RSS
In the New York Times, Tina Brown, who quit as editor of the New Yorker in the late 1990s to edit a start-up glossy magazine backed by Harvey Weinstein called Talk, explains a little about how The Narrative cake is baked:
Harvey spent most of the hours of his working day ensuring that all the bad stories went away, killed, evaporated, spun into something diametrically its opposite. It was a common sight outside a Harvey opening party to see one of his publicists trapped in a car on the phone, spinning — spinning the dross of some new outrage into gold.
When I founded Talk magazine in 1998 with Miramax, the movie company Harvey founded with his brother Bob, I also took over the running of their fledgling book company with Jonathan Burnham as editor in chief. Strange contracts pre-dating us would suddenly surface, book deals with no deadline attached authored by attractive or nearly famous women, one I recall was by the stewardess on a private plane. It was startling — and professionally mortifying — to discover how many hacks writing gossip columns or entertainment coverage were on the Miramax payroll with a “consultancy” or a “development deal” (one even at The New York Times).
Harvey engaged sexual harassment’s legal bulldog, Lisa Bloom, she who brought down Bill O’Reilly and recently appeared on the stage of Women in the World’s Canada Summit as thrilling feminist avenger. Then, it emerged The Weinstein Company bought Bloom’s book on Trayvon Martin for a movie — classic Harvey M.O. …
It’s interesting to speculate what percentage of tendentious liberal media projects exist mainly to pay off insiders who know too much. On top of that, what percentage of the projects that never come fully to fruition but for which somebody got paid are, basically, bribes/rewards for staying on Team Liberal despite learning about your teammates?
An occupational hazard of editing Talk was aborting the pieces Harvey assigned on his nightly trolling from reporters who had tried to get a bad rumor confirmed. Another of his co-opting tactics was to offer a juicy negative nugget about one of the movie stars in his films or people in his media circle (fairly often, me) in a trade to quash a dangerous piece about himself.
Talk, itself, was part of an attempt to achieve corporate vertically integrated control over the entire Narrative cake-baking process from articles to books to movies to publicity to reviews.
Access journalism is a key concept: journalists who know more than they tell are rewarded with carrots like interviews with stars, book deals, and film options, while those who tell the public too much are cut off from their access to the oxygen of stars to appear on their magazine covers.
This article by Brown is framed in Get Trump terms:
What Harvey and Trump have in common
… But it’s a different era now. Cosby. Ailes. O‘Reilly, Weinstein. It’s over, except for one — the serial sexual harasser in the White House.
But of course Trump is the opposite in the sense that the vast media Narrative-baking machine that protected Weinstein for decades has been out to smear Trump nonstop for the last 28 months, with strikingly little success.
That’s why you have all these lunatic conspiracy theories such as that Putin hacked Pokemon Go to elect Trump, because Trump obviously has so little control over the media … except in his ideas.
This isn’t even Berlusconi’s Italy where the politician at least controlled the football broadcasts. Heck, Trump takes on televised football and seems to be winning through the sheer appeal of his views.
And that explains a lot of the outrage at Trump: how can somebody dare communicate with the public without insider access to the elaborate, interlocking Narrative cake-baking process?
Golan and Globus were more fun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cannon_Group,_Inc.#1979.E2.80.931985:_Golan_Globus_era
Golan as auteur:
https://youtu.be/TLxpgUKYzzw
Gerald Posner, calling him right now. A tendentious catamite with an inexplicable top career and reliably good lugenpresse publicity, who is mainly known for outright lying and getting savaged by “uncredentialed” online critics. Last time you saw his insufferable pseudo-boyish Caesar mop, he was publicly admitting to committing plagiarism.
Literally all of this because this vile shoggoth couldn’t do well enough with women with just fame, moxie, hundreds millions of dollars, his own media empire, and maybe the addition of a decent personal trainer and a razor. It’s like a monument to sloth.
https://twitter.com/TinaBrownLM/status/918593578171092993Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
Weinstein was motivated by avarice - and vice is the coin of the realm in the world of the Left. I'll bet Harvey still doesn't understand how all this happened. After all, everyone who pays the danegeld is surprised when their protection money fails them.
I wonder if the liberal establishment is ganging up on Harvey Weinstein now because he was the driving force behind making Hillary Clinton the only viable candidate? I wonder too if Weinstein, Hillary and Michael Moore are at the centre of a “Resistance” movement that’s now getting on the nerves of too many of the power players? Maybe people have tried to have a talk with Hillary and Harvey but they just won’t listen?
Won't do any good of course while they adhere to their idiot ideas.Replies: @Barnard
Why is now the point at which it's suddenly okay for the lefties to out and bury HW? Which person(s) who are even more powerful than HW gave the go-ahead on this?Replies: @Stealth, @Forbes, @anon
“But it’s a different era now. Cosby. Ailes. O’Reilly, Weinstein.”
Sexual harassers being brought down is part of a New Era, if you were born yesterday.
“It’s over, except for one. The serial sexual harasser in the White House.”
Serisly, guyz, he’s the only one left. It was all fun and games when it was Fox News and a black who spoke out of school, but Harvey had to be sacrificed for a reason! A Hollywood mogul can’t go down without it meaning something.
The long arc of the history of sexual harassment has been leading to the downfall of President Trump. That’s the best Narrative possible for the fall of Weinstein.
Pfft. As anyone save for pink twat-heads milling aggrieved in the DC streets in late January 2017 can understand from the context, Trump was talking to Billy Bush in the mid-2000s about groupies. Long a real estate player, Trump wasn't truly a grade-A celebrity until "The Apprentice" debuted; his comments to Bush -- admittedly vulgar -- moreso reveal an amazement with the magnetism of celebrity to groupies. In all honesty, Tina Brown should be most greatly chafed by the very existence of groupies, given what those sisters of hers will do to grasp a sliver of male celebrity attention. From Tina Brown's perspective, better to attempt a weak case against Trump than to deal with the distinctly Weinsteinian antics of the husbands of ultimate DC power couple Hillary and Huma.
Baked? A bit stale:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Mannix
Too bad about his first wife. And too bad about George Reeves also.
It’s good to be the king.
maybe the women harassed Trump
Trump is on an elevator and a beautiful woman gets on. "Mr. Trump, I really admire you," she says, "and I'd like to have sex with you." Trump the workaholic tycoon responds, "what's in it for me?"
It's quite possible that there aren't any sex scandals involving Trump out there to be found.
I read somewhere else that there was one year in which pretty much every long magazine article was optioned by Miramax or the Weinstein Co.
One wonders how much of this sort of thing happens in other industries (Silicon Valley comes to mind).
It's a good article but I did find myself asking the whole time why, if Smith knew all about the Weinstein rape (and liberal media coverup thereof) story in advance, he wasn't the one to break it. Which somewhat undermines the outraged tone he uses describing the coverup.
Some charitable potential explanations:
* Not enough sources were willing to go on the record against Weinstein, or at least not enough would go on the record for a perceived political hit job in a conservative (by Hollywood standards, not ours) mag like WS.
* The WS editors thought it would be outside their purview as an opinion mag, or that they couldn't afford to fight a defamation suit.
* Smith was working on the story, but the NYT beat him to publication.
And less charitable:
* He wasn't actually as in-the-know about Weinstein as he claims, and only after the story broke did he start filling in the blanks from past conversations and new interviews.
* He wasn't previously interested in pursuing the story, or assumed (probably correctly) it would be a Cassandra truth if broken by a conservative opinion mag.
* The Joo, Joo people here will say Bill Kristol was protecting Weinstein. I seriously doubt there's any love lost between Kristol and Weinstein (producer of Michael Moore's films, amongst countless other anti-Bush diatribes).
On a related subject, it's a shame Carrie Fisher died before she could testify about how Moore chained her up in a metal bikini on his pleasure raft.Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Seamus Padraig
His wife who just conveniently enough left him was beautiful. As Candace Bushnell (“Sex and the City” creator) says, he had appetites:
P.S., Nice pic. There must have been coke in that stubble.Replies: @Another Realist, @Forbes, @JohnnyWalker123
It’s not just Putin! I’ve seen conspiracy theories stating that Trump, as a former NBC employee, had connections that prevented the Access Hollywood tape from being published until it was too late, and may still be preventing other unknown embarrassments from coming out.
The NeverTrump types are particularly sore about Morning Joe Scarborough’s early Trump boosterism and never miss an opportunity to remind him of it when he whines about Trump.
I like the theory that this is about cleaning out the old dinosaur generation of Clinton/Weinstein to make space for an up and coming, less tainted generation amongst the progs.
Won’t do any good of course while they adhere to their idiot ideas.
“explains a lot of the sheer outrage at Trump”
To be honest, Trump either has not accomplished what he ran on or actually has done the complete opposite.
Mostly no change on immigration.
A re-evaluation of the wars with the intent on ending them. He is expanding them, and in Syria provoking Russia, which Obama avoided. In Afghanistan, he is trying to ‘win’, which is prolonging the agony end expense.
Pursuing an America first policy on trade and other matters, not happening, probably doing the opposite. Decertifying the Iran agreement is particularly not America First.
His Obamacare fixation is a disaster for the country. I doubt he has any plan for replacing Obamacare.
So in short, there is a lot of reason for outrage at Trump. The nicest thing I can say is maybe the ‘deep government’ is holding him hostage.
BTW, Where is Uma Thurman on this Weinstein stuff?
