Park).  The left’s violent Communist arm, known as Antifa, came to counter-protest the presence of Unite the Right.  They also had obtained an official permit.

Both groups came with weapons: rifles, knives, bricks, knuckledusters, you name it.  But the height of the clash came when a troubled, 20 year old schizophrenic, one James Alexander Fields, drove his Dodge into a group of Antifa protesters, tragically killing a woman named Heather Heyer and wounding 19 others.  Fields claimed that he had been chased to his car by Antifa thugs who were throwing bricks and beating his Dodge Challenger with batons. I have no doubt that this is true, though it hardly justifies murderously putting his foot down on the gas and running his Dodge into a crowd of people.

This whole affair was pure, nihilistic thuggery pouring out of the extreme elements of the Right and the Left. Many questions have been deeply concerning about the lack of police interference from the beginning of that day, when both groups clashed violently in the morning, long before the scheduled protests were even due to start.  By the time that police started to arrest people if they didn’t leave, calling the protest an “unlawful assembly,” a state of emergency in Charlottesville had to be declared. 

President Trump’s initial statement that evening about what had taken place in Charlottesville was correct:

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides….This has been going on for a long, long time… It has no place in America.”

Violence was most assuredly on both sides – and had been for a long time. I fail to see why President Trump’s statement became so controversial, though I admit he could have named Neo Nazi thugs out loud, along with also naming Antifa thugs.

But now we have Biden and Obama claiming that this was the moment they decided not to remain silent on President Trump’s performance anymore, as if Obama has any moral high-ground after a Bernie Sanders supporter opened fire on a baseball practise of Republican lawmakers, seriously maiming Steve Scalise and wounding five others. At least Sanders condemned the shooting unequivocally, while Obama kept his precious silence. Had Scalise been a liberal black man we might’ve seen a more vocal ex-President.
When he was President, Obama spoke after a black Dallas shooter murdered five police officers in a fit of racist rage.  Obama tried to condemn the act then, but not before he blabbered on about “racial disparities in our criminal justice system.” He also took that same moment to level a criticism of the Second Amendment by referencing the prevalence of “powerful weapons”…. but hey! “Today our focus is on the victims…” he said.  Why didn’t he just make it about the goddamn victims, instead of about the cops being racists and the evils of the Second Amendment?

So with this one-sided history, Trump’s “both sides” condemnation is so heinous to Biden and Obama how exactly?

When Trump took office he swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States.  The First Amendment of that Constitution (not to mention the Second) allows for people, neo-Nazi fascists and masked Antifa blackshirts included, to espouse their vile rhetoric no matter how disgusting we may find it to be.  He didn’t take a position on their stupid ideas, he took a position on their stupid violence.  What else is he meant to do as President?

This latest bleat by Biden, is Obama (using Biden as his mouthpiece) scrabbling around for an excuse to come out of the usual ex-statesman’s discretion closet to condemn a current president when he should just do as his predecessor, George Bush, did and leave political matters up to the new President.  But he can’t help himself.  Hell!  It’s not as if Obama has a real estate empire or a self-made business to oversee and get involved with once again. He is nothing but a racially motivated ‘community organiser’ going back to what he does best – Social Justice Worrying, all the while looking for some kind of noble sounding excuse to not move on and let the election results of 2016 stand.

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​ 

​

By Olivia Pierson

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s hearing to be admitted to the Supreme Court started out as a circus thanks to Democrats trying to shut the whole process down.  Now it has become an all out lynching - and why not?  Kavanaugh is fair game under the rules of the #MeToo movement, for he’s a straight, male conservative, which means he has a pair of balls and the whole movement of #MeToo exists only to castrate men.  ‘Off With Their Balls!’ should be their official tagline.

Let’s be very clear about this.  There is only one victim in this low and filthy debacle, initially set into motion by senatorial shrew Diane Feinstein.  The victim is Kavanaugh.  His accuser, Dr. Christine Basley Ford, who had a suppressed memory resurface in a psychotherapy session, is wielding a powerful weapon that modern men deeply fear: a sexual assault allegation.  Dr. Ford “didn’t tell anyone about the incident until a therapy session with her husband in 2012.” The alleged incident happened when she was 15 years old and at high-school, though nobody has been able to corroborate her story.

Deborah Ramirez, the second woman to lay an accusation of sexual assault, claims that while she was incredibly pissed during a drinking game at university, Kavanaugh flashed his penis at her.  Ramirez, “who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence.”  Nobody has corroborated Ramirez’ story.

So, after Brett Kavanaugh’s judicial confirmation hearing, which was a rowdy process of hours and days of questions over the constant interruptions of belligerent Democratic senators, what are we left with? A delay before voting which hangs on the say-so of two women: one with a repressed memory from high-school involving being pinned to a bed by some male, and another who’s trying to remember a rather naughty incident through the veil of a drunken haze at university.  They’re demanding a full FBI investigation into these matters, even though Kavanaugh has already had six FBI background checks done on him over the course of his career.

Neither Ramirez, nor Ford considered that what had happened to them all those years ago was egregious enough to lodge a complaint with either the police, their educational institutions or their parents.  Ford failed to ever mention it to anyone, not even her girlfriends, until her regressive memory session in 2012.  But somehow now, in the cultural climate of #MeToo, these women’s accusations are enough to potentially end a good man’s career as a judge.  Welcome to female tyranny where facts don’t have to be established as character assassinations are enough, and victim status, or being seen to represent victims, is the quickest route to fame.  

Take Michael Avanatti for instance, the lawyer who represented porn star Stormy Daniels.  He’s now claiming that he has “explosive information” from a woman he is now representing with some story that Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge, and others targeted women with drugs and alcohol “in order to allow a train of men to subsequently gang rape them” at house parties in the early 1980s.

If Ford or Ramirez had any credibility at all (and I don't think they have) this nonsense from Avanatti just blew it right out of the swamp.  As if anyone who is halfway decent is going to believe that a guy like Kavanaugh, during his time at Yale, was instigating or standing back and watching other men instigate "rape gangs." 

Ford’s story was first told in confidence to Senator Feinstein via a letter back in July of this year, but Feinstein, trying to be the clever cat, used the information when it was clear that Kavanaugh would probably be confirmed as the new Supreme Court Justice.  Ford’s story was then splashed about the media with a threateningly brazen air of daring anybody to cast doubt on its veracity.  To doubt her story is to vice-signal to the world that you’re an evil, callous person for “not believing the pain of a woman’s sexual assault.”  #MeTooers have an infantile habit of placing a female “victim’s” feelings miles above the effort of establishing any facts. 

As far as the Democrats are concerned, Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault with no due process even needed for folks to arrive at that serious conclusion.  They’ve already come out and said that they believe the women. Every single spokesperson, from the Whitehouse to the Senate, to all the media commentators on air, gingerly tippy-toed on eggshells around these women with the exception of Mark Levin and President Trump.

Levin put it best: 

“Why shouldn’t I believe Brett Kavanaugh’s denials? Why should I believe his accusers? It’s Brett Kavanaugh who’s the public man. It’s Brett Kavanaugh who chose to be a public man. It’s Brett Kavanaugh who acceded to six FBI background checks.”

That’s right.  Six.  Now these women come forward, a