I did it on my own and while I chose to involve other’s, I really didn’t need them.

I still to this day defend my actions and kindly ask you to fuck off if you disagree.

I however subject my views to constant scrutiny and am always looking for ways to perfect them. I sense that the average person does not possess this trait and I question why I even try to reason with the average person. The average person would prefer to believe in what is comfortable rather than to believe in what can be proven with evidence. And the average person does not know the difference between this fantasy and reality. Sometimes it may be comforting to pretend that the truth isn’t real, but a problem materializes when the person does not realize that they are pretending. It may be comforting to pretend I am the CEO of WWE or descended from ancient Dinosaurs, but if I did, I would know that I am pretending! I would not start to actually BELIEVE it, but know that I am setting up a false comfort zone! I would continue to separate reality from fantasy. The masses cannot separate reality from fantasy.

Expecting people to think rationally is like expecting people to peacefully give up their religion (in masses) or expecting people who speak Ebonics to in masses speak English correctly. It isn’t going to happen!

Mussolini would prefer fifty thousand rifles to fifty thousand votes. I think he was right!

The sad thing is that I know this is a result of the education system purposely not teaching people about anthropology. You learn about biology and white racism in high school, but not anthropology.

Liberalism is causing people to not know how to think!

I would think VNN and Stormfront are educated compared to some of the things I read.

It worked, but now I am cleaning things up because I feel it is important to deliver the correct message.

Some posts were moved to the Johnny Gulag account, and others were edited.

I learned when trying to discuss politics with Kahanists that people who merge politics with religion (often they are faking their religion) tend not to reciprocate support from secular people. There are many people who are essentially secular in their viewpoints, but they pretend to be religious to achieve some political gain. These people, being hypocrites, can never be trusted. For instance, the Croatian Ustaše leaders attempted to incorporate Catholic hierarchy into their ruling order as a political ideology. To them religion was political, not a natural belief system. To these people, religion is not just a philosophy or a conviction, but a cover for an ambitious rise to power which uses adherence to the religion in a discriminatory manner. Someone who openly advocates atheism strongly would have trouble gaining any influence, because the hypocrites monitor their own reputations and do not want to be questioned by the masses. If the hypocrites were shown to be liars, they fear they would lose their influence. To the extent such a thing as Islamo-Facism exists (vs. real Islam), it will never ally with openly secular people because to do so would cause status anxieties. These people fear being unmasked as illegitimate interlopers of a religion. It would be like Hitler allying with Jews. He would never do it because people would then question if he really was a Nazi.

Then there are people who believe their religion the same way the average person believes the sky is blue. These people are mystics as opposed to scholars usually and do not view themselves as being political. A true Muslim believes he is going to heaven, believes he is following the koran, and believes his views are right. But an Islamo-fascist uses religion as a means of separating “us” from “them” to gain power politically. Legitimate Muslims who believe their religion as a matter of truth and falsehood (as opposed to hypocrites who are pretending to be religious) can at least be taken at face value, but I think if Marxists are truly Marxists and not closet infiltrators, their secular view will ultimately make the alliance crumble among the masses of anything but extremely moderate Muslims.

Jared Taylor, current editor of the American Renaissance, denies the term “white nationalist” and explains why he is not a “white supremacist.” But, what this established journalist claims, is that he is a “race realist.” Taylor’s views have become an important piece of the race relations puzzle, and can often be found in studies, essays, newspapers (including the Washington Post) and books. Taylor has been called everything from a racist to a “true paragon of tolerance.” He takes a few moments to discuss with Jamie Hines what is a “race realist,” why there is no need for the civil rights battle, and what he thinks of President Barack Obama.

JH: I’ve read that you describe yourself as a “race realist.” What is a “race realist?”

JT: Race realism is rejection of the agreeable fantasies about race that have become orthodoxy since the 1960s. First, it is obvious that most people prefer the company of others of their own race. Forced integration therefore causes tension and resentment.

Second, race is an important element in individual and group identity, which means it is impossible to build a society in which race does not matter.

Third, people of different races build different societies. Blacks—wherever they are found in large numbers—establish communities with certain characteristics, and whites and others do the same.

Fourth, the combination of the first three factors means that racial diversity is a source of constant conflict. This is blindingly obvious, yet one of the requirements of respectability in this country is to pretend—and to repeat loudly at every opportunity—that diversity is a strength.

Fifth, the evidence is overwhelming that there is a substantial genetic contribution to well-established racial differences in average IQ. North East Asians living in America have higher incomes, better test scores, and more education than whites because they are, on average, smarter. Whites are smarter than Hispanics, who are smarter than blacks. It is vital to recognize this because otherwise “society” (meaning whites) is blamed for the failures of blacks and Hispanics.

Finally, race realism recognizes that whites have legitimate group interests just like everyone else.

JH: What are the legitimate group interests of whites?

JT: It is vital to eliminate the stark racial double standard that denies whites even have legitimate interests as a group. White pride or racial consciousness is considered “bigotry” or “hatred,” while any other kind of racial consciousness is considered to be a healthy form of ethnic self-esteem. This means every group in the country—except whites—is constantly pushing its collective interests, while whites are not allowed even to have interests as a group, much less work for them.

Some of the interests of whites are obvious. The first is not to be reduced to a minority. Most whites don’t want this but they dare not say so for fear of being accused of “hate.” Hispanics, on the other hand, are constantly rejoicing in their increased numbers and influence, and it is considered natural for them to look forward to eventually become a majority. Their gain is our loss, so why are they allowed to be happy about their gain but we are not allowed to resist our loss?

Whites have every right to prefer the kind of society that they create and to resist demographic shifts that are already changing their country in profound ways. Jews have a right to a Jewish state, and they keep it Jewish through selective immigration. Japanese have a right to a Japanese state and they keep it that way through restrictive immigration. Whites also, whether in North America or Europe, have the right to live in nations that reflect their culture and heritage.

Second, what is known as “affirmative action” is really discrimination against whites. If the kinds of preferences shown to blacks or Hispanics were shown to whites it would be a nation scandal, but because the victims are whites (and sometimes Asians) it is of no consequence. Whites must work to eliminate this while it is still possible to do so. When non-whites become majorities, they are likely to push for even more extensive racial preferences than the ones they enjoy today.

JH: Do you consider yourself a White Nationalist and/or a White Supremacist? Why or Why not?

JT: No. I don’t know what the term white nationalist is supposed to mean. White supremacists presumably want to rule other races, and race realists have no such desire. I believe people of every race should be free to pursue their own destinies, and this is impossible in societies in which they become minorities.

It should not be necessary to add that a concern for one’s own interests implies no hostility to others. Race realists understand that people of all races have the same rights: to preserve their culture and identity against any force that would dilute or replace it. One’s race is one’s extended family. Putting the interests of family before the interests of strangers is not hostility to strangers. One can become good friends with strangers but family comes first.

JH: After doing some research, I’ve found that your parents were “conventional liberals” who were missionaries in Japan. At what point, and why, did your views shift from what you seen at a younger age?

JT: I, too, was a conventional liberal until I was in my 30s. I preferred being a liberal. Liberals are happy to consider themselves morally superior to conservatives (and certainly to anyone who could be called a “racist,” whatever that means). Also, liberalism is the driving, majority ethos of the United States, and it is more comfortable to agree with the majority. I clung desperately to liberalism. It was the study of history and economics as well as extensive travel in Europe and Africa that finally ground away my liberal illusions.

JH: How do you feel about the election of the first black President?

JT: It was bound to happen eventually, given the collapse of the white majority. Until 1965, we had an immigration policy designed to keep the country majority white. Since that time, the white percentage has declined from about 88 percent to perhaps 62 percent. Do not forget: 55 percent of whites voted for Mr. Obama’s opponent. Twenty years ago, any candidate who got 55 percent of the white vote became president. Now, a majority of whites can vote for a candidate but his opponent may win. In this sense, because of demographic change, you could say that whites did not get the president they wanted. Why should whites encourage that kind of change?

As for Mr. Obama, he encourages the population shifts that are displacing whites. He has sued a state that simply wants to enforce the duly established immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce. He wants to give amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, most of whom are non-white. In these respects, he is probably not much different from his main Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. However, even she would not have ordered the Justice Department to drop its voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panthers. This sort of thing is alienating whites.

JH: Describe the current state of race relations in America.

JT: Race is, and always will be, a serious social fault line in this country. Relative peace is maintained because whites tolerate “affirmative action” and massive non-white immigration. They do this because they are browbeaten and bamboozled into thinking it is wrong for whites to act in their own interests. This will not always be the case, and race relations will get worse as more and more whites begin to resist dispossession.

JH: What are your thoughts about people who say, “race doesn’t matter?”

