What kind of sick mind would get a column out of imagining Donald Trump as a woman?
From Wikipedia: Frank Anthony Bruni (born October 31, 1964) is an American journalist. He was the chief restaurant critic of the New York Times, from 2004 to 2009. In June 2011, he was named an Op-ed columnist for the newspaper—its first openly gay one. He is the author of two bestselling books, Born Round, a memoir about his family’s love of food and his own struggles with overeating…
Who’s a white supremacist? David Duke? Does David Duke believe that whites are superior to Asians at chemistry? Does David Duke believe that whites are superior to blacks at basketball and rap? Does David Duke believe that Europeans are superior to Eskimos at surviving in igloos?
What exactly does a white supremacist believe that whites are superior at? Do all peoples have equal gifts? When I look at the world, I seek that different peoples have different gifts. As an Orthodox Jew, I have a particularly concern for the well-being of Jews. I want Jews to have their own Jewish state. Does that make me a Jewish supremacist?
Why is Jewish identity wonderful and black identity wonderful and Mexican and Japanese identity wonderful, but white identity shameful?
What if the more Americans find out about David Duke and other white warriors, the more they like them?
Anti-Defamation League said it will provide all presidential candidates with information on extremists and hate groups following Donald Trump’s claim that he didn’t know anything about former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
In a statement Sunday afternoon, the ADL said its Center on Extremism, which monitors and exposes extremists and hate groups, is providing information about extremists, including to the Trump campaign, “so that all candidates can be fully aware of these individuals and have a more complete picture when determining whose endorsements they should accept or reject.”
In an interview Sunday morning on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Trump told host Jake Tapper: “Just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke, OK? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists,” Trump told Tapper.
Several days earlier, Duke had told his radio listeners they should vote and volunteer for Trump. The Republican presidential front-runner disavowed the endorsement hours after the “State of the Union” interview, for the second time in three days, after refusing to do so on the program.
I noticed in the porn industry that all sexual norms tended to break down, and that differences between straight and gay often got obliterated. It seemed like many of the “straight” guy porn stars also did gay stuff on the side.
For secular Jews, there are few sexual taboos, so it makes sense that they might be more likely to experiment with homosexuality.
While they accounted for only a tiny proportion of Jews, Jews have long influenced the pornography and prostitution industries. Jews have historically had more tolerant views than gentiles on the legality of prostitution and pornography. Jews also seem to have more tolerant attitudes towards gay sons. They’re less likely to disown them.
The more sex you have, and the more partners you have, the more likely you are to lead a hedonistic life and to get jaded and your inhibitions break down and you indulge in drugs and you become willing to try homosexuality. This is a consequence of a sexually decadent society.
If there are a far higher percentage of gay Jews than gay gentiles, it gives a new explanation for the reason that big law, the msm, entertainment and academia have been so sympathetic to gay rights (as Jews are disproportionately successful in these fields).
Blog:
Is homo and bisexuality another example of deviance that Jews are more likely to indulge in? They seem to be over-represented among all sorts of out-there groups.
The General Social Survey asks whether your sex partners have been male, female, or both. I restricted respondents to whites who had at least 1 year of college education (since queerness goes up with education), and who lived in an urban environment, where queers tend to concentrate, not suburban or rural. That controls for the major demographic differences between homos and normals.
Respondents were then broken down by their professed religion — Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and None (not necessarily atheists). Differences across groups in bi and homosexuality were the same, so I just collapsed them into a single non-heterosexual category.
Percent non-heterosexual (Males, Females) …
Based on partners from past year:
Cath: 4, 3
Prot: 4, 3
Jew: 11, 3
None: 8, 9Based on partners from past 5 years:
Cath: 4, 4
Prot: 4, 4
Jew: 9, 4
None: 8, 10The rates for Christians are just what you see in the overall population — between 3 and 5 percent. Among Jews, however, fully 10% are gay. I vaguely suspected it would be higher, but that’s still amazing. The None-religionists are twice as likely as Christians to be gay, though still a bit below the Jews.
The incredibly high rate of Jewish queerness cannot be explained, therefore, by pointing to their more secular or liberal tendencies. Even if all Jews were secular-liberal and all of the None group were non-Jewish in ethnicity, there’d still be a gap. The Christian groups are four times the size of the None group, so even pretending all of the Nones were Gentiles, and weighting the three Gentile groups, there’d still be a large gap between them and Jews.
Strangely, though, Jews are just like the two Christian groups for rates of lesbianism and female bisexuality. For females, it’s having no professed religion that makes them 2 to 3 times more likely to be with women. This would seem to argue against the higher rate of gays among Jews being due to some cultural laxity — that should allow Jewish women to act more deviant as well.
