rerevisionist's reviews split screen ABOUT 400 REVIEWS BY 'REREVISIONIST' FOLLOW.
I made the decision to group these together, rather than have individual files. Many reviews were written to remind me of the contents of the works, not for emotional impact. They are not carefully sorted, in the hope that mutual ideas may suggest themselves.
v. 15 November 2017 20:40

IF YOU HAVE A LARGE SCREEN, AND IF YOU LIKE AN EASY CLICK INDEX (Picture, right): then click here ONCE to load it.
Then click on the menu (left pane) to choose reviews (right pane).
*May not display well with small screens* | *Backspace if you get more than one menu!* | *May take time to load fully!*

Authors and titles are grouped loosely by revisionist categories, highlit in yellow directly below.
Some (not all) reviews removed by amazon.com and/or amazon.co.uk are marked «ban 
(These bans predate Amazon's March 2017 banning of Holohoax books).
[ Back to main site big-lies.org ]


Click for collections below: TV, FILM, MUSIC, CRITS | BOOKS | MAGAZINES | REVISIONIST SCIENCE | NON-FICTION | SCIENCE | REVISIONISM | ECONOMICS | RACE, MIGRATION, CIVILISATION | CHRISTIANITY | JEWS, MUSLIMS | 'HUMAN RIGHTS', POLICE, CRIME | PROPAGANDA | SPIES | EDUCATION | WOMEN | WARS | FRANKFURT SCHOOL | BERTRAND RUSSELL | RICHARD DAWKINS | HISTORY | GEOGRAPHY, CITIES | BIOGRAPHY   OBITUARIES
AUDIO-VISUAL MEDIA   Media reviews have been mostly moved here together (to save space)
TV   Ali-G, Borat, Dictator etc | Apprentice (UK) | BBC Crime 'Drama' | Downton Abbey «ban  | Harris: Fatherland | National Treasure | Sherlock | Strictly Come Dancing | Peter Ustinov: Planet Ustinov | War and Peace |
Music   Flanders & Swann CDs |
Films, DVDs   10 Rillington Place | Atomic Testing 3DVDs «ban  | Nuclear 'Ultimate' Weapons 2 DVDs | Mel Gibson: Apocalypto | Das Boot | Nicholson: Bucket List | Capricorn One | Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them | The Fourth Protocol | Girl with the Dragon Tattoo | Gorky Park | Intruder «ban  | Lord of the Rings | Hobbit Movie | Last Orders «ban  | Dylan Tour 1966 DVD | Remember Me | A Single Man | The Sound of Music | Willis: Die Hard - Vengeance | Dennis Wise's Greatest Story Never Told | The Big Short and Inglorious Basterds | Pink Floyd: The Wall | Withnail & I | The World is Not Enough «ban 
'Newspapers'   New Day «2016 failed Jewspaper
Books about BBC   Robin Aitken: Can We Trust the BBC? | Asa Briggs: Broadcasting in UK History | John Cole: As It Seemed To Me | Dyke: Inside Story | Clive James | Naughtie: New Elizabethans | Ian McIntyre: Life of John Reith | Whitehouse: Ban This Filth! |
Books about Media   Dirk Bogarde: For the Time Being | Michael Caine: What's It All About | Bob Dylan: on Dylan | Carla Lane: Autobiography | Nick Mason: Pink Floyd | Robertson & Nicol: Media Law «ban 
Revisionist Notes on Media   Jewish Propaganda UK 1908-1948 | Some notes on 'Jews' in media | Edmund Connelly: Jew-aware film critic
GENERAL BOOKS Amis: The Alteration«ban | Barrowcliffe: Elfish Gene | Alan Bennett: Untold Stories | Craig Brown: Lost Diaries«ban | Jackie Clune: Man of the Month | Gee: Ice People | Jacqueline Gold: Good Vibrations | Isherwood: Mr Norris Changes Trains«ban | J K Jerome: Three Men | Ann Oakley: ...Eden«ban  | Gordon Ramsay: Humble Pie«ban | Rutherfurd: Sarum | Snow: Corridors of Power | Rendell: Road Rage | A N Wilson: Bottle | Wyndham: Midwich Cuckoos«ban
MAGAZINES Fabulous Furry Freaks | Candour | CHARLIE-HEBDO | English Heritage | Ethical Record of South Place Ethical Society/ Conway Hall | Freedom Today | Freethinker Magazine | Heritage & Destiny | Instauration 1975-2000 | Mensa | Private Eye
SCIENCE POPULISTS vs REVISIONISTS
René: NASA mooned America | Chaikin: Full Moon«ban | Bernard Lovell: Jodrell Bank | Patrick Moore: 80 Not Out«ban | Eatherly: (bogus) Hiroshima Pilot«ban | Oppenheimer: Crises for Physicists | Couper & Henbest: Planets«ban | Jungk: Thousand Suns | Osada: Children of A Bomb | Harold Hillman: Living Cell | Wendy Moore: John Hunter | Kelly: Black Death | Brackman: Darwin & A R Wallace | Zuckerman: Nuclear Illusion | Petr Skrabanek: Follies in Medicine | Ellison: War on AIDS | Hodgkinson: AIDS | Barrow: Universe | Richard Rhodes: Atomic Bomb | Rucker: Infinity | Nuclear Weapons 2 DVDs | Pringle & Spigelman: Nuclear Barons | Bjorn Lomborg: Skeptical Environmentalist | Mairowitz: [Wilhelm] Reich | Weale: Swastika & Science | Dennett: Designing Minds | Wilson: On Human Nature
MORE NON-FICTION
Hilaire Belloc: The Party System | Melvyn Bragg: Twelve Books | Richard Branson: Business Stripped Bare | Yvonne Burgess: Myth of Progress«ban | Ivor Catt: The Catt Concept - Industrial Darwinism | Chomsky: Backroom Boys«ban | Chomsky: America's Quest for Global Dominance | Dalrymple: In Praise of Prejudice | Dalrymple: Junk Medicine & the Addiction Bureaucracy (2007) | Malcolm Gladwell: Thinking Without Thinking | Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Democracy: The God that Failed | Hamilton-Paterson: Empire of the Clouds | Mark Jones: Fake? Art of Deception | David C. McClelland: The Achieving Society | James H Meisel: Gaetano Mosca and the Elite | P H Nowell-Smith: Ethics | John Pilger: Distant Voices | Madsen Pirie: How to Win Every Argument | Fiona Pitt-Kethley: Pan Principle | Simon Singh: History of Codes & Code-breaking | Martin Gardner | Ian Stewart: Mathematical Curiosities«ban | Wells Open Conspiracy | H.G. Wells: Complete Short Stories | Wells Mind .. Tether | Francis Wheen: Mumbo-Jumbo ... Modern Delusions«ban | Richard G. Wilkinson: Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger | Raymond Williams: Keywords
REVISIONISM: JEWS, HISTORY, MONEY
Berkeley: National Government 1931 | Tom Reilly: Cromwell | Carlyle: French Revolution | Hobsbawm: Extremes 1914-1991 | Hobsbawm: Revolution 1789-1848 | Wise: Hitler Greatest Story NEVER told video | Irving: Uprising! | Peter James: Centuries of Darkness | Peter James: Atlantis Solved | Lane: Alien Menace«ban new | Looney: Shakespeare Identified | Ogburn: William Shakespeare | Robertson: Captain Cook | Gerrard Winstanley | Hensman: Rich Against Poor (1971) | Arthur Kemp: Apartheid & Southern Africa | Buchanan: Churchill, Hitler, Unnecessary War | Allen: Buddha and India's Lost Religion | Wood: Marco Polo | C N Parkinson: Left Luggage | A. R. Butz: Hoax of the 20th Century | Bradley Smith: Holocaust Revisionist | Metapedia | John Bean: Blood in the Square | Cobain: Cruel Britannia |
ECONOMICS
Astle: Babylonian Woe | Richard Branson: Business Stripped Bare | Eamonn Fingleton: Hard Industries | Freakonomics | Hensman: Rich Against Poor (1971) | History of England Plagiarism | F. J. Irsigler: Who Makes Our Money? | Kiyosaki: Rich Dad, Poor Dad | Manser: Britain in Balance | Dambisa Mboyo: Dead Aid - another way for Africa«ban | Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists | Cyril Northcote Parkinson: The Law and the Profits | Robert Peston: Who Runs Britain?«ban | Veblen: Theory of the Leisure Class«ban
RACE, ANTI-WHITE IMMIGRATION, CIVILISATIONS
L Stoddard: San Domingo | J R Baker: Race | C D Darlington: Evolution of Man and Society | David Duke: My Awakening«ban | Livingstone: If Voting Changed Anything..«ban | Millard: Homeless Jack | Wayne Macleod: Race in Civilization | Quigley: Civilizations | E Pendell: Why Civilizations Self-Destruct | K J B Rose Associates: British Race Relations«ban | J P Rushton: Race, Evolution, Behavior | Herrnstein & Murray: Bell Curve | Conway: Demographic History of Britain«ban | Arthur Kemp: Immigration Invasion | Buchanan: Third World Invasion | John H Griffin: Black Like Me | Patrick West: Poverty of Multiculturalism | Myles Harris: UK Asylum Policy | Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf
'ABRAHAMIC' RELIGIONS & THEIR CONFLICTS: JEWS, CHRISTIANS, MOSLEMS   Reviews of Jews, Christians, Moslems and interactions moved here (to save space)
Blasphemy Laws in UK | Blunt: Dictionary of Sects | G R Elton: Reformation Europe«ban | Freethinker Magazine | Erich Fromm: Art of Loving | Hitchcock: Synagogue of Satan | Julian the Apostate | Joseph McCabe: Rationalist Encyclopaedia | Robertson: Jesus: Myth or History? | J. L. Allen: Opus Dei | Wheless: Forgery in Christianity (Entire book) | Bella Dodd: School of Darkness | Karen Armstrong: Islam«ban | Cohn: Genocide | Hilaire Belloc: Belinda | Hilaire Belloc: Jews | Dahlberg: Race, Reason, Rubbish | Ludovici: Jews | Malcolm Muggeridge: Moscow | Cecil Roth: Jewish Contribution«ban | Britton: Behind Communism | K. B. MacDonald: Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism | K. B. MacDonald: Culture of Critique [Jews in 20th Century Movements] | Furedi: Imperialism.. Moral Imperative«ban | P Findley: Confront Israel's Lobby | Goffman: Stigma«ban | Wistrich: Antisemitism (& Birdwood) | Reston: Defeat of the Moors | Arthur Kemp: Islam's 1,300 Year War | Milton: Islam's Million White Slaves | Melanie Phillips: Londonistan | C Caldwell: Immigration, Islam«ban | C Cox & J Marks: Is Ideological Islam Compatible with Liberal Democracy?«ban | Hanif Kureishi: The Word and the Bomb«ban | McHattie: Templars | H G Wells: Jewish Influence
LEGAL, POLICE, CRIME, 'RIGHTS'
Grayling: Struggles for Liberty & Rights | Baker: Putney Debates | Hain: Political trials in Britain«ban | Koestler: Hanged by the Neck«ban | Best: War & Law since 1945 | Dennis et al: Racist Murder, Pressure Groups«ban | Dennis: Policing Four Nations | Colin Flaherty: White Girl Bleed a Lot | Cawthorne: Massacres by Gunmen | McLagan: Guns & Gangs | R. A. Posner: The Economics of Justice
PROPAGANDA, PSYCHOLOGY
Jewish Book Propaganda 1908-1948. Left Book Club, Penguin Books | Trotter: Herd in peace and war | Bernays: Propaganda«ban | Belloc: Free Press | Raymond Cattell: Analysis of Personality«ban | A Cohen: Attitude Change«ban | Eysenck & Kamin: Battle for the Mind | Paul Kline: Psychology Exposed | Derren Brown: Mind Tricks | Derren Brown: Houdini on Deception | Noam Chomsky: Spectacular Propaganda | Anon: Mindbenders Control of the mass media | Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman: Manufacturing Consent
SPIES
Wright: Spycatcher | R. J. Aldrich: GCHQ: The Uncensored Story«ban | Stella Rimington: At Risk«ban | Le Carre: Tinker Tailor DVD«ban | Forsyth: Fourth Protocol DVD | Buchan: 39 Steps |
EDUCATION
Jews | Coleman & McNee: Great Reading Disaster | J C Holt: How Children Fail | R. W. Whitaker: Why Johnny Can't Think | Ed. R. Whelan: Corruption of the Curriculum | Pullan: University of Manchester, 1973-90 | Mabbott: Oxford | Hilton: Mr Chips
WOMEN
J Robinson: First Women to Fight for an Education | V Nicholson: Two Million Women without Men | S Rowbotham: Women in Britain & the US 20th Century | Naomi Wolf: Beauty Myth«ban | L Dominelli: Anti-Racist Social Work | Kate Hudson: CND | Melanie Jarman: Climate Change | Bibi van der Zee: Protestors Handbook«ban | Brownmiller: Rape | Mother Teresa | Esther Vilar: The Manipulated Man | Webb: Suffragette Terrorism | Ann Oakley: ...Eden«ban  | Gee: Ice People
WORLD WARS KOREA VIETNAM IRAQ
Simpson: Lusitania | Angell: The Great Illusion | Raymond Challinor: Struggle for Hearts and Minds | Clark: Sleepwalkers 1914 | 'George Orwell': Homage to Catalonia«ban | Orwell: 1984 | Docherty & Macgregor: Hidden History.. First World War | A J P Taylor: Origins of the Second World War«ban | Clough: The Kent-Wolkoff Affair | Joachim Hoffmann: Stalin's War of Extermination, 1941-1945 | James Bacque: German Civilians 1944-1950 | Laurence Rees: The 'Final Solution' | David Irving: Churchill's War part 2 | Bertrand Russell: War Crimes in Vietnam | Against the Crime of Silence: Russell International War Crimes Tribunal | Hans Blix: Disarming Iraq | Kate Hudson: CND
FRANKFURT SCHOOL (Sex, race, drugs, dependency, injustice, noneducation, EU, Common Purpose)
E. P. Thompson: English Working Class | Engels: Communist Manifesto | R Simon: Gramsci's Political Thought | Barrows Dunham: Man Against Myth | L Dominelli: Anti-Racist Social Work | Tammy Bruce: Left's Assault on Free Speech, Free Minds | Coudenhove-Kalergi | Booker: Neophiliacs | R North & C Booker: Secret History of the EU | Anthony Browne: Political Correctness | C Booker: Scared to Death | Polly Toynbee: Has Labour Delivered? | Littlejohn: You Couldn't Make it Up | Michael Young: Meritocracy
BERTRAND RUSSELL   All Russell-related reviews have been moved here (to save space) RICHARD DAWKINS   All Dawkins-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space) HISTORY
C K Adams: Manual of Historical Literature | Jad Adams: Gandhi | Geyl: Napoleon | Halevy: Labour | Hernon: Victorian wars | Conrad Russell: English Civil War | R M Haywood: Myth of Rome's Fall | Arthur Kemp: AWB of South Africa | A.B. McKillop: H. G. Wells, Plagiarism, History of the World | Richard Milton: Britain and Germany: 100 Years | Mahan: Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783 | Joseph Needham: Science and Society in East and West | Simon Winchester: Joseph Needham and China | Thomas Pakenham: The Boer War | W Warren Wagar: Short History of the Future | Thomas E. Woods: 33 Questions About American History | Thomas E. Woods: Politically Incorrect American History | J M Steadman: Myth of Asia | Edgar Wilson: Myth of the British Monarchy | J. K. Walton: Fish and Chips 1870-1940 | Owen Wister: Deal or Grudge
BIOGRAPHY
Benn: Dare to Be a Daniel«ban | Bellamy: Jolly Green Giant | A. N. Wilson: Hilaire Belloc«ban | Cherie Blair: Autobiography«ban | Seldon: Blair Unbound«ban | Derren Brown: Confessions | Oborne & Walters: Alastair Campbell | Alex Comfort: Authority & Delinquency | Frank Harris: Life and Loves | Hitler: Mein Kampf | IKEA Ingvar Kamprad | Carla Lane: Autobiography | Ved Mehta: British Intellectuals | Wills: Homer Lane | Wendy Moore: John Hunter | Bryan Magee: Popper | Rita Marley: Bob Marley«ban | Farnes: Spike Milligan | Johnson: Napoleon | Fred Reed: Grand Adventure«ban | McIntyre: Reith | | R. Crawshay-Williams: Russell | C Moorehead: Bertrand Russell: A Life | K Tait: My Father, Bertrand Russell | Holroyd: George Bernard Shaw | Holroyd: Bernard Shaw, 1898-1918 | John Tyndall: Call for British Rebirth | Ron Shoesmith: Alfred Watkins
GEOGRAPHY, CITIES
501 Cities | Coleman: Utopia on Trial | Newman: Defensible Space«ban | Jackson: Cultural Geography | JANE JACOBS: Great American Cities | Economy of Cities | Cities and Wealth of Nations | Tyme: Motorways | Michael Palin: Sahara | Lisa St. Aubin De Teran: A Valley in Italy | Alfred Watkins: The Old Straight Track |
SCIENCE
Brown: Laws of Form | G. H. Hardy: Theory of Numbers | H. S. M. Coxeter: Beauty of Geometry | Andrews & McLone: Math Modelling | Hooper: Moths«ban | Humphrey T Pledge: Science Since 1500 | Wendy Moore: John Hunter | D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson: On Growth and Form | S Roberts: Donald Coxeter, the Man Who Saved Geometry | Dr John Bentley: Measurement Systems | Lancelot Hogben: The Vocabulary of Science | B MacQuitty: Discovery of Anaesthesia | Holmyard, Partington: Inorganic Chemistry | Zakaria Erzinçlioglu: The Illustrated Guide to Forensics | Richard P. Feynman: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! | Linus Pauling: General Chemistry | Aleksandr Romanovich Lurie: Brain ... An Introduction to Neuropsychology (1973) | Peter Large: The Micro Revolution | Christopher R Evans: Impact of the Computer Revolution | Tim Berners-Lee: Design and Destiny of the World Wide Web«ban | D. Bryce-Smith: The Zinc Solution | James Bruges: The Biochar Debate