JT: They are fools. Race obviously matters. Ninety percent of the churches in the United States are at least 80 percent one race. Is that an accident? Residential segregation is not much different from patterns in the 1950s. Why is that? The NAACP, the Urban League, the Congressional Black Congress, the National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and literally thousands of other groups and associations are based deliberately and specifically on race. Try telling their members race doesn’t matter.

It is almost exclusively white people who say race doesn’t matter, and this is because they are the only people who are required at least to pretend that it doesn’t matter. This, in turn, is because they are not allowed to have explicit racial interests of their own, and must deliberately close their eyes to the racial chauvinism of others lest they acknowledge this anti-white double standard.

JH: Do you believe that there is a need to fight for civil rights in America?

JT: What do you mean by “civil rights”? People of all races have the same legal rights in the United States, so the “civil rights” struggle was won long ago. Many blacks and Hispanics seem to think racial preferences for themselves are “civil rights” but they are actually a power grab at the expense of whites

nah fuck you!

Long live the lyceum, the only true free speech forum to come out of the fight on the phora!

Long live the lyceum, the forum which was not responsible for starting the outing of personal identities. The forum which resorted to such measures as a response to abuses on the phora.

Long live the lyceum, the forum who’s support was truly multi-ideological and not simply a skinhead echo chamber.

Long live the lyceum! We are rough riders here and defend what is right, as opposed to being ashamed of it like “some other people.”

Lurking guest, if you, the reader, are too weak to agree with this, then long live not you.

*Kane is the analogous to the internet as Dennis Rodman is to the NBA. Everyone knows he’s good, but nobody wants to admit it.

But I see Satan as a symbol of great strength and think a good Satanist should be able to practice abstinence. In some ways one indulges in life but one must be able to maintain control.

Lavey preached radical individualism.

But I think the individual should also be judged based on how they enhance the collective.

Here is my topic about it.

If a person blames Jews for everything wrong in the world, it usually is a person of lower character, lower intelligence and poor social skills. It may be true that some people adopt anti-semitism as a political move to exploit the stupid. If a person fails to attack libertarian capitalism because they are busy attacking Jews instead, then that says something about that person’s ethics and intelligence. If a person divides people into races, does not include Jews into the White race and then argues that Jews are solely responsible for non-White immigration into White countries, then do not even go within a mile of that person.

If a person denies that Jews do anything wrong ever, that person is usually someone without the guts to tell it like it is. This is the kind of person who fears, sometimes irrationally, the consequences of speaking his/her mind. If a person starts talking about “the chosen people,” coming from a Christian or a follower of Judaism, that person is usually an idiot. If a person attempts to throw religion into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a justification for either side, whether a Jew or Muslim, that person is usually a profiteer or an idiot. It is probably true that Trotsky can be admired as a war leader, but if a person argues that Stalin was an anti-semite and Trotsky the correct replacement, then that raises red flags.

If a person does not think some Jews at least try and sometimes succeed in manipulating the American media, then that person does not understand how cowardly business leaders are. But if a person thinks that a media without Jewish influence would be radically different, then he/she does not understand that many business leaders are too bourgeois to really push a viewpoint that they view as potentially damaging to the company’s reputation. This mentality of “reputation anxiety” exists everywhere where people are weak – even on message forums that are looking for increased membership rather than profit.

Anyone who emphasizes the holocaust too much – whether denying it or politically using it to advance specific Jewish activist causes – has questionable motivations. The position one takes is not that important if one is not obsessed, but those who become obsessed usually have an agenda.

If a person pragmatically works with Jews for the purpose of reaching goals (not out of fear or political correctness), that person usually has higher social skill, a better sense of vision, and more intelligence. They get from point a to point b and are willing to involve Jews in the ride from point a to point b. They work WITH Jews in parallel, but do not get sidetracked by political correctness or fear. Good examples of leaders who worked with Jews, but were not undermined by Jews, would include the revolutionary American and later Confederate leaders. They may not have attacked capitalism but they understood pragmatism, it is fair to say. Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin and Mussolini are other examples of people who worked towards goals including Jews into their day to day projects, but were never undermined by Jews. Many Slav nationalists, when possible, undermined Hitler and worked with individual Jews during WWII.

I’m still offended by my mistreatment on the forum, but I’ll give Chaim credit where it is due.  Practically every word he said was right.  There is a Caucasian race but “white nationalism” is a bizarre ideology which exaggerates the extent Hitler was “generous” to “European gentiles.”  White nationalism wrongly believes Jews and Arabs are non-whites, and wrongly believes that whiteness can be socially constructed into a national ideology.  White nationalists like Hitler.  But Hitler liked Arabs and hated most European nationalities.   So white nationalists should hate Hitler because they disagree on who is good and who is bad.  The only thing agreed upon is Jews.

The problem with this approach is that it ignores class independent ideology. Let’s imagine we had a bunch of proletarian Nazis. And we gave them more wealth and power. There’s no guarantee that their views will shift as they gain the means to fight the bourgeois. They may very well become the bourgeois. One bourgeois exists, but another enters. Or they may become national enemies, even if not class enemies. It’s a very big risk to support ideological opponents under the guise that once they gain material wealth, they will cease their opposition and/or correct their viewpoints.

I believe in some cases, indoctrination and ideology are more important than class.

The way this entire project ties together is very impressive. It has carved a niche. All the various components have formed a very nice whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.

In my opinion, the only people who would disagree with leaving and with integrating are the extremely religious. Racists would be willing to leave to live with their own perceived people, and most ordinary workers would be willing to integrate. I’m secular, and I do not care about the religious Jews, and for that matter, I do not care for the Sharia supporting Muslims either as a group. Even pragmatically, secular people cannot deal too much with religious extremists without the religion showing itself in the day to day action.

So that leaves us with two options.
1) accept integration
2) leave.

And I think that is what should happen. The Jews who are willing to integrate should integrate, the rest should leave and perhaps set up a state somewhere else, and the religious Jews should be told to shut their mouths as should anyone who wants to involve Islam in the territorial conflict.

It should be noted that Saddam took a similar approach to geopolitical conflict between Shia Arabs, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. He repressed the religious and then he dealt carefully with issues of identity among the secular people. In addition, as a third positionist and not an anti-revisionist, I must say that Marx’s “opiate of the people” quote is relevant and accurate. The reason Israel is located in Palestine is because of religion. Besoshvilli/Berianidze made this point to me when we debated Zionism, and it was hard to disagree with. Arab resistance is sometimes secular but religion unfortunately plays a role at times too.

You are free to comment and suggest your own solution.

from google

Dear Podblanc Member, One of our server companies recently caved into Jewish and Israeli pressure and decided to unequally enforce their TOS policy and deny …

EXCELENT! FUCK YOU PODBLANC! Fuck you for defending the phora/vnn, and bringing up my real life info so you could attack another poster (“Hunter Wallace”) via his lyceum-era association with me. Fuck you.

If the Jews did this, then HAIL THE JEWS!

I find it interesting that the fan website takes the same position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I do. That position is that they would prefer secularism and do not like the rising influences of both Judaism and Islam.

The second article shows a great analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Satanism as Levay taught it. This article caused me to think critically in a way I have not since reading the Communist Manifesto.

I recommend reading these articles. They are good for your mind.

2) In order to ramrod globalization down the throats of concerned citizens, the liberal bourgeois capitalist class has pushed myths such as “race does not exist” and “immigration does not effect crime rates.” As a consequence of globalization, the study of human genetic variation is suppressed. The truth should replace the lies.

3) Race is genetic, therefore the racial materialist view has to agree that all true Caucasoids are a race, all true Negroids are a race, all true Mongoloids are a race and all true Australoids are a race. Groups like Cambodians and Ethiopians are clearly of mixed race (but can be categorized based on appearance). Certainly humanity does not fracture along the hodgepodge of races thrown by liberal groups and “white activist” groups. Perhaps an argument can be made that American Indians are not true Mongoloids, but Cavalli-Sforza disagrees.

4) White nationalist keyboard commandos and neo-nazi keyboard commandos are a joke and should be shunned. Anyone who argues that race is something more than physical material should be shunned. “White Nationalists” and neo-nazis should not even be on the radar screen or be seen as fighting a common enemy in any way, but be ridiculed just as harshly as liberals are. To their credit, Neo-nazis at least realize that Hitler hated Slavs, but the WNs haven’t figured that one out yet!

5) Jews are not the cause of mass immigration. The real cause is capitalism, and Catholicism provides a good “opiate of the masses” for the naive majority. Satanism and atheism should be supported over the bourgeois concept of religion which serves as a weapon in the class war. August Bebel stated that anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools, and Lenin that anti-Semitism is a diversion to re-target anger away from the ruling class. They are correct. Even if many Jews have embraced the bourgeoisie or made common cause out of pragmatism, the chief cause is not Jews, and every missile aimed at Jews is a missile that could have been aimed at the bourgeoisie. Not to mention, in some cases it is friendly fire.

