OJ Sentenced to 16 years!

Next step for the anti-White OJ team, there were NO blacks on the jury, and whites are all racists so, OJ was not given a fair trial, lets wait a few days and see if this becomes the new defense.
Everyone knows OJ killed those people back in the 90’s, even the black community knows it!  But many blacks see OJ as their anti-White Hero, who got over on the “man,” and killed some of the enemy, I watch some of the interviews from the first trial, and many of the blacks called Nicole Brown Simpson a prostitute and a slut, and they said she got what she deserved, typical.  Only thing they forgot was that she was white, and white are evil and must die.

In this case justice is served.

The Taboo Hypothesis

The Taboo Hypothesis

by Baron Bodissey

I minored in Anthropology in college, and during my senior year I wrote a term paper for Physical Anthropology about Professor Arthur Jensen and his work on race and intelligence. After examining his studies and those of other scientists, I concluded that there seemed to be an irreducible genetic component to IQ. However, there was not enough evidence to draw firm conclusions, and given the incendiary nature of the topic, I suggested that it would be unwise to force the issue.

My proto-PC attitude was typical of a high-minded long-haired college student in the early 1970s. Little did I know that further work on this subject — indeed, even the mere discussion of it — was about to be shut down. By the middle of the decade, the current reign of politically correct science had begun, and it was no longer possible to consider any linkage between genes and intelligence.

It just wasn’t done. It was the hypothesis that dared not speak its name.

In the intervening thirty-five years, the scientific evidence on the issue has continued to accumulate. Prof. Jensen’s widely reviled scholarship has never been refuted by the data, but his conclusions have been politically squashed. On race and intelligence — just as on global warming — “the science is settled”. The academic establishment has determined the truth by fiat, and any further discussion of the subject can only be evidence of “racism”.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
James Watson, the renowned biologist and co-discoverer of the double helix in DNA, ventured an opinion last year on the subject. His statements put him on the wrong side of “science”, and the disapproval of the establishment came down on him like a ton of bricks.

Back in October, Honest Thinking posted a pair of articles about the whole affair. The first one focused on an article by Jason Malloy published in Medical Hypotheses, “Those who punish, those who lie, those who silence, those who condemn, those who intimidate… they have corrupted science”.

HT posted some excerpts from Malloy’s article:

Summary: Recent comments by the eminent biologist James Watson concerning intelligence test data from sub-Saharan Africa resulted in professional sanctions as well as numerous public condemnations from the media and the scientific community. They justified these sanctions to the public through an abuse of trust, by suggesting that intelligence testing is a meaningless and discredited science, that there is no data to support Dr. Watson’s comments, that genetic causes of group differences in intelligence are falsified logically and empirically, and that such differences are already accounted for by known environment factors. None of these arguments are correct, much less beyond legitimate scientific debate. Dr. Watson was correct on all accounts: (1) Intelligence tests do reveal large differences between European and sub-Saharan African nations, (2) the evidence does link these differences to universally valued outcomes, both within and between nations, and (3) there is data to suggest these differences are influenced by genetic factors. The media and the larger scientific community punished Dr. Watson for violating a social and political taboo, but fashioned their case to the public in terms of scientific ethics. This necessitated lying to the public about numerous scientific issues to make Watson appear negligent in his statements; a gross abuse of valuable and fragile public trust in scientific authority. Lies and a threatening, coercive atmosphere to free inquiry and exchange are damaging to science as an institution and to scientists as individuals, while voicing unfashionable hypotheses is not damaging to science. The ability to openly voice and argue ideas in good faith that are strange and frightening to some is, in fact, integral to science. Those that have participated in undermining this openness and fairness have therefore damaged science, even while claiming to protect it with the same behavior.

(c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The article goes on to quote Dr. Watson:
- – – - – – – – -

“A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

This seems reasonable enough. No one who favors the objective evaluation of evidence could disagree with him, right?


Here are some of the responses. In Nature:

“Crass comments by Nobel laureates undermine our very ability to debate such issues, and thus damage science itself”.

In the Chicago Tribune:

“The damage to Watson’s legacy from his statements may be difficult to mend,” said Jerry Coyne, a professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Chicago. “He’s done tremendous damage to science, to himself and to social equality,” Coyne said. “It makes us all look bad”.

The author goes on to note the similarity between Dr. Watson’s case and what happened to former Harvard president Larry Summers, who dared to suggest that there might be inherent biological differences between men and women. The scandal!

What effect will this continuing intellectual mob violence have on future and current scientists and researchers who want to freely study human genetics, cross-cultural psychology, sociology, or any discipline that may reveal similar facts that have the potential to cause their professional or personal destruction by an intellectual community that resembles the medieval church?

Those who punish, those who lie, those who silence, those who condemn, those who intimidate… they have corrupted science.

They have injured the intellectual openness, freedom, and fairness of our society and our institutions, with untold costs to our collective human well-being.

Not James D. Watson.

Honest Thinking had this to add:

I find it particularly disappointing that Francis Collins, Watson’s successor in the Human Genome Project (HGP), released the following statement:

“I am deeply saddened by the events of the last week, and understand and agree with Dr. Watson’s undoubtedly painful decision to retire in the aftermath of a racist statement he made that was both profoundly offensive and utterly unsupported by scientific evidence“.

It is of course always disappointing when some scientific authority resorts to downright lies instead of facing up to some disturbing truth. But Collins is not just a high profile scientist, he also happens to be high profile Christian. This means he is bound by the biblical command not to lie, as well as the prescription to love the truth. Unfortunately, Collins has demonstrated that he prefers smooth lies over unpleasant truths. This is all the more ironic, since in his book he criticizes creationists for their unwillingness to face the truth about evolution.

However, even creationists understand (unless they are prepared to invoke miraculous intervention on the part of God to prevent natural developments from taking place) that one cannot have genetic separation of populations without also having genetic differences accumulating. This is just simple and obvious micro-evolution, which is accepted as a fact of life by virtually everyone (in particular by creationists, as it happens). Thus, it turns out that Collins is eager to convince people of the truth, beauty, and explanatory power of evolutionary theory, but he is unwilling to accept one of the most obvious consequences of that very theory.

Not only has Collins betrayed his HGP predecessor and scientific colleague, James Watson; not only has Collins betrayed the scientific community by failing to stand in firm defense of the truth; not only has Collins betrayed the general public by deceiving them and lulling them into a false sense of security (at a time when the West is about to commit demographic and civilizational suicide); on top of all of this, he has betrayed his own faith by joining ranks with the forces of darkness and ignorance. And instead of being a staunch friend in a time of need, he turned his back on Watson and washed his hands to cleanse himself of ‘racism’. If Collins takes his faith seriously (as I suspect he does) he needs to change his ways.

Many scientists owe Watson a public apology for their cowardly behavior during and after last year’s scandal. To my knowledge, not a single one of them has yet had the courage to come forward and admit that they attacked and criticized Watson on insufficient grounds. The longer they wait before doing so, the more embarrassing it will get. Sooner or later some of these people are going to start muttering about “more profound differences than previously thought” or something along those lines. Ok, that’s better than nothing. But I wonder who will be the first to simply cut the crap, skip all lame excuses, and unreservedly apologize to Watson (preferably while he is still alive). This is the kind of situation that separates the men from the boys.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Prof. Jensen is still studying this subject and writing about it. Thirty-five years of vilification have not stopped him.

In the second article, Honest Thinking reviews an article by Rushton and Jensen published in Medical Hypotheses, “Race realism and the moralistic fallacy”.

Here are some excerpts from Rushton and Jensen’s article:

Summary: Recent editorials in this journal have defended the right of eminent biologist James Watson to raise the unpopular hypothesis that people of sub-Saharan African descent score lower, on average, than people of European or East Asian descent on tests of general intelligence. As those editorials imply, the scientific evidence is substantial in showing a genetic contribution to these differences. The unjustified ill treatment meted out to Watson therefore requires setting the record straight about the current state of the evidence on intelligence, race, and genetics. In this paper, we summarize our own previous reviews based on 10 categories of evidence: The worldwide distribution of test scores; the g factor of mental ability; heritability differences; brain size differences; trans-racial adoption studies; racial admixture studies; regression-to-the-mean effects; related life history traits; human origins research; and the poverty of predictions from culture-only explanations. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that in intelligence, brain size, and other life-history variables, East Asians average a higher IQ and larger brain than Europeans who average a higher IQ and larger brain than Africans. Further, these group differences are 50—80% heritable. These are facts, not opinions and science must be governed by data. There is no place for the “moralistic fallacy” that reality must conform to our social, political, or ethical desires.

