The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Nixon Administration Discovered That Offensive Biological Weapons Are Useless
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

One of the least known incidents of the Cold War is the Nixon Administration’s decision in 1969 to abolish the U.S.’s sizable $300 million per year offensive biological weapons program.

When Congressman Melvin Laird became Defense Secretary in 1969, he asked for a review of the U.S.’s germ warfare and chemical warfare programs. Laird saw them as increasingly unpopular, both due to Vietnam and unfortunate incidents like the 1968 Skull Valley Sheep Kill.

It turned out that both the Buck Turgidsons of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Dr. Strangeloves of the National Security Council couldn’t think of any use for offensive germ warfare. From Wikipedia:

Surprisingly, Laird found the Joint Chiefs of Staff receptive to BW elimination as well. In twice weekly meetings with the Joint Chiefs during 1969 Laird found none of the officers opposed to ending the U.S. BW program.[1] They found the weapons ineffective and militarily useless, especially when compared to the U.S. nuclear arsenal.[1]

With nuclear weapons, you have to worry about which way the wind will blow the fallout, but at least fallout doesn’t reproduce like germs do. For example, during the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic, Western Europe was divided by hundreds of miles of barbed wire and trenches, but both sides were hit hard anyway.

The Joint Chiefs made two demands, one was to continue defensive germ warfare research and the other was that they be allowed to maintain the U.S. chemical arsenal as a deterrent to the Soviet Union.[1]

In June 1969 Kissinger asked a former Harvard colleague, Matthew Meselson to prepare a position paper on U.S. chemical and biological weapons programs.[2][4] Meselson and Paul Doty then organized a private conference to discuss policy issues. The result was a September 1969 paper that not only urged U.S. ratification of the Geneva Protocol but an end to U.S. BW programs.[2] Meselson and his colleagues argued that a biological attack would likely inflict a great toll on civilian populations while remaining largely militarily ineffective.[4]

In his November 1969 speech announcing the change in policy, Nixon mentioned that during his 8 years on Eisenhower’s National Security Council there had seemed to be a “taboo” on discussing biological warfare. Once the higher ups had actually discussed it in 1969, it turned out virtually nobody thought much of germ warfare.

 
Hide 170 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. There’s a great alternative history story, “The Boy From Zapaquitos” about the US using biological weapons.
    “I’m so glad to see so many young people come out to hear an old man talk about his adventures. After all, I did it for you”.

  2. Anonymous[365] • Disclaimer says:

    President Hagar Gilligan Fabioso took time out of his Saturday Coronavirus Task Force press conference to relive the mighty praise he received the night before:

    I was honored to see that the stock market — you were mostly there with us — set a record in a short period of time — over a 45-minute period that we had the press conference yesterday in the Rose Garden. That was a record. All-time record. I think we should do one of them every day, perhaps. How about every — how about five times a day? We’ll do one five times a day. But that was something to watch. And I had no idea. We walked back, I said, “So how did that work out?” They said, “Sir, you just set a new record in the history of the stock market.” So that was pretty good.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing/

    .

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  3. anon[100] • Disclaimer says:

    Hoo, boy, wait until Ron Unz and Phil Giraldi see this!

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  4. Neuday says:

    It’s good that the U.S. Government ended the Bio Warfare program, lest it be used to “end Whiteness” aka “promote Diversity”. It’s a good thing we Whites generate so many tax dollars, at least while we’re working. Once large numbers of us start consuming Social Security and Medicare and having sizable pensions and 401Ks, they might design a virus to kill white geezers. Truly the Upper East Side Manhattan project; “I am become Death, equalizer of worlds.”

  5. dvorak says:

    New book out, Bitten by Kris Newby, makes the case for Lyme Disease being a bio-weapon that escaped.

    To me, the most compelling piece of evidence is the most obvious one – Lyme, CT is pretty close to Plum Island.

    • Replies: @Paul Mendez
  6. What’s the likelihood of ethnically targeted germs? Sounds farfetched but online “experts” say it’s possible, I don’t know. Maybe even germs to target ONE person.

    If the Chinese could develop a germ that didn’t harm most Chinese …

  7. Mr. Anon says:

    Meselson and his colleagues argued that a biological attack would likely inflict a great toll on civilian populations while remaining largely militarily ineffective.

    It is of course possible that some government at some time would be interested in it for that very reason. Wars are not only fought against militaries. They are often fought against civilian populations.

  8. Neoconned says:

    Nixon will be “rehabilitated” over time and viewed as 1 of the greatest presidents….

    If Clinton can get away w blatant felonious behavior so can Nixon.

  9. Sean says:

    The vaccine gap, Trump wants to create one.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/15/trump-offers-large-sums-for-exclusive-access-to-coronavirus-vaccine

    Trump ‘offers large sums’ for exclusive access to coronavirus vaccine
    German government tries to fight off aggressive takeover bid by US, say reports
    The US president had offered the Tübingen-based biopharmaceutical company CureVac “large sums of money” to gain exclusive access to their work, wrote Die Welt. According to an anonymous source quoted in the newspaper, Trump was doing everything to secure a vaccine against the coronavirus for the US, “but for the US only”.

    Nothing happened to those on Nixon’s Enemies List.

    • Replies: @El Dato
  10. Anonymous[401] • Disclaimer says:

    1. But what if a race-specific germ can be created?

    2. What if rogue elements spread the germs? Edward Snowden did good to expose the Deep State, but he was a rogue operator. What if the state is opposed to the use of biological warfare but some rogue elements carry it out anyway?

    3. What if certain rogue elements are tolerated or enabled by the state? So much that happens between US and Israel is really officially rogue, meaning many rogue operators are tolerated or even encouraged to do their dirty work without getting in trouble. For example, if a Zionist snowden were to send US secrets to Israel, almost nothing will be done about it. The Russia Collusion nonsense was an officially approved rogue operation.

    • Agree: utu
  11. On the other hand, US nuclear capability is but a fraction of what is was in the 1960s:

    How many nukes does the US have?
    As of 2017, the US has an estimated 4,018 nuclear weapons in either deployment or storage. This figure compares to a peak of 31,225 total warheads in 1967 and 22,217 in 1989, and does not include “several thousand” warheads that have been retired and scheduled for dismantlement.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States

    No wonder PRC can threaten the USA with nuclear weapons.

    At a press briefing in Beijing in July 2005, Major General Zhu Chenghu, a dean at China’s National Defense University (NDU), reportedly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against the United States in the context of a Sino-U.S. military conflict over Taiwan. Zhu was widely quoted as making the assertion that “if the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China’s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” and that “we […] will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xi’an. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds … of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”[2]

    https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/realities-chinas-no-first-use-policy/

    Biggest mistake the USA ever made was burning the Oralloy from decommissioned nuclear weapons.

  12. For example, during the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic, Western Europe was divided by hundreds of miles of barbed wire and trenches, but both sides were hit hard anyway.

    The trenches were indeed hundreds of miles long but they were not very wide between the opposing sides. More than a few gas attacks blew back on the aggressor. Ask Hitler.

  13. For example, during the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic, Western Europe was divided by hundreds of miles of barbed wire and trenches…

    This is why they don’t sell military weapons to civilians in Europe. After two world wars, the damned things were just left lying around grand-pére’s farm. Everybody already has plenty.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  14. Ron Unz says:

    Yes, I think that was a pretty sensible position taken back then by the Nixon Administration.

    Just a few years later, the Ford Administration also banned political assassinations, and the Carter Administration strengthened that ban, which was later reaffirmed by the Reagan Administration. These absolute legal restrictions against American assassinations still remain in place today.

    Nonetheless, in early January the US assassinated one of Iran’s top leaders. And as it happens, just a few weeks later members of the Iranian political elite began dying of the mysterious new Coronavirus, becoming the first and so far only political elites anywhere in the world to die from this strange new disease.

    What an absolutely astonishing coincidence…

  15. @RichardTaylor

    If the Chinese could develop a germ that didn’t harm most Chinese …

    How’s that working out for the Chinese?

  16. Art Deco says:
    @Neoconned

    Nixon will be “rehabilitated” over time and viewed as 1 of the greatest presidents….

    He won’t. He was an incompetent administrator and made one lousy decision after another. The one thing you might say in his defense is that Hubert Humphrey sitting in that chair would have made one lousy decision after another, the mentality of the political class being what it was.

  17. @Neoconned

    Nixon didn’t commit any felonies.

    • Replies: @Charon
    , @Anonymous
    , @nebulafox
  18. Thea says:
    @Neoconned

    Nixon bequeathed us Kissinger and all his evil as well as a militarily strong Pakistan.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    , @Art Deco
  19. Steven Pinker on the subject (from Enlightenment Now):

    Bioterrorism may be another phantom menace. Biological weapons, renounced in a 1972 international convention by virtually every nation, have played no role in modern warfare. The ban was driven by a widespread revulsion at the very idea, but the world’s militaries needed little convincing, because tiny living things make lousy weapons. They easily blow back and infect the weaponeers, warriors, and citizens of the side that uses them (just imagine the Tsarnaev brothers with anthrax spores). And whether a disease outbreak fizzles out or (literally) goes viral depends on intricate network dynamics that even the best epidemiologists cannot predict.57

    Biological agents are particularly ill-suited to terrorists, whose goal, recall, is not damage but theater (chapter 13).58 The biologist Paul Ewald notes that natural selection among pathogens works against the terrorist’s goal of sudden and spectacular devastation.59 Germs that depend on rapid person-to-person contagion, like the common-cold virus, are selected to keep their hosts alive and ambulatory so they can shake hands with and sneeze on as many people as possible. Germs get greedy and kill their hosts only if they have some other way of getting from body to body, like mosquitoes (for malaria), a contaminable water supply (for cholera), or trenches packed with injured soldiers (for the 1918 Spanish flu). Sexually transmitted pathogens, like HIV and syphilis, are somewhere in between, needing a long and symptomless incubation period during which hosts can infect their partners, after which the germs do their damage. Virulence and contagion thus trade off, and the evolution of germs will frustrate the terrorist’s aspiration to launch a headline-worthy epidemic that is both swift and lethal. Theoretically, a bioterrorist could try to bend the curve with a pathogen that is virulent, contagious, and durable enough to survive outside bodies. But breeding such a fine-tuned germ would require Nazi-like experiments on living humans that even terrorists (to say nothing of teenagers) are unlikely to carry off. It may be more than just luck that the world so far has seen just one successful bioterror attack (the 1984 tainting of salad with salmonella in an Oregon town by the Rajneeshee religious cult, which killed no one) and one spree killing (the 2001 anthrax mailings, which killed five).60

  20. El Dato says:
    @Sean

    The “Mar-a-Lago Vaccine”.

  21. Charon says:
    @Ben tillman

    Hillary to investigators: “I’ll review all the emails and let you see the ones I think you should see.” And she got away with it. For most people this would constitute obstruction of justice.

    • Replies: @Neoconned
    , @Jim Don Bob
  22. In light of the toilet-paper shortage, I’m strongly considering subscribing to the print edition of the NYT.

  23. El Dato says:
    @Joe Stalin

    This figure compares to a peak of 31,225 total warheads in 1967

    When monomaniac mental cases in SAC were running on the “bomb as you go” policy. And when you attack the SovUnion, you kill all the Chinese too as a side action and the rest of the globe because you don’t know about nuclear winter, because why not.

    After all why have one Death Star when you can daisy-chain 10 with two pointed at your forehead? THAT will show Alderaan!

  24. @Joe Stalin

    The newly retrofitted US nuclear subs armed with low yield nuclear weapons are so advanced the US has come to closest to assuming first strike capability of any nuclear power since the nuclear monopoly ended. Count down to Chinese “hasbala” agents mobilizing to denying this. Honestly it’s pretty embarrassing that with the disastrous defense policy of the Bush-Obama years Russia and China weren’t able to close the gap more.

