February 2007 Radar Piece On Toxic Bachelors

From Radar magazine:

They used to be called cads, or playboys, or Kennedys—randy skirt-chasers who could be trusted to mind their manners and get their girls home by 11 p.m., even if they sometimes left them with a mild burning sensation. Jack Nicholson, the patron saint of this brotherhood, claims to have bedded an estimated 2,000 women in his lifetime. And at 69, he’s still going strong. “In terms of age,” he bragged to Rolling Stone in 2006, “you could say that over the last year, I’ve probably covered the territory from 21 to 61.”

But lately, a new strain of scoundrel is on the prowl—one that shares all of Jack’s oversize appetites and little of his lethal charm. You can find these Don Juans locked in bathrooms at Bungalow 8, hotel-hopping in St. Barth’s, or, if they’re really dedicated, forcing beauty queens to belly dance in desert sex compounds. Generally over 30, defiantly single, and immune to public ridicule, they use fame, power, and expensive sailing vessels to pursue their quarry, only to leave heartbreak and paternity suits in their wake. Call them lotharios, womanizers, or heartless bastards—just don’t expect them to call you back.

COLIN-FARRELL-71526551.jpg
MCNASTY Colin’s pipe is calling
COLIN FARRELL
Age: 30
Occupation: Actor
Notable Assets: Gaelic brogue; smoldering gaze; Marlboro breath

“When I come to town, I [bleep] everything I can”Farrell burst onto the scene as one of the hardest-partying bad boys to hit Hollywood since Jack himself: smoking, drinking, cursing, trashing, and screwing anything he could focus on long enough before passing out. Since his arrival stateside, he’s worked his way through the young and trashy set, from Paris to Britney to Lindsay, and a battery of models, including one who bore him a son. As he told W magazine, “When I come to town I [bleep] everything I can.” On the set of Alexander, Farrell—or “Cock-Out Colin” as he was affectionately known—famously showed Rosario Dawson the trailer door when pouty-lipped sex priestess Angelina Jolie turned up hungry for fresh meat. Yet for all his dirty deeds, he comes off like a teddy bear. On his sex tape with Playmate Nicole Narain, for example, Farrell describes her vagina as a “beautiful little flower” and lays on the Irish sweet-talk: “If a fucking camera could blush it would be fucking red because you are so fucking pretty.” Due to archaic bylaws, the performance cannot be considered by the Academy.

CHARLIE ROSE
Age: 65
Occupation: PBS talk-show host
Notable Assets: Massive Rolodex; Southern charm; Mini Cooper convertible

Many men are pigs at heart, but in Charlie Rose’s case, it’s not just a metaphor. Last March, surgeons replaced his mitral valve with that of a swine, his second such porcine-related transplant. Rose, whose no-frills, upper-middle-brow interview show has aired on PBS since 1991, is a notoriously avid admirer of the female form. Or, as one longtime friend puts it, “He’s just a straight-up horndog.” Divorced since 1980, he favors women of substance, like Wall Street Journal publisher Karen Elliott House, LTB Media chief Louise MacBain, and Marybel Batjer, a former cabinet secretary for Arnold Schwarzenegger. From 1993 to 2005, he dated socialite Amanda Burden, though he was frequently rumored to be pursuing extracurricular interests.

At work, Rose is known for surrounding himself with attractive female producers who have been referred to, inevitably, as “Charlie’s Angels.” And while he’s on good behavior in the office, he loosens up in the Long Island village where he has a vacation home. Sources say the married men of Bellport are afraid to leave their wives alone during the summer, for fear Rose will creep into their gardens. And with good reason, as one startled half of a New York power couple learned while doing dishes after a dinner party. As the woman’s husband was enjoying dessert in the next room, the Public Bawdcaster sidled up from behind, slid a neighborly hand up her skirt, and palmed her buttock like a honeydew. No word if she received a complimentary PBS tote bag.

FLAVIO BRIATORE
Age: 56
Occupation: Entrepreneur; manager of Renault’s Formula One racing team; owner of Cipriani London and the Billionaire Club in Sardinia
Notable Assets: 200-foot yacht; leathery orange tan

The “overweight Italian stallion” has managed to parlay his gratuitous racing fortune and hairy Buddha belly into relationships with the world’s most beautiful women, including Nicole Kidman, Elle Macpherson, and Eva Herzigova. He’s often spotted off Sardinia on his yacht, Force Blue, with bikini-clad ladies half his age. “I prefer younger girls,” he explained to the Daily Mail. “They say thank you for dinner, at least.”

