The Unspeakable Disgrace Of Europe: The War Of Religion Is Now Not Only The Backward Past, But The Present...

and the future. Islamic ghouls run free, while the more civilized live under increasing censorship of political speech. Centuries of progress are obliterated as the Wars of Religion which had ended centuries ago, are restarted in Western Europe. Immigration policy explains this, also since the push towards secularism is hugely greater in Western Europe than in civilized countries with less-warlike Islamic immigrant populations. The prevalence of the Islamic War of Religion depends on the percentage quantity of Islamic residents and their quality at the time of immigration.

The Greater The Openness To Immigration, The More Evening-Out Of Levels Of Per Capita Fixed Investment...

...as between countries is to be expected ( than otherwise would have been the case ). This is a problem and an exceedingly grave threat to the continuity of the advancement of civilization, since productivity reaches its new highest levels by adding on to the efficiency of what processes are already at the highest point currently existing. Allowing mass immigration to even out the levels of productivity or fixed investment per capita between countries which are even 100-fold different in this way, would halt and reverse progress in the advancement of productivity insofar as labor would substitute for capital. Some say this has never happened before on a global scale, therefore we need not fear it now; but there have never before been 100-fold differentials in per capita standards between populous countries, at the same time that the means are available to bring enough people in, to cause the downslide of exchanging high productivity methods for low. Many countries are cursed with excess labor in the antibiotics era, as they cannot justify the switch to higher-productivity methods while wages are very low. All the available labor should be used before they invest as if labor were more expensive than it is. Very few methods of production are more than 100-fold more productive than the way things are done in the poorest countries, all the rest should use more labor rather than invest in productivity enhancement, if the labor is that cheap.
Added later from earlier post: Business Leaders Turn from Increasing Per Capita Investment in Production, To Its Reduction Via Supporting Mass Immigration of Low Quality...
...They stand to suffer catastrophic loss of solidarity from the citizenry. The commonality of interest between the citizenry in general and the top people in business breaks down faster the more that there is a switch from increasing per capita investment in production, towards reducing it through mass immigration of undesirables (relative to this standard). Today the rich feel confident here, but the ground is shifting under them, towards a new dispensation of popular enmity against them, and it happens faster for each increment of such immigration which they are seen to favor and aggrandize their immediate relative position with.
Plus: Valuing Openness to Espionage Has Distinctly Traitorous Qualities: Would More Openness to Worse Espionage Then be Better Than Less?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_intelligence_activity_in_other_countries

Is It Reasonable To Suggest That Imagining A Dispensation In Which Immigrants Cannot Obtain Net Public Subsidy Neutralizes The Increase Of Aggression