6. Nothing will change until capitalism is altered or disposed of. Libertarians are of no use.

My results suggest that I would not have been a nazi.

Congratulations! You are not susceptible to brainwashing, your values and cares extend beyond the borders of your own country, and your Blind Patriotism does not reach unhealthy levels. If you had been German in the 30s, you would’ve left the country.

Conclusion: born and raised in Germany in the early 1930’s, you would not have been a Nazi.

I finally stepped up. Check out The link.

Interesting.

A new youtube video I created.

TechnoFascism was a word officially forged by _ _ of Free Media Productions, a third positionist site, that heavily rejects mainstream politics. Techno-Technocracy is a hypothetical form of government in which engineers, scientists, and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields. Fascism-Rule of the few. Sometimes can breed racism, and overt nationalism.
Technofascism would be a government ruled by technical, the smart, and the few.

It looks like this passed through moderation, even though I am sure the person who started this had bad intentions. They wanted to hurt employment opportunities, but it appears that the moderators like it and have cleaned it up a bit.

Free Media Productions is not a philosophy-based website, even though many contributors express an interest in political philosophy and know that it is important. What binds us together is a goal – and that goal is to create an alternative media using various technological mediums which is free of business interests, political correctness, internet egos accompanied by typical forum drama on a solely vbulletin medium and invasion of privacy on a public social networking medium. While FMP tends to shy away from the centrist mainstream (i.e. liberalism), members are not tested for political philosophy and categorized based on their philosophy. We have a goal, and we work towards it.

Readers may notice a few tendencies that perhaps stand out a bit more than others, including a general antipathy towards liberalism, capitalism, globalism, imperialism and so forth. However, there are very few things that the staff will not tolerate, and we do our best to maintain a relatively open platform for discussion.

If you think you may be interested in contributing, click here.

Can you handle it?

“1. The party will stand for the interests of the masses, that is, of the peasants, workers, etc., and not for the vested interests, that is, the landlords, capitalists and money-lending classes.
“2. It will stand for the complete political and economic liberation of the Indian people.
“3. It will stand for a Federal Government for India as the ultimate goal, but will believe in a strong Central Government with dictatorial powers for some years to come, in order to put India on her feet.
“4. It will believe in a sound system of state-planning for the reorganization of the agricultural and industrial life of the country.
“5. It will seek to build up a new social structure on the basis of the village communities of the past, that were ruled by the village “Panch” and will strive to break down the existing social barriers like caste.
“6. It will seek to establish a new monetary and credit system in the light of the theories and the experiments that have been and are current in the modern world.
“7. It will seek to abolish landlordism and introduce a uniform land-tenure system for the whole of India.
“8. It will not stand for a democracy in the Mid-Victorian sense of the term, but will believe in government by a strong party bound together by military discipline, as the only means of holding India together and preventing a chaos, when Indians are free and are thrown entirely on their own resources.
“9. It will not restrict itself to a campaign inside India but will resort to international propaganda also, in order to strengthen India’s case for liberty, and will attempt to utilize the existing international organizations.
“10. It will endeavor to unite all the radical organizations under a national executive so that whenever any action is taken, there will be simultaneous activity on many fronts.”

I understand that some of the comments by viewers are very “one-sided,” but in general the video is pretty good. It shows that Pol Pot was focused but very secretive and determined. He was calculating, but appeared very gentle. He worked his way from the bottom to the top. He was sold out by the Vietnamese. I didn’t know that. That’s why he hated the Vietnamese. Cambodia was sacrificed to France when other Southeast Asian countries collaborated for Independence.

It noted that he adopted some aspects of Marx, but was really not a hardliner “anti-revisionist” Marxist. In truth he was more of a progressive nationalistic type.

His rejection of urbanization is important too. Mao was similar in his approach though for Mao it was pragmatic. For Pol Pot it was a matter of principle.

What do you think? Was Pol Pot himself a criminal, or is he the ultimate victim of American, Soviet, Vietnamese and French imperialism?

Noam Chomsky defends Pol Pot. Pol Pot may have saved more people than he killed. Nobody said anything negative during the Cold War. It was only after Russia fell, when China became the next “big Satan,” that the “Maoist” Pol Pot was demonized by America.

The average American really is a coward. I expected more but am a bit disappointed. People just do not have backbones anymore. And the ones who do don’t have brains!

WASHINGTON – If you lose your job these days, it’s worth scrambling to find a new one — fast. After six months of unemployment, your chances of landing work dwindle.

The proportion of people jobless for six months or more has accelerated in the past year and now makes up 46 percent of the unemployed. That’s the highest percentage on records dating to 1948. By late summer or early fall, they are expected to make up half of all jobless Americans.

Economists say those out of work for six months or more risk becoming less and less employable. Their skills can erode, their confidence falter, their contacts dry up. Their growing ranks also will keep pressure on Congress to keep extending jobless benefits, which now run for up to 99 weeks.

Overall, the economy has created a net 982,000 jobs this year. But for Jeff Martinez and the record 6.76 million others who have struck out for six months or more, their struggles are getting worse, not better.

Martinez, 40, a salesman in Washington, D.C., says he’s logged more than 200 interviews in the past three years. Decked out in a dark navy suit and Burberry tie, Martinez projects drive and a zest for deal-making. And yet the most urgent deal of his career — finding a job — eludes him.

“You have days where you feel motivated and hopeful and optimistic,” he says. “Then there are other days, you really lose the faith and think, `I’m never going to get another job. Ever.’”

What’s causing the rising ranks of the long-term jobless to exceed the pace of other recessions?

Mainly, it’s the depth and duration of the job-slashing this time. Since the recession began in December 2007 through May this year, a net 7.4 million jobs have vanished. The unemployment rate has surged nearly 5 percentage points: From 5 percent in December 2007 to 9.7 percent in May.

By contrast, in the last severe recession, the rate rose less sharply over a shorter period: From 7.2 percent in July 1981 to 10.8 percent at the end of 1982.

Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, points to the “sheer scale of the falloff in demand for workers” this time. It’s left more people out of work for longer stretches. And it’s intensified competition for each opening.

“It’s a cruel game of musical chairs,” Mishel says.

To lower the unemployment rate from the current 9.7 percent to a more normal 6 percent would require roughly a net 15 million new jobs by the end of 2016, estimates Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight.

Few think that’s likely.

One factor behind the growing proportion of the long-term unemployed is the erosion of their workplace skills — or employers’ perception of it. It’s hard to find work in a tight job market when your skills are seen as stale.

For some occupations in particular, such as computer technicians or accountants, people jobless for many months can lose pace with technological changes or federal rules.

Among those who fear losing their edge is Stephan Azor, 30. He’s looking for information technology work, perhaps overseeing a company’s computer system. He was laid off eight months ago as a system administrator for a defense contractor.

“Technology changes every six months, so there are things I have to look up and learn,” says Azor, who lives in Washington.

Other reasons for the growing proportion of the long-term unemployed:

• Jobs wiped out by the Great Recession that aren’t coming back. In industries like home construction, manufacturing and retail, fewer workers will be needed even after the economy has fully recovered. One reason is higher productivity: Companies have managed to produce the same level of goods or services with fewer workers. Economist Marisa DiNatale of Moody’s Economy.com notes that people out of work in those industries may lack the skills for other jobs that are becoming available.

• The breadth of the recession, which struck every area of the country, makes it harder for job hunters to move to another region in expectation of finding a job. Complicating the matter, the housing bust made it difficult for people to sell their homes and move elsewhere to take a job, economists say.

A study by the National Employment Law Project found that older workers — those 45 and up — make up the largest slice of the long-term unemployed. African-Americans make up 20.8 percent. And men account for six out of 10.

Martinez was living in Los Angeles and pulling in $200,000 a year from a media sales job. Three years ago, he lost it.

Burning through cash, Martinez had to move back home with his parents in Sterling, Va., outside Washington. He landed another media sales job in the area in 2008, at the height of the financial crisis. But four weeks later, he was laid off.

By his count, Martinez has sent out 2,500 resumes in the past year. He’s researched would-be employers and written personalized cover letters. He hit a dry spell at the start of this year. Since then, Martinez says the job climate seems to have improved. He’s interviewing again. But it’s emotionally draining.

“It’s tough not to have an interview, and it’s just as tough to go on five or six or seven interviews and not get hired,” he says.

Link 2

The job market may be recovering, but some salary offers are still a few years behind.

Since the labor market began picking up steam, companies hiring for entry-level or administrative spots with pay that would normally range from $40,000 to $50,000 have been offering workers $28,000 to $38,000, says Randy Miller, founder and chief executive of ReadyMinds, a Lyndhurst, N.J., provider of online career counseling and coaching.

For workers further up the food chain, an offer that might have been $100,000 a few years ago is now coming in at $85,000 or $90,000, he says.

“Companies are more worried these days about margins, profitability, and they are cutting costs across the board. Even though [workers are] qualified and have prior experience, the hiring department has been told to set a budget at a lower range,” Mr. Miller says. “Everybody is more price-sensitive these days.”

As the labor market slowly heals, some hiring managers are offering salaries lower than what workers previously received. The question is: How low should workers go when it comes to accepting an offer?
Long-Term Effects

Some job hunters leap too soon at low-paying jobs, while others may be too optimistic about how their skills translate into a current wage and hold out for too long, experts say. While financial hardship is a strong motivator to take a low-paying gig, job seekers should also be mindful that such a position can stunt their future.

“Some people, because they are embarrassed to be unemployed or because of the financial hardship, do take a low-paying job, though the prospects aren’t that great, and they stick with that job for a long time,” says Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the nonprofit Brookings Institution.

Hannah Riley Bowles, an associate professor at Harvard Kennedy School who has studied the attainment of leadership positions, says lower pay has long-term effects. For one, raises are added to a lower base salary. “And think about putting aside some percentage of your savings. You are putting away a smaller [amount],” Ms. Riley Bowles says.

Experts say workers can ask about educational and training opportunities. If you do accept a low offer, make sure you’re gaining in other ways, such as valuable experience or access to a network that can advance your career.

“These may be things that companies are more willing to provide right now than salary,” Ms. Riley Bowles says. “That is the way to beat the sad story of: I started at a lower level and I am stuck at the lower level.”

Job seekers who receive a low offer should compare that offer to what they can get elsewhere in the current market, rather than what they could have received before the recession began, Ms. Riley Bowles says.

“It would probably be unwise to walk away from an offer if it’s competitive. They should keep focused on the current economy, and not be distracted by previous income,” she says. “But that is hard to do emotionally.”

Sometimes, job seekers misjudge their own value in the labor market. “People think that their qualifications and the state of the job market are such that they could get a much better job,” Mr. Burtless says.

The problem with making such a miscalculation is that the longer a worker remains jobless, the harder it is to impress companies, he says. “They look at you and see that you haven’t held a job for a year and a half…usually their interpretation is not very charitable if someone else is standing on line for a job and that person hasn’t been unemployed for as long.”

Job seekers who have been out of work for a long time should probably consider reasonable offers, and make the best of it, says Walter Akana, a career strategist in Decatur, Ga.

“You have lost your job, now is the first day of the rest of your career. You may have to work yourself back into a position of strength,” Mr. Akana says. “Having said that, if someone has the financial wherewithal to hold out then I think they ought to be doing a lot of networking and looking for exactly the right kind of opportunities.”

With lower salary offers, other types of compensation become more important, says ReadyMinds’ Mr. Miller. Workers should ask about all benefits — sick days, vacation days, professional training, health insurance, bonus structure — and other provisions such as relocation expenses. Also, workers should find out exactly how frequently they will be eligible for a promotion and raise.
Room for Negotiation

“It’s then up to the individual, once they receive their formal offer, [to] do their own industry research, negotiate and possibly counter offer as best they can, and then decide whether this is the best offer they are going to get,” Mr. Miller says.

Karen Chopra, a Washington-based career counselor working with higher-income clients, says workers can offer to take a low salary in exchange for working part time, say four days a week instead of five.

And there may be room to negotiate once an employer has made an offer, she says. “From the employer’s point of view, recruiting is painful. They have grown attached to their top candidate, started fantasizing about the person in the job,” Ms. Chopra says. “You have some leverage, they have invested in you. Many companies expect a negotiation.”

Link 3

U.S. stocks tumbled Friday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling well below the 10,000 level, after a weaker-than-expected jobs report hit investors already on edge over the possibility that a sovereign-debt crisis was spreading across Europe.

Major stock indexes ended the first week of June solidly in the red, despite a big rally on Wednesday and slight gains on Thursday, the first two-day winning streak in more than a month. However, all those gains and then some disappeared on Friday.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) fell 323 points, or 3.2%, to 9,931.97 as the government’s May nonfarm payrolls report showed only a puny rise in private sector jobs, quashing hope that a strong U.S. economy could help counter the pull of negative sentiment from Europe.

The selloff came on strong volume. New York Stock Exchange composite turnover hit 6.3 billion shares, the highest daily tally of the holiday-shortened week but still well below May’s average of nearly 7 billion shares.

Nonfarm payrolls rose by 431,000 last month, short of economists’ expectations for a rise of 515,000 jobs, and only 41,000 private-sector jobs were added. The unemployment rate slipped to 9.7% in May from 9.9% the previous month, in line with expectations.

“This employment number was definitely a disappointment,” said Terry Morris, co-portfolio manager of National Penn Investors Trust. “This really kind of puts the bulls back on their heels.”

The Dow’s move below 10000–its first time below that key number in a little over a week–came after the euro (CUR_EURUSD) fell below $1.20 on fresh worries about Hungary’s economy.

A leading official in the ruling Fidesz party said Thursday that Hungary faces a Greek-like sovereign-debt problem. Although Hungary is not part of the euro zone, its travails are fueling the perception of a broadening European banking crisis.

“Today you got a postcard from Hungary: All is not well, send money. It’s a reminder that the debt issues are still there and they’re serious and significant,” said Karl Mills, manager at Counterpoint Select Fund.

All 30 of the Dow’s components fell, including declines of more than 5% each in economically sensitive stocks Caterpillar (CAT) and American Express (AXP). General Electric (GE) was close behind, off 5.3%. The blue-chip average suffered its worst one-day drop since May 20 and ended the week down 2%.

The Nasdaq Composite (RIXF) tumbled 3.6% on Friday to end down 1.7% for the week. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index (SPX) dropped 3.4% to end with a weekly decline of 2.3%. All of its sectors ended lower on Friday, led by a 4.6% slide in industrials as the profitability of many companies in the sector depends on global growth. In addition, the international exposure of many industrials has put them at risk of being hurt by currency translations as the euro continues to weaken against the dollar.

Small-capitalization stocks, which are often perceived as riskier, were hit even harder than their large-cap counterparts. The Russell 2000 index of small-capitalization stocks slid 5%.

The U.S. Dollar Index (DXY), reflecting the U.S. currency against a basket of six others, jumped 1.3%. Other perceived havens also rose, with gold futures and Treasurys climbing, pushing the yield on the 10-year note (UST10Y) down to 3.197%. Crude-oil futures slid 4.2%, the worst one-day drop since Feb. 4. The commodity fell $2.46 to end at $71.51 a barrel, off 3.3% for the week.

Stu Schweitzer, a strategist with J.P. Morgan Private Bank, noted that Friday’s jobs report had investors questioning the recovery in the U.S. However, he believes there are still enough economic yardsticks moving in the right direction. He noted that this week’s reports on manufacturing activity, jobless claims and construction spending were all better than expected.

“Even with the disappointing jobs report today, it remains clear that the recovery here is continuing,” Schweitzer said. “There’s a question of sustainability, but for the short term, it’s very much in place.”

This document has some good information about how genetic studies work. It explains how PCA plots are designed to create clusters and do not really represent the entire genome.

One basic problem, Mr. Beinart said, is that the Zionist movement has become increasingly conservative politically. “For several decades,” he writes, “the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.”

I do not like liberals, but who can blame them? The “Zionist movement” is nothing but a play pin where babies cry about being persecuted. It is the handicap parking space of the Caucasian world. It is not a legitimate socialist or nationalist movement.

It is a book with themes from criminal profiling, to escaping criminals, to forensic psychology. This book for instance contains information about liars and how their stories fail. Why they fail. It looks into a range of topics, and I figured it deserved a plug on Free Media Productions. If you are interested in the way the human mind works to avoid danger and also in the criminal mind, then read this book.

I don’t support human trash and bums.

L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his collaborators Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza have devoted fourteen years to one of the most compelling scientific projects of our time: the reconstruction of where human populations originated and the paths by which they spread throughout the world. In this volume, the culmination of their research, the authors explain their pathbreaking use of genetic data, which they integrate with insights from geography, ecology, archaeology, physical anthropology, and linguistics to create the first full-scale account of human evolution as it occurred across all continents. This interdisciplinary approach enables them to address a wide range of issues that continue to incite debate: the timing of the first appearance of our species, the problem of African origins and the significance of work recently done on mitochondrial DNA and the popular notion of an “African Eve,” the controversy pertaining to the peopling of the Americas, and the reason for the presence of non-Indo-European languages–Basque, Finnish, and Hungarian–in Europe.The authors reconstruct the history of our evolution by focusing on genetic divergence among human groups. Using genetic information accumulated over the last fifty years, they examined over 110 different inherited traits, such as blood types, HLA factors, proteins, and DNA markers, in over eighteen hundred, primarily aboriginal, populations. By mapping the worldwide geographic distribution of the genes, the scientists are now able to chart migrations and, in exploring genetic distance, devise a clock by which to date evolutionary history: the longer two populations are separated, the greater their genetic difference should be. This volume highlights the authors’ contributions to genetic geography, particularly their technique for making geographic maps of gene frequencies and their synthetic method of detecting ancient migrations, as for example the migration of Neolithic farmers from the Middle East toward Europe, West Asia, and North Africa.Beginning with an explanation of their major sources of data and concepts, the authors give an interdisciplinary account of human evolution at the world level. Chapters are then devoted to evolution on single continents and include analyses of genetic data and how these data relate to geographic, ecological, archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic information. Comprising a wide range of viewpoints, a vast store of new and recent information on genetics, and a generous supply of visual elements, including 522 geographic maps, this book is a unique source of facts and a catalyst for further debate and research.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – A radical cleric called Saturday for the creation of a “Greater Iran” that would rule over the entire Middle East and Central Asia, in an event that he said would herald the coming of Islam’s expected messiah.