The neocons are still scared because he opened the doors to all sorts of discussions and the rising influence of alternative political movements. The Israelis have no plan. They'll just keep pushing and hope something viable comes of it instead of violent retribution and international isolation. Bannon should learn this, the Israeli right-wing are not anybody's friend if he didn't already. Indeed his administration is also one giant '/pol/ was right!' given his son in law, the extension of a secret little war in Syria when he could have stopped it dead in days and what happened to Bannon.
The alternative would be Clinton enforcing a non-fly zone and Assad being deposed by now. (Which does not mean an end to the civil war or Isis!) And the assured elite project to flood remaining pockets of political resistance with immigrant groups most likely to vote for the new Democrat party.
Trump was a man from a different time, he wasn't made for the now, but he gave people hope, hope that you could change some things you thought you couldn't, it will inspire others.
Its funny I mist have watched three miniseries about hugh hefner this year then he died and I must have read 20 drooling articles about how he saved america from it puritanism.Not a word about what a peice of shit the guy was. My first serious girlfriend were from chicago their ne’er do well AWOL dad was a pal of hefs, she was 16-17 at the time her older sister about 19 they both told me all about the playboy mansion yada yada, then both later told me about having been passed around the playboy and get this that hefs daughter also was passed around. their mom was a hippy jazz singer and I think their dad was a musician too.In fact it turned out this was pretty much why dad was not in the picture and they left chitown, oddly they were still good friends with tony bennet who I found to be really creepy and suspect he was involved somehow maybe mom was hoping hed help her. 70s were crazy
Blah blah.
But re: trade, here’s something to give “blackpillers” diarrhea:
Noted left-wing populist, who has no reason to like Trump.
And who is your candidate? The reanimated corpse of Ron Paul?
What’s the point of using such a metaphor except as a dogwhistle to the baser elements of your audience? Is it almost donation season? Trying to stir them up with red meat?
If a powerful man is offered sex by a foxy woman for providing to her what he can provide, why should he decline?
If another production company offered him money for doing the same thing he would be expected to negotiate a deal.
I think an offer of sex with a really sexy woman is a bigger incentive.
There’s this:https://twitter.com/varadmehta/status/918983265071108096
Sorry, but this is the theme song for reading this comment thread:
Book deals as secret pay-offs. Easier to put on the accounting books than a paper bag filled with with cash. How much did Hillary get for her slow-sale books?
http://mileswmathis.com/launder.pdf
I always laugh when someone calls the United States a meritocracy.
Lee Smith in the Weekly Standard.
It’s a good article but I did find myself asking the whole time why, if Smith knew all about the Weinstein rape (and liberal media coverup thereof) story in advance, he wasn’t the one to break it. Which somewhat undermines the outraged tone he uses describing the coverup.
Some charitable potential explanations:
* Not enough sources were willing to go on the record against Weinstein, or at least not enough would go on the record for a perceived political hit job in a conservative (by Hollywood standards, not ours) mag like WS.
* The WS editors thought it would be outside their purview as an opinion mag, or that they couldn’t afford to fight a defamation suit.
* Smith was working on the story, but the NYT beat him to publication.
And less charitable:
* He wasn’t actually as in-the-know about Weinstein as he claims, and only after the story broke did he start filling in the blanks from past conversations and new interviews.
* He wasn’t previously interested in pursuing the story, or assumed (probably correctly) it would be a Cassandra truth if broken by a conservative opinion mag.
* The Joo, Joo people here will say Bill Kristol was protecting Weinstein. I seriously doubt there’s any love lost between Kristol and Weinstein (producer of Michael Moore’s films, amongst countless other anti-Bush diatribes).
On a related subject, it’s a shame Carrie Fisher died before she could testify about how Moore chained her up in a metal bikini on his pleasure raft.
It's a really good question of all these people. Sharon Waxman claimed the NYT suppressed her article, but her editor at the NYT asked why she didn't write after she left the Times over the next decade plus.Replies: @Forbes
This is the major reason why I think Trump has not sexually harassed women. The media has been out for blood for over two years. The man has been in the public eye, from the Enquirer to sit-com cameos, longer than I’ve been alive, I think.
What hard (har!) Trump stories have they come with? Zero. Zip. Nada.
What they have come up with are a handful women looking for money/fame and seeming choirs of ladies willing to testify that he’s been the perfect gentleman around him. Also a milquetoast secret recording of him saying women let you grab anything when you’re rich and famous, which of course is true. They can’t even get his ex-wives to tell any dirt. 2 ex-wives and nothing to be had.
He’s got a reputation because he clearly like models. Trump may have also cultivated that persona to be interesting for the camera. To me in that regard, he’s the Mr. Darcy of our era. A reputation which may have been earned, but in my opinion does not resemble the man in the slightest.
I'm not offended by the tape. Men do speak like that. Women too. Behind closed doors.
We have a right to our privacy. Actions our different. As Bridget Jones said, everyone knows what you put in your diary is fake!Replies: @guest
This is sadly the truth.
Disagreeing with what Trump has done thus far is fair game.
However, given that the whole of government seems to be against him, stating that he's getting nothing done is a profoundly unfair and lazy criticism of him.Replies: @MBlanc46
What hard (har!) Trump stories have they come with? Zero. Zip. Nada.
What they have come up with are a handful women looking for money/fame and seeming choirs of ladies willing to testify that he's been the perfect gentleman around him. Also a milquetoast secret recording of him saying women let you grab anything when you're rich and famous, which of course is true. They can't even get his ex-wives to tell any dirt. 2 ex-wives and nothing to be had.
He's got a reputation because he clearly like models. Trump may have also cultivated that persona to be interesting for the camera. To me in that regard, he's the Mr. Darcy of our era. A reputation which may have been earned, but in my opinion does not resemble the man in the slightest.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @MadDog
I recall from the 1980s that Trump is germophobic.
Trump also doesn’t drink, smoke, or do drugs. Okay, he’s got that diet coke habit. 🙂 I guess he’s on some cholesterol meds and that’s it.
The lack of drinking, I believe, is from his older brother’s death from alcohol related problems. Melania doesn’t seem to drink either.
It's a good article but I did find myself asking the whole time why, if Smith knew all about the Weinstein rape (and liberal media coverup thereof) story in advance, he wasn't the one to break it. Which somewhat undermines the outraged tone he uses describing the coverup.
Some charitable potential explanations:
* Not enough sources were willing to go on the record against Weinstein, or at least not enough would go on the record for a perceived political hit job in a conservative (by Hollywood standards, not ours) mag like WS.
* The WS editors thought it would be outside their purview as an opinion mag, or that they couldn't afford to fight a defamation suit.
* Smith was working on the story, but the NYT beat him to publication.
And less charitable:
* He wasn't actually as in-the-know about Weinstein as he claims, and only after the story broke did he start filling in the blanks from past conversations and new interviews.
* He wasn't previously interested in pursuing the story, or assumed (probably correctly) it would be a Cassandra truth if broken by a conservative opinion mag.
* The Joo, Joo people here will say Bill Kristol was protecting Weinstein. I seriously doubt there's any love lost between Kristol and Weinstein (producer of Michael Moore's films, amongst countless other anti-Bush diatribes).
On a related subject, it's a shame Carrie Fisher died before she could testify about how Moore chained her up in a metal bikini on his pleasure raft.Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Seamus Padraig
Thanks, that’s where I read it.
It’s a really good question of all these people. Sharon Waxman claimed the NYT suppressed her article, but her editor at the NYT asked why she didn’t write after she left the Times over the next decade plus.
Of course Tina Brown said nothing because the he bought her off.
The question is,, how much of the media is destroyed by this scandal? It reminds me of Rather gate, or Drudge breaking the Lewinsky scandal. Or the rise of Fox News. The MSM never recovered from those blows.
No, not really. Blogs have been tracking what Trump have accomplished in the last 10 months, so I’m not going to bother listing it again. Go look if there’s interest. Needless to say, the MSM and #NeverTrumpers haven’t wanted to track it.
Disagreeing with what Trump has done thus far is fair game.
However, given that the whole of government seems to be against him, stating that he’s getting nothing done is a profoundly unfair and lazy criticism of him.
This is what I’m still wondering about as well.
Why is now the point at which it’s suddenly okay for the lefties to out and bury HW? Which person(s) who are even more powerful than HW gave the go-ahead on this?
The trend is strong: newspaper revenues down and declining, print magazines mostly gone, TV networks declining. On the other hand, Netflix and Amazon Prime are strong, while Google and Facebook dominate on-line advertising. It makes for fierce competition between new and old media.
The bombshell Weinstein story causes people to wake up and notice the media landscape--notice what had escaped notice for some time.
Both hated and feared for the secrets they kept, and pretty much friendless.
No one mourned Hoover, Harvey's not coming back either.Replies: @Ivy
It is a monument to greed. Harvey Whine Stein was greedy for what he had not earned – the most intimate of human interactions with attractive women.
Weinstein was motivated by avarice – and vice is the coin of the realm in the world of the Left. I’ll bet Harvey still doesn’t understand how all this happened. After all, everyone who pays the danegeld is surprised when their protection money fails them.
Sexual harassers being brought down is part of a New Era, if you were born yesterday.
"It's over, except for one. The serial sexual harasser in the White House."
Serisly, guyz, he's the only one left. It was all fun and games when it was Fox News and a black who spoke out of school, but Harvey had to be sacrificed for a reason! A Hollywood mogul can't go down without it meaning something.
The long arc of the history of sexual harassment has been leading to the downfall of President Trump. That's the best Narrative possible for the fall of Weinstein.Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Russ, @anonymous
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha! Good one guest!