(c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


When one of the greatest biologists of the 20th century, Nobel-Prize winner James Watson, noted that people of African descent average lower on intelligence tests than do Europeans and East Asians, he was excoriated by the mass media and elements of the scientific elite and forced to retire from his position as Chair of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory [9,34]. Watson’s treatment was especially egregious given that, in point of scientific fact, more than a century-and-a-half of evidence corroborates his statement. Moreover, supportive new data and analyses appear regularly in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals in the relevant scientific disciplines. Evidence to the contrary is exceedingly weak. Most of the opposition to the genetic hypothesis consists of mere moralizing and worse, the creation of a threatening and coercive atmosphere incompatible with academic freedom, free enquiry, and the civil liberties of a truly democratic society. An enormous gulf separates the politically correct gatekeepers and enforcers from true experts in the behavioral sciences.

Nor is Watson’s case unique. He is but the latest in a long line of academics that have been pilloried and defamed (detailed accounts given in Hunt [20]). The others include Nobel-Prize winner William Shockley, Hans Eysenck, Linda Gottfredson, Richard Lynn, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, Christopher Brand, Glayde Whitney, Helmuth Nyborg, and Tatu Vanhanen. The present writers too have endured their share of attacks. The taboo on race will surely become a major topic of investigation by sociologists of knowledge. There is no parallel to it in the history of science. It is uniquely imposed, mainly through self-censorship, by members of the Western intelligentsia in their own academy — which prides itself on a tradition of academic freedom, open inquiry, and the unfettered discovery, systematization, and pursuit of knowledge and its dissemination to the general public.

Despite the chilling effect described, we (and the others) have persevered in part because of the great importance of the topic, the fascinating data it provides, and the theoretical issues it raises…

Because many consider the race-IQ hypothesis incendiary, it is essential to thoroughly examine all the relevant data. We did this in our 60-page review, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” which was published as the lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association [51]. In the current article we summarize and update those findings (more complete statistical details and references can be found there). Again, the preponderance of evidence argues that it is more probable than not that the genetic contribution to racial group differences in intelligence, brain size and other life-history variables is between 50% and 80%. A good introduction to the issues involved is Bartholomew.

Notice the cautious and non-inflammatory nature of the authors’ conclusions: It is more probable than not that the genetic contribution to racial group differences in intelligence… is between 50% and 80%.

Yet this is simply not allowed. We must not consider the possibility. To do so is racist. The science is settled. These guys are making scientists look bad. Etc.

Once again: it’s the hypothesis that dare not speak its name.

Important Note:

Commenters are warned not to generate a race-based free-for-all on this post.

This post is about the anathematizing of scientists who dare to question the politically acceptable orthodoxy on the topic of race.

This post is about the enforced group consensus that reigns in the scientific establishment.

This post is about the way academic and fiscal pressure is used to marginalize anyone who goes outside that consensus.

This post is not about the characteristics of one race or another.

This post is not an invitation to list the positive or negative characteristics of any particular race.

This post concerns process. It does not concern content.

Racial diatribes are off-topic. There are plenty of other forums available where you can hold forth on such subjects to your hearts’ content.

If the thread gets out of hand, it will be closed to further comments.

Russia Insists on Reciprocity

Russia Insists on Reciprocity

by Baron Bodissey


Many people who share the Islamophobic persuasion have suggested the idea: for every mosque built in the West, one church should be built in Mecca, or Medina, or Cairo, or Islamabad, or Tehran.

Fair is fair.

This has remained a mere fantasy for those of us who live in dhimmified countries — which includes most of Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. None of our leaders would have the temerity to ask for such a thing.

But Russia — that’s another matter. According to The Washington Times:

A Russian Church for a Saudi Mosque?

This delightful story just came in thanks to getreligion.org: The Saudis have recently asked permission to build a mosque in Moscow, a city where there are only four mosques and 2 million Muslims. The Russians, however, are saying they want, in return, an Orthodox church in Saudi Arabia.

As we all know, the Saudis have a habit of constructing mosques in dozens of world capitals while forbidding houses of worship for any religion whatsoever outside its Wahabist brand of Islam. They’ve gotten some bad PR locally for some of the hate language in textbooks at the Saudi Academy in northern Virginia. Not only are hapless Christians terrorized and jailed for daring to hold private prayer services in Saudi Arabia, but God help them should they try to convert someone to their religion. And that’s for a fellow People of the Book: One can only guess at what the treatment of Buddhists and Hindus must be like.

Wouldn’t it be so ironic if the Russians were the first Christian body to win acceptance of the right to build a church in, say, Riyadh? (Some of the Russians are calling for a church in Mecca, but the chances of any other religion getting a foothold within walking distance of the world center of Islam is less than zero.) Of course we all know the Saudis aren’t about ready to let Bibles or other religious literature, let alone a church, anywhere near their homeland, but all the same, it’s amusing to see the Russians give the Saudis a taste of their own medicine.

Indeed it is.

The source for the WashTimes article was Window on Eurasia. Here’s more detail:
- – – - – – – – -

Vienna, November 26 — The king of Saudi Arabia has announced that he is ready to support the construction of a mosque and Islamic cultural center in Moscow, a city with only four mosques for its more than two million Muslims. In response and probably to block this, Orthodox Christians in Russia have called for opening a church in Saudi Arabia.

These two proposals have sparked an often intriguing discussion by Russia’s Muslims and Christians over the role religion plays in defining the two societies and about the role of law in regulating that, a discussion that could either enrich or complicate the Kremlin’s relations with Muslims inside Russia and Muslim states abroad it is currently trying to court.

Last Thursday, Rushan Abbyasov, the head of the international department of the Union of Muftis of Russia (SMR) announced that the Saudi king had agreed to finance the construction of a mosque and a cultural center in Moscow “if the Russian authorities will offer a site” appropriate for them (www.interfax-religion.ru/islam/?act=news&div=27412).


Given that Moscow has only four mosques — the same number it had at the end of Soviet times — but a Muslim population that may number as many as 2.5 million, Muslims in the Russian Federation were delighted by the offer and the attention from abroad it suggests. But many non-Muslim Russians were horrified that another mosque might be opened in their capital.

After the Saudi offer was reported, three Russian Orthodox groups — the Moscow section of the Union of Orthodox Citizens, the Radonezh Society, and the Byzantine Club — released an open letter to Saudi King Abdullah suggesting that there should be another mosque in Moscow only after a Russian Orthodox church was opened in Mecca.

Their appeal noted that “Saudi Arabia is building mosques in dozens of Christian countries” and then asked whether it would not be only just if permission were given to Christians to build a church within its borders for Christians living there, something Riyadh has been reluctant to permit (www.interfax-religion.ru/islam/?act=documents&div=835).

And in support of their argument, the three groups cite the comment of Jean-Louis Cardinal Toran, the head of the Papal Council on Inter-religious Dialogue that “if Muslims consider it correct to have a large and beautiful mosque in Rome, then it is equally correct for Christians to have a church in Riyadh.”

The Orthodox groups also argued that it would be “very important” to lift the restrictions now in force against Christians visiting the Holy cities of Mecca and Medina,” to all visitors to Saudi Arabia to wear crosses, and to create special courses about Christianity in general and Russian Orthodoxy in particular.

Moreover, they suggested that if the Saudis want to begin broadcasting their television programs to the Russian Federation and its Muslims, then “it would be just” to offer “Your subjects the opportunity to watch Russian Orthodox channels and thus to learn that “Christians don’t believe in three gods, don’t distort the Bible and don’t pray to idols.”

Individual Russian commentators were more outspoken about the Saudi proposal. Arkady Maler, who writes frequently on cultural issues, said that the king’s offer should be rejected not only because Christians can’t build churches in the kingdom but also because Saudi Arabia is the homeland of Wahhabism, which some Russian jurisdictions have declared illegal.