OBITUARIES
Tony Benn | Alex Comfort | Denis Healey | Warren Mitchell | The Independent
big-lies.org
nukelies.org
Obituary: The Independent (1986-2016)
'Rerevisionist' 3 March 2016
In simpler times, people were fond of their newspapers, which were printed in millions: the Daily Mirror was the Bible of the workers, at least in the 1950s, according to Richard Edmonds. Many civil servants loved their Times and absorbed its worldview without even knowing it had one, and whiled away their time on the crossword. I remember an elderly vicar who clearly thought the Daily Telegraph was worthy reading. I'm old enough to remember the first issue of the Sun, before bare breasts on page 3. I remember Prestel being announced as a new digital news service, and wondering whether it would have some unbiased electronic news source: of course it was just the same old rubbish. I remember a 'socialist' paper, which failed; I hadn't learnt the art of deciphering Jewish coded messages, but possibly it was one of the few sources to include truths about the Vietnam War.
      The Independent could never, of course, have been independent. Its rather ridiculous eagle logo or banner or whatever they call these things marked it as 'serious'. And a 'broadsheet'—not a tabloid red top! Looking back now, my best guess is that it was established to promote Jewish wars in the middle east—Googling yields the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991, for example, though there have been Jewish-promoted wars including of course Iraq and much of North Africa since then. The disappearance of the U.S.S.R. in 1991 suggests another long-term Jewish aim. Newspapers seem expensive to the normal eye, and yet of course, if they work, the profits of war are vastly greater. The Independent sold I think fewer copies than any other paper in Britain, and yet was always being shown on the BBC—a sure sign of Jewish input and approval.
      Most of the above pre-dates Internet. Many people are now more sophisticated about all the media. A good example of this is an Italian living in Britain, Giuseppe de Santis, who regularly supplied copy to the BNP, under the title 'Circulation of anti-BNP newspapers declined again..', and reported with great pleasure monthly and yearly drops in circulation, which he attributes to the Jewish media never reporting on invaders. Not the actual print runs, which are far less impressive figures. The media now is in a state of change, perhaps even upheaval. I'd guess journalists are amongst the least rated of all professions and pseudo-professions, something they fully deserve.
      One of the landmarks in all this is illustrated by Hansard (Official Reports of the British Parliamentary debates), of June 1997, where actions of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) for closed shops is reported, though the Jewish issue is of course unmentioned. Here's an extract:
...the noble Lord [Orr-Ewing] referred to "a powerful and dedicated group in the NUJ which is constantly pressing for a rigid application of the closed shop"." Lord Orr-Ewing referred to the NUJ conference, which took place between 19th and 22nd April [1977], at which typical motions were debated and efforts were made to get accepted as NUJ policy resolutions such as "members should not report on National Front activities, nor on organisations which they judged racist, nor even on the football match between Chile and Scotland." If such motions, which were debated two months ago at the NUJ conference, are ever accepted, the militant Left might rule, for instance, that discussions on events in Rhodesia and South Africa might not be suitable for publication. There could be a conspiracy of silence about the murders in Mozambique, or mention might be forbidden or forgotten of the million murders which have already been committed by the Marxist régime in Cambodia. ...
(The 'noble Lord' might also have mentioned mass murders by Jews in the USSR, and their support by the 'British' government of the time, or American mass murders in south-east Asia, and other subjects; however the point relevant to newspapers is the powerful movement against freedom of speech, of course supported by Jews in the background, paralleling assorted 'race' actions, also backed secretly by Jews. I have from time to time looked at the NUJ rules online; one interesting point is how Jews are excluded, despite the filth and extremism of their belief system. If the social sciences recover any seriousness, this might be just one subject of study.
      Unsurprisingly, the 'Independent' hosts assorted Jewish liars: David Aaronovitch, for example, and Dr Richard Stone of the farcical Lawrence Enquiry, Sue Berelowitz of the child sex cover-up, Denis MacShane of the so-called Labour party (a Jew from Poland, in fact), Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, I think with Moslem ancestry, anxious for the white race to become a 'lost species', Howard Jacobson, and generally numerous hacks, none of course well-informed on anything important—such as the activities of their Jewish owner and other Jews in and from Russia.
Top of Page

English Heritage logo   Review of   English Heritage   Members' Magazine
English Heritage's 60-ish-page Quarterly Magazine     Review by 'Rerevisionist' May 2017
Anglo-Jewish Heritage
Browsing Youtube videos, as one does, a young Ukrainian wife showed us around her town, assuring us it is peaceful and family-friendly, and likes tourists. She referred to a famine monument, and said "Mmmmm—it was something to do with religion". Victors not only write history, but shape historical perceptions and monuments.

English Heritage Members' Magazine illustrates the process. It's published by Immediate Media Co. ('Content. Passion. engagement.'), presumably part of some Jewish publishing conglomerate. About ten of their workers are listed, with titles of the (capitalised) Editor, Director, and Manager type. We also have about eight contributors, some of whom are credited with assembling the longer articles. And there are six names, 'For English Heritage'.

English Heritageis a registered charity, 1140351 (Aims & activities The English Heritage Trust promotes the conservation and enhancement of Historic England's properties and collections as well as promoting public knowledge, enjoyment and education...). And a registered company, 07447221. Its abc (i.e. circulation) for 2016 is given as about 395,000 print (not digital)—whatever that means—'circulation' is not the same as printed (and sold) copies. It appears not to be heavily advertised, sharing in the general decline of printed news.

For my taste, the magazine is purged of financial content: their contracts must include material on ownership of properties and leases, reversions to families, sales of products, tickets etc which might be of some interest. Their brief seems to be mostly buildings, or parts of buildings, and what might be referred to unkindly as ruins, though these appear to include Stonehenge—something of a fake, now—and other important sites. The National Trust seems to be mainly imposing buildings, and, in view of the colossal subsidies to some landowners, there is some suspicion of advantageous secretive deals.

My principal dislike is what might be called the overwhelmingly 'politically correct' content, doing nothing to promote public knowledge. I'll give here an expandable list of problems:
• A Woman in a jousting suit of specially-made armour illustrates the rather absurd 'politically correct' content. Another is a struggle for wall-mounted blue plaques, for blacks and Asians! And there's a constant wariness of immigrants, invaded by invitation of Jews, who seem to have little interest in English or any other history.
• Many aspects of English history are elided away: Evidence of the two Empires (including North America) is barely mentioned. Nothing much of shipbuilders, navigators, sailors who once spent their lives sailing around the world. Many industrial revolution sites (Wigan Pier, anyone?) and fishing and farming seem under-represented; instead we have a servants-eye view of bits of Great houses, of the Pitkin Illustrated Guide sort.
• Church history is shown as ruins with little feel for the politics and power struggles. In the issue I have in front of me, Cuthbert of an Anglo-Saxon monastery, or perhaps later a Priory, seems to have been demoted and then promoted. Hints of how Jewish scribblings were made a power bloc are missing.
• Let's look at specific Jewish issues. Just a few: (1) Many issues, including wars, with Wales, Scotland, and Ireland had Jew intervention. (2) An article on the 'Second Anglo-Dutch War (date given as 1666) says nothing about the so-called Bank of England, invented of course by Amsterdam Jews. (3) Clifford's Tower in York: 'We that the present visit ... Doesn't do justice to the site's important and tragic history..'. It's best known for an influx of Jews, but not best known for the reasons. (4) Similarly, monuments such as 'Little St Hugh' in Lincoln have not been restored. (5) Jack the Ripper's predations as far as I know are suppressed—a long tradition of keeping mum about Jews and the East End of London. (6) Jewish 'race' and separatist education is not as far as I know shown in any museum anywhere. (7) Now I think of it, primitive Kosher and/or Muslim slaughterhouses might count as 'English heritage'.
• The Second World War and Jewish victory provide endless scope for gawping without analysis: white cliffs, tunnels, emplacements of many types. It is now known that Germans were tortured in 'the cage' in London; Hess was jailed and killed; a few Britons were imprisoned under Section 18B; propaganda was printed, filmed, and broadcast. Foreigners were blockaded; and so on. Sites may remain which could be made suitable for visitors.
• Great country houses were funded by many means, including the Jewish-run East India Company, and by Jewish money from forcing opium into China, and from killing Boers to get gold. But the presentation of such houses is in the style of romantic novels.
• Castles are treated in the same sort of way, without consideration of Cromwell's Jew-funded cannon against the English.

Anyway, more in sorrow than anger... I wonder if a time will ever come when true English history is on open display?
Top of Page

Gordon Ramsay Humble Pie   Review of   Gordon Ramsay   Humble Pie
Autobiography and Promo of Gordon Ramsay (2006, new final chapter 2007)     Review by 'Rerevisionist' Aug 2016
Implausibly-Titled Chef's Memoirs from Ten Years Back
In our world, dominated by secret enormous groups, there's an attraction to people who are their own boss: it's easier to understand their activities, what it is they own, their immediate circle. In the past, there were more of such people per thousand. During mediaeval times, for example, one imagines an artist with his atelier, and underlings grinding pigments, stretching canvases, and painting boring background bits. Televisually interesting subjects are possibly rather rare: peasant agriculturalists, building tradesmen, blacksmiths, makers of parts of sailing ships might not excite modern audiences.

The industrialised world's food has changed to what seems a fantastic extent, though of course the nutritional basis is more or less the same. Consider the attractive stone octagonal kitchen at Glastonbury Abbey, with a fireplace in four corners. Probably this mostly cooked meat and bread (potatoes hadn't been discovered; nor had maize). Herbs and spices, and sugar, and edible oil, usually come from plants in hot climates, because they have spare energy to make by-products. There were onions, but not tomatoes. A modern time-traveller might have been reminded of Ray Kroc's establishment, 'MacDonalds'.

By 1900, root vegetables supported cattle over winter; potatoes supported people throughout the year; ships and railways routinely carried food; refrigeration had been invented; vacuum-sealed canisters, airtight tins and jars were mass-produced; electric cooking was added to gas cooking. Peasants, in Britain, growing and preserving and cooking their own food, were as obsolete as hand-loom weavers. The stage was set for professionalisation of cookery, though not really in Britain—warmer climates were better adapted to food designed to be attractive, France being a prominent example, with several hundred local types of cheese, and several hundred types of wine. To this day Michelin—a guidebook started in 1900 by a tyre company—awards stars which rule part of the emotional lives of chefs, with 3 stars the maximum, which seems appropriate for Ramsay's book.

H G Wells wrote a short story (A Misunderstood Artist 1894), possibly suggested by Escoffier at the Savoy, with hints of playful experimentation. Passing over rural inns, urban chop houses, the Lyons Corner House phenomenon and the Aerated Bread Company, fish and chips, proprietary relishes and pastes and chocolate bars, Evelyn Waugh promoting foreign food, and a few dozen wars, we arrive at 1966, Ramsay's year of birth. There's a lot of 'human interest' here, including his father, who appears to have been a derivative pop impersonator—a product of TV and electronic media, someone who never saw the original performer. And a brother who became a drug addict, though I don't think the supplier chain is identified. A word to people in similar circumstances: why not secretly get together with a newspaper, if you can find one that's not going bankrupt, and arrange a series of 'sensational' articles between you, with likely dates for the 'revelations'? They make up 'news' anyway. I won't bother with these details, or Ramsay's ambition to take up football—one of the secrets of football is that many footballers become crippled.
      It's a bit disappointing to find Ramsay regards a council house upbringing as an embarrassment, as, it seems, did Pierre Marco White, under whom he worked for a time. I wonder if earlier British socialists would have been annoyed.

Chefs, judging by Ramsay, don't seem to have a high opinion of each other, except when, like actors, they have a motive for luvviness. Quite a few conflicts are listed, and some omissions: no Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, for example. Ramsay owned 3,500 cookbooks (not the British 'cookery books'). His favourite is Nigel Slater. One might have thought the leading chefs could have a reunion every year or two, for example, and exchange anecdotes about the poor quality and unreasonableness of their diners. Maybe their wives could cook, to reduce competitive problems...

Ramsay says interesting things en passant about the employees and lower orders who must numerically dominate the fine eating industry. For example he worked on Reg Grundy's private yacht in the British Virgin Islands, and recounts how some of the staff got the idea it was their yacht, and behaved inappropriately, rather in the way (I gather) that roadies with pop groups behave. Ramsay says, convincingly, that most of his staff stayed with him, though he sacked some who presumably couldn't take the pace or the required skill-levels.