Part of the problem is Harvey is so Goddamned ugly and the woman are so beautiful. If Harvey look more like Bill Clinton and the woman looked more like Paula Jones there might have been away to fight back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AG1n_99bIk
Her sheer Englishness never fails to amuse me, having come out of, well, someone who came out of Akron, Ohio.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @El Dato, @The True and Original David
Problem with Weinstein is he's too fat. A guy doesn't have to look pretty. Consider Charles Bronson and Anthony Quin.
Weinstein does look manly, and he could get by on that. Problem is he's grossly fat.
“Strange contracts pre-dating us would suddenly surface, book deals with no deadline attached authored by attractive or nearly famous women, one I recall was by the stewardess on a private plane. ”
No way of knowing whose private plane. But that sure sounds like he brought a juicy item from someone, or had a paid pair of eyes on that plane.
But then again I’m sure he could have just bribed her with cash, with no piece of paper attached.
Eh, I dunno, maybe it was what it said on the label, an interesting set of experiences that might be turned into a book. Or maybe some of his paid personal side action.
Just can’t tell.
This company's strategy was pretty clever.
So….why is this happening?
Jewish, liberal and rich, he’s above the law. There must a reason why this is happening because the establishment doesn’t start hurting itself for no reason. Somewhere, someone made a decision.
Either someone more powerful or cleverer than him is getting rid of him for personal reasons…
or…he’s done much, much worse than we think and all this was timed cleverly to be out of the news cycle when all of that surfaces. Basic pr: you spin until things get too serious to hide, and then you make sure that the imprint in the public’s mind is made about the smaller of the misdeeds rather than the larger. Sure, it’ll all come out in the end, but then we’ll have moved on to something else. The damage to The Cause is minimized.
I can not think of a third reason. My money’s on nr 2.
That must be one tasty ‘narrative cake’:
Read for yourself how the Pakistani child rapists used our good nature and over-eagerness to placate them against us.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9e/87/e7/9e87e78935ae0422d5c0a0945a268d2c.jpg
Read for yourself how the Pakistani child rapists used our good nature and over-eagerness to placate them against us.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_-7skiUIAAKHzO.jpgReplies: @eah, @AndrewR
http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/quizzical-emoticon.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMBKolzW0AA8_Lw.jpg
Won't do any good of course while they adhere to their idiot ideas.Replies: @Barnard
Do they have an up and coming generation? Who would be included in it?
In the UK they clearly need stronger ‘cakes’.
Good point. And if an actual book emerges and sells, well that’s a nice cherry on top.
It's a good article but I did find myself asking the whole time why, if Smith knew all about the Weinstein rape (and liberal media coverup thereof) story in advance, he wasn't the one to break it. Which somewhat undermines the outraged tone he uses describing the coverup.
Some charitable potential explanations:
* Not enough sources were willing to go on the record against Weinstein, or at least not enough would go on the record for a perceived political hit job in a conservative (by Hollywood standards, not ours) mag like WS.
* The WS editors thought it would be outside their purview as an opinion mag, or that they couldn't afford to fight a defamation suit.
* Smith was working on the story, but the NYT beat him to publication.
And less charitable:
* He wasn't actually as in-the-know about Weinstein as he claims, and only after the story broke did he start filling in the blanks from past conversations and new interviews.
* He wasn't previously interested in pursuing the story, or assumed (probably correctly) it would be a Cassandra truth if broken by a conservative opinion mag.
* The Joo, Joo people here will say Bill Kristol was protecting Weinstein. I seriously doubt there's any love lost between Kristol and Weinstein (producer of Michael Moore's films, amongst countless other anti-Bush diatribes).
On a related subject, it's a shame Carrie Fisher died before she could testify about how Moore chained her up in a metal bikini on his pleasure raft.Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Seamus Padraig
Thanks for the mental image. Now let me return the favor: https://www.facebook.com/PaulJosephWatson/photos/a.1743830158977797.1073741827.242174545810040/1818673744826771/?type=3&theater
I will drink the wine while it is warm.
And never let you catch me,
Looking at the sun.
What does that even mean?
Has anyone else noticed that all the perverts are white men?
No wonder white girls crave Black Men
Bill Cosby is also, I'm told , a member of the non white community .
Mind you I grant you that Bill Clinton -the "first black President "- is genetically white
“Part of the problem is Harvey is so Goddamned ugly and the woman are so beautiful. If Harvey look more like Bill Clinton and the woman looked more like Paula Jones there might have been away to fight back”
How many more women (and men) are there who give in to the demands of producers and directors who have the advantage of being slightly less repulsive than Weinstein? Given that so many people in Hollywood have circled the wagons to defend him you know there’s a Catholic priests level of abuse going on – far worse, in fact.
Sexual harassers being brought down is part of a New Era, if you were born yesterday.
"It's over, except for one. The serial sexual harasser in the White House."
Serisly, guyz, he's the only one left. It was all fun and games when it was Fox News and a black who spoke out of school, but Harvey had to be sacrificed for a reason! A Hollywood mogul can't go down without it meaning something.
The long arc of the history of sexual harassment has been leading to the downfall of President Trump. That's the best Narrative possible for the fall of Weinstein.Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Russ, @anonymous
“The long arc of the history of sexual harassment has been leading to the downfall of President Trump. That’s the best Narrative possible for the fall of Weinstein.”
Pfft. As anyone save for pink twat-heads milling aggrieved in the DC streets in late January 2017 can understand from the context, Trump was talking to Billy Bush in the mid-2000s about groupies. Long a real estate player, Trump wasn’t truly a grade-A celebrity until “The Apprentice” debuted; his comments to Bush — admittedly vulgar — moreso reveal an amazement with the magnetism of celebrity to groupies. In all honesty, Tina Brown should be most greatly chafed by the very existence of groupies, given what those sisters of hers will do to grasp a sliver of male celebrity attention. From Tina Brown’s perspective, better to attempt a weak case against Trump than to deal with the distinctly Weinsteinian antics of the husbands of ultimate DC power couple Hillary and Huma.
If he only followed the advice of Little Little Miss Muffett he wouldn’t be in this jam, now would he?
Her sheer Englishness never fails to amuse me, having come out of, well, someone who came out of Akron, Ohio.
Basically a personal wishlist in disguise. A phenomenon of our times.
Good looks though.
He doesn’t like shaking hands…and he prefers being a loner. He is a very intense man…and very guarded and private. He has good manners but lacks social skills – he does not like to “work a room.” He is a homebody that ignored quite a lot of the social life in NYC in the late 80’s, early 90’s. Because he is sort of an enigma, people hate him; hate Melania, his children, even more. People hate what they don’t understand. And, people hate very wealthy people who are a bit odd….don’t conform, are somewhat insular, or talk funny, like Trump does. Media keeps saying he is so thin-skinned, but they know that is total BS…they are just annoyed that he won’t stop tweeting. He won’t submit, and deflects ridicule and daily insults….and that is classically, how bullies become even more enraged. He is sort of a fortress island.
How was Weinstein responsible for making Hillary the only viable candidate?
“It’s over, except for one. The serial sexual harasser in the White House.”
My, how fast these leftists forgot about their old buddy Bill Clinton, the guy who messed around with a 22 year old intern in the Oval Offices and completely got away with it after sending his goons to paint her as crazy and the special investigator as evil. What happened “power differential”? Isn’t that one of the main digs against Weinstein?
Hollyweird rushed to Clinton’s defense: they offered million dollar rewards for dirt on republican congressmen, they slimed Lewinsky as crazy, attacked Ken Starr as evil in television shows, made movies tangentially related to the incident (blaming republicans), insinuated that Americans were stupid for thinking that it was a big deal because – you know – the French don’t think it’s an issue and they are smarter than stupid ‘Muricans, painted republicans as anti-sex prudes who weren’t hip and cool like Clinton was, etc.
“The serial sexual harasser in the White House.”
How many harassment cases has Trump settled? Is it okay to just lie about people now?
The whole "'twas a shocking thing" media circus that followed was retarded beyond all limits, then the definition of "sex" and "is" got discussed, it was basically time to euthanize or seriously rough up most of the people "writing" about "politics" or "working" in "politics" back then.
I remember the Economist calling for Clinton to go. Because he lied publicly over a wet stain? Christ almighty. It comes really far below most everything on the rap sheet.Replies: @Hibernian, @guest
Back in the 1980s or 1990s Playboy ran a joke about Trump.
Trump is on an elevator and a beautiful woman gets on. “Mr. Trump, I really admire you,” she says, “and I’d like to have sex with you.” Trump the workaholic tycoon responds, “what’s in it for me?”
It’s quite possible that there aren’t any sex scandals involving Trump out there to be found.
No wonder white girls crave Black MenReplies: @sb
Harvey Weinstein , Woody Allen, Roman Polanski are Jewish .
Bill Cosby is also, I’m told , a member of the non white community .
Mind you I grant you that Bill Clinton -the “first black President “- is genetically white
Hey, that was narrated by the immortal Ernie “Ghoulardi” Anderson
“loner,” “very guarded and private,” and “ignored quite a lot of the social life in NYC in the late 80′s, early 90′s” are about the last three phrases I’d ever use to describe DJT…
Americans really are babies who need a strong father. Because, that is what you want, snorlax...you want some kind of leader...because you don't have those skills in yourself, to fight, and you think Trump does not have them, either. So, declare that you and your faction are losers.Replies: @Lagertha
“So in short, there is a lot of reason for outrage at Trump.”
