Supreme Court Injustice John Roberts is apparently at it again, uttering such looney eugenicist nonsense that it is difficult to qualify them as resembling more the Supreme Court Injustices of the Looney Left on that body, or those of the Romping Right. Did this little find that Mr. V.T. shared with me, and see if you can see what I saw (I admit, when I read it, I literally declaimed "You've got to be kidding!" to myself in this otherwise empty office):

The Courts Will Soon Decide If Police Can Sample Your DNA Without A Warrant

As the reader will have noted, this pithy little bit of Fascist drivel was posted under Business Insider's Gesetz und Ordnung section, where the following two statements popped out at me:

"As Moser puts it in the Recorder:

"'In the age of smartphones, GPS and the prospect of ever cheaper ways to sequence an entire human genome, it's no small task to interpret the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.'

"On one hand, as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robertspoints out, collecting DNA from individuals arrested for violent felonies 'provides a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes and thereby helping to remove violent offenders from the general population.'"(Boldface emphasis added)

Say what? Uhm...could you run that by me again, Mr. Chief Injustice Roberts, uhm...I mean,....your lordship? Sir? Please?

Kidding aside, I hope you caught the implicit eugenicist premise in Roberts' remarks, for it has long been a premise of the American eugenicists since their early days at Cold Harbor that the "lower" classes were somehow genetically defective, and that criminal behavior could indeed be genetic in basis to some degree. All the better to know such things beforehand, and to collect as much biological data as we can, the better to prevent violence and cull the heard. Criminal behavior is genetic. "It's in the genes," as Mortimer Duke of Trading Places would say.

It might indeed be to some extent, but the real problem, as I see it, with Injustice Roberts' remarks, is the potential for the gathering of a genetic database by law enfarcement in some sort of Philip K. Dickian Department of Pre-Crime, and if one showed certain genetic markers, one might be tempted to remove potential offenders from the general population. Coming from a man heading an institution so nutty and with a track record of nuttiness, an institution that once told us that black persons were only "three fifths" of a person, this isn't a very promising statement.(But at least we can be thankful that it is at least consistent with the kookiness we have come to know and love from the Supremes.)

And we can all at least look forward with some anticipation to the somersaulting and perhaps even humorous Hegelian exercises of twisted linguistic gymnastics that will doubtless issue from Injustice Roberts' pen if he uses such implicit eugenics logic in his forthcoming decisions and "opinions." And I will read it with the same spirit of wonder and  appreciation with which I read and contemplate the Dred Scott decision.


..."No Mr. President, it's pronounced 'NOO-clee-uhr."

"That's what I said...NOO-kyoo-luhr."


"I said that, 'NOO-kyoo-luhr.' Go away Karl, you're confusing me."

See you on the flip side...


Posted in

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Incognito on September 15, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Good morning,

    I see that you usually comment on The Daily Bell’s articles and I mist admit I used to read their stuff too (for about 6-8 months). But now they’ve showed their true colors. There’s a story about Colombia on their site. This was my response to them through their contact page (they had to take down the comments from all the flak they were getting lmao):

    WTF is this???

    You call this website an alternative, truth-telling site? No wonder you removed the comments section. I did read some attacks against you on other sites but hadn’t found anything clear cut fascist until now.

    Urine was Pablo Escobar’s consiglieri. Escobar was GHW Bush’s partner. Now Uribe and Bush are thick as thieves (their little tet-a-tets at his “ranch”). WTF you think is going on? The paramilitaries were first the C1@ founded (Ted Shackley, Bush and Harari) Medellin Cartel. Then Bush turned on Escobar and it became the PEPES (perseguidos por Pablo escobar). The PEPES became the AUC (paramilitaries). The AUC’s drug trafficking was shipped in the M0ss@d/C1@ United Fruit Co (Chiquita) ships.

    What the f*ck are you talking about defending Uribe’s stances? Santos is another Jesuit backed scumbag too.

    What you call the Colombian economy is nothing less than the pillaging of Colombia by the ususal suspects: exxon, monsanto, Anglo gold Ashanti, BHP, Xstrata etc etc etc

  2. Ramura on September 14, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    I just want to put a “shout out” to your “Mr. V. T.”