    • Replies: @NPleeze
  25. Anon[113] • Disclaimer says:

    During the Spanish Flu pandemic, Italy, Spain and Portugal had a mortality rate that was about 2X higher than most of the other countries of Europe. They seemed to be more vulnerable to it, possibly because they weren’t countries with a regular flu season to build up herd immunity. Nonetheless, when it was all over, those three countries still had a death rate that was around 1%.

    Source:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/44446153?seq=1

  26. @Steve Sailer

    Actually, pretty well.

    I doubt the US has the requisite collective willpower to enforce quarantine measures on the same scale that the PRC did.

    Which further reinforces my belief it was a PRC bioengineered virus targeted at liberal Western nations, to shatter their economies and cripple their will.

    It just escaped when it was not supposed to. In the ideal PRC scenario, it would be released in the target nation (read: US) and there would be a bit of time for PRC to close their borders and implement quarantine measures, sparing themselves the brunt of the pandemic.

  27. I think Steve missed out on a very apropos Simpsons clip here.

  28. Anonymous[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ben tillman

    He told the FBI to cover up Watergate — at the same time he was feuding with the FBI over the Hoover succession. Very dumb.

  29. @Ron Unz

    Put more directly or honestly the US killed a uniformed member of the Iranian army operating uninvited on foreign soil. These kind of fibs are endemic to Ron’s writing. It’s actually quite hilarious if someone where transpose Ron’s argument style into a pro-Zionist form Girardi would call for that person to be expelled as an undeclared Zionist agent.

    Never mind that Ron 214 was sure Iran had some big brain retaliation up their sleeves only to be further humiliated when Iran’s big ace in the hole was shooting down a passenger plane. Lol me thinks Iran might be juicing those FISA scores. I can’t wait to see Iran’s response to this latest US skulduggery- maybe they will shoot down Santa Claus as he streaks past to spread holiday joy to Armenian children.

    • Agree: Lot
  30. @Art Deco

    I agree. The thing I detest him most for is taking the US dollar off of the gold standard. We will be paying for that sooner than one may have thought a coupla’ months back. (See. Audacious Epigone’s quick post.)

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  31. @RichardTaylor

    What’s the likelihood of ethnically targeted germs? Sounds farfetched but online “experts” say it’s possible, I don’t know. Maybe even germs to target ONE person.

    If the Chinese could develop a germ that didn’t harm most Chinese …

    Once the West is killed off by the minoritarian poz … you think the Chinese are going to let fast breeding Africans inherit the world?

    Please.

  32. @RichardTaylor

    Maybe even germs to target ONE person.

    They’ve been talking a lot about mapping the genetics of an individual’s cancer cells, and designing genetically-targeted therapies to eliminate the cancer cells.

    It’s hardly implausible that they could run the process in reverse by, for example, customizing a gene that would give one person cancer (or some other genetically based deadly disease).

    This would be one of the more expensive ways to kill someone, no doubt. But it would confer total deniability when the target died of “natural causes.” Perfect for political assassinations of one’s rivals and the like.

    Would have made a good Phillip K. Dick short story.

  33. Neoconned says:
    @Art Deco

    I guess it depends on your politics on if hes “good or bad”…..

    Most agree he was a crooked pragmatist. For what its worth i thought Clinton did a decent job. Although obviously he had his many flaws as well. Extracting us from JFKs Vietnam debacle(which Johnson made much worse) alone is worth giving Nixon credit.

    Nixon reminds me of Obama ina number ofweird ways. Both were janitorial presidents. Both had to clean up messes their prettyboy predecessors had kicked down the road.

    Pulling out of Vietnam, dealing with the gold standard fallout, the inflation that hit him was the final check coming due from JFK & LBJ & Nixon himself inflating the currency to finance Vietnam, the Civil Rights stuff, and the 60s welfare programs….etc

    And then he had to enforce court orders for desegregation that hurt his own base.

    I’ve worked crummy jobs most of my adult life cleaning up after pretty boys and party boys like LBJ and JFK so i can relate to the stress and uneasy, often “choose the best of 2 bad options either way you lose and get blamed” egg-on-your-face scenarios…

    Most of the Nixon haters seem to be weird old Bay Area & Chicago Jewish media types….they REALLY HATE HIM…everybody else agrees he’s a crook but show an indifference to him as another dirty crooked politician and functionary….

    But a lot of big once in a century events happened for whatever reason on Nixon’s watch….and thats why he’s”up there” unlike say Bush Sr or Carter who were forgettable.

  34. @Sam Haysom

    Keep in mind that Iran’s response included shooting missiles at an Iraq-American airbase that apparently hit the precise building aimed at. Fortunately, American personnel were, I presume, down in bunkers. But the Iranians delivered a message that their retaliatory capability isn’t as inept as one might think.

    • Replies: @HA
    , @Sam Haysom
  35. @Neoconned

    Unlikely, Nixon is still hated by the left at a visceral level, and the left still dominates academia. The idea that he relied on Southern segregationists to get elected in 1968 is still uncritically asserted and parroted all the time at the university level and in the media. The fact that vote totals don’t support the accusation just isn’t noticed or discussed.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  36. Neoconned says:
    @Charon

    I think most ppl agree both Clintons are crooks….Bill admits it w a wink which is why ppl like him.

    Hillary tries to hide it and play moral queen, which is why ppl generally hate her.

  37. Neoconned says:
    @Thea

    I dont claim to have much of an opinion either way regarding Pakistan and its nukes….why is that necessarily a bad thing? Truly curious.

    • Replies: @Thea
  38. @Art Deco

    The thing which people never mention is that Nixon was very very sharp intellectually. When he was at Duke his law school classmates called him “cement ass” because he was the guy who spent every free waking moment sitting in the library poring over law books. They hated and feared him. The last time I looked, Duke University Law School is pretending Richard Nixon never existed.

    He may not be the greatest American but I would offer that he is clearly the greatest Californian, and it isn’t close.

    The other thing which is unappreciated is that he was a deeply insecure man shocked and awed by the the brilliant people he was introduced to, who would never accept him no matter what he did. He was from the working class, no family connection. When the Be Powers took up a project to wage psychological warfare upon his person for the Nth time he succumbed, as any human would. A man cannot stand alone up against a tsunami. The first couple attacks he was buoyed up by powerful friends. At the endpoint he only had Gerald Ford to pardon him which was more an expedient for Ford than any personal favor to Nixon.

    Supposedly Trump has a personal letter from Nixon from back in the 1980’s framed and displayed on the wall of his office.

    • Replies: @bomag
    , @res
  39. @Anonymous

    Trump’s a narcissistic windbag.

    But he was/is the closest thing on offer to a nationalist, a patriot.

    Which is a sad reflection on America and indictment of our vile, treasonous ruling elite.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  40. Dr. X says:

    By 1969, with the development of ICBMs, biological weapons were certainly obsolete.

    But they probably made more sense in the early 1950s, when the Soviet Union and Red China were pretty much closed off to the rest of the world and the possibility of a weaponized disease spreading to the West was low. Certainly they would have been highly imprecise weapons, but it might have been easier to surreptitiously introduce a weaponized disease that would spread through the enemy’s population by itself rather than try to fly a Convair B-36, with a cruise speed of only 230 knots, into the heart of the USSR to drop a nuke.

    • Replies: @anon
  41. @Sam Haysom

    Absolutely false.

    The then Iraqi PM stated that he had personally invited Soleimani. And in any case, Soleimani, who had led the ground forces that expelled ISIS from Mosul and elsewhere in Iraq, had tacit permission from the Shia leadership that leads the government to continue to coordinate anti-ISIS activities and transit Iraq between Iran and Syria.

    In any case, none of what you say changes the fact that the unprovoked murder of Soleimani was a political assassination. Soleimani posed no threat to the US. And the only reason that Trump directed his assassination was because he is under the thumb of Bibi and our disloyal Jews.

    • Agree: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Sean
  42. vinny says:

    A win for Mona Simpson and her band of hippies. That antibiotic bomb got results!

  43. @AnotherDad

    Did you vote for Ron Paul when he was running?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  44. nebulafox says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    >The idea that he relied on Southern segregationists to get elected in 1968 is still uncritically asserted and parroted all the time at the university level and in the media.

    The Southern Strategy was real, but the impact in the context of the ’68 election is deeply overrated. Had Nixon lost the Carolinas, he would have still won the election: and North Carolina ended up voting for LBJ four years earlier in the wake of the Civil Rights Act. All the other Southern/border states he won in 1968 were ones he already won in 1960.

    The Republicanization of the South was a complicated, long process with a lot of factors behind it that stretched from Eisenhower to Gingrich. Race was part of it. It was not all of it.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
  45. nebulafox says:
    @Ben tillman

    It’s deeply unlikely he had anything to do with the break-in itself (even John Mitchell was acquitted on that-so all you have is Jeb Magruder’s word…), but he obstructed justice: the smoking gun tape makes that explicitly clear. That’s more than enough to qualify for impeachment and conviction.

  46. anon[294] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. X

    By 1969, with the development of ICBMs, biological weapons were certainly obsolete.

    The Soviets did not believe that in 1979. I hope the post-1991 Russians do. But there’s no way to find out.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  47. @nebulafox

    In academia it is constantly asserted he won because of it, ignoring how well he did in the rest of the country. In addition has you point out he did well in some parts of the South in 1960 as well.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Steve Sailer
  48. @Ron Unz

    Well, yes. It is quite a coincidence.

    There are some unique aspects to the case of Iran, not least that it started in Qom rather than Tehran (albeit the two are not far apart.) And of course we saw with Stuxnet virus that Israel will tend to push beyond any limits on the use of far-reaching, anti-Iran sabotage.

    Still, it’s hard to reconcile the huge outbreak in Italy, the apparent origin of the disease in China, what is looking like a debilitating outbreak in the US, and the general difficulty in controlling the vector with a deliberate employment against Iran. I suppose it’s possible that the original outbreak in China was an animal-human transmission, and a separate, more virulent strain was deliberately spread in Iran, piggybacking on the original outbreak.

    It appears that no one outside Iran has so far been able/willing to examine the strain of the virus in Iran to see if it is significantly different from the original. The Chinese have a presence there (and in Italy.) Perhaps they will be able to analyze it.

    • Replies: @utu
  49. nebulafox says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    That’s the issue: they can’t acknowledge that the Republicanization of the South started on a Presidential level in the 1950s and didn’t really come on a local/state level until the early 1990s because that’d completely undermine The Narrative, whether about history or about their view of the South today. I just don’t go as far as the standard issue Unz commentator and engage in a fantasy world where black people don’t have real reasons to be suspicious of the Republican Party.

    Re: Nixon: I don’t think he was a terrible President in the league of a James Buchanan or a George W. Bush, especially considering he inherited a nightmare situation in 1969. He was an unattractive human being: that’s not the same thing as being incompetent or lazy or intellectually shallow. But you can’t argue he was a good one, either. Policy making aside, ultimately, the issue was that his personality really wasn’t suited for politics. America paid the price of his ambition. IQ doesn’t matter as much as people think it does for the Presidential office: Hoover and Carter were also really bright men. You don’t want a stupid President, but beyond a certain basic level, other qualities become more important.

    • Replies: @Yahya K.
  50. @Steve Sailer

    Oh I don’t think the Chinese did it in this case. But weren’t the Soviets shocked that Mao was willing to accept the death of half his population in a nuclear war? I just have a feeling the Chinese Communist party leaders could make a calculation in the future that would stun the rest of us.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  51. @Unladen Swallow

    George Wallace won the Jim Crow vote in the South in 1968. Nixon won the vote of suburban whites who wanted to put Jim Crow in their rear view mirror and have the South join modern America.

    Nixon was the president who finally carried out Brown v. Board of Education in 1969-70. Then, with Jim Crow gone, Nixon won big in 1972.

  52. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    Did you vote for Ron Paul when he was running?

    What is the relevance of this question to AnotherDad’s comment?

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  53. Lot says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    “ the unprovoked murder of Soleimani”

    Lol no.