Trump is in the process of destroying his presidency, as I and others feared he would do after he attacked Syria. Instead of focusing on important things, he’ll get bogged down in tax cuts and healthcare. In the end, it will be Trump himself who brings down his administration:
No real movement on renegotiating NAFTA
Foolishly sabotaging the Iran deal with no replacement, leading the world to either rebuke the US or the US to repeat the Iraq War disaster with Iran (if that happens, the GOP should just be banned and put out of its misery)
Widening our involvement in Afghanistan
Antagonizing the Russians over Syria
Disastrous tax cuts for the rich – even worse than Bush’s tax cuts
Embarrassing himself over North Korea
Few accomplishments on illegal immigration (maybe DACA, we’ll see, but I’ll remain skeptical until I see it)
No reduction in legal immigration
No HB1 Visa reform
And repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement…which will certainly lead to millions losing their health insurance.
There’s plenty of reason to be disappointed in Trump, as the commentor above suggested. Only a zealot would label that guy’s comment as “troll.” 2018 and 2020 could be blood baths if the Dems weren’t so determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
He’s done a few good things (rejecting the TPP, Paris Climate Accords, tranny bathrooms, and general moral support in the Culture Wars), but if he’ll support such a disastrous tax cut for the rich scheme, don’t think that his new Goldman Sachs buddies can’t convince him to eventually sign onto the TPP. In fact, there was a story a few months ago of Kushner helping to sabotage NAFTA negotiations.
And yeah, I get that the Deep State is against him, but it wasn’t the Deep State that made him push unpopular economic and foreign policies. Those are all unforced errors on his part.
It's that complaining in this way about an administration where Jeff Sessions is the AG and Stephen Miller is in the White House whispering in the President's ear is an act of absurd, troll-like arrogance.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
“How was Weinstein responsible for making Hillary the only viable candidate?”
1. Helped her raise a lot of money
2. Helped her win California
I had a politician tell me once that the people who hated him most were the people that were angry he wasn’t abusing his power the way they’d abuse his power if they had it.
My, how fast these leftists forgot about their old buddy Bill Clinton, the guy who messed around with a 22 year old intern in the Oval Offices and completely got away with it after sending his goons to paint her as crazy and the special investigator as evil. What happened "power differential"? Isn't that one of the main digs against Weinstein?
Hollyweird rushed to Clinton's defense: they offered million dollar rewards for dirt on republican congressmen, they slimed Lewinsky as crazy, attacked Ken Starr as evil in television shows, made movies tangentially related to the incident (blaming republicans), insinuated that Americans were stupid for thinking that it was a big deal because - you know - the French don't think it's an issue and they are smarter than stupid 'Muricans, painted republicans as anti-sex prudes who weren't hip and cool like Clinton was, etc.
"The serial sexual harasser in the White House.”
How many harassment cases has Trump settled? Is it okay to just lie about people now?Replies: @anonymous, @El Dato
They also created the political action group Move-On, whose name was taken from their exhortation that we should all “move on” with the Bill Clinton stuff.
“On top of that, what percentage of the projects that never come fully to fruition but for which somebody got paid are, basically, bribes/rewards for staying on Team Liberal despite learning about your teammates?”
A somewhat similar example was with the actress Sondra Locke in the early ’90’s. She agreed to drop her palimony suit vs. Clint Eastwood, in exchange for directing a couple of projects for Warner Bros. that she would develop (she had already developed/directed two films that WB released). After three years and with all of her project ideas rejected, (around thirty total including one which later served as basis of the film Junior, starring Arnold), she sued again, this time WB as well as Eastwood. And she won.
Turned out that WB was basically paying Locke for three years on Eastwood’s behalf to basically go away and not direct anything on screen. Film Historian Patrick McGilligan (as well as Locke in her autobiography) covers these lawsuits in fuller detail. In one sense this is a case of a major studio standing by one of its biggest stars ever at the expense of ruining an actress/director’s career.
In light of so many films that do get greenlit and produced that are obvious clunkers it’s hard to understand that at least a couple of Ms. Locke’s project ideas couldn’t have been re-worked and made, especially when at least one of them was eventually made at another studio by an A-lister.
Just like with Donald “Sterling” Tokowitz, f-ing White males are going to take the blame for f-ing jewish male behavior. The crosshairs are already shifting to Ben Affleck. All Haven Monahans are sexual harassers by definition now because of Pervicane Harvey.
You gotta love the pervy twist to it.
CFNM. Here is a quote from Wikipedia
There is a very ‘subby’ element to it.
It doesn’t fit with the narrative of Sexual Harassment. The ‘theoretical’ archetype is a physical dominant male ‘taking’ a woman using power instead of physical force.
If the harasser has taken a submissive role (expose himself and ask for a massage?), the power exchange wrecks the story.
I haven’t really read much about it. There are the rape allegations but it’s the subby thing that seems the most credible. The ‘massage’ is a common ekement. If we assume that on occasion it worked (exposing himself/asking for massage) — a woman who complied to the request has a difficult ‘victim’ story to tell. Why wouldn’t she just say that he physically forced himself on her? Who would willing to admit that they ‘did him’ for their career?
Trump is in the process of destroying his presidency, as I and others feared he would do after he attacked Syria. Instead of focusing on important things, he'll get bogged down in tax cuts and healthcare. In the end, it will be Trump himself who brings down his administration:
No real movement on renegotiating NAFTA
Foolishly sabotaging the Iran deal with no replacement, leading the world to either rebuke the US or the US to repeat the Iraq War disaster with Iran (if that happens, the GOP should just be banned and put out of its misery)
Widening our involvement in Afghanistan
Antagonizing the Russians over Syria
Disastrous tax cuts for the rich - even worse than Bush's tax cuts
Embarrassing himself over North Korea
Few accomplishments on illegal immigration (maybe DACA, we'll see, but I'll remain skeptical until I see it)
No reduction in legal immigration
No HB1 Visa reform
And repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement...which will certainly lead to millions losing their health insurance.
There's plenty of reason to be disappointed in Trump, as the commentor above suggested. Only a zealot would label that guy's comment as "troll." 2018 and 2020 could be blood baths if the Dems weren't so determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
He's done a few good things (rejecting the TPP, Paris Climate Accords, tranny bathrooms, and general moral support in the Culture Wars), but if he'll support such a disastrous tax cut for the rich scheme, don't think that his new Goldman Sachs buddies can't convince him to eventually sign onto the TPP. In fact, there was a story a few months ago of Kushner helping to sabotage NAFTA negotiations.
And yeah, I get that the Deep State is against him, but it wasn't the Deep State that made him push unpopular economic and foreign policies. Those are all unforced errors on his part.Replies: @IHTG
The problem isn’t just that this assessment of the administration’s achievements is wrong.
It’s that complaining in this way about an administration where Jeff Sessions is the AG and Stephen Miller is in the White House whispering in the President’s ear is an act of absurd, troll-like arrogance.
As so often – shere brilliance on the iSteve side.
(I’ve just read the summary of the European press about Weinstein – all in all: Nothing comes close to this sharp a n d tongue in cheek analysis here. Great. Perfect. Thoughtful. One more masterpiece.
(If there would be an exclusive Access Pass or some such to unz.com/iSteve for lets say – 100 Euros/ month, I’d be really tempted. Ok – I wouldn’t buy it. Sigh. Hopefully at least not too often. Unfortunately, I’m too far away from being rich. – – Funny thing is, though: Nobody has to make the lets say 1500/dollars/yr. subsciption. Thanks, thanks a lot, Steve Sailer (& Ron Unz)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AG1n_99bIk
Her sheer Englishness never fails to amuse me, having come out of, well, someone who came out of Akron, Ohio.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @El Dato, @The True and Original David
Who is this? She looks like she could be daughter of Chrissie Hynde and Sir Ray Davies.
She looks more like Ray in that YT clip but more like Chrissie in this pic:
http://cdn-02.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/article29848188.ece/9f9b5/AUTOCROP/w620h342/PANews%20BT_3370b4d9-e990-417d-a0a0-83cf28b03f51_I1.jpgReplies: @Anonymous
https://twitter.com/TinaBrownLM/status/918593578171092993Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
Bushnell’s hilarious subheading:
Her only example is a friend of hers who found Harvey’s money sexy. Textbook “hamster” rationalization of whoredom:
It seems that Harvey Weinstein and Ta-Nehisi Coates have a similar problem with women and (liberal) whites, respectively. It’s not enough to benefit from mutual ‘transactional’ relationships, because actual love and real respect will never be forthcoming. Women only want to interact with Harvey because of what he will give them (financially or career-wise) and the public ‘adulation’ of TNC by liberal whites more than anything serves them as a way to virtue signal and self-congratulate. Both men are merely vehicles towards goods wanted by others—and the men themselves are on some level aware that they are inherently ridiculous, thus the rage they have for the world. Fame and money won’t assuage that kind of resentment.
P.S., Nice pic. There must have been coke in that stubble.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9e/87/e7/9e87e78935ae0422d5c0a0945a268d2c.jpg
Read for yourself how the Pakistani child rapists used our good nature and over-eagerness to placate them against us.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_-7skiUIAAKHzO.jpgReplies: @eah, @AndrewR
I don’t even feel bad for the English. This is all entirely self-imposed. It’s like once they switched off the Colonizer mode, they switched on the Colonized mode. The idea of being neither colonizer nor colonized is utterly alien to the English mind.
Not even the underage English girls sexually brutalized by Paki scum? -- maybe just a little?
Gluttony, rather.