But as Heidi Klum learned, free meals are a lot easier to get out of Briatore than child support or fidelity. After his dalliance with a 19-year-old model cut their romance short, Heidi’s baby daddy refused to offer financial assistance without a paternity test. A friend of Klum’s later told the Post the billionaire never “gave her a dime” to care for their daughter, though Briatore claims otherwise. Klum’s aunt tried to remain neutral, describing him to the Mail as a “wrinkly, worthless old has-been … bastard.” Naomi Campbell may have shared those sentiments when she had a tattoo of Briatore’s initials removed from her arm. Despite Campbell’s accusations of domestic abuse, they’ve continued their cycle of make-ups and break-ups. It seems, however hard he tries, Briatore is unable to commit to just one size zero. “You know how it is with women,” he told the Guardian last year. “The big excitement comes with the flirting. You flirt, flirt, flirt, and then you are there.”

JUDITH REGAN
Age: 53
Occupation: Unemployed book publisher
Notable Assets: A villa in Italy and, by her own account, a clitoris “the size of two fingers”

Regan went on testosterone therapy after she hit menopause. “I then understood how men think and feel,” she confided. “I became a sex maniac”Regan’s peerless potty mouth alone could qualify her as toxic. While she was employed at HarperCollins, her endearing habit of referring to colleagues as “pussies” and “cunts” earned her the rare distinction of being sued by female employees for sexual harassment. But that’s not surprising for a gal who liked to boast of having “the biggest cock in the building.” As if a phantom phallus and the bravado of a bullfighter didn’t make her man enough, Regan went on testosterone therapy after she hit menopause. “I then understood how men think and feel,” she recently confided on her Sirius radio show. “I became a sex maniac.”

By all accounts, she’s as good as her word. Most famously, she had an affair with former NYPD commissioner Bernie Kerik, meeting him for trysts in an apartment reserved for Ground Zero recovery workers. According to one friend, she still gushes that her sessions with the top cop were the best sex she ever had. And it’s not as though she lacks a basis for comparison. One editor, who brought a married friend from out of town to an industry Christmas party, was awed by the speed with which Regan seduced the stranger into going home with her. She also reportedly romanced Pablo Fenjves, the ghostwriter of O.J. Simpson’s scrapped quasi-confessional, If I Did It. “Men should be sexually aggressive with women,” she once told an interviewer. Judith, may we introduce you to Benicio?

BENICIO DEL TORO
Age: 40
Occupaton: Actor
Notable Assets: Played Duke the Dog-Faced Boy in Big Top Pee-Wee

If New York’s Bungalow 8 is the toxic Algonquin, Del Toro is its dyslexic Dorothy Parker. Night crawlers gossip about the “Mafia-style wad of cash” he conspicuously leaves out on his table, presumably for tipping waitresses. He’s also one of the few patrons with the right to bypass the club’s infamous bathroom line, a privilege he frequently exercises with “two and even three girls in tow.” Luckily for Benicio there’s no time limit on his stay. As one potty-goer puts it, “If the attendant knows he’s in there, she never even knocks.”

Decades-younger starlets like Scarlett Johansson and Lindsay Lohan have both reportedly fallen into Del Toro’s beefy clutches: the former in a Chateau Marmont elevator; the latter at the 25th birthday of Sara Foster, B-Del’s girlfriend at the time. Del Toro’s signature seduction tactic is “the unrelenting stare,” a libidinous tractor beam that, once locked on, is almost impossible to escape. Sadly, according to one repeat customer, the actor’s precoital intensity doesn’t necessarily translate in the bedroom: “It was kinky, but lackluster and sloppy.” Or, as another contestant recalls, “He was so messed up, we had to stop so he could go puke.” Benicio might be a boor, but he’s no animal: “He gives you $20 for a cab ride home.”

Posted in Abuse, Hollywood | Comments Off on February 2007 Radar Piece On Toxic Bachelors

Former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Accused Of Murder

Page of intriguing items.

