Francisco Gil-White, Editor

NEW BOOK / NUEVO LIBRO
EL COLAPSO DE OCCIDENTE el siguiente Holocausto y sus consecuencias
	ANTISEMITISM & THE  ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT
	CIVIL WARS IN YUGOSLAVIA
	IRAN & IRAK
	The modern attack on Blacks There is a well-funded attack against people of color, billing itself as supposedly mainstream science. This is a continuation of the same eugenics movement that spawned German Nazism, and which never disappeared. Prof. Francisco Gil-White, an expert on 'race' and ethnicity, documents and refutes this attack in Resurrecting Racism. more»»

Doesn’t Israel fund Hamas? No. This is an unfounded allegation made by the CIA. 8 August 2014
	MEET THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT CONOCE AL MOVIMIENTO PALESTINO ( VIDEOS AND ARTICLES )
Interview with EL ALEPH, Radio Red, Mexico City
GLOBAL WARMING

—an hir series—

1	A brief guide to the series 9 June 2014

A brief introduction plus table of contents for this HIR series, which discusses why the Antarctic ice-core evidence is so important to a proper evaluation of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, which holds that human production of CO2 is responsible for current global warming.

2	How do Al Gore and IPCC scientists reply to the ice core evidence? 9 June 2014

Science thrives on debate, so a good way to gauge the strength of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is to examine how its proponents reply to the challenge posed by the Antarctic ice-core evidence. This is what we do here.

3	Nature (magazine), Antarctic ice cores, and the CO2 lag 9 June 2014

If climate science exhibits system-wide pathologies when the topic is global warming, there is no better place to look for them than the world’s most prestigious science journal: Nature. We will show here that something has gone terribly wrong with the peer review process at Nature.

4	The Antarctic ice cores, CO2, global warming and the media 30 June 2014

We document that the Western mass media appears to have zero independence from the IPCC, for it repeats whatever it reads in RealClimate, a blog set up by IPCC scientists.

5	Climategate: Are IPCC scientists guilty of willful deceit? 17 July 2014

The Climategate scandal erupted when thousands of emails of important IPCC scientists were hacked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University. These email exchanges are troubling, for they appear to confirm what many skeptics had charged: that IPCC scientists are playing a political game, rather than doing science.

6	Who holds the balance of power? The skeptics or the IPCC? 17 July 2014

‘Orwellian’ is an adjective reserved for a media-imposed total inversion of reality, plus indifference to absurdity equal parts boldness and nonchalance (so powerful in the rash assertion of its plausibility as to convince the innocent). Loudly claiming that the Antarctic ice-core evidence supports the AGW hypothesis—when it in fact refutes that hypothesis—is Orwellian. The same goes for the manner in which IPCC scientists describe themselves as the supposed persecuted party. We will argue here that the balance of power is unequivocally on the IPCC’s side.

● ABOUT US

● Notify me of new HIR pieces!

● Contact us

● Is this ‘conspiracy theory’?

● About the HIR method

● Does the West have a free press?

● IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?

● What is a genocide?

HIR's FIRST PRINCIPLES

ARGUMENT A.

Premise 1. The way to do better geopolitics is to have a more accurate representation of the intentions and capabilities of other players in the international system.

Premise 2. The Government of the United States, the most important geopolitical player, has the strongest motivation to do better geopolitics.

Therefore: The Government of the United States works very hard to obtain a better understanding of the intentions and capabilities of other players in the international system.

Fact: CIA director George Tenet said in the year 1998 that the budget on that year had been a little under 27 billion. Recently, a US Intelligence official said in a press conference that the yearly budget was now 44 billion. But the truth is that nobody knows for sure, because the budget for US Intelligence is a state secret.

Hypothesis: The Government of the United States has very good information—definitely better than my own—on which to base its geopolitical decisions.

ARGUMENT B.

Premise 1. The Government of the United States, for many years running, has been the most powerful in the world.

Premise 2. Idiots don’t become the most powerful people in the world.

Therefore: The Government of the United States is not run by idiots.

Hypothesis: If the Government of the United States behaves in ways that seem idiotic to me, then a) there is something I don’t yet understand; or b) the people running this government has different values than my own. Or both. (And I have yet to accept this, which is why I think the behavior is idiotic.)

ARGUMENT C.

Premise 1. The true preferences of someone are revealed in his/her expensive behaviors.

Premise 2. Saying “My intentions are X” is not expensive but cheap.

Therefore: Speech acts (e.g. public and official declarations) don’t necessarily convey information about the true intentions of those running a government.

Hypothesis: If the government of the United States consistently, year after year, spends billions of dollars and achieves always similar results, and if these results contradict the publicly declared intentions of government officials, the publicly declared intentions must be deliberate deceptions.

These three arguments are the motivation for most of the research you will find in this website.

A F.A.C.E.S. project ( Foundation for the Analysis of Conflict, Ethnic and Social )