February 2007 Radar Piece On Toxic Bachelors

Posted on November 20, 2017 by Luke Ford

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

Charlie Rose Outed As A Predator

Posted on November 20, 2017 by Luke Ford

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

The Obsession With Sin

Posted on November 19, 2017 by Luke Ford

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

Sex Abuse Claims

Posted on November 19, 2017 by Luke Ford

In a legal claim, the longer you wait to make a claim, the less force it tends to carry (and often the claim is barred by a statute of limitations). For example, if you claim your life was ruined by a car accident but you wait two weeks to seek medical treatment for it, your claim is not strong.

So these women who are speaking up now about sexual abuse that happened years ago are not impressive if you judge them on the same standard that you would with other torts, or on the same standard you would judge men.

If you believe women have moral agency, then women waiting years to come forward with stories of sexual abuse are not impressive. If you view women as a natural resource that needs tending, directing, and protecting, then you judge women differently from men. You don’t expect women to take responsibility as readily as men do because until recently, women were regarded as the responsibility of their fathers or husbands or brothers, and so personal responsibility is new for them.

Women are not valid witnesses in Torah law. Wikipedia: “Testimony in Jewish law consists of testimony by eligible witnesses to a Beit Din (court) authorized to render decisions according to halakhah (Jewish law). Eligible witnesses must in almost all cases be free men who are not deaf, mentally or morally unsuitable, or too young for Bar Mitzvah; in particular, women are in most cases not eligible.”

There’s a myth that prior to 1967, Aborigines in Australia were classified as flora and fauna:

Not being counted properly in the census all those years has fed into the misunderstanding that Aboriginal people were classified as fauna until the ’67 referendum.

In recent years, an Aboriginal politician even referred to growing up under a state Flora and Fauna Act.

Several states did, indeed, often manage Aboriginal affairs through departments that also handled flora, fauna and wildlife.

But there is nothing to show Aboriginal people were ever classed as one and the same, despite the fact they were not being counted in the official human population.

Posted in Abuse | Comments Off on Sex Abuse Claims

What’s Aaron Sorkin’s Game?

Posted on November 19, 2017 by Luke Ford

I enjoyed this film. Most people seem to. Wikipedia:

Peter Debruge of Variety praised Sorkin’s script saying “…Molly’s Game delivers one of the screen’s great female parts — a dense, dynamic, compulsively entertaining affair, whose central role makes stunning use of Chastain’s stratospheric talent.”[21] Mike Ryan of Uproxx gave the film 9/10, writing, “Molly’s Game is a perfect story for Sorkin. There’s poker, the Russian mafia, the Italian mafia, celebrities, and sports. The only thing missing for Sorkin’s wheelhouse is President Bartlet. And at over two hours long, the film still feels tight and never fails to entertain.”

There are a few false notes, however. Molly pursues a black guy to be her defense lawyer because she wants someone without a hint of corruption. What defense lawyer is widely regarded as an upstanding citizen? How many of the best defense lawyers are black? One per cent of defense lawyers? What defense lawyer has all these ridiculous moral demands as the one in this movie?

The upshot of the movie is that one should not reveal confidences.

All morality depends upon a leap of faith so this moral stand is no more absurd than any other. It is also no more compelling.

After I watched the movie, I tried to figure out why did Aaron Sorkin make this the point of the film? And then I remembered interviewing a former prostitute, Dimitra Ekmektsis, who serviced Sorkin and was bitter about him. I bet Sorkin was not happy about these hookers speaking out against him.