...which befalls the net taxpayers of the incumbent citizenry, making such immigrants blameless and somehow not really foreigners increasing the level of aggression here? If such imagination is sufficient to eliminate the responsibility to be loyal to fellow nationals in this one de minimus requirement of national loyalty, obtaining when incoming foreigners increase the level of aggression on the citizenry; how could there subsist a responsibility to liberate foreigners through the medium of our government? Why wouldn't one just imagine that those foreigners are soon to be liberated by others, if it is reasonable to just imagine that the net public subsidy of immigrants will soon dry up and blow away, and make policy accordingly? Imagining an imminent change of great magnitude in public policy here or elsewhere is not known to be sufficient reason to abandon the necessary loyalties, than which the nation cannot mean less. No doubt it would be said that what is meant is not to trust imagination of the future as a basis for public policies of today, but to suggest an ideal set of conditions and act by reference to these. The same objection applies as above though; in the world of ideal conditions no foreigners need to be liberated, and one might just as reasonably make public policy today on the basis of assuming the imminence of that idealization, as the no-net-public-subsidy vision: both are exceedingly far from realization, yet arguably within the realm of future possibilities. Assume ideal conditions have been, or soon will be, achieved and generate today's policies accordingly. Assume that it is, or soon will be, impossible for immigration to increase aggression on the citizenry, and derive the appropriate policy favoring mass immigration. Assume that today, or soon, no foreigners will need liberation any more than citizens do, and derive the appropriate policy of reduction of immigration. These two assumptions lead to opposite policy conclusions, and they are both impossibly optimistic, unless the second one is much more realistic, in allowing that there could be a drastic evening-out of the relative 'need-to-be-liberated' between countries. In any case, the foreigners' relative 'need-to-be-liberated' creates no obligation on the part of those with less such need.
Added later: Soon, So As To Allow Immigration To Be Evaluated Differently ?
Here are some commenters from Prof. Borjas' Blog, some of whom appear to believe so:"I have never liked the cost-benefit approach to immigration, I just don't get it, I mean it's bad enough that economists embrace it, but it seems most people look at immigration from the cost-benefit vantage point, with the most frequently voiced criterion, "high-skilled". I can understand electing to ban "communists", "religious zealots", "terrorists", "convicted felons", etc. I understand "moral" criteria but I don't get "economic" criteria, unless we introduce the possibility of kicking people out, then yeah, why not, expel all your elderlies who cost so much, expel prisoners who cost so much, send them to the moon or somewhere! now that would be consistent.Posted by: pat toche November 18, 2007 at 09:36 AMI think Pat Toche misses the point, which is that a country shouldn't -- via immigration -- take on forseeable and needless burdens.It's also a basic idea -- but apparently needs saying here -- that a country has obligations to its own citizens that it doesn't have to the rest of the world.Posted by: Paul November 18, 2007 at 01:37 PMIf other country´s follow New Zealand´s example, they will have a Immigration Qualification Checklist which would be titled, "die Herrenrasse".{trans.:'the master race' Here we have an insinuation which does the robo-New Left smear job with all the archetypal elements implied:1- smearing, as in 'you prove that you're not a nazi', 2- slippery-slope, as where a restriction of immigration now or in the past, is imagined to lead unstoppably to mass murder on a population-genetic basis, 3- equivocation, as where loyalty to citizens is equivocated into interchangeability with totalitarian policies, 4- False Dilemma, as where our choices are unreasonably implied to be free immigration or mass murder, and 5- misconception of ideals, as when more openness to migrating people is implied to be always better than less. Why should the ideal in this instance not be an intermediate value, neither too much nor too little? ] Posted by: Dee November 18, 2007 at 02:17 PMOf course, the rational thing to do would be to cancel the public healthcare system or let the couple waive all rights under it. Posted by: jimbino "...JB Comments: Can we reasonably admit immigrants on the basis of imagining that the public healthcare systems will evaporate or allow immigrants to be rejected for benefits not on the basis of need, but of how they arrived? Imagining that politics will soon change so as to prevent immigrants from going on to net public subsidy, is not known to be a rational basis for bringing in large numbers of foreigners. What is known is that the aggression on those to whom loyalty is owed, such as the net taxpayers of our citizenry, will be increased by those foreigners who come in on net public subsidy.

Do Not Profligately Grant The Assumption Of Good Faith...

...But especially not to those who want more freedom-for-aggression, to be made available to officials and criminals. There is evil in too generously granting the assumption of good faith in matters political, and no known virtue in doing so. Credulity and naivete are not virtues but weaknesses, and such as are easily and routinely exploited by aggressors and their excuse-makers. The assumption of sincerity and good faith, and of motivation from sources other than malice and power-greed, is not to be given to those who want more freedom-for-aggression. Those to your left in the above sense, will rarely be found giving the assumption of good faith to those who want even the LEAST reduction in that freedom-for-aggression. Instead, smears will be immediately and robotically used against those who are seen to want even minimally more freedom-FROM-aggression, and to the total exclusion of rational arguments, no matter that these civil and reasonable approaches were rightly to be expected. It has to be that way, since there are no rational arguments even for the maintenance of freedom-for-aggression, let alone its increase. If politics be the ethics of aggression, discussion with political aspects, is going to come down to the above-described considerations. An element which is most especially not to be granted charitable assumptions of good faith, is the excuse-maker for Islamic aggression; the unspeakably degraded Dhimmi, the would-be Dhimmi found among us, hoping to be accepted as more than utterly second-class.
Added 6-24-08: Thursday, December 13, 2007

