March 15, 2016 The biggest difference between whites and blacks Luke Ford No sacred cows.

The biggest difference between whites and blacks

Posted on March 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

From the half-Japanese, half-white blogger Just Not Said:

Many people think that the biggest difference between the races is intelligence. But differences between the races go beyond that; whites with IQ’s of 85 simply don’t act like blacks.

The biggest difference between the races seems to be, in many ways, their levels of inhibition. Inhibitions have many roots: worry about how one will be perceived, one’s performance, one’s social standing, and the future. But the net effect of all those worries is to make us hesitant, install a sort of inner censor, which keeps us from acting on our initial urges.

Alcohol can dull those worries, while also inducing a mild euphoria. I’ve always thought that whites tend to act a little like Asians who’ve had a couple drinks, and blacks tend to act a little like whites who’ve had a couple drinks. This is a tendency, obviously, not a blanket rule. But, on average, when it comes to how uninhibitedly people act, it tends to be true.

Think of some of the traits and behaviors you associate more with blacks than with whites: spontaneously breaking out into a dance, end zone celebrations, making lascivious comments on the street, high rates of violence, an emphatic manner of speaking, performing well on stage, and being warmer and friendlier when so inclined. Put it all together and you’ll see a pattern: the common thread seems to be a lack of inhibition.

If you’ve ever watched one of those Sunday morning cable shows which show services at various churches, it’s hard not to be struck by how differently the parishioners at a black church behave. They’ll cry out, “Amen!” and “Praise the Lord!” with complete abandon, and no self-consciousness whatsoever. Some parishioners spontaneously break out into dance. There are white churches where people handle rattlesnakes and speak in tongues; but those are rarities. And there are certainly black churchgoers who act with more decorum. But, on average, there is a striking racial difference.

The way the black pastors themselves speak is also telling. Their manner of delivery is generally far more forceful, far more emphatic, and far less inhibited. They are far likelier to work up a sweat during a sermon than a white pastor is.

What goes on in church is, in microcosm, what happens in society at large.

Manner of speaking

To accurately transcribe black speech you’d often have to italicize every third or fourth word. Think of the way Al Sharpton speaks, investing all sorts of words with extra, portentous meaning (which they may or may not be able to sustain). There is no sense of shyness, or feeling abashed.

White people-type concerns — like worrying that their voices will crack, or fretting too much about how they’re coming across — rarely seem to enter their minds.

Stage fright

This may be why there are proportionately more good black comedians. There are plenty of whites who are funny, but very few of them are uninhibited enough to get up on a stage and be relaxed to deliver their riffs in front of a large audience without being crippled by self-doubt. Call it shyness, or stage fright, or worry about the reception they going to get. All of those things have an inhibiting effect, which hampers performance.

Richard Pryor, (the young) Eddy Murphy, Chris Rock, and Dave Chappelle were all comedic geniuses, with great material. But what made them great performers wasn’t just their material, it was their ability to be relaxed enough on stage to allow for perfect delivery of that material. Humor does seem to be correlated with intelligence, but blacks have always been able to punch above their weight in that regard. Part of the answer to that has to do with lack of inhibition.

The lack of inhibition may also be partly why blacks are also better singers, on average. Part of singing ability is obviously voice, and also pitch. But getting up on a stage and passionately singing your heart out also takes a certain lack of inhibition.

Body language

Blacks also tend to have more expressive body language. While speaking, they will often punctuate or emphasize their statements with a craning of the neck or exaggerated expressions. And laughter often involves their entire body, jumping around and waving their arms with glee. White laughter may involve convulsing, but it is rarely accompanied by much limb movement.

Clutch performances

This lack of self-doubt and neurosis also translates to better performance on the athletic field. There are significant physical differences between the races that account for blacks outperforming in sports requiring speed and jumping ability. But the subject here is not racial differences in physique, but clutch performance — how an athlete does when the pressure is on. There simply seem to be fewer blacks who choke. Again, this is not a blanket rule; there are plenty of exceptions on both sides. But it seems to be less a part of black nature to worry and obsess as much. Thus, fewer nerves to deal with when the big moment arrives.

One of the more obvious examples of this is Usain Bolt. He clowns around in the starting blocks, even at the World Championships and Olympics, up until right before the race. Then he’s all business for tenor twenty seconds. Then, after his race is over, it’s time to joke and dance again. There simply are no white athletes who give off those sorts of vibes.

Blacks and whites tend to have different styles of victory celebration. The most obvious example of this are the end zone dances by blacks, who are uninhibited in their ebullience. There are whites who imitate such celebrations; but that’s definitely the whites adopting black culture, and not the other way around. A certain style of physical preening seems to come more naturally to blacks.

Boasting

Blacks also tend to be more uninhibited in their egotism. Muhammad Ali was the originator of the line “I am the greatest of all-time!” Since him, a host of black athletes have made similar statements. Think of how black and white athletes act when interviewed after a win. Blacks are more likely to talk about how great they are, whereas whites are far more likely to thank their coaches, or praise their teammates or competitors. This, by the way, doesn’t mean whites are more genuinely humble; they’re just more likely to say what they think they’re supposed to say, rather than exult.