Consequently, he said, no more mosques should be built, especially by the Saudis, in the Russian capital until there are churches in Saudi Arabia, because there is no reason to build another mosque in Moscow which at most would serve only “a few thousand people,” far fewer than the number of Christians in Saudi Arabia (www.rus-obr.ru/opinions/1267).

Dmitry Volodikhin, a Russian nationalist fantasy writer, added an additional reason for opposing the construction of a Muslim center in Moscow: The Russian capital, he said, needs to restore more Russian churches for Orthodox Christians before it thinks about building new mosques for Muslims (www.interfax-religion.ru/islam/?act=news&div=27460).


What makes this interesting is that Ashirov, whose comments have often put him at odds with both other Muslim leaders in Russia and with the Kremlin, here adopts a position that the Russian government likely would be very comfortable with, while the Russian Orthodox nationalists are staking out one that could cause trouble for Moscow at home and abroad.

So the Russian nationalists, who take their Orthodoxy seriously, are more interested than their own government in pushing the Saudis into a corner.

This is a story that’s worth following. The Saudis will never give in, of course, but it’s the thought that counts.

Don’t you wish that the political leaders of the West — not to mention the Church of Rome and the major Protestant denominations — could show half the spine that these guys have?

For those who are interested, these are the original Russian-language references used in the above article:

Danish Warship Sinks Pirate Vessel

Danish Warship Sinks Pirate Vessel

by Baron Bodissey

A news article from yesterday’s Jyllands-Posten, as translated by Henrik Ræder Clausen:

Danish Warship Sinks Pirate Vessel

The Danish navy vessel Absalon seized at least four RPGs from pirates — and then sank their ship.

The pirates were adrift in the Gulf of Aden without engine power, drinking water, or food. After eight days they asked for help from the Danish marine vessel Absalon, which is on patrol duty in the area.

On Thursday evening Absalon chose to board the ship, relates TV2 correspondent on Absalon, Rasmus Tantholdt.

- – – - – – – – -

Aboard the ship the Danish soldiers found four RPG’s and seven Somalis, who were all taken aboard Absalon.

Due to weather conditions in the area it was not possible for Absalon to have the pirate vessel on tow, and thereafter, according to navy operational headquarters, it was destroyed. It is now the intention that the alleged pirates are to be taken to Yemen and handed over to the local authorities.

Previously Danish soldiers have set suspected pirates free after six days, because there is no agreement stating that the Danish navy has a right to detain suspected pirates in the Gulf of Aden.

Here’s a video from Danish TV of the sinking (hat tip TB).

Lost City of ‘Cloud People’ Found in Peru

Lost City of ‘Cloud People’ Found in Peru

More news stories on American History

Jeremy McDermott, London Telegraph, December 3, 2008

The settlement covers some 12 acres and is perched on a mountainside in the remote Jamalca district of Utcubamba province in the northern jungles of Peru’s Amazon.

The buildings found on the Pachallama peak are in remarkably good condition, estimated to be over 1,000 years old and comprised of the traditional round stone houses built by the Chachapoya, the ‘Cloud Forest People’.

The area is completely overgrown with the jungle now covering much of the settlement but explorers found the walls of the buildings and rock paintings on a cliff face.

The remote nature of the site appears to have protected the site from looters as archaeologists found ceramics and undisturbed burial sites.

Archaeologist Benedicto Pérez Goicochea said: “The citadel is perched on the edge of an abyss.

“We suspect that the ancient inhabitants used this as a lookout point from where they could spot potential enemies.”

The ruins were initially discovered by local people hacking through the jungle. They were drawn to the place due to the sound of a waterfall.

The local people “armed with machetes opened a path that arrived at the place where they saw a beautiful panorama, full of flowers and fauna, as well as a waterfall, some 500 metres high,” said the mayor of Jamalca, Ricardo Cabrera Bravo.

Initial studies have found similarities between the new discovery and the Cloud Peoples’ super fortress of Kulep, also in Utcubamba province, which is older and more extensive that the Inca Citadel of Machu Picchu, but has not been fully explored or restored.

Little is known about the Chachapoya, except that they had been beaten into submission by the mighty Incas in 1475.

When in 1535 the Spanish Conquistadores arrived in Peru, they found willing allies in the Cloud People for their fight against the Incas.

Spanish texts from the era describe the Cloud People as ferocious fighters who mummified their dead.

They were eventually wiped out by small pox and other diseases brought by the Europeans.

The women of the Chachapoya were much prized by the Incas as they were tall and fair skinned. The Chronicler Pedro Cieza de León offers wrote of the Chachapoyas.

“They are the whitest and most handsome of all the people that I have seen in Indies, and their wives were so beautiful that because of their gentleness, many of them deserved to be the Incas’ wives and to also be taken to the Sun Temple.”

Original article

(Posted on December 4, 2008)


“They were eventually wiped out by small pox and other diseases brought by the Europeans.”

Another lie by anti white racist liberals. Small pox did not exist in Europe until about 1510. Small pox, like syphllis was brought back to Europe by the early explorers. Here is the proof:

(1) Medical forensic; small pox affects the bones. Persons who die of small pox have noticable lesions in their bones. Europeans practiced burial, not cremation. Europeans had small graveyards. So every 100 years or so cemetery keepers dug up all the old bones and piled them in basement caverns. Forensic sciencts and physicians have observed millions of bones belonging to thousands of Europeans. Not one smallpox lesion has been discovered that could be dated before 1500.

(2)Medical epidemology. Small pox first appeared in Europe around 1510. Physicians and public health authorities knew it was not measles or chicken pox or any other disease presenting with a rash. It was blatantly, obviously a new disease. It was a virulent disease, often killing its patients in a few days. No one seemed to have immunity. Almost everyone exposed succumbed to it. This is characteristic of a disease newly introduced into a population.

(3) No bones of native Americans have been discovered showing small pox lesions. But very few skeletons and bones of native Americans have been found, especially compared to the hundreds of millions of European bones preserved in the ossuaries.
Smallpox lesions have been discovered in an American animal cerca 1300 AD. Scientists have discovered the bones of a bear living in central Mexico around 1300 AD. The bones of the bear bear easily identifable small pox lesions. S

Smallpox therefore existed in Mexico cerca 1300AD wheras no evidence of smallpox has been found in Europe before 1500.

Another day, another liberal anti White racist mantra endlessly repeated by the liberal media.

Posted by at 6:04 PM on December 4

Have you heard the Legend of Viracocha? Ancient Peruvians believed that in the beginning, Lord Viracocha, prince and creator of all things, emerged from the void and created the earth and the heavens. This legend is similar to the legends of Kukulcan (Mayas) and Quetzalcoatl (Aztecs). This god was described as being a bearded man with white skin and beautiful emerald eyes.
That is the reason why Aztecs and Incas were confused when the Spanish conquistadors arrived to America. They first thought Viracocha/Quetzalcoatl was coming back.


Posted by at 12:46 AM on December 5

What can be said about the hunting down of white cultures the world over for cneturies. Whites are the global minority and yet have developed the most advanced prosperous countries/cultures. No matter where whites build towns/cultures/ prosperity for themselves they are chased down by racial thieves to destroy what we build and like locust tear it all apart and move on to the next white site for consumption!
Chasing/hunting white people has become the brown sport! V

Posted by at 1:32 AM on December 5

There are some fantastic accounts given by the Spanish historians . Unfortunately , it is all being covered up by political correctness . Any theories on where they came from ? Perhaps those provinces in India containing the fairer complected people ? Maybe even Europe ? Interesting subject .

Posted by at 3:11 AM on December 5

“(3) No bones of native Americans have been discovered showing small pox lesions. But very few skeletons and bones of native Americans have been found, especially compared to the hundreds of millions of European bones preserved in the ossuaries.
Smallpox lesions have been discovered in an American animal cerca 1300 AD. Scientists have discovered the bones of a bear living in central Mexico around 1300 AD. The bones of the bear bear easily identifable small pox lesions. S

Smallpox therefore existed in Mexico cerca 1300AD wheras no evidence of smallpox has been found in Europe before 1500.

Another day, another liberal anti White racist mantra endlessly repeated by the liberal media.”