Look At The Revelatory Power Of Not Giving The Assumption Of Good Faith To Likely Propagandists...
Brazil's leftist government is promoting race hatred
Olavo de CarvalhoBrookesNews.ComMonday 10 December 2007
In an interview with the BBC, Matilde Ribeiro, Brazil’s Special Secretary for the Promotion of Racial Equality Policies, explained the very special kind of anti-racism she defends: it consists of nothing else than overt and continuous anti-white hate, legitimized by a slavery history that ended more than a century ago.
As most Brazilian families (including mine) come from mixed race marriages, Ms. Ribeiro’s preaching tries to stir up hate among people who would rather prefer to love one another. But her scandalous doctrine, promoting the hostility of mulatto children against their white fathers or mothers, is not an original product of her empty head. It is the passive echo of a long and very active cultural tradition. Since Stalin ordered the communist movement to exploit all possible racial conflicts, conferring upon them a sense of class warfare, perhaps nobody has obeyed that instruction in a swifter, more faithful and constant way than Brazilian "social scientists".
Practically all our university production in this domain consists in a long and noisy effort to instill in blacks and mulattos a retroactive hatred directed not only against the slave masters and the descendants of slave masters, but against the white population in general, including those who fought for the liberation of slaves, those who married black persons, those who never said a single word against the black race nor did it any harm. According to the doctrine of our academic establishment, all these whites are unconscious racists, virtually as dangerous as Joseph Goebbels or the Ku-Klux-Klan.
Even the blacks are a little racist against themselves. Truly innocent of the crime of racism are only the distinguished authors of these studies and the militants of organizations inspired by them. In other words: you either are one of the accusers or one of the culprits. There is no third possibility. An incessant flux of Master's and PhD theses, largely subsidized by the government and by billionaire international foundations, pours out from our universities in order to lend credibility to that lovely doctrine. It is founded upon the following eight methodological precepts:
1. Attribute to racial discrimination the difference in economic standing between blacks and whites, omitting the fact that, between the abolition of slavery and the beginning of industrialization in Brazil, more than 40 years went by, during which time the freed black population reproduced itself at a rate incomparably higher than the number of jobs available.
2. Portray black people as the main victims of violent crimes, without asking if they are not also predominantly the perpetrators of these crimes. Every murderer, white or black, is thereby considered a priori as an instrument of white violence against blacks.
3. In the same way, explain all police violence against blacks as a consequence of white racism, without considering whether the police officers who committed the violence were black or white.
4. Depict Europeans always as enslavers and blacks as enslaved, systematically omitting the fact that Muslim troops, filled with blacks, invaded Europe and enslaved millions of whites eight centuries before the arrival of Europeans in Africa.
5. Explain, therefore, internal slavery in Africa as a mere byproduct of European slavery, thus inverting the order of historic time .
6. Transform every race into a juridical person, a holder of rights, when black, and of penal responsibility, when white.
7. Take it as implicit that every white person is guilty of the acts of slave masters, even if he has not a single slave master in his ancestry and even if he has come to Brazil as an immigrant decades after the end of slavery.
8. Blame it all on the "Judeo-Christian civilization", exactly the only one, throughout human history, to have done something in favor of enslaved races.
The word "bias" is too delicate and subtle to qualify the mental attitude that generates these studies. The sociology of races produced in Brazilian universities is pure propaganda material, deliberately misleading and calculated to legitimize the revolutionary violence against what former Sao Paulo (white) governor Claudio Lembo called the "white, cruel and selfish elite". Social science in Brazil is a kind of organized crime .
Olavo de Carvalho, 60, is a Brazilian writer, philosopher, journalist and former university teacher presently living in the U.S. as a correspondent for Brazilian newspapers. He can be emailed at olavo@olavodecarvalho.org and at his siteJB comments: Government officials and their professoriate, plus media subject to licensure, are not wisely given the assumption of good faith. Carvalho's precept #6 above is especially relevant to the state religion of anti-caucasianism in our public schools: "Transform every race into a juridical person, a holder of rights, when black, and of penal responsibility, when white." I say this doctrine in itself fully justifies the disestablishment of government schools here through privatization, insofar as it is pervasive in them. Such doctrines are all that's left for the left, when the dream of the class war dies. Another brilliant and highly exportable observation of Carvalho's, excerpted from above: "Truly innocent of the crime of racism are only the distinguished authors of these studies and the militants of organizations inspired by them. In other words: you either are one of the accusers or one of the culprits. There is no third possibility."
Posted by John S. Bolton