There are certainly white egomaniacs. But blacks seem to have more Kanye Wests and Jaden Smiths per capita than whites have Donald Trumps.

Chattiness

Blacks are rarely shy about talking to strangers. (That briefly famous Hollaback video was unwitting proof of that.) But even apart from men who try to hit on women, blacks tend to be more chatty, even with strangers. When asking someone I don’t know for directions, I’ve often found that whites will react with fear, or at least a little defensiveness, at first; blacks rarely do.

Wherever there is a crowd of blacks, the noise level is usually higher. I’ve heard that both white and Hispanic inmates will tell you that any prison area where blacks predominate is always noisier, with more shrieking, chattering, raucous laughter, and loud music. In movie theaters, blacks will talk while the movie is playing, sometimes even directing their comments to the characters onscreen.

Money

Blacks are more uninhibited with money. You may have heard the expression “black rich,” the definition of which is: to have come into a windfall which is shortly to be spent. Blacks who come into money are far more likely to go out and buy flashy cars, a flashy house, flashy clothes, and flashy bling. This has something to do with why over half of NFL players are bankrupt within two years of leaving the league.

(In all fairness, that also has something to do with young black professional athletes being more likely to have a lot of poor relatives to whom they will be generous — in a spontaneous sort of way.)

In keeping with their more celebratory nature, blacks are also more likely to see anytime as good for a party. We even saw it with President Obama throwing all those celebrity-filled parties in the White House during his first term. Or, look at all of the lavish vacations the Obamas take.

Carpe diem

Whites tend to live in the future; as Voltaire said, “We never live; we are always in the expectation of living.” Horace said, “Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero,” which translates as, “Seize the day, put very little trust in tomorrow.” (The expression is usually shortened to just “Carpe Diem.”) Blacks are more likely to actually live by that philosophy.

Ethnic groups which evolved in colder climates had to think in terms of making it through a long, cold winter. Putting little trust in tomorrow would have had fatal consequences for Stone Age northern Europeans, or northern Asians.

Promiscuity

Blacks tend more towards promiscuity, which is in keeping with their general lack of inhibition. They generally lose their virginity at an earlier age, and have a much higher illegitimacy rate. Again, the reasons for these things are complex, and include, among other things, higher testosterone levels. But both statistics are what you’d expect given the difference in inhibition.

I remember watching Dennis Rodman once on the Howard Stern Show, back when it was televised in the late 90’s. Stern told Rodman to go over and feel up Robin Quivers, his assistant. When Rodman did so, the camera focused on his crotch and it was apparent that he was getting an erection. The lack of inhibition necessary to start getting turned on while on national TV is stunning.

Violence

Another outgrowth of both higher testosterone levels and lower inhibitions is more violence. The rates for blacks in all four major categories of violent crime — murder, assault and battery, rape, and armed robbery — are all roughly eight to ten times higher than the comparable rates for whites. The case can be made that armed robbery is a crime driven by poverty, and there is some truth to that. But committing rape is not a function of poverty, it’s an indication of lack of impulse control.

There’s also a difference in the types of murders the races commit. A black is more likely to commit an impulsive, unplanned killing involving a firearm. A white is more likely, say, to slowly poison his or her spouse to death. (One type of murder is a function of lack of impulse control, the other of evil.)

This is why blacks account for fewer than half of all death penalty convictions even though they commit over half the homicides in this country: premeditated murder carries a stiffer penalty.

Criminals, but not necessarily sociopaths

I’m often asked, is such and such a black criminal a sociopath? I sometimes shrug and say, well, no, not really — he’s just black. His crime may be bad, but at the same time it’s not as if he has all the other sociopathic traits that go along with the impulsiveness — the false emotionality, pathological lying, manipulativeness, destructiveness, disloyalty, bitterness, envy, and hatred. He’s just…uninhibited.

People have asked me if Mike Tyson is a sociopath. On the surface, he would seem a likely candidate: he’s violent, has gotten into frequent trouble, and has seemed at times to be out of control. But as I explained here, Tyson is more noble savage than scheming conniver. He has few brakes on his personality, which is basically just one big primal scream. But he has none of the other characteristics of a sociopath, in fact these days is painfully honest about himself, which is basically the opposite of sociopathy.

This, of course, is not to say there aren’t black sociopaths. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two prominent examples. But, in general, the kind of wanton lack of inhibition which typically indicates sociopathy in a white person often does not indicate the same characteristics for a black.

Mobs

This blog has noted before that white mobs are usually fueled by alcohol, whereas blacks don’t need to be drunk to riot. Expressing displeasure with arson, looting, turning over cars, and throwing rocks at the police are usually the acts of people who, one way or another, are without inhibition.

It always seems that, whatever the black percentage of a local population, a disproportionate number of them will be milling about on the street, joking with each other, panhandling, hitting on women, brazenly smoking grass, etc. The lack of a sense of purpose doesn’t seem to worry any of these men. Nor do they seem particularly concerned about the impression they are creating.