    Good riddance to terrorist trash. Top ten Soleimani atrocities: (Hint – most of the dead were Americans.)

    https://gellerreport.com/2020/01/soleimani-top-10-atrocities.html/

    “our disloyal Jews”

    Says the people who cheer on the “Death to Great Satan America!” Iranian dictatorship and reprint articles from Iranian state-owner propaganda station PressTV.

    Israel’s successful efforts to stop afro and jihadi invaders and Trump’s success in stopping Iran’s terrorism and nuclear program really burns you up!

  54. @Steve Sailer

    What the left also ignores is that Wallace returned to the Democratic Party after 1968 and was running for President as a Democrat in 1972 until he was shot on the campaign trail.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  55. nebulafox says:
    @RichardTaylor

    The Soviets considered pre-emptively nuking China at the height of the Cultural Revolution until Nixon let it be known that this move would trigger WWIII with the US.

    Say what you will about Tricky, he had some brass balls.

    > I just have a feeling the Chinese Communist party leaders could make a calculation in the future that would stun the rest of us.

    The PRC leadership today is nowhere near as psychopathic as Mao was, but I do think that our elite’s Sinophile tendencies are an illuminating and deeply disturbing hint at their future intentions for the American people.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
  56. @Steve Sailer

    Nixon won the vote of suburban whites who wanted to put Jim Crow in their rear view mirror and have the South join modern America.

    I hope those suburban Whites are getting diversity in a way they can feel. Like those Whites in South Africa who just wanted to be loved by the world again! As opposed to the Israelis who told the world to piss off.

    Nixon was the president who finally carried out Brown v. Board of Education in 1969-70. Then, with Jim Crow gone, Nixon won big in 1972.

    Thanks Dick.

  57. @Anonymous

    Well, he said that Trump is the closest thing on offer for a “nationalist/patriot” although he also labels Trump a narcissistic windbag.

    To me Ron Paul is the non-narcissistic, non-windbag patriot par excellence. And I asked to gauge how Anotherdad defines “nationalist/patriot.”

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
  58. Anonymous[472] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    … suburban whites who wanted to put Jim Crow in their rear view mirror and have the South join modern America.

    Irony being the South was already what future America will be. A place where Whites are becoming outnumbered. Modern America has yet to catch up. But it will!

    I bet most of those “suburban Whites“ were women.

  59. Yahya K. says:
    @nebulafox

    Interestingly, Lee Kuan Yew, when asked who he thought was the greatest US President he’d seen, said this:

    I ask: “So who is the greatest United States president that you’ve seen?”

    “That I have seen?”

    “Yeah. To whom you were close enough to make an assessment.”

    His answer will surprise very many Americans.

    “But for the misfortune of Watergate, I would say Richard Nixon. He had a realistic view of the world. He was a great analyst, realistic, but also a tactician to get things done. But this need with wanting to know everything and to make sure he got re-elected became obsessive. And, too, I think he was ill served by his two aides.”

    His answer should be taken with a grain of salt though. Nixon was probably one of the few westerners who had genuine respect for Lee. H.W. Bush and Reagan praised Lee, but in a superficial way. Nixon paid him the greatest respect by actually listening to his foreign policy views and writing them down on a notepad. I figure that must have left Lee with a soft spot for Nixon.

    My own personal opinion is that Nixon’s strengths were his pragmatism, moderation, and strategic intelligence. He was also a good judge of talent, at least sometimes. Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, John Connally, H.W. Bush and Dan Patrick Moynihan were top quality cabinet officers. Not so much Ehlrichmann and the others though (the ones who got him in the Watergate mess, I forget their names).

    I agree with you that his lack of character was his major flaw. However, I have to disagree with you about his unsuitability for politics. Yes, he was an awkward personality in general, but he had practical qualities that made him useful as a politician too. First was his political instinct. He ran rings around the liberal elite because he understood what played well with the common people better than they did. His Checkers Speech was a good example of that. It was great political theater, and saved his career.

    He also had the strategic canniness to incorporate the upwardly mobile middle class, angry Southerners, pro-war working class Northerners, and all sorts of people disoriented by changes happening in society into the Silent Majority, a term he also coined (I will admit though that a lot of that was due to luck too, I’m sure other Republican candidates at the time would have gotten these votes as well). And as I said, his ability to compromise served him well in getting things passed through Congress.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  60. @nebulafox

    The Soviets considered pre-emptively nuking China at the height of the Cultural Revolution until Nixon let it be known that this move would trigger WWIII with the US.

    Say what you will about Tricky, he had some brass balls.

    Was that wise? Why should the leader of a White country risk the annihilation of his own people through nuclear war with another White country … just to save an Asian population?

    Seems like I remember hearing the Soviets were shocked we’d kill our own people to save the Chinese.

    Will cucks never cease?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  61. Anonymous[344] • Disclaimer says:

    Biological and chemical weapons are very useful. The value of a weapon depends on its strategic purpose. For example, chemical warfare in Vietnam during Operation Ranch Hand, in which defoliants and herbicides like napalm were used for the purpose of reducing the Viet Cong’s food supply and jungle cover were useful for that purpose. That fact that napalm didn’t directly kill many Viet Cong soldiers doesn’t mean it wasn’t useful.

    A bioweapon used for the purpose of economic warfare can be useful, even if it doesn’t directly kill lots of people. It can be useful if deployed against an adversary that’s rising in relative power via economic growth and trade by disrupting trading patterns and generating the political capital for reducing trade.

  62. @Oscar Peterson

    And how many times did Ron Paul unsuccessfully run for President?

  63. Anonymous[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    Nukes are very expensive. Chemical and biological weapons are much cheaper. ‘Poor men’s nukes’.

  64. Sean says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    Trump merely demands respect from Iran. There was an interview with him in 1980 during the hostage crisis in which he expressed outrage at the US being humiliated. And he has repeated that sentiment many times. So what made Trump suddenly choose to assassinate Soleimani?

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/01/07/how-donald-trump-thinks-about-iran/

    He did not fire back after the September attacks on Saudi oil facilities. He has professed not to care about the Middle East beyond the oil and ISIS. He seems to want to avoid war, particularly in an election year. And, he was desperate for talks with the Iranian leadership, going so far as to try to surprise the Iranians by dialing into a meeting between President Rouhani and President Macron on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. [A] consistent element of all reports is that Trump did not sign on to the strike [on Soleimani] until after the Iranian backed protests outside the embassy.

    The Embassy protest was touching an American nerve, not an Israeli one. The Israelis want Trump to win reelection.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  65. Bioweapons aren’t useless; they are a Samson option.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Samson_Option

    In other words, they can be used against a successful invading army as a last resort, wiping out all the invading enemy troops at the sacrifice of any already-defeated citizens. A salt-the-earth measure, a final f-you.

    And if you drop them in a hostile country–especially one isolated from the rest— and then immediately ban travel to that nation for “safety reasons” , you can destroy it that way. The U.S. and Israel probably have thought about this with Iran.

    I think this was China’s Samson option. But someone was sloppy—either a vial was mishandled by scientists or else someone tried to smuggle some out and broke the vial trying to do so.

  66. utu says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    “Still, it’s hard to reconcile the huge outbreak in Italy” – Italy – big playground for Operation Gladio?

  67. syonredux says:

    RE: Germ Warfare

    Greg Cochran thinks that it is quite likely that the Soviets used it against the Germans in WW2:

    The books generally say that biological warfare is ineffective, but then they would say that, wouldn’t they? There is reason to think it has worked, and it may have made a difference.

    Once upon a time, it was spring 1942, and the Germans were on a roll. Timoshenko had attacked from an already-established bridgehead across the Donets (the Izium salient) with about 750,000 men. He made a bad choice, since the Germans had already begun concentrating their forces for a planned southern offensive. After some initial Soviet gains, the Germans brought in Luftwaffe reinforcements and achieved air superiority. The 1st Panzer army counterattacked and cut off much of the Russian forces, who lost a quarter of a million prisoners (according to Beevor), many dead and wounded, and most of their armor. There was a huge hole in the front, and the Germans advanced towards Stalingrad.

    We know of course that this offensive eventually turned into a disaster in which the German Sixth Army was lost. But nobody knew that then. The Germans were moving forward with little to stop them: they were scary SOBs. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. The Soviet leadership was frightened, enough so that they sent out a general backs-to-the-wall, no-retreat order that told the real scale of losses. That was the Soviet mood in the summer of 42.

    That’s the historical background. Now for the clues. First, Ken Alibek was a bioweapons scientist back in the USSR. In his book, Biohazard, he tells how, as a student, he was given the assignment of explaining a mysterious pattern of tularemia epidemics back in the war. To him, it looked artificial, whereupon his instructor said something to the effect of “you never thought that, you never said that. Do you want a job?” Second, Antony Beevor mentions the mysteriously poor health of German troops at Stalingrad – well before being surrounded (p210-211). Third, the fact that there were large tularemia epidemics in the Soviet Union during the war – particularly in the ‘oblasts temporarily occupied by the Fascist invaders’, described in History and Incidence of Tularemia in the Soviet Union, by Robert Pollitzer.

    Fourth, personal communications from a friend who once worked at Los Alamos. Back in the 90’s, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a time when you could hire a whole team of decent ex-Soviet physicists for the price of a single American. My friend was having a drink with one of his Russian contractors, son of a famous ace, who started talking about how his dad had dropped tularemia here, here, and here near Leningrad (sketching it out on a napkin) during the Great Patriotic War. Not that many people spontaneously bring up stories like that in dinner conversation…

    Fifth, the huge Soviet investment in biowarfare throughout the Cold War is a hint: they really, truly, believed in it, and what better reason could there be than decisive past successes? In much the same way, our lavish funding of the NSA strongly suggested that cryptanalysis and sigint must have paid off handsomely for the Allies in WWII – far more so than publicly acknowledged, until the revelations about Enigma in the 1970s and later.

    We know that tularemia is an effective biological agent: many countries have worked with it, including the Soviet Union. If the Russians had had this capability in the summer of ’42 (and they had sufficient technology: basically just fermentation) , it is hard to imagine them not using it. I mean, we’re talking about Stalin. You think he had moral qualms? But we too would have used germ warfare if our situation had been desperate.

    In my picture, it probably wasn’t used in 1941 because of surprise, the fast-moving front, crushing German air superiority (after the initial airfield strikes), and winter. I think that the Soviets were probably hesitant in 1942, since detection would have probably led to German efforts along the same lines, doubly dangerous because Germany was the world leader in bacteriology in those days, and because Moscow was within easy reach of the Luftwaffe. Tularemia, though, is easy to misdiagnose, and the Germans didn’t have much experience with it. Moreover, Germans in Stalingrad never had a chance to be fully debriefed back in Germany. Risky in the long run, but you first have to survive in the short run.

    https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/war-in-the-east/

    • Thanks: The Big Red Scary
    • Replies: @nebulafox
  68. Anonymous[478] • Disclaimer says:

    Some argue that massive uncontrolled third world immigration – as recommended by The Economist – into the west is the very essence of ‘germ warfare’, in that the kernel of its rationale – one well defined group of competitive replicators multiplying numbers at the direct expense of another group of replicators – amounts to exactly the same.
    The only real difference is the speed, ( although the difference is trivial in temporal evolutionary terms), of the virulent infective replicator in its life cycle in turning the chump replicator into food, and therefore more virulent replicators.

  69. anon[234] • Disclaimer says:

    Meselson and his colleagues argued that a biological attack would likely inflict a great toll on civilian populations while remaining largely militarily ineffective.[4]

    Meselson, eh?
    Inflicting a massive toll on civilian populations was the UN policy in WW2 Korea and Vietnam so his reasoning doesn’t stand up.
    Research was likely continued off the books anyway so the decision wasn’t in America’s best interests.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  70. nebulafox says:
    @syonredux

    The IJA definitely used biological warfare-including the bubonic plague-against the Chinese in WWII.

  71. nebulafox says:
    @Yahya K.

    But he did that with everybody. 😉 Joking aside, though, I think Nixon and Kissinger shared common views with Lee on how the world and human society operated in general. It’s not shocking they got along.