Ramsay is remarkably low on technical details of cooking: why cook at all, for example? And surely there must be valuable rules of thumb, or physics laws, to help cook? Watching some Hell's Kitchens would-be chefs not even able to cook risotto ("riz-odo" in American) suggests there's a need for helpful mnemonics. Surely there must be facts on transmission of heat, temperatures to get proteins cooked, measures of chewability of foods, effects of marinades, the ageing of wines, the effects of microwaves, the mixing of flavours? What does Sous Vide cooking (in clear plastic) do? Is liquid nitrogen useful? Can rum be injected by hypodermic into mince pies? Is papaya the best enzyme for softening meat?—but it seems cookery remains proto-scientific.

Another apparent omission—I may be wrong here—is the economics of the top of the restaurant market. How many people are prepared to pay for the experience of being guided to seating by a cultivated Maitre d'Hôtel and presented with a menu in French, and fed elaborate food? Ramsay's writings feel a bit like flowers, evolved to exude nectar, and expecting to be rewarded with the arrival of bees. Ramsay the feeling about New York that it's terrifically rich, but surely there must be some uncertainty—Jew-promoted non-whites everywhere, for example. I can remember being shocked at the small number of Americans who bought hardback books.

Yet another omission is detail on the use of illegals in restaurants, sandwich-making places, etc. For example, I noticed an article about 'Sanctuary Restaurants' (after Trump's election); and, twenty years ago, a sandwich seller cheerfully admitting most of his workers were illegal 'immigrants'. I wonder if part of the intention behind TV chef programmes is to scrub up the image of restaurants.

The final chapter, inserted into the 2007 edition, reads like Ingvar Kamprad's biography:- ambitious to open more restaurants, fifteen world-class restaurants being planned, and possibly a movie. Looking back, I can't really tell how successful he was. Gordon Ramsay Holdings, an Internet search or two reveals, had liabilities in mid-2016 listed as 36 million sterling, though I'd guess his TV appearance fees may be held in a different account. He adds a description of a Christmas visit to Helmand in Afghanistan 'in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence and the Daily Mirror'. He describes 18-year old soldiers as 'ready, focused, and just incredibly disciplined', with 'Christmas treat donated by Philip Green of Top Shop and BHS fame'. (Philip Green attained subsequent fame as something like a Jewish pension-fund thief from what was British Home Stores
.) He says 'Trust me, there were no special arrangements. Out there, it doesn't matter a fuck who you are'—as though Jew financiers and their political puppets are there all the time. Clearly, revisionist thinking is not a part of his mental equipment. He thinks National Service should be re-introduced. On his return, in 2006 aged 40, he was part of a star-studded party 'in the Banqueting House, Whitehall'.

One of Gordon Ramsay's achievements (along with Ozzy Osbourne) must be included weakening of the image of the British as shy, retiring, and polite. "Get your breasts off my hotplate" was one his memorable obiter dicta.

I noted he had concerns with Frank Bruni, who was or is a Jew York Times food critic. I could find nothing on 'Kosher' food, or the Kosher scam imposed on Americans and others. Probably the US critics would prefer to redirect diners to something like Solly's maximum torture (K) salt beef n bagels shack. Anyway, his New York restaurant has closed. It occurred to me that possibly Ramsay thinks he's a 'Jew'; Ramsay is listed as a Jewish surname.

At the time he wrote, he'd been contracted to do the British TV Hell's Kitchen, 'one of the worst experiences of my life'. The US version, in a converted LA warehouse, started in about 2005, and is still going. The difference was they had applicants who were not well-known, and with some cooking experience, and who wanted to run their own places. Kitchen Nightmares (2007-2014) postdates this book, and shows that there can be such a thing as bad publicity. A majority closed, not in my view surprisingly. There's a significant point here, relevant to the present-day Jewish censorship: at least in the UK, many eating places with third-world ownership are filthy, infested with rats and insects, some of which get served to the public. Ramsay's handlers are careful never to let this show, just as there is no reference to 'Kosher' practices. And this applies to this book. OK to insult other chefs; taboo to tell truths Jews think are bad publicity.

Gordon Ramsay doesn't speculate much on public perception of these restaurants: carefully-designed interiors, elaborate menus, and the rest can be intimidating. It might be fun to watch other people in a restaurant being served food contrary to expectations:–"Zees soupe eez always served cold, Madame" - "Zees dish is intended to ooze blood, Sir" - "Sauternes is meant to be a very sweet dessert wine, Sir" - "This is known as 'au jus', Madame".
Top of Page

Jerome Klapka Jerome (1889)   Three Men in a Boat
    Very Long Review by 'Rerevisionist'   13-30 October 2015
Victorian England; Could a Shrewd Observer Detect Impending Doom, in this One Hit Wonder?

three men in a boat engraving
1889 domestic life in England. This was before television; and before radio and cinema. Before colour photographs, refrigeration, telephones. Before commercial electric light; gas lights were at that time leading-edge recent inventions. No motor-cars; London had many horse-drawn cabs, and of course horses needed such things as livery stables and horse tack and food and shoes—and disposal facilities. Flying machines were widely believed to be an impossibility. The very first ocean liners dated from about 40 years earlier; clippers (fast sailing ships) had died out 20 years earlier, after the Suez Canal removed their raison d'être; iron ships, both coal steamers and sailing ships, scene-set in the novels (for example) by Joseph Conrad, W. W. Jacobs, and Jack London, were a vast global haulage industry. A threat to British sea power was 'unthinkable'.

Cheap paper was being engineered; of the results, 'Tit-Bits' existed, with 'Comic Cuts' soon about to come. 'The Sporting Times', or Pink 'Un, had existed for years. It would be more than 60 years before the habit of 'watching' television, for four or five hours an evening, dulled the wits of masses of people.

The railways were then the fastest-ever inland travel system. They led to railway inns near stations, access even to small villages, the growth of seaside resorts, J. M. W. Turner's Rain, Steam and Speed, the rural-sounding east London stations from Bethnal Green north to Cambridge Heath, London Fields, and Hackney Downs. And W. H. Smith's railway station bookstalls. And to worries about where the hell am I: J's Waterloo station has a joke bribe to an engine driver for reassurance.

'Three Men in a Boat' (August 1889) sold 'in Great Britain and her colonies' slightly above 10,000 copies averaged per year for 20 years. Or so the publisher thought: J. K. Jerome thought a million copies had sold in the USA, but his book predated (I think) the 1891 International Copyright Act.

At the time—and noted in passing within that book—Gilbert and Sullivan's English comic operas made fun of Judges, modern Major-Generals, and the Ruler of the Queen's Navee (in Sir Joseph Porter's Song). But J says nothing about high status people: a lampoon of Church of England sermons could have been very amusing. Or company promoters for African mines. Or Oxbridge. Or Law Lords. But there's nothing at all. J. K. Jerome left school at 14 and no doubt was overawed. Three Men in a Boat was written when he was twice that age.
    Operettas are a close equivalent to Three Men in a Boat: episodic, as after, all everyday life can be; with careful verbal arrangements to summon the appropriate comedic moods; and with a few sad or tragic or majestic counterpoints as a nod to some aspects of the world.

Three Men in a Boat dodges much of the technical problem of precise description by personifying nature: 'Sunlight is the life-blood of nature' is a tiny example. Here's a longer, impressive, extract from such a passage:
Slowly the golden memory of the dead sun fades from the hearts of the cold, sad clouds. Silent, like sorrowing children, the birds have ceased their song, and only the moorhen's plaintive cry and the harsh croak of the corncrake stirs the awed hush around the couch of waters, where the dying day breathes out her last. From the dim woods on either bank, Night's ghostly army, the grey shadows, creep out with noiseless tread to chase away the lingering rearguard of the night, and pass, with noiseless, unseen feet, above the waving river-grass, and through the sighing rushes; and Night, upon her sombre throne, folds her black wings above the darkening world, and, from her phantom palace, lit by the pale stars, reigns in stillness. ...

Harris said: "How about when it rained?"—bathos of course is necessary here, and Jerome deploys it often enough. (The three men are J himself, George the bank clerk, Harris, and a noisy fox terrier named Montmorency. I've just read that Keith Richards calls his dog 'syphilis'—Five men and a disease?). J's main narrative device is speech: quotations or reconstructions, internal monologues, and reports, both current and stories of some time ago—J includes quite a few stories of types of the river fisherman's yarn, and the two men in one bed throwing each other out, and the wetted shirt recognised as the other man's. His internalised speech mostly recounts irritations between the men as they wrestle emotionally with each other and with an indifferent universe.
    All these digressions are suited to reading aloud: one can imagine tears of laughter, and recollections of how we laughed, over the Hampton Court maze account.

I'm surprised how little description J puts into his book. The dog, and Harris's blazer, are described in greater detail than any of the three men. Harris's twelve stone is regarded as 'big'; this may be a comment on the unindustrialised diet of the times. Possibly the paucity of description is related to J's early educational terminus: he may simply not have known technical terms for architecture, for example. Or laws: Land tenure? Riparian law? Swan-upping? There's quite a contrast with (say) Jack London's highly-detailed accounts of physiologies and physiognomies.
    The clue may be in Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow, published a few years earlier, which contains many similar situations to Three Men in a Boat, but all expressed in the form of autobiographical meditational monologues. Wrapping these thoughts (but not those on poverty and pawn-shops) with bodily forms undeniably expands into a more appealing package.

Jerome, confident that emotions are similar between types of people, liked colloquial speech: 'What the eye does not see the stomach does not get upset over' for example. Here's an example of a whole cluster of short popular phrases: 'So I set my face against a sea trip. Not, I explained, upon my own account. I was never queer. But I was afraid for George. George said he should be all right, and would rather like it, but he would advise Harris and me not to think of it, as he felt sure we should both be ill. Harris said that, to himself, it was always a mystery how people managed to get sick at sea - ...'

It's tempting to try to find comparisons with other novels which have a haunting and lasting quality. Perhaps these things are intrinsically one-off and isolated, like the song A Whiter Shade of Pale. Could this be autobiographical? The author of the world's best ever autobiography could not, one imagines, ever write another one. I scribbled down some English novels: Day's History of Sandford and Merton (1783ish); Valentine Vox (Cockton, 1840ish); Mrs Caudle's Curtain Lectures (Jerrold, 1845ish); Tom Brown's Schooldays (1857); Erewhon (Butler; 1872); Diary of a Nobody (Grossmiths, 1892); maybe Zuleika Dobson (Beerbohm, 1911) and other later works, but didn't find compelling lessons apart from avoiding unpleasant topics, and allowing titillating but not dangerous exploits.

Let me return to 1889 Britain, and the then-current events—which may well have led many readers to seek escapism. Here are a few items:
  • Underground trains in London (after an earlier start) expanded c. 1890; these were tubes, not laid by digging up roads
  • Organised football: by the late 1880s national agreements were coming
  • Jews flooded into London's east end: better shipping, London docks, no passports, and Jewish parasitism combined.
  • In 1888 were the 'Whitechapel Murders'—foreshadowing today, where murders of whites are ignored by the media. There's nothing of this in Jerome, though there is a drowned single mother story. The 'Aliens Act' was 1905.
  • Issues over jobs: 1888, women and 'phossy jaw'; 1889, gas workers; dockers' strike. 1889 union membership increased; but whether the members got much out of it must be doubtful.
The Thames (note for Americans: pronounced 'Tems') is tidal in the centre of London, and this is why the easterly stretches are far wider than the source, near Oxford, would suggest possible. Westminster and Hyde Park, the City of London and London Bridge, and east to Whitechapel, Stepney, Rotherhithe docks, Deptford, Greenwich, Woolwich and further to the sea—flanked by many rural-sounding placenames—are redolent of the tougher businesslike history of Britain.
    From its source, the river, called the Isis, is much narrower, and very winding: roads prefer to be straight, so there's not much contact between roads and the Thames, apart from picturesque bridges. Britain was one of the first industrialised countries, but Jerome, writing his book in a Victorian summer, overlooking London, preferred to write of rural scenes and situations. I'd guess he used maps and guidebooks to fill out the detail.

Jerome opens his book with a long passage of rather absurd exaggeration about more-or-less imaginary illnesses (one is 'general disinclination to work') of the three men. These turn into the motive for their river jaunt. If you like that scene-setting, you'll probably like the rest of the book. At the finale, exeunt the three, muddy and dishevelled after several days of rain, going to the Alhambra, Leicester Square—mistaken for the 'contortionists from the Himalaya Mountains'.

The pace is slow: the first night scene, with the finger-nipping hoops supporting misbehaving canvas, is about half-way through the novel. Windsor, Runnymede, Magna Carta island, Maidenhead and Marlow, are some of the places visited or rowed past. Jerome omitted Eton, true to form, though his route must have passed close. Much of the scenery is still identifiable: the Barley Mow; the George and Dragon at Wargrave; Henley, Pangbourne, Sonning, Shepperton, Wallingford (from which the lock had been removed), Watlington ...

Chapter 11 includes a memorable three-age-or-so section 'specially inserted for schools' on Magna Charta (his spelling) and 'the cup of liberty', at an island at Runnymede in 1215. John (we are told) died a year later, having ravaged England, and then absolved by Pope Innocent. Jerome sounds something like Walter Scott; I don't know the sources he must have pored over, but a charter of liberties sounds good, and the deeper realities, such as Edward I's expulsion of Jews 75 years later, and Norman barons and resentful Saxons, are not part of Jerome's purpose; any more than they are now, in semi-official guidebooks and Pitkin glossy colour brochures.
      A few other historical events appear in Jerome, reflecting published views of the time: Caesar and Cassivelaunus, approved for the operational students of the past who were not to know Belloc's secret they never suspected; Henry VIII having an energetic time courting Anne; and 'the Parliamentary struggle' as presented by the news sources of the time.

Dark and fearsome countryside provides frissons of terror: nights could be very dark and very lonely, and Jerome describes panic as one inn after another is found to be over-full. Allied to this are country churchyards with memorials (one including a few skulls), like.

But of course, as the Med provides the continuo for Ulysses, or steam trains the background for Close Encounter, the Thames naturally permeates the story, though mostly as background for amusing human activity. Jerome deploys just a few technical terms: none from sailing; boys 'rafting' with their plank structures; punts, naturally including an incident of a man on his pole; coracles; sculls; and an eight-oared racing outrigger.
    J has an eye for status: a boat hired up river has an easier time going downstream, making it lower status; steam launches supposedly have lower priority than rowing boats; Maidenhead has 'dudes and ballet girls'; bargemen are 'sometimes rude to one another'.
    Towing has several vignettes: snaking towropes, towing by girls, parasitic towing by other people and other vehicles, towpath (and other) crashes. And we have the hazards of drinking river water, and washing in it; the characters of lock keepers; angry swans; girls' clothes getting splashed by a hearty rowing man; and washerwomen before the days of electric washing machines.
    Jerome even pleas for the simple life (but with cautions against sea trips and early morning dips) with a rowing-boat fable (admittedly, he followed it with an apology):
It is lumber, man—all lumber! Throw it overboard. It makes the boat so heavy to pull, you nearly faint at the oars. It makes it so cumbersome and dangerous to manage.. Time to drink in life's sunshine—time to listen to the Aeolian music that the wind of God draws from the human heart-strings around us...

This is a world of small boys on street corners; small boys running errands—proof that telephones were not needed. And of houses and landladies; no doubt responsible to shadowy landowners. AND no debt: bank accounts were still rare; debts were the preserve of the aristocratic rich, or, as was soon to prove after the Great War, the once-rich: lenders prefer wealthy people.