Ayatollah Mohammad Bagher Kharrazi said the creation of what he calls an Islamic United States is a central aim of the political party he leads called Hezbollah, or Party of God, and that he hoped to make it a reality if they win the next presidential election.

Kharrazi’s comments reveal the thinking of a growing number of hard-liners in Iran, many of whom have become more radical during the postelection political crisis and the international standoff over the country’s nuclear program. Kharrazi, however, is not highly influential in Iran’s clerical hierarchy and his views do not represent those of the current government.

Kharrazi’s comments were published Saturday in his newspaper, Hezbollah.

He said he envisioned a Greater Iran that would stretch from Afghanistan to Israel, bringing about the destruction of the Jewish state.

He also said its formation would be a prelude to the reappearance of the Mahdi, a revered ninth-century saint known as the Hidden Imam, whom Muslims believe will reappear before judgment day to end tyranny and promote justice in the world.

“The Islamic United States will be an introduction to the formation of the global village of the oppressed and that will be a prelude to the single global rule of the Mahdi,” the Hezbollah newspaper quoted him as saying.

Besides Israel, he said the union would also destroy Shiite Iran’s other regional adversaries, whom he called “cancerous tumors.” He singled out secular Arab nationalists such as members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party in Iraq, as well as followers of the austere version of Sunni Islam practiced primarily in Saudi Arabia that is known as Wahabism.

Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab nations have watched Iran’s growing regional clout with deep concern.

The growing voice of hard-liners like Kharrazi has deepened worries even if it appears unlikely such a divisive figure would win the 2013 presidential election.

Still, even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that he expects the government which follows his to be “ten times more revolutionary.”

ABU DHABI // An 18-year-old Emirati woman has been charged with having sex outside of wedlock after reporting that she was raped by six men, Abu Dhabi’s Criminal Court was told yesterday.

The men, only two of whom were in court yesterday, are charged with raping LH in the back seat of one of the defendant’s vehicles. Both men pleaded not guilty, while L H, who has been taken into custody, also pleaded not guilty to the charges against her.

The woman and one of her male Emirati friends, HA, went for a drive in his vehicle on May 2, prosecutors said. The charges allege that because she had agreed to be in the car, the two had, therefore, met to have sex. According to court records, HA, 19, called five of his friends – four Emiratis and one Iraqi – and invited them to join him.

Prosecutors said that after HA and the woman had sex in an unknown location in Abu Dhabi, the five men met up with them. At that point, the charges say, the men all raped her in HA’s car.

The woman later contacted police and said she had been raped by six men, including HA. It is not known when she reported the attack.

The Abu Dhabi Judicial Department Forensic Unit declined to discuss whether the woman had been examined after the incident for evidence of rape.

HA has been charged with rape. The only other defendant in court, an Emirati with the same initials, was also charged with rape. The other four men are being tried in their absence.

The woman has been in custody since she reported the incident. She and the two defendants in court yesterday are being held without bail.

Chief Justice Saeed Abdul Basser twice asked her: “Did you have sex with these men?”

“No,” she replied.

It was unclear whether the judge was referring to consensual sex or rape.

The woman was not represented by a lawyer and no members of her family were in court yesterday.

All of the defendants are older than 18 and are being tried as adults.

How much longer will the American public tolerate the anti-white rhetoric coming from the mouths of liberal politicians and the pen of the media?

Over the past few months, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post and Democrat politicians, including former President Clinton and others, have questioned the legitimacy of the Tea Party movement because, as they say, it is “too white.”

To them, such “whiteness” is evidence of “racism.” They are attempting to drumbeat into the American consciousness two principles: one, that political speech and positions vocalized primarily by white people is, basically, invalid; and, two, opinions emanating from non-liberal white people is motivated by racism.

Throughout the entire healthcare debate, liberals assigned “racism” to those opposed to the massive overhaul. In fact, the opposition among the middle class had nothing to do with “hidden racism” but was a neutral and understandable desire to maintain for themselves the liberty to choose their own doctor, the fear of diminished quality care, the horror of being over-taxed to a degree that leaves little disposable income for working parents for their own family, and the bedrock, historic American belief of self-responsibility.

Similarly, those wanting closed borders and an end to illegals entering the country and blithely living off taxpayer largess are accused of “white racism.” when the underlying reason has to do with protecting themselves from crime, rape, murder, property damage and the closing of schools, hospitals and other essential services due to local and state bankruptcy born of the expenses of subsidizing illegals.

The left is trying to muzzle its political opposition by brainwashing us into accepting their mantra that non-liberal whites are racist. Our reply in proving that we are not racist has been to show that blacks are among Tea Party members. To be sure, that is important, but, by so doing, we are capitulating to the premise that by itself “white” opinion is somehow invalid.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is found a footnote or asterisk that freedom of speech or assembly is conditioned on its racial diversity, its “un-whiteness.” Our answer to those who ask “how many blacks, Muslims, or Hispanics are members of your group, should be: “It doesn’t matter, what matters is the cogency of our argument.”

We should have enough confidence to answer: “The problem is not with our beliefs, rather with those who do not share our core American values or are unwilling to gather and associate with a group overwhelmingly white”.

Freedom of speech and assembly should not be based on a quota system. Will we now have a situation in speech, like that in hiring, that requires 12% black or 11% Hispanic or 2% Muslim for that speech to be politically valid and acceptable?

What started out years ago as inclusiveness of others has dangerously degenerated into an exclusion of speech and validity if exercised by the white community. Obsessive identification with minority-group views has led to, among elite liberals, a complete indifference and callousness to the feelings and yearnings of the majority white population.
Truthfully, this has always been the goal of liberal multiculturalism. Its intention was never to simply open up our society but to close down those representing the historic ethos and values of America: the white middle class.

For the liberal left, other cultures are not simply to be admitted but should reign supreme—a tyranny of the minority over the majority, orchestrated by white liberals, and minority power brokers, wishing to subdue the majority standing in the way of their political and cultural hegemony, and feeling righteous doing so out of a conviction that non-liberal white people are racist and must be stomped down.

The truth is that many in the liberal community preaching to us about racism are, themselves, bigots against white Christians, labeling them red-necks, un-educated, racists, and simpletons. No one calls them on their bigotry since it’s difficult to conceive that those always touting civil rights and diversity are imbued with their own bigotry. Their never-ending indictment of American society as racist cloaks what is their own variety of bigotry.
The crusade of the liberal establishment to sew into the collective consciousness a belief that whites are inherently racist and “extremist” was displayed in the media’s endless speculation about a “white male” as the perpetrator during the first hours of the Times Square terrorist incident and yet played down the Moslem origin of the actual terrorist when so discovered. Even Rep. Jerold Nadler (D.-N.Y.) and Mayor Michael Bloomberg alluded to a white person “angry over the healthcare bill.” In the liberal mind, white people are closet Timothy McVeighs. It is a subtle bigotry that the American public dare not allow seep into their world view. It is a presumption which must be decried as racism against the white majority.

This belief is so ingrained that after the discovery of the Pakistani terrorist, Mayor Bloomberg warned that: “No reprisals and backlash against the Pakistani community will be tolerated.” Why the need to make this warning given that since 9/11 and numerous Islamic attacks since then, there have been no burnings of mosques or backlash riots against Islamic communities?

Instead of liberals admiring the majority, white community for their monumental restraint and fairness, liberals continue to peddle to “white America” how our evil impulses must be continually reigned in. President Obama has often delivered this very same message, and in a weekly radio address appealed to “Blacks, Muslims, Latinos and women to coalesce into standing behind his hopes and agenda for America”.

The reason for this never-ending liberal portrayal of “racist and extreme white-male America” is to intimidate us into silence. The left knows that the only thing standing in the way of their complete takeover of American government, culture and values is disenfranchising the legitimacy of the middle class. America is unique and different than other countries that are divided into a ruling class and a recipient class, with a very weak middle class. Americanism, on the other hand, comes from a prosperous, self-assured and vigorous middle class.

Liberals cannot out-rightly condemn the middle class. They have decided to strip it of its self-confidence and legitimacy by categorizing it as “white,” with all the orchestrated belittlement and demonization of whiteness we are now hearing. The economy is being transformed in such a way that entrepreneurship and small business, the backbone of the middle class, is being thwarted. An impoverished middle class is an impotent class. The elites are engaged in the destruction of the historic American ethos and value system embodied in the American majority. They want to convince us that “white values” are dangerous. What we have here is nothing less than cultural ethnic cleansing.

The internet is pretty discredited as a medium when compared to professional source.

Your thoughts?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Al-Qaida operatives who have been detained for years in Iran have been making their way quietly in and out of the country, raising the prospect that Iran is loosening its grip on the terror group so it can replenish its ranks, former and current U.S. intelligence officials say.

This movement could indicate that Iran is re-examining its murky relationship with al-Qaida at a time when the U.S. is stepping up drone attacks in Pakistan and weakening the group’s leadership. Any influx of manpower could hand al-Qaida a boost in morale and expertise and threaten to disrupt stability in the region.

U.S. officials say intelligence points to a worrisome increase in movement lately.

Details about al-Qaida’s movements and U.S. efforts to monitor them were outlined to The Associated Press in more than a dozen interviews with current and former intelligence and counterterrorism officials, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

The relationship between Iran and al-Qaida has been shrouded in mystery since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, when many al-Qaida leaders fled into Iran and were arrested. The Shiite regime there is generally hostile to the Sunni terrorist group, but they have an occasional relationship of convenience based on their shared enemy, the U.S.

U.S. intelligence officials have tried wiretapping and satellite imagery to watch the men. The CIA even established a highly classified program – code-named RIGOR – to study whether it could track and kill terrorists such as al-Qaida in Iran. Results have been mixed. Monitoring and understanding al-Qaida in Iran remains one of the most difficult jobs in U.S. intelligence.

“This has been a dark, a black zone for us,” former CIA officer Bruce Riedel said. “What exactly is the level of al-Qaida activity in Iran has always been a mystery.”

That activity has waxed and waned, officials said. Sometimes the men could travel or communicate with other operatives. Other times, they were under tight constraints and the U.S. considered them to be out of commission. There was no obvious pattern to the movement.

The departures began in late 2008 as the U.S. stepped up international efforts to sanction Iran for its nuclear program. Saad bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden’s sons, was allowed to leave the country around that time with about four other al-Qaida figures.

Since then, U.S. intelligence officials say, others have followed. One former CIA official familiar with the travel identified the men as moneymen and planners, the kind of manpower al-Qaida needs after a series of successful U.S. drone attacks on al-Qaida’s ranks. But a senior counterterrorism official said the U.S. believes anyone who has left Iran recently is likely to be lower-level.

A major concern among U.S. officials is that this movement foreshadows the release of al-Qaida’s “management council,” including some of al-Qaida’s most dangerous figures.

Most recently, the concern focused on Saif al-Adel, an Egyptian-born confidant of Osama bin Laden who is on the FBI’s most wanted list in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In the past year or so, intelligence officials circulated a bulletin saying al-Adel, one of al-Qaida’s founding fathers, was traveling to Damascus, Syria. The U.S. is offering a $5 million reward for his capture.

The Damascus connection ultimately was disproved but, underscoring the difficulty of monitoring the men, U.S. intelligence officials are divided on whether Saif has been allowed to travel in the region. The senior counterterrorism official said there’s no clear evidence Saif has left Iran.

“Regardless of where he is, we haven’t forgotten about him or stopped looking for him,” said Don Borelli, the assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s terrorism task force in New York. “He’s a most-wanted terrorist and we intend to find him.”

The roster of al-Qaida figures in Iran is something of a who’s who for the terror group. One is Abu Hafs the Mauritanian, a bin Laden adviser who helped form the modern al-Qaida by merging bin Laden’s operation with Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Islamic Jihad. Al-Qaida’s longtime chief financial officer, Abu Saeed al-Masri, has been held there. So have bin Laden’s spokesman, Suleiman Abu Ghaith, and Mustafa Hamid, an al-Qaida trainer with a terrorism pedigree that spans decades.

Several members of bin Laden’s family also have been under house arrest.

All fled into Iran after al-Qaida’s core split up after the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden led some confidants toward the mountainous border with Pakistan. Al-Adel led others into Iran, which has historically allowed al-Qaida members safe passage through the country.

Iran arrested the men in 2003 and has held them as both a bargaining chip with the U.S. and as a buffer against an al-Qaida attack.

Using spy satellites, the U.S. has monitored vehicles in and out of the compound where the al-Qaida operatives have been held. U.S. officials have gleaned some information about the men through intercepted Iranian phone conversations and e-mails. But generally, the U.S. has only limited information about them.

If Iran were to release any of the major al-Qaida figures, it would be a violation of a United Nations resolution. A senior U.S. counterterrorism official said Iran is well aware of U.S. concerns that they not be released.

Late in President George W. Bush’s administration, the CIA began developing a broad and lethal counterterrorism program, RIGOR, that targeted an array of terrorists in different countries. Part of the program examined the possibility of finding and eliminating al-Qaida inside Iran, former intelligence officials said.

They described the program as a feasibility study. One aspect was to figure out whether the CIA could slip spies into Iran to locate and possibly kill al-Qaida figures. RIGOR was separate from an earlier program involving contractors from Blackwater Worldwide.

RIGOR existed on the books for about two years but never progressed any further. CIA Director Leon Panetta canceled RIGOR last year. A U.S. official familiar with the program said a list of specific targets had not yet been identified when the program was nixed.

U.S. officials realized that things in Iran were changing in the waning days of Bush’s administration when Saad bin Laden crossed into Pakistan. The administration took the unusual step of announcing bin Laden’s move and freezing his assets. As many as four others were believed to have been with him.

“This served in large part as a symbolic act to remind both Iran and al-Qaida that we are watching this relationship,” said Juan Zarate, Bush’s former deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism. “We were concerned operationally about his movements, which was another reason for the designation.”

In July, intelligence officials revealed that Saad bin Laden was probably killed in a drone airstrike. Intelligence officials suspected he was traveling with Abu Khayr al-Masry, an Egyptian who had also been held in Iran. Officials believe al-Masry – an al-Zawahiri deputy – is alive and in Iran.

At the time, officials didn’t believe bin Laden’s departure was an isolated event.

Indeed, it wasn’t.

Since Saad bin Laden left Iran, other al-Qaida figures have followed, current and former officials say. They are suspected to be taking smuggling routes heading toward Saudi Arabia or the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan. Last fall, top CIA officers received intelligence reports suggesting the release of several al-Qaida members from Iran, according to a former CIA official.

One of the men placed a phone call to a relative in Saudi Arabia. The call was made from Baluchistan, a western Pakistan province bordering both Iran and Afghanistan. It is known as a transit point for al-Qaida operatives.

But even when they have known that al-Qaida had traveled, U.S. officials say they have rarely understood the purpose.

The activity comes as Iran allowed Osama bin Laden’s daughter Iman to leave the country in March and settle in Syria. Details are murky.

“Clearly, there’s something going on on the Iranian front,” said Riedel, the former CIA officer who is now a Brookings Institution scholar.

Some experts believe that anyone from al-Qaida freed to leave Iran must be returning to the battlefield. Others believe that, with al-Qaida families left behind, terrorists may actually be working for Iran, gathering intelligence or passing messages before returning to Iran.

Either way, it’s being noticed. Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer and a senior fellow at Center for Security Policy, says it’s not a good sign.

“Movement like this doesn’t augur well,” she said.

Overnight, I was simultaneously repped and thanked by a Syrian-Armenian, so it is good to see that people of different backgrounds recognize the strength of my argument.

Southern European “white nationalists” like to identify themselves with Northern Europeans and act as if they share nothing with other Mediterraneans. There’s nothing more hilarious then reading some Italian or Greek writing on race forums that he/she can’t stand the fact that Jews and Gypsies are “non-whites.”

Let’s use this thread to debunk once and for all the idea of a “European race” and a “Semitic race” divided by some bold line drawn on a map by Stromfront or the Apricity.

The first line of evidence is that European “aryans,” despite their language, cluster closer to Semites then they do to Indians/Iranians/Pakis regularly and consistency.

The next line of evidence is that Europe was formed by multiple migrations, but both the Paleolithic and Neolithic migrations were tied to the near east.

Haplogroups are not perfect, but they clearly point to a Mediterranean link between the continents.

Finally, Jews repetitively cluster closer to Europeans and Turks than they do to Arabs. In some cases (but not always), they cluster closer to Northern Europe than some Southern Europeans do and physical appearance also is less exotic.

Here is a nicely written non-partisan article which describes how the immigration issue is buthchered by corrupt politicians.  Over and over again, Americans poll that they want the borders closed down and illegal immigrants approached instead of ignored or legalized, but over and over again, the leaders of the establishment are very reluctant to do what should be very easy.

In their desperation, President Barack Obama and senators with large Latino populations in their states (like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.) are seeking to polarize Hispanic and Anglo sentiment over the issue of illegal immigration. In his frequent messages calling for higher Latino and black turnout and his condemnation of the Arizona immigration law, Obama is trying to recapture over immigration the voter approval he lost over healthcare.

Arizona acted as it did because of a lack of federal enforcement of federal law barring undocumented immigrants. With a porous border, they felt that they were left no choice but to pass a law allowing potentially intrusive searches to ferret out illegal immigrants. Because this law could subject American citizens of Hispanic origin to undue scrutiny and perhaps to needless trips to the police station, the Arizona law antagonizes the jump ball in the immigration debate — Latino-American voters. If there were a real national identification card, the requirement to produce papers might be less intrusive. But, as it is, with the burden of proof on the citizen (or the illegal immigrant), the law is bound to raise tensions between Anglo cops and Latino citizens.

But being forced to support or oppose the Arizona law is a false choice. It reflects the unimaginative politics of confrontation that jeopardize race relations and elect demagogues like Barack Obama. (Obama’s share of the white vote was the same as Kerry won in 2004. He was elected only because of a three-point increase in black turnout and a shift in Latino votes to his corner. He won because of race, and now he schemes to keep control of Congress by using the immigration issue.)

The real answer is not to round up Latinos in the streets of Phoenix and hope to catch illegals in the net. Nor is it even to pretend that we can stop determined men and women from crossing the border by way of more guards, more troops and better equipment. The answer is to dry up the will to cross the border in the first place by stopping employers from offering jobs to undocumented workers. If there were felony penalties — jail time — for hiring illegals, they would not be hired. And if there were no jobs, there would be no illegal immigration.

The Republican position on illegal immigration should be to demand tough employer sanctions, including jail, and coupling that program with a vigorous guest-worker program to bring needed workers in legally, pay them a living wage and then escort them out when they are no longer needed. The United States, in need of a younger population to pay for our current and future retirees, should also raise the allowed levels of immigration.

Both parties are hypocritical on immigration. Democrats, controlled by unions, want Latinos to vote but not work. Republicans, controlled by agribusiness interests, want them to work but not vote. The answer is to stand up to union and to agribusiness pressure and take tough action to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants.

If there were no jobs for illegals outside of guest-worker programs, there would be no need for amnesty. They would all go home of their own accord or wait until they got legal status.

We would need a foolproof, biometric identity card to speed identification of those eligible for employment to accompany the sanctions against hiring illegals, but this is a small price to pay for an answer to so pressing a problem.

But Obama will not take the step that could end illegal immigration. Why? Because he wants immigration. He seeks to reshape the partisan balance in America by increasing the number of Latino voters and marrying them to the Democratic Party by provoking Republicans who just want law and order to appear racist to Hispanic-Americans. His is a game of great duplicity and racial opportunism. But good legislation can defeat his designs and solve one of our most pressing domestic problems at the same time.

The extreme naivety of the bourgeois leadership of the American people is shown by their inability to recognize the methodologies that can be used against them by hostile parties.  Anyone who studies criminal profiling would not be shocked by the fact that people can “camouflage.”  Though in this case, the camouflage should have been fairly obvious!

America’s homeland-security amnesia never ceases to amaze. In the aftermath of the botched Times Square terror attack, Pakistani-born bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad’s US citizenship status caused a bit of shock and awe. The Atlantic magazine writer Jeffrey Goldberg’s response was typical: “I am struck by the fact that he is a naturalized American citizen, not a recent or temporary visitor.” Well, wake up and smell the deadly deception.

Shahzad’s path to American citizenship — he reportedly married an American woman, Huma Mian, in 2008 after spending a decade in the country on foreign student and employment visas — is a tried-and-true terror formula. Jihadists have been gaming the sham-marriage racket for years. And immigration-benefit fraud has provided invaluable cover and aid for US-based Islamic plotters, including many planning attacks on New York City. As I’ve reported previously:

* El Sayyid A. Nosair wed Karen Ann Mills Sweeney to avoid deportation for overstaying his visa. He acquired US citizenship, allowing him to remain in the country, and was later convicted for conspiracy in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that claimed six lives.

* Ali Mohamed became a US citizen after marrying a woman he met on a plane trip from Egypt to New York. He became a top aide to Osama bin Laden and was later convicted for his role in the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa that killed 12 Americans and more than 200 others.

* Embassy-bombing plotter Khalid Abu al Dahab obtained citizenship after marrying three different American women.

* Embassy-bombing plotter Wadih el Hage, Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary, married April Ray in 1985 and became a naturalized citizen in 1989. Ray knew of her husband’s employment with bin Laden, but like many of these women in bogus marriages, she pleaded ignorance about her husband’s work.

* Lebanon-born Chawki Youssef Hammoud, convicted in a Hezbollah cigarette-smuggling operation based out of Charlotte, NC, married American citizen Jessica Fortune for a green card.

* Hammoud’s brother, Mohammed Hammoud, married three different American women. After arriving here on a counterfeit visa, being ordered deported and filing an appeal, he wed Sabina Edwards to gain a green card. Federal immigration officials refused to award him legal status after this first marriage was deemed bogus in 1994. Undaunted, he married Jessica Wedel in May 1997 and, while still wed to her, paid Angela Tsioumas to marry him in Detroit. The Tsioumas union netted Mohammed Hammoud temporary legal residence to operate the terror-cash scam. He was later convicted on 16 counts that included providing material support to Hezbollah.

* Eight Mideastern men who plotted to bomb New York landmarks in 1993 — Fadil Abdelgani, Amir Abdelgani, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, Tarig Elhassan, Abdo Mohammed Haggag, Fares Khallafalla, Mohammed Saleh and Matarawy Mohammed Said Saleh — all obtained legal permanent residence by marrying US citizens.

A year after 9/11, homeland-security officials cracked a vast illegal-alien Middle Eastern marriage-fraud ring in “Operation Broken Vows.” Authorities were stunned by the scope of the operations, which stretched from Boston to South Carolina to California. But marriage fraud remains a treacherous path of least resistance. The waiting period for US citizenship is cut by more than half for marriage-visa beneficiaries.

As former federal immigration official Michael Cutler warned years ago: “Immigration benefit fraud is certainly one of the major ‘dots’ that was not connected prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and remains a ‘dot’ that is not really being addressed the way it needs to be in order to secure our nation against criminals and terrorists.”

Jihadists have exploited our lax immigration and entrance policies to secure the rights and benefits of US citizenship while they plot mass murder — and we haven’t done a thing to stop them.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_jihadis_marriage_fraud_scam_iCj3GkDvQHmxATUMP8VTrJ#ixzz0nADESCAE

Even as the economic recovery plods ahead, many American consumers are refusing to come along.

They’re not spending freely – and they have no plans to.

Many of them have steady income. They aren’t saddled by high debts. They don’t fear losing their jobs. Yet despite recent gains, they’ve lost so much household wealth that they’re far more cautious about spending than before the recession.

Their behavior suggests that the Great Recession may have bred a new frugality that will endure well into the recovery. And because consumers fuel about 70 percent of the economy, their tightfisted habits means the rebound could stay unusually sluggish.

That’s the picture that emerges from an Associated Press survey of leading economists and interviews with more than two dozen ordinary Americans. The new AP Economy Survey asked 44 leading economists whether the recession created a “new frugality” among consumers that will outlive the recession. Two-thirds said yes.

They had in mind people like Marjorie Feldman of suburban St. Louis, who retired three years ago as a systems analyst for a utility company. The stock investments in her retirement account have sunk 15 percent from 2007. The value of her home is down 20 percent.

“I had retired assuming I’d make money” off the investments, said Feldman, who’s in her early 60’s. “I just don’t feel as confident in the economy, and I never will again. I won’t spend money the way I used to.”

Feldman’s husband works full time in academia. She has a part time job preparing tax returns at H&R Block. But her prime earning years are behind her.

“I don’t think it will ever get back to where it was before,” she said of her nest egg. “I won’t spend money the way I used to.”

Scott Hoyt, senior director of consumer economics at Moody’s Economy.com, notes that baby boomers, in particular, enjoyed spending sprees for most of their adult lives as their assets steadily grow.

“But the recession changed that,” Hoyt said. “Many have retirement and children’s education looming. All of a sudden, they see their balance sheets decline in a way they’ve never seen before.”

To be sure, many shoppers, especially the wealthy, are buying into the recovery. Partly on the strength of consumer spending, the economy emerged from recession last year and has been growing steadily, if moderately, since. Major retailers logged solid sales in March. Employers have begun to add jobs, including a net increase of 162,000 in March. The stock market has risen 70 percent from its low in March 2009.

Yet many who became penny-pinchers during the recession are in no mood to start shopping again with abandon for clothes, cars and home additions. They’ve discovered the peace of mind that comes with rebuilding savings, shopping more prudently and learning to live with less.

At their nerve-racked peak last year, Americans socked away 6.4 percent of their disposable income. That compared with less than 1 percent hit at one point during the pre-recession boom. The savings rate has since dropped to 3.1 percent. Yet few expect it to approach the near-zero savings rate that would signal high-octane spending has roared back.

Susan Wilson, 55, a freelance PR specialist in Scottsdale, Ariz., says her business is picking up. But her spending isn’t. Wilson still feels burned by the recession, when she lost her home to foreclosure.

“Shame on me,” she said. “I wasn’t paying enough attention to my financial health. That will never happen again.”

Wilson is renting now. She traded in her leased car for a used car she could buy outright. She’s started growing her own vegetables and air-drying her laundry to save money and stay out of debt. She’s looking to buy a home, but not one with an outsize mortgage.

“I’m looking for pretty much the smallest house I can live in,” she said.

Interviews with ordinary Americans suggest a new frugality endures even though consumer spending has risen for five straight months and retail sales for three.

In the AP’s new quarterly survey, a majority of economists agreed that a new frugality will persist even as the recovery gains firmer footing.

“I would call it a ‘mini age of austerity,’” said Sean Snaith, an economics professor at the University of Central Florida.

“Consumers will not run up multiple credit cards to their limits, and when buying a house the objective will not be to get the maximum square footage for which they can afford the payment. A higher savings rate will be in place for several years.”

Jeff Thredgold, an economist at Thredgold Economic Associates, predicts “less impress-my-neighbor-type spending” in coming years.

Count Keith Flowers of Manassas, Va., in that category. He’s decided that the hit he took in the housing slump requires him to continue to rein in spending. He’s cut off his landline phone and has become a regular at discount retailer Costco.

He isn’t worried about losing his job in business development at an information technology company. What’s led him to cut back spending is the sunken value of his condominium. He bought it in 2005 for about $270,000.

“I doubt right now it’s cracking $100,000,” Flowers said.

Rajeev Dhawan, director of Georgia State University’s Economic Forecasting Center, says: “I think the chances of us being big spenders in the next 10 years are pretty low.”

So much household wealth was inflated by the housing boom, Dhawan said, that the real estate bust spooked consumers. States hardest hit by the bust – California, Nevada, Florida and Arizona – together account for about 30 percent of national economic activity, he noted.

Household net worth – the value of assets like homes, checking accounts and investments minus debts like mortgages and credit cards – has risen for three straight quarters. But economists say consumers would need a stronger and prolonged increase in wealth to lead them to ratchet up spending. Net worth would have to rise an additional 21 percent just to get back to its pre-recession peak of $65.9 trillion.

Some economists put their hopes for the economy in the rich, who are spending more freely than the rest of the population. They hold out hope that this will encourage more hiring and stimulate spending by the less wealthy. More spending could increase companies’ revenue, which allow them to boost hiring and pay. And that would lead their employees to spend more.

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. returned to a first-quarter profit as more travelers vacationed on its ships and spent more money on board. And makers of luxury goods are benefiting from a release of pent-up demand for jewelry, watches and high-end furnishings.

High-end retailers have reported blowout results. Nordstrom’s revenue in stores open at least one year jumped 16.8 percent last month. Saks’ surged 12.7 percent.

McClaren Automotive has announced it will debut a $200,000 sports car in the U.S. next year. And business is picking up faster at high-end hotels than at mid-priced and budget hotels.

Whether spending by the wealthy will cause the less-well-off to spend freely, too, remains unclear. For now, though, many people have embraced a more frugal approach to spending.

Or maybe they’ve just learned to go without.

Jan Iris Smith, 57, and her husband of Cabin John, Md., put off furniture and clothing purchases after the stock market’s collapse in early 2009.

“We were counting on our income from our investments,” said Smith, a psychotherapist whose husband is retired. “We just stopped pretending everything was going to be OK anytime soon.”

Globalism means spreading revolution. It does not mean free movement.

Hardcore capitalism however requires free movement. Therefore, aside from the Trotskyites, the Jewish Bolsheviks are preferable to the liberal capitalists.

CHICAGO (AP) – Angered by a controversial Arizona immigration law, tens of thousands of protesters – including 50,000 alone in Los Angeles – rallied in cities nationwide demanding President Barack Obama tackle immigration reform immediately.

“I want to thank the governor of Arizona because she’s awakened a sleeping giant,” said labor organizer John Delgado, who attended a rally in New York where authorities estimated 6,500 gathered.

From Los Angeles to Washington D.C., activists, families, students and even politicians marched, practiced civil disobedience and “came out” about their citizenship status in the name of rights for immigrants, including the estimated 12 million living illegally in the U.S.

Police said 50,000 rallied in Los Angeles where singer Gloria Estefan kicked off a massive downtown march. Estefan spoke in Spanish and English, proclaiming the United States is a nation of immigrants.

“We’re good people,” the Cuban-born singer said atop a flatbed truck. “We’ve given a lot to this country. This country has given a lot to us.”

Public outcry, particularly among immigrant rights activists, has been building since last week when Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the legislation last week. The law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

The law’s supporters say it’s necessary because of the federal government’s failure to secure the border, but critics contend it encourages racial profiling and is unconstitutional.

“It’s racist,” said Donna Sanchez, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen living in Chicago whose parents illegally crossed the Mexican border. “I have papers, but I want to help those who don’t.”

Organizers estimated about 20,000 gathered at a park on Chicago’s West Side and marched, but police said about 8,000 turned out.

The event resembled something between a family festival – food vendors strolled through with pushcarts – and a political demonstration with protesters chanting “Si se puede,” Spanish for “Yes we can.” A group of undocumented students stood on a stage at the Chicago park and “came out” regarding their immigration status.

Juan Baca was among those students. Baca, 19, whose parents brought him from Mexico illegally when he was 4 months old, said he has had to drop out of college and work several times already because he can’t qualify for financial aid.

“It’s been a struggle,” he said. “I missed the mark by four months.”

Obama once promised to tackle immigration reform in his first 100 days, but has pushed back that timetable several times. He said this week that Congress may lack the “appetite” to take on immigration after going through a tough legislative year. However, Obama and Congress could address related issues, like boosting personnel and resources for border security, in spending bills this year.

At the White House, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat, was among 35 people arrested in a demonstration of civil disobedience against the Arizona law.

In Dallas, police estimated at least 20,000 attended a Saturday rally. About a dozen people there carried signs depicting the Arizona governor as a Nazi and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his tough illegal immigration stance, as a Klansman. Organizers were asking sign holders to discard those placards.

Juan Hernandez, the Hispanic outreach coordinator for Arizona Sen. John McCain’s unsuccessful presidential run, attended the Dallas rally. He said Arizona was once considered by those south of the border to be a model state with particularly close ties to Mexico.

“It went beyond what most states do,” he said. “Now they are a state that goes beyond what the Constitution says you should do.”

Juan Haro, 80, was born and raised in Denver, where about 3,000 people rallied. He said he thinks Arizona’s new law targets Mexicans.

“This country doesn’t seem to be anti-immigrant,” said Haro, whose family is originally from Mexico. “It seems to be anti-Mexican.”

In downtown Miami, several hundred flag-waving demonstrators – many with Cuban and Honduran flags, but mostly American ones – called for reforms.

Elsewhere, an estimated 7,000 protesters rallied in Houston, about 5,000 gathered at the Georgia state Capitol in Atlanta and at least 5,000 marched in Milwaukee. About 3,000 attended a Boston-area march.

And in Ann Arbor, Mich., more than 500 people held a mock graduation ceremony for undocumented immigrant students near the site of Obama’s University of Michigan commencement speech.

In Arizona, police in Tucson said an immigration rights rally there drew at least 5,000 people. Several thousand people gathered in Phoenix for a demonstration Saturday evening.

A smattering of counterprotesters showed up at rallies. In Tucson, a few dozen people showed up in support of the new law and Brewer. A barricade separated about two dozen counterprotesters from a pro-immigrant rights rally in San Francisco.

The counterprotesters there carried signs that read, “We Support Arizona” and “We Need More Ice At This Fiesta,” an apparent reference to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

May 1 – International Workers Day – is a traditional date for political demonstrations. Immigration advocates latched onto that tradition in 2006, when more than 1 million people across the country – half a million alone in Chicago – protested federal legislation that would have made being an illegal immigrant a felony. That legislation ultimately failed.

- by SOPHIA TAREEN