Wikipedia:

Sorkin married Julia Bingham in 1996 and divorced in 2005, with his workaholic habits and drug abuse reported to be a partial cause.[125][126] Sorkin and Bingham have one daughter, Roxy.[127] Sorkin was a dependent cocaine user for many years and, after a highly publicized arrest in 2001, he received treatment in a drug diversion program…

In 1987, Sorkin started using marijuana and cocaine. He has said that in cocaine he found a drug that gave him relief from certain nervous tensions he deals with on a regular basis.[6] In 1995, he checked into rehab at the Hazelden Institute in Minnesota, on the advice of his then girlfriend and soon to be wife Julia Bingham, to try to beat his addiction to cocaine.[134] In 2001, Sorkin along with colleagues John Spencer and Martin Sheen received the Phoenix Rising Award for their personal victories over substance abuse. However, two months later on April 15, 2001, Sorkin was arrested when guards at a security checkpoint at the Burbank Airport found hallucinogenic mushrooms, marijuana, and crack cocaine in his carry-on bag when a metal crack pipe set off the gate’s metal detector.[6][135] He was ordered to a drug diversion program.[59]

Sorkin continued working on The West Wing amidst his drug abuse.

Sorkin has a personal interest in hookers and drug dealers and other members of the dark world not speaking out about clients such as him. And so almost everything he makes either denigrates women who speak out against powerful men or glorifies women who keep their mouths shut. He always hires beautiful young assistants. I assume they all have to sign NDAs. I assume they all have to fuck him. I assume they’re all shiksas. How long till we find out Aaron Sorkin is a serial abuser of women?

New York Daily News Jan. 30, 2006:

In 2002, Dimitra Ekmektsis told us she’d had a two-year, drug-fueled relationship with Sorkin. But apparently, she left a few stories out. “Confessions of a High-Priced Call Girl” is the title of the book she’s shopping. In it, she writes about the time a prince from Oman flew her out to Vegas for $4,000 a day; about a 65-year-old sporting-goods tycoon who, in the days before Viagra, demanded little more than her company at Le Cirque; and about a unnamed “hot, young film actor” who was so well-endowed he was painful. But no client receives more attention than Sorkin, who she says she met in 1990, when he was 29 and enjoying the success of his Broadway play “A Few Good Men.

” Ekmektsis says he’d pay her $2,000 a night for her “almost weekly” visits to his upper West Side apartment. It was there, she claims, that he introduced her to cocaine. Eventually, she says, she fell in with the soft-spoken, brilliant writer. “The last three or four times we were together, he didn’t pay me at all,” she writes. They lost touch until 1999, according to Ekmektsis, when they started E-mailing. She says he told her he’d written a call-girl character into “The West Wing.

” “I wrote it because (I’m serious about this) I’ve always remembered the way you came over to my apartment,” according to the E-mail she reproduces. “I remember looking at you and thinking: I don’t understand why this isn’t my girlfriend.

” Despite that note, she feels ripped off. “Almost every time we were together in his penthouse, he asked me to tell him in minute-per-minute detail about my life as a call girl. … Who knew then he was gathering information?

It’s impossible to live by the belief that all morality is arbitrary. So we all make a leap of faith to a particular type of morality, often it is one that serves our interests.

Brian Moylan writes in 2014: “Aaron Sorkin’s HBO drama The Newsroom has been accused of having something of a “women problem” but now it seems like the problem might be backstage as well. Following the series’ penultimate episode, which aired on Sunday 7 December, many criticised a male character’s reaction to a female rape victim. Alena Smith, one of the show’s writers, tweeted that things weren’t much better for her behind the scenes, claiming she was “yelled at” for expressing a view contrary to Sorkin’s.”

Daily Mail December 2014:

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin has denied accusations that he is ‘broke’ and having an affair with an author whose book he is using as a source for his next screenplay.
The accusations were made by Sony co-chair Amy Pascal and came to light last week as part of a batch of hacked emails released by a group calling themselves the Guardians of Peace.
The author in question is Molly Bloom, the poker hostess who was arrested after hosting games with Hollywood A-listers such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon and Tobey Maguire.
The games, which initially took place in a back room at the infamous Viper Room bar on Sunset Strip in Los Angeles, frequently saw huge amounts of money won and lost on games.
After an FBI sting put pay to her $4m-a-year job she revealed all the A-list names in her book Molly’s Game – now being used by Sorkin for a screenplay.
Sorkin, the creator of The West Wing and The Newsroom used an op-ed for The New York Times on Monday to deny the relationship with the author is anything but professional.
He wrote: ‘The widely published documents that were stolen include an email to Ms. Pascal in which I advocated going to Tom Cruise for the lead role (I did), a second email from one executive to another speculating that I’m broke (I’m fine) and a third that suggested that I might be romantically involved with a woman whose book I’m using as source material for a new script (I wish).
He added: ‘I know there’s juicy stuff in the emails and I know some of us have been insulted and I know there’s more to come. No one’s private life can totally withstand public scrutiny. But this is much bigger than hurt feelings and banged-up egos.’
The op-ed piece went on to condemn the media for releasing the details hacked from the accounts of Sony executives and ‘doing the bidding of the Guardians of Peace.’
He referred to it as ‘morally treasonous and spectacularly dishonorable.’
The hacked emails from senior executives at Sony Pictures have so far played havoc with its computer network, revealed confidential information regarding its staff and A-list actors, exposed explosive internal squabbles among senior executives and their emails revealing their true feelings about certain A-list actors.

Emily Nussbaum writes in The New Yorker:

Anyway, there we are, with Don Keefer—one of the few truly appealing characters on the show and half of the show’s only romance worth rooting for, with Munn’s Sloan Sabbith—in a Princeton dorm room, interviewing a girl, Mary, who said she’d been raped. In a classic “Newsroom” setup, she wasn’t simply a victim denied justice. Instead, the woman was another of Sorkin’s endless stream of slippery digital femme fatales; she created a Web site where men could be accused, anonymously, of rape. The scene began with an odd, fraught moment: when Don turned up at her dorm room, notebook in hand, he hesitates to close the door, clearly worried that she might make a false accusation. But since this is Season 3, not 1 or 2, the Web site creator isn’t portrayed as a venal idiot, like the Queens-dwelling YouTube blackmailer on a previous episode, who wrote “Sex And The City” fan fiction and used Foursquare at the laundry. The Princeton woman got to make seventy-five per cent of her case, which, in a sense, only made the scene worse.
Before describing the scene between Keefer and the Princeton student, it’s important to note that the scene’s theme of sexual gossip about powerful men has been an obsession since this show began. For a while, Will McAvoy was tormented by a Page Six reporter who first got snubbed by him, then placed gossip items in revenge, then slept with him, then blackmailed him. There was a similar plot about Anthony Weiner; just last week, Jim’s girlfriend Hallie sold him out in a post for the fictional Web site Carnivore. You’d have to consult Philip Roth’s “The Human Stain” to find a fictional narrative more consistently worried about scurrilous sexual gossip directed at prominent men. It’s a subject that replicates Sorkin’s own experiences, from “The Newsroom” on back to “The West Wing.”

Posted in Abuse | Comments Off on What’s Aaron Sorkin’s Game?

Vayetze (Gen. 28:10–32:3)

Posted on November 19, 2017 by Luke Ford

Wikipedia: “The parashah tells of Jacob’s travels to, life in, and return from Haran. The parashah recounts Jacob’s dream of a ladder to heaven, Jacob’s meeting of Rachel at the well, Jacob’s time working for Laban and living with Rachel and Leah, the birth of Jacob’s children, and the departure of Jacob’s family from Laban.”

Listen here.

* Blood and soil is the most basic, most commonsensical political philosophy. It is the philosophy of Torah. It is the philosophy of the Nazis.

Wikipedia: “Blood and soil (German: Blut und Boden) is a slogan expressing the nineteenth-century German idealization of a racially defined national body (“blood”) united with a settlement area (“soil”). By it, rural and farm life forms are not only idealized as a counterweight to urban ones, but are also combined with racist and anti-Semitic ideas of a sedentary Germanic-Nordic peasantry as opposed to (specifically Jewish) nomadism. The contemporary German concept Lebensraum, the belief that the German people needed to reclaim historically German areas of Eastern Europe into which they could expand, is tied to it. “Blood and soil” was a key slogan of Nazi ideology. The nationalist ideology of Artamanen and the writings of Walther Darré guided Nazi agricultural policies which were later adopted by Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Baldur von Schirach.”