Jerome's technique, which works well enough with opening tinned pineapple, packing for a journey, ruminating over barometers and weather forecasts, trying to sleep, penetrating smells, trying to cook stew, doing what's now called DIY, avoids some issues: could he, for example, make playing darts, or boiling an egg, or writing a novel, or playing scrabble (Kingsley Amis could do this) mildly amusing? His account of writing his own material might have been worth reading.
    And there must be something to learn from the sets of objects J avoids, for example the upper classes, complicated and tiresome negotiations, and negotiations generally—he omits amusing accounts of shopping, for instance, and horse-trading. He has nothing on pagan aspects of the world, though he knows about the Sandwich Islands: what was Martinmas, or All Hallows Eve, for example? He has nothing on improving lectures for the lower orders.

Music: we have a menu of songs: the Soldier's Chorus from Faust, whatever that is; a music hall song, He's Got 'Em On, which doesn't seem to have survived except as sheet music; Gilbert and Sullivan, as already mentioned; a tragic German Liede; Two Lovely Black Eyes; a banjo—perhaps the inspiration for Bateman's Guest Who Brought a Banjo?—and bagpipe. Jerome did not attempt the piano as a comic subject.

Food: we have another menu. Beefsteak pie, gooseberry tarts, leg of mutton, bacon, eggs, bread, butter, jam. Lime juice, lemonade. Canned pineapple; I'd guess cans were expensive and for luxuries. Cheesemongers were specialists. Fast food was chop houses: we are pre-fish and chips, and pre-burgers—perhaps they needed powerful mincers to disguise their contents? Only one of them knew what 'scrambled eggs' were.
    We also have 'bitter beer' which I suspect kept well, in days before refrigeration. And we have long clay pipes, made of kaolin, before cigarettes: white, cool, with loose tobacco; but fragile.

Anyway; more jokes, anecdotes, narratives, unions against others as in 'Jews' laughing at 'goyim'. And what might be called 'craic'.
Now, the shrewd reader will know that Jerome was not exactly a one hit wonder: he established a magazine, wrote another book (1900) Three men on the Bummel, and had a successful play, made into a film, The Passing of the Third Floor Back—concerning renting of rooms in a house.

Three Men on the Bummel is mostly set in Germany; for some reason—Brummagem? Brummy?—I'd thought this book dealt with a Birmingham canal holiday; in fact it's a bicycle trip, with two of the men on a tandem I think, to Germany before the First World War; hence a whole collection of views, or perhaps stereotypes, can emerge, undoubtedly stiffened by guidebooks.
    A 'bummel' is an electric tramcar, for example in Dresden. Some of these have long ago vanished in Britain: Bacup was one of the first British places to have them, something you'd never guess, now.

Jerome seems to have been co-opted into the anti-German lead-in to the 'Great War'; the last chapter of Three Men on the Bummel seem to have been inserted as part of this process. I'll just note a few things here.

Note on sightseers and historians: '.. Gibbon had to trust to travellers' tales for a description of the Hellespont, and the Rhine was chiefly familiar to English students through.. Caesar's Commentaries .. Dr Johnson, familiar with little else than the view down Fleet Street, could read the description of a Yorkshire moor with pleasure and profit. To a cockney etc. But we, or rather the steam-engine and the camera for us, have changed all that. ... An American friend .. told me that he had obtained a more correct and satisfying idea of the Lake district from an eighteenpenny book of photographic views than from all the works of Coleridge, Southey and Wordsworth put together. .. class.. for English literature. .. lengthy, but otherwise unobjectionable, poem. ...'

German dialects. Remember Germany was only recently unified. 'Hanover.. to learn the best German. The disadvantage is that outside Hanover, which is only a small province, nobody understands this best German. .. Germany being separated so many centuries unto a dozen principalities, is unfortunate in possessing a variety of dialects. Germans from Posen wishful to converse with men of Wurtemburg, have to talk as often as not in French or English; and young ladies who have received an expensive education in Westphalia.. [can't] understand a word said to them in Mechlenburg. An English-speaking foreigner, it is true, would find himself equally nonplussed among the Yorkshire wolds, or the purlieus of Whitechapel; but.. Throughout Germany it is not only in the country districts and among the uneducated that dialects are maintained. Every province has practically its own language.. An educated Bavarian.. will continue to speak South German..'

On 'The pen of my aunt': The explanation is that, in nine cases out of ten, he has learnt French from "Ahn's First-Course." The history of this famous work is remarkable and instructive. .. originally written as a joke by a witty Frenchman..' [I have no idea how true this is!]

Dresden 'perhaps the most attractive town in Germany'. Dresden's August the Strong, Carlyle's "the Man of Sin".

Prague: 'Seat of the Reformation' Thirty Years' War and "Fenstersturz", John Huss, St Jerome, Tycho Brahe, Ziska, Wallenstein, palace in the Waldstein-Platz, Sigismund, Tarborites, Maximilian, Gustavus Adolphus, Jews of Prague Ghetto.

Pilsener beer and Apollinaris water. Prague, Carlsbad, Nuremburg. Then Jerome on officials: the final chapter, which may have been tacked on as propagandist appendix, lists many failings and disagreeable aspects of Germans, too dull to repeat here. With other evidence I'd suggest Jerome was part of the post-1900 anti-German drumbeat in Britain, added to the century-or-so old anti-Russian rumblings. Later, his play, The Passing of the Third Floor Back, a lodging-house story, was turned into a depressing and moody black-and-white 1930s film (watchable on Internet). It would be nice to think JKJ was a naïve actor/artist; the reality seems to be he turned into yet another hireling, possibly another crypto-Jew, a literary Charlie Chaplin, George being George Wingrave, and Harris Carl Hentschel. He may have ended his life as yet another fairly wealthy man with little in his head. How true this is, I have not attempted to discover.
Top of Page

Wilson Human Nature Wilson Sociobiology   E O Wilson 1978   On Human Nature
    Review by 'Rerevisionist' 27 August 2015
'Sociobiology' was completely misunderstood. 'Human Nature' is just another Jewish propaganda worldview, for the Post-1960s Era. It is not science! Apparently written by a simple insect man.

I'd assumed this is a serious scientific work; such is the poor quality of modern reviewing. In fact it's painfully weak; in the process of reading it, I realised it's simply another part of the Jewish imposition of their ridiculous worldview. Let me start with an overview: my copy is a tatty small format mass market book published by Bantam, no doubt owned by Jews. The copyright statement is © President and Fellows of Harvard College, rather than Edward Osborne Wilson (born 1929) FMLS. (Whatever that is; a statement somewhere says he was 'curator of entomology'). The book 'won' a Pulitzer Prize, a sort of guarantee of kosherness; royalties presumably to Harvard. Part of the short cover blurb is 'hope must derive from a new scientific understanding of what it means to be human'. And it says, with splendid ignorance of the power of language and media, 'altruism, morality, religion, even love—are merely the survival strategies of our "selfish" genes ...'

On Human Nature is in roughly ten parts: 1 Dilemma/ 2 Heredity/ 3 Development/ 4 Emergence/ 5 Aggression/ 6 Sex/ 7 Altruism/ 8 Religion/ 9 Hope/ Glossary, Endnotes, Index.

To situate this book in time and place, remember E. O. Wilson grew up in the Truman/ Eisenhower era. Eisenhower thought he was a Jew; I haven't checked on Truman, but he certainly was a Jewish pawn. They assisted Stalin in the post-1945 continuing attacks on Germany, for resisting Jews, and the post-1945 support for Jews in the USSR, which was achieved (in my opinion) by the Jewish-controlled pretence of 'nuclear weapons' and 'Cold War'. Kennedy seems to have been less of a Jewish pawn; unfortunately was murdered in 1963, when E O Wilson was aged early 30s, and Johnson slipped into place. The Jewish era consolidated with L B Johnson (1963-1969). The link surveys Jewish interests at the time: war, weapons, drugs, paper money, ruining blacks in the USA, and the 'Civil Rights Act' as a muffler of free speech. The 'Holocaust' fraud gained momentum; Johnson (a full Jew on both sides, I'm told) supported Israel with the attack on the 'Liberty'. It was necessary for U.S. home consumption to suppress US war crimes since 1941 as well as USSR genocide of whites, and war crimes; in fact 'brainwashing' was an invention to deflect from US war crimes in Korea for Jewish media propagation. There was considerable unrest, managed usually by Jews, about US genocide in Vietnam: there's now a whole industry of pretending the 1960s were a cause rather than effect. Anyway, Nixon (1969-1974), Ford (1974-1977), and then Carter (President 1977-1981) buried the issue rather than face it. Carter "forgave America".

Jewish liars planned out a new scheme of future fakes, mostly based on simple lies, in the Jewish manner: pretended environmental concerns (after chemical warfare etc in Vietnam), pretence of interest in 'human rights', removal of the death penalty except for opponents of Jews, abortion, increased anti-white activity, training of a generation of worthless historians of the 'Professor Evans' type in Britain, and academic controls to hide criticisms of Jews in finance and financial history. Thus for example 'universal human rights'—'more refined human rights in the European-American sense'—are given a 'primary value'. Wilson is probably too stupid to see the ludicrous irony in this absurdity. Another exquisite irony is the avoidance of discussion of eugenics, even though he presumably knows natural selection is slow, cruel and tedious, and doesn't work with a technological society.

Darwinism is one of the most important generalisations about life ever made, and could not be suppressed entirely. There must have been casting about for Jew-friendly versions, designed to carry Jewish memes. Here's a link to Jewish phony psychologists—one typical line of 'research' was into the idea that Christians/whites were insanely cruel; another was into ways to crush opposition to race mixing. Even such a shrewd observer as Kevin MacDonald said there was an attack by Jews on Darwinism and Sociobiology, bracketing the two together as though they were similar. Sociobiology was largely based on the 'kinship' idea of sharing genes, despite its weaknesses, suggested I think by J B S Haldane in the 1930s, but usually attributed to William D Hamilton (in 1964). Sociobiogy: the New Synthesis based largely on ants, with a single chapter on human beings, came out in 1975. The Use and Abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology by Marshall Sahlins (1976) was early opposition, looking at real-life people, though not I think developed civilisations. Dawkins' The Selfish Gene of 1976 was equally irrelevant to human beings. Dawkins wrote a chapter Sociobiology: The New Storm in a Teacup (1986) for a volume edited by the Steven Rose, yet another phoney Jewish scientist. It's interesting to note the censorship of evil obtains in many 'disciplines': I recall Atkins, of chemistry textbooks, getting excited over the fraud of the 'Holocaust', the simple old fool indifferent to millions burnt alive, killed by high explosives, suffering from birth defects, thanks to chemical engineers.

Two ideas flicker and surface throughout the book: one is determinism vs free will, which Wilson doesn't grasp: he can't understand that complete determinism is consistent with all life, though it can't possibly have much predictive value, as the world is much too complex. The other is evolution, which Wilson also doesn't grasp anything like fully. This may seem an odd claim to make; but here are four examples. 1. Insects have an elaborate lifecycle, with eggs, larvae, pupae, and the 'perfect insect'. How can this have evolved, and how did many insects become social? 2. 'Natural selection has been broadened to include kin selection'. (In Altruism, discussing social insects). But of course it's not 'broadened' at all. 3. Wilson doesn't seem to have a theory of gene pools, tho he's aware that any individual after n generations must have had 2^n ancestors to that point. He's aware the contributions presumably become vanishingly small, but nevertheless has no way to fix a point where one odd ancestor's influence terminates. 4. He has no genetic rationale for the existence of sex, i.e. what reasons might there be for two parents being better than one.

Ideas are one thing; the way they are presented is another. Wilson's writing style needs to be outlined here. It's reminiscent of many writers on evolution who are religious, or evasive: Dobzhansky (if I remember correctly...) is that type. Wilson's style also reminds me of Marshall McLuhan's, with strings of short dubious assertions, mixed with longer, vague, but equally dubious assertions. Many of the assertions are endnoted; the sources are mostly heavily-promoted, but not particularly good, books, often with then-current memes, such as the 'deep structure of religious belief' with a Chomskyesque feel, Dawkins' selfish gene, even the 'uncertainty principle'. So the result has a pub quiz quotation feeling: we have James Jones on 'the sheer excitement of battle' in WW2 (Altruism chapter); 'In The Denial of Death, Ernest Becker reminds us that the guru phenomenon is a device for surrendering the self to a powerful and benevolent force'. Of course it is! Ernest Jones and Erich Fromm are quoted, but not their chieftain Freud, possibly to avoid accusations of pseudo-scientific contagion which had started to surface about Freud.

Wilson's use of words has to be examined; how did he get away with this stuff? I have two theories here: 1. Neologisms. If something isn't understood, people may be impressed if you coin a new word; 'sociology', when new, illustrates the point. In Wilson's final chapter, on 'Hope', he looks forward to neurobiology, ethology, and sociobiology helping out; even if (among other things) the brain isn't understood. One of his conclusions is 'The principal task of human biology is to identify and to measure the constraints that influence the decisions of ethical philosophers and to everyone else, and to infer their significance through neurophysiological and phylogenetic reconstructions of the mind. ...' and no doubt 'ethical philosophers' were pleased.
    Where actual content is needed, poor Wilson has no idea. Mankind, or parts of it, has lived in changed conditions for—well, how long? There have perhaps been agricultural ages, stone ages, bronze and iron ages; is there a helpful name for what's been happening? Modernity? Technology? Industrialism? Organisational Processes? Communication Revolution?
    2. My second comment on Wilson's word structures is his use of fake continuisms. To illustrate, consider e.g. G M Trevelyan's English Social History: at one point 'We' were Britons, then 'We' were Romans, then 'We' were Angles and Saxons, then 'We' were Normans. The subject changes being elided away. In Wilson's case, 'We' were all Africans—it said so in Time magazine. Then 'We' survived the Arctic ice-cap. Then 'We' were largely in the Middle East, and then 'We' were 'Judaeo-Christian'. 'Slavery' is another type of continuism, where a word is applied to very different conditions: in the chapter on Emergence, we are told Orlando Paterson of Harvard made a 'systematic study of slave societies' and found 'true, formalized slavery passes through approximately the same cycle... [ending with] its destruction' (1977). Maybe; or, of course, maybe not, since slavery, caste, child labour, and conquered territories are with us still. 'War' is another example of Wilson's incompetence or insensitivity or indifference. 'Wars' may mean tribal fighting; Maoris, for example. Then Wilson casually mentions WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam as though the process is the same. This of course is in keeping with the Jewish worldview: a lot of goyim died, fortunately. Many goyim were shelled, burnt to death, shot, and so on, but Wilson states '.. a large percentage of ... Medals.. were awarded to men who threw themselves on top of grenades to comrades, aided the rescue of others ... at the cost of certain death [sic] ..' with almost ludicrous irrelevance, but full awareness of his simple audience.

At a lighter level, let's look at some of his chapters. On Sex, he says 'the processes of sexual pairbonding vary greatly... but are everywhere steeped in emotional feeling'. He appears to know nothing of (for example) women used as sex objects, for example in 'modern' Israel. As I've pointed out, he has no idea that sex, despite the emotional feeling, is a mechanism for two sets of genes to come into play: why should this be practically useful? He also copies other authors on crypsis in women, as opposed to many creatures, who have mating seasons. He doesn't seem to recognise other infinitely important forms of crypsis: I'll say more of these below.