Posted by at 6:04 PM on December 4

I would like to take your word for it; but for better confirming this in a scientific manner, could you please provide sources for your post?

Posted by EA Steve at 4:56 AM on December 5

Recent scientific paper about smallpox phylogeny and hypotheses about its possible spread:

Apparently, the virus came to Europe and Africa from the East Asia. The Americas got it twice – once a local, less deadly variant “alastrim” in South America evolved, the second entry was that of the European more deadly variant. Interestingly, the Indian population in Ecuador didn’t diminish under Spanish rule, probably due to sort of “vaccination” by the resident alastrim virus.

Posted by EW at 6:39 AM on December 5

I had no idea about smallpox. Thanks.

Posted by Rechill at 7:34 AM on December 5

Mexican Cartels Send Messages of Death

Mexican Cartels Send Messages of Death

More news stories on Mexico and Latin America

William Booth, Washington Post, December 4, 2008

The death squads of the drug cartels are killing in spectacularly gruesome ways, using the violence as a language to deliver a message to society.

Increasingly, bodies show unmistakable signs of torture. Videos of executions are posted on the Internet, as taunts, as warnings. Corpses are dumped on playgrounds, with neatly printed notes beside them. And very often, the heads have been removed.

When someone rolled five heads onto the dance floor in a cantina in Michoacan state two years ago, even the most hardened Mexicans were shocked. Now ritual mutilations are routine. In the border city of Tijuana, 37 people were slain over the weekend, including four children. Nine of the adults were decapitated, including three police officers whose badges were stuffed in their mouths.


As competing drug cartels and their fragmented cells fight the police, the Mexican army and one another for control of billion-dollar smuggling corridors into the U.S. drug market, the violence unleashed by President Felipe Calderón’s war against the traffickers grows more sensational.

An estimated 4,500 people have been killed in drug-related violence since 2007, when Calderón flooded the border and other drug hot zones with 20,000 Mexican troops and thousands of federal agents. November was the bloodiest month so far, with at least 700 killings, according to tallies kept by Mexican newspapers. Some victims had no connection to the drug trade, police say.

Twisted version of ‘shock and awe’

Experts say the cartels and their enforcers are attempting their own twisted version of “shock and awe,” broadcasting via traditional media, rumor mill and the Internet a willingness to fight to the end. Authorities also say the cartels are killing so graphically in order to sap public confidence in the government, perhaps hoping Calderón will allow the cartels to return to business as usual, when the smuggling organizations operated with the tacit support of corrupt officials.


Violence grows more grotesque

As the war drags on, the violence grows bolder and more grotesque. Last week in Juarez, the corpses of seven men, each shot multiple times, strangled and tortured, were lined up against a garden hedge at a primary school. The killers left poster-size signs. Soon after the bodies were discovered, the local police frequency was commandeered and songs in praise of cartels were broadcast on police radios.

In Tijuana last month, a man was executed inside a church. Bystanders, including children, have been killed in daylight gun battles. Five journalists have been assassinated this year, while the hotel where federal police stay in Ciudad Juarez has been assaulted by passing gunmen.

Law enforcement officials in Mexico and the United States say the spasm of violence is born of overlapping struggles. The cartels, and the cells within them, are fighting each other, dealing with traitors inside the organization and competitors outside, which in many cases may include crooked cops who work for the cartels. The traffickers are also fighting the police and military.


Messages left on dead bodies

The cartel killers communicate to one another and to society not only by murder but also message. In October, eight bodies were dumped facedown in an empty lot near a day-care center in Tijuana. Their hands were tied and a message read: “Here are your people.”

State prosecutors in the western state of Michoacan, where the small drug cartel La Familia is based, discovered a head in an ice chest in the port city of Lazaro Cardenas. Tape covered the eyes and an attached message read: “From the Gulf Cartel.” Two weeks ago, someone left funeral wreaths along the streets in the northern city of Hermosillo. State police say six of the wreaths included hand-lettered posters signed by the Gulf drug cartel. One of the signs read: “This is a message for the entire state police force, if you mess with us we are going to kill you and your entire family.”


Original article

(Posted on December 4, 2008)


Rahm Emanuel, the new white house chief of staff, has called for the elimination of any border patrol and a deconstruction of any fence put up to on our southern border. We can expect the drug cartels to accept his invitation and set up home in a neighborhood near you.

Posted by Tim at 5:21 PM on December 4

Don’t worry. Karl Rove assures me that these Mexicans are naturally conservative and some day will make good Republicans…

Posted by Paul at 5:31 PM on December 4

“Mexican Cartels Send Messages of Death”

Yep, intelligent people will draw the appropriate conclusions concerning Mexico, the rest will vacation there.

Posted by Bobby at 5:55 PM on December 4

Zimbabwe needs some diversity! This would be a wonderful opportunity to have about 500 Mexican criminals dumped into Mugabe’s lap. Then we’d find out which group could out “Third World” each other.

Posted by at 7:07 PM on December 4

Lou Dobbs had a report on this very subject tonight, with guests who have investigated the situation, writing an article on it which appears in Newsweek Magazine.

Both reporters sounded super negative about the situation, even projecting a feeling of hopelessness about the chances for reversing the crime and chaos.

Both also pointed out what we already know, which is that almost all the police and military are on cartel payroll.

Drug crime is the only crime that brings in so much wealth it’s necessary for the drug kingpins to start banks in order to have someplace to put their money, after various methods of money laundering.

With criminal organizations that have enough cash flow to pay standing armies and who have so many in the government and police on their payroll right now, it’s just a matter of time before Calderon’s government is going to be taken over by some sort of coup, rigged to look like one that involves politics rather than drug influence.

Dobbs asked why the US side was spared these thousands of killings and violence, and it was alleged that it was not in the interests of the cartels to pursue that kind of violence in the US right now, but neither reporter made any remarks about drug money influencing politicians and businesses on the US side, which has been reported numerous times by others in the recent past.

From all the information contributed to the situation so far, it appears as if the crime and violence will only increase.

If the neo-cons like unilateral attacks against nations that are endangering our national security or intend to do just that so much, and the importation of drugs is causing us definite national security problems, I’m wondering why the US has never taken over Mexico and installed a true democracy there instead of doing the same thing to countries who couldn’t harm us if they wanted to nor did they represent a threat to our national security as Mexico has for the last several years.

Posted by Ranger at 8:25 PM on December 4

To Ranger:

I think I might answer your question. If the United States invaded and bombed Mexico, trying to install a “democratic” regime there, do you realize how many Mexicans would migrate north? Perhaps some 20-30 million. I know, it’s paradoxical, but the United States is the only country to have engaged n war, where the people of the opposing country flock to, after the shooting is over. Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia and Haiti are examples of this.

The USA tried to capture Pancho Villa, after he led border raids in 1916, without success. This left Mexicans resenting the USA- but they still kept migrating here.
Besides, the USA doesn’t want to cut off a cheap labor supply. There are lawns to be cut, dishes to be washed, beds to be made, especially among among Hollywood liberals. Do you think they’d hire Puerto Ricans to do the jobs done by Mexicans?

On a sidebar, do American tourists still go to Tijuana for those legendary donkey shows?

Posted by Soprano Fan at 11:22 PM on December 4

When can we expect some of the bailout money to be funneled to mexico to be given to corrupt govt officials spending it on whores and villa’s ? Seems like the first cash infusion that we sent them wasnt enough to pay anyone off. With the money that was already sent a secure border fence could have been constructed all along the border. Im not saying that we would use american workers that so desperatly need jobs across america but it would be a nice jesture to use a few of them and fill the other postions with illegals that now find themselves in financial stress because of our economy.

Posted by at 1:18 AM on December 5

Let’s see…when Bush took office some of his comments about Mexicans were:
“They are only coming for jobs.” (And education, medication and all the perks they can get).
“If they can cross the Davis Mountains, we want ‘em.” (WE? Do you have a mouse in your pocket, Mr. President)”
“Family Values don’t stop at the Rio Grande (The US does)!

I’m sure others can think of many more idiotic statements by the pro-illegal president.