    I observe that he has sent MANY noteworthy items to your attention, prompting YOU to blog. Which is ALWAYS insightful and thought-provoking.


    In appreciation and gratitude,

    Shari ^i^ (aka Ramura)

  3. terminally skeptical on September 14, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    Include me amongst those who believe that eugenics is not the issue here.

    Anyone with any street sense and an ear to the tracks is aware that genetic profiling is not going away and that the minions have been encouraged to round up the DNA any way they’re able. Remember it’s all for our own good whether at the hospital or keeping us safe through better law enforcement. But ya know I believe that not all the risk and adventure should be removed from life and I’m willing to take that chance there may still be some criminal types walking the streets and that the E.R. at the hospital may not be fully prepared for my arrival. In short, piss off John Roberts.

  4. Hal Hichler on September 14, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    I would posit that they are not looking for a criminal gene but a very special gene or genes inherited from our creators. Did you ever wonder why Mormons, Jews and other yahwehists are obsessed with genealogy? They are not looking for criminals. They are keeping tabs on those among themselves with the most connection to this special DNA. All these yahwehists share similar legends of the nephilim creator. Will the place really be looking for those with significant nephilim DNA?

    • Hal Hichler on September 14, 2012 at 5:02 pm


  5. Rich Overholt on September 14, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    “NOO-KYOO-LUHR”. Hah, good one!

    • HAL838 on September 15, 2012 at 8:26 pm

      Yeah, not only did THEY / Mr Present-but-not-here
      change everyone’s pronounciation except the scientists,
      but I think it actually made the dictionaries
      [that THEY write AND EDIT]
      as an alternate pronounciation.

      Does anyone know if there is a lowest IQ ever recorded?
      THEY all delight in screwing up words…
      I mean within the copiers
      (some actually went back to the right way
      …how noots is that?)
      [Mr Present-but-not-here really can’t pronounce it …]

  6. RaPhi on September 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    Insert a small change to the genome of traditional crops like basmati rice or neem tree oil and voila! they become patentable, thus privatized… and they were. Since trade laws (WTO, etc) are international treaties, they supercede local and even national standards. Then there’s the HeLa human cell lineage, obtained without consent, used as the basis for several major medical discoveries. So there are legal precidents already.

    Notice here it says AN entire genome. Not “the,” which would be about abstract research; “an” implies that the subject is the genome of a specific individual. Or all individuals. As for connecting semi-private conversation and intensely private biological identity, that conjures up a picture of a CELL phone I’d rather not consider.

    Also consider that the practice involves samples from those ARRESTED, not convicted. Are anti-war, anti-government, anti-econopath demonstrators “violent?” This isn’t just about solving crimes. Besides, there is no reason to believe that felons are any different than the rest of the population. But large samples are useful for determining potential insurance costs, er, I mean medical issues.

    Let’s give paranoia a whirl. Perhaps the point of identifying genes (or epigenetic factors) is to breed FOR them. How about an entire lineage of humans (or chimeras) owned by something like Blackwater? Regarding “owning” humans, that’s de facto the case now. When a lab is sold, is the buyer only interested in test tubes and stainless steel benches? When a scientist or engineer quits a job, anything they were working on, including all related ideas, is property of the corporation forever.

    • Ramura on September 14, 2012 at 6:56 pm

      RaPhi — I’ve only seen you showing up here recently, but I like it. Please continue to contribute to the discussion. You have a unique point of view and I appreciate it.

      Thanks so much

      Shari ^i^ aka Ramura

      • RaPhi on September 14, 2012 at 7:55 pm

        Ah, you made my day. Thanks.


  7. Thomas on September 14, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Maybe I misread John Robert’s comments; but they don’t seem to me to reflect an “implicit eugenicist premise.” (That premise being that there are genetic criminals or sociopaths.) Rather the cited comments reflect beliefs that violent criminals may have a history of past violent crimes that have been undetected/unsolved, and that collecting DNA from them will help solve these crimes (and remove the criminals form the public). Justice Roberts may or may not agree with that eugenicist premise. But we cannot know one way or the other from the quotation supplied or from the articles cited.

