Jewish Libertarian Professor Blames Charlottesville Violence on Alt-Left

IF THE BRAKE LIGHTS ARE LIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT.

Walter Block is a libertarian economics professor at New Orleans Loyola University. He’s not Catholic though, being a Jew. He’s had some trouble with leftist professors at the university who don’t like what he has to say.

Here he blames the Charlottesville violence on the alt-left. What I especially like is that he states very clearly that had Heather Heyer not attempted to interfere with the free speech rights of the Unite the Right people, she would not be dead today.

Damn right, Dr. Block.

Furthermore, he blames the two dead police who perished in a helicopter crash on the alt-left as well.

I might specuate that this piece will so enrage the left that they’ll try to get Block fired. Except that he’s the only big name professor at Loyola, so I think he’s safe.

Lew Rockwell

In the aftermath of the brou-ha-ha in Charlottesville, Donald Trump gave three reactions. First, he condemned all sides for the violence. But, he was met with such a screech of reaction from the main-stream media for his “moral equivalence,” that in his second go around, he pretty much, although not exactly, singled out the alt-right for special condemnation. But in his third time at bat, he reversed field (sorry for mingling football and baseball metaphors, I just couldn’t help myself) and again returned to a more even-handed stance, censuring both sides and all “extremists.”

What are we to make of this to-ing and fro-ing? Before we step into this land-mine, we must clear away a bit of brush. There are really two issues here; they are very different, but they have often been conflated. On the one hand is the question of Who is primarily responsible for the violence that ensued? On the other hand is the issue of which side deserves more moral condemnation, the alt-right or the alt-left. We can answer the former purely as social scientists; the latter, as libertarians.

Continue reading

Woman Who Provoked Boyfriend to Suicide Sentenced to 15 Months

MICHELLE CARTER.

Heartless psychopath Michelle Carter is as hated for her eyebrows as much as she is for pressuring a disturbed young man, Conrad Roy, to kill himself. The Sacramento Bee covers the eyebrow issue that has the Internet abuzz.

The comments across the Internet about the sentence Carter received indicate a disgust not only with eyebrows but also with the judge who gave the odd looking young woman a break through a light sentence.

WKRG

TAUNTON, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts woman who sent her boyfriend dozens of text messages urging him to kill himself has been sentenced to 15 months in jail on a manslaughter charge.

Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in June by a judge who said she caused the death of 18-year-old Conrad Roy III when she told him to “get back in” his truck as it was filling with carbon monoxide.

CONRAD ROY.

Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz also sentenced Carter on Thursday to five years of probation. Moniz allowed Carter to return home after sentencing her Thursday to a 15-month jail term plus five years’ probation. Her lawyers had asked for the stay.

Carter was 17 when Roy died in 2014.

During Carter’s trial, her lawyer argued that Roy was determined to kill himself and nothing Carter did could change that.

Carter faced a maximum sentence of 20 years.

CBS News elaborates on the case that shocked the nation.

If her appeals are successful, she may never serve a day behind bars. Her punishment left Roy’s loved ones shell-shocked and at a loss for words.

Asked if this case will ever be over for her, Conrad’s mother Lynn Roy, said, “No. It never will be.”

Roy’s family was distraught as it became clear they would not see Carter hauled off to jail

Carter was on the phone with Conrad as he was dying of carbon monoxide poisoning inside his truck in July 2014.

She never called for help. When Conrad apparently changed his mind and got out of his vehicle, she even told him to get back inside.

Conrad suffered from depression and before he killed himself, carter sent the 18-year-old dozens of texts pressuring him to commit suicide.

One read, “Hang yourself, jump off a building, stab yourself I don’t know there’s a lot of ways.”

“Michelle Carter exposed my son’s weaknesses and used him as a pawn. Where was her humanity?” said Conrad’s father.

Carter, who herself has struggled with anxiety and eating disorders, wept at times during the hearing.

“This is a tragedy for two families,” said Judge Lawrence Moniz.

Moniz sentenced her to two and a half years in jail, but said Carter would only have to spend half of that – 15 months – behind bars. She also received five years’ probation.

The judge noted Carter was three weeks shy of turning 18 at the time of Conrad’s suicide, still a child in the eyes of the law.

“The fact that they are still of that young age offers a greater promise of rehabilitation,” Moniz said.

Moniz then put Carter’s sentence on hold to allow her lawyers to file appeals.

