Jewish Propaganda Books in Britain 1908-1948With notes on the Pacifist Movement in unconscious reaction against Jewish wars | War Aims in the Great War | Balfour's Declaration | Penguin Specials | Victor Gollancz's 'Left Book Club' | War Aims in the Second World War | Inferences: Attitudes of Jews to European, and Other, Wars. | Jewish Propaganda After WW2 (just a small sample; Jews against the 'Third World')
Ralph Norman Angell Lane THE GREAT ILLUSION - NOW• The Great Illusion was first published in 1908 (& on other publication dates before the 'Great War' starting 1914). It was the most advertised, discussed, and sold 'pacifist' book on supposed causes of wars.
• A 1933 edition was rewarded with a 'Nobel Peace Prize' the following year.
• The edition reviewed here was printed in December 1938 (described as 'The 1939 Edition'). It consisted of a long introduction, followed by an edited-down version of Angell's pre-Great War book.
• Published by Penguin Books
Warning: this is a full-on revisionist review, so far as information permits.
Fake pacifist Jewish-concern book, which misled many peace-inclined people. Part of the Jewish propaganda leading to the Second World War with Germany. However, it had the merit of directing attention to economic causes of wars.
Jewish Propaganda in UK 1908-1948
Angell and the World (1908-1938)
Angell after 1914
Angell's Writing Style
Changes in 1938 Edition
Other Books by Angell
War Aims in World War 1
Balfour Speaking in 1920
Penguin Specials | More Penguin
Gollancz's Left Book Club | More Gollancz Books
War Aims in World War 2: British Way and Purpose 1942-1944
Jewish Propaganda Books in Britain 1908-1948
[ Top of page ]
This article reviews Norman Angell's The Great Illusion, and discusses 'Penguin Specials' and the 'Left Book Club' of Victor Gollancz. The Jewish push towards wars became stronger in this period; I've chosen 1908 as the starting date, when Norman Angell's The Great Illusion was published, to 1948, when the Left Book Club was closed. I've included some material on war aims, and shown why these could not be honest. And an extract from Balfour, speaking about five years after his 'Declaration'.
All this in my view is a part of the Five-Hundred Years War between Jews and Christians, Jews and whites, Jews and Moslems, Jews and blacks, Jews and Chinese, and other groups, in combination. The timing is a bit arbitrary; I've selected the eighty years' war between Spain and Holland as the start: hence, 'Five-Hundred Years War'. This can be viewed as a genetic internal struggle within the entire human race, with damaging incursions of inbred monomaniac parasites into substrate societies as conditions favoured them. Population densities, genetic characteristics particularly of whites, and technical progress have so far favoured so-called Jews up to a point. How, if at all, this will end remains uncertain.
After the establishing of Israel, Jewish activity concentrated on increasing the hold on the USA, partly by use of the fraud of 'nuclear weapons', and by the invention of the 'Cold War' (helped by the Jew Castro in Cuba), which had the function of ensuring the USSR would not be invaded, and the Jewish GULags investigated. Media control enabled Jews to corrupt every aspect of American life, and to make more money from large-scale state activities, notably by profits from genocide in Vietnam, and by increasing government debt, from which Jews benefited since the paper money they printed recovered huge interest payments, and could largely be directed to what Jews considered were their interests. Later, the Holocaust myth was expanded as a money-making scheme. All this postdates most of Angell's writings and is very unlikely to have affected them. However it's impossible to be sure of Angell's understanding: the six million figure, and discussions on subjugating Russia, were certainly discussed before his famous book.
Here I review Norman Angell's books, emphasising the way he switched to anti-Germanism, along with Jewish policy, in the 1930s. I have included notes on war aims, for both world wars, and the reasons that clear statements of them were impossible. I've found a speech of Balfour, made in 1920, and quoted from that. And information on 'Penguin Specials', and an appendix from C N Parkinson's Left Luggage (1967) on Victor Gollancz's so-called 'Left Book Club'.
Radio—i.e. in Britain the BBC (British Broadcasting Company, nationalised and renamed the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1926, after the General Strike)—is not dealt with here. Nor are the daily press and magazines, moving pictures, lectures and public meetings, or explicit campaigns of violence.