On Religion, his opening sentence is a typical unsubstantiated assertion: 'The predisposition to religious belief is the most complex and powerful force in the human mind ...' One of his examples of religion is Neanderthals decorating a grave with seven species of flower. He has routine material on monotheism; he seems unaware of things like 'Muti'.. He gives a 'Mother' Teresa joke: she 'cares for the desperately poor of Calcutta ... lives a life of total poverty and grinding hard work'. Of course she does!

On Aggression, a popular topic at the time—I'd guess related to the US invasion and war crimes in Vietnam. (Wilson's references to 'genocide' are mostly from 1971, Pakistan and Bengal/Bangla Desh. I can only imagine he wanted to distance himself from Jewish 'Holocaust' claims). His Glossary gives his definition of aggression: 'Any physical act or threat of action by one individual that reduces the freedom or genetic fitness of another'. I wonder if shouting at someone is considered 'aggression'.

Wilson has a shotgun attitude to endnotes and sources: Robert Conquest and Sorokin rub shoulders with the considerably lesser Gilbert Ryle, A J Ayer, Antony Flew, John Keegan. Lists of names are dropped: the Huxleys, Waddington, Monod ... Vico, Marx, Spencer ... Bakunin... ending with Aeschylus' Prometheus at the end.

One of the omissions characteristic of propagandists is an absence of feeling for possibilities and likelihoods, and I attribute these omissions to lack of genuine interest in the topics. Why would a propagandist bother with more than a few facts? I could find no 'human nature' material on the need to eat, for water, for excretion, and bodily structure and the resulting constraints for example on movements. Wilson has little feeling for evolution in response to other evolutions: oxygen in the air after photosynthesis developed, grass eating animals after grasses evolved. But especially (after, on his only diagram, band, tribe, chiefdom, then) the complete absence of possibilities of co-operation and parasitism and exploitation, which language and information make possible in a way no other animal can rival. Wilson seems to have no feeling for the astronomical range of possible combinations: if a group of just ten males and 10 females form 10 couples, there are more than three and a half million combinations.

An interesting omission is crypsis, not of menstruating women, but of all types of human interaction. Consider for example secrecy of exams: it might be important to assess (say) black children, or overseas doctors, but completed exam papers are never made public, even anonymously. Consider secret family courts. More broadly, consider promises, treaties, contracts, secret clauses e.g. in immigration, legal ownership, legal documents, debts—all invisible to everyday observation, and yet hugely influential. Many examples of crypsis involve time: perhaps 'chronocrypsis' would be a useful neologism. Debts become due, information on populations can be secret. If minds could be read, social relationships would presumably be very different indeed. But Jews avoid discussions on these lines for reasons obvious enough to them: they want to keep their activities secret.

Darwinism has been explained as a 19th century projection of 'capitalism' and struggles for money into the natural world. Is there any similar interpretation, also omitting finance, of Wilson's Heredity and Emergence of Societies/ Aggression/ Sex/ Altruism/ Religion/ Hope? 'Altruism' seems an oddity: why not the reverse, presumably selfishness? I suspect his list comes indirectly from Talmudic sources, but adjusted to look less menacing. Wilson's list looks different from chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility. And different from possessive versus creative impulses, impulses versus conscious purpose, and vanity and love of possession, love of family, love of country. And different from prior patriotism and heroism and glory. As with Lewis Fry Richardson's attempts to identify what might make ideals, probably there's some cryptic rationale in Wilson's chapters. The complete absence of discussion on intelligence and skills must be significant!

Skimming through, we find Aaron Director's Law is that 'income in a society is distributed to the benefit of the class that controls the government. In the USA this is of course the middle class.' We find 'new species have been created in the laboratory'. We find Wilson expects computers with 'the memory capacity of a human being' despite the fact memory is not understood. We find he doesn't seem to know that in Islam, often enough many sons went to war with each other. Looking online, we might puzzle over his photos: a cabinet maker perhaps? A skilled mechanic? A cunning peasant? And we find a talk on TED in 2007—how we really must do something about greenhouse gases. Human nature appears to be variable; it may take a long time to understand people—after all, most people can't understand Jews. Nor do most people understand media propaganda.

Here are just a VERY FEW relevant reviews, most of them in this same page; click return arrow to come back here.
    Anti-white movements among Jews were planned DURING the Second World War. I haven't reviewed Gunnar Myrdal's book (presumably the author was chosen on the same crypsis principle that 'Haagen Dazs' sounded good to Americans). However, here's a British equivalent, Rose (and other Jews): British Race Relations. On intelligence, here's a 'debate' of sorts between Eysenck & Kamin. J P Rushton's Race, Evolution, Behavior looks at large issues of race. Here's a book on British social workers, showing the fraudulent policies used to push the Jewish agenda: L Dominelli: Anti-Racist Social Work part of the whole process of censoring out lack of achievements by low-IQ blacks and others.
    On Jews forcing immigration into white countries, K. B. MacDonald's Culture of Critique has almost achieved the status of a classic. Conway's Demographic History of Britain is a counter to the lies of Jewish journalists. Myles Harris's UK Asylum Policy gives accounts of legal profiteering. The use of bogus human rights legislation (it of course doesn't apply to victims of wars) Grayling: Struggles for Liberty & Rights. The abolition of capital punishment as a fake: Arthur Koestler: Hanged by the Neck.
    Hilaire Belloc's The Jews is a 1920s book surveying Jews in an objective way. However, like almost all commentators, Belloc excludes 'Jewish' writings: Carol Valentine put the Talmud in English translation on the web; Michael A. Hoffmann II is the only other serious researcher known to me. Wise's DVD The Greatest Story Never Told gives some idea of the truths behind the Second World War. Bertrand Russell's War Crimes in Vietnam is an introduction to post-1945 Jewish methods, though Russell was a lifelong dupe of Jews, as are a great many modern 'thinkers'. On the crypsis of lies and deception, here's a review of Noam Chomsky's Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, in which Chomsky, the old fraud, omits vast structures of lies.
Top of Page

Colin Flaherty   White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It (2012, but apparently famous in 2013) & Don't Make the Black Kids Angry (2015)
Review: 11 Feb 2015

No racism. No rancor. No Apologies. (But Flaherty's slogan omits 'No Jews').

Flaherty has a Youtube presence. His youtubes (he says) are e-mailed to him and consist of clips from US Jewish-controlled TV news programs, often from Fox 'News'. (Non-USA viewers must be amused at the heavily made-up actors pretending to do news). Flaherty's hit rates rarely go above a few thousand. Many readers here are aware of Jewish anti-white policies. (I'm just watching an episode of 'Midsomer Murders' showing two black 'folk singers' in an English village; and a film with an elderly actress with a deliberate working class voice being faced with a black doctor claiming to be English). The Jewish news never states that blacks have robbed, shot, stolen from, or played the 'knockout game' on whites. Flaherty makes a good case for this systematic deception: blacks are shown in Jewish-controlled media as 'relentless victims of relentless white racism practised relentlessly by relentlessly racist cops'. It applies in Jewish reports on South Africa, in Muslim sex crimes in Britain, and generally any white country. Flaherty makes a good case; some (or many—hard to know) of his fans find this new, and are shocked. Flaherty seems determined to make money from this; hence his second book, Don't Make the Black Kids Angry, which as I write is dated for publication in March 2015; easy enough to guess the contents.
    Flaherty doesn't say that Jewish control of paper money (by the 'Federal Reserve' scam) means Jews own all black cheap housing. So blacks, all their lives, pay rent to these bloodsucking parasites. Maybe he'll say that in future books, though I doubt it.
    And of course Flaherty doesn't mention violence by US mercenaries overseas.
    So—difficult situation for whites, who'd prefer not to be burdened with blacks and Jews. Flaherty plays a small part in this drama. As he said, in roughly his own words, in one of his youtube comments, in my grade I don't look at that. And the other thing he doesn't look at—US violence overseas—is conducted by Jews, too. From his websites, I notice his brother died in Vietnam in 1967. Some of these people have reunions. Flaherty has no idea of white violence and the way it's been controlled.
Top of Page

Humphry Berkeley   The Myth That Will Not Die: The Formation of the National Government 1931
1978. Published by Croom Helm.


Examination of Cabinet Minutes re Ramsay MacDonald and the Labour Government in 1931.

A book I found in my search for titles including the word 'myth'. Humphry Berkeley (b 1926) was a Conservative MP who 'crossed the floor' to Labour. Humphry Berkeley was from 1959 to 1966 a Conservative Member of Parliament. From 1966 to 1970 he was Chairman of the United Nations Association of Great Britain. In October 1974 he stood as Labour Candidate in the General Election. He is an author and broadcaster and his publications include The Power of the Prime Minister (1968), Crossing the Floor (1972) and The Odyssey of Enoch (1977). He is currently writing a biography of Sir Harold Wilson. The jacket blurbs say: No figure in the Labour movement has attracted such extremes of emotion as has James Ramsay MacDonald. Loved ... for more than thirty years, his formation of the National Government in August 1931 incurred hatred, bitterness and contempt ... the odium which it engendered is without parallel in British democratic politics. ... it has made 'coalition' a polluted word in the Labour Party even today. This book provides an answer to the charge that MacDonald deliberately and cynically betrayed the Labour movement by forming the National Government with the Conservative and Liberal Parties. ...

Berkeley's book uses private papers, biographies and autobiographies; and cabinet minutes for 12th to 24th August 1931. He's a parliamentarian, not able to see the money and war policies behind the personalities—Balfour, Lloyd George, Chamberlain, Churchill and others make their stage appearances. And who could seriously embark on a biography of Harold Wilson?

Berkeley regards the unemployment crisis as financially-based: '... there had been a run on the Reichsbank of Germany. Montagu Norman [of the Bank of England] was ... approached by Herr Luther, the President of the Reichsbank, for a credit from the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve Bank. The latter made French participation a condition... The French not only put economic pressure on Germany but withdrew large sums in gold from London ... the Bank of England had been borrowing from French depositors at 2 per cent and lending to Germans at 8 per cent. The German banks were forced to repudiate their liabilities by declaring a moratorium. The London bankers then revealed that they owed foreign depositors £250 million. They had borrowed short-term and lent long-term. ...' is a typical passage. Berkeley either didn't know, or wouldn't admit, the Jewish interests in the Fed, the Bank of England, the Banque de France. Or of course the USSR; and other countries. As a result he never asks, or answers, where the flows of gold went and how employment was manipulated internationally. A typical failed book; Perhaps a shrewd reader can penetrate its surface and identify the subterranean currents.
Top of Page

The Sound of Music   Review of   The Sound of Music   Film from 1965, reprising Mary Poppins of a year earlier
Specimen typical in many ways of Jewish lies smuggled into popular entertainment
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space) Accurately Hostile Review of 'The Sound of Music' on the website of the Institute for Historical Review, by Mark Weber (2011). (This is not my review).
Top of Page

Norman Angell Lane The Great Illusion Norman Angell   THE GREAT ILLUSION - NOW
1908 (& other dates before the 'Great War') + 1938 new introduction, with edited reprint of the pre-Great War book. Published by Penguin Books


Fake pacifist Jewish-concern book, which misled many peace-inclined people. Part of the Jewish propaganda for war with Germany.

This review is part of a detailed piece on Jewish book propaganda 1908-1948. (Not the press, not the BBC radio, not public meetings).
Jewish Book Propaganda 1908-1948. Includes Victor Gollancz, Left Book Club and Penguin Specials.
Top of Page

TV Apprentice 2005-1014 UK   Review of   The Apprentice   BBC TV (in Britain). 2005-2014
Useful Idiot Entertainment for Fantasy Entrepreneurs
The Apprentice (UK) Click here
Top of Page

Richard Branson - Business Stripped Bare   Review of   Richard Branson   Business Stripped Bare     Hardback 2008. Softback 2009.
Not About Business, But Sniffing After Big Money. Google, Amazon? Stratospheric Ideas? Fraud Support: AIDS, Climate Change, Mandela?
This is an interesting but strange book; and it's not very easy to state what its point is. Is it to help budding entrepreneurs? I'd say no, and I'll explain why, in detail, below. Is it for entertainment, 'Adventures of a Global Entrepreneur', a rousing evangelical call to would-be entrepreneurs? There are of course entertaining passages, and the title itself is in Branson's serial policy of hinting at sex, but that cannot be the whole point of this book. Is it to pinpoint and identify business opportunities, for experienced entrepreneurs? Again, I'd say no, even more emphatically. Is it to make some money? I can find no 'fastseller' information on his book titles; he's written a few more books since, which appear to be more of the same; and it must surely be true they netted far more than most authors. But the conclusion I arrived at is that Branson is at the limit of his business powers, and is discreetly nudging at the doors of powerful political and economic interests, with the emphasis on propaganda and promotion.

[Preface: a few comments on Branson by Tom Bower (2000). This is the only hostile book on Branson I'm aware of; and none of the 250 people who 'worked closely with Sir Richard' are acknowledged, apparently on legal advice. About half Bower's books were conventional treatments of the 'Nazis', so truth can be assumed not to be his (Bauer's?) priority. I found the book oddly insubstantial; this may be because of the impenetrability of business arrangements. But we find, in no special order, Losing My Virginity (1998) was a 'volley of tripe'. The Branson family was partly entangled with Flindt, from Hamburg, who worked on the Baltic Exchange (i.e. insuring ships). Branson in pursuit of publicity spoke to 'only the most susceptible' of journalists—as though the entire Jewish media system isn't solidly rigged anyway. I was interested to see a list of writs in the index, both to and from, including one from Mike Oldfield. Bower is irritated by Virgin's one-time hippiesque policy of low wages, seemingly unaware that (if I'd read this correctly) Branson's mum gave him the run of a big house in Kensington, which could count as subsidised rent to the Student-floggers. Branson is quoted as complaining about legal costs; this may be news to Bower, but Branson was not and is not the only one! On condoms, made for Branson by a US manufacture with an eye on the UK market in 1987-ish, and 'AIDS', (p 80) Bower thought Branson's claims should have been 'more cautious'—when apocalyptic claims were official government policy. There are personal stories: (p 201) Rory McCarthy, who apparently made fortunes from a delivery company, and prawns, but all of which was used up by Branson. However, after all, McCarthy was an adult. And (p 270) Abbott's suicide apparently disappointed by both his ex and Branson. We're told Abbott held shares, and knew secrets he would not have wanted to reveal; and Branson refused to buy back shares—possibly analogously to Jews dumping their fiat paper money for real assets. An aspect of Branson on trains and aircraft, not really addressed by Bower, is the apparent over-reaction to Branson: Bower gives figures for numbers of air passengers in the late 1990s (but not their revenue) and Virgin seems small beer. The implications of being a 'private company', i.e. with only one shareholder, when operating as part of a group, aren't discussed]

Business Stripped Bare has seven principal chapters. (Branson was born in 1950, mnemonically helpful: so e.g. in the 1990s he was in his 40s). Here's a quick overview (but each chapter is a bitty mixture):
• People: find good people – set them free Anecdote about a loan for a sewing machine in Africa. Largely about Virgin Records, which started in about 1971. (I haven't seen a full list of Virgin companies; there must be many, complicated by the removal of the name when sold). Branson quotes 'my friend Jon Butcher' on capitalism. Branson has no idea about control of money itself. He says: (39) 'Asia has exploded out of poverty in my lifetime thanks to entrepreneurs'. He doesn't seem to know Victorian India had railways, and Japan was industrialised by the 1930s, and so on. Or that vast populations in for example Bangla Desh live in acute poverty, at least by white standards. Moreover he has no idea about science and technology. Anyway, the overt message of this chapter seems aimed at managers rather than entrepreneurs: get a contact, pay them, keep organisations small.