Posted in Antonio Villaraigosa | Comments Off on Former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Accused Of Murder

Charlie Rose Outed As A Predator

I could never stand Charlie Rose. His work was pompous. He was a terrible interviewer. (This is a better way.)

I never could stand New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush either. I hate these preening leftists lecturing us about right and wrong.

I’ve always felt creeped out by most of the famous people recently outed as sexual predators — such as Brett Ratner, Harvey Weinstein, Leon Wieseltier, etc. I’ve always loathed male feminists. I’ve always suspected that older men eager to mentor young women were using this pose to try to fuck them. No real man honestly cares about a woman’s perspective (except in rare instances). High-achieving men want female company for one overwhelming reason — sex. That’s it. Real men want to hang out with men.

So far, none of the famous people outed as predators have been conservative (except Roy Moore, and I do believe the accusations against him).

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Nobody can set up a leading question longer than Charlie Rose.

* I first saw Charlie Rose in mid 80s on late night (I think) CBS show. So, I’d be up at 2 am, and Rose would be interviewing some physicist about magnetic something or other.
I liked this Rose. He seemed a straight shooter, just a guy doing his job.

But then, he turned into a brand. He was the serious guy who interviewed thinkers, writers, artists, actors(and not mere entertainers), composers, academics, and etc.
Considering the alternatives on TV, his show was probably one of the best shows on TV since Dick Cavett. There weren’t many worthy interview shows on TV. Bill Moyers used to fill the role, but he was never was hip. After Rose, I suppose there was Larry King, but that was barely low-middle-brow. So, Rose show offered something half-intelligent on TV. But it also got increasingly pompous.

Also, after awhile, there were no surprises. It would have been better if Rose passed out drinks so everyone could get drunk and drop inhibitions and speak honestly. Instead, we got intelligent talk(like on NPR) but the usual talking points on any subject matter. No one came on the show to spill any secrets. It was mostly to stick to official talking points or flatter one another… like actors, director, producer coming on the show and remarking how they are all so wonderful and talented.

But the really icky stuff was the pandering. I recall David Remnick was once on and they were talking about the Serbian-Bosnian crisis. And Rose asked Remnick. “How do you……………….. as a Jew…………. yabba dabba doo…” It was like Remnick, being a member of the Shoah Tribe, was intrinsically privy(“as a Jew”)to some deep wisdom about human tragedy. Those pregnant pauses, the pious gestures, and etc. I mean it was icky.
As for Remnick, he just played along. I suppose people can become morally spoiled too, and guys like Remnick feel morally entitled.
But then, Remnick plays this game too, esp in his tribute to Springsteen the saint of sausaged buns.
Bunch of globbies massaging each other’s egos.

* He is a terrible interviewer. How did he ever get an interview show and keep it for decades? It never made any sense.

* Then when the guest started answering Rose would interrupt mid-sentence.

* The man, a lawyer by education I think, was the worst questioner of all time–two thirds of his interviews were him talking while the guest waited for him to finish. He simply sucked at his so-called profession and especially compared to guys like Frost or Cavett.

There was never anything confrontational or tense about a Rose interview–just another sign of the decline of public discourse and intellectual rigor.

That he slithered around and acted like a cheap imitation of Christopher Walken doing the Continental guy on SNL just makes it all that much more satisfying.

* According to Roger Waters, Rose once told him that he can’t discuss certain matters because of orders from upstairs.

And Charlie Rose show had value as platform for cultural figures in their twilight yrs. The last of Mailer, Sontag, Vidal, Sarris, and etc were featured on his show. No other TV shows would have them. To that extent, it respected Age in a culture that generally doesn’t.

* Or it could be that journalism as a profession tends to attract hypocritical sleazebags like an elementary school playground attracts pedophiles and politics attracts narcissists.

* Yes, he acted like a lecherous old goat and they kept showing up for more. Why are the rest of us supposed to care, under the post-’60s rules? Shouldn’t we all be celebrating Charlie is so comfortable with his sexuality? Shouldn’t we be glad he’s not uptight about this stuff?

* It should be remembered that part of the reason we even have large numbers of women in professional environments that were once exclusively or overwhelmingly dominated by men is due to powerful older men like Charlie Rose. The prospect of lots of younger women in professionally subordinate positions and fewer male competitors is no doubt irresistibly enticing to powerful older men, whose support has been critical for promoting feminism and female participation in professional careers. It’s one of the tacit perks of men above the glass ceiling. Without the sexual opportunities that this change afforded, there wouldn’t have been support for it by powerful men. The headache and hassle of women in the workplace wouldn’t be worth it, and having more women would be a competitive disadvantage. There was basically tacit collusion and cartel like behavior by powerful men whereby they all agreed to allow their companies and organizations to become less competitive by hiring weaker employees, in exchange for the perk of having lots of younger women around you in subordinate positions.

Now it looks like this perk is being taken away, removing the original rationale for powerful men to even support feminism.

* Old man – young woman is not a particularly good strategy around which to organize a society, for a variety of reasons. We do well to discourage it.

Posted in Abuse | Comments Off on Charlie Rose Outed As A Predator

VDARE: Hawley’s MAKING SENSE OF THE ALT RIGHT Tries To Be Objective—But Fails

F. Roger Devlin writes:

Young political scientist George Hawley, [Email him]came to prominence last year with a sizable book on Right Wing Critics of American Conservatism (reviewed for VDARE.com by Paul Gottfried). That was good preparation for his new, shorter and more popular book Making Sense of the Alt-Right. Hawley has clearly made a sincere effort to treat his subject matter objectively, but I cannot agree with one of the book’s blurb writers, Berkeley’s Lawrence Rosenthal, who credits Prof. Hawley with “understand[ing] alt-right thinking from the inside.”

All political movements consist of a small, hard core and a larger, softer and fuzzier periphery. Understanding a movement is mainly a matter of understanding its core. Hawley, however, devotes most of his book to the more visible and vocal but less important periphery of the Alt-Right: young men who post frog memes and “troll” liberals over the internet.

It is certainly significant that there has now arisen a widespread (largely male) backlash against the nannyish condescension of the Sensitivity Commissars; some of us had been wondering why this took so long to develop. But the Alternative Right existed before these young men discovered it, and they do not define it.

Prof. Hawley found out himself how shaky a grasp of Alt-Right thinking its new fans have when he interviewed students lined up to see Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of Alabama in October, 2016.

Everyone I spoke with had heard of the Alt-Right, and many expressed sympathy and even enthusiasm for the movement. But to my surprise, there was a nearly unanimous insistence among the attendees I spoke with that the Alt-Right has “nothing to do with race.” They described it as an irreverent assault on political correctness.

At the core of the Alt-Right are a set of ideas. These include (but are not limited to) the recognition that

Prof. Hawley says little about any of these ideas except to characterize them as racist. He’s not as nasty about it as some writers, and even expresses reservations over employing the term, but concludes that “in the case of the Alt-Right, there is no other appropriate word.”

I disagree: the Alt-Right can be more fairly and accurately be described as combining racial realism with white advocacy.

Prof. Hawley is correct to be suspicious of racist: it is not a normal word, but belongs to a peculiar, highly problematic type. A word like elephant is unproblematic because it refers to a well-defined set of beings in the objective world, with no implied blame or praise, and little room for debate about whether an individual animal is or is not one. Racist, on the other hand, is what Richard Weaver called a devil term. Different ages had other such terms, like heretic and atheist.

A devil term is a noun whose connotations have run away with its denotation: in other words, the sense of moral opprobrium (the negative connotation) attached to it has totally displaced any function it may once have had as a way of referring to a class of objects in the objective world (its denotation).

Historically, racist has referred to the believers in a theory that culture and history are entirely determined by biology; later, to persons who dislike those of other races; still later, as VDARE.com’s Peter Brimelow likes to say, to anyone winning an argument with a liberal. The French have a wonderful expression for this process: dérapage sémantique, a semantic skidding-out-of-control. The end result is a word which only serves to abuse, and is useless for referring.

Such words have no place in serious discussion. Trying to talk about race when one’s entire conceptual palette consists of dividing people into racists and non-racists is like trying to perform brain surgery with an icepick. Informed discussion of race and racial differences at the present day normally involves some grasp of standard distributions and deviations, kurtosis, correlation coefficients, r/K selection theory, and other specialized concepts. These terms may sound intimidating to outsiders, but are more easily grasped than the technical vocabulary of plenty of other disciplines. The point is that, as with any other subject matter, there are things you must be willing to learn at the outset if you hope ever to be able to discuss race rationally.

Prof. Hawley’s description of the Alt-Right as racist (as well as anti-Semitic) reveals precisely a failure to grasp his subject matter from the inside. Jared Taylor gets at this point in a passage Hawley quotes from a private interview:

I think my views on race differences are not an “alternate” view, in the casual way that a Merlot may be an alternate to a Cabernet. They are true, and the egalitarian view is false. Truth is no more an “alternative” to falsehood than health is an “alternative” to sickness.

What appears to uninformed outsiders as a contest between racists and nonracists is really the difference between those who have learned something about race and the larger group of persons who have not. Unfortunately, the latter group is currently making the most noise. Imagine the chaos if this were the case with medicine, or law, or the natural sciences! Fortunately, these subjects have not (yet) become the focus of any political ideology.

Prof. Hawley is beholden not merely to fashionable devil terms, but to the popular fallacy that equates recognition of racial differences with hate. According to anti-racists, those who recognize that American blacks have a lower IQ than whites must hate blacks. According to this line of reasoning, since domestic cats have an IQ of around 20, those same people must be simply boiling over with hatred of cats.

I needn’t belabor the point: the fallacy is obvious, but the unwary public can be made to accept almost anything that gets repeated often enough.

This is no excuse for a political scientist, however.

The Alt-Right accepts a set of empirically well-justified beliefs about the nature of human beings which happen to be denied by the ideology of the regime currently in power. How people in the Alt-Right may feel about various ethnic groups is beside the point. I suspect the movement’s opponents fail to grasp this because their own political beliefs are largely based on sentiment, but the same is not true of everyone.

Some on the periphery of the Alt-Right like to shock outsiders (“normies”) with coarse talk about various ethnic rivals of whites. Young men who have been subjected all their lives to solemn finger-waving from prune-faced prudes over “racial insensitivity” eventually discover that rebelling through open racial mockery is a hoot. You can blame the sensitivity commissars for that, not the Alt-Right.

Unfortunately, the market for adolescent trash-talking is larger than that for informed and honest discussion of racial realities. This is why The Occidental Observer and American Renaissance are not the most popular websites associated with the Alt-Right.

(VDARE.com, by the way, is a forum open to all who deplore America’s post-1965 immigration disaster, and as such is not an Alt-Right site, although open to Alt-Right authors. Hawley grudgingly acknowledges this).

It is not beneath Prof. Hawley to conjure up the straw man of an absolutely racially pure state in order to frighten his readers:

The alt-right is clear in its belief that non-whites should be excluded from majority-white countries precisely because they are non-white. […] It wants non-whites out of the country, even if they can trace their ancestry back to the colonial period.

Everyone in the Alt-Right understands that numbers matter. Plenty of us might not be involved in racial advocacy if we were still living in the America of c. 1950, even though the population was ten percent non-white, because the white majority did not then appear to be under threat. What we face today is the prospect of becoming an ever-dwindling minority ruled over by groups which have been systematically encouraged to resent us.

Already we are being ruled by what Kevin MacDonald has aptly termed a hostile elite (although it includes plenty of white collaborators). Under these conditions, it is neither fair nor realistic to speak of the white resistance as if we were preparing to chase down the last octoroon for forced deportation.

Prof. Hawley also has a weak grasp of the Alt-Right’s criticism of the conservative movement:

The Alt-Right rejects the major premises of the conservative movement: moral traditionalism, economic liberty and strong national defense. You will have a hard time finding anything about the constitution, you will see no demands that liberals “support our troops,” evangelical Christians are more likely to be mocked than defended, and bald eagles and American flags are few and far between. The Alt-Right […] is totally distinct from conservatism as we know it.

First, we must distinguish, as Prof. Hawley fails to do, between conservatism, which is a timeless disposition, and the Conservative Movement, known to VDARE.com as Conservatism Inc., which is a present-day Washington racket.

The Alt-Right’s condemnation is focused on the latter. Our principle criticism is that it is cowardly and overly concerned with appearing respectable in the eyes of those who hate it. Mike Anton, the author of the celebrated essay “The Flight 93 Election,” aptly characterized the Conservative Establishment as the “Washington Generals of politics,” whose job is to lose graciously while allowing its enemies to determine the direction of the nation. It’s not bad work if you can get it, but it does nothing to protect the white Americans who constitute its base of support, and today’s “conservatives” actually take pride in this fact.

The Alt-Right does not reject “moral traditionalism, economic liberty and strong national defense.” We are realists about sex as well as race, and thus necessarily opposed to feminism. The best sexual arrangement for the perpetuation of our race is obviously stable heterosexual monogamy. Many of us feel that the Conservative Movement over-emphasizes economic issues, but nothing in our core beliefs is incompatible with economic freedoms.

Similarly, our beliefs dictate no systematic defense policy, but most of us think the best way to “support our troops” is not to sacrifice them pointlessly in wars not in America’s interest. When a vocal minority assures us that our nation’s well-being depends on tying its fate irrevocably to that of a small country halfway around the globe which is hated by much of the world—and when that same vocal minority turns out to be cousins of those ruling the said small, distant country—the Alt-Right reacts with suspicion.

The Alt-Right does not “hate” the U.S. Constitution, as American Conservative Union Executive Director Dan Schneider stupidly told a CPAC audience, but does understand that it is less important than the particular people it was meant to serve. From our point of view, the most important words in the Constitution are for ourselves and our posterity.

It matters little to us whether those who inherit America from its European founding population govern themselves according to Madisonian principles. Such a supposition is ridiculous in any case: Third World immigrants do not care about limited government, the separation of powers, or the Founding Fathers whom they view simply as a bunch of dead white guys. The Conservative Movement may talk more about the Constitution than the Alt-Right, but in refusing to confront the race issue they are ensuring its eventual irrelevance.

Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with the Constitution that the repeal of a few of its latter-day Amendments could not fix.

The Alt-Right is a political movement which seeks to ensure the continued existence and well-being of European descended people. As such, it neither implies nor precludes any particular religious beliefs. We are not opposed to Evangelical Christianity as such, but some figures the Evangelical leadership (notably Russell Moore [Email/Tweet him]of the Southern Baptist Convention) are our declared enemies and we treat them as such.

Prof. Hawley displays no awareness of the most important Alt-Right-compatible Christian website: faithandheritage.com

Prof. Hawley is correct that frogs tend to outnumber bald eagles on our websites. His book also stands head and shoulders above its rival for popular favor, Kill All Normies by Angela Nagle, a conventional Leftie for whom everything outside the Cultural Marxist paradigm is terra incognita.

But Making Sense of the Alt-Right cannot be recommended as an informed summary of Alt-Right thinking.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on VDARE: Hawley’s MAKING SENSE OF THE ALT RIGHT Tries To Be Objective—But Fails

The Obsession With Sin

A friend says: I think if a society DOES NOT obsess over sin and depravity… then that leaves it vulnerable to the allure of idols. It’s only when you think less about good and evil than Hawthorne and the Puritans that you start to believe there might be individuals who are better than you — “good” people — celebrities, politicians. But there aren’t. No one should be in charge more than me. They’re not better. All men are gods. Guessing Orthodox Judaism is less prone to idol worship (in the form of persons) than Hollywood worshiping reform or atheist Jews.

Like when I hear Marc Maron fawn over President Obama, that’s grotesque to me. I don’t think anyone deserves that level of moral prostration. Trying to argue the upside of an obsession with sin. Even Obama would be there at Young Goodman Brown’s black mass.

Men worship the category “women” only when they assume women are more moral. And this worship gives women power. Same with Christians and Jews. Christians will only give Jews power if they worship Jews—and they’ll only worship Jews IF they think Jews are more moral.

So a person either focuses on sin and depravity or he is prone to hero worship and clings to one false prophet after another.

>>Japs seem to be doing ok without sin obsession.

You said there was no Illuminati level depravity in the SDA Church—nothing as bad as in Orthodox Judaism or Catholicism. But couldn’t that be *because* they obsess about sin? It makes them less prone to sin.

Hmm. Japs. Good question. Maybe it’s cuz they’re more communal… shame as opposed to guilt. Honor is not lost upon committing a sin. In Christianity, honor is beyond the reach of the world.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Obsession With Sin