“I don’t think anybody would be prepared to go to jail for what they said. Words alone don’t end up putting people in jail,” said Joseph Cataldo, Carter’s defense attorney.

JUDGE LAWRENCE MONIZ.

Judge Moniz had the option of giving Carter a longer sentence, up to seven years according to one source. The “judges” on the Internet would have done so, I believe. Carter will be shunned and shamed, as well as have to report to a probation officer once she leaves prison.

Hopefully, she won’t be able to find another disturbed young man to exploit for her evil purposes. Meanwhile, she’ll have plenty of free time to thin out those eyebrows everyone hates.

Guilty Verdict in Manslaughter Trial for Teen Girl Who Urged Boyfriend to Kill Himself

MICHELLE CARTER. GUILTY.

CONRAD ROY. THE DEAD BOYFRIEND.

It’s hard to imagine that anyone would defend Michelle Carter on moral grounds. She’s the teen who encouraged her boyfriend to kill himself, even telling him to get back in his truck, which he had rigged to fill up with exhaust gas.

The question that was not decided until the judge ruled yesterday was whether she was guilty of a crime. His Honor’s ruling was that she is guilty of manslaughter, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

The case has been in the national spotlight for two and a half years because of the perceived evil nature of Michelle Carter’s actions and because there’s a First Amendment, free speech issue involved.

CBS News

TAUNTON, Mass. — A young Massachusetts woman accused of sending her boyfriend dozens of text messages urging him to kill himself when they were teenagers was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter Friday.

Michelle Carter was charged in the death of Conrad Roy III. Carter, then 17, cajoled Roy to kill himself in July 2014 with a series of texts and phone calls, prosecutors alleged. Roy died when his pickup truck filled with carbon monoxide in a store parking lot in Fairhaven. After he exited the truck, Carter told him to “get back in,” prosecutors said.

Continue reading

Gallup Survey Shows Americans Becoming More Accepting of Moral Degeneracy

You may recall a group in the 1980s fronted by the Reverend Jerry Falwell called the Moral Majority.

Today it would have to be renamed the Moral Minority.

Americans today accept acts that my grandmother and her religious leaders would have condemned. In fact, much of what is acceptable today would have not even crossed my grandmother’s mind. She read the Bible every day and attended church at least three times a week.

Let’s remember that until the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision in 2003 that homosexual acts were illegal in Texas (and some other states as well).

Not everyone on the alt-right is a traditionalist, but many of us are. We’ve lost the battle to preserve almost everything traditional, but maybe not the war, as society slowly falls apart while living on fake Federal Reserve money. When the big financial crisis hits, there will be nothing like the mother of all economic collapses to bring back traditionalism.

Star-Tribune

Over the past decade and a half, tolerance for polygamy has more than doubled among the American public. A similar trend applies to human cloning.

Stunning as they are, these findings from the latest Gallup survey of moral opinion in the U.S. may tell more about the political future than the daily drama surrounding President Donald Trump.

To be sure, the percentage declaring polygamy and human cloning “morally acceptable,” in Gallup’s phrase, remains small: Seventeen percent are OK with the former; 14 percent, the latter. Neither is likely to become legal soon.

Yet the speed with which these formerly fringe ideas have moved toward the mainstream is significant and consistent with Gallup’s broader finding: Since 2001, there has been a clear and, apparently, irreversible, move toward more permissive or, to use Gallup’s word, “liberal” social norms.

“Libertarian” might be a better term. Gallup documents what can only be called a strong live-and-let-live consensus regarding several practices — birth control, divorce, sex between unmarried adults, gay or lesbian relations, out-of-wedlock childbearing — that within living memory were either fiercely contested or taboo. All garnered at least 62 percent acceptance in the poll, conducted just a month ago. Doctor-assisted suicide is trending up and now stands at 57 percent acceptance.

Taboos are weakening against pornography (acceptance up six points to 36 percent since 2011) and sex between teenagers (acceptance up four points to 36 percent since 2013). Meanwhile, new taboos are developing against wearing fur and medical testing on animals. Only adultery remains as unacceptable as in 2001; just 9 percent tolerate it.

In short, the culture wars may be ending in victory for progressives, with the caveat that a left-right frame is misleading regarding some issues — opposition to pornography, for example, has been a rare point of agreement between the religious right and left-wing feminists.

Americans are not only far more willing to countenance formerly taboo practices, they are also much less interested in government protection of “traditional values” than they were in the not-so-distant past.