• Brand: Flying the Flag Basically this chapter is about the Virgin brand: how it started, how it's used, variations on the theme such as Virgin Blue. Since Virgin is a private company, it's about self-publicity and it's undeniable that Branson is a master at that. He says: if CNN phones for an interview, he drops everything to do it. There's a story that, when a hot-air balloon crashed, he was immediately on his mobile, explaining the near-death circumstances. He praises Jackie McQuillan, his director of Media Relations (his capitals). This means some compromise: he used to be popular with the Sun, a highly downmarket British 'newspaper', but this book is 'The No. 1 Sunday Times bestseller', whatever that means, suggesting an appeal to another sector.
    We also have Virgin records and its sale to EMI 'for $1bn in 1987', mobile phones c 2000, the 9/11 towers demolition—many Australians stopped travelling abroad; followed by floating Virgin Blue on 'ASX' (Australian Stock Exchange?). Much of this is annoyingly vague: ' ... So far we've enjoyed success in [list of countries] ... ' may mean almost nothing had been achieved; what counts as 'success'?

• Delivery: Special Delivery This is a rather baffling, and long, chapter: the advice is to do what you said you would, and work hard to deliver your service. But many of Branson's examples seem incomplete successes, or just hard to assess: his Italian Pendolino tilting trains for example, surely a case for engineering assessment rather than his, and one of which crashed: too heavy for the points? In 1982, his hundred or so Virgin record stores were 'deserted in weekdays' and his Virgin Megastores were not profitable. 1995 Virgin Cola story (with Canadian company, 'world's largest supplier of retailer own-brand—Safeway, 7-11, etc—soda drinks' and Coca Cola's SWAT team—possibly very standard reactions) doesn't seem to have been successful, though, typically, Branson gives no summary of sales, costs, or result. And seems to think (in a world of precise automated chemical analysis that Coca Cola's formula is secret).
    Some of this chapter looks at Branson's non-deliveries: he regrets not having had anything to do with Google; and with failing to get Britain's then-new National Lottery in 1994 (I think; possibly 2001); and at some hook-up between Virgin Direct and Norwich Union; and with the aftermath of 9/11 as applied to commercial aircraft (he doesn't mention insurance!); and costs of building mobile phone towers, of course met by others.
    I was amused (p 164) with his comparison of his life with playing the board game Monopoly, because he got all the details wrong, including 'borrowing from the bank to pay for everything'. And amused by this: 'we gave Mike Oldfield his big opportunity' when surely that was a near-perfect example of mutual benefit.

• Learning from Mistakes and Setbacks: Damage Report This is mostly two parts: first half mobile phones; second part Northern Rock and subprime mortgages. And Branson's youthful indiscretion, avoiding purchase tax of the time. All the material is from Branson's own life, rather breathtakingly egotistical!

• Innovation: A Driver for Business As far as I can deduce, Branson was not an innovator; but he (perfectly legitimately) followed the expensive pathbreakers. This seems an exploratory chapter: Branson admires Google, rather than all the underlying work that made it possible. He regrets not originating Apple's iPod. He discussed human colonies on Mars, with Sergey and Larry of Google. I would guess they viewed him as a gullible goy. Anyway, they discussed 'suborbital space', 100 kilometres up I think, for which Branson thinks people will pay Virgin Galactic quite a lot of money. That's about 60 miles up, less than 1% of the diameter of the earth. Look at (say) a billiard ball to see how unimpressive this is.
    Branson's claim in this chapter to innovation is the design of upper-class plane suites; some sort of bed in a plane.
   Then we have 'biofuel' from fermented plant waste. Cars in the US used alcohol from 1910, says Branson; could this have been part of the reason for prohibition? Was the oil lobby involved? Anyway, Branson calls tourism an 'industry'. And it occurs to me that maybe Africa had appropriate technology, all along—kraals, spears, cattle, manioc, transport on foot? Branson likes Dragon's Den and American Inventor and similar TV things; in fact, he has his own venture capital organisation, to assess possible inventions. Most of them are rejected. I remember talking to an inventor, who told me in anguish of some official US outfit that had never, ever, paid out money to an inventor. Another, non-innovative, remark from Branson was (239) that the 'ageing of the 'baby boomer' generation ... means that people can longer expect their own national welfare systems to prop them up [sic] in terms of pensions and healthcare. ...' These are people who paid into the system all their working lives in good faith.

• Entrepreneurs and Leadership: Holding On and Letting Go Another chapter with contents ludicrously unrelated to the chapter title: the impression is yet another assortment of anecdotes and names. Thus we have: 'Virgin Media, the largest Virgin company in the world.' A summary of Rupert Murdoch, full of praise, but oblivious of the lies purveyed by that disgusting figure. 9/11, and 'transAtlantic air travel stopped..' though Branson doesn't comment on how that must have been factored in by the planners of 9/11. There's some material on Mandela, 'one important figure in my life', presumably supposed to be a leader. A naive interview by the very young Branson of James Baldwin, of The Fire Next Time: nothing about Jewish paper money being used to buy up rental accommodation, so blacks spend their lives paying rent to Jews; nothing on LBJ's social engineering, which many blacks must have sensed. Southern, and in fact all, Africa has problems, possibly insoluble. It's nice to know Branson did his bit to help 'one of South Africa's biggest health clubs'. And that just two 'whites', Peter Gabriel and Branson, were at some black celebration; possibly part of the Jewish push to destroy South Africa. And that twelve 'elders', along with 'leading conflict and dispute resolution professionals', were helping the world; we've all heard their wise words and well thought-out plans, haven't we. Haven't we? Um. And there's a 2003 'declaration of war on AIDS'. And praise for Freddy Laker, whose mini air business lasted five years, before he retired with six million of some currency.

• Social Responsibility: Just Business Here we have: 'AIDS', on almost every page. And 'Climate Change': I think he must have been found unconvincing, as actors etc continue to be wheeled out to front this fraud. I'm afraid Branson thinks an 'Environmental War Room' is called for; led by a Churchill or F D Roosevelt! There's a small mention of biochar, though not by name. There's a 2005 'Stern Review' with not much detail. There's Bill Gates at World Economic Forum in 2008. (Spare a thought for Gates, richer than almost everyone he meets: what a strain that must impose!).

What is to be made of this book? Firstly, the subtitle 'Business Stripped Bare' doesn't represent the contents accurately. Business remains very much muffled up. There are no simplifications, overviews, summaries or details, even of his own businesses. There is nothing even on simple costs: how much does cola cost, wholesale? Was Virgin Wine ('Life's too short for boring wine') hugely profitable? What's the arithmetic of a well-maintained aircraft fleet? And there's also nothing on the complications of juggling absurdly unequal power blocs: What's his recommended way to make alliances? What does he put in his exit strategies? Let's try to infer more....

The first issue of Student (1968) has photos of its undated and unpriced cover online, thanks to the wonders of Internet. The cover includes 'DOWN WITH EDUCATION but not Vanessa Redgrave'; artists including Henry Moore, David Hockney, Michael Ayrton, Gerald Scarfe, Kenneth Armitage, and Peter Blake; WHITE SLAVERY TODAY; and a John Le Carre short story. The next issue included Hugh Thomas on Spain, R D Laing ('existential psychiatrist'), Kenneth Tynan, and Bertrand Russell. In other words, pretty much nothing to do with students, but everything to do with copying Sunday newspaper colour supplements, which were about five years old then. Presumably therefore a black and white, low budget, copy of an established business. He turned up (aged 18) at Grosvenor Square, at a demonstration against the Americans in Vietnam. Or at least I presume it was: this seems to have been Jewish-controlled behind the scenes. Branson and Tariq Ali were interviewed and photographed: but of course journalists would not ask about the actual war, and politics, and Lyndon Johnson; so Branson made ideal controlled opposition. No tricky questions on atrocities, or on who was profiting. Maybe Branson found out later?

Branson's family (says Tom Bower) were connected with Flindts from Germany, suggesting the common enough pattern of Jews tangling into British upper class (I think in Branson's case legal) circles. His family background no doubt involved family trusts, legal information and advice, and tax dodging—the private company, and separate legal structures and branches doing different deals in different jurisdictions, and different types of shares and capital, must have formed part of his background, just as other families might be medical or political or council estate. Unfortunately, Branson says nothing on these topics, or nothing that I could find. Probably these legalisms helped lead him to Necker, east of Cuba, north of South America, in the British Virgin Islands. It is described as being about 1/9 square mile, say 600 yards square.

It seems likely enough his mental life is dominated by companies and management, supplemented by expert(s). Suggestions of lack of education (and innumeracy, and dyslexia) flicker around Branson; and after all his formal education never really started. Paradoxically, this could be a strength: if he was interested in music, or books, or wine he might have spent his time listening to records, reading, or whatever. Moreover such people are forced to delegate; they have no option. He used a magazine designer, his recording studio was designed by others, and so on. On the other hand, it can of course be a weakness and lead to mistakes: his guff about fuels describes coal as a hydrocarbon, for example.

Exit strategies, in contracts, are part of Branson's Modus operandi and I've read of several varieties. One is the exit strategy for a company: once it's set up, if it goes well, it can be sold, though I think he doesn't usually permit the name 'Virgin' to continue. Flotation on a stock market (e.g. 'ASX' = Australian Stock Exchange) may be needed if there's no obvious buyer. However, he seems to have exit strategies for individuals, a bit like a pre-nuptial agreement. This makes perfect sense, since things change and develop but it sounds difficult. Everything may pivot on one sentence (or one word). Branson is said to have got his wife to sign a non-disclosure agreement or something similar; and I'd guess his exit contracts include clauses not to reveal anything. Just as many job contracts debar ex-employees or partners from setting up similar businesses in similar areas. Something analogous is splitting companies: if a company has more than about 100 employees, Branson would go to the deputies, listed as deputy managing director, deputy sales manager, and deputy marketing manager, to a new company. He seems to expect 30% a year, i.e. three years before making a profit.
    The exit strategy idea might usefully be applied to incompetent career civil servants, press reporters, legal prosecutors and what have you, but in practice seem to be pension schemes and golden handshakes.

Branson might have given some indication of what he looks for in a potential business: what is it that makes some activities profitable, but not others? And profitable to an 'entrepreneur', i.e. someone raising money and managing it through others? Maybe it involves technical experts: pilots, engineers, computer people, medical people or whatever, who need concentrated work without too much distraction. Mike Oldfield is a perfect example. Or an entrepreneur might be an intermediary between many customers: publishing, distribution, passengers, spectators? Or is there some ratio of one group of people to another that needs management? Anyway, I couldn't find any hint that Branson looks for things which some businesses have in common; he seems to look in an ad hoc way. Or does he see things in terms of cash flow—where others see a cinema, does he see building costs, maintenance, numbers of films per week, bums on seats, sales of ice cream? Again, I could find no sign of abstract analysis in operation.
    Perhaps there's a clue in the businesses that Branson has avoided: Hairdressers? Medical services? House renovation and redesign? Microbreweries? National legal service? After-shave? Restaurant chain? Hand grenades? Utilities? Prison transport? Solar power? Intersperma sperm bank? Educational? Research? Anyway, there's no sign of types of businesses to avoid, except that Branson clearly prefers small business ('small, lean entrepreneurial businesses are the future.').
    What about taxes? Arranging money to avoid tax is obviously part of his methodology, offshore taxes, companies, and so on, but he gives no helpful information. Maybe governments subsidise him in exchange for keeping quiet—who knows!
    If 'innovation' is thought important, maybe Branson might have examined trends, to predict new things? Just as the invention of refrigeration led to a huge frozen meat transport industry, and airplanes led to bombs but also to mass movements of populations, and TV to the decline in cinema, and digital storage and sound sampling and sound compression to iPods, there must be scope for predicting new trends, but disappointingly this book hasn't much on this tack, apart from hopes for Virgin Galactic.
    What about opportunities missed? Alcopops/ Time Out-style weekly events listings/ Matalan clothing/ IKEA furnishings/ Lloyd Webber theatrical performances/ Lidl, Aldi food on pallets and rotating hardware/ iPod, mobiles, Internet, Youtube, search engines, flat screens, sat navs were mostly missed by Branson; but most sound out of reach of one-man companies.
    But some financial 'business models' are firmly omitted: Jews printing a few trillion in paper money, then hiding it away; Jews funding weapons factories for both sides in wars, then charging for rebuilding; Jews setting up national banks with new worthless currency, making a fortune from loans; 'PFI' ['Personal Finance Initiative'] loans to buy assets. Branson's material on e.g. 2008 Northern Rock bid shows no awareness of this sort of thing, no idea that Jews have been given a paper money monopoly and are immune from competition. Branson says nice things about Goldman Sachs; did he not understand that Thatcher's role was to get British assets owned by Jews?
    Branson's stories seem amazingly lacking in analysis: a wild life park in Africa with high rent lodges which 'he could never bring himself to sell'; an account of a plane crash and the pilot's skill; a TV show with a barrel over Niagara Falls. ... Whether this is cunning suppression, or simple unawareness, I have no idea.

An undeniable fact about Branson is his use of himself as an advertisement. If he can promote something, draw attention to it, and save the cost of agents, advertisers, placing of ads, gaining goodwill etc, and these costs can be enormous, he could in effect exit a business to shareholders, and pocket the savings. On the face of it, it's surprising the world isn't filled with waterskiers, abseilers, people flying planes upside-down, banners placed by roads, and so on. However, they need attractiveness, and they need support from e.g. newspapers and/or TV. (Even Robert Peston of the BBC). Anyway, Branson became a flexible franchise label. I don't think he had really new ideas; he copied existing stuff, but with a novel name or irreverent image or claim that prices would drop.
    Will Sir Richard Branson remain famous? He surely can't be unique: but there seem to be rather few own name labels. Ingvar Kamprad and his own brand? Maybe Dyson? Bill Gates? Surely not Paul Newman lettuce dressing. Or, earlier, Henry Ford, or Rolls and Royce, or Alfred Nobel. What about Picasso? Luther of the Lutheran Church? John Laws of the failed South Sea Bubble? Francis of Assisi? Wycliffe of his Bible?

In my revisionist view, which will escape most ordinary readers, a weakness of Branson, from the point of truth, though not necessarily money-making, is his failure to speak out about Jewish and other concealed corruptions and assumptions. He says 'communism and socialism are no longer taken seriously because they simply don't work. ... They are disastrous though well-meaning systems that have ruined hundreds of millions of lives.' Of course, 'Communism' was not well-meaning, but a Jewish system in which non-Jews were regarded as disposable. And national socialism did work—it was, and is, attacked precisely because it worked. Broadly, Branson supports nationalisation of banks, but not removal of Jewish privilege. Branson's public image has always been 'politically correct' and he joins a dishonourable crew—Kissinger's Peace Prize, the Iraq War young woman liar, Barry Soetero's ridiculous Peace Prize, 9/11 and Climate Change actors and liars, liars on sundry rights. His laughable praise for Obama/Soetero. The implausible projects: Prof Yunus' Grameen bank 'lifting whole communities out of poverty .. African companies poised for rapid growth.. every year 5% of Grameen borrowers move out of poverty'.