Posted by June at 9:04 AM on December 5

Chinese-American Activists Oppose Any Bill Richardson Cabinet Nomination

Chinese-American Activists Oppose Any Bill Richardson Cabinet Nomination

More news stories on Non-White Pressure Groups

Ken McLaughlin, Mercury News, December 03, 2008

In a move bound to create political tension between Latinos and Asian-Americans, a group of Chinese-American activists in Silicon Valley has launched a nationwide grass-roots movement to fight President-elect Barack Obama’s nomination today of Bill Richardson as commerce secretary.

The group is upset at the New Mexico governor for his handling of the nearly decade-old case of Taiwanese-American Wen Ho Lee, a former nuclear scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. U.S. officials once suspected Lee of giving nuclear secrets to China when Richardson was President Clinton’s energy secretary.

The Chinese-Americans say they realize that challenging the nomination of Richardson, 61, the nation’s most high-profile Hispanic politician, will ruffle the Latino community, many of whose leaders felt he should have been named secretary of state instead of Sen. Hillary Clinton.

But the Chinese-American group insists that Richardson’s refusal to acknowledge making serious errors in the case makes it a moral imperative to oppose his nomination to Obama’s Cabinet. They say their criticism of Richardson has nothing to do with him being Latino but everything to do with his lack of judgment in the case.

“This was the major Chinese-American civil rights case in the last 30 years,” said Albert Wang, a Fremont physician. “And there was a feeling among many Chinese-Americans, particularly in Silicon Valley, that Bill Richardson did a lot to promote the notion that all Chinese-Americans are potential spies.”


Hu, Wang and well-known Chinese-American human rights activists such as Henry Der plan to say in a new letter to Obama today, posted at http://www.wenholee.org , that Richardson’s actions violated Lee’s due process rights by firing him without the required legal notice. It will also accuse Richardson of promoting Lee’s indictment when there was no evidence that he had engaged in espionage.

Until Richardson apologizes for his actions, the group says, it will continue to oppose the nomination.

Der accused Richardson of fueling suspicions about the loyalties of dedicated, hardworking Chinese-Americans.


Noting that his group has endorsed many Asian-Americans running for local offices, Garza said he hopes “my brothers and sisters who happen to be Chinese don’t allow their resentment” over Richardson’s handling of the Lee case “to become a single issue” that could threaten his nomination.

“And I hope this single issue won’t create a major problem between the two groups,” Garza [Victor Garza, chairman of La Raza Roundtable] said.


Some political analysts see the dust-up as one of the opening salvos in an evolving political mosaic created by the election of the nation’s first black president.

Gregory Rodriguez, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, said the controversy shows that all the talk about a “post-racial America” is overblown.

“We believed we were going to work our way to the point where race did not matter,” said Rodriguez, author of “Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans, and Vagabonds: Mexican Immigration and the Future of Race in America.”

But the reality, Rodriguez said, is that “race is only going to affect our society in more complex ways.”

Original article

(Posted on December 4, 2008)


The Asians are fighting the mestizos, while the mestizos are fighting back and, in turn, they’re fighting (and killing) blacks, and the blacks are fighting the Muslims, the Asians, the mestizos, and, of course, they have always pursued a one-sided war of intense hatred against whites. All of the ethnicities are at odds with one another at any given day of the week. It never ends.

And every single group resents whites, and in some cases there are groups of Hispanics whose resentment and jealousy have turned to hatred of most all whites, and a good 85% of the blacks despise whites even more, as an extension of their jealousy and resentment.

Add the resentment and hatred of some religious ethnicities against whites, and the overall picture is one in which the entire mish mash of races and ethnicities is one big, constant squabbling mass of contentious chaos that gets worse with each passing year.

And of all the tribal factions it is only whites who really love this country and want to do what is best for it, while the others care not one whit for anything other than pushing ANY agenda they perceive will advance their tribal interests somehow, and to Hell with the country as a whole, as long as they can parasitically consume its money.

Behold, my friends, the stark revelation that is the basic truth of all societies who try their hand at multiculturalism.

Can anyone deny that the entire world is economically falling in a domino effect, because the diversity fools tried to force a rainbow utopia on us?

If this country and the world bottoms out to bare survival, could biological warfare have been more effective in causing such a collapse?

But it is not psychological warfare that has hit us so devastatingly. It is DIVERSITY. You know, the thing they’ve been repeating in Orwellian fashion so often they succeeded in making some fools believe them.

Posted by Ranger at 6:31 PM on December 4

Wen Ho Lee was a foreign-born scientist who had his security clearance taken away by the FBI because he was caught placing restricted data on a computer that could be accessed by the public.

He then proceeded to illegally place the same secret data on a different computer that was accessed over 40 times by persons unknown.

When arrested he admitted that during a previous visit to China he had been asked to spy for them by leaking US nuclear secrets to them. He illegally withheld this info from his US gov’t employers for 10 years.

Even if he wasn’t a spy, he surely deserved to be investigated.

The p.c. buffoons who turned him into a martyr have never offered the slightest evidence that Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson were prejudiced against Asians.

Posted by Madison Grant at 8:55 PM on December 4

Excuse me, I would be the last person to defend Reconquista Richardson, but he was right on the Wen Ho Lee Case. Ten tapes with sensitive security issues on them were missing and Lee didn’t account for them. It was Chinese money for legal defenses that allowed Lee to basically get off the hook easily.

Isn’t it interesting that the Mexican activists are only concerned about hurting the feelings of their “brothers and sisters in the Chinese community”, as the obseqious Victor Garza of the LA RAZA roundtable stated, rather than being concerned about the consequences of Wen Ho Lees actions. I guess matters pertaining to treason against the U.S. are put on the backburner by Mexican activists, if they might get in the way of their political goals. What a sick nation this has become.

Posted by Bobby at 9:00 PM on December 4

Incredible how every group under the sun in these United States stands up for itself and its members. And what ‘Ranger’ stated:

“Add the resentment and hatred of some religious ethnicities against whites, and the overall picture is one in which the entire mish mash of races and ethnicities is one big, constant squabbling mass of contentious chaos that gets worse with each passing year.”

-is certainly true. The biggest problem is for us – Whites. We, or should I say, most, Whites do not stand up for themselves. If we don’t start soon we’re going to lose this country, and the future.

Posted by Awakened at 9:33 PM on December 4

I can’t say if Wen Ho Lee was a spy but he did act in an “unusual” way. From what I understand Mr. Lee had data from work that was suppose to be only used on the computer systems at Los Alamos on his own home computer.

Of course the most damaging thing against Mr. Lee was if my memory serves me were the various backup tapes that he had. Lee supposedly had something like 10 backup tapes.

Anyone who is a system admin knows that is ALOT of data. Most computers usually need a single backup tape. Although there is incremental and differential backup that may require multiple tapes, but Amren isn’t a computer website so I’ll leave it that.

Wen did have contacts with Chinese scientists but no classified materials were passed,at least to my knowledge or Mr. Lee would be in jail.

Although no one really knows what Ho intended to do with the data the most interesting and probably most likely course of action was free lance consulting. It happens all the time in government these guys get out and make 2-3x what they were making as government employees working as freelance contractors.

Also much of the material that Lee downloaded was publicly availble,maybe 99%.

High level officials were leaking information to the New York Times and were fighting their war in the press rather than the courtroom. They were trying to create an “atmosphere” against Mr. Lee.

This feeding of information and to the press and the lack of actual signs of espionage (although not gross misconduct) probably got Lee off.

Here’s some info about the Lee case:


Although there isn’t evidence of espionage its hard to say that Lee actions weren’t a cause for concern. In fact breaching mishandling propriety data at many government agencies even private companies, no matter how innocuous the reason, is going to get you into alot of trouble.

In retrospect Lee should have probably learned use GOOGLE he probably could have found everything he probably needed.

Posted by Yellow Man at 3:48 AM on December 5

Given the vast amount of espionage… for both industrial and defense technology conducted by our Chinese “friends” over the past half-century or so, I have no sympathy for the Chinese traitors. This also brings to mind our former poster styling himself as John Liu, a year or two ago. He railed out and ranted about how the West (Britain and probably America “plundered” China of so much wealth.) Whether that claim has validity or not is a moot point. China stole far more wealth with its espionage, received far more value for that purported plundering in free technology from the West than Mr. Liu could ever force himself to admit. But isn’t that the way it always is? When the supposed “victims” start their little rants.