    No, I largely agree with Lee: if Watergate never blew up and Nixon managed to do what I suspect he would have done in his second term, particularly in the Middle East, he’d would be remembered in popular memory as a reasonably successful President. To be clear: I do not have the economic background to comment on the wisdom of the changes to the global economy that took place in ’71, something other commentators here do have, which is part of why I’m being conservative here.

    (Re: Watergate: there were a lot of foreign governments completely unable to process the idea that the President was resigning over something they considered so petty, and more than a few who thought that it was a shadow coup of some kind.)

    >My own personal opinion is that Nixon’s strengths were his pragmatism, moderation, and strategic intelligence. He was also a good judge of talent, at least sometimes. Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, John Connally, H.W. Bush and Dan Patrick Moynihan were top quality cabinet officers. Not so much Ehlrichmann and the others though (the ones who got him in the Watergate mess, I forget their names).

    Yeah, it’s a pretty impressive alumni list, and even some of the more darker characters were there because they did their jobs well. HR Haldeman actually was integral to keeping Nixon functioning in the White House. The whining of the Usual Suspects about typical 1960s “locker room talk” on the tapes aside, Haldeman was critical in defusing some of the more insane orders made, knowing that if he gave Nixon time to reflect or calm down, they’d be retracted or forgotten.

    Colson, on the other hand…

    >I agree with you that his lack of character was his major flaw. However, I have to disagree with you about his unsuitability for politics. Yes, he was an awkward personality in general, but he had practical qualities that made him useful as a politician too. First was his political instinct. He ran rings around the liberal elite because he understood what played well with the common people better than they did. His Checkers Speech was a good example of that. It was great political theater, and saved his career.

    Maybe I should clarify: he would have done better in a political culture that wasn’t 1970s America, when the 1960s occurred for ordinary people. Openness and a willingness to be transparent were what were needed at the time: just as we do now with an out-of-control Creepy State that is visibly unaccountable to public will. Nixon was ill-suited for the task.

  72. nebulafox says:
    @RichardTaylor

    “Madam, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive.”

    -Leonid Brezhnev.

    >Will cucks never cease?

    Does talking like that make your mother finally love you?

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
  73. Years ago when I worked on Capitol Hill, I saw an unclassified brochure that contained pictures of biological warfare delivery methods, mostly aerosol, IIRC. I was surprised that many of the biological warfare agents were directed against crops, not people. I don’t think even that made sense and am glad that the Nixon Administration renounced the use of biological agents in warfare.

  74. bomag says:
    @Morton's toes

    He may not be the greatest American but I would offer that he is clearly the greatest Californian, and it isn’t close.

    You must mean Californians on the national political stage.

    They have Reagan (b. 1911), and Nixon (b. 1913). After those two, it’s pretty thin. Alan Cranston? Pelosi (barf)?

  75. The anthrax letters invalidate the notion that the US abandoned biological warfare in the 70s. Perhaps, doubtfully, the politicians have given up on it. Whoever has the most direct access to our arsenals, on the other hand . . . (what are the odds the Israelis have unfettered access?) Nice story for someone like Kissinger to put out.

    • Replies: @Yngvar
  76. Curle says:
    @Steve Sailer

    I have a distinct memory of a summer backyard party in a Memphis circa 1971 (I was a kid) where the topic of conversation regarding the upcoming election was Nixon or Wallace. The crowd was all southern managerial class whites and several were adamant that Nixon couldn’t be counted on to solve the busing problem which was already a thing because the Memphis school district had initiated a test program using a local white school population and busing them to an inner city school. I was one of the test subjects.

    Support for Wallace was not limited to segregationist throwbacks.

  77. Art Deco says:
    @Thea

    Nixon bequeathed us Kissinger and all his evil as well as a militarily strong Pakistan.

    Kissinger isn’t responsible for the evil in this world except in the witless imaginations of Wm. Shawcross, Christopher Hitchens, and the twits at the Institute for Policy Studies. Neither is Pakistan’s strength or weakness a function of anything Kissinger did do or did not do; for starters, Pakistan’s current productive capacity is more than 7x what it was when Kissinger was a consequential public official.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Yahya K.
  78. Corvinus says:
    @anon

    “Hoo, boy, wait until Ron Unz and Phil Giraldi see this!”

    This is Mr. Sailer’s “I’m saying it but I’m not saying it” way of telling them that the Coronavirus was not made by the U.S. Deep State as a bio-weapon, or even by the Chinese and Israelis. In that way, he remains cagey. And then NOTICE how Mr. Unz rushes in to defend his hypothesis.

    Cat fight?

  79. Corvinus says:
    @Unladen Swallow

    “What the left also ignores is that Wallace returned to the Democratic Party after 1968 and was running for President as a Democrat in 1972 until he was shot on the campaign trail.”

    He was running as a conservative who happened to be a Democrat. NOTICE that by the 1980’s, the South transformed itself into supporting the Republican Party, with thanks to Nixon’s Southern Strategy and Reagan’s Lee Atwater.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  80. Art Deco says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Sorry, not with you there. No need for gold standards or fixed exchange rates. For 37 years, we’ve gotten along without them and a gold standard would have been disastrous in 2007-09, as it was in 1929-33

    Nixon appointed incompetents to the Federal Reserve Board and (it’s a reasonable wager would have harried them if they had actually been doing their jobs) and attempted to address currency erosion by imposing wage and price controls. None of his five immediate predecessors or his 8 successors have committed so many unforced errors in so short a time in the realm of macroeconmic policy.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  81. Art Deco says:
    @Corvinus

    See Alan Crawford’s Thunder on the Right on this point. Wallace was a protege of Big Jim Folsom. He lost out in a gubernatorial primary in 1958 to a more segregationist candidate and decided to brand himself as a segregationist firebrand. Crawford quotes people associated with the Alabama Chamber of Commerce who told him that Wallace was graded by business lobbyists ca. 1955 as being on the left flank of the legislature and the only objection he had to federal policy was the issue of segregation. This wasn’t an unusual disposition among Southern politicians. Critics of the Confederate strand in conservative thought ca. 1955 were explicit about this: the South could not be a model because the South had accepted the New Deal.

    That the South changed allegiances had little or nothing to do with the Southern Strategy or Lee Atwater. The change in allegiances occurred in increments over a period of four decades (and was foreshadowed by Herbert Hoover’s performance in 1928). It had at least three vectors: (1) migration to the South from the north; (2) a change in the balance-of-cohorts in the native Southern population, during which automatic Democrats slowly died off and people less immersed in Reconstruction-era habits and loyalties came of age; (3) the loss of salience of the segregation issue which induced white Southerners to consider other issues when casting their vote; (4) the cultural dynamic in the black population, wherein the general preference for the Democratic Party you commonly saw among urban ethnics (meaning 70% of northern blacks) changed to a monolithic preference for the Democratic Party north and South.

    Neither Kevin Phillips nor Lee Atwater crafted racial appeals. The whole idea they did was a fiction dreamed up by liberals who wanted to delegitimize GOP electoral vehicles. Neither Nixon nor Bush I had any interest in white racial mobilization and both made important concessions to modal opinion among black politicians (which didn’t net them any votes to speak of). An archive of Nixon’s and Bush’s campaign commercials can be found on “The Living Room Candidate” site which you can examine for yourself. Joe Maginnes book on Nixon’s 1968 campaign also provides discussion, including storyboards of the commercials Eugene Jones made for Nixon. The closest thing you get is the notorious Willie Horton ad, which wasn’t made by the Bush campaign, but by a freelancing group. Horton was a fine example of how indifferent Michael Dukakis was to the administration of justice and how happy he was to subcontract penology to social workers. Horton’s was a fine case study of where that leads, and Dukakis’ response was a bloodless reference to ‘studies’ which showed that the policy in question ‘worked’ (to what end those types never say). The policy in question was madcap, and no one not in thrall to social work faculties and allied sorts would have even considered it. That Horton was black was incidental. The sort of crimes he committed as often as not have black perpetrators; that’s just life in America. Dukakis played the thick wonk while Democratic Party attack dogs cried ‘racism’.

    • Replies: @David In TN
  82. @Art Deco

    We’ve gotten along alright … haha!! [ insert facepalm emoticon]

  83. @Ron Unz

    Just a few years later, the Ford Administration also banned political assassinations, and the Carter Administration strengthened that ban, which was later reaffirmed by the Reagan Administration. These absolute legal restrictions against American assassinations still remain in place today.

    The ban on political assassinations is morally obtuse–actually vile.

    If you have a political problem with someone that justifies killing, than it is that person who you should be trying to kill. Not a bunch of random–usually innocent–people who that person happens to rule over.

    In the War, the US opened the bomb bays over German cities–“area bombing”–killing hundreds of thousands, maybe a million, with the justification of constraining German production and their war effort. (I’m not even talking about the much more bloodthirsty RAF.) And likewise firebombed Japanese cities, to destroy their shop based industry and hopefully crush their will. And then finally nuked two cities.

    Millions of basically innocent people dead. Their only crime–as a whole people, not stopping nasty thugs from rising to power in their nation. Now that’s foul. May have been the “foul” we needed to do to destroy their capability, minimize our boys’ casualties and wrap the War up as quickly as possible.

    In contrast, if we could have killed Hitler, Goering, Tojo, etc. etc. for that matter Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, etc. etc. etc. etc. that would not have been foul at all but exquisite hygiene.

    An assassination ban is vile. It is “leaders” of nations agreeing that they are going to settle their quarrels by killing each other’s young men or even women and children, while floating above the fray untouched. At least our medieval lords would actually get on a horse with sword and lance and go fight themselves.

    It’s hard to think of a policy more filthy and obscene.

    • Agree: Lot
  84. @Lot

    It is extremely coincidental (to use a word Ron uses when he can’t actually make an argument) that the same people extremely eager for Iran to get nuclear weapons are the same people trying to blame America not only for this virus but blaming America for escalating every conflict on earth almost like they want to give Iran the means and the reason to launch a nuclear missile at the US. Using Giraldi’s rules I wouldn’t be adverse to seeing these people convicted of treason.

    Never have I seen a marginal political group engage in as much saber rattling and (small) dick wagging as the blame America first right. It’s a testament to Pat B that he has spent the past four years distancing himself from these types. Pat and Steve are genuine American patriots- Unz and Giraldi are like spurned lovers.

  85. @Steve Sailer

    BRITISHBRAINSIZE1325cchehe
    Wheres your proof the chinese did this to themselves,theres more proof americans did this to china .the japanese asahi tv news reported that that the virus has been in The US since NOV , theres five strains of covid in US and only one in china pointing origins towards US, theres reports of a chinese resercher discovering many flu deaths was atrributed to pulmonory fibrosis even though it did not look like fibrosis he reported it to the cdc but the cdc just ignored it.

  86. @bomag

    They have Reagan (b. 1911), and Nixon (b. 1913). After those two, it’s pretty thin. Alan Cranston? Pelosi (barf)?

    There’s also Herbert Hoover, of course (although technically an Iowa native; Reagan was born in Illinois, as I recall).

    And Earl Warren was a major historical figure, albeit a baleful one.

  87. Thea says:
    @Neoconned

    Pakistan has a long history of of harming the US, UK and it’s own neighbors.The weaker it is the better.

    Using its military to kill Bengali civilians, allowing the 1979 attack of the US embassy which resulted in the death of two Americans, protecting and encouraging terrorists, colonizing North Yorkshire and other malfeasance makes me want them to stay as weak as possible.

  88. Rob says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron,

    Would you be able to change how replies to anonymous commenters show up. Right now a reply to, say, anonymous(425) will show up as @anonymous, or anon, I forget, rather than anonymous(425). Some of the anons, like 425, are so interesting that I remember their numbers.

    Also, would you make it possible to ignore particular anons, rather than all or none?