The book ends with Kipling's If; and possibly Branson genuinely can keep his head when all around are losing theirs. Compared with politicians who bomb innocent people, news sources that censor race killings, professional liars, science fraudsters, Jewish corrupters of all types, Branson seems an open-hearted, generous, friendly, and worthy person. I hope he can come up with something more stellar in future.
Top of Page

British aircraft ruled the world   Review of   James Hamilton-Paterson   Empire of the Clouds
'When Britain's Aircraft Ruled the World'. Mostly about Test Pilots. Not much on the real world of war, money, and people.     This review August 18, 2014
SIMPLETONS IN THE SKIES: LONG REVIEW WARNING!

Published by faber and faber [sic - no capitals], who are more associated with poetic and supposedly artistic books and novels which some people feel they ought to read. Perhaps this choice is explained by the same author's published list in 2010: fiction, children's fiction, and poetry, plus six non-fiction titles, mostly not connected with world wars.



Each chapter has endnotes: the sources are test pilot memoirs, surveys of test pilots of fighters and some bombers, magazines (e.g. 'Flight'). Plus interviews, notably with Bill Waterton's surviving family and friends, Richard Bentham, and John Farley. Waterton's voice survives in tape(s) by Bill Algie. 'The World's Worst Aircraft' is referred to a few times (edited Winchester, and a source for aircraft liable to crash)..

The book has a detailed index, longer than the notes, perhaps computer-generated: all the planes are listed, with their variants (Mark I, II, etc), and the manufacturing companies with their shifting names, the variants usually caused by amalgamations. So are engines. Whittle, test pilots, some politicians, special fuels (avpin and AVTUR are listed by name). But 'kerosene', 'fuel', 'crashes', 'designers', 'real costs', 'Edwards Air Force Base', (previously 'Muroc Army Airfield', in the Mojave desert) aren't indexed.

The ten chapters have clever titles, often containing quotations which can only be understood after reading the book. I wish they wouldn't do that; but everyone does. The final chapter, 10, 'Not with a bang' refers to the ending of the British air industry, not Faber and Faber and T S Eliot's end of the world.

Illustrations are from assorted sources, some private. There are about two dozen, but seem to be fewer because most are similar compositions. Such is the spreading scepticism of the time, that some stock photos look fake to me: much easier to make precision photos under controlled conditions with a Rolleiflex, then scalpel out the image and paste it onto some scenic picture. Does the exhaust show refraction? Could four planes in diamond formation really be photographed at high speed, as pin-sharp pictures?

Misleadingly, the photos resemble a biography showing only 'salad days' photos. As the text makes clear, we might expect pictures of machine graveyards littered with (p 119) Meteors, destroyed jigs and assemblages and mock-ups of cancelled aircraft, roomfuls of designers at drawing boards, windtunnels, suppliers of kerosene. And for that matter bombed cities, napalmed civilians, and refugees.



Important technical omissions include two matters which seem out of range of the author. Nothing unusual; unfortunately this dumbed-downness is completely general. The first is simple Newtonian dynamics and the science of fuels and energy. Probably designers were very familiar with all this, but kept it from the public, and probably from financiers. One example: a plane which was capable of a very fast ascent - tens of thousands of feet in less than a minute. But its fuel consumption was so high that the aircraft had only another fifteen minutes' flying time. The calculations involving fuel and acceleration must be fairly rule-of-thumb and standard, yet there only bare hints.

Significantly only three pages of the book look at the practical details; taken from an interview with John Farley [pp 312-314] who sounds exceptionally clued up. Here he is on TSR2 [Tactical Strike/ Reconnaissance]: 'The spec.[ification] was for a very high supersonic, low-level, long-range delivery of a nuclear weapon: a plane that's got to fly very fast, very low, and a very long way. The only way to do that is to put a negligible wing on it, so you don't get any drag, and fill it up with fuel. .. The trouble with a negligible wing is your take-off and landing performance becomes negligible. ... And I didn't like the P.1154 ... The whole point of a VSTOL [Vertical/ Short Take-Off/Landing] aircraft is its operating flexibility.: it can fly from a field, a bit of road, the back of a ship... But you've got to moderate your exhaust gas velocity and temperature..'

Farley's extracts show the lack of insight typical of almost all techies. He clearly believed what he'd been told about nuclear weapons, now known to have been a hoax, certainly a hoax at that time. No doubt he was also anti-Germanic, believed Hitler started the war, thought Stalin was 'Uncle Joe', and favoured bombing Korea, Vietnam and other places.

Farley may as well introduce us to the second omission from the book, Hamilton-Paterson's inability to quantify the air industries in any helpful way. Is there some power:cost ratio, for example? Here's Farley on 'Cost Plus': '... The idea was that we spend money, we do research, we do development, we give you the receipts, you pay the bill - and then you give us a percentage on top as profit.' A ludicrous way to run an aircraft industry, Farley said. Maybe it's just me, but his description is so bad as to suggest the entire industry was kept in a state of confusion. As to what percentage of British industry was air-related, Hamilton-Paterson has nothing better to say than it's large, expensive, unsustainable, or whatever.



This book starts with some rather childish material, correctly identified by the author as resembling attitudes in The Eagle comic. Since the Wright brothers, it's been known that a big enough engine, attached to properly shaped metal, can fly through the air, the forward motion counteracting the falling motion. Hamilton-Paterson's descriptions of load roars and bangs testify to his admiration for airshows of the time: Jesus! Woooah!!! He assesses planes by looks: graceful, splendid, amazing, sparkling in the sun. The spectators are supposed to have an understanding of aerobatics: show-stopping 'falling leaf', 'Zurabatic' cartwheel.

The author's early life, in Kent, reminds me of David Irving's reflections on aerial battles in British skies, and the V1 and V2. I suppose much of the excitement is the dicing-with-death aspect: it's hard to imagine anyone thrilling to drivers testing new cars and noting down faults, and it's hard to imagine test runs of submarines being publicised. But death from the air is obviously possible, and such events in the 1950s were common enough: the 1952 Farnborough Air Show's crowds, influenced by David Lean's film The Sound Barrier (1952) and the anticipation ('new Elizabethans') of an exciting, if almost uneducated, new Queen, and the new designs such as delta wings, was [p. 35] ruined by 29 deaths when a DH100 crashed. In 1954, a de Havilland Comet (jet airliner) crashed. In 1956, '6 of 8 Hawker Hunters caught in fog in East Anglia ran out of fuel and crashed.' [p 124].

Anyway, many boys must have wanted to be pilots, displacing the earlier ambition to drive trains. There's a nice account, including slang, of a jet pilot readying himself [Pp 120-1]. A popular paperback isn't going to include elaborate accounts of instrumentation and control, but there are technical terms ('wave drag') and slang ('in the drink') to give atmosphere. The job, not very well paid, at the time was [p 98] to go faster, and otherwise stress the machine, until it was about to become uncontrollable.



During the Second World War, it's stated that the pilots considered themselves superior to mere designers—an insanely anti-Darwinian attitude, surely. Barnes Wallis is quoted [p. 82] as being shocked at fifty-three deaths on the dam busting attack on Germany. Generally, pilot deaths seem to have been taken lightly, just as German deaths were taken lightly. 'Post-War' Britain (in quotes; there were plenty more wars) had a huge air industry. Despite the supposed huge success in bombing Germany to nothing, the air industry's main concern seems to have been worry over job losses. The Attlee 'Labour' government continued [p 139] to pay, despite the huge debts incurred by the war. (Hamilton-Paterson maintains the media myth that Labour won 'by a landslide'; though I'd guess he's right to say that pilots generally didn't like 'Labour').

Conspiratorialists have considerable food for thought here. The main dynamic seems to have been Jewish influence in the Washington-London-Moscow axis, which pursued what it thought of as its own interest ruthlessly, demanding huge payments for having been saved, and demanding huge profits for war materiel, and doing everything to prevent the USSR's inhumanity and atrocities from becoming known. (The BBC at the end of the war was run by Gen Jacob; all the eastern European mass atrocities were covered up). The USA's Jews worked on what must have been the myth of nuclear weapons, to make more money and get control of the simple soldiery, and have more of the same with the 'Cold War'. A Rothschild during the war had access to all British inventions. Later, the tradition was continued as (e.g.) the M52 jet was cancelled by Ben Lockspeiser, and broken up, and the jigs and prototype destroyed; but the plans were sent to the USA. Two engine drawings (for the Nene and Conway engines, I think) were GIVEN to the USSR.

In Britain, the Labour government had already adopted, in secret, the Jewish policy to damage Britain by immigration (see e.g. Lady Birdwood on this point). Their money control was probably seen as immovable. They must have decided to wind down British industry. People like Denis Healey and Tony Benn and Harold Wilson, without an ounce of science between them, were part of this policy. And union leaders and others were secretly funded to do their damage. Hamilton-Paterson quotes from a description of a pilot's anxiety to return in time to allow stowage of his plane: otherwise just one minute would allow the claim of an entire overtime shift.

The designers thrashed around, hoping for future orders. There were conflicts between family firms, heads of families, teams of designers and lead designers. The company directors seem almost casually uninterested; there are amusing accounts of two-hour dinners every day with full silver and wine service. Design flaws seem to have been common; one wonders if an airplane was better crashed, since the costs from the government would be written off and the things wouldn't have to be maintained or operate properly. Meteors had rear cockpit design flaws [p 122], the Canberra cockpit was hard to see out of [p 145 for an account of raising its seat to the highest possible point], bodily relief facilities were a joke, bells and whistles [p 147] were luxuries, and so on. The French, who are off-stage in this book, seem to have handled things more competently, up to a point.



Summarising, this is an unwitting account of simpletons who may turn out to have contributed to the extinction of their entire race. The Second World War is presented in an outdated infantile good vs bad way. Some of the readers of this book must themselves have bombed innocents, including women and children, and led slowly to the present state where the USA and its underling is more hated than any other country. Incidentally Hamilton-Paterson mentions Israel's air equipment without any acknowledgement of frauds and funding. He gives a peep into the world of official secrets and power: the daredevil pilot who 'beat up' London, sacked with no court martial (to sidestep any investigation of his complaints), then 'invalided out' (to prevent examination of his personal case); threatened with loss of pension, and no doubt the Official Secrets Act to prevent publication. Though whether, in view of secrecy generally, he could have made a good case must be doubtful.

I'd have liked something on the effects of computers—on assessing plane design, and in simulators for pilots. He might have mentioned Eisenhower's founding in the 1950s of NASA, the huge ruminant cash cow. He might have alluded to whistleblowers such as Smedley Butler, Rassinier, Veale and many others, including those who could tell a thing or two, but never do. As I finish this typing, I notice the BBC radio programme, exquisitely painful garbage, The Archers, is running, just as it was in the 1950s. Sigh.

Addendum: I found, in David Irving's website fpp.co.uk, a link to a BBC article of 5 June 2014, discussing the 'liberation of France'. Possibly published because Irving's forthcoming volume 3 on Churchill will detail the WW2 bombing of about 1,000 French towns.

'According to research carried out by Andrew Knapp, history professor at the UK's University of Reading, British, American and Canadian air raids resulted in 57,000 French civilian losses in World War Two.
    "That's a figure slightly below, but comparable to, the 60,500 the British lost as a result of Luftwaffe bombing over the same period," says Knapp who is the co-author of Forgotten Blitzes and a book just published in France called Les francais sous les bombes alliées 1940-1945 (The French Under Allied Bombardment).
    "It is also true that France took seven times the tonnage of [Allied] bombs that the UK took [from Nazi Germany]," says Knapp. "Roughly 75,000 tonnes of bombs were dropped on the UK [including Hitler's V missiles]. In France, it's in the order of 518,000 tonnes," he says.
    "France was the third country most bombed by the Allies after Germany and Japan and it is hardly mentioned in our history books."
Top of Page

IKEA biog of Ingvar Kamprad   Review of Bertil Torekull   The IKEA® Story - Ingvar Kamprad   This review: 6th February 2014
IKEA may mark the advent of new businesses not dependent on Jews
The IKEA Story: Ingvar Kamprad talks to Bertil Torekull. (1998 first edition; this edition 2011, the new material including commentary on Russia; English translation printed 2012 and sold in IKEA).

I still think of IKEA as being a new large exciting place, which I personally discovered a few years ago. Its atmosphere, possibly induced by the car-owners only customer-base, reminds me of a well-behaved university campus, complete with refectory. I'm tempted to compare IKEA's workers with the staff at a thriving country-house at its zenith: lots of them, purposeful, well-behaved, well-trained and happy enough. The initials 'IK' belong to Ingvar Kamprad. Just like someone in this biography, I assumed IK was an engineer: 'Ingvar' sounds like Dr. Ing, a Doctor of Engineering. The flat-pack idea, offloading a lot of transport and assembly costs onto the buyer, and the wood processing technology, feels like, but isn't, the work of an engineer. In fact, it seems IK was motivated by money-making and money-saving.

This biography is facty but also cautious: there is, of necessity, a lot omitted. Meditating about the book, I was struck by historical similarities, or what may be historical similarities, of Jewish attacks against other non-Jewish industries. Looking only at IKEA we find a venture into Russia, which still has Jewish 'oligarchs', endured large-scale losses, including of valuable machinery in forested areas. IKEA was bringing some stability and wealth into areas which the Jewish USSR had left to ruin. In the USA, the 'Anti-Defamation League' is reported to have attacked Kamprad, nominally for beliefs in Sweden in Kamprad's youth. Readers up to speed with Sweden will of course know that Swedish publishing is controlled by the Bonnier family, and will have heard of the vampirish 'Jew' Barbara Spectre. I believe to this day IKEA had and has problems in the USA market, including a complete plagiarism of their product range and house style. IKEA, or one of its spin-off organisations, has some banking presence; moreover they do not accept the percentages taken by credit card companies. My hypothesis here is that IKEA may be a sample of what could be Jew-free business operations in future. I don't know if it is; it's just a suggestion.

The paperback is small format, but has a small face: it has a lot of information, rather in the way company reports do. I'm certain there are many inferences to be made from the book, and I'm equally certain I've missed some. It has black and white photos, mostly of Kamprad's early life, including his Guggenheim-style spiral store, south of Stockholm. It is not indexed, but compensates with many lists, dates (such as three pages of important years to IKEA between 1926 and 2011), appendices and even a inspirational cheer-leading speech in immaculate capitalised Swedish handwriting.

Born in 1926 into a northern European landscape of dense pine trees, other woodlands, lakes, common mythology and fairytales, and very long winter nights. By 1943 IKEA was launched: Ingvar was packing things for sale, and not watching television. In wartime, Sweden was neutral. Post-1945 conditions were relatively favourable for Sweden; but Europe was messy and damaged. It took until 1958 for the first store to open. Kamprad collected associates who liked working for him, such as the catalogue designer. He built up suppliers on long-term contract where possible, but keeping a wary eye open for problems. Some specialist suppliers are inevitably spread out (tea, coffee, wine, tobacco...); others are collected together (buttons, car manufacturers, Italian gold chains): IKEA seems to have built a web of suppliers of different objects, all designed to be minimal in cost but high in quality. He also worked on high-tech manufacturing, as I understand it with wood chips, under pressure, impregnated under a vacuuum with plastic resin. Each object (we're told) had at least two years' design work behind it. The cost kept constant for a year is a promise based on long-term supply contracts. IKEA came under some attack; it fought back using Polish timber, and cheap labour. In the 1920s and 1930s, British furniture manufacture came under Jewish attack: they controlled Baltic timber yards, and charged Jews less than Britons. I suspect they restricted output so increased profits went to Jews, whereas IKEA always preferred huge low-cost sales. Kamprad was always aware of this sort of thing, as far as I can tell. IKEA in Sweden had to have unions as directed by the Swedish government and it's entirely possible that Kamprad was irked by that, and entirely possible he was right.