Warmth

Being uninhibited can also mean less artifice. I’ve always had the impression that on those occasions when blacks act warmly toward me, their friendliness is more genuine. With whites, you never know what they’re really thinking: most whites will generally just say whatever it is they think they’re supposed to say at the moment. And I often end up with the impression that what they were really thinking was entirely different.

This may surprise some given what I’ve said elsewhere in this post, but for that reason, I’ve often found blacks — once it’s established that they’re friendly — at some levels to be better company than whites. Whites are far more likely to put on false (socially acceptable) faces; their friendliness is often a matter of social convention rather than goodwill. It’s not real warmth, it’s just good manners. With blacks, it’s actually goodwill. They are uninhibited in the way they like people, too.

Of course, if people don’t fulfill their expected social roles, a society will fall apart. But the price for that is, most people you meet will simply be playing a role: friendly coworker, wise elder, vivacious housewife, polite student. And you often have no idea what’s lurking behind the facade. With blacks, I’ve found there’s usually less of a facade.

Compliments

One area where lack of inhibition is downright endearing is when it comes to giving compliments. As I explained here, blacks give far more effusive — and meaningful — compliments than whites do. White guys are always afraid of appearing gay, so will rarely compliment another guy on his looks, or build, or voice, or attractiveness to women. Instead, they will restrict themselves to compliments about one’s performance on an exam, or one’s team spirit, or other innocuous things that most of us couldn’t care less about. Black guys feel no such qualms, and so will deliver the type of compliment you’ll remember.

If you’re receiving a compliment, uninhibitedly is definitely how you want it delivered.

How blacks feel about whites

It’s hard to blame blacks for thinking of whites as phony. Especially since few whites feel comfortable enough around blacks to say what’s really on their minds anyway. (Not that you can blame whites for that, given the current climate.)

It’s also hard to blame blacks for thinking of whites as being stiff and boring. The best analogy there is how you (whites) feel about Asians: you know they’re smart, and hard-working, and generally won’t cause trouble. But, let’s face it, they’re not a lot of fun to hang out with, and sometimes it almost seems as if they all have the same personality. Well, blacks generally think of whites the same way.

Of course, blacks’ feelings are more complicated than that. Imagine that Asian-Americans used to own your ancestors, and even after they freed them they had two separate sets of laws regarding them and you, with whites as second class citizens. Now, imagine that you’re constantly reminded of this by the media, and constantly told that whatever failings whites show vis-à-vis Asians is due to Asian racism toward you. Now, combine all that with the paragraph above and you get a more complete picture of how blacks feel about whites.

Most people — black and white alike — hold wiggers in contempt; trying to appear what one is not usually evokes that response. But exactly what it is about blacks that the wiggers find so appealing? It seems to be in large part that blacks represent a freer, more spontaneous, less inhibited way of being. This is instinctively appealing for young people who’ve been brought up in a more restrictive, regimented environment. (At some level or other, don’t we all want to let our passions flow more freely?)

Conclusion

Anyway, the point of this post is that many of the behaviors that whites associate with blacks — both good and bad — are all of a piece. And what connects all of those behaviors is lack of inhibition.

You may occasionally wonder why we’re called a multicultural society. Every American has access to the same television shows, the same movies, the same newspapers, and are governed by the same laws and politicians. We speak the same language and go to the same schools and play the same sports. We’re multiracial, yes, but multicultural? Only to the extent this post has just described: the gap between black and white “culture,” really, is mostly just the difference between black and white personality — which is just another way of saying, nature.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off

George Will – Nerd & Big Man

Posted on March 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* A CPAC or three or so ago [George Will] was the keynote speaker and I wound up in his immediate vicinity before the dinner plates came out. What struck me, aside from his tall height, is how…luminescent the guy is. First of all he must have been wearing makeup; second the guy’s hair shimmers like gold, it really does. Anyways he carries himself with the mien of, well, of George F. Will, in the midst of a conservative pilgrimage to his Nation’s Capital. Though you might have been expecting more of a sheer nerd.

But he’s a Big Man, no doubt.

So though Steve’s distinctions are fun to notice, these ideas, they’re all relative. George Will will not so much look like the big man if and when they induct him into the baseball hall of fame, would be my intuition.

* Ah yes the evolution of George F. Will is a book in itself. I mean Statecraft as Soulcraft to the Cato Institute’s favorite columnist; he must have some heck of a memoir in store. I started out an avid reader of his columns, and as he once said of Murray Kempton, the finest practitioner of the columnist’s craft would be Dr. Will himself in my book. But clearly, from his last column on Trump, his style has, well, deteriorated by taking over. Something like what happened to Hemingway:

“His subject had become Ernest Hemingway and he had to keep developing the character. “How do you like it now, gentleman?” was the false-jocose line Lillian Ross heard him say, over and over, about his role in some uninteresting goings-on. The famous Style became performance, began eyeing itself, imitating itself. It developed formulae: flat nouns, short clauses linked by “and.” The day came when he could live with none of this any longer.” -Hugh Kenner

Change that last he to we and you have me. I no longer read George F. Will, though I remember when I thought I always would.