Angell and the World (1908-1938)
[ Top of page ]
This book (see photo) was a 'Penguin Special'—a series, which continued for many years, of books nominally intended to consider serious issues. In fact from today's viewpoint it obviously presented the Jewish view, insofar as this percolated to the various levels of people who considered themselves 'Jews'. Penguin to some extent supplemented and took over took over from the 'Left Book Club' of Victor Gollancz, which ceased publishing in 1948. See below for the Left Book Club.
Norman Angell is now almost a forgotten figure. His surname was Lane; possibly (this is a guess) he dropped the name after a scandal involving Homer Lane, a once-well-known figure in what might now be called 'alternative education'. I'm assuming that Lane was in fact a Jew, on evidence of his names (see the Avotaynu Jewish surname index), the obscurity of his early life, and his writings.
Angell was a journalist, roughly equivalent to such people as Tony Benn, George Galloway, Dennis Skinner and others, but there's no modern equivalent, because the Jewish nuclear frauds have made Angell's military assumptions appear to be redundant. H G Wells's autobiography says Lord Northcliffe 'ran' Angell for a while, when it dawned upon Northcliffe's chaotically uninformed mind that newspaper proprietors have responsibilities, after the shattering experience of WW1 showed the 19th century assumption that events would work themselves out by laissez faire had failed. (Northcliffe may have had a parallel in the founders of Youtube—offering home videos of cats and babies, but then exposed to a disconcerting deluge of critiques and social comment).
And Angell could be compared with Coudenhave-Kalergi, a propagandist, secretly paid by Jews, for a mestizo Europe. In a similar way, Angell, pretending to be a rational debater trying to avoid war, was a propagandist for Jewish aims.
Angell is an interesting example, with such people as Henry George, Hobson, Kidd, Shaw, Belloc, Wells, Russell, H N Brailsford and sundry others, of the ego-centred journalist who never came to grips with critics. These people tended to borrow from each other both with and without acknowledgement; and they could make more money from books and pamphlets and fame than from getting together and hammering out details. At the time Angell wrote, there were no electronic media, so that books, the press, and the free press were the equivalent of preachers and political pamphleteers. And of course as Belloc pointed out, many points of view were censored by the usual processes.
[ Top of page ]
Arguably the first modern pacifist book was Tolstoy's War and Peace (completed 1869), dealing with the Napoleonic Wars and of course the French and others invading Russia. Tolstoy of course had no idea bout the Jewish underpinning of Napoleon; I don't think there's a single Jew in his vast novel.
1889 saw the publication of Baroness von Suttner's 'Die Waffen Nieder' a fictional autobiographical story of 'Martha von Tilling'. As far as I know it was translated into English in 1908 as 'Lay Down Your Arms!'. 1908 seems to have been the publication date of another book on war and peace, 'The Great Illusion' . H N Brailsford wrote that not since Paine and Cobbett had there been a pamphlet that so 'riveted the attention of a continent'. It's possible this publicity reflected Jewish attitudes at the time: the 1903 war of Japan on Russia, financed by Jews, had not been a great success. Jewish assassins had regular kills, but the results, again, were not encouraging to them. Belloc said: 'The immeasurable catastrophe of the war—with which the Jews had nothing to do and which their more important financial representatives did all they could to prevent—fell upon Europe.' Belloc didn't know about, or perhaps didn't notice, the founding of the 'Fed' in 1913, though he did understand war profits made by Jews.
One thesis of this review is that Jews, before 1914, stated, or claimed, or protested, that they opposed war in Europe. (The rest of the world, such as China and India and South Africa, was of course liable to pillage). Angell was part of this unlikely claim, and his book was an unsound attempt to debunk warlike ideas. However, after the war and the Russian coup d'état against Russia, Jews gained more practical experience of mass deaths, and, funded by The Federal Reserve and backed by immense Jewish-run propaganda, came more and more to favour war. By 1938, they were very keen for others to fight their wars and die, and Angell follows this pattern precisely. His 1938 book is a tissue of weak analogies and badly-argued bit and pieces; the 1908 edition is much more uncertain.