How is that different from Genesis 28?

13. There above it stood the Lord, and he said: “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. 14 Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring.[d] 15 I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”

When God tells Jacob that He will give him and his descendants a particular piece of earth, does He mean that he will give this land to the Jews so that they can then be overrun and rendered a minority in the country they create?

Does God only give land to the Jews or does God also give Germany to the Germans, Japan to the Japanese, etc?

* Yggdrasil’s Eyes Wide Shut review.

* Gen. 28:1: “So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him. Then he commanded him: “Do not marry a Canaanite woman.” That sounds racist. How is that any different than telling your daughter not to marry a black man?

* The Atlantic: ‘The Making of an American Nazi: How did Andrew Anglin go from being an antiracist vegan to the alt-right’s most vicious troll and propagandist—and how might he be stopped?’ Dennis Dale

* New York Times:

Responding to her former teammate Aly Raisman — who said on Twitter that women dressing “sexy” does not entitle men to shame or sexually abuse them — Ms. [Gabby] Douglas argued that it was incumbent on women “to dress modestly,” “be classy” and not attract “the wrong crowd.”

Does how a woman dresses and comport herself have no affect on her likelihood of being raped? That’s absurd. If you choose to walk in a bad neighborhood alone and at night, does that increase your odds of being attacked? Of course. It does not morally excuse your attackers, but you deliberately put yourself in harm’s way.

Aly Raisman, who’s Jewish, said on Twitter: “Just because a woman does a sexy photoshoot or wears a sexy outfit does not give a man the right to shame her or not believe her when she comes forward about sexual abuse. What is wrong with some of you? AND when a woman dresses sexy it does not give a man the right to sexually abuse her EVER.”

In a legal claim, the longer you wait to make a claim, the less force it tends to carry (and often it is barred by a statute of limitations). For example, if you claim your life was ruined by a car accident but you wait two weeks to seek medical treatment for it, your claim is not strong.

So these women who are speaking up now about sexual abuse that happened years ago are not impressive if you judge them on the same standard that you would with other torts, or on the same standard you would judge men.

If you believe women have moral agency, then women waiting years to come forward with stories of sexual abuse are not impressive. If you view women as a natural resource that needs tending, directing, and protecting, then you judge women differently from men. You don’t expect women to take responsibility as readily as men do because until recently, women were regarded as the responsibility of their fathers or husbands or brothers, and so personal responsibility is new for them.

Women are not valid witnesses in Torah law. Wikipedia: “Testimony in Jewish law consists of testimony by eligible witnesses to a Beit Din (court) authorized to render decisions according to halakhah (Jewish law). Eligible witnesses must in almost all cases be free men who are not deaf, mentally or morally unsuitable, or too young for Bar Mitzvah; in particular, women are in most cases not eligible.”

* WP: “Stand-up is hard for anyone who does it, but it’s also long been a boys’ club — with extra obstacles for women.” Yeah, because women “comics” don’t tend to be very funny.

* The arbitrary morality of the Aaron Sorkin movie Molly’s Game.

* News: A woman claims she was physically attacked on an New York City subway Thursday after asking a [black] man to stop splaying his knees across several seats, colloquially known as “manspreading.”

* The 1835 Nathaniel Hawthorne short story Young Goodman Brown.

Posted in Torah | Comments Off on Vayetze (Gen. 28:10–32:3)

What Is Elsagate?