Posted by Fed Up at 7:59 AM on December 5

Nationalism and the environment

Nationalism and the environment

This post is a very ad hoc affair written, really, to raise a subject – one that is under-served here – for discussion.

The reason I don’t spend a lot of time writing about the environment is because I’m not 100% sold on the notion that membership of a healthy and self-conscious organic society necessarily implies care for the land.  It never did, down all the years when the crises of our people and of our environment were nightmares of the imagination, and nothing more.

Of course, nobody has ever argued that pollution is good.  But 99.9% of us – our forefathers included – have been very keen indeed on material progress and deliverance from want.  In the words of John Gummer when he was John Major’s Environment Secretary, “We are rich because we pollute.”

It would, I suppose, be logical for environmentally negative tendencies to increase with hyper-individualism.  But received wisdom states that care for the environment strongly corresponds with times of economic growth, and capitalism, with all its individualist dynamics, is the great deliverer of growth.

So this picture is perhaps more mixed than it might at first glance appear to the romantic nationalist.  I think one has to be careful to avoid undue romanticism in thinking it through.  Irrespective of politics, everyone can agree that dirty old factories and power stations belching greenhouse gasses into the air and pumping filth into our rivers are undesirable.

That said, there is such a thing as a uniquely nationalist discussion on the environment.  It should chiefly consider issues of population size and carrying capacity … and immigrant repatriation, I imagine.  Incidentally, in his definition of exceeded carrying capacity Frank Salter includes the lost values of privacy, access to open space, and sustenance.  Maximising our genetic interests may, for a time, mean a focus on maximising proximate environmental interests rather than ultimate reproductive interests.

Another area for nationalist discussion should be sociobiological in character.  Which peoples can genuinely contribute to tackling global pollution?  Europeans are the most intellectually gifted and, therefore, creative of all great peoples, and these qualities are what are really needed.  We are also the most altruistic of peoples, and the most individualistic – meaning we do not live as in thrall as non-Westerners do to, in this context, regressive thought patterns such as tradition, social conformity, fatalism, and spirituality.

Alright, I’ll leave it there.  Comment is, as they say elsewhere without actually meaning it, free.

India-Pakistan War Would Be Victory For Terrorism—Like The Iraq-Afghanistan Quagmire

India-Pakistan War Would Be Victory For Terrorism—Like The Iraq-Afghanistan Quagmire

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Arguably the most successful act of revolutionary terror was the June 1914 assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo.

Believing his mission to murder the heir to the Austrian throne had failed, Gavrilo Princip suddenly found himself standing a few feet away from the royal car. He fired twice, mortally wounding the archduke and his wife.

Tactically, that act of terror eliminated the reformist Ferdinand, who meant to address the grievances of his Slav subjects by granting them greater autonomy and equality with Austrians and Hungarians inside the empire.

Strategically, the assassination succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its Black Hand plotters.

Hard-liners in Austria demanded an ultimatum to Serbia. When her demands were not met in full, Vienna declared war. Czar Nicholas mobilized in support of Russia’s little Slav brothers. The Kaiser ordered mobilization. When the French refused to declare neutrality, Germany declared war. In hours, the British Cabinet had reversed itself to back war with Germany on behalf of Belgium and France.

Princip had lit the fuse that set off in six weeks the greatest war in history. While Serbia suffered per capita losses as great as any other nation, she ended the Great War as the lead nation in a Kingdom of the South Slavs embracing Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians, Albanians, Montenegrins, Macedonians and Hungarians. The Habsburg Empire at which Princip had struck had vanished.

Last week’s Mumbai massacre seems a similar triumph of terror.

Tactically, by sending a platoon of suicide warriors into India’s financial capital, terrorizing a train station, two five-star hotels and a Jewish center, and killing nearly 200 in over 60 hours, the plotters assured themselves of round-the-clock worldwide television coverage.

In so riveting the world’s attention for four days, this terrorist atrocity was a success.

And by using Pakistanis to perpetrate the massacres and Karachi as port of embarkation, the plotters focused India’s rage exactly where they want it, against Pakistan. By this slaughter in India’s commercial capital, the Islamists have destroyed the detente Pakistan was seeking with India and pushed both toward war. Out to murder moderation and stoke militancy, the terrorists succeeded.

Years ago, this writer observed:

“Terrorism is a tactic, a technique, a weapon that fanatics, dictators and warriors have resorted to through history. If, as Clausewitz wrote, war is the continuation of politics by other means, terrorism is the continuation of war by other means.”

Yet terrorism—the killing of innocents for political ends—can only triumph if the aggrieved play the role the terror masters have scripted for them in their bloody drama. What, then, may we surmise are the tactical and strategic goals of the terror masters of Mumbai?

To humiliate, wound and outrage India in her pride as a great new democratic and economic power in Asia. To imperil Mumbai’s future as a safe and secure financial capital in which to live, work and invest. To awe the world and inspire Islam’s young by their audacity. To attain immortality.

But the strategic target of the militants is the Pakistani government.

Pakistan’s offenses? Cooperating with America in Afghanistan and the border region, battling al-Qaida and the Taliban, withdrawing from the fight for Kashmir, seeking peace with a Hindu nation where 170 million Muslims are denied their place in the sun.

President Bush should pray New Delhi does not adopt his Bush Doctrine of preventive war or the Cheney Doctrine: “Even if there’s just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty.” For war in the subcontinent between India and Pakistan would be a calamity and a triumph for the terrorists across what Zbigniew Brzezinski has called the “Global Balkans.”

War would pit two nuclear powers against each other for the first time since the Sino-Soviet border clash of 1969. It would spawn bloodshed between Muslim and Hindu in India. It would see the collapse of Pakistan, its possible dissolution and a military dictator in a nation already divided against itself over whether to continue resisting al-Qaida and the Taliban, or cut ties to the unpopular Americans.

Wounded and enraged by the atrocities of 9-11, America lashed out, first at Afghanistan and the al-Qaida source of the conspiracy, then at Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attacks. Thus did the Bush administration disunite its nation and forfeit its mandate.

For India to lash out at a Pakistan that was not complicit in the Mumbai crimes against humanity, but harbors elements within that are guilty and are celebrating, would be as great a mistake.

India and Pakistan both have a vital interest in no new war.

But a new war is exactly what the terrorists killed for and died for.

Should it come, they win—and enter history as revolutionary terrorists alongside Princip and the perpetrators of 9-11.

Washington Arrogance has Fomented a Muslim Revolution

Washington Arrogance has Fomented a Muslim Revolution

By Paul Craig Roberts

“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

Justice Louis Brandeis

Is Pakistan responsible for the Mumbai attack in India?  No.

Is India’s repression of its Muslim minority responsible? No.

Is the United States government responsible?  Yes.

The attack on Mumbai required radicalized Muslims. Radicalized Muslims resulted from the US overthrowing the elected government in Iran and imposed the Shah;  from the US stationing troops in Saudi Arabia; from the US invading and attempting to occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, bombing weddings, funerals, and children’s soccer games;  from the US violating international and US law by torturing its Muslim victims; from the US enlisting Pakistan in its war against the Taliban; from the US violating Pakistan’s sovereignty by conducting military operations on Pakistani territory, killing Pakistani civilians;  from the US government supporting a half century of Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their lands, towns and villages; from the assault of American culture on Muslim values; from the US purchasing the government of Egypt to act as its puppet; from US arrogance that America is the supreme arbiter of morality.

As Justice Brandeis said, crime is contagious.  Government teaches by example, and America’s example is lawlessness. America’s brutal crimes against the Muslim world have invited every Muslim to become a law unto himself–a revolutionary.  It is not terror that Washington confronts but revolution.

By illegal, uncivilized and undiplomatic behavior, the US has stirred Muslim peoples from their long slumber as serfs of Western colonial powers.  Some Muslims have had all that they can take, and their fury drives them to rouse a billion of their fellows to throw off the yoke of foreign hegemony.