It's very much worth noting Angell's complete absence of feeling for victims, the dead, the massacred, and so on: his entire world is finance, money in circulation, and trade. I suspect this accounts for much of the impact of Angell's book: a large part of the then-education system was descriptive material on wars and empires. Caesar's wars, the Trojan Wars, Agincourt, medieval battles, the glories of Nelson, wars in Africa such as the Ashanti war (1874), flag-wagging, and so on. Many people thought that style of education was wonderful: the late Hugh Trevor-Roper (renamed Lord Dacre) believed, astoundingly to me, that it was the ideal education for public schoolboys with empires to run. The attitude that it's sordid to talk about money when discussing the glories of war must have clashed at a profound level with Angell's work. Both views paid little attention to casualties—and, for officers on the heavily-armed side, this made sense. Angell's popular examination of war as something to be explained rationally looked, at the time, like a breakthrough in economic determinism, weakening the great generals and decisive battles theory. It must have been comparable in influence to J A Hobson's Imperialism (1902), which was obviously fired by the Second Boer War. Hobson was about fifteen years older than both H N Brailsford and Angell.
I suggest enthusiasm in the press, which of course was largely Jewish, was a sigh of relief at Angell heading off awkward questions about Jews, South African gold and diamonds, opium, and dead soldiers and Africans. Brailsford's War of Steel and Gold postdates The Great Illusion by about six years, and although it is in many ways, as the title suggests, a more realistic book, it did not mention Jews either. 1900-1914 saw some analysis of Jewish power, but it remained suppressed and unnoticed, rather like early opponents of the Roman Catholic Church. It's fair to say there was no general theory of war and peace.
Angell seemed to be a pacifist, and his name was associated with pacifism, but as far as I know no critic realised Angell was part of the concealment of Jewish aims. I may be wrong here; it's likely his name was circulated amongst the few published commentators on Jews, but their works were circulated more or less secretly, could only be reproduced by copying, and never reviewed in the large-scale media. My evidence for his pro-Jewishness is partly that no coherent view emerges: he is difficult to review because of this, so forgive my rather unsuccessful attempt to summarise his morass of half-truths.
Angell was advertised as an analyst of war and peace, like Hobson in Imperialism, or a non-technical Lewis Fry Richardson. He complained of being misquoted for over quarter of a century by newspapers, as the 'man who proved war is impossible'. Mechanised warfare was an increasingly obvious menace, even to the most hard-hearted, just as mechanised production and distribution raised new human issues. But, just as the British Labour Party appeared to be serious in tackling work-related issues (but is now, with its record in supporting genocides, mass population transfers, forced race mixing, paedophilia and other evils, clearly seen as a fake) so the pacifists turned out to be a series of intellectual mirage-peddlers. In each case, people concerned about the future were duped, and their time wasted. But they did little.
Angell and Events Following 1914
[ Top of page ]
The first part of the book (about 100 pages; about half the total) is Angell's comment on his earlier book, and on the state of the world in 1938. His nominal intention is prove he was right thirty years earlier, and presumably therefore a valuable commentator in 1938. (The jacket says 'His forecast [of war and insecurity], and his reasons, then regarded as preposterous, have been verified in every particular.') Let's try to examine this impressive claim.
At the start of his book, Angell says In 1914 we [sic] entered war which was to vindicate the rights of small nations (... Serbia ... Belgium...); to remove the menace of Prussian militarism; to end war; to make the world safe for democracies; to make this and other free countries [sic] secure from aggression, and place their economic life on safe foundations. Readers may remember the object of the Second World War was supposedly to come to the assistance of Poland—a war aim immediately dropped when Stalin invaded Poland, and clearly not the aim of war: in fact, the Second World War was to defeat Germany completely, strengthen Stalin, and remove non-US empires, leaving Jews in control. Similarly, we don't have to take Angell's comment very seriously; not only is there no source for it, and not only are there multiple war aims, of which 'war to end war' was a slogan by H G Wells invented only after the war was started. Below is H G Wells on war aims; he was in charge of propaganda in Germany, and presumably knew what happened. Wells had no idea that Jews had any issues. He was baffled by the War Office's refusal to state war aims. But it's clear now that the war aims would not have been acceptable to large numbers of people. The aim to 'place their economic life on safe foundations' presumably means Jewish capital, which the 1913 Fed established as a new factor in modern life. So Angell starts immediately with dishonesty.
