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

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

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 on Murray Rothbard Would Have Loved Donald Trump

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

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 on OK Kosher Takes Over Kehilla Kosher, Kosher Restaurants Worried