If being queer is caused by some Gay Germ (in Greg Cochran’s phrase), it’s hard to believe that the Jewish vs. Gentile chasm in gay rates is due to different genetic susceptibilities. I checked for race differences in queerness, limiting it to urban-dwellers with at least a year of college, and there were none in comparing whites, blacks, and “other”. If major racial groups are equally susceptible to the infection, it’s hard to imagine that Jews would be so much more susceptible than other Caucasian groups.
Perhaps some combination of their different rituals performed on boys early in life (not just circumcision) make the difference in susceptibility to the infection. That would be analogous to the Fore tribe of Papua New Guinea, who contracted a neurological disease, Kuru, by eating the infected brains of the deceased during a funeral ritual. Different cultural practices can make some groups more at-risk for infectious diseases.
This would also explain why Jewish females are no more likely to be bi or lesbian — circumcision, etc., do not affect them. Or maybe having a castrating Jewish mother is more likely to push a son over the edge and snap, while having little effect on the daughter.
Well, who knows what the source of the difference is, but there it is — 1 out of 10 Jewish urban-dwellers with at least some college education are gay. Among their Christian counterparts, it’s 1 in 25. One obvious implication is that Jews, even aside from their secular liberal tendencies, will tend to favor gay agenda policies, since they’re more likely to know some from their own group. “My son, the cocksucker, deserves better health care than what you goy bigots are providing.”
Paul Conroy writes:
I’ve noticed that too, that Jews (Ashkenazi) are much more likely to be homosexuals.
I proposed on Cochran’s blog maybe 1.5 years ago that homosexuality may be partly caused by selection for High IQ. Of the Big5 personality traits, “Openness to Experience” is highly, positively correlated with IQ.Another thing I’ve noticed that seems to be much higher among Jews is Autism/Aspergers/Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD). IMO, this is also caused by selection for High IQ. There are a few papers out there showing that people with ASD are more likely to be homosexual. There are a few papers out there showing that ASD is positively correlated with BiPolar Disorder (BD) – they are co-morbid. Manic phases of BD are associated with high risk taking and extroversion – many famous porn stars have BD, it’s one of the reasons many of them also commit suicide, in depressive phases.
Also, if you read Simon Baron-Cohen’s work (relative of Sasha) on females with Autism, you’ll note that it expresses differently than in males. Females on the spectrum are more likely to suffer from body dysmorphia and have eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia, they are also more likely to have rigid, inflexible thinking styles, think in a masculine manner and be socially awkward. IMO, this nicely explains feminism, and why Jewish feminists are preponderant.
High IQ, High T (Europeans)
– Men: die Herrenvolk
– Women: virtuous, inspiring
High IQ, Low T (East Asians)
– Men: diligent, passive
– Women: cash register for soul
Low IQ, High T (Africans)
– Men: virile, destructive
– Women: “de mule of de world” [Z.N. Hurston]
Low IQ, Low T (Southeast Asians)
– Men: amiable layabouts
– Women: airhead sexpots
Sure, it’s a sweeping generalization, but who can deny the essential truth of it? Zoom out and imagine you are an alien god looking at the earthly continental races from above, watching their every move, their lives and their loves, the syncopation of their civilizations, and you had to put your thoughts to paper in fifty words or less. This list would do. (And of course in the margins you would jot “give or take exceptions to the rule”.)
Alpha males are DEMANDING of their women.
They bark orders, issue commands, set expectations, and aren’t afraid to show disappointment if their expectations aren’t met. They will correct their women’s mistakes and rebuke errors of judgment firmly, sometimes fiercely, and without hesitation.
I was reminded of this everlasting reality of sexual market male hierarchy while overhearing a shitlord-esque man instruct his pretty girlfriend in proper dog-training technique. The two of them were at a park, working with their rambunctious mutt. It was her turn to extract obedience from the dog, and it wasn’t going well. At every misstep, her boyfriend would quickly intervene to tell her what she was doing wrong, and how she should do it right.
He wasn’t shy about chastising and correcting her, either. He came off like a drill sergeant, and an impatient know-it-all. I would say his demeanor was borderline asshole. Which means that she adored him. When they left, she playfully slapped his backside and giggled, presumably in anticipation of a later retribution.
Women WANT to work for a man’s interest. A man’s respect. A man’s LOVE. A man who challenges women is a man who is rewarded with women’s zeal to please. This is the nature of women.