Though the Jewish verdict appears to be there was also the desire to have revenge on the shiksas. Better then to be and do the physically disgusting, or possibly even reprllent. (Podhoretz as yet withholds his judgement.)
Steve, it’d a great time to re-volley that tweet.
Why is now the point at which it's suddenly okay for the lefties to out and bury HW? Which person(s) who are even more powerful than HW gave the go-ahead on this?Replies: @Stealth, @Forbes, @anon
My sentiments exactly. I’m too cynical to believe this scandal is entirely what it appears to be.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN IS A JEW AND A SICKO AND A DEMOCRAT:
https://twitter.com/jpharley3000/status/919201976164016129
Being the driving force behind a political campaign is not the same as being responsible for a single event happening or decision being made. The evidence is overwhelming that Harvey Weinstein put his full weight behind Hillary Clinton. Did he flick a switch and make her the Democratic candidate? No but he used his resources to make things go that way.
Great thought. I wondered if this was some shot across the bow at the President, as if to warn him that he is next if he doesn’t simply step aside.
Oh, then it IS a woman? Seriously wasn’t sure at first. “Pat” from SNL type of thing.
My, how fast these leftists forgot about their old buddy Bill Clinton, the guy who messed around with a 22 year old intern in the Oval Offices and completely got away with it after sending his goons to paint her as crazy and the special investigator as evil. What happened "power differential"? Isn't that one of the main digs against Weinstein?
Hollyweird rushed to Clinton's defense: they offered million dollar rewards for dirt on republican congressmen, they slimed Lewinsky as crazy, attacked Ken Starr as evil in television shows, made movies tangentially related to the incident (blaming republicans), insinuated that Americans were stupid for thinking that it was a big deal because - you know - the French don't think it's an issue and they are smarter than stupid 'Muricans, painted republicans as anti-sex prudes who weren't hip and cool like Clinton was, etc.
"The serial sexual harasser in the White House.”
How many harassment cases has Trump settled? Is it okay to just lie about people now?Replies: @anonymous, @El Dato
Actually, there was nothing particularly reprehensible in this but they should have gotten a room.
The whole “’twas a shocking thing” media circus that followed was retarded beyond all limits, then the definition of “sex” and “is” got discussed, it was basically time to euthanize or seriously rough up most of the people “writing” about “politics” or “working” in “politics” back then.
I remember the Economist calling for Clinton to go. Because he lied publicly over a wet stain? Christ almighty. It comes really far below most everything on the rap sheet.
That's one way to describe perjury.
Great piece, Steve.
HARVEY WEINSTEIN IS A JEW AND A SICKO AND A DEMOCRAT
GEORGE CLOONEY IS IN BED WITH HARVEY WEINSTEIN ON BLACKLISTING:
https://twitter.com/occdissent/status/919090489521004544
Part of the problem is Harvey is so Goddamned ugly
Problem with Weinstein is he’s too fat. A guy doesn’t have to look pretty. Consider Charles Bronson and Anthony Quin.
Weinstein does look manly, and he could get by on that. Problem is he’s grossly fat.
More from Tina Brown’s article:
An Italian mobster who knew how to joo ’em down, no wonder he was the most successful.
No way of knowing whose private plane. But that sure sounds like he brought a juicy item from someone, or had a paid pair of eyes on that plane.
But then again I'm sure he could have just bribed her with cash, with no piece of paper attached.
Eh, I dunno, maybe it was what it said on the label, an interesting set of experiences that might be turned into a book. Or maybe some of his paid personal side action.
Just can't tell.Replies: @EdwardM
As other posters have mentioned, two problems with this: (1) a simple cash payment in exchange for silence, or whatever, would be hard to enforce and (2) a business transaction can go on the books of the company.
This company’s strategy was pretty clever.
Heck the Russian thing is going nowhere, Robert Mueller might as well get started on the next impeachment potential.
Trump’s Iran fixation, fawning of Israel and Saudi Arabia, purely symbolic action on immigration, and stupid “fix” for ObamaCare that will end up sending health insurance skyrocketing for middle class self-employed Americans should get him popular with the left, too bad they’re still busy hating on him, no matter what he does.
This was the first issue for Talk magazine in September, 1999. Amusing in a number of ways.
P.S., Nice pic. There must have been coke in that stubble.Replies: @Another Realist, @Forbes, @JohnnyWalker123
Every rich man is sexy in his own way. Bill Gates is sexy in a nerdy kind of way. Harvey is sexy in a grotesque, sleazy, creepy kind of way.
Didn’t even think of that. That would explain why there was even a book deal for a flight attendant.
All book deals for leftist politicians are a sham, just another way for the leftist run amok publishing industry to funnel more money to the politician’s coffer. No way Obama’s upcoming book is going to sell $65m worth. His highest grossing book to date “Audacity of Hope” only sold $8.8m worth. If they thought they could cash in on his “pristine”, media polished fantasy filled “legacy”, they are in for a surprise. Obama’s legacy is Trump, period. The Obamas’ 15 minutes are over. Penguin is going to lose their shirt.
I’m still convinced that Clinton and Obama are totally worth their multi-million dollar advances. Nothing shady there, no sir.
Harvey Weinstein brought wealth and fame to these women. All he wanted in return is a little appreciation. He is the victim here.
I believe you are correct. It’s Natalie Hynde.
She looks more like Ray in that YT clip but more like Chrissie in this pic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AG1n_99bIk
Her sheer Englishness never fails to amuse me, having come out of, well, someone who came out of Akron, Ohio.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @El Dato, @The True and Original David
> Women giving advice to men. That they could only reasonably give when 20 years older.
Basically a personal wishlist in disguise. A phenomenon of our times.
Good looks though.
P.S., Nice pic. There must have been coke in that stubble.Replies: @Another Realist, @Forbes, @JohnnyWalker123
Women find powerful men extremely sexy–and money is usually the source of that power. Fame is similarly sexy, as in rock stars, actors, athletes–in other words, performers. Fame. Money. Power. That’s what attracts women. Good looking/handsome is waay down the list–women don’t want to compete with their man/consort regarding who gets attention in the looks department.
Powerful/wealthy men are sought after because they can do favors. Nobody finds Weinstein or Cosby to be "hot." They're just ugly dudes with a lot of cash and clout. They known they can take advantage of that and sexually exploit others, but nobody actually wants to sleep with guys like that.
Fame is sexy if it's paired with desirability. If your music/acting portrays you as being a highly desirable man, people will blindly accept that. People tend to blindly accept whatever teevee tells them about politics, current events, the world around them, and (yes) the sexual market. So if teevee says Justin Bieber is the sexiest man in America, people buy that up.
Of course, what teevee sells has to actually sound somewhat plausible......... Some people might believe teevee's portrayal of Justin Bieber as being the sexiest man in America. No one would ever buy the portray of Weinstein or Cosby as sexy.
The point is that if you have good looks, you'll do very well with ladies. If you have looks and are also portrayed as super sexy on tv, then you get groupies swarming you whenever you perform (see: Justin Bieber or Tom Cruise). If you have fame/wealth/power without being seen as desirable, you'll do well too. Just be prepared to deal with lots of avaricious, status-seeking prostitutes. Depending on how clever you are, either you "win" (see: Weinstein and Cosby for most of their careers) or they "win" (see: Donald Sterling).Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Forbes
It's a really good question of all these people. Sharon Waxman claimed the NYT suppressed her article, but her editor at the NYT asked why she didn't write after she left the Times over the next decade plus.Replies: @Forbes
Waxman writes like she was some kind of hero–but she never wrote about Weinstein until someone else broke the story–and she wasn’t even paid hush money…
Why is now the point at which it's suddenly okay for the lefties to out and bury HW? Which person(s) who are even more powerful than HW gave the go-ahead on this?Replies: @Stealth, @Forbes, @anon
The story came out because media gatekeepers no longer control the gates. On-line reporting and social media have swamped the legacy media of NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC. Ad spending/media revenues are effected through many venues that didn’t exist a decade ago.
The trend is strong: newspaper revenues down and declining, print magazines mostly gone, TV networks declining. On the other hand, Netflix and Amazon Prime are strong, while Google and Facebook dominate on-line advertising. It makes for fierce competition between new and old media.
The bombshell Weinstein story causes people to wake up and notice the media landscape–notice what had escaped notice for some time.
The whole "'twas a shocking thing" media circus that followed was retarded beyond all limits, then the definition of "sex" and "is" got discussed, it was basically time to euthanize or seriously rough up most of the people "writing" about "politics" or "working" in "politics" back then.
I remember the Economist calling for Clinton to go. Because he lied publicly over a wet stain? Christ almighty. It comes really far below most everything on the rap sheet.Replies: @Hibernian, @guest
He took a national security related telephone call while being serviced by her.
"My answer is ... YES YES DO IT, MORE, DO IT YES"
"Yes, sir" (rings off)
What hard (har!) Trump stories have they come with? Zero. Zip. Nada.
What they have come up with are a handful women looking for money/fame and seeming choirs of ladies willing to testify that he's been the perfect gentleman around him. Also a milquetoast secret recording of him saying women let you grab anything when you're rich and famous, which of course is true. They can't even get his ex-wives to tell any dirt. 2 ex-wives and nothing to be had.
He's got a reputation because he clearly like models. Trump may have also cultivated that persona to be interesting for the camera. To me in that regard, he's the Mr. Darcy of our era. A reputation which may have been earned, but in my opinion does not resemble the man in the slightest.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @MadDog
Trump is wealthy but unlike Harvey, has little to offer women in fame and fortune. The fact that no women sued him or accused him of rape belies the notion he was a predator. There was nothing to be gained by not suing and nothing to lose. No girl seeks fame and fortune working in real estate.