    Lastly, most conspiracy theories rely on attributing brilliance and nearly total control over consequences. I believe your Americovid conspiracy theory is the only one where contradictions are proof. ‘Aha! You say action X makes no sense. But that just proves the conspirators we’re behind action X. You see, they are insane!’ A truly disruptive innovation in conspiratorial theorizing.

    Oh, yeah. Thanks for giving Sailer a platform, and paying him a salary.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  89. J. Farmer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Shorter Ron Unz: coincidences don’t exist!

  90. @anon

    Lol what are you talking about. I wager you know almost nothing about the Korean and Vietnam war if you think this. Especially in Vietnam where there wasn’t even an attempt to invade North Vietnam and for large portions of the war bombing even military targets in Hanoi or even mining Haiphong harbor were off limits. In Korea the front was so mobile that its almost impossible to even segregate civilian and military targets. What was a civilian target in April was an entrenched enemy position in September.

  91. @AnotherDad

    An assassination ban is vile. It is “leaders” of nations agreeing that they are going to settle their quarrels by killing each other’s young men or even women and children, while floating above the fray untouched. At least our medieval lords would actually get on a horse with sword and lance and go fight themselves.

    The ban on assassinations does nothing to protect people like Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong-Un.

    The ban was primarily intended to prevent people like Cold war-era journalists, labor organizers, and academics in the Third World and Western Europe from getting offed every time someone in the intelligence community found their existence inconvenient. Not sure whether that works, but the idea this was ever intended to protect heads-of-state with whom we have impending wars, is silly.

  92. Rob says:

    It is absolutely amazing that an American President killed a government program. Can you imagine Trump ending a military program?

  93. @AnotherDad

    An assassination ban is vile. It is “leaders” of nations agreeing that they are going to settle their quarrels by killing each other’s young men or even women and children, while floating above the fray untouched. At least our medieval lords would actually get on a horse with sword and lance and go fight themselves. It’s hard to think of a policy more filthy and obscene.

    I Couldn’t agree more. It’s just the umpteenth example of the Political class conspiring to minimize their ‘Skin in the game’.

  94. HA says:
    @Steve Sailer

    “But the Iranians delivered a message that their retaliatory capability isn’t as inept as one might think.”

    That’s one way of looking at it, but it’s not the only way. I note that Ron Unz keeps trumpeting the 300 visiting US military personnel who visited Wuhan late last year, but even if someone did bio-engineer this, the timing is an argument against American culpability. Because if it were the Americans who did this, wouldn’t they utilize one of their numerous spies to release the virus (just slip something into one of the bat wings or pangolin being sold in the market, for example — how hard can that be?) as opposed to using some clearly visible and obviously monitored party of US soldiers who stand out like a sore thumb?

    Why not consider Russia, as Lot has suggested? Or, why does he not regard the Iranians themselves as the likely culprits? Bomb-makers get injured by their own contraptions all the time. Why aren’t the dead Iranians a sign that it was one of them who was involved in this grand conspiracy?

    I get it — for Ron Unz and a number of his writers, it doesn’t matter. The US and Israel are the only two entities on this planet with any agency and as long as some Jew somewhere profited, and some enemy of a Jew suffered, the case is as good as closed, but there isn’t just one way to spin this.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  95. @Steve Sailer

    No I agree the Iranians are competent adversaries and I think one of the geopolitical disasters of the last fifty years was letting the shah fall the to ayatollahs. But like a kind of negative image of J.Q. Adams Ron conjures up foreign dragons because he really wants to see the United States be defeated.

    I could overlook this if he wasn’t also the man who attempted to torpedo Prop 187 in order to bolster his political career. I resent AIPAC but they’ve never caused damage like Ron did with his efforts to undermine Prop 187.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  96. @dvorak

    Lyme disease seems a pretty lame offensive bio-weapon to me. Unless you also develop a breed of fast-running attack ticks to spread it. Also, incubation period way to long.

    Also, Coronavirus 19 would only work as a bio-weapon if you expected to face an army of geriatric smokers.

    I’d think the ideal offensive bio-weapon would have these characteristics:

    – short incubation
    – spread via vomit/feces
    – genetically novel enough that nobody has immunity
    – Capable of making young people sick as a dog, but not kill them outright. That forces the enemy to expend resources to care for them.
    – and, most importantly, something for which you already have a vaccine!

    If you want a more plausible conspiracy, say that Coronavirus was developed jointly by the West and Asia to thin the ranks of the elderly and chronically ill before they become an insupportable economic burden. A smaller, younger and healthier population would make the world a much better place.

    • Agree: Oscar Peterson
    • Replies: @dvorak
  97. Yahya K. says:
    @Art Deco

    Agreed. A lot of Hitchens’ polemics were motivated by jealousy and envy.

    As for Kissinger, he is a convenient target for crackpots and conspiracy theorists.

    He is Jewish, in Government, and has that Davos Man type persona.

    And yes, the world does not revolve around the actions of the US government, or any individual for that matter. They are merely influenced by them, sometimes a lot, most of the time little.

    • LOL: Twodees Partain
  98. @Lot

    How surprising that you would cite a packet of nonsense from the ludicrous Israel-Firster, Pamela Geller. I see you and see share the same degree of loyalty to the US. Time for both of you to make Aliyah!

    And I suppose you’re prepared to defend this outlandish “list”? Not!

    OK, let’s look at these atrocities that Soleimani was supposed to have committed against Americans, according to your bogus claims:

    In 1983, Soleiman was involved in the Beirut barracks bombing. Acting in the mullah regime’s interests, his idea was to drive U.S. forces out through use of Iran’s little pawn, Hezb’allah, which grew in power after the mass attack while Iran itself succeeded in getting the Iran’s aims enacted.

    So what is the evidence that Soleimani was at all “involved in the Beirut barracks bombing”?

    Soleimani in the eighties was leading combat units in Southern Iran against Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. This was the war in which Saddam early on started employing chemical weapons against the Iranians while we cynically looked the other way and the war in which we essentially supported Saddam’s invasion of Iran from start to finish.

    In Lebanon, we were foolish enough to intervene on one side of a civil war AND while we were simulaneously supporting Saddam’s aggression against Iran. That we were attacked in Lebanon should, therefore, not be surprising. The only surprising thing was how incompetent the Reagan administration was, putting “peace keepers” in the middle of a fiasco, that phase of which was triggered by Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. (It’s still not clear who played what role in the bombing. Most think Hezbollah did it which is certainly plausible, but some attribute it to Amal. And the role of Iran is plausible but entirely inferential.

    So in summary, there is no reason to think Solemani was involved in the bombing, and in any case, the principal blame goes to us for sheer stupidity and and imagining that labeling a military force “peace keepers” puts them off limits to military action no matter the larger context of US actions in the immediate area and in the theater more generally.

    Mass killings of more American military targets. In 1996, Soleimani and his buddies sent in a truck bomb to blow up the Khobar Towers in naked warfare to advance Iran’s interests.

    It is not even remotely plausible that Iran was behind Khobar Towers. This is just pro-Israel mendacity. The main Shia resistance group in Saudi Arabia had, recently before the bombing, come to an agreement with the Saudi government. And the Secretary of Defense at the time, William Perry has stated quite clearly that he strongly believes that al Qaeda was the perpetrator. The fact that some Lebanese have been hauled in and tortured into confessions changes absolutely none of that.

    Targeting of diplomatic compounds, Part I: Soleimani went after American civilians, too, and anyone associated with them in his twin bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing 224 innocents, mostly Africans who either worked at the facilities or were passers by. 4,000 more were injured. Al Qaida got most of the blame, but Soleimani was the state sponsor for al-Qaida, giving it its start:

    Oh, AQ “got most of the blame,” eh? Yes, of course they did, because they did it! And the idea that “Soleimani was the state sponsor for AQ, giving it its start” is a falsehood so black that only a repellent creature like Geller could have devised it and only someone like you could accept it as truth.

    Actual war on U.S. troops during the Iraq war. Andrew McCarthy writes: “Our government estimates that he was responsible for the killing of more than 600 U.S. troops during the fighting in Iraq — and that represents just some of his anti-American operations, coordinating the networks that target Americans and our interests throughout the region.

    Here, there is at least probably some truth to the claim that Soleimani was involved in targeting US forces in Iraq a decade ago. But this claim also illustrates the embarrassing moral conceits of the Israel-Firsters and interventionists.

    The US invaded Iraq with the intention of pacifying it and then moving against Syria to the west and Iran to the east. It made sense to start with Iraq because Saddam was already sanctioned to the hilt and totally isolated and because Kuwait constituted a ready-made beachhead. So you wanted the Iranians to do what? Sit on their hands and wait for their turn to come next? Of course, they weren’t about to do that. They targeted US forces and worked to prevent the stabilization of the Iraqi state under our control, and they were largely successful. If we don’t want Iran to target our military, then we shouldn’t advertise (by putting Iran on the “Axis of Evil”) that we were planning to overthrow the Iranian government. That’s not too hard to understand, is it, sweet one?

    So Geller’s modus operandi takes two forms: First, she takes acts of violence that were clearly AQ’s doing and, in Orwellian acts of truth-inversion, claim that somehow it was really Iran behind them. Second, she takes acts of violence against the US and crops them so as to obscure the US interventions and regime-change attempts that elicited them in the first place.

    I can see she’s just the kind of liar you like. Well, birds of a feather…

    By the way, did I see somewhere that you were calling yourself a “Zionist Christian”? It was bad enough to imagine you as a Jew, but the thought of you inside the Church, hollowing it out like a termite, is even more of a travesty. What an offense against God!

  99. Tex says:

    The Mongols tried it at the Siege of Caffa in 1346. It didn’t break the Genoese, but then again the Mongols had nothing to lose since their troops were already infected.

    Hmm, an East Asian-Italian cross-over pandemic event. How did that pan out in the 1300s? Oh yeah….

    https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/8/9/01-0536_article

  100. @Sam Haysom

    The main point is that there is no objective reason why they have to be our adversary except that they oppose Judeofascist hegemony in the region. Of course, all other peoples in the region oppose it as well, but the Arabs are fundamentally incompetent, so that only Iran and Turkey pose actual threats to Großisrael. That should be a problem for Israel and Israel alone.

    Iran is a traditional enemy of Russia and has nothing culturally in common with China and yet, at the behest of our disloyal Israel-Firsters, we are pushing countries who should be our strategic bulwarks in the region into the arms of our “strategic competitors.”

    This is the disgusting reality of the US-Israel relationship and the role of American Jewry in it.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  101. @Sean

    Trump merely demands respect from Iran.

    Trump doesn’t understand the meaning of the word.

    There was an interview with him in 1980 during the hostage crisis in which he expressed outrage at the US being humiliated.

    Trump has a childlike understanding of things, it’s true, but even he can’t imagine that murdering Soleimani is justified by the hostage crisis in which no Americans were killed and there was little mistreatment of them of any kind. Of course, many Iranians were killed in connection with the 1953 US-backed coup and in connection with the US-Soviet-UK takeover of the Iranian rail network during WW II and by CIA-trained SAVAK before 1979. But Trump could ‘t conceive of any of that if his life depended on it, and evidently you can’t either.

    In any case, the real problem with everything Trump has done in the Middle East quite clearly stems from the fact that he is under the thumb of our disloyal Israel-Firsters (except partially backing off from supporting the Kurds who have essentially become pawns of Israel). It has nothing at all to do with “respect” of any kind. And yes, of course Israel wants him re-elected. When you have your own personal stooge in the Oval Office, why would you not want him to have four more years? That only reinforces my point.

  102. Yngvar says:
    @GazaPlanet

    The anthrax letters invalidate the notion that the US abandoned biological warfare in the 70s.

    Anthrax is a recurring disease in livestock. That’s why it’s still ongoing scientific research on the pathogen. Nothing to do with warfare.

    • Replies: @bjondo
  103. Ron Unz says:
    @HA

    I note that Ron Unz keeps trumpeting the 300 visiting US military personnel who visited Wuhan late last year…I get it — for Ron Unz and a number of his writers, it doesn’t matter. The US and Israel are the only two entities on this planet with any agency and as long as some Jew somewhere profited, and some enemy of a Jew suffered, the case is as good as closed, but there isn’t just one way to spin this.