Posted on November 19, 2017 by Luke Ford

From the BBC:

Thousands of videos on YouTube look like versions of popular cartoons but contain disturbing and inappropriate content not suitable for children.
If you’re not paying much attention, it might look like an ordinary video featuring Peppa Pig, the cheeky porcine star of her own animated series. But soon after pressing play on this particular YouTube clip, the plot turns dark. A dentist with a huge syringe appears. Peppa’s teeth get pulled out. Distressed crying can be heard on the soundtrack.
Parent and journalist Laura June almost immediately noticed something was not quite right as her three-year-old daughter was watching it.
“Peppa does a lot of screaming and crying and the dentist is just a bit sadistic and it’s just way, way off what a three-year-old should watch,” June says. She wrote about her experiences on the website The Outline.
“But the animation is like close enough to looking like Peppa – it’s crude but it’s close enough that my daughter was like ‘This is Peppa Pig.'”
It’s far from an isolated case – BBC Trending has found hundreds of similar videos of children’s cartoon characters with inappropriate themes. In addition to Peppa Pig, there are similar videos featuring characters from the Disney movie Frozen, the Minions franchise, Doc McStuffins, Thomas the Tank Engine, and many more.
Some of the videos are parodies or have such over-the-top content that they’re clearly meant for mature audiences. Others are unauthorised copies of authentic cartoons or use the characters in innocent ways – troubling to copyright lawyers perhaps, but not necessarily harmful to children.
However many, like the video Laura June’s daughter saw, both contain disturbing content and can pass for the real cartoons, particularly when viewed by children.

Reddit: “ElsaGate is a Phenomenon on Youtube of reoccuring Themes, Animations in Context of inappropriate Topics in Videos on several Channels available and targeted at Kids. Those videos often feature Spiderman, Frozen Elsa, Joker, Mickey Mouse and other Characters popular with Kids.” More.

Posted in Abuse | Comments Off on What Is Elsagate?

The Sexual Harassment Crisis

Posted on November 17, 2017 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Women want men to feel attracted to them. For a woman, it’s a huge self-esteem booster when a man finds her attractive. When a woman is attractive to a man, she also has power over him – and that can be a lot of fun as it allows her to yank him around. For a woman, it’s particularly fun when she gets to manipulate a wealthy/powerful individual.

At the same time, women don’t actually want to have sex with a man unless he’s “hot” and “fun.” The majority of women obviously have to compromise (to some extent) on these standards, but their goal is to maximize “hotness” and “funness.” So if you’re Harvey Weinstein or any of these powerful men, women don’t actually want to sleep with you or even physically touch you. They just want to toy with you and extract favors/money from you.

What a lot of these women didn’t realize is that they were dealing with men who were much smarter, more manipulative, and more aggressive than them. So lots of these women sort of ended up getting “screwed” (no pun intended) in the end.

As for Stallone, in the account given in the paper, the assaulted girl claimed that the 1986 encounter with “Rocky Balboa” was partially consensual. Howver, she got creeped out when he brought in his Italian-American meathead bodyguard and forced her to have sex with him.

That seems to be a common occurrence. Famous actor/musician/athlete gets a woman to have consensual sex with him, then passes the woman off to less attractive/famous friends. Stallone passes his groupie off to an ugly bodyguard. The star quarterback/runningback passes off his girlfriend to some fat linebacker. At that point, it goes from consensual to rape.

In his prime back in the 80s, Stallone was a huge action hero and sex symbol. So I’m sure he probably didn’t have to rape women back then. Not like Weinstein, Cosby, etc. These days Stallone may still be famous, but he’s well past the point of being a sex symbol (except maybe to senior citizen women). To the average woman in 2017, it sounds disgusting to think of Stallone having sex with a young girl. In 1986, it wouldn’t have been so creepy.

When super handsome Paul Walker (“Fast and Furious”) started dating a 16 year-old girl, people didn’t say much. Mostly because women thought he was “super hot.” If he had been ugly or akward, there would’ve been more outrage.

If a man is “hot,” he can get away with a lot of stuff.

In conclusion, be “hot.”

* Reminds me of that great SNL skit with Tom Brady some years back. It was a fake 1950s-style training film on how to avoid harassment charges from women in the workplace.