* Will is stuck in the rip current that mainstream conservatives found themselves in after Reagan. They thought that they had successfully carried out a successful revanchist campaign that cemented their place on the political landscape. Meanwhile, the counter-culture had embedded itself in the major cultural institutions and thereafter gained near absolute hegemony in news media, entertainment media, the academy. From there, they metastasized to gain appointments on the boards of museums, professional associations, and so forth – any institution not explicitly “conservative” (and later, even those that are).

Being conservative politically but also temperamentally – of great importance to him both being and being perceived as cultured and erudite – respectability is a sine qua non. And since the entire greater culture is dominated by Leftists and social insurgents they can confer or deny respectability depending upon one’s stated beliefs and behaviors. And so a man who was no doubt scandalized by Bill Haley and the Comets now advocates for the Republican Party to repudiate its position on State solemnized sodomy. He does this, but of course just a moment or two too late for a grant of full respectability – it’s more like a conditional pardon that is granted to him. And so he’s forever struggling to make headway to shore against a prodigious current but being pushed further to sea with every stroke.

So, where is the man? Where is George Will? What has he conserved with all of his gum flapping and spilled ink? What has he served to be other than the agent who consolidates the Left’s radical change and puts further opposition beyond the pale of respectability? Who is he but an older, stodgier, fussier version of any of his interlocutors from twenty five years ago?

In his mind’s eye, he would no doubt identify himself as Thomas More, but we can all see he’s Norfolk, mistaking expediency for “proportion” and propriety:

Of course, even after acceding to the King Norfolk is later sentenced to death but spared only due to the former’s death. And likewise Will had an invitation to speak at a college campus rescinded for failing to accept the paradigm of spectral evidence and denial-as-evidence-of-guilt in the recent campus rape hysteria. They deny him even the respectability for which he’d sell his eternal soul.

* Due to their intellect and methodical nature, a lot of nerds can learn the “big man” type techniques and become very good at them. There are a lot of introvert salespeople who have become very good at their craft because they are students of the game. Public speaking is a skill that can be learned. Interacting with the opposite sex successfully is a skill that can be learned.

Public speaking is something that white guys can excel at in their typical way of planning, kind of like pre-planned dance routines as opposed to impromptu African style dancing. Being able to think quickly on the feet and adapt verbally (like Trump does so well) in a debate is something I think you are mostly born with, though practice does make one better at it. And that is a very helpful “big man” technique.

* I noticed the same thing in high school, college and 20s with certain guys who were, shall we say, good with the ladies. Even if they were fairly masculine in general, they definitely had a feminine side. It’s what let them playfully go back and forth with the ladies.

I tended to do reasonably with women when I treated everything as a game, but I could only maintain that persona for so long, since, in my heart, it wasn’t. But for those “players,” it wasn’t an act. They really liked the game – and so did the women.

* George Will hasn’t been George Will since his first marriage broke down in dramatic fashion (his clothes on the lawn, etc.). All of his sensible social-conservative instincts also went out the window–his religious faith too, I gather. Now, according to George, sodomy and bardashery are akin to left-handedness.

* Most of the men I have known who are successful with women are ultimately quite boring to me as they tend not to be serious.

* Jerry: “No, Elaine and I we’re just discussing whether I could admit a man is attractive.”

Kramer: “Hmm! Oh! Yeah. I’ll tell you who is an attractive man; George Will.”

Jerry: “Really!”

Kramer: “Yeah! He has clean looks, scrubbed and shampooed and….”

Elaine: “He’s smart….”

Kramer: “No, no I don’t find him all that bright.”

Posted in George Will | Comments Off

The White Vote

Posted on March 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* One thing reporters never do when they disparage white voters is to thank them for giving us a functioning democracy. The fact that an all-time blowout of the total white vote for one side was 60% doesn’t seem to get mentioned in the positive light it should. Blacks routinely vote 95% for the democrats. If whites voted like that, we wouldn’t even need to have an election. It would be a forgone conclusion.

“Mr. Romney came close, running up his white vote totals in Southern states such as Mississippi (89 percent), Western states such as Arizona (66 percent) and Plains states such as Kansas (64 percent). But Mr. Obama was more competitive in the battle for the white vote elsewhere, including Colorado (44 percent), Wisconsin (48 percent), Minnesota (48 percent), Iowa (51 percent) and New Hampshire (51 percent).”

Even in MS the white vote did not break for the GOP like the black vote breaks for the democrats. And as we can see in other states, the white vote seems to be a 50-50 proposition which is up for grabs each election cycle.

“If Mr. Trump’s emotion-charged appeals to white voters increase his performance among that demographic, political physics suggests the Democratic nominee might surpass the 80 percent support from nonwhite voters that Mr. Obama attracted in 2012.”

So evidently the rest of the nonwhites averaged 80 percent for one side. Our new democracy is going to be great.

Keep in mind there are about 45 million blacks. If they were their own nation, they’d be on par with Poland. Or they would be larger than Greece, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark combined. Yet they vote 90% plus for one party. Where in the world do that many people vote in those numbers for one party? I recall Saddam had a reelection in Iraq shortly before the Iraq War and won something like 99 percent of the vote. And that was in a dictatorship. Black Americans voting habits are more on par with the citizens of a dictatorship than that of a democracy.