    Well, let’s just turn things around…

    Let’s suppose at a peak of Sino-American international tensions, 300 Chinese military officers visited Chicago just before the Christmas holidays and spent a week sightseeing there. Then immediately afterwards, a mysterious, deadly plague broke out in that city.

    Would you and the American commenters here say “Nope! No connection whatsoever!”…

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    , @Joe Stalin
    , @HA
  104. @Ron Unz

    This is a perfect example of Ron’s all around mendacity not to mention how feeble an argument it is for a soi disant big brain. First off it elides over the fact that unlike China the United States isn’t a unceasing vector for the creation of new dangerous diseases. Chicago isn’t home to a chemical weapons research lab (because like a decent country the US suspended the use of chemical weapons) and covered in wet markets. Also US scientists aren’t known to sell test subjects into the food supply.

    So not only is it a terrible hypothetical counterfactual but it’s also morally repugnant because we all know damn well if this counterfactual happened Ron would be clogging up the comments sections explaining why the Chinese weren’t to blame googling feverishly for a way to blame it on Zionists. Not to mention Ron would be angrily attacking anyone suggesting that maybe it was connected to third world immigration.

    Ron is clearly accepting money from the CCP an as an unregistered agent of a foreign government currently threatening the US with death and destruction I say we apply the countermeasures Giraldi is always calling for when it’s a Jew he has in his sights. Admittedly Ron is half Jewish (for those who wonder why he’s so pro-open borders).

    • LOL: Ron Unz
    • Replies: @NPleeze
    , @Lot
  105. @Ron Unz

    Seems to me it would be far easier for one solitary individual to institute mayhem using a mechanical distribution device as a biological weapon. Any tourist or person traveling through Chicago could do it.

    Or a private group.

  106. NPleeze says:

    According to the neo-cons (who run US policy):

    advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool’;

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  107. NPleeze says:
    @Sam Haysom

    unlike China the United States isn’t a unceasing vector for the creation of new dangerous diseases

    Really? H1N1 started in N. Mexico/US. AIDS started in US.

    What are the most deadly diseases in the world, and where did they start? Smallpox, plague, malaria, influenza, tuberculosis, HIV, cholera, rabies, pneumonia, etc. The SARS diseases are minor blips on the scale of infectious diseases.

    But obviously you have an agenda – US Great, China Bad. Whereas the US is the greatest evil on the planet by a long shot.

    like a decent country the US suspended the use of chemical weapons

    The US is entirely indecent, murderous, cowardly, evil, and has hardly suspended the use of chemical weapons. Doesn’t have a need to use them at the moment, to be sure, it’s black powder and “sanctions” (sieges) are enough to murder millions of innocents, and allow evil monsters like you to gloat about your greatness.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  108. Art Deco says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    The main point is that there is no objective reason why they have to be our adversary except that they oppose Judeofascist hegemony in the region.

    Israel has a population of 8.6 million and an output of about $350 bn. It takes care of itself very well. It’s not in a position to exercise ‘hegemony’ over anyone or anything not right adjacent to it. Aside from some dogfights with the Syrian air force and a long-range bombing raid against Iraq in 1981, it hasn’t come to blows with an Arab state since 1973. It’s tangles have been with various and sundry paramilitary outfits (the PLO militias, the Hezbollah, Hamas, &c) and with mobs.

  109. @bomag

    I mean total.

    The only ones in the same league are maybe Steve Jobs or Tom Brady. In the same league does not mean it’s close.

    Who does anybody else want to nominate?

    Do you want to count Charles Manson as a Californian? I suppose he was more Californian than anything else but he was from Appalachia.

  110. HA says:
    @Ron Unz

    Let’s suppose at a peak of Sino-American international tensions, 300 Chinese military officers visited Chicago just before the Christmas holidays and spent a week sightseeing there. Then immediately afterwards, a mysterious, deadly plague broke out in that city.

    If anything, the “peak of Sino-American international tensions” would have been before Trump and Xi decided they had other things to do than trigger a trade war. Or maybe when North Korea was spooking everybody.

    Moreover, let’s look at actual history: what about all those cases of Chinese conducting military and industrial mayhem/espionage? Were any of them preceded by a parade of military officers or dancing acrobats? Or were they done by one of the many solitary spies (you know, kind of like those we occasionally capture and imprison) sneaking around and avoiding the spotlight?

    As you well know, it was the latter. That’s generally how spies work. Yeah, they’re oftentimes attached to NGO’s and have investigative press credentials and so forth, or some such similar cover, but generally, staying low-level is the intention. So much so that to the extent the timing of this hypothetical plague was such that it occurred right after a loud Chinese-related PR event, the more obvious culprit would be someone trying to frame the Chinese.

    I find it hard to believe that you are unable to see this. It is a blind spot that you yourself would no doubt characterize as being a very “curious coincidence” if anyone else were involved.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  111. @HA

    If it walks like an unregistered agent and talks like an unregistered agent intern it like an unregistered agent.

  112. res says:
    @Morton's toes

    Supposedly Trump has a personal letter from Nixon from back in the 1980’s framed and displayed on the wall of his office.

    This?
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/30-years-ago-today-richard-nixon-wrote-a-letter-to-trump-predicting-success-in-politics

    • Replies: @Morton's toes
  113. @Rob

    Except that sailer’s association with this place just drags his credibility down. I don’t know why Sailer doesn’t just send Breitbart some writing samples. Anyone one right inclined I recommend sailer to who can look past Unz and Saker and Giraldi’s bitter batshittery is a fan.

  114. NPleeze says:
    @Sam Haysom

    disastrous defense policy of the Bush-Obama years

    US doesn’t have a “defense” policy – it has an offense, Empire policy. “Full spectrum dominance”.

    I know, you murderous cowards are always so pissed off that the US isn’t a completely uncontrolled mass murdering tyrant on the planet that ban bully, torture, murder, destroy and pillage with total immunity. If only it were more vicious, more evil, more murderous, then everything would be great!

    The scourge of humanity.

  115. @res

    Yes that is the letter, but I have never personally been inside Trump’s office and seen it framed and hanging on the wall. So part is fact and part is supposedly. Therefore by the rules of internet logical inference I say supposedly, just to be complete. : )

  116. @Art Deco

    Israel has a population of 8.6 million and an output of about $350 bn…It’s not in a position to exercise ‘hegemony’ over anyone or anything not right adjacent to it.

    Yes, that’s true. In fact, it has trouble even with Lebanon which is adjacent to it, given the terrain and the presence of a real resistance organization.

    Israel drew the lesson from its “Peace in Galilee” fiasco that if it were to impose itself fully on the region, it would have to leverage the Jewish fifth column in the US to drag the American golem-state into the region and lay waste to everything opposing its metastasis.

    Just because Israel can’t achieve hegemonic dominance by itself doesn’t mean it is not pursuing the subjugation of the region to its Judeofascist whims.

    And because of disloyal American Jewry and its pernicious influence, the US has done exactly what Eretz Israel demanded. As a result, much of the Middle East is in ruins and what remains is fighting the threat of being starved into submission.

    What a blessing unto the nations you vicious, mendacious, little creatures are!

  117. Lot says:
    @Sam Haysom

    “ Admittedly Ron is half Jewish ”

    He is entirely Ashkenazi Jewish unless the political profiles about him from the 1990s are wrong. His father was Israeli-American and his maternal grandparents were Russian-Jewish immigrants.

  118. Rob says:
    @Sam Haysom

    Is the Unz review a sewer? I’m genuinely asking, because I only read Sailer. Well, I looked at Karlin’s blog a couple times. And Audacious Epigone, but I read his blog long before he came here.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  119. @Sam Haysom

    “Except that sailer’s association with this place just drags his credibility down. I don’t know why Sailer doesn’t just send Breitbart some writing samples.”

    You’re joking right? Leave here for the “credibility” of Breitbart?

    “Anyone one right inclined I recommend sailer to who can look past Unz and Saker and Giraldi’s bitter batshittery is a fan.”

    Not sure exactly what you are trying to say here, but anyone who has trouble being in proximity to ideas they disagree with or who wants to exist in an echo chamber of his own thoughts shouldn’t be here anyway. Some worthless hive like Breitbart, National Review, Commentary, etc should suit their psychological neediness much better.

    As it is, Steve Sailer is much too protective of the little connivers who have burrowed into the woodwork here. He unfortunately impedes those of us who are prepared to call them out for what they are. Still, he often raises interesting issues, so he’s a useful addition to this little oasis. But if you don’t like it, you can always head back to the intense intellectual stimulation afforded by Breitbart.

    P.S. Phil Giraldi is a national treasure and the only “bitterness” I see here is in your substance-free attack on him.

    • Agree: NPleeze
    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  120. @Rob

    “Is the Unz review a sewer?”

    Gee, Rob, why don’t you take the monumental risk of finding out for yourself.

    • Replies: @Rob
  121. @NPleeze

    Lol AIDs started in the USA- you are legitimately fucking retarded. Like the kind of retard that used to get forcibly sterilized. Not that it matters- you haven’t been inside a female in 35 years. Lol please don’t shoot up a country music concert boomer.

    • Replies: @NPleeze
    , @NPleeze
  122. @Oscar Peterson

    Lol. Yawn. This is a dude that has been socially isolating for years. Notice the angry grandiosity.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  123. @Joe Stalin

    What doe “burning the Oralloy from decommissioned nuclear weapons” mean?

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  124. @Charon

    Hillary has not gotten away with it yet. She has been ordered to testify under oath about her email server.

  125. @Jim Don Bob

    The W-30 was intended to be a lightweight warhead. It had to be small enough to fit inside the 22 inch diameter Talos warhead casing. The design incorporated several new features that gave it “more bang for the buck.” For more information about these design features see the how nuclear weapons work page.

    The first of these enhancements was an oralloy pit. Oralloy was a highly enriched uranium alloy (94% U235, 5% U238 and 1% U234). This made possible a smaller and lighter weight “pit” at the center of the device and a lighter weight explosive lens system.

    https://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20W30.html

    After suitable dilution the Oralloy was used as fuel in a nuclear power plant.

    • Thanks: Jim Don Bob
  126. @Sam Haysom

    “Lol. Yawn. This is a dude that has been socially isolating for years. Notice the angry grandiosity.”

    “Lol. Yawn.” Translation: I have no idea how to respond.

    “angry grandiosity.” The “angry” charge is just laughable coming from a guy who, in a fit of rage in comment 123, says to another poster, “you are legitimately fucking retarded.” And “grandiosity”=me no understand.

    Embarrassing.

  127. @Art Deco

    OK, it seems that my original response to Art Deco was too mean to a certain dear, sweet people, so here is an expurgated version with the “offensive” parts blanked out. Hope this passes muster with the Ministry of Truth:

    Art Deco: “Israel has a population of 8.6 million and an output of about $350 bn…It’s not in a position to exercise ‘hegemony’ over anyone or anything not right adjacent to it.”

    Yes, that’s true. In fact, it has trouble even with Lebanon which is adjacent to it, given the terrain and the presence of a real resistance organization.

    Israel drew the lesson from its “Peace in Galilee” fiasco that if it were to impose itself fully on the region, it would have to leverage the ________ fifth column in the US to drag the American ______-state into the region and lay waste to everything opposing its metastasis.

    Just because Israel can’t achieve hegemonic dominance by itself doesn’t mean it is not pursuing the subordination of the region to its __________ whims.

    And because of disloyal American _________ and its pernicious influence, the US has done exactly what Eretz Israel demanded. As a result, much of the Middle East is in ruins and what remains is fighting the threat of being starved into submission.

    What a blessing unto the nations you _______________ are!

  128. NPleeze says:
    @Sam Haysom

    you are legitimately fucking retarded

    Freud called such sentiments “projection”.

    “AIDS was first clinically reported on June 5, 1981, with five cases in the United States.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#History If you have facts to disprove them, show them to this “fucking retard”, lol!