I’m not offended by the tape. Men do speak like that. Women too. Behind closed doors.
We have a right to our privacy. Actions our different. As Bridget Jones said, everyone knows what you put in your diary is fake!
No, way, it’s just the opposite. Good looking men are much more attractive than wealthy/powerful men. In Hollywood, it’s common for women to have “relationships” with powerful director/exec types, but also have a younger attractive male lover on the side.
Powerful/wealthy men are sought after because they can do favors. Nobody finds Weinstein or Cosby to be “hot.” They’re just ugly dudes with a lot of cash and clout. They known they can take advantage of that and sexually exploit others, but nobody actually wants to sleep with guys like that.
Fame is sexy if it’s paired with desirability. If your music/acting portrays you as being a highly desirable man, people will blindly accept that. People tend to blindly accept whatever teevee tells them about politics, current events, the world around them, and (yes) the sexual market. So if teevee says Justin Bieber is the sexiest man in America, people buy that up.
Of course, what teevee sells has to actually sound somewhat plausible……… Some people might believe teevee’s portrayal of Justin Bieber as being the sexiest man in America. No one would ever buy the portray of Weinstein or Cosby as sexy.
The point is that if you have good looks, you’ll do very well with ladies. If you have looks and are also portrayed as super sexy on tv, then you get groupies swarming you whenever you perform (see: Justin Bieber or Tom Cruise). If you have fame/wealth/power without being seen as desirable, you’ll do well too. Just be prepared to deal with lots of avaricious, status-seeking prostitutes. Depending on how clever you are, either you “win” (see: Weinstein and Cosby for most of their careers) or they “win” (see: Donald Sterling).
P.S., Nice pic. There must have been coke in that stubble.Replies: @Another Realist, @Forbes, @JohnnyWalker123
TLDR: I find it sexy when men give me money and presents.
It’s the art world, too.
http://mileswmathis.com/launder.pdf
I always laugh when someone calls the United States a meritocracy.
Paula Jones looks like a hooker. Maybe that’s one reason why people cut Bill some slack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AG1n_99bIk
Her sheer Englishness never fails to amuse me, having come out of, well, someone who came out of Akron, Ohio.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @El Dato, @The True and Original David
Good lord. Basically, don’t say, basically, anything to her, basically…unless you’re Christian Grey, of coss.
“Should we bomb them, President Clinton?”
“My answer is … YES YES DO IT, MORE, DO IT YES”
“Yes, sir” (rings off)
the English
Not even the underage English girls sexually brutalized by Paki scum? — maybe just a little?
True, but then that was the point, nobody thought he’d really do it, they just wanted to send a message. When he made that inauguration speech though, I think it shocked people, he was doubling down in a way that didn’t benefit him much (His entire social world was ostracising him and his family) people started to think he might do some of it. Everyone expected him to mellow.
The neocons are still scared because he opened the doors to all sorts of discussions and the rising influence of alternative political movements. The Israelis have no plan. They’ll just keep pushing and hope something viable comes of it instead of violent retribution and international isolation. Bannon should learn this, the Israeli right-wing are not anybody’s friend if he didn’t already. Indeed his administration is also one giant ‘/pol/ was right!’ given his son in law, the extension of a secret little war in Syria when he could have stopped it dead in days and what happened to Bannon.
The alternative would be Clinton enforcing a non-fly zone and Assad being deposed by now. (Which does not mean an end to the civil war or Isis!) And the assured elite project to flood remaining pockets of political resistance with immigrant groups most likely to vote for the new Democrat party.
Trump was a man from a different time, he wasn’t made for the now, but he gave people hope, hope that you could change some things you thought you couldn’t, it will inspire others.
Powerful/wealthy men are sought after because they can do favors. Nobody finds Weinstein or Cosby to be "hot." They're just ugly dudes with a lot of cash and clout. They known they can take advantage of that and sexually exploit others, but nobody actually wants to sleep with guys like that.
Fame is sexy if it's paired with desirability. If your music/acting portrays you as being a highly desirable man, people will blindly accept that. People tend to blindly accept whatever teevee tells them about politics, current events, the world around them, and (yes) the sexual market. So if teevee says Justin Bieber is the sexiest man in America, people buy that up.
Of course, what teevee sells has to actually sound somewhat plausible......... Some people might believe teevee's portrayal of Justin Bieber as being the sexiest man in America. No one would ever buy the portray of Weinstein or Cosby as sexy.
The point is that if you have good looks, you'll do very well with ladies. If you have looks and are also portrayed as super sexy on tv, then you get groupies swarming you whenever you perform (see: Justin Bieber or Tom Cruise). If you have fame/wealth/power without being seen as desirable, you'll do well too. Just be prepared to deal with lots of avaricious, status-seeking prostitutes. Depending on how clever you are, either you "win" (see: Weinstein and Cosby for most of their careers) or they "win" (see: Donald Sterling).Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Forbes
Exactly, and that’s why athletes (both NCAA and professional) get the most hot women of their age cohorts (ca.18-34). For the most part, they are in tip top shape, in the prime of life, and are able to provide the hot women with what they want.
My point (in the earlier thread) was that not every athlete does well. Some do and some don't. If you're a big fat sweaty O-lineman on BumF*ckNowhere University football team, you're outta luck. If you're a handsome strapping star RB on USC, you're getting lots of action. On average, the typical elite NCAA athlete and (most especially) pro athlete does well. There is, however, a large standard deviation in sexual success and somewhat of a winner-take-all dynamic. Surprisingly, even lots of pro athletes pay hookers too, but I'm sure plenty have no problem getting it for free.
There are traits that women find highly attractive (fame, "game," and most especially looks). If you want to do well in the sexual market, you typically need one (preferably multiple) of these traits. If you don't have any of these traits, then you better have a substantial amount of money/power and be willing to be some sort of "sugar daddy."
Honestly, though, what's the point of using your director/exec powers to get sexual favors? It'd be a lot easier for a director/exec to just use an escort agency. Think about it. The economic value of a star actress/actor role in a movie is usually millions of dollars (or maybe at least a few hundred thousand). If the actress is having a few (or even a few dozen) encounters with the director/exec (in exchange for a $1-million role), the director is way overpaying per encounter. A $500/night escort would be way more economical and less likely to land him in trouble.
Now I suppose lots of guys don't like the idea of sleeping with an escort, but guess what? The large majority of aspiring actresses, musicians, and (most especially) models escort on the side anyway.
Perhaps, in many cases, these guys like the idea of getting sex "for free." Unfortunately for Weinstein (and lots of other powerful/wealthy men), they're learning that in the shark-infested waters of the entertainment industry, nothing ever really is "free."
TLDR: Weinstein should've just stuck to paying for escorts.
Yes, it was a long fall from when he was banging Gennifer Flowers.
I don’t think it alters the story, much less wrecks it. We aren’t lacking all concept of submissive aggression, if you will.
Most people instinctually recognize sexual harassment as likely to come from men lacking sexual power. Because if they had it, they wouldn’t need to resort to harassment. Or if they did, the women might be flattered. That’s the basis of the famous SNL sketch with Tom Brady, where the number one rule for avoiding harassment charges was: “Be good looking.”
They’re always telling us, or at least used to, that harassment is about power. Which somehow doesn’t apply with the same force when the woman is on the dominant side of the power differential. Really, it’s the same as how only white people can be racists, because institutional power. Men can be sexual harassers no matter their station in life, because maleness. Homeless men seconds away from death can sexually harass women.
Weinstein had enormous power, and probably even sexual power. I imagine there were women out there who would have slept with him in the absence of pressure. But he probably isn’t an alpha male, and can’t get everyone he pleases, so he resorted to pressure. That’s without taking into consideration his submissive proclivities, which are really neither here nor there on the subject of harassment. Except that people lower on the socio-sexual hierarchy may be more likely to be submissive. But I wouldn’t know.
The whole "'twas a shocking thing" media circus that followed was retarded beyond all limits, then the definition of "sex" and "is" got discussed, it was basically time to euthanize or seriously rough up most of the people "writing" about "politics" or "working" in "politics" back then.
I remember the Economist calling for Clinton to go. Because he lied publicly over a wet stain? Christ almighty. It comes really far below most everything on the rap sheet.Replies: @Hibernian, @guest
“he lied publicly”
That’s one way to describe perjury.
Podhoretz has responded to Weinstein.
Steve, it’d a great time to re-volley that tweet.
She looks more like Ray in that YT clip but more like Chrissie in this pic:
http://cdn-02.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/article29848188.ece/9f9b5/AUTOCROP/w620h342/PANews%20BT_3370b4d9-e990-417d-a0a0-83cf28b03f51_I1.jpgReplies: @Anonymous
She’s a prettier woman than her mother, but her choice of modeling over acting (like her sister) or singing tells us she probably doesn’t have any, or at least much, musical talent and probably doesn’t want to work as hard as acting requires.
It isn't even close.
Look at Liza Minnelli. Look at Frank Sinatra, Jr.
Liza has had an unhappy life so far (marrying four different homosexual men!) and Frank Jr. had a miserable one as well, predeceasing his mother and his older sister, trying to live up to a famous parent.
Both Natalie's parents are stinking rich and she is able to live a live of dilettante activism and comfortable hobnobbing with the affluent and influential: she will probably inherit sizable chunks of two pop songwriting and performing estates before she is very old.