Yet the reporters who bash the whites never give whites the credit they deserve for giving us such a vibrant democracy. Remember we only have contested elections because the white vote seems to respect the process and doesn’t bloc vote. Would it be too hard for the reporters to give them some props?

* Trump picked up the $100 bill laying on the floor by advocating for the interests of the white working class with respect to immigration and trade. There’s another $100 bill laying on the floor and everyone is ignoring it because it requires forthrightly talking about race, that $100 bill is the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Act and this could be a goldmine, like the Willie Horton ads. Do people really want to empower Democrats to destroy their home equity by diversifying their neighborhoods with inner city minorities living in Section 8 housing?

I’m betting going all-in on attacking AFFHA would neutralize anything that the Democrats would do to attract middle and upper class whites.

* If whites routinely voted 90% for one party (like blacks) or 70% for one party (like Hispanics) then America would have long been a one party state. Blacks have been voting for Clinton in the Democratic primaries at what? 70-80% levels? Even in their own party they bloc vote. WTH?

* Trump is the only Republican that can break the Democrat stranglehold on the black vote. He could win 25% of that vote and the reason? – absolute hatred of immigrants, especially Latins among working class blacks. My wife occasionally works in an inner city hospital and sees black patients. Months ago she came home in amazement and asked me: who do these patients, especially the elderly ones, love? Answer? Trump. Why? In one word, Mexicans. Now maybe the relentless media attacks will have an effect, but I doubt it. Due to the changing demographics Trump is probably the only Republican who can win now. Every Republican starts out at minus 10. Trump won’t. Hillary may find the anger of blacks does not help her.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Election Open Thread

Posted on March 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* If he quadruples the Border Patrol (Democrats like increasing the number of Federal employees) and adds the élan of a Teddy Roosevelt like contingent of mounted Border Patrol agents in the areas where a physical fence is deemed “infeasible” due to topography he will come across as a tough-minded strategic thinker with cool cavalry and mounted infantry tactical knowledge (The white guys who’ll put him over the top in the election are quite knowledgable about these sorts of thing.)

* I am predicting something is going to happen to his 757 if he continues to appear to be the nominee. I don’t think it is too hard to mess with some component so that it comes off in flight. I doubt they would want to do an Abe Lincoln on him which would be recorded by thousands of smartphones and turn him into a martyr. The plane crash due to mechanical failure is a possibility.

* The recent beheading of a young Russian girl by a Muslim nanny, who then paraded through Moscow with the head, was mostly ignored by the main Russian news sources – the same ones who went nuts with a fake story of a Russian kid being crucified by Ukrainian Christian “Nazis”. They love reporting Western problems with multiculturalism but according to nationalists they cover up crimes against ethnic Russians in their own country to protect their own multiculturalism.

Posted in America | Comments Off

Chaim Amalek: ‘Is the Washington Post calling on its readers to profile?’

Posted on March 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

WaPo Editorial: Bystanders could have helped prevent the deaths of these two young women

ON THE night that University of Virginia student Hannah Graham disappeared, two people saw her with the man later convicted of killing her. Both noticed something amiss. “He’s gonna [expletive] her up,” one witness said of Ms. Graham’s murderer; he “did not look friendly” was the assessment of another. Neither took action, which should prompt questions — not to cast blame, but to focus attention on the need to educate and empower bystanders to intervene.

New details about the circumstances surrounding Ms. Graham’s murder were revealed in court documents that accompanied the conviction and sentencing of Jesse L. Matthew Jr. In retrospect, it seems obvious that someone should have done something that Friday night in September 2014 when Ms. Graham, 18, disappeared from Charlottesville’s Downtown Mall. Likewise, people who passed by 20-year-old Morgan Harrington, another victim of Mr. Matthew, the night of Oct. 17, 2009, as she stood alone and obviously intoxicated trying to thumb a ride from a concert, probably wish they had acted differently. Law enforcement officials as well as advocates for sexual assault victims pointed to the natural tendency not to get involved; “human inertia” was the label used by one official involved in the Virginia cases.

It’s important, according to those involved in bystander intervention programs, to acknowledge that asking people to step up and do something when they see a problematic or questionable situation can be difficult. Is this really an emergency? If it’s not, won’t I be embarrassed? Why aren’t others taking action? And then there can be uncertainty about what specific action to take.

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off

Ben Shapiro: ‘Our likely nominee is a sexist asshat’

Posted on March 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

I reply on Twitter:

* Calling a woman unwatchable is sexist? When did you become a slur merchant like the left?

* Will you soon start throwing slurs like Islamophobic, homophobic, lookist, ageist, racist (we must destroy their careers!)?

* Does the Torah ever mention the sin of sexism? Where did you get the idea of any such thing as “sexist”?

* When did Orthodox Jews start calling people “asshats”? Is that a common term in the Talmud?