    Yes, I know the speculation that AIDS always existed in some monkeys in Africa, blah blah. But that doesn’t bear scrutiny, esp. how it initially spread. There was a 60 Minutes expose on it once – back when 60 Minutes still had a shred of balls remaining. I can’t find it on YouTube – maybe it’s been scrubbed. But it was based on the interview of the head of a company that made vaccines, who claimed the AIDs virus was introduced into vaccines by using “contaminated” green monkeys in vaccine production (back in the 80s monkeys were still often used to produce human vaccines). And the initial distribution pattern of the disease – the monkeys were being used to generate a vaccine for those with Hepatitis – completely follows that logic.

  129. NPleeze says:
    @Sam Haysom

    It seems that 60 minutes show showing the true origins of AIDs has been scrubbed, can’t find it anyway. But here’s an interview with Maurice Hilleman, where he describes how they imported AIDs by bringing in non-clinical monkeys from Africa and using them for vaccine production (start at about 1:36, key admission at 2:17-2:21 (the interviewers, of course, being total morons, laugh instead of following up on that). I remember the 60 Minutes show, the connection was made quite expressly.

  130. HA says:

    “AIDS was first clinically reported on June 5, 1981, with five cases in the United States… I know the speculation that AIDS always existed in some monkeys in Africa, blah blah. But that doesn’t bear scrutiny, esp. how it initially spread”

    From what I understand, AIDS is about a century old. It hasn’t “always existed”.

    The earliest known case of infection with HIV-1 in a human was detected in a blood sample collected in 1959 from a man in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo. (How he became infected is not known.) Genetic analysis of this blood sample suggested that HIV-1 may have stemmed from a single virus in the late 1940s or early 1950s.

    Note that in 1960, the life expectancy in the DCR was about 40. I’m not surprised AIDS was harder to spot there, in the midst of all the other mortality factors (and, I would guess, different levels of medical technology).

    • Replies: @NPleeze
  131. NPleeze says:
    @HA

    Regardless of whether some Africans had the infection before, I am talking about how the pandemic started. You are talking about something entirely different. And if true, it’s not clear why it didn’t become a pandemic then.

    Unless the coronavirus was genetically engineered (which it probably was), no doubt you will find someone who died from it prior to Wuhan, if you open all graves and research it. Certainly there have been lots of coronavirus deaths in history. But here, the idiot to whom I was responding, blamed China for the disease.

    Also that page you cited has a bunch of “they believe” qualifiers, meaning, it’s a bunch of speculation. The green monkey use for vaccines is NOT speculation, but established fact. The use of SIV-infected monkeys for vaccine production was admitted, on national TV, by the man in charge of that vaccine production. I think you don’t need any “believe” qualifier for this. It’s just not PC to speak Truth in the Brave New World.

    See also the Hilleman interview I linked above, if the mods approve that post.

    • Replies: @HA
  132. @nebulafox

    So you liked Nixon putting virtually the entire White race at risk in order to save our Chinese brothers?

  133. Anonymous[134] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam Haysom

    Sailer’s opinions on race and intelligence are WAY more controversial than anything Ron Unz has said. If anything, it’s Unz who suffers from association with Sailer, not the reverse.

  134. @Anonymous

    They’re only more controversial because no one is willing to mention Unz at all. With no discussion–and barely a mention–of course there can’t be much controversy.

  135. HA says:
    @NPleeze

    “I am talking about how the pandemic started. You are talking about something entirely different. And if true, it’s not clear why it didn’t become a pandemic then.”

    No, I’m not talking about something entirely different. I’m talking about a disease originating in African primates/monkeys (specifically, from SIV strains present in chimps and sooty mangabeys) that was and continues to be predominantly African in scope. Are we at least clear on that?

    An area of the world where even now, hacking chimps and monkeys with a machete for their “bushmeat” is an ongoing practice. Can you at least admit that?

    A disease that even today, only manages to successfully spread beyond Africa in certain high-risk groups (e.g., men who engage in anal sex with each other, intravenous drug users, prostitutes, etc.).

    That is what we’re talking about. If there is some other AIDS you have in mind, if there was any additional crossovers from chimps (not green monkeys, mind you) to humans than the one that led to the 1959 incident I noted above, find someone who is actually able to trace the strains down and show that they’re completely distinct. Otherwise, let it go, for your own sake. Crossover events are fairly rare, thankfully. The fact that you’re dying to posit another one in a CIA lab or whatever other US location, involving some other monkey, and disregard the wealth of other African associations is, I suspect, solely because it conforms to your tinfoil-hat conspiracies. Yeah, there’s always going to be error bars around any historical breakdown, and we’ll never ben 100% sure, etc. and earlier on there were presumably several promising investigative leads as to what might have gotten this started. But that ever-present disclaimer shouldn’t be taken as a free pass to let your tinfoil-hat creativity run wild.

    • Replies: @NPleeze
  136. @Art Deco

    As someone who lived through the changes in voting patterns, thanks for the summary.

    Horton was in prison because he and friends brutally murdered a 17-year old gas station attendant named Joey Fournier.

    During the 1992 campaign Bill and Hillary frequently attacked GHWB for using “Willie Horton” against the angelic democrats. Sam Donaldson actually visited Horton in prison and asked about “What George Bush did to you.”

    Neither the Clintons or Sam Donaldsons of this world deigned to mention Joey Fournier.

  137. DMS says:

    Steve,

    This was true in the 1960s and 1970s. Nowadays, we realize that race-based bioweapons can be developed, as well as race-based / nationality based AI weapon systems.

    For example, building a system that discriminates between Chinese, Korean and Japanese faces and assigning a simple (1, 0, 0) score to each face, and it’s equally easy to build logic based upon the scoring to do whatever you wish based on each face, for example, say “Hello” or pull a trigger. It’s a little harder because of the diversity in the United States, but you can train systems to identify Americans vs Non-Americans too. If there’s a tell, AI can find it.

    On the bioweapon side, it is now known that different diseases affect people of different races and ethnicities differently, so I am sure that research is pouring into this field.

  138. Art Deco says:
    @NPleeze

    The ‘neo-cons’ do not run US policy in the world that exists outside your imagination. Wm. Kristol is is semi-retired and his principal project – The Weekly Standard – was shut down by its patron when it ran out of readers. Douglas Feith (who is 66 years old) has for 12 years been ensconced in a sinecure at the Hudson Institute. Robert Kagan (age 61) has another think tank sinecure. These people produce working papers for a living.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
    , @NPleeze
  139. @Anonymous

    Ron is a Holocaust revisionist. All you are saying is that you have no idea about the political environment of the country you live in. Indeed even Ron’s writings on crime are extremely controversial because they boil down to blaming crime entirely on black people in order to let Ron’s pet ethnicity, Mexicans, off the hook.

    I associate almost exclusively with people from very affluent backgrounds- for those types tone is just as important as content. Ron has a muddled, verbose, and extremely bitter writing style. On the other hand Steve is witty, breezy, and a very good writer. he forms aphorisms and catchy slogans while Ron is droning on repeating the same thought in and even more abstruse manner. You can tell Ron is screaming at his monitor. It is likely why he repeats himself so much- rage creates a tunnel vision.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  140. @Art Deco

    Your definition of neocon–Kristol, Feith, Kagan–is much too narrow–deliberately so, no doubt.

    Sure, those three dual loyalists are out to pasture. But we’ve got even worse creatures of a very, um, similar nature today. Just as left/liberal Jews claimed to have been “mugged by reality” and transitioned to neoconservatism, now the surreptitious rightward move of Jews continues to Likudism, religious nationalism, faux-liberals who are closet neocons/Israel Firsters, etc. Of course, none of this move to the right makes them authentic conservatives in any goy sense of the word. They are what one might call ” judeoconservatives” though “judeonationalists” would be closer to the mark.

    They are merely Jews becoming more intensely and openly tribalistic and expecting the p0litical system to accommodate their shift. So now we have Adelson, Marcus, Singer and others with Trump under their thumb. It was Adelson who facilitated the whispering campaign against National Security Advisor HR McMaster and got him replaced with John Bolton. Then there the crime-family scion and first son-in-law Kushner and David Friedman, the guy Trump made ambassador to Israel who is now lobbying for Israel (which he was actually doing even when he was ambassador–that’s how screwed up things are.)

    And how about those disgusting folks at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies led by pro-Israel operative, Clifford May, which practically presents itself as a shill organization for Israel?

    Then there is the odious David Wurmser, a neocon of long standing, brought into the Trump administration who may have had some role in the decision to assassinate Soleimani.

    And the Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and all its subordinate groupings like OFAC has been monopolized by neocon/Likudniks since 9/11–Stuart Levey, David Cohen, and Sigal Mandelker–and turned into a weapon on behalf of Israeli policy.

    Alan Dershowitz has also managed to insinuate himself into the fringes of the administration when he’s not busy celebrating Jewish power in the US and insisting that Jews should distort US Middle East policy even more than they’re already doing.

    So your claims about neoconservatism are highly disingenuous. But given your profile, no one should find that surprising in the least.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    , @Sam Haysom
  141. @Sam Haysom

    It’s funny that you accuse Unz of repetitiveness, since Sailer is nothing if not repetitive. He covers the same ground again and again–diversity fetishism and demographic trivia. They are certainly subjects that need to be covered, and most media will not do that, but there is no denying that Sailer hits the same topics again and again.

    Not sure what “bitterness” you are talking about in regard to Unz. Some of his theories are certainly debatable. But at least he has set up a site that prizes open debate. That’s a major accomplishment. And Sailer is actually one of the writers most inclined to censor comments on the site, which is interesting given that many would like to censor him and the topics he writes about, which is presumably why he ended up here.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  142. NPleeze says:
    @HA

    I’m not talking about something entirely different.

    Yes you are. My point was how the pandemic started, in particular, a US pharmaceutical company using SIV-infected monkeys to produce vaccines, which were then injected into Americans, starting the pandemic. You are saying it is possible some African 50 years ago got AIDs. SO WHAT? Didn’t start the global pandemic.

    In summary: I’;m saying the AIDS pandemic started in the US. You’re saying, the virus comes from African monkeys. Nobody denies that. But it was the US that transferred it from the monkeys to the vaccines to the people, thereby starting the pandemic. That’s the critical issue.

    Your high risk groups are wrong. E.g. intravenous drug users are at risk ONLY if they share needles. And it’s not just men who have anal sex that are at risk, but anyone that does, as anal sex is likely to cause bleeding which makes the “receive” vulnerable if there is a sperm release (since sperm carries AIDs). Other at risk groups: patients of doctors with AIDs, etc. Anyway one person’s bodily fluids can get into another person’s blood is a high risk group. Obviously you are very biased in your selection of these groups – you a so-called “Christian” (but really, fake Christian, worshiping Yahweh) zealot?

    I don’t care about your alleged 1959 incident, it’s totally unrelated to the pandemic, even if true (which is very doubtful in itself). Your are just desperately attempting to divert blame from the actual cause of the AIDs pandemic, which is “American technology”. Enjoy your delusions.

    • Replies: @HA
  143. NPleeze says:
    @Art Deco

    The Orange Satan’s regime is loaded with evil ZioNazi neo-cons. I won’t bother to list them all, it’s an endless list, do your own research: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=neo-cons+in+trump+administration&ia=web

    The Orange ZioNazi himself is a neo-con, dressed in palpably disingenuous “conservative” rhetoric to fool the (low-IQ) TrumpTARDs.

  144. Rob says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    I would, but being crazy myself, I am a very poor judge of sanity.

  145. Art Deco says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    The only people who will listen to you get re-imbursed by insurance companies for the privilege. Cheers.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  146. HA says:
    @NPleeze

    “You are saying it is possible some African 50 years ago got AIDs. SO WHAT? Didn’t start the global pandemic.”

    Actually it did. Yeah, it took about a decade and a half to jump from Congo to New York and San Francisco and the gay bathhouses there, but air travel was different then, so if that’s what you have a problem with, it just shows how pathetically weak your case it.