It featured a nebbish man nervously asking women for a date. Each woman sneers in disgust then picks up the phone and calls security.

Tom Brady’s character waltzes up to women at their desks in his underwear, then cups a breast after getting her phone number. The women giggle and swoon.

The main pointers to avoid sexual harassment charges are shown on the screen at the end:

1) Be handsome
2) Be attractive
3) Don’t be unattractive

* There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about women on this board. Normal women are are biologically programmed to think they’re going to get an emotional commitment from the man they have sex with him. If he just walks off after sex and has no more interest in seeing her again, women get confused and angry. Woman think a man who is attracted to her on day one should, logically speaking, also be attracted to her on day two, and so forth. When a man acts completely obsessed with a woman on one day and then totally turned off by her the next day after having had sex with her, that makes a woman think men are fickle, two-faced, and untrustworthy. That’s unnatural behavior, to a woman’s way of thinking.

A lot of trouble could be avoided if men understood this.

* It’s nice be a normal, middle-class, moral, well-adjusted American woman. With a husband and children. All this hotness/cheating/groping/horniness talk can sound like modern poetry or art: Utterly meaningless and empty.

Marriage, intimacy, and procreation are where it’s at.

Posted in Sex | Comments Off on The Sexual Harassment Crisis

‘The Gift Of Fear’

Posted on November 16, 2017 by Luke Ford

Gavin de Becker writes: After one speech, a policeman who’d been in the audience asked to talk with me alone. He told me how he realized just then that he had relentlessly pursued a female student at the police academy when he was on the staff there. She said no to him for eighteen months, all the while concerned that the rejection would have an impact on her career. “She gave me no indication that she wanted a relationship with me, but I never let up, not for a moment,” he said. “It paid off, though. We got married.” (p. 195)

* But the howls for glory of assassins had been unanswered in their mundane pre-attack lives. The assassin might be weird or unusual, but we cannot say we don’t understand his motives, his goal. He wants what Americans want: recognition, and he wants what all people want: significance. People who don’t get that feeling in childhood seek ways to get it in adulthood. It is as if they have been malnourished for a lifetime and seek to fix it with one huge meal. (p. 244).

Posted in Marriage | Comments Off on ‘The Gift Of Fear’

‘Different Hoax For Different Folks’

Posted on November 15, 2017 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes:

Last week, comedy legend Larry David shocked much of the country by devoting one joke in his Saturday Night Live monologue to noticing that his fellow Jews were overrepresented in the ongoing Harvey Weinstein-inspired sexual-harassment scandals.

Similarly, Jews tend to disproportionately figure in validating and promoting hate hoaxes. But few know this because David-style criticism of any Jewish tendencies toward self-indulgent behavior is punished in modern America.

Indeed, the ADL says it exists to “to put an end forever to…ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” In essence, Jews are off-limits to satire. Yet being vulnerable to criticism encourages us to behave better, which is why people like Weinstein and Greenblatt are able to run amok for so long.

There actually are a certain number of classic hate crimes committed each year by whites against nonwhites. But these usually involve lowlifes and the cops come down on them like a ton of bricks, so the stories don’t because national causes célèbres.

In contrast, a high proportion of the cases in the national media turn out to be absurd. For example, when The New York Times a year ago was promoting the idea of a “wave of hate” following Trump’s victory, its top-featured case was from Lindenwood U. There a jolly Polynesian lady rugby player had jokingly assembled a “wall” of tennis shoes to divide her half of the dorm room from that of her Mexican roommate. The outraged Mexican coed called campus security.

But lining up sneakers toe to heel isn’t illegal, yet.

America has tens of thousands of social scientists. Yet as far as I can tell, not one has ever studied quantitatively what percentage of nationally publicized “hate incidents” turn out to be misleadingly fallacious.

This ought to be the highest-priority social science question in America, but it’s likely to remain off-limits for objective study.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on ‘Different Hoax For Different Folks’