* “He is a real threat, an actual threat, to the livelihoods of many Republicans living in Washington.” – @TuckerCarlson on @realDonaldTrump

Ben Shapiro finds Donald Trump in poor taste. In 2010, Ben Shapiro tweeted: “Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock”

Posted in Ben Shapiro | Comments Off

Murray Rothbard Would Have Loved Donald Trump

Posted on March 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

From Radix Journal:

A few months ago Richard Spencer noted that for all the hate Libertarianism Inc. was giving Donald Trump, the late libertarian polymath Murray Rothbard probably would have liked him and his candidacy quite a bit. Now that Rand Paul has dropped out, libertarians have largely abandoned electoral pursuits, and their institutions are going a bit schizophrenic, like Students for Liberty palling around with the likes of Pussy Riot and the insufferable George Will. Some of the old figures in what was termed “Paleolibertarianism” are even moving into the Trump camp. In light of all of this, let’s remind them that one of their most adored figures had quite a bit to criticize about the Current Year of his day.

Jews

Trump, despite obviously knowing many Jews in his elite New York City circles and having an adored daughter who converted to Judaism, is not afraid to tell the Republican Jewish Coalition:

“I don’t want your money, therefore you’re probably not gonna support me.”

Similarly, Murray Rothbard, despite being Jewish and having been immensely influenced by many Jewish intellectuals (Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand to name just two), delighted in skewering Jewish shibboleths:

Schindler’s List is a movie which has become not only Politically Incorrect but even to be less than worshipful about, since it purports to enable us, for the umpteenth time, to Learn About The Holocaust (the latter term always capitalized to emphasize solemnity and to assert its Absolute Uniqueness in the grisly world historical record of mass murder). And yet anyone who tries to Learn About History by going to a Hollywood movie deserves to have his head examined.

The Rich

Trump has become something of a “class traitor,” (as noted by everyone from the Weekly Standard to the New York Times) railing against the super rich, the job exporters, etc:

The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. They’re paying nothing and it’s ridiculous. I want to save the middle class. The hedge fund guys didn’t build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky.

Murray Rothbard felt the same way. After flirting a bit with Ross Perot’s first presidential candidacy, in no small part because of its Middle American Radical trappings, but more on that later, Rothbard was livid Mr. Perot dropped out (before eventually jumping back in), and noted:

Never trust a billionaire. I have had personal experience of several billionaires, and this was the conclusion that has reluctantly but inexorably forced itself upon me. Never trust them; they are killers of the very dreams they themselves create.

And do not forget, of course, that those “several billionaires” Rothbard spoke of included the infamous libertarian Koch Brothers, who had fallen out with Rothbard decades earlier, and in a state of apoplectic shock of the rise of Trump.

David Duke

The infamous maestro of White identity electoral politics has said some nice things about Trump, much to the media’s delight. And while Trump has disavowed him, the similarities between the two men are undeniably there, and Trump sure was pleased to add Louisiana to his list of victories.

Rothbard in his day defended and even admired David Duke back when he was running for governor of Louisiana, writing in 1992:

It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what’s wrong with any of that?

War

This one is simple, Trump has heroically slammed George W. Bush’s evil and moronic wars on the debate stage with other Republicans, and Rothbard never saw an anti-war alliance he did not like.

White Genocide and the Authoritarian Right

Trump has gotten plenty of flack for retweeting something an account called “White genocide” posted, along with retweeting Mussolini quotes.

Rothbard, it should be recalled, favored the Serbs in the Balkans wars, as a child trolled his Communist family by asking, “What’s so bad about [Francisco] Franco, anyway?”, and admired Joe McCarthy, writing in the early ‘90s:

The unique and the glorious thing about McCarthy was not his goals or his ideology, but precisely his radical, populist means. For McCarthy was able, for a few years, to short-circuit the intense opposition of all the elites in American life: from the Eisenhower-Rockefeller administration to the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex to liberal and left media and academic elites – to overcome all that opposition and reach and inspire the masses directly. And he did it on television, and without any real movement behind him; he had only a guerrilla band of a few advisers, but no organization and no infrastructure.

Remind you of anybody?

Pat Buchanan and the Segregationists of Yore

Trump is constantly being compared to Pat Buchanan, George Wallace, and the like. The implicit smears aside, there is a great deal of truth to this — ever hear about the Middle American Radical?

Rothbard excitedly endorsed Pat Buchanan in 1992 and supported Strom Thurmond in his college days — not to mention his identification as a copper head.

Crime

Trump talks tough on crime — and is willing to talk about the racial and immigration dynamics behind it, do I even need to bother with a link here?

Rothbard wrote:

Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

Conclusion

I would like to say, in sum, the Murray Rothbard was in many ways a lot more of an “alt-right-er” than Trump is today, and probably ever will be. Rothbard personally knew and corresponded with Sam Francis, kept company with Jared Taylor, he endorsed racial separation, and as pointed out earlier, he never disavowed David Duke. Regardless, there can be no doubt that if Murray Rothbard were alive today, he would be happily riding the Trump Train.

If that’s libertarianism, count me in.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off

Why Does Steve Sailer Seem So Subdued During His Season Of Triump?