    Your selective invocations of “alleged” and “if true” and other such dismissals would be far more credible if you were as equally dubious about some 60 minutes broadcast but no, you’re gung-ho convinced about that.

    “You’re saying, the virus comes from African monkeys. Nobody denies that.”

    No, you’re the one who said it came from green monkeys in some CIA lab. I’m saying something quite more detailed. The analysis — apart from some 60 minutes interview that even the producers are no longer willing to stand behind, though that doesn’t stop you — that made on the basis of trying to match up the genetic strains and genetic time clocks indicate that it came from some male chimp ripping apart a scratching/biting sooty mangabey during a hunt somewhere in the Congo around 1920, and the exchange of blood involved in this gory episode allowed their respepctive SIV strains to combine. (I mean, they’re pretty sure it happened about 1920, and involved those two types of simians — the part about it happening during a chimp hunting expedition is a bit more conjectural, but plausible). After that, it crossed over, some time before 1959.

    That’s a good bit more detailed than “it came from African monkeys” and the fact that you can’t even be bothered with what went into that genealogical reconstruction doesn’t speak well for whatever it is you’re trying to push as an alternative.

    “Obviously you are very biased in your selection of these groups – you a so-called “Christian” (but really, fake Christian, worshiping Yahweh) zealot?”

    Oh, and there we are. Slipping yet another rung down the rabbit hole. It’s not the women who engage in anal sex who are generally responsible for passing this on. In any case, you need to work out your daddy issues or Yahweh issues or whatever other beef you have with Christians or anyone else on your own time. For now, try and stay focused without getting obsessed about one discarded 60 minutes interview (though it wouldn’t surprise me if you were already taking meds and other substances to help with that. Sadly, they’re not working. Maybe you need to taper off.

    • Replies: @NPleeze
  147. @Oscar Peterson

    Unz has spent fifteen years yelling about the same three things Israel bad, US bad, Mexicans good. You don’t find it repetitive because you have entered the stage of mental decline which welcomes repetition. And this site isn’t open debate in the least lol. It’s just as much an echo chamber as the Atlantic and the Economist only with older and lower IQ writers.

  148. @Oscar Peterson

    Ron worked closely with well-heeled neo-cons to derail Prop 187 and further his political career. Then he humiliated himself on the campaign trail and became and all around political liability. Not coincidentally it was around the time that he was dropped by prominent neo-cons that he began to develop questions about the Holocaust.

    None of the people you are angry about has done anywhere close to the permanent damage to the US that Unz did in fighting Prop 187. That you continue to cling to his nuts (I’m assuming you aren’t just a Ron sock because Ron can at least communicate points not just accumulate trivial details) is more proof that you are a fifth columnist who cares nothing for this country. You and the neo-cons are opposite sides of the same coin obsessed with some desert microstate and willing to let the US suffer endlessly to see Israel strengthened or in your case destroyed. Just get over your ex-wife already just like Rain Man Ron needs to get over being dropped by the neo-cons. He took their shekels he should have known the game.

  149. @Art Deco

    “The only people who will listen to you get re-imbursed by insurance companies for the privilege.”

    Translation: You called my bluff re “neoconservatives,” and I have no come-back. Pardon me while I slink away.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  150. @Sam Haysom

    “You don’t find it repetitive because you have entered the stage of mental decline which welcomes repetition.”

    Weak.

    The point, which you evaded, was that you complained about Unz’s “repetitiveness” because you don’t like what he has to say while failing to acknowledge that Sailer is no less repetitive.

    I don’t think repetitiveness is a particularly meaningful criticism in either case. They both have their areas of focus. But if you’re going to obsess over it, you might as well be consistent.

    And now you’re just angry because it’s been pointed out to you. I guess you’d better get back to your fantasy world where you hobnob with the rich and famous, so you can feel better about yourself.

  151. @Sam Haysom

    Unz has no bearing on the substance of my reply to Art Deco. I have no idea why you included references to him again here.

    And you are entirely–and I guess willfully–wrong on Israel and its operatives in this country. They constitute a disloyal and highly destructive influence on our policy in the Middle East and beyond.

    The only people who don’t see that are those who won’t see it.

    Again, Unz is irrelevant to that point (and doesn’t really write about it much in any case.)

  152. NPleeze says:
    @HA

    if you were as equally dubious about some 60 minutes broadcast

    I’m not dubious about the (famous) scientist who created the vaccine which contained AIDS, and admitted it, no. You, on the other hand, are fixated on a possible 1951 case … with no evidence, whatsoever, that it came to the US. The evidence is exactly ZERO. Does it get lower than ZERO? No, there is a 100% absence of evidence. Can you case be any weaker? No!

    you’re the one who said it came from green monkeys (imported from Africa with no quarantine) in some CIA lab

    No, I said it came from green monkeys in a pharmaceutical company lab. At another point I gave the name of the company, the name of the scientist, and the vaccine it was distributed by. But you come back with this CIA delusion and rage on about someone killing a monkey in 1920 (with zero proof) and speculating, with absolutely no evidence, that somehow this person infected someone in SF in 1980 and nobody in between, that we know of, or do know of, it’s not clear with your baseless speculation.

    And since you are obviously a miserable lying distorter, who gets his kicks making up obvious lies to try to discredit someone in a pathetic, low-IQ sort of way, bye-bye.

  153. NPleeze says:
    @Sam Haysom

    Ron worked closely with well-heeled neo-cons to derail Prop 187 and further his political career.

    How do you know his motive? Maybe he really believed it was a bad idea?

    In any event it’s all moot since a federal court found Prop. 187 unconstitutional (obvious buggery, but fact is a fact). Accordingly, you absurd claim that Unz did “permanent damage to the US” is utter nonsense.

    In fact, he allows you to come here and make these absurd accusations. I can assure you, I’ve been banned from every neo-con, and countless “conservative”, website after my first comment, and that without attacking it’s owner, just for disagreeing with their ZioNazism. I was even banned from Zerohedge for daring to observe that if you followed their financial advice you would be bankrupt and that them stuffing 1,000 ads per page should tell you something about their financial investment expertise.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  154. @NPleeze

    Lol you sound like a Jew- oh vey kicked out of 131 countries why such hatred. Lmao that’s a knock out punch if I’ve ever seen one.

    You and the Jews are loud annoying and refuse to conform to host behaviors. Ron can kick me out anytime he wants. He will likely have to entirely re-write his buggy software to do it but I couldn’t care less. That’s the difference between WASPs like me and Jews like you and Ron. We don’t take everything so personally. Ron wants to harm the country my ancestors hacked out of the wilderness because he was too autistic to be a good politician. That deserves ignominy. You two need to stop acting like Jews. Rofl that’s a great ending point. Act less Jewy.

    • Replies: @NPleeze
  155. NPleeze says:
    @Sam Haysom

    Lol you sound like a Jew

    LOL you sound like a bitter, unsuccessful, lonely ignoramus.

    country my ancestors hacked out of the wilderness

    So your ancestors genocided Native Americans. I bet you’re real proud.

  156. bjondo says:
    @Yngvar

    Anthrax is a recurring disease in livestock. That’s why it’s still ongoing scientific research on the pathogen. Nothing to do with warfare.

    Except for the weaponized anthrax.

    5ds

  157. Art Deco says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    Better translation: I’m not enthusiastic about picking through the issue of your imagination. Inductive reasoning, actual evidence, and defined terms. It’s great stuff.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  158. @Art Deco

    Inductive reasoning, actual evidence, and defined terms. It’s great stuff.

    And all to be found in my post but, conspicuously, not in yours.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
  159. OK–what’s the problem here, Minister of Truth?

    I submitted three comments 20 hours ago–one to Art Deco and two to Sam Haysom. The former appeared but not the others which are still “awaiting moderation.” Why? I can’t see anything that could be objectionable in them, and other comments have continued to be posted.

    Again, what’s the problem???

    • Replies: @NPleeze
  160. @Sam Haysom

    “You don’t find it repetitive because you have entered the stage of mental decline which welcomes repetition.”

    Weak.

    The point, which you evaded, was that you complained about Unz’s “repetitiveness” because you don’t like what he has to say while failing to acknowledge that Sailer is no less repetitive.

    I don’t think repetitiveness is a particularly meaningful criticism in either case. They both have their areas of focus. But if you’re going to obsess over it, you might as well be consistent.

    And now you’re just angry because it’s been pointed out to you. I guess you’d better get back to your fantasy world where you hobnob with the rich and famous, so you can feel better about yourself.

  161. @Sam Haysom

    Unz has no bearing on the substance of my reply to Art Deco. I have no idea why you included references to him again here.

    And you are entirely–and I guess willfully–wrong on Israel and its operatives in this country. They constitute a disloyal and highly destructive influence on our policy in the Middle East and beyond.

    The only people who don’t see that are those who won’t see it.

    Again, Unz is irrelevant to that point (and doesn’t really write about it much in any case.)

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    , @Ron Unz
  162. Art Deco says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    And all to be found in my post but, conspicuously, not in yours.

    The terms I used do not mean what you fancy they mean. Take your anti-psychotics, and talk to the professionals.

    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  163. @Oscar Peterson

    Unz took the neocon shekels and then got discarded like a call girl who has hit age 30.

  164. NPleeze says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    If you look at the text above the “Reply dialog”, right above the “Cancel Reply” button, the following text:

    Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.

    • Thanks: Oscar Peterson
  165. Ron Unz says:
    @Oscar Peterson

    Unz has no bearing on the substance of my reply to Art Deco. I have no idea why you included references to him again here.

    And you are entirely–and I guess willfully–wrong on Israel and its operatives in this country. They constitute a disloyal and highly destructive influence on our policy in the Middle East and beyond.

    Well, glancing over this thread, I found it quite intriguing that nearly 10% of the comments were by this “Sam Haysom” character, mostly in the form of shrieking and spitting insults and ridiculous accusations.

    Frankly, about the only commenters I’ve seen around who behave in such a bizarre and agitated manner are the fanatic pro-Israel-types, so it seems pretty plausible that he falls into that category.

    Personally, as I’ve pointing out in my comments, I think there’s quite a bit of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the Coronavirus outbreak was a US biowarfare attack against China. But there’s much less indicating that Israel was somehow involved, with the sole exception being that Iran and its political elites were hit so early and so hard.

    However, the fact that all these fanatic pro-Israel-types seem so exceptionally agitated about the issue does make me suspect that they themselves strongly suspect that Israel—or at least its American fifth-column—was probably behind it. Whether their suspicions are correct is another story.

    • Agree: John Regan
    • Replies: @Oscar Peterson
  166. @Art Deco

    “The terms I used do not mean what you fancy they mean.”

    Yes, no doubt you’ve endowed them with esoteric meanings that only learned elders such as yourself can grasp. I’ll just have to be content with the exoteric, I guess.

  167. @Ron Unz

    Frankly, I’m unable to form a hypothesis on COVID19 at this point.

    The more problems it causes worldwide, the harder it is to find a plausible state or non-state actor to pin it on even hypothetically.

    The US and this administration were clearly unprepared for what has eventuated, and Trump may lose the election because of it, so I have trouble conceptualizing a USG scheme.

    Israel would only make sense as a derivative plot from a primary and original outbreak in China. And how to fit Italy in anywhere in that sort of operation?

    Perhaps we’ll have to fall back on a Bond villain who is deflating the global credit bubble and is massively short everything. Goldfinger?

    For now, I have to go with the most conventional explanation–animal-human transfer in China–there is ample precedent–and transfer to Iran and Italy by Chinese (but still, why those two?)

    It’s early days yet.

  168. dvorak says:
    @Paul Mendez

    The tick bioweapon program attempted to combine short-term and medium-term infections to use against, e.g. Cubans. The point was to soften them up for a military attack.

    In the book, CIA / Air America dropped a cardboard box full of bioweapon ticks in the Cuban jungle. Just one experiment that was later abandoned.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS