An audio file deferentially referential to ...

and ...

and ...

about, essentially ...

City Pages interviews former CIA analyst, specializing in Osama Bin Laden, Michael Scheuer:

CP: Getting back to what you said a moment ago about the importance to bin Laden of offering the U.S. a warning, didn’t he in fact get in trouble in a lot of Islamic circles after 9/11 for failing to provide a warning?

Scheuer: Yes—that is, for failing to provide enough of a warning. The prophet’s guidance is that you go the extra mile to warn your enemy. Bin Laden was called on the carpet by his peers in the Islamic militant movement for three things. One was that he didn’t give us enough warning. He’s now addressed the American people on five separate occasions since 2002. So he’s taken care of that one. He was also called on the carpet for not offering us a chance to convert to Islam. He’s now done that three separate times, and Zawahiri has done it once. So they’ve covered that angle. The other thing they were taken to task for was that they didn’t have the religious authority to kill as many Americans as they did. In the summer of 2003, he got a religious judgment from a very reputable Saudi cleric that he could use weapons of mass destruction, specifically nuclear weapons, to kill up to 10 million Americans.

After 9/11, he had several very important loose ends to tie up, in religious terms, before he could attack us again. He’s done all of those things. It’s interesting, because he spoke on the eve of our presidential election, and he said, This is the last time I’m going to warn you. In his speech last week, he said, I was not going to talk to you again, but your president is lying to you. I wanted to give you one more opportunity to hear the truth.

Well, that was February, 2006, and Bin Laden has just put forth another video urging the US to convert to Islam.

So its getting to be a little tiresome, all this admonishment without any real Jihad.  Is he full of hot air?  Is he a neocon version of Emmanuel Goldstein?

One possibility here is that he really is attempting to “go the extra mile” as required by Islamic law if the other side shows signs of seeking reconciliation.  He shows this may be his motivation during his discussion of the 2006 election when the US citizenry did move toward the Democrats—a collective act which he interprets as an expression of good intentions by US citizens, but which he says is clearly not working and must be regarded as inadequate.  So is this his “final warning”?

I don’t know but the fact that he plays the same race guilt cards as Jews and blacks during his rhetoric seems to point to him being something less than genuine.

UPDATE (10:23AM PDT 9/9):  Well, it looks like my identification of the ethnic origin of the rhetoric may have been correct.  The Times UK reports that:

American spy chiefs were quick to name Adam Gadahn, the head of al-Qaeda’s English language media operations, as the author of large sections of bin Laden’s broadcast.

Adam Gadahn is also known as “Adam Pearlman” whose grandfather was on the Board of Directors of the Anti-Defamation League.  But I cheated:  I based this prediction on my being an “antisemite” and as we all know, you cannot count naughty predictions toward your credibility.  You must say things like “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” even if your naughty model of the world is right 86,400 times a day.

Lew Rockwell’s Rick Fisk writes of Ron Paul’s immigration policy:

The worst rhetorical device used when discussing immigration and border control is the ad hominem, “illegal alien.” It is used daily but its absurdity is rarely challenged other than to suggest it is a politically incorrect term.

There is no such thing as a person whose very nature makes him illegal. Nobody is born into a state of illegality….

A border is not a property boundary; it is a demarcation of legal jurisdiction. A person, who crosses a border, has not committed a common law crime…

The U.S. Constitution grants no authority to harass people crossing the border unless those crossing are obviously intent on committing harm. The only authority given to congress relating to immigration was to determine what constituted citizenship. Since it is allegedly supposed to protect our rights, it has no legal authority to demand identification or to detain us merely because we cross a border. We celebrate Ellis Island, but we shouldn’t. It was a detainment camp that violated the rights of everyone who entered even if they gladly accepted it. Many people died there unnecessarily.

Here’s what Ron Paul actually says about border enforcement:

No amnesty.  Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

Lew Rockwell, withdraw Rick Fisk’s story now or face legitimate accusations of libel against Ron Paul on the most significant issue facing the public.

In October 2005 the UK government Actuary released forecasts for medium-term population growth:-

The United Kingdom population is projected to increase by 7.2 million over the period 2004 to 2031, according to a new set of UK population projections released today. The increase is equivalent to an average annual rate of growth of 0.42 per cent, or 12 per cent over the 27 years. In the longer-term, the projections suggest that the population will continue rising beyond 2031 but at a much lower rate of growth.

The UK population will increase gradually from an estimated 59.8 million in 2004, passing 60 million in 2005 and 65 million in 2023,
to reach 67.0 million by 2031.

... The projected total population of the United Kingdom at 2031 is 1.3 million (2.0 per cent) higher than in the previous (2003-based) projections. This is due to a combination of higher
assumed levels of net migration, higher short-term birth rate assumptions and slightly higher life expectancy assumptions.

Perhaps the first point to make here is that the government actuary has apparently missed some factors trending to a shortfall in housing supply, among them the later age of marriage and the trend towards smaller houses.  However, the picture was bad enough.  It backed up the long and largely failing struggle John Prescott has had to force a major housebuilding programme on councils in the South-East (which, with London, receives 75% of all migration to the UK).  Gordon Brown made it clear earlier this month that there would be no more failure.

Gordon Brown has set out his ambition to build three million more homes across the country by 2020 to address a crisis in the supply of affordable homes.

The figure was 250,000 higher the Government’s previous target and reflects Mr Brown’s determination to make housing a top priority.

And this morning the papers carried the news that the Green Belt, that stubborn, beautiful rural abutment to urban sprawl, must begin to be sacrificed:-

READ MORE...

NBC San Diego reports that:

The Teamsters Union said it has been told by officials in the Transportation Department’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that the first Mexican trucks will be coming across the border on Saturday.

Happy Labor Day, Teamsters!

Reuters reports that:

Despite the robust farm economy, the rural poverty rate is “statistically unchanged” at 15.2 percent, 3 points above the national average, the U.S. government said on Tuesday.

[...]

“Rural America has been struggling throughout the decade,” said Jim Weill, president of the anti-poverty group Food Research and Action Center. While farm income is climbing, “the income for rural Americans are not connected.”

There are 2 million U.S. farms, so farm households are a small part of the population living outside cities. One-fifth of Americans live outside urban areas.

Where’s the Southern POVERTY Law Center when you need them?  Other than catering to the urban rich hatred of “trailer trash” white folks, that is. 

How much money does the Southern POVERTY Law Center have in their BANK ACCOUNT I wonder?

Three day’s ago London’s mayor Ken Livingstone was all a-blubber at his own noblesse oblige.

“You can look across there to see the institutions that still have the benefit of the wealth they created out of slavery,” Livingstone said, pointing through a huge window at the skyscrapers cluttering London’s financial district.

“As mayor, I offer an apology on behalf of London and its institutions for their role in the transatlantic slave trade.”

Livingstone has been an inveterate gesture politician all his career.  To most observers the motivation has looked very like spite.  But I think it does him a disservice to belittle his sincerity in that way.  On Thursday the stirrings in his heart and the tears in his eyes were very likely real.  Tellingly, he informed his audience that:-

“It was the racial murder of not just those who were transported but generations of enslaved African men, women and children.  To justify this murder and torture black people had to be declared inferior or not human.  We live with the consequences today.”

We certainly do, and it’s the replacement of Europe’s people with, among others, the least educationally and civilisationally competent of all the human races.

Livingstone, however, can only relate sympathetically to SSAs - and other foreigners.  Kin-wise, he has his head on the wrong way round.  The “institutions that still have the benefit of the wealth they created out of slavery” and, by extension, all unapologetic Englishmen are irredeemably racist, and just irredeemable, because blacks remain locked in the basement of Western life.  Human bio-diversity does not exist, indeed is yet more racism.  Absolute equality, therefore, is the only political ambition to which Livingstone can aspire.  And for him that means the eager sharing of white living space, for the extinction of racism has no meaning otherwise.  It is a gesture again, no doubt, but one demanded of us ... one of obeisance, and the most final and absolute relinquishment of those high qualities of being which define us, and which in action this neurotic man perceives as the mark of Cain.

Thus, in a speech in 2005 in support of siting a statue of his demi-god, Nelson Mandela, in Trafalgar Square, he said:-

“Nelson Mandela would signify the peaceful transition to a multiracial and multicultural world and I would be proud to have that in London,”

Of course, the “peaceful transition” he lauds is our acquiesecence in our own racial murder.  There can be few more eloquent or more remorseless examples than Ken Livingstone of the Freudian theory of projection.

READ MORE...

From Kevin MacDonald’s preface to the second edition of “Culture of Critique”:

Paul Gottfried (2000) raised several interesting issues in his review in Chronicles, the paleo-conservative intellectual journal. (I replied to Gottfried’s review and Gottfried penned a rejoinder; see Chronicles, September, 2000, pp. 4-5). Gottfried questions my views on the role of Jewish organizations and intellectuals with strong Jewish identifications as agents of change in the cultural transformations that have occurred in Western societies over the last 50 years. In general,my position is that Jewish intellectual and political movements were a necessary condition for these changes, not a sufficient condition, as Gottfried supposes. In the case of the reversal in U.S. immigration policy, there simply were no other pressure groups that were pushing for liberalized, multi-racial immigration during the period under consideration (up to the enactment of the watershed immigration bill of 1965). Nor were there any other groups or intellectual movements besides the ones mentioned in CofC that were developing images of the U.S. as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society rather than a European civilization. Gottfried attributes the sea change in immigration to ‘a general cultural change that beset Western societies and was pushed by the managerial state.’ I agree that multi-ethnic immigration resulted from a general cultural shift, but we still must develop theories for the origin of this shift.

Well it took Paul Gottfried nearly 10 years, but he has now published a book which, apparently, offers his theory for the origin of this general cultural shift:

It’s the leftist media.

See Gottfried’s own description, recently published at VDARE, of his book.

I haven’t read Gottfried’s book, but no where does the word “Jew” or any derivative appear in his self-review of it except to decry the persecution of Jews by Nazis.  The following, however, does appear:

The “Conservative Movement” headquartered in New York and Washington became overly concerned with getting on well with the media establishment. And, consisting for the most part of journalists and fundraisers, it worked not to give offense to those who might contribute to its material and social success.

So perhaps, in the preface for the next edition of CofC, Kevin MacDonald will have to state “but we still must develop theories for the origin of the leftist media”.