Events after 1914 are treated from a pro-Jew viewpoint. The introduction of conscription, when after a gung-ho interval young men realised they would die at the front, is not mentioned. The withdrawal of gold currency and the replacement paper ('Bradbury pound'; in Germany, Rentenmark) is not mentioned. Nor is the Bryce Report, a solemnly promoted series of atrocity story lies aimed against Germany. Nor is the German peace offer of 1916. Nor is Balfour's 'Declaration' on Israel: see below for Balfour speaking in 1920 with his 'assured indolence' (H G Wells), and infantile Biblical viewpoint, and the machinations to get the USA into the war. Nor the shipping bait deliberately offered for Germany to sink. Nor the sea blockade, and German starvation.
And that's just the wartime period: Angell calls the USSR 'Russia', a common deception at the time, as it was under Jewish control both within and from money controllers outside. The murder of the Tsar's family is not mentioned. The USSR's Jewish money, paid via Lenin and others to foreign companies for weapons and so on, is not mentioned. New York Jews declaration of economic war against Germany, Hitler's opinions, the Great Depression and all the rest go unmentioned.
Should Britain's government have declared war on Germany? An interesting possibility (not in Angell) is that Britain might have remained neutral, not declaring war on Germany. After all, Napoleon had invaded the German territories a century before; the Germans fought back sixty years later; Europe had had many wars; why bother about Germany? This was Bertrand Russell's view. But there had of course been a very long preparatory propaganda campaign in Britain against Russia and Germany, the media then (before radio, before TV) being printed, and with some material from speeches, music hall songs and popular education. Here's a comment from Bertrand Russell written about forty years after the 'Great War': '.. the consequences of a German victory in the First War would have been ... less deplorable than the consequences of our victory. ... militarism has steadily increased since 1918. ... democracy has steadily diminished. ... it was followed by an even worse war.' But, as I say, this option is ignored by Angell.
A Note on Angell's Writing Style and Claim to Clarity
[ Top of page ]
Readers who take an interest in Jewish deconstruction will be aware that Jewish writings are generally rambling, confused, and lacking in focus. It's easy to see why: if a writer's aim is to say anything which he/she's been told is in the interest of Jews, it is not likely to appeal to anyone else. Hence the wheedling irresponsible irreleventsia of most Jewish writings. Chomsky, Sontag, Derrida, Freud, and endless media nonentities illustrate the process. A related aspect is the repetition of lies, something recommended by Jewish traditional books. Repetition of approved memes, and omission of other memes, gives many Jewish writers a similar flavour to each other, as they recount the same tired material, singing from the same handouts. Their natural dullness seems to rule out anything original. Even when they do troll, spam, and distractionary work, they don't seem able to do more than ransack the world for old ideas—Jewish spam sites are full of Jesuits, Illuminati, ridiculous anecdotes about Germans, fantasy stories about ill-treatment, hollow or flat earth ideas, endless repeats of slang words, discredited junk of all types.
[Here's a shortish footnote from Angell (p. 190) which amused me as being incomprehensible, because of assumptions made: A Bill has been introduced into the Indian Legislative Council enabling the Government to prohibit emigration to any country where the treatment accorded to British Indian subjects was not such as met with the approval of the Governor-General. "As just treatment for free Indians has not been secured," says The Times, "prohibition will undoubtedly be applied against Natal unless the position of free Indians there is ameliorated." —you can say that again!]
Angell was 'boomed' (Belloc's and others' word for 'hype') freely. The Penguin cover absurdly states HIS BOOK HAS STOOD THE TEST OF THIRTY YEARS OF CRITICISM AND OF EVENTS. Around page 21 Angell plaintively describes how he tried to persuade everyone of the truth of his views.