The arrogant incompetence of American governments brought this conflict to the American people and inflicted it upon the world. By destabilizing Pakistan, the US lost a puppet and created an opportunity for Muslim revolutionaries to exploit.  By enraging India against Pakistan, the Mumbai attack has created new problems for Pakistan that will focus that government’s attention away from combating Taliban sanctuaries on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan.  If the US picks up the slack, it will have invaded yet another country and become trapped in a larger quagmire.

Having fomented terrorism, the American government now pretends to be the innocent victim, just as Israelis, having brought about terrorism by driving Palestinians from their homes and villages, pretend to be innocent victims.

Today European members of NATO, an outdated organization formed to defend Western Europe against Soviet invasion, are sacrificing the lives of their soldiers fighting the American Empire’s war in Afghanistan.  If America continues to have its way, Europeans will soon be dying in Ukraine, Georgia, and Iran.

The American government, which preaches “freedom and democracy” has in the 21st century gone to great extremes to stamp out the US Constitution and the civil liberties that it guarantees.  The US government has repudiated the Geneva Conventions and the prohibitions in US statutory law against torture.  The US government has set aside habeas corpus, the ancient legal principle guaranteed by the US Constitution that prohibits governments from holding people in prisons without presenting charges.  The US government has broken the laws of other nations by kidnapping foreign citizens and transporting them to other lands to be tortured.

These massive crimes have been justified in the name of the “war on terror.” In truth, America’s crimes foment revolution.

It was the US government that created the “war on terror,” which has been used to murder and dispossess millions of Iraqis and Afghans, to imprison US citizens as if they were medieval serfs, and to squander three trillion dollars for the sole purpose of enriching Halliburton and the military-security complex.

Investigative journalist John Pilger has shown that the so-called “moral superiority of the West” is a hoax designed to shield from view the self-seeking West’s crimes against humanity.

Obama promised change from this destructive behavior, but how does change arise when the most arrogant woman on earth is appointed Secretary of State and the rest of the new government is staffed with tried and true Likudniks and servants of the military-security complex?

The change over which Obama will preside will have no American victories.  The change will come from America as a failed state, from the dollar dethroned as reserve currency, from America repudiated by its allies and paid puppets, from massive unemployment for which there is no solution, from hyperinflation that produces anarchy.

The day might arrive when Washington is faced with revolution at home as well as abroad.

Can This Marriage Last?

Can This Marriage Last?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Having savaged each other for a year, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have now formed a rare partnership in power. Not since James Garfield chose James G. Blaine has a new president chosen his principal rival to be secretary of state.

What does this tell us?

First, don’t take campaign oratory all that seriously.

Second, unlike Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy, Ron Paul or Jesse Helms, , Hillary and Barack are pragmatists. They do not let ideology or past insults get in the way of a mutually beneficial deal.

But this is not some Hitler-Stalin pact of American politics.

Dick Morris has it right. As in a parliamentary system, where Cabinet members come straight off the majority party front bench, Barack, as prime minister, is knitting together a coalition government that allocates its highest honors to its greatest stars.

As Tony Blair named rival Gordon Brown as chancellor of the exchequer, Barack made Joe Biden his vice president, Hillary his secretary of state and Bill Richardson his secretary of commerce. Had John Edwards not fouled his nest, he, too, would be in the Cabinet. Perhaps attorney general.

And while Barack has taken a risk naming Hillary, with her national following and ruthless courtiers, Hillary’s investment is even greater. Should a clash erupt, as it did between Ronald Reagan and Al Haig, Barack, though at great cost, can terminate her and her career. The idea that a cashiered secretary of state could challenge President Obama in 2012, capture the nomination and win, after humiliating and dumping our first African-American president, is absurd.

And the Clintons know it. Absent divine intervention, Obama is the nominee in 2012. Hillary has to know this is likely her last chance to make history. Thus she seized the offer of State, and Bill agreed to go the Full Monty on his financial relationships.

What does this marriage of convenience, with Biden, Bob Gates and Gen. Jim Jones as ushers, mean for U.S. foreign policy?

Methinks the antiwar left has the crying towel out too early.

Our new decider’s heart is still on the left. Moreover, his political interests argue for relegating to the trash bin of history a Bush-neocon policy of endless war until the Middle East resembles the Middle West. America cannot sustain the wars that Bush’s policy produced, nor those it promises.

Look, then, for Obama to make a large, early down payment on his pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months. Though the Status of Forces Agreement accepted by Iraq doubles the time Obama has to pull out, to December 2011, the nation, not just the left, wants out, with but a single caveat: America does not want a Saigon ending.

What happens after—whether Shia attack Shia, or join to crush Sunnis, or Arabs engage Kurds—is not a war Americans are willing to intervene in with any new surge of U.S. troops.

About Afghanistan there is a gathering consensus that victory over a resurgent Taliban with a sanctuary in Pakistan’s border region cannot be achieved without an infusion of U.S. troops this country is unwilling to support.

Escalating the war means more air strikes that have alienated the Afghan people as well as President Kharzi. More Predator strikes in a Pakistan where anti-Americanism is rife and the government is besieged hardly seems a promising policy.

What is the U.S. bottom line in Kabul? Not the impossible dream of a democracy modeled on our own but a government committed to keeping al-Qaida out. Given the bloody beating the Taliban have taken for seven years, they may be amenable to such an arrangement.

But the first test of the Obama-Clinton team may be Iran.

Tehran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has never declared it in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. Yet, the suspicion is broad and deep in Washington and Tel Aviv that Iran is hell-bent on building an atom bomb. Obama and Hillary have both said that will not happen, no matter what it takes.

If war with Iran is to be averted, the new team must move swiftly to talk to Tehran and put its cards on the table. It is here that the potential for a split between Barack and Hillary is greatest.

If Likud’s “ibi” Netanyahu wins the Israeli election, he will push hard for U.S. air strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, and push back against any Obama deal with Tehran. With the Israeli lobby and a Jewish community that gave Barack 80 percent of its votes, plus the neocons and Evangelical right calling for strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites, would the Obama-Clinton team stand united—against war?

Would Hillary, a former senator from New York who relied even more heavily than Barack on Jewish contributions and votes, stand by Barack if the two disagree on whether the survival of Israel is at stake?

On second thought, the antiwar left is right to be nervous.

Truthers to the Left of Me, Truthers to the Right

Truthers to the Left of Me, Truthers to the Right

By Michelle Malkin

Did you know that Sarah Palin-haters are still trying to prove she didn’t give birth to her youngest son, Trig? These tinfoil hat-wearers are as obnoxious and unhinged as the 9/11 Truth cultists who insist that America engineered the jihadi attacks on itself. The presidential campaign may be over, but there’s no expiration date on Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Jack Bogdanski,[Email him] a law professor at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, stirred up Trig Trutherism again this week with a post on his website exposing Sarah Palin’s fake pregnancy belly.” Armed with frontal photos of Palin’s stomach, Bogdanski declared: “The Mar. 26 photo is the smoking gun. There really is no chance that there’s a baby in there who will be born 23 days later at six pounds birth weight. And there really is no chance that the child grew so suddenly over the following two weeks. … Sarah Palin is not the mother.”

We’re all obstetricians now!

This nonsense began with left-wing Internet rumors that Palin was really Trig’s grandmother and that she was covering up for the “real” mother—her teenage daughter, Bristol. The conspiracy was hyped by The Atlantic‘s excitable resident womb-chaser Andrew Sullivan and later amplified by “respectable” journalists like CNN/Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz. As the fever swamps roiled, Alaska TV reporter Cherie Shirey stepped forward to squash the paranoia with a statement to the liberal Huffington Post:

“These Internet rumors are very bizarre. We worked with Gov. Palin many times in 2008. Our reporters worked her on location and in the studio, and I worked with her myself. She was definitely pregnant. You could see it in her belly and her face. The whole idea that Sarah Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig is completely, absolutely absurd.”

Shirey was ignored. Profile shots of a heavily pregnant Palin taken in April 2008 didn’t satisfy the Fake Belly mob, either. The disclosure that Bristol was in fact pregnant with her teenage boyfriend’s child did not quell the insanity. Neither did a health assessment from Palin’s personal physician affirming her five pregnancies, nor did contemporaneous hospital accounts of the birth or Palin’s accounts of nursing Trig.