Posted on March 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* I’m not the first to note, Steve, that you’ve been strangely subdued throughout the primary process, even though it represents a culmination (of sorts) of all your political writing over the past decade and a half. If Trump isn’t following the Sailer Strategy (via Coulter via Brimelow), then he is following a strategy that’s a blood relative to the one you’ve sketched out. I sense that you are nervous about Trump, and I get it. He could destroy immigration populism for a generation (either by winning or losing the election), he could get crushed in the general election only to have his signature issues succeed very rapidly and generally (think Goldwater in 1964), or he could actually Make America Great Again.

One must make choices in life. It’s time to spin the chamber, Boris.

* My guess is that Steve is not overly effusive because he doesn’t want to jinx things. Maybe that’s projection on my part.

One of Steve’s strengths is his judiciousness, his lack of rush to judgment, and his tendency to keep a cool head. This is in spite of evidently some of his motives being driven by emotion, a yearning for an earlier and better America (I think). In another life, I think he would have made a good justice. It’s too early to know how good a Trump administration will be, and Trump is not the literal embodiment of Steve’s ideas. That being said, perhaps closer than most think.

Funnily enough though, I am not the first to call Trump a Citizenist, though certainly one of the first, judging by google. You would think that Trump was going to cancel AA and start shipping African-Americans to Liberia, the way the media and BLM carries on.

Does Steve remain a citizenist? I am not sure and I think I would rather not know.

* No politician is trustworthy. No politician can be counted on to carry out promises he made during a campaign. In 2008, Obama ran claiming that he was against gay marriage and that his healthcare plan would not require a mandate. Of course Obama was for gay marriage, but it was to his political advantage to say he was not (black church ladies matter!). Any universal healthcare plan requires a mandate, but it was to his political advantage to say his did not while Hillary’s did. The astute voter has to intuit what the politician will actually do and figure out which parts of his platform are “boob bait for the bubbas.”

Donald is the only candidate that regularly says that America gets into pointless wars, wasting money that would be better spent here. He is the only Republican willing to denounce W for the disastrous war in Iraq. He has said we would have been better off leaving Saddam in place. He doesn’t see why we can’t get along with Putin, rather than constantly insult and provoke him. So when he talks about how strong our military will be under his presidency and how we’re going to smash ISIS, I assume that he’s tossing out the requisite boob bait, but will conduct a far more circumspect foreign policy than the other candidates.

Candidates are in a quandary when they’re asked how they’re going to balance the budget or fix the schools. Our debt and entitlement expenditures are growing exponentially and no politician can change that, but no one running for president can admit it. As long as the school-age generation is far more non-white than it ever has been, our schools are going to be worse, but, again, no politician can acknowledge that. So on questions like those, I forgive Trump his meaningless BS answers.

What I would realistically expect from a Trump presidency:
Border control
More illegals deported
Action against sanctuary cities
More advantageous trade deals
No pandering to black criminals
No more demonizing/harassing law enforcement
A quiet death for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Less meddling overseas

As far as I’m concerned, that would Make America Great Again.

* I have watched Trump closely on his well covered primary victory speeches and his news conferences. This man is going to govern from the middle. He even says as much if you actually listen to him. Paul Ryan is going to be his main political ally just as Pelosi was for Obama.

Trump constantly says one needs to stake out an extreme opening position in order to get close to what you want when the deal closes. His “wall” with Mexico is going to end up as more border enforcement with an expansion of the border patrol, some sort of compromise on resident illegals, and enforcing the legal limits on immigration which can get a majority in Congress to go along with which is what “comprehensive immigration reform” has always meant.

He takes the traditional Democrat approach to Social Security which is to leave it as it is.

He clearly plans to stop twerking the Russian bear’s nose and let them exercise power in their centuries old sphere of influence.

This man is going to deal with congress like Reagan and Clinton did and not eschew achieving majorities on bills that include some Democratic votes. After all, even if he wins the presidency he may well be facing a slight Democratic majority in the Senate. As a result be prepared for somewhat more stringent demands for reciprocity on trade deals which he can certainly muster a majority vote for in Congress.

Trump is actually a practical moderate with a burning desire to get to “yes” in negotiations and an ego the size of Bill Clinton’s. His main failing is his propensity to shoot his vulgar mouth off before engaging his brain when he is personally insulted.

Despite vicious video attack ads calling him a NAZI and street protests and riotous behavior from the SJW/Occupy crowd, he will beat Hillary in the fall as she will experience low turnout and fail to even achieve 30% of the white male vote which will be a new low among this demographic for Democrats.

* One of the bitter black women over at Lipstick Alley posted the full Kevin Williamson NR column where he states the white underclass deserves to die, in case anyone wants to read without paying the NR cucks. Unsurprisingly, they agree that whitey deserves to be trampled underfoot by the globalists because slavery.

* It wasn’t a terrible theory last summer.

It’s a terrible theory now.

Even if he was encouraged to run in order to help Hillary, it was a risky bet and has obviously failed.

Someone like Trump is like fire: can be a useful tool if properly contained, but easily can get out of control and do an incredible amount of damage.

He is too old and too rich to be bought off, and he is too narcissistic to be content with behind-the-scenes power like Rove, Soros, Adelson or Kochs.