    That said, a policy’s being a “useful tool” for a particular aim does not entail that it is the right thing to do.

  8. chris on September 14, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    If this were true then the elites and the police would have to be sampling their own DNA as well because we all know they are quite criminal in far too many cases… Who’s sampling the samplers? Whats next Fake DNA kits you can buy at headshops?

    • RaPhi on September 14, 2012 at 3:16 pm

      Love it! Watching the watchers… which leads to an infinite regress. Hopefully their mental circuits will overload.

  9. Don B on September 14, 2012 at 8:30 am

    Hi Hal, Is HERE Oklahoma? Thanks


    • HAL838 on September 14, 2012 at 9:01 am

      Laws were being passed for nearly 50…

      [late 19th-early 20th up to the 50s when they started
      taking them off the books]

      …years in nearly every state
      FOR the lawful sterilization of anyone deemed ‘unfit’
      to procreate.
      Just WHO was ‘unfit,’ varied from state to state.

      The most wealthy wanted and got, these laws
      as THEY could never be deemed “unfit, of course !!!!!!!

      I am not in OK
      I am in CT

      • Don B on September 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm

        Hal, thanks. That does ring bell now that you mentioned it. Thanks again.


        • HAL838 on September 15, 2012 at 5:08 pm

          You are quite welcome

  10. spiritsplice on September 14, 2012 at 7:41 am

    I gotta say, I think you are seeing something that isn’t there in regards to the eugenics angle.

    • bdw on September 14, 2012 at 10:36 am

      I agree. They are using DNA in the same way fingerprints are used: there is no way to deny that that is a valid use of the technology to solve crimes.

      There is no doubt that “they” can and might do anything at all with all of their data, but the collection and use of that data in such a practical way in and of itself does not prove any eugenics motivation. Sure it’s possible, but your Roberts quote does not prove it.

      • Don B on September 14, 2012 at 1:38 pm

        Oh, I think there is a big difference in DNA and finger prints. You open a very large can of worms with DNA.


        • bdw on September 15, 2012 at 3:35 pm

          “Oh, I think there is a big difference in DNA and finger prints”

          You state the obvious.

          Any technology can be abused. The Roberts quote is a legitimate use of DNA, in exactly the same way using fingerprints is legit.

          Either one can be abused.

          Either one can be used appropriately.

          The Roberts quote has nothing sinister about it at all. That does not prove that “TPTB” aren’t planning to abuse DNA testing. All I am saying is that the quote can not possibly prove sinister motivation.

  11. Jedi on September 14, 2012 at 7:02 am

    so I take it you reject the findings of the Minnesota twin studies Doctor F?.

    I wonder how much longer the heathens will take too figure out that intelligence is the ability to refute garbage rather than repeat it. Polly want a fecal infested big mac?

    • RaPhi on September 14, 2012 at 3:59 pm

      Only vague recollections, so I looked up the studies. From their own website (with group photo of smiling teens) : “Over 9800 individuals have contributed to these exciting projects! By studying twins and siblings and their families, we can estimate how genes and environment intereact to influence character, strengths, vulnerabilities and values.”

      Uh, character?! Values?! Implied is that these can be “influenced.” Whether genetic or environmental. Rather valuable info for economic propaganda and/or political manipulation. The elites made a huge mistake allowing us peasants to learn reading and writing. Because then we did pesky things like form labor unions, vote, and read research. Nothing here about ameliorating terrible conditions. Why would there be if the widening class divide is innate?

      Guess we’ll have to hope a future someone born to the elite has enough heart to organize a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Anthropoids.

      • Jedi on September 18, 2012 at 5:10 am

        what is good for one is equally evil for another……

  12. Don B on September 14, 2012 at 5:32 am

    Yes, it would be a nightmare for some young clerk to navigate a severely winding road to come up with an opinion on this one. Oh, and don’t forget the dissenting opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes involving a case in Oklahoma, I think, that involved involuntary sterilization by the State.


    • HAL838 on September 14, 2012 at 5:52 am

      It was HERE before [ANY] where else

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events