It’s only a matter of time before someone accuses Palin of planting fake breast milk on her pump.

The plain truth will never mollify a Truther. There’s always a convoluted excuse—some inconsequential discrepancy to seize on, some photographic “evidence” to magnify into a blur of meaningless pixels—that will rationalize irrationality. Palin could produce Trig’s umbilical cord and it still wouldn’t be enough.

Alas, Trutherism thrives on both the left and right. Which brings us to the spate of lawsuits challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court considers one of those suits, filed by New Jersey citizen Leo Donofrio, who maintains that Obama is not a “natural born citizen” because his father held British citizenship.

There may be the seed of a legitimate constitutional issue to explore here—how is the citizenship requirement enforced for presidential candidates, anyway? And at least Donofrio concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii. But a dangerously large segment of the birth-certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory. The most prominent crusader against Obama’s American citizenship claim, lawyer Philip Berg (who, not coincidentally, is also a prominent 9/11 Truther) disputes that Obama was born in Hawaii and claims that Obama’s paternal grandmother told him she saw Obama born in Kenya.

Berg and his supporters further assert that the “Certification of Live Birth” produced by Obama was altered or forged. They claim that the contemporaneous announcement in a Hawaii newspaper of Obama’s birth is insufficient evidence that he was born there. (Did a fortuneteller place it in the paper knowing he would run for president?) And they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law.

I believe Trig was born to Sarah Palin. I believe Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. I believe fire can melt steel and that bin Laden’s jihadi crew—not Bush and Cheney—perpetrated mass murder on 9/11. What kind of kooky conspiracist does that make me?

Infrastructure to the Rescue? Not Without Immigration Reform

Infrastructure to the Rescue? Not Without Immigration Reform

Government groups are pressuring Congress to include public infrastructure in any future bailout bill. They want $250 billion to $300 billion earmarked for roads, bridges, airport and other public works projects. [Including Infrastructure in Economic Bailout, Georgia Municipal Association, October 31, 2008]

Politically, infrastructure is a winner. Unlike the Wall Street bailout, with its Eastern, elitist tinge, a public works spending program would create blue-collar jobs in communities throughout the country. There is also an economic case: Collapsing bridges, nightmarish airports, and chronic traffic congestion costs us plenty—in dollars, time, and lives.

But if money was the problem, there would be no problem. Since 1987 capital spending on transportation and water infrastructure has increased by 2.1 percent per year above inflation. At $233 billion (2004 dollars), infrastructure is already one of the largest categories of government spending. [CBO, Issues and Options in Infrastructure Investment, May 2008. (PDF) ]

Our infrastructure is “crumbling” because population growth has overwhelmed the ability of even these vast sums to expand capacity.

Take the highway system. America has about 70 million more people today than a quarter century ago, yet highway miles have increased by a mere 5 percent over that period. DOT estimates that the demand for ground transportation—either by road or rail—will be 2 ½ times as great by 2050, while highway capacity will expand by only 10% during that time. [Road Warriors, By Will Sullivan, US News and World Report, March 29, 2007]

Implication: unless population growth is reduced, highway congestion will increase……no matter how much we spend on highways.

Immigrants and their U.S.-born children have generated more than half of U.S. population growth in recent decades.

Less widely appreciated is the impact they’ve had on urban sprawl. Cities with large immigrant populations experience larger increases in suburb-to-core commuter traffic—with many of the new suburban commuters having lived in urban cores until displaced by immigrants.

We drive more– and require more highway infrastructure—mainly because the area in which we live, work and shop is larger and more spread out. Sprawl occurs when rural land which had been undeveloped or used for agriculture is developed for residential or commercial use.

There can be only three reasons for such sprawl:

  • a rise in per capita land consumption;

  • a rise in population;

  • both.

The relative importance of these factors was quantified in a 2003 study by Roy Beck, Leon Kolankiewicz, and Steven Camarota. [Outsmarting Smart Growth Population Growth, Immigration, and the Problem of Sprawl]

This is what they found:

  • Nationally, population growth accounted for 52 percent of urban sprawl between 1982 and 1997, while increases in per-capita land consumption accounted for 48 percent.

  • The more rapid a state’s population growth, the more a state sprawled. For example, states that grew in population by more than 30 percent between 1982 and 1997 experienced a 46 percent rise in urban sprawl. In contrast, states that grew in population by less than 10 percent sprawled only 26 percent on average.

  • On average, each 10,000-person increase in state population resulted in 1,600 acres of undeveloped rural land being developed, even controlling for other factors such as changes in population density.

More sprawl equals longer commutes equals more time spent getting to work. When the suburbanite finally exits the interstate he often enters a dense urban space where transportation infrastructure is increasingly scarce. Immigrants play a role in this crunch also:

“…For economic reasons, immigrants often live with more people per dwelling unit than do native-born residents; when Fulton et al. (2001) conducted a study on sprawl for the Brookings Institution, they found that the single most important variable in explaining changes of density between 1982 and 1997 was the share of 1990 residents who were foreign born. Los Angeles, as a major immigrant port of entry, ranks near the top of their list of the United States’ densest urban areas, and the top 20 are dominated by western urban areas like Phoenix, Modesto, Calif., and Fresno, Calif. ….” [Parking, People, and Cities By Michael Manville and Donald Soup, Journal of Urban Planning and Development, December 2005.PDF]

As density increases so too does congestion, in part because it is hard to add more street space in areas that are already heavily developed. Most new lane mileage is built on the urban fringe. Finding a parking space is also more time consuming—not to mention expensive—in dense urban cores.

There are mitigating factors. Recent immigrants are less likely to own automobiles, and more likely to take mass transit and to carpool. Over time, however, the travel patterns of immigrants resemble those of the U.S.-born. For those here over twenty-years there is practically no difference. [ Commuting Patterns of Immigrants, Federal Highway Administration Census Transportation Planning Package]

Bottom line: an infrastructure bailout without immigration reform is throwing good money after bad.

The Perfect Strom from Vdare.com

The Presidential Election

For reasons which continue to puzzle me even after thirty five years in journalism, the Main Stream Media is extremely reluctant to report the simple facts about the racial breakdown of the Presidential vote. Maybe it’s because it shows that America is coming apart: whites voted heavily (55%-45%) for McCain; blacks, Hispanics and other minorities even more heavily—in fact overwhelmingly—for Obama.

We’ve discussed at length on VDARE.COM. But we have also done the math: projecting this year’s racial voting pattern back, adjusting for America’s racial balance as it is shifted by mass non-traditional immigration. The result is startling: John McCain’s share of the white vote would have been enough to win him the Presidency in 1976. In other words, he ran better than President Ford, who was defeated that year by Jimmy Carter.

Projected forward, assuming immigration continues at its present pace, we find that even the share of whites that President Bush achieved in 2004 would not be enough to win the Presidency in 2012.

Public policy is changing America that quickly. Why is this being done?

You will only find these facts, and this question, on VDARE.COM.

The Financial Crisis

The Crash of 2008 was a “perfect storm”—it needed several elements to come together.

But a key element was the loosening of mortgage lending standards, imposed on the industry by a bipartisan consensus of politicians, in order to subsidize/ bribe minorities and immigrants, disproportionately uncreditworthy.

This loosening inflated the housing bubble—and precipitated the housing bust, as the uncreditworthy borrowers turned out to be, well, uncreditworthy.

As we’ve said bluntly at VDARE.COM, the U.S. has been plunged into a “Diversity Recession”—driven by a “Minority Mortgage Meltdown”.

Our Steve Sailer has documented this phenomenon in half a dozen full-length articles this fall.

But at VDARE.COM, we highlighted this problem way back in March 2004—in Thomas Allen’s eerily prescient article The Mortgage Monsters Meet The Immigration Invasion. They Like Each Other, about the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) and their irresponsible pursuit of immigrant, often illegal alien, clients.

Allen concluded: We’ve known for some time that current mass immigration is politically unstable. Now it turns out that it’s financially unstable as well.”

Remember, that was in 2004!

The moral of this story, to use an old Wall Street adage: things that can’t go on, don’t. Washington’s manipulation of the mortgage market was doomed to fail and it did, injuring many innocent people in the process. Its manipulation of immigration policy will fail too.