Anarcholibertarians Etc. Urge One To Evaluate Immigration From The Standpoint Of Landlords Etc. Whose Freedom To Take On A Foreigner Is Constrained

by any restriction of immigration. The landlords or employers on whose behalf such complaint is made are either net taxpayers or they are not. If they are net taxpayers, the restriction of immigration benefits them insofar as there is restriction of immigration on to net public subsidy. There would be increase of aggression on them if other landlords or employers en masse, were to get realized their freedom to take on foreigners regardless of the effect on the net taxpayers and others of their citizenry. If the employers or landlords are using net public subsidy themselves, or are indirectly using it by giving places to those whose new position is possible as a result of an increase in the aggression on the net taxpayers of our citizenry; their freedom-for-aggression, as now it may well be called, is of course constrained by restriction of immigration, as well it should be. Apart from anarchists, leftists and suchlike, the desire is for more freedom-FROM-aggression, and such that the use of foreigners to increase the public subsidies to a (directly or indirectly) subsidized landlord or employer is a claim to freedom-FOR-aggression or its increase, which is not right to honor. Beyond this, is the circumstance of the entry of warlike foreigners, which, for them to say is the right of landlords or employers to take on such foreigners, would be a claim of a right to act treasonably. If the existence of the net taxpayer among our citizens be acknowledged, and as one to whom our loyalty is owed above the aggrandizement of the foreigner, the great smear-emblazoned edifice of preachment favoring mass immigration, shudders and throws off debris in huge quantity.
NYT of Nov.12th,'07, p.A12. 'Open Doors 2007' from the Inst. of Int'l Edu., says that 580,000 foreign students here spend ~10 billion on tuition and fees, and another 10 billion on other expenses. That's ~16,000/ year on tuition and fees, but college costs nearly always much more than that, even exclusive of other expenses. Public universities and colleges budget much more per student than they charge even full-rate paying students of whatever origin. The costs run 10-20 thousand dollars more than full charge. Instead of assuming that foreign students are paying their way at 16,000 apiece, it should be realized that they are grabbing a public subsidy of the difference between that and the 25-35 thousand that our governments have to pay per student for cost of education, exclusive of living expenses. On top of this, the report admits that 1/4 or 5 billion dollars of the foreign students total expenses here come from U.S. sources. That is how they arrive at the supposed net contribution of ~15 billion; by subtracting 5 from 20. Scholars may relish the thought that they are the world's teachers par excellence, and some may delight in the chance to usher in hostiles; but should Americans really want to provide them with additional billions per year to pursue such prestige-seeking or destructive goals? Valuing openness to diversity that you can never have too much of, imposes costs which have to be covered-up with deceptions.

Is Assimilation For Immigrants And Their Children Only?

Assimilation is not only for immigrants and their descendants, indeed not, and that is why large-scale immigration has to make America more like the failed societies from which so many immigrants come. To suggest otherwise, that we have some formula which can make assimilation be all for the foreigner and none for us, would be so arrogant and preposterous a claim, that no one ever makes it explicitly. By implication, though, an attempted smear job is set up by stressing assimilation as if it could be all one way, then being positioned to say that only racism, fascism, xenophobia, or the smear-term of the moment, would insist on the unassimilability of various foreign groups. A rational argument was rightly to be expected though, as to why we need millions of immigrants additional on to net public subsidy. Not only must the mass-immmigrationist, special pleader or otherwise, give reasons as to how assimilation will occur, and not be counterbalanced by Americans getting assimilated to the standards of the third world mobilized towards us, but they must indicate why we should expect immigrants to be net taxpayers. Aggression is increased on those to whom loyalty is owed, such as the net taxpayer of our citizenry, and the excuse for this is that assimilation may happen favorably, and we supposedly need to increase gross output however this can be done, and regardless of the effect on per capita standards?

The High Prevalence Of Slandering The Forces Of Counter-Aggression

Added 8-26-08 from Saturday, August 23, 2008:
The High Prevalence Of Slandering The Forces Of Counter-Aggression
is powerful evidence of the wish for freedom-for-aggression. Wouldn't it be exceedingly puzzling otherwise, to observe that one part of the government systematically vilifies another part, such as the public schools and colleges demonizing the military and the police? For certain there cannot be the least honor or sincerity in that procedure. In the nations where there is everything to fear from the nominal forces of counter-aggression, military and police such as they have, one does not find such vilification going on as here. The explanation is that the forces of counter-aggression are obstacles in the way of greater freedom-for-aggression, and such that, the less freedom-for-aggression has been won in a jursidiction, the more the forces of counter-aggression are to be defamed. Observing this sort of relation, how predictable it is, one has good evidence to conclude that freedom-FOR-aggession is a driving motivation for many of the powerful and the influential, and to ignore that effect in one's explanations is to give a false account of what exists.