I think she is a smart girl.
Disagreeing with what Trump has done thus far is fair game.
However, given that the whole of government seems to be against him, stating that he's getting nothing done is a profoundly unfair and lazy criticism of him.Replies: @MBlanc46
Like with Caesar’s wife, with the presidency, appearances matter. He needs to be neen more trying to do things, even if, in the final analysis, the opposition can prevent them being done.
Powerful/wealthy men are sought after because they can do favors. Nobody finds Weinstein or Cosby to be "hot." They're just ugly dudes with a lot of cash and clout. They known they can take advantage of that and sexually exploit others, but nobody actually wants to sleep with guys like that.
Fame is sexy if it's paired with desirability. If your music/acting portrays you as being a highly desirable man, people will blindly accept that. People tend to blindly accept whatever teevee tells them about politics, current events, the world around them, and (yes) the sexual market. So if teevee says Justin Bieber is the sexiest man in America, people buy that up.
Of course, what teevee sells has to actually sound somewhat plausible......... Some people might believe teevee's portrayal of Justin Bieber as being the sexiest man in America. No one would ever buy the portray of Weinstein or Cosby as sexy.
The point is that if you have good looks, you'll do very well with ladies. If you have looks and are also portrayed as super sexy on tv, then you get groupies swarming you whenever you perform (see: Justin Bieber or Tom Cruise). If you have fame/wealth/power without being seen as desirable, you'll do well too. Just be prepared to deal with lots of avaricious, status-seeking prostitutes. Depending on how clever you are, either you "win" (see: Weinstein and Cosby for most of their careers) or they "win" (see: Donald Sterling).Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Forbes
Your obsession with Justin Bieber is precious. I see you’ve kept up your subscription to Tiger Beat magazine. LOL.
Bill liked his trashy looking women, that is for sure. I used to wonder about it back in the day, if one were President and of a roving eye, it wouldn’t be Monica Lewinsky, that is for sure.
Why is now the point at which it's suddenly okay for the lefties to out and bury HW? Which person(s) who are even more powerful than HW gave the go-ahead on this?Replies: @Stealth, @Forbes, @anon
HW is in a similar position to that of J. Edgar Hoover.
Both hated and feared for the secrets they kept, and pretty much friendless.
No one mourned Hoover, Harvey’s not coming back either.
New movie pitch: The Samsonite Option, toppling empires or maybe just studios and careers.
“Actually, there was nothing particularly reprehensible in this but they should have gotten a room.”
It’s the hypocrisy that matters. The same kinds of arguments being leveled at Weinstein and Trump were leveled at Clinton. Why are the first two reprehensible but the latter not? Clinton had the power differential, like Weinstein – his minions also slammed Lewinski and Ken Starr with the support of the press and entertainment industry. Like Trump, Weinstein was boorish in his sexual antics. But only Weinstein and Trump were made out to be bad guys. Clinton was excused.
Honestly, I don’t have a problem with either Trump or Clinton’s sexual antics, as long as they weren’t so excessive as to necessitate paying off scores of women + weird stuff like making employees, reporters, etc. watch them shower.
True, Weinstein took things waaaayyy too far. But you’re incredibly naive if you don’t think that lots of little starlets didn’t (1) agree to Weinstein’s advances to boost their careers (2) seek the guy out and basically offer themselves. How many of them are keeping quiet right now? I wonder if that had anything to do with the eerie silence from Hollywood in the immediate aftermath of that NYT story. Afraid they’d be called out for doing the same? Wanting to lay low to avoid accusations themselves?
The prospect of fame and wealth is extremely alluring in our celebrity obsessed culture. The casting couch will go on, but more under the radar. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, just being realistic.
“It’s that complaining in this way about an administration where Jeff Sessions is the AG and Stephen Miller is in the White House whispering in the President’s ear is an act of absurd, troll-like arrogance.”
No, it’s not. Results count. Having the right guys as window dressing doesn’t. For every Jeff Sessions whispering in his ear, there is a Garry Cohn and Jared Kushner arguing for the opposite. If Trump can’t deliver or won’t, largely due to his own unforced errors, what does it matter that Sessions is there?
It's that complaining in this way about an administration where Jeff Sessions is the AG and Stephen Miller is in the White House whispering in the President's ear is an act of absurd, troll-like arrogance.Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
Jeff Sessions has been even more useless as AG than Trump has been as president.
I believe Trump to be a man of his own mind. Therefore, I assume that he’s surrounded himself with men and women who will help the mission, regardless of other qualities.
This “whisper in the ear” business appears about the speaker’s assumptions about the world (and perhaps what he knows to be true of himself) than what is actually happening inside the Trump administration.
It’s interesting to speculate how much Jewish (ethnic) nepotism is owed to improved tolerance of Jewish skullduggery.
Contract publicists.
You have to admit, physical fitness is very Goy. Physical labor, sweating, oy.
Roger Simon from PJ Media (he’s something of a movie/media insider) theorizes that the Weinstein outing signals the Democratic party’s final break from the Clinton machine, and that (somewhat obviously, in that they printed the story) the NYT’s editorial team comprise the ultimate decision-makers for the US left. (LINK)
Makes some sense, I guess, but let’s see if the NYT actually follow up with a change in editorial direction, i.e. will they really start criticizing the Clintons and shift their loving attentions to some new ‘future of the party’ figure?
The American Lib Left wants someone with a Lib Dem family name who looks and acts like the Canadian Prime Minister.
If the MSM won’t cover it, what’s the point?
Bill also had some good-looking ones, like Gennifer Flowers.
Both hated and feared for the secrets they kept, and pretty much friendless.
No one mourned Hoover, Harvey's not coming back either.Replies: @Ivy
Weinstein could pull a Polanski,and he likely knows many more secrets.
New movie pitch: The Samsonite Option, toppling empires or maybe just studios and careers.
What a time to be alive – a time when there are really no decent movies, no cleaver TV sitcoms (the last one I liked was Frazier), no decent music and variety TV shows, popular music is mostly hip hop rap music. California politics is plagues, massive floods and massive wild fires in the same year (how is that possible?). The Soviet Union ~ 1932 had more honest mainstream media.
Our one decent leader is surrounded by Goldman Sachs, RINOs and cuckservatives. That goober from Nebraska has to be the worst.
What the #*$&# am I supposed to do here in the Chicago University that spawned Obama?
I feel like one of the last 8 remaining sane Westerners in Jean Respail’s Camp of the Saints.
That could be – similar to the institutional Lib Left’s long, long fixation with the Kennedy family – the young ones kept dying in stupid ways.
The American Lib Left wants someone with a Lib Dem family name who looks and acts like the Canadian Prime Minister.
Sexual harassers being brought down is part of a New Era, if you were born yesterday.
"It's over, except for one. The serial sexual harasser in the White House."
Serisly, guyz, he's the only one left. It was all fun and games when it was Fox News and a black who spoke out of school, but Harvey had to be sacrificed for a reason! A Hollywood mogul can't go down without it meaning something.
The long arc of the history of sexual harassment has been leading to the downfall of President Trump. That's the best Narrative possible for the fall of Weinstein.Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Russ, @anonymous
On the other hand, they won’t touch The Great Stainmaker from Arkansas.
Interestingly, the Golan and Globus schlock-shop produced a real gem once: the visually and dramatically stunning Runaway Train.
I don’t disagree that if you’re “hot” or super famous, you’re going to get women. So, yes, there are lots of elite NCAA athletes and pro athletes who do very well for themselves.
My point (in the earlier thread) was that not every athlete does well. Some do and some don’t. If you’re a big fat sweaty O-lineman on BumF*ckNowhere University football team, you’re outta luck. If you’re a handsome strapping star RB on USC, you’re getting lots of action. On average, the typical elite NCAA athlete and (most especially) pro athlete does well. There is, however, a large standard deviation in sexual success and somewhat of a winner-take-all dynamic. Surprisingly, even lots of pro athletes pay hookers too, but I’m sure plenty have no problem getting it for free.
There are traits that women find highly attractive (fame, “game,” and most especially looks). If you want to do well in the sexual market, you typically need one (preferably multiple) of these traits. If you don’t have any of these traits, then you better have a substantial amount of money/power and be willing to be some sort of “sugar daddy.”
Honestly, though, what’s the point of using your director/exec powers to get sexual favors? It’d be a lot easier for a director/exec to just use an escort agency. Think about it. The economic value of a star actress/actor role in a movie is usually millions of dollars (or maybe at least a few hundred thousand). If the actress is having a few (or even a few dozen) encounters with the director/exec (in exchange for a $1-million role), the director is way overpaying per encounter. A $500/night escort would be way more economical and less likely to land him in trouble.
Now I suppose lots of guys don’t like the idea of sleeping with an escort, but guess what? The large majority of aspiring actresses, musicians, and (most especially) models escort on the side anyway.
Perhaps, in many cases, these guys like the idea of getting sex “for free.” Unfortunately for Weinstein (and lots of other powerful/wealthy men), they’re learning that in the shark-infested waters of the entertainment industry, nothing ever really is “free.”
TLDR: Weinstein should’ve just stuck to paying for escorts.
I'm not offended by the tape. Men do speak like that. Women too. Behind closed doors.
We have a right to our privacy. Actions our different. As Bridget Jones said, everyone knows what you put in your diary is fake!Replies: @guest
“unlike Harvey, has little to offer women in fame and fortune”
Trump couldn’t make women celebrities, except by marrying them. But he ran a real estate empire. If he was so inclined, he could certainly hand out careers. Or keep them as sugar babies. After the Apprentice, he must have had at least a bit of juice in Hollywood. He also ran in New York/Washington High Society and political circles. He had God knows how many “connections” in business, entertainment, sports, and politics. So there’s that.