And it is the nature of beta males to misunderstand the nature of women. Or, when they do understand it, to fear it and therefore fail to tame it. You will never see a beta male confidently, even impudently, demand anything — a norm of behavior, preferred treatment, effort towards a task — from a woman he is dating. He will never LEAD a woman. He will typically appease, and only make passive-aggressive demands of a woman when his fuse is short and his (self-)anger bubbling over.
Beta males don’t like to demand anything of anyone, but especially not of women. Strangers, acquaintances, girlfriends, wives; none will ever experience the distinctly female pleasure of deferring and submitting to a man if that man is a fearful, non-confrontational beta male. And over time resentment and contempt will find a home in these women, and their sexual desire will find a home elsewhere.
I hope that a beta male reading these words is saved today.
John Nolte writes: Just last week, a years-long tradition came to a screeching halt. “You want me to put it on Fox News,” I asked my wife. “No,” she replied. “I’m done with Fox News.”
My job is to monitor the mainstream media, which is something that eats up about 14 hours of a day that begins at 6 a.m. when the cable morning shows begin. Lying next to me, my good sport of a wife suffers through about an hour of “Morning Joe,” whatever they call that left-wing garbage fire on CNN, and the rest. Out of habit, before I head to my desk, without really asking I always ask, “You want me to put it on Fox?”
Fox News has a problem, and not just with my wife. According to a YouGov Brand Index survey, the perception of Fox News among Republicans has hit a three-year low, “has declined by approximately 50% since January of this year.”
Basically, perception of Fox News has returned to those bad old Dick Morris days after President Obama won re-election. Much of the fall has come in the last few months. There is no question that this precipitous drop is the result of Fox’s ongoing war with Donald Trump.
This might be a good time to tell you that my wife is not a Trump supporter. Her frustrations and disappointment in Fox News have nothing to do with her personal political preference. Like many, it is something much larger than that.
1) Bias
Whether or not you support Trump, FNC’s pro-Rubio/GOP Establishment bias is still as hard to swallow as the mainstream media’s left-wing bias. Bias is bias. It’s manipulative and dishonest, and no one likes to be manipulated or lied to.
MSNBC is left-wing. CNN is even more left-wing. If every Democrat tuned into either, the ratings would crush Fox. Democrats don’t tune in, though, because even Democrats hate bias.
Fox’s ratings are still through the roof, but the people that have kept the “Fair and Balanced” network a juggernaut for more than a decade are losing respect for it. That could mean trouble when the excitement of the presidential campaign fades away. That could also give an upstart an opening.
2) Cluelessness
When it came to grasping the Trump phenomenon, Fox News was every bit as clueless and caught off guard as the BubbleDumb in the mainstream media. A few of the opinion-driven FNC pundits, like Sean Hannity, Eric Bolling and Andrea Tantaros, saw the writing on the wall, but they were outliers who, when you look back, only make the rest of the network look clueless, especially the straight news division.
And once the Trump phenomenon became achingly real, Fox either refused to acknowledge it, or pretended it wasn’t real.
I watch about 30 minutes of Fox News a day, the roundtable on Bret Baier’s “Special Report.” The three-person pundit panel is supposed to represent the smartest thinking in politics, and yet for months and months, every Friday during Candidate Casino, a feature where the pundits award up to a hundred chips (points) to various presidential candidates, no one would acknowledge the “Trump” writing on the wall. Some even admitted they could not acknowledge it.
I still tune into the roundtable, but now it’s for the same reason I monitor the mainstream media: to get a feel for the talking points and wishful thinking-propaganda coming from the GOP Mother Ship. In fact, for that same reason, I’m watching more Fox News than ever before. After all, my job is to expose media deception.
Here is something I never thought I would write in my lifetime: CNN’s handling of the Republican debates has been infinitely more professional, unbiased, and fair than Fox News. It’s not even close. If you go back and look at the debates, CNN’s Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer have out-classed Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace, and Bret Baier by a wide margin.
It is beyond comprehension that, instead of Fox News, I wish CNN was hosting Thursday night’s debate.
When I asked my wife why she is “done” with Fox News, her answer was simply, “They’re just like all the rest.”
A mate of mine has taken on the white man’s burden and given an abo a job, but it has been an endless nightmare. The abo can’t find his birth certificate, can’t open a bank account, can’t access his tax ID number, and consequently can’t access his pay. Needless to say, the abo’s parents aren’t together and neither of them have a computer nor know how to work one. Neither of the abo’s parents can hold down a job.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is under pressure to slap down a conservative Coalition MP who has likened the Safe Schools anti-bullying program to grooming undertaken by sexual predators.
Outspoken Queensland backbencher George Christensen on Thursday claimed the program recommends pornographic content, sex shops, sex clubs and adult communities to schoolchildren.