Neither The Black Man's Freedom-For-Aggression, Nor That Of The Immigrant, Is Known To Be A Worthwhile Objective...
...for public policy to pursue as value. Government has pushed for decades in this direction though, as if they found these particularisms, the particular freedom-for-aggression of such races and nations, as actual values which public policy might reasonably work towards the aggrandizement of. Provocation of the majority may have long been the intention; to get a reaction sufficient to allow for the disposal of democratic procedures. To stop officials using methods as cynical and destructive as the above, by now, almost certainly would require the convincing threat of the people shutting down the government schools as such, thus handicapping the growth of power insofar as it relies on just these institutions for its propaganda machinery.

Another Line Of Reasoning Tending Towards Confirmation Of The Madisonian Metaphysics Of Suspicion

Assume, to see where it may lead, that officialdom and its professoriate, will always try for as much power to do as much damage as can be got away with at a given time and place. If this assumption be grossly wrong, so is the American constitution, for proceeding systematically as though we may never trust officials much more than the above assumption would allow. How will these mighty untrustworthies obtain the signals which tell them that an attempted power-grab has gone beyond what can be got away with just now; won't it have to be a reaction which threatens to throw the entire apparatus of the expansion of such power into reverse? What in the world could accomplish that, unless it were a threatened reversal of the growth of funding and staffing of the government schools, insofar as they are the propaganda apparatus working for the next power-grab? In modern history, one may note the major rightward moves away from despotism, or its increase, occurring after the pruning of the government schools; as in 1940's Germany, Japan, Italy, and in 1970's America, as many state universities had their budgets cut in response to the 1960's leftist indulgences. If this assumption be the American idea, that humanity becomes more untrustworthy the more endowed that one is with power or leadership of learning which is in state employ, and that this constitutes the nation and the loyalties thereto, such a group must be very small in the world and hardly sufficient in numbers to be called a nation. Therefore the nation must mean more, or other, than this.

Remarkable Comments On Egalitarian Omerta

From www.2blowhards.com comments on posting of 6th Nov. '07 by gc:"Of course marginal tax rates affect tax receipts. But so does IQ. Of course bilingual policy affects immigrant assimilation. But so does IQ. Of course the educational curriculum affects achievement. But so does IQ.
Yet IQ is the factor that cannot be publicly mooted, let alone debated. And as for the reason that it cannot be debated -- that reason is even more doubleplusungood.
Anyway, by now it's a moot point. These taboos are not going to change anytime soon. Civilizations *do* die. The West had a 500 year run in which it was characterized by being the most willing to jettison holy lies in favor of truth. That willingness to embrace truth, regardless of where it may lead, lead to world beating power and unmatched material wealth. And eventually, it lead to contentment, relaxation, and subsequent immunocompromisation.[...]
Bottom line -- like a man with a sabotaged immune system, the West can no longer make self/nonself
distinctions:
At the heart of the immune system is the ability to distinguish between self and nonself. Virtually every body cell carries distinctive molecules that identify it as self.
And like a man with a damaged nervous system, the West's internal perceptions are out of sync with the external reality. Consider a hand on a hot stove. It does not matter if the lowly epithelial cells are burned by the million if the nerve cells refuse to communicate this truth to the seat of conscious action.
Similarly, the media is the nervous system of a civilization. The signals it chooses to amplify, dampen, or interpret control the response of the body. If paralyzed, it matters not if the body is hale and hearty and theoretically capable of action. A malfunctioning nervous system will leave an otherwise healthy body jerking around in response to phantasms of racism -- or directing its efforts against its own cells.[...]
Witness the reaction to Katrina: the fact that whites had to defend themselves against black looters somehow became an indictment of white racism. The obvious facts on the ground, the facts sensed by those lowly epithelial cells, were simply inverted by a compromised nervous system.
By selective signal amplification or damping one can make overlaps appear to be equalities. The signals exist -- they need not be made up out of whole cloth. One need only turn up the volume on (say) poor migrant workers stranded in the desert and turn down the volume on (say) anchor babies to achieve the desired effect without obvious fingerprints." JB comments: The media are not really like the nervous system, since signals can travel without intermediation, and through minor media which are not 'immunocompromised'. Not only the internet, but the major elections are often bigger than the major media in effect. Behind media are the sources of ideas in the government schools, and that establishment can be privatized or put down. This is more likely, the more that the electorate perceives the egalitarian anti-culture to be alien and malicious; and to actually pull off the coup-de-grace which the commenter expects, requires that such schools and media trafficking below them, become increasingly more openly malicious and alien, as to become explicitly servile to hostile foreign influences. This is what appears to be happening now, with the constant forcing of the immigration issues, and one does observe a snowballing 'immune response' as the pressure goes up, and the powerful and influential keep pushing politically as if immigration were the one and only political issue of note.