Harvey controlled a pipeline to possibly becoming Angelina Jolie, or whomever you prefer. Which for famewhores is like mainlining heroin compared to the oxy Trump had for you to snort. But I’m sure there was plenty Trump could offer hungry up-and-comers, if he wanted.
TLDR: Weinstein should’ve just stuck to paying for escorts.
sexual fetish is always about power. weinstein could pay for anything but when a young vulnerable woman was in front of him and he knew the dilemma he put her in, the fear, the disgust, the hope – that was real sexy power
It's my supposition that in a really healthy society, men like Weinstein tend to meet a certain fate, meted out not by the women but by their families. But absent the chance to live in such a society firsthand it is just that, a supposition.
sexual fetish is always about power. weinstein could pay for anything but when a young vulnerable woman was in front of him and he knew the dilemma he put her in, the fear, the disgust, the hope - that was real sexy powerReplies: @Anonymous
That was always my objection to the idea of the casting couch as a way to get sex-it made for a phenomenally expensive piece of ass to hinge the casting of a multi-million dollar movie on who put out and who didn’t. But if you look at it as about power rather than sex, it makes perfect sense.
It’s my supposition that in a really healthy society, men like Weinstein tend to meet a certain fate, meted out not by the women but by their families. But absent the chance to live in such a society firsthand it is just that, a supposition.
Yes, but: even if the girl had a fair bit of talent, competing with Chrissie Hynde is something that would intimidate most people from even getting up there. As Adam Sobsey recently wrote, she (Hynde mere) is simply the ultimate chick rocker of all time.
It isn’t even close.
Look at Liza Minnelli. Look at Frank Sinatra, Jr.
Liza has had an unhappy life so far (marrying four different homosexual men!) and Frank Jr. had a miserable one as well, predeceasing his mother and his older sister, trying to live up to a famous parent.
Both Natalie’s parents are stinking rich and she is able to live a live of dilettante activism and comfortable hobnobbing with the affluent and influential: she will probably inherit sizable chunks of two pop songwriting and performing estates before she is very old.
I think she is a smart girl.
I am VERY late to commenting on this, but the parallels to Jack Abramoff’s strategy of buying staffers of Republican congresscritters with the promise of large amounts of money fundraising from Indian tribes was peanuts compared to the amount of (legal!) money Harvey could throw around to the influence peddlers to either keep them quiet or bought and paid for years. Once you took his money at that point you’re just “haggling over price”, as the kids say.
The takeaway here is EVERYONE is bought and paid for by someone. (Except Trump? And maybe H Ross Perot? Maybe our host?) No one wonder most Americans have no time for this crapola.
Maybe the left has a point w/ getting money out of politics – let’s just give two candidates the same amount of money and let them run their campaigns like a salary capped NFL team to level the playing field.
True that. Your old fashioned, traditional Rape, was about physical power and sex. Man physically attacks a woman and sexually penetrates her. The police collect evidence and do a rape kit and search for the stranger. The woman is a victim and maybe has her life 1/2 ruined and goes to a support group and maybe overcomes it and tells herself that what doesn’t kill her makes her stronger, etc. Meanwhile she relationships with males — current husband or boyfriend — is damaged. And is further humiliated if she has to testify in court. Subjected to slut shaming by the unenlightened, etc, etc. Hates sex for the rest of her life. PTSD, Triggered.
Your traditional flasher was a pervert. Wearing a raincoat and no pants. And a woman subjected to his exposure was offended. Grossed out. Reported him to the cops. But was expected to register disgust and maybe even laugh about it with her female friends. It was a comedy cliche.
Regardless of how many times it was repeated, rape was always about sex. And power in the sense of physical dominance. And digging into Freudian style motivations, about the male’s display of power to cover up for his inadequacy.
In spite of how many times we were told it was really about power, it was a male forcing his dick into a woman.
Then the enlightened, post modern big thinkers like Susan Brownmiller proclaimed that
. It wasn’t a ‘bug’, it was a ‘feature’ of the patriarchy. Therefore, the violent criminal forcing his dick into a woman is simply the trivially obvious, extreme example of the patriarchy. Cause rape is power, don’t you know. The sex part is beside the point.
Meanwhile sexual harassment has two primary elements. Hostile work environment. The typical form is the workplace was a group of adolescent boys being mean to the females who they treated as if they didn’t belong. A Pirelli Calendar of half naked women on the wall, locker room style jokes, pranks, and being mean. But it wasn’t about individuals but the overall environment.
The other form of harassment was effectively a conflict of interest. Male managers used their authority and power in the organization to pressure women to have sex. The manager was using authority and power which he was granted to be used to benefit the organization to pursue his personal interest. A woman could be coerced into sex. But even in the absence of coercion to pressure women to have undesired sex, consensual sex could lead to charges of favoritism by other women or men. Or the belief that there was favoritism. Outside a corporate workplace, this is the same general argument for professionals to keep their hands off their clients or patients or students. Their professional role is compromised when they are involved in an intimate personal relationship.
So … aggressively submissive? Yes. You are right. It wasn’t simply a corporate flasher, an executive wearing a raincoat and no pants. He pressured women to sit through his pervy routine. And he was a relentless, driven haggler that used his aggressive style to haggle with women to participate.
Flashing a woman isn’t rape. Sexual harassment isn’t rape.
However, I can at least imagine a woman who was confident and had the presence of mind to negotiate a bit with him. Haggle a lot — he seemed to like it. And agree to watch him play with himself. And then smile and go home and shrug it off and tell her girlfriends and laugh about it.
And if everyone knew …. then a woman might not even be that surprised. A lot of these women were worldly and had been photographed nude. Maybe its only me, but if one of these stars agreed to watch him expose himself or showed him her tits or whatever …. I wouldn’t think the less of her.
If an actress agreed to watch the guy debase himself — its weird, creepy, but so what. If the actresses agreed to something that she felt was profoundly humiliating to herself to promote her career? It’s unfortunate. I’m sorry for her. But I don’t see her as much of a victim. And I hope she would skip the victim thing and get on with it.
And the fact that the collective group of women didn’t tweet about it and call him out 20 years ago? Tell Lena Dunham to fuck herself. After all, she was into writing a producing a television program, Girls, where she was deliberately shocking the audience with her nude, fat tattooed body. There was some sort of elaborate justification — haggling if you will — about how it was liberating for millions of dumpy young women. To Dunham, of course, her point was that she WASN’T humiliated by exposing her naked body. Weinstein, no doubt, was relaxed and comfortable on some level with exposing his fat, naked body. There is a shocking lack of shame all around.
That’s why I object to SJW’s getting their panties in a twit about rape, power, patriarchy, and virtue signaling.
It’s about shame and public debasement, and relentlessly pushing the boundaries to normalize the perverse.
Sounds like a job for a covert tag team.
No, but if my daughter is involved, they are also capital crimes.
“The sex part is beside the point.”
Adam Carolla used to do a bit about this “rape is about violence, not sex” thing. He said it’s no different than any other violent crime…except you ejaculate. Just like all the thousands of times in your life you’ve ejaculated without it being sexual.
Imagine you rob a bank. You walk in, pull out a gun, stick it under a teller’s nose, call out, “This is a stick-up! Gimme all your money!”…then you cum. No difference.
Or you lurk in the bushes next to someone’s car. You wait for them to show up, leap out in ambush…cum…then proceed to beat the crap out of them and steal their car. No difference.
Point is, obvious it’s sexual. No one who owns a penis can be under the illusion that one can maintain an erection and reach climax without it being sexual. No one keeps hard in order to deliberately use their member as if it were a club or knife. That ludicrous.
Aside from their penchant for sounding wrong on purpose to attract attention, feminists and their enablers push the “just like any other violent crime” lie because of their belief in the Blank Slate. That’s my theory. There can’t be any biological drive associated with rape, otherwise the behavior runs the risk of being excusable, if not justifiable. At least in a world where “I was born this way,” is a valid excuse (i.e. our world).
Moreso, Rape Culture must be that: a cultural problem. Culture they can fix. (They think .) Merely a matter of rejiggering the way menfolk are brought up. Nothing to do with biological sex, which is only a natural dreamt up by stuffy old men who didn’t want women to enjoy anything but baking cakes and pleasing their men.
And, that is why you are you, and I am I. I am so disgusted with all of these people, who just want nihilism (no neighborhood will be spared).
Americans really are babies who need a strong father. Because, that is what you want, snorlax…you want some kind of leader…because you don’t have those skills in yourself, to fight, and you think Trump does not have them, either. So, declare that you and your faction are losers.
And…yes. I am assuming the politician you met still had not realized the world changed in 1970-75</ whoa, once upon the time , in like, 1975-76, we could be today, like all those rock songs about togetherness and everythingness since 2001. My sons (Millennials) say the 60’s into the early 80’s were the best time for music. Everything else, sucks.
Americans really are babies who need a strong father. Because, that is what you want, snorlax...you want some kind of leader...because you don't have those skills in yourself, to fight, and you think Trump does not have them, either. So, declare that you and your faction are losers.Replies: @Lagertha
Ok, I just have to laugh; Some dumb ass people, low-lives, low IQ, low-born people are still saying: Russia, Russia, Russia! SO funny, these people will someday have on their tombstone: Russia, Russia, Russia???? – I was pure of heart.