He also said it directed students to websites that advise students on sex toys and sadomasochism. He singled out the website of LGBT youth organisation Minus18 for particular criticism.
The website has advice on chest binding, penis tucking and sex toys and links to other sites that promote pornography, group sex and gay bars, he claimed. It also gives children advice on how to cover their tracks by hiding their browser history.
“This material is putting children at risk of being sexualised at an early age,” he said.
“If a man exposed a child to these websites, sex clubs, sex shops and online communities on the internet we would call this a paedophile grooming a victim.”
Tom Tancredo writes: The establishment media won’t tell you this Tuesday, but the Republican Party civil war is over and the establishment lost. Both of the remaining front-runners, Trump and Cruz, are outsiders, and the insider, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79%
is history.
Meagan Kelly, call your agent. Your lame horse cannot finish the race.
When Jeb Bush left the presidential race last week after two humiliating out-of-the-running finishes in New Hampshire and South Carolina, the open borders wing of the Republican Party establishment all ran to the Rubio lifeboat. In their haste, they did not notice the Rubio lifeboat — so sad!–had gaping holes in it.
What the establishment media will not tell you after the Rubio campaign follows Bush, Kasich, Christie, and ten others into the history books is that all of them had one thing in common: none of them offered a bold or convincing program for ending our nation’s catastrophic 30-year experiment with open borders. Only Trump and Cruz have done that, and only they have survived the “epidemic of voter anger.”
Have you noticed how quickly the media rallied around “voter anger” as the explanation for the anti-establishment mood of the 2016 electorate? The genius of this label is that it allows the pundits from answering the obvious question—why are people so angry? It suggests that voters rejecting establishment candidates are behaving like children throwing a temper tantrum.
No. That’s not what is happening. Sovereign citizens are waking up and saying, “Enough, already!”
But Marco Rubio didn’t get that memo or didn’t read it. Rubio has been too busy concocting still one more smokescreen defense of his 2013 co-authorship and steadfast support of the infamous “Gang of Eight” Senate amnesty plan. In fact, even today, three years later, he has not yet fully repudiated it.
Rubio’s latest explanation of why that 2013 amnesty bill failed, offered in the debate before the South Carolina primary, is that after it passed the Senate, “the House refused to take it up.” Duh! The Gang of Eight bill passed the Senate with a majority of Republican senators voting AGAINST the bill – an embarrassing fact hardly reported by the media. It was NEVER a Republican immigration reform plan; it was a Democrat open borders plan that Rubio was suckered into supporting.
Facing a broad grassroots rebellion over the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, the Republican leadership in the House was smart enough to bury the dead skunk in the back yard. They began talking about immigration reform as a series of “small bills,” but certain Democrat rejection in the Senate blocked meaningful action.
Yet, Rubio’s stupid support of the Democrats’ Gang of Eight bill had been tattooed on his forehead, and he never had the tattoo removed. In fact, Rubio, like other Republican establishment candidates, still clings to its main, devious feature—amnesty now, enforcement later.
And THAT, my friends, is the main reason Republican voters are angry—not just at Rubio but at all establishment candidates. Two years after Republicans won control of both houses of Congress, they have yet to send Obama a Republican plan for securing the borders and have instead continued to fund the existing open borders status quo. And that is why the two “last man standing” contenders are two outspoken critics of open borders, not the establishment apologists for national suicide.
After Bush’s crash and burn, Rubio became the establishment’s lifeboat to survive the populist tsunami. Ooops. It’s now time for Plan B – or actually, it is now “Plan X.”
Plan X calls for co-opting Donald Trump: the establishment hopes he can become a Trojan Horse. Once inside the gates, he can reveal himself as the “deal-maker” who can “work across the aisle” to “get things done.” In their fanciful fantasy, now being crafted by turnaround exerts, Trump can engage in symbolic acts to please the troops while expanding legal immigration, legal guest worker programs, and foreign aid to Mexico.
The really good news is, Republican voters now have a real choice between two “outsiders.” In the next four months they will decide which one is the best hope for reversing the course of a ship of state heading toward bankruptcy and cultural suicide. Marco Rubio will not be one of those two candidates.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)97%
is hated by the Washington establishment of both parties because he actually has a record to prove his conservative principles. He fought on the Senate floor for conservative principles, and they hate him for that– for repeal of Obamacare, for secure borders, for defunding Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders.
The other candidate riding the “tsunami of populist anger” is, we all know, Donald Trump. Both candidates have tapped into the public anger, but they did not create it– the establishment did by its foolish policies.
Whatever the outcome of this contest, Americans are guaranteed of having a clear choice in November. That is new, and that is progress.