Angell and his promoters took pains to assure the reader that Angell is a crystal clear writer, though they are less clear why this lucidity should need hundreds of pages of exposition. Tucked away near the end of his 1938 material (p. 106) is this comment: 'Hardly a critic dealing with this book but refers to its clarity and simplicity.' He gives no examples, unsurprisingly perhaps in view of his tedious style. And in his original book we find something similar, worth quoting from:
(Pages 136-139) ... complete exposure of the fallacy .. repose[s] .. upon the simplest statement of the plainest facts in the economic life of Europe.. points 1 to 6. Angell claims that only six plain, simple facts are needed to understand his thesis of illusion, 'verified in every particular'. Here they are (edited down; remember they were written around 1908, before the 'Great War')–
•  An extent of devastation, even approximating to that which Mr. [Frederic] Harrison [in a letter to the Times] foreshadows, as the result of the conquest of Great Britain, could only be inflicted by an invader as a means of punishment costly to himself, or, as the result of an unselfish and expensive desire to inflict misery for the mere joy of inflicting it. Since trade depends upon the existence of natural wealth and a population capable of working it, an invader cannot "utterly destroy it" except by destroying the population, which is not practicable. if he could destroy the population, he would thereby destroy his own market, actual or potential, which would be commercially suicidal. ...
•  If an invasion by Germany did involve, as Mr Harrison and those who think with him say it would, the "total collapse of the Empire, our trade, and the means of feeding forty millions in these islands ... the disturbance of capital and destruction of credit," German capital would, because of the internationalization and interdependence of modern finance, and so of trade and industry, also disappear in large part, German credit also collapse; ...
•  For allied reasons the exaction of tribute from a conquered people in our day has become an economic impossibility; the exaction of a large indemnity so difficult and so costly directly and indirectly as to be an extremely disadvantageous operation.
•  For reasons of a like nature ... it is a physical and economic impossibility to capture the external or carrying trade of another nation by military conquest. ... if Germany conquered Holland, German merchants would still have to meet the competition of the Dutch... the notion that the trade competition of rivals can be disposed of by conquering those rivals being one of the illustrations of the curious optical illusion which lies behind the misconception dominating this subject.
•  'The wealth, prosperity and well-being of a nation depend in no way upon its military power, otherwise we should find the commercial prosperity and the economic well-being of the smaller nations, which exercise no such power, manifestly below that of the great nations which control Europe, whereas this is not the case. ... Not only the question of the security of small States, which, it might be urged, is due to treaties of neutrality, is here involved, but the question of whether military power can be turned in a positive sense to economic advantage.' (Pages 207ff) Angell's explanation of Holland, Sweden and so being rich per head doesn't explain why they are left alone; Angell doesn't consider why they aren't simply looted. Angell does seem to recognise that the steppes of Russia or vast plains are hard to defend, which may have something to do with lack of big settlements. Angell doesn't seem to realise building towns and communities is expensive and must incur a long risky interval.
•  No other nation could gain material advantage by the conquest of the British Colonies, and Great Britain could not suffer material damage by their "loss," however much such "loss" would be regretted on sentimental grounds, and as rendering less easy a certain useful social co-operation between kindred peoples. The use of the word "loss" is misleading. Great Britain does not "own" her Colonies. They are, in fact, independent nations in alliance with the Mother Countries.
Analytical Material Missing from Angell
[ Top of page ]
As can be seen from his six principles, Angell has no fully abstract statements. This of course is in full accordance with Jewish verbal outlook, which usually relies on silly tricks, and has only one object, namely to support what are thought by the simple to be Jewish interests. For example, someone might consider countries A and B, and the effects on them of war with C. How much men and materiel could be expected to be lost on both sides A and B, and to what aim? Would this benefit onloooker C? Or try to analyse out the need for physical objects. Or analyse types of weapons, and see what effects might be predicted if (say) defence gets stronger, or attack gets stronger. Or decide what exactly is meant by 'wealth'. Or by 'finance' and 'interest'. Or the needs for raw materials. Or the conditions in which one group is strong enough to profit from another group.
Angell does seem aware of such a need: at the extreme end of his pre-First War book he says, correctly, a new science is needed, of International Polity, the science of the political relationship of human groups. Implicitly he admits to being unable to contribute.
Angell's six points are hard to criticise well, because they are at different logical levels and in any case don't fit together or make a complete theory.
•  Comments on physical destruction, which varies with technical 'progress'. The Jewish myth of 'nuclear weapons' in 1945 or 1946 made this seem out of date; in any case, when it was written, high payload bombing planes were in the future.
•  Wonders about the collapse of the British Empire, but all Angell says is that credit would be interrupted, as though that's the most important thing. If it is in fact important, maybe because things essential to both sides are essential, he doesn't prove it.
•  The 'exaction of a large indemnity' proved difficult with Germany, partly because the amounts were miscalculated. (See Keynes 'Economic Consequences of the Peace' on the value of ores, and commentators on the total amount of gold in the world). On the other hand, 'exaction' by central banks have proved extremely rigid and durable.
•  Looks at trade competitors. It's well-known that there were disputes over tariffs and trade, even to the point of threatening wars. So presumably 'trade competition of rivals' can in fact be affected by military means.
•  Claims the wealth of a nation depends 'in no way upon its military power', giving such examples as Belgium and Switzerland. A serious investigation might correlate wealth and military power across the world. And back in time, for that matter. Is there 'in no way' any connection?
•  Says British colonies are independent; I think he says this to pretend the Boer War did not benefit Jews, who owned the new gold and diamond mines, but military power was an essential step; Angell prefers to pretend the mines came into being autonomously. He writes (pp 192-3) that after the Boer War the gold mines 'are owned by shareholders', and pretends that military power was irrelevant!
[Pages 206-7 have another five points, on conquests, expanding populations, and large groups as opposed to many smaller groups. He compares north America with many Indian tribes with total populations in 1908, absurdly ignoring technical issues. I haven't included this material, but it shows the same pattern as his six points, i.e. selectively picking bits and pieces]
Omissions For a fairly hefty book, Angell's factual omissions include the Monroe Doctrine and its affects on the entire western hemisphere; steel and oil; canals, and air power, and earlier transport systems. The American Civil War is omitted, despite the fact that at the time it was one of the largest recent wars, with financial implications. So is explanation of the Franco-Prussian War. The war of Japan on Russia in 1903 is unmentioned; so is the fact it was financed by Jews. Another oddity is that Hitlerism is there, but not Mussolini, although Mussolini was widely considered at the time to be more 'charismatic' than Hitler.
Another highly significant omission is the detail of weaponry and manpower; the sheer cost, which, in view of the primacy Angell gives to costs, needs explanation. In the 1908 book, there's detail on reparations made after Franco-Prussian War, and the (presumed) effects on Germany and France; payments from Europe to U.S.A.; Agadir incident; Boer War. Angell is very careful to ignore war profits. Another oddity is omission of Jean Renoir's 1937 film 'La Grande Illusion'—I'd guess because Jews wanted France to fight for them, rather than be neutral or pacifist.
A difficult-to-judge omission is general history. The Norman Conquest is an obvious example. Angell shies away from discussing its effects. He does talk about the heptarchy in England, and 10th century Vikings. He mentions the 'Grand Design of Henry IV - 'perfect save no earthly prince would agree to it'. He has no overview at all of India and the British Empire: Good? Bad? A mess? So Angell's implicit claim to a sort of general-purpose overview fails.
For reference, here's a contents list summary of The Great Illusion - Now:
PART I: THE GREAT ILLUSION, 1938
RELEVANCE OF THE BOOK TO PRESENT PROBLEMS
PART II THE GREAT ILLUSION, 1908-14 [Pp 115-282. In larger type than the rest of the book, suggesting the type hadn't been reset. Edited-out sections not marked]
I ECONOMICS AND THE MORAL CASE FOR WAR | II THE ACCEPTED AXIOMS | III THE GREAT ILLUSION | IV THE NEW WORLD AND THE OLD POLITICS | V FOREIGN TRADE AND MILITARY POWER | VI HOW COLONIES ARE OWNED | VII THE INDEMNITY FUTILITY | VIII CONQUEST AND THE POPULATION QUESTION | IX "BUT SOME PROFIT BY WAR" | X HUMAN NATURE AND HUMAN INSTITUTIONS | XI FAITH, FORCE AND THE WORLD'S ORDER | XII WHAT MAKES US FIGHT? AND NEED WE? | XIII CONCLUSIONS
PART III THE VERDICT OF THE EVENTS/ THE FINAL MORAL [Pp 277-282]
Dubious Material Present in Angell
[ Top of page ]
I'll try to list questionable material to be found in Angell. That is, assumptions he made, many of them common newspaper currency at the time, which nevertheless are of doubtful truth. Many of these memes persisted for many years, and probably many of them will be recognised by readers.
• (Pages 127-134 or 100-114 in the 1908 edition) 'The Accepted Axioms'. This chapter consists of a long list of extracts from books, articles and letters taken from British and German writers, none of them historians or technical experts. The writers are all male; they all omit the US Civil War, the then-recent war of Japan on Russia, even France and Napoleon. They are full of survival stuff, need to fight, importance of navy etc. Certainly the impression is they simply have no serious overview. Because newspapers have some cachet, a bit like the residual feeling that the BBC is worth listening to, newspaper clipping books were popular at the time. The then-equivalent of sound bites or Internet comments. But as analytical material they are not usually of much value.
• Weaknesses of democracy: Angell maintains time after time democracies override experts and make mistakes because of their passions. As far as I could find, he gives not one example. Probably this was a typically Jewish attitude; they didn't feel part of any democracy. Page 104: '... the voting millions who do not hesitate ... to over-ride the specialist or expert..' Really?
• (page 89) The 'transfer difficulty', '.. goods and services ... difficult to transfer to the creditor [i.e. victor] without financial and economic dislocations..' Angell only considers goods and services. He omits things like slave labour, raw materials, such land as Greek islands, historical treasures, prostitution, constant repeated payments (e.g. Danegeld, though Angell seems not to know about this), slave labour, cash crops for little money (e.g. grain extorted from Ukrainia by Jews in the USSR). Page 145: '... military conquest ... cannot involve a transfer of property from one group of owners to another..' is taken from the pre-war book. I wonder if he changed his mind after Balfour announced the Declaration with its Rothschild link?
• 'Britain can't feed itself' was a popular meme at the time. True? False?—Angell has no evidence
• (Page 216) Angell says (in effect) that international finance has an interest in stability. From the point of trade, this may be true, but even before 1914 the were obvious possibilities in controlling money to cause depressions, funding wars—as should have been obvious from Napoleon. Angell was unaware of, or a distraction from, the manipulation of money itself.
• (Page 243) Angell says that if a state conquers another for (e.g.) warm water access etc, then irredentism invariably follows. (I.e. demand that it be given back). Angell's example is Ireland, at the time part of Britain. But why should that always apply?
• Angell has a very dishonest argument about 'dumping': he states that if food etc were stolen, and taken Viking-style back to Britain, and dumped on the market, "we" would complain. This of course assumes the demand is already met. In fact, gems from India, tea, chocolate, silver, mercury, coal stolen from anywhere can add directly to national wealth, just as a household of thieves enriches itself by theft of almost anything.
• (Page 252 example) Angell assumes, or pretends to assume, everyone's the same: he evinces no knowledge of Talmudic Jewish anti-white hate. He assumes, or pretends, that civilisation is permanent. Two typical quotations are: 'At one time [in history] we want to eat our enemies, to burn heretics, kill our neighbours in duels, burn negroes'. '.. our forbears regarded as .. right .. human sacrifices, slavery, polygamy, autocracy, judicial torture, the duel'. (p. 271) This of course is a tempting line: many people accept whatever happens in their time. At the time Angell wrote his revised edition, Jews in the USSR had murdered and enslaved and tortured tens of millions.
• Angell seems to have no doubt that a people are represented by their government. He doesn't point out (at least in his 1908 edition) that 'government' can be a synonym for oppression. In view of Jewish comments on the Russian Tsardom, this seems odd; probably the ambition of Jews to displace them accounts for Angell's myopia. • Angell looks at the 'human nature' argument (p 225). However, he has no analysis: what if one group can easily overpower another? What about propaganda: Angell believes in spontaneous swings in the public mood, the country becoming excited, calls for this and that, and seems to be unaware of long-term propaganda campaigns backed by money, such as Jews specialise in. But would Britons have wanted to fight Germany without years of propaganda? After many centuries, the Jewish attitude has permeated deeply. But Angell does not consider anything of this sort. he also looks at the Avarice and Greed theory (pp. 92-3), though, again, not in depth.
• Angell is tiresomely dishonest about colonisation. He quotes a letter in a newspaper stating that's it's surely obvious that Japan could benefit from gaining control of New Zealand and other territories, and the navy prevents 'her' from doing so. A good test of Angell's work, theoretical and not too personal. But Angell's reply deals only with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and even there he treats it as an area to plant Japanese populations in competition with the local Chinese. Angell simply has no overarching theory, with an obviously correct remark which settles the matter. The question about New Zealand was ignored.
Changes in 1938 Edition of Angell's 'The Grand Illusion'
[ Top of page ]
As would be expected, looking back, Angell takes the Jewish side. He wants war, but has to pretend he's being cautious. His book is part of the entire propaganda push for Churchill to start bombing.
• He branches into a discussion of 'Nationalism' which is undefined. Topics include e.g. the hypocrisy of Poles over Ukrainia, and Germans over parts of Poland, and Italians over Tyrol etc. No mention of Jews. However, there is a meme which writers of the time often quote, namely that Nationalists in one nation are opposed to Nationalists in another nation. Nationalism leads to war! So nationalism is evil. This is a common theme among Jews. Page 94: '... if there were no sovereign nations, we could not have international war...' Is it true? Well, maybe. But maybe wars were fomented by Jewish money and promises?
• Psychology of encirclement: Angell recognises that 'Germany must feel "encircled in iron"..'. The Soviet Union after WW2 claimed it felt 'encircled' though we now know the nuclear aspect was Jewish-run, and deliberately invented. Angell has no way to analyse the problem of bases dotted around the world.
• Page 26 gives Angell's views on the 'need for close co-operation with Russia'. (Meaning Stalin's USSR). '... [I]t is patently impossible to create a balance of forces in Europe which can meet the totalitarian challenge without Russia'. This is pro-Jewish, of course. Angell simply ignores mass murders in the USSR, and even pretends it is not 'totalitarian'.
• Angell also perhaps spills the beans about China: (p 26) '... aid to the governments of China and Spain engaged in resisting totalitarian invaders..' suggesting that China in addition to Spain of the 'Civil War' were subject to Jewish intervention.
Conversely, Angell did
• Page 29: Angell talks about the 'Left'. At this time, Angell takes up the idea that the German NSDAP was 'right wing'. On balance Jews in Britain preferred to keep Labour voters deceived about Germany, presumably because they would be needed to fight and die.
Another Gollancz book in my possession is Harold J. Laski's Faith, Reason and Civilisation - An Essay in Historical Analysis (1944, with a preface written in 1943 from a small English village, Little Bardfield). It is a typically dull book. A small point of interest is a mention of J M Robertson's History of Free Thought and Christianity as 'binding' men. Another small point is that he discussed matters with 'Mr and Mrs Sidney Webb', though Beatrice Webb was dead by the time this book was published, and Sidney Webb (or whatever his real name was) had been made 'Lord Passfield' more or less fifteen years earlier. The book leaves a strange impression: Laski has the Jewish outlook that Jews alone matter; and his book omits any possibility that the war then raging could be anything other than necessary and anything other than a struggle of immense heroism against huge odds. It is psychopathological. Its strength is that to uninformed people—and wartime censorship ensured that was very many people indeed—it sounds utterly convincing. There is no instinctive evolved defence against lies of this sort in any artificial medium; defence has to be learned. It is entirely possible that Jewish evolution over time has bred a collective tribe of pathological actors. I'll quote a few passages browsed from the book:
Finished version first upload 2015-01-24 to 28. Top of Page