Quoth The Vector: Openness For Thee, But Not For Me

Here is how also one may know that our officialdom, and its well-suborned professoriate, grossly favor freedom-FOR-aggression over freedom properly so called. The policies regarding openness of public records would have the agencies which alone can systematically provide freedom-FROM-aggression, be subject to opening their records, unless this would endanger the 'privacy' of an aggressor or vector of disease. Just look at whose 'privacy' is thus exalted, and which agencies of counter-aggression are to be disabled with a compromising openness, to determine the actual values and preferences involved in the extremely differential commands of openness and closedness regarding records.
Also, from an earlier post:
Is there more out there, in the way of species and strains of pathogens which are yet to come?Yes, and lethal ones, of both easy and difficult transmission.XDR-TB means extremely drug-resistant tuberculosis, and it is one which can kill within months.It is out there waiting for us to become open to its spread.There are several sub-types of HIV, including a fast-killing one, which haven't yet got here.Leprosy can become endemic in many cities here where it is today unknown. Malaria can get established in several urbanized regions on the Gulf Coast; it only needs enough immigrants, but especially poor ones. There are HTLV's which are either not present, or merely sporadic here, as yet. Is this a value of which one can ever have too much, or is more openness to more damage from overseas always better? If there is an intermediate and ideal range of openness to such transmission across national boundaries, what would determine this? Why this or that upper and lower bound for best openness of this kind? Certainly no one will ever dare to state openness to such transmission as value-in-itself, unless it were to win notoriety through giving voice to evil motivations. At the same time, it is also clear that valuing closedness to international transmission of infectious agents and parasites, can be excessive. The limitations should acknowledge that we want the least volume of such transmissions that is practicable, though. Valuing openness in a general way, as if it were capable of being decently made an ideal of, when it includes openness to such transmission, is shown to be highly questionable.

Linda Chavez Or Audacious Epigone: Of These, Who Analyzes Honestly?

Chavez lays out some numbers as follows:"Hispanics represent about 15 percent of the population, but only about 8 percent of voting-age citizens, and barely 6 percent of those persons who actually voted in the 2004 election. But Democrats could easily target Hispanic voters and significantly increase their numbers, just as they have blacks in previous elections...". Then quotes a study which looked at the hispanic precincts of THREE congressional districts, extrapolating therefrom to the other hundreds, but deceitfully, very much contrary to the general pattern demonstrated by Audacious Epigone[Dec. 7th '06 Oct.4th '07] and others; that immigration hardliners among Republicans were less than half as likely to be unseated as the softies. Contra Chavez, hispanic voters will likely not henceforth be tempted by Republican imitators of echt-Democratic policies; as always and with all groups, they will buy the real deal and not the imitation brand, if that visamongering is more than a blip on their screen. Our political elites are unprecedentedly out of step with the electorate on this issue of the status of the illegals, and so much so that, one could suspect that these promiscuous race-working elites have an infectious disease, and clean-living Republican voters do not.

What If Leftism As Such Is Mass-Murder As An End-In-Itself?

This is left as a question for the bold to ask even of professors in universities. If one is bold and curious as to what the response would be; would they cry McCarthyism, persecution, or invoke nominalism of a most self-contradictory kind, or call the enforcers or what. Warning: trying this could be hazardous to your life-chances. While the hard left indulges a taste for machiavellian discourse, they also know that they depend on a reputation for idealism, in order for the few and unspeakably dirty, to use moral intimidation on their betters.

Anti-Defamation League Caught Deceitfully Pretending That Immigrants Can't Bring Diseases Across The Border

Taken from Lonewackocom (see sidebar links) post of 10-31-07, where the new ADL report about 'anti-immigrant' rhetoric is quoted as follows:"[Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee/ALIPAC president William Gheen] [2] also inflames anti-immigrant sentiment by falsely asserting that foreigners bring disease into the nation." This, ironically enough, at the same time as scientists reported what follows just below...