Encouraging Trump to run will likely turn out to be the dumbest thing the Clintons have ever done.

* What do you think are the one or two key issues in the 2016 Presidential election?

Most useful for discussions if the answers are very short. As pithy as I can get them:

1. Mass immigration should be stopped because it destroys what’s best about America: decent wages for working people, the social safety net, tolerance, and environmental quality.

2. With good reason, many working-class white Americans feel that the country’s elites are hostile to their economic interests and cultural values.

* Schwarzenegger’s career in California might be a good model, or Jesse Ventura’s in Minnesota.

There’s a big issue though with the President being head of state as well as government, which means the President is supposed to not shoot his mouth off. Obama’s mildly frank interview in the Atlantic appears to have peeved various foreign countries. What’s a Trump presidency going to look like?

Posted in Steve Sailer | Comments Off

OK Kosher Takes Over Kehilla Kosher, Kosher Restaurants Worried

Posted on March 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

I hear: OK.org is the second largest national kosher organization.
Wants to take the keys away from owners. Mandatory Mashgiach temidi$$$$.
Will put the small guys out of business. OK doesn’t care!
Well firstly, their base monthly fee is going up, though they haven’t indicated how much. I’d say no less than $1,000 a week!
For the Mashgiach temidi, only the Mashgiach will have keys.
No entrance without the Mashgiach.
Unless you can lock up all the fridges separately.
People also don’t want to go to RCC, because they feel they are corrupt, sporadic in their policies and unfair.
The next tier of Kashrus, say Rabbi Benzaquen of KOLA, is not accepted by all. But, if you sell to a major organization, say a school, they require a higher level Hashgacha.

Posted in Kashrut | Comments Off

Haaretz: Why America Has a Trump and Israel Doesn’t

Posted on March 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

David Rosenberg writes:

The Donald appeals to the American underclass that’s been ignored. In Israel, those with grievances are the middle class and they prefer more respectable protest candidates.
Some say Netanyahu is Israel’s Trump. Just like The Donald, Bibi’s been accused of appealing to the voters’ baser instincts, particularly their racist ones. Just like Trump, he is at once part of the establishment and loathed by it.
Trump is promising to build a wall on the Mexican border. Bibi already built one along nearly all of Israel’s borders, although he didn’t get the Arabs to pay for it.
But even if there are some similarities, Bibi isn’t Israel’s Trump. Israel doesn’t need a Trump.
Israel experienced many of the same economic upheavals America has, but not all of them. Trade liberalization killed off the Israeli textile industry, and unions are much weaker and represent a much smaller part of the workforce than three decades ago.
But that is only half the story. The Mizrahi underclass has made strides over the last decades and is closing the economic gap with the traditional Ashkenazi elite. The monopolies so loathed by the media and policy makers – the banks, Israel Electric Corporation, the ports and so on – have ensured good salaries and job security for a great many blue collar and middle class Israelis. Israel’s banks haven’t been allowed to run wild.
Unlike America, the Israeli economy has made remarkable progress over the last decade generating new jobs. More and more people are entering the labor force, especially people in the lowest income groups, and unemployment is touching record lows. Income inequality has been growing, but interestingly enough, it’s been widening between the middle and upper classes; at the lower end of the spectrum it has been narrowing.
Israel has a big population of poor. But they don’t see themselves as an economic class but as part of their community – ultra-orthodox, Arabs or Orientals. They for parties that represent their communities, not for Trump-like troublemakers.
If there has been anybody suffering in recent years, it’s the Israeli middle class, but it expresses its displeasure in its own, well-mannered way. No bombastic Trumps for them! Israel’s middle class held polite demonstrations in the summer of 2011 to protest the high cost of living and voted for disruptive but respectable politicians like Yair Lapid in 2012 and Moshe Kahlon in 2015. And, unlike the American underclass, Israel’s middle class is slowly getting its way. The cost of living is gradually moderating, and home prices will follow.

I think this is a foolish column. When I think of Israeli politicians, “respectable” is not the first word that comes to mind.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Israel’s elite know that their allegiance is to the Israeli people. Immigration, foreign policy, economic policy is is determined by the idea of what’s best for Israel. This is true for the Israeli Left and Right. No need for Trump.

* Gee, it must be nice to have a country governed by those who generally look out for their own people. Apparently none of us are allowed to have that though because it will lead to a new Hitler.

* “Well-mannered” and Jews/Israelis in the same sentence!

* So it’s okay to be a nationalist in Israel. Patriotic even. Here you’re just a dangerous home-grown bigot who should be watched for signs of terrorism. Seems really fair considering who leads the charge against American nationalists.

* Israel does not need Trump because their Parliament is 2/3 Trumps. Every politician in the center/right in Israel speaks and acts exactly like Trump. 2/3 of the people of Israel speak exactly like Trump. There was no controversy over Israel building a wall to stop illegal infiltrators for example (a brilliant phrase we should imitate) – except at Haaretz which is a left wing rag, ignored in Israel itself, although always quoted by the foreign press.

* I am sure a lot of people in Israel have noticed that Trump sounds like an Israeli politician.

Posted in Donald Trump | Comments Off