It has been six years since another poll, by CNN/ORC, found for the first time that more Americans said the government should “not favor any set of values” rather than “promote traditional values.”

As of the most recent poll, in late 2014, 55 percent preferred a value-neutral government. No one would have predicted that just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when CNN/ORC found that 59 percent of Americans favored government promotion of traditional values, an all-time high.

Maybe that galvanizing moment gave way to the multiple disappointments and disillusions of the Iraq war and the financial crisis, which in turn bred broader doubts about government’s ability to do anything right, let alone foster moral values, and perhaps about the values themselves.

Another explanation, though, is that Gallup’s numbers confirm a long-standing postwar trend first identified by political scientist Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan, who has argued that Western societies’ turn from traditional values to individual autonomy and self-expression reflects their growing economic security, notwithstanding periodic wars and recessions.

The satisfaction of basic material needs, on a consistent basis, provides time and space for cultural, sexual and spiritual experimentation. Conversely, Inglehart has argued, members of society who feel least secure, materially and otherwise, continue to derive meaning from tradition and react against perceived threats to it emanating from the political sphere.

One interpretation of the overwhelming support of the country’s most religious, tradition-minded voters for a thrice-married, hedonistic tycoon is that it demonstrates their desperation to stop the progressive cultural wave.

Then again, data from Gallup and other sources show such wide moral acceptance of nontraditional norms that the new consensus must include plenty of Trump voters as well. The main exceptions to that consensus are abortion and gun control, about which a relatively even and highly partisan divide persists — and which candidate Trump exploited to win over red-state voters who might otherwise have distrusted him.

Jews in academia and media preaching tolerance for every vice and hatred for every virtue are not even mentioned in any of the analyses of moral degeneracy you’ll see in the MSM. I’m sure Professor Inglehard thinks he’s on to something with his economic theory of vice, and there’s probably some truth to it, but to ignore the Jewish role in perversion and degeneracy is disingenuous.

TODAY WITH MILEY CYRUS, THE NEW FACE OF MORALITY.

BACK IN THE DAY WITH CONNIE FRANCIS.

Atheists demand town remove church welcome signs

Evil Satanists are attacking a good Christian concept–that of welcoming strangers. They are demanding that the sign pictured above and another similar sign be taken down.

Declare those signs as historical monuments and let the atheist vandals try to destroy them via the court system.

Reminder: I’ve never seen a sign saying “The Synagogues of ______________ welcome you.” I’ve seen plenty of these nondenominational Christian church welcome signs in small towns, though.

Fox News

A group of perpetually-offended atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are threatening to sue a small Wisconsin town because of two welcome signs.

The signs, which were posted some 50 years ago, read, “The Churches of Oconomowoc Welcome You.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation said the welcome signs are unconstitutional because they are not neutral toward all faiths.

“It endorses religion over non-religion and Christianity over all other faiths,” FFRF attorney Ryan Jayne wrote in a letter to town leaders.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is on a national crusade to eradicate public displays of the Christian faith. They typically target communities that do not have the financial resources to fight back.

No one can explain how such signs or “In God We Trust” on coins harms anyone. Those who join in the crusade to strip religion from America are (((destroyers))) and should be the ones banned.

If the atheists are victorious in court, then move the signs to privately owned land where they will be safe from legal challenges.

Paleomasculinist Responds to Bitchy Feminist Mocking Masturbation

The Tweet above reminds me that sex robots have been in the news lately, along with all other manner of sexual behaviors. The cultural Marxist assault on morality roars along at warp speed now.

I’m not recommending that men form relationships with sex robots or sex dolls, but the constant taunting of men by feminists is going to backfire on them.

Certainly, Muslim males don’t put up with women’s sh*t, although as we’ve seen in a few stories posted here, white feminist SJWs believe it’s a good thing to be raped by Muzzies. It takes away their white guilt through some mysterious, insane process of redemption.

As the Tweet suggests, sex robots are an alternative to both masturbation and putting up with bitchy, unloving, unkind feminist whores. There’s still a problem for men, however.

Sex robots as marriage partners or lovers offer a cowardly way of life. There are significant MORAL ISSUES akin to the issues associated with having sex with animals or dead people. In short, I think we need to think twice about taking an amoral perspective on sexual relationships with robots.

The only real answer to the woes imposed on our culture by Jewish feminism is to destroy feminism. Taking away women’s rights to a degree and imposing on women a moral perspective on life is the only thing that can remake our culture into something decent.

That naked feminist and her stupid sign above is rightly mocked and ridiculed. Disempower her.

Quartz

In the face of AI exerts repeatedly predicting the rise of sex robots, it’s increasingly difficult to insist that such machines strictly belong to a far-off, dystopian future. But some robotics experts predict we’ll soon be doing far more than having sexual intercourse with machines. Instead, we’ll be making love to them—with all the accompanying romantic feelings.

At this week’s “Love and Sex with Robots” conference at Goldsmith University in London, David Levy, author of a book on human-robot love, predicted that human-robot marriages would be legal by 2050. Adrian Cheok, computing professor at City University London and director of the Mixed Reality Lab in Singapore, says the prediction is not so farfetched.

Uh-oh, my Jewdar just went off.

jewdar-gif

“That might seem outrageous because it’s only 35 years away. But 35 years ago people thought homosexual marriage was outrageous,” says Cheok, who also spoke at the conference. “Until the 1970s, some states didn’t allow white and black people to marry each other. Society does progress and change very rapidly.”

And though human-robot marriage might not be legal until 2050, Cheok believes humans will be living with robot partners long before then.

Though Cheok acknowledges that sex robots could fulfill sexist male sexual fantasies, he believes robot-human marriages will have an overwhelmingly positive effect on society. “People assume that everyone can get married, have sex, fall in love. But actually many don’t,” he says. And even those who do might be in search of a different option. “A lot of human marriages are very unhappy,” Cheok says. “Compared to a bad marriage, a robot will be better than a human.”

Notice that the author promoting sex with robots is a (((Jew))). Typical. Jews are leading whites down another dead end road that will lead to our extinction.

Although white men are demonized by feminists at the Huffington Post, on college campuses, on TV and the movies, we need to hang together and get our balls out of asses (sorry for the crude way of putting it) and confront these nasty women, as well as the Jews who seek our death as a race.

Just as importantly, we need to appreciate the good women in our lives.

LIVING NATURAL.

8 Year Old Girl Who Thinks She’s a Boy Banned from Cub Scouts

“JOE” MALDONADO. “HE” WAS BORN FEMALE.

Children can’t vote or drive an automobile. They can’t legally have sex. But they can decide that they’re the opposite sex from their birth certificate?

Something’s wrong.

Excerpt from North Jersey

From the moment he joined, 8-year-old Joe Maldonado eagerly looked forward to camping trips and science projects as a member of the Cub Scouts. But his expectations were dashed after his mother said she received a phone call from a Scouting official who told her that Joe would no longer be allowed to participate because he was born a girl.

Kristie Maldonado said she was stunned because her son had been a member of Cub Scout Pack 87 in Secaucus for about a month and his transgender status had not been a secret. But some parents complained, an official from the Northern New Jersey Council of Boy Scouts told her — even though her son had been living as a boy for more than a year and was accepted as a boy at school, she said

“Not one of the kids said, ‘You don’t belong here,’” Maldonado said of the Scouts in the pack.

“It made me mad,” Joe, said. “I had a sad face, but I wasn’t crying. I’m way more angry than sad. My identity is a boy. If I was them, I would let every person in the world go in. It’s right to do.”

Joe’s case could be the first time someone has been barred from participating in Scouting because of transgender identity, said members of the LGBT community. And it comes as the Boy Scouts of America appeared to be emerging from a period of turmoil involving sexual-orientation issues, reversing long-standing bans against gay Scouts and gay Scouting leaders over the past few years. Those policy changes were made amid an internal debate that saw at least one local council defy national Scouting decrees by hiring a gay camp counselor and pressure brought from corporations that withheld donations from the organization.

The Boy Scouts did not address the transgender issue at the time, LGBT advocates said, perhaps because the organization had no written policy related to gender identity. Transgender rights only recently emerged as a national issue, often focusing on the use of restrooms based on gender identity. Dozens of North Jersey school districts, including Secaucus, have granted that right, among others, to transgender students.

The Scouts declined to say whether they have a written transgender policy. Effie Delimarkos, the communications director for the Boy Scouts of America, said in a statement that the organization’s Cub Scouts programs are for boys age 7 to 10 and that “the classification on the participant’s birth certificate” would be used to “confirm legal status.” She did not provide additional details and did not specify whether the Boy Scouts have ever examined gender statuses on birth certificates.

The girl “tomboys” I knew as a youth grew out of it. Today, they’ll never have the chance because foolish adults indulge their sickness.