This is taken from one of the tables. It is descriptive, but not analytical; how on earth did he get such growth? --
DATES
1926 birth. 1933 move to Elmtaryd farm
1943 IKEA registered. 1950 marriage, dissolved 1961
1951 First 1 M kronor turnover
1958 First store opens Ålmhult
1961 Polish outsourcing saves IKEA. 1963 Marries Margaretha Stennert; three sons
1965 Kungens kurva opens south of Stockholm. 1970 Kungens kurva burns down: reopens next year, new concept
1973 Emigrates to Denmark | First store outside Sweden, in Switzerland | 1978 family moves to Switzerland
1982 IKEA foundation; start of series of legal structures
1985 first US store Philadelphia
1986 Anders Moberg = director. Turnover reaches 10 Billion kronor.
1998 Turnover > 50 billion. First store in China, Shanghai. 137th store
1999 Anders Dahlvig succeeds Moberg. 150th opens, Budapest, Hungary. Turnover 60 Bn
2000 Russia: 2 stores outside Moscow. 3 others St Petersburg, Kazan, Yekaterinburg
2002 175th store and 100B kronor turnover
2003 13 new stores. USA stores took off in this year; but there were more in Germany in 2011
2005 1st Portugal store, 1st in Turkey (one of 24 Franchises) | 90,000 employees | 202 stores, 24 franchises. Turnover near 150Bn Kronor
2006 1st Japan, and 18 others.
2007 10th store in Russia. 265 worldwide.
2008 25 new stores
2010 Major corruption scandal in Russia.

As far as I could work out (partly from pages 350-351) the various interlocking and yet separate legal structures, dotted around the world to allow for different legal systems, IKEA now has at least these:
Ikano = banking, insurance, real estate
Stichting INGKA Foundation controls store management and owns e.g. Swedwood with 16,000 employees.
Stichting IKEA Foundation = charity
Inter IKEA seems to run retail parks: these may (my guess) compete with Jewish shopping malls. IKEA appears to find land, then fill its plot with complementary retailers.
Interogo foundation in Leichtenstein. Apparently, Ingvar Kamprad's control organisation.

Anyway: a meaty book, interesting, but not very easy to digest; and there must be legal and financial issues which aren't explained. It has plenty of personal anecdotes and material, too: disruptions, hassles opening stores, successful amusing tricks to get more customers, technical details. It would make a serious gift for a young entrepreneur: it doesn't spare the hard work aspect.
Update Jan 2015: It seems Ingvar Kamprad in recent years employed 'Jews' at high levels in his, or what was his, organisation.
Top of Page

Dubner Levitt Freakonomics   Review of Dubner & Levitt   Freakonomics
Hidden Side of Everything? Of course not. More Heavily-Advertised Jewish Low-Grade Material. But it May Suggest Things..., May 14, 2014

I won't bother with the heavily-promoted material of this heavily-promoted Jewish journalism. Instead, let me draw attention to what this book could have been, though not under the present Jewish-controlled media system. Possibly the most important issue is the Federal reserve of the USA, and its imitations in other countries round the world. This system gives huge power to the Jews who control the system. It makes sense to understand it, and to understand the odd policies that such a system is likely to produce.

Rather than look at estate agents, let's consider issuers of paper and electronic money, with a monopoly on loans to governments. The odd thing—inconceivable to most people—is that Jews like debt, for other people. By simply arranging a bit of printing they get returns in the future. In effect future inflation and taxation can be grabbed in by them. This link The Missing Theory of Macrofinance looks at some of the problems. These are significant: and include depressions, inflation, wars, ownership of important industries, and distribution of profits. Housing is another essential aspect of economies where a long hard look should be useful. Health, too. Here's an overview: What economics needs to become more accurate — my list of the 'Hidden Side of Things' on big-lies.org site. These are difficult matters to deal with; for one thing, there is extreme secrecy. But it's obvious that genuine new thought and action needs all this.
Top of Page

W A P Manser on 'balance of payments' W A P Manser   Britain in Balance - The Myth of Failure 1971, revised 1973
Demolition Job in Economics Which Quashed the Entire Political Idea of 'Balance of Payments'

Interesting book on British economic policy; something I'd call 'revisionist', involving statistical problems in deriving simple measures, and logical arguments about imports and exports, and the history of British government accounting and interventions, but of course nothing Jewish. Very detailed references to many authoritative books. 'Authoritative' in the traditional sense. And stunning examples at intervals: accounts of the difficulties of finding index numbers for steel manufacture; the history of tally sticks; 'Half of all Britain's imports by weight are now oil'.

At the time, 'Balance of Payments problems' were in all the press. Manser found this irritating, and pointed out that invisibles were not being counted (insurance, profits, capital flows...) and that during the British Empire Britain ran a balance of payments deficit (in the newspaper sense) for centuries. Knowing what I do now, it's possible that attention was not to be drawn to Bank of England profits from currency control, and profits from weapons and wars.

A J P Taylor is quoted on the cover as saying 'It is political dynamite, making nonsense of this country's economic policies over the last 40 years. The pundits greeted it with embarrassed silence.'

I met Manser twice, having contacted him through Baring Bros, and the Institute of Economic Affairs, and did my best to interview him seriously. I must listen to my tapes again.
Top of Page

Babylonian   Rerevisionist's Review of   David Astle   The Babylonian Woe
    Review 1 July 2015
Understand Money Power: Astle's Babylonian Woe is a pioneering attempt to extend archaeology and history into monetary systems and frauds

Captain David Astle (1916-2008; not 'Castle') appears to have been Welsh, living in Canada when this short book (an online version has about 90 pages) was published in 1975, at least according to online sources. He claims this book was known to Margaret Thatcher. Astle's foreword states that he approached the topic with some trepidation, but found his confidence established by the fact that well-known archaeologists had all but ignored the subject. He lists such people as Schliemann, Breasted, and Jacquetta Hawkes, but his bibliography has a wide spread of authors, including Warburg on the 'Federal Reserve', and monographists on coinage and business practices, and of course archaeological material, including Mohenjo-Daro and Catal Huyuk. The online version in front of me has 'Catal Huyuk', and not the fully accented version; there are quite a few mistakes in proper names.

Much of his material deals with the ancient world: Egypt, India, China, Greece, and Rome, and of course other early civilisations and prehistoric periods. He looks at several temptations or frauds: owners of gold and silver mines may control supply; issues or paper notes may not be backed by metal; forgeries may be put into circulation and as in Gresham's Law there may be withdrawal of gold and silver; private banks may supersede state banks; financial targets may be unrealistic.

Astle quotes: " ... The Bank of England stands out as a striking exception to the rule [that England was fortunate in having abundant records]. It never seems to have published any reports or even to have preserved its own minutes and accounts."—so probably the under-representation of relatively recent times is simply the lack of written records. People aware of Jewish methods will find this shortage easily explained.

I don't want to summarise this book: I think I'm right in saying Astle did not have an overview of the weaknesses of 'money', but instead lists types of fraud and disaster, without trying for completeness. For example he doesn't mention Hayek, and seems not to discuss the possibilities of several currencies circulating at the same time.

The end of his piece predicts that the present system of progressive Jewish dominance cannot succeed:–

And even should this ONE WORLD come to be, what of INTERNATIONAL MONEY POWER itself and its fatuous dream of a money changer's world dominion? and what will happen to it when the Indo-European who was its unwitting host and protector for so long, is gone? for, except for some unforeseen change in the course of events, gone he surely will be, and one or the other will have taken his place as world leader.
    The present day Chinese, for instance, who very well may be strong in the competition for the throne of the gods from whence ONE WORLD would be ruled, in the event of their accession to such throne, either by election, or by force of arms, would not be likely to tolerate this finance core, privately and irresponsibly controlled, and from which has been drawn the threads of evil that have so long tormented the so called Indo-European world; ...

For such a short book this is a very useful condensed examination of money power, well worth reading.
Top of Page

Ann Oakley Scenes Originating in the Garden of Eden   Rerevisionist's Review of   Ann Oakley   Scenes Originating in the Garden of Eden
    Review 22 May 2016
Published by Harper-Collins in 1993, and presumably paperback in 1994, under the 'Flamingo' imprint. The inside front cover of the paperback has a monochrome photo of the author. Following the detective tracks—mother's name and family background suppressed, surnames, influences such as Marx and Freud, it's obvious enough she is some sort of Jew. These days she appears to resemble Melanie Phillips: another 'Jew' with short grey hair, stern expression, and a body of work which on examination is unimportant.

Internal evidence suggests this novel was written in separate chapters. It is overweighted with description in possibly a typical female way - flowers, clothes, superficialities: Lincoln Cathedral described as '... triple towers .. like decorated lemon lollies against a peacock-blue sky' illustrates the type of thing. There's no suggestion of grasp of (say) geology, history, technology or biology, though there is a sex scene containing the word 'cunt' about midway for people deciding whether to buy.

ann-oakley-c-1993
It's difficult to guess how autobiographical this novel is: the heroine's mother is (this is unstated) a Jew 'researching' an obscure woman who figured in the 'Russian Revolution'. We have mentions of Karen Horney, a follower of Freud. And of Sorokin, whose first name is spelt unconventionally. She works in an Islington Arts Establishment, funded by some supposedly humanophile outfit, which has decided to cash in, and perhaps boot her out. She 'directs' it - it occurs to me 'director' has an appropriate double meaning, one being as in films. I can't remember much of an earlier novel, The Men's Room, except that all the backup staff seemed better qualified than the director. Some interesting insights might have been provided - beyond a china in-tray, with faxes in those days - as to what the director, in this novel, actually did. I'd guess awarding cash to supplicants with a claim to feminist art.

The heroine had a few lovers, including her about-to-be discarded good looking and impecunious actor. Her favourite was a Scandinavian married man supplying waterside shags. I suppose these days it would be blacks on sex holidays combined with the new Jewish lie that they would 'pay our pensions' ('Only two percent of ... nonwhite invaders who have entered Germany over the past few months stands any hope of getting work, ... according to one of Germany’s leading economic think tanks.' - 2015).

Ann Rosamund Oakley (née Titmuss; born 17 January 1944), is a distinguished British sociologist, feminist, and writer. She is Professor and Founder-Director of the Social Science Research Unit at the Institute of Education, University of London and in 2005 partially retired from full-time academic work to concentrate on her writing and especially new novels. - thus Wikipedia. Which adds information on her Ph.D., which resulted in The Sociology of Housework (1974).

Anyway: her 39-year-old heroine decides to sell her flat (10% to the actor, I think) and moves to a mythical county with (she finds later) a submerged valley reservoir. There's a subplot involving infertility: I simply couldn't make the effort to discover the implications (if any); water pollution? As with Gee's novel (next review) there are Jewish media stories: in this case 'AIDS' risks. There's acknowledgment of the start of Jewish wars over Iraq, though not in those words.

The heroine shows her masterfulness in dealing with estate agents, and arithmetic of house prices, though the implications of inflation are outside her range: the future can pay. She has a pension. Anyway, she finds a cottage and settles in, becoming a centre of attention - perhaps this is a female attitude. They all talk about her. She finds an attractive man, or more accurately waits till he finds her. He reads Marxism Today, which lost some lawsuit (I think) on misrepresenting victims of war in Europe - they must have been surprised, since this is a favourite occupation of Jews in publishing. He was a farmer, who liked wine, was not 'organic', and supplied free dead animals who hadn't managed to live.

Another favoured Jewish theme of course is sinister and antagonistic whites in their village hovels, and the novel appears to veer off into menacing byways which I could not fathom (or perhaps 'thread'). There's an odd lack of realism: does any family really refer to other family members as 'Mother' and 'Father'? A Lord of the Manor type appears. There are boxes of papers from her deceased dad, probably a reflection of Titmuss in real life. There's a subplot involving a housing scheme (27 houses) and a marina. The novel ends with a birth: it seem all she wanted was a good shag and a child.
The real-life Oakley went on in triumph to avoid all serious issues. Here's a website presumably controlled by her: 'In 1990 [First Iraq War about to start, part of the Jewish policy for the entire Middle East:] she set up a new research unit at the Institute [of Education, London University], with a brief to conduct policy-relevant research across the health, education and welfare sectors (SSRU). Her own research interests since 1990 have increasingly been in the area of social science methodology and the contribution the social sciences can and should make to public policy. ...' 'Research'—by someone with little or no or negative grasp of medical science, education, and finance and races?
    An exquisite irony of the Jewish expansion is the continued sex differential: Jewish males take their traditional roles of lying and swindling goyim, and fomenting the most vicious wars through the control of media and puppet politicians and generals. The females screech and complain, and waste time, while attacking whites and their families. As long as Jews control money, this is likely to continue.
Top of Page

Maggie Gee Ice People   Review of   Maggie Gee   Ice People (1998)

Brainless in Gaza   Apr 4, 2016

An attempt at a 'dystopic' novel. Gee clearly believes: nonwhites were trying to invade Europe because of 'global warming'. Therefore, with unpredicted global cooling, whites are trying to invade Africa. Her scene-setting appears to be based on those of a naive Londoner from northwest London: bits about London are followed by France and Spain, though she doesn't attempt Africa. She does her best to deal with the controlled media's flood of scares. However, she thinks the media, and political action, reflect the real world. So we have bizarre juxtapositions: gangs roam the world, yet people go on picnics; what she thinks are 'basic services', such as clean tapwater, exist, while huge areas collapse and fail; governments 'run out of money'—the realities of fiat money are out of her range; news media report what worries people, and officials make embarrassed explanations; a women's party wins an election despite opposition. Her main characters are successful: the quarter-African hairy male does vaguely-described computer research, and the petite red-haired female is on top of her profession—which is something like a women's counsellor quango.
      There are rather painful intrusions: clothing and styles, in the female way, and the effects of twenty years or so of the story on women characters, are detailed. Oh, for a new Churchill. Old films have such good plots. Propaganda films of 'African history'. Airports are heard to have collapsed, though for most of the novel air travel is unaffected. International phone calls are unaffected. The medicos (pregnancy problems...) all have foreign names, such as Zeuss. 'LibLab' join the Conservatives—in a time of chaos, Gee thinks elections will continue. More or less irrelevant robots are invented: I wonder if Gee works in advertising? She seems keen on slogans and marketing campaigns—as though new products would apply amid the destruction. Her robots do housework—surely a bit of wishful thinking, there. These can absorb 'organic' material as fuel in blissful disregard of scientific principles.
      Sex is a surprisingly large part of this book; possibly this was the 'page-turning' aspect. She does her best to project a male principal character; much of this is no doubt what women think men do—he is given illegal guns (confiscated weapons), and we have a few macho passages, for example against a dozen sinister foreigners. There's a curious prefiguring of the Jewish-promoted homosexual 'marriage', in supposed sexual segregation; there is of course nothing about somewhat different mores of alien imported groups.
      Part way through, there seemed to be a Day of the Triffids emergent storyline, which however came to nothing: very possibly her editor tactfully suggested something more on the lines of Brave New World. Or Lord of the Flies? (They are 'classics'). The book may even have been set up for a sequel. But it doesn't matter.
Note on the video (not a film!) The Day After Tomorrow. 'Released' in 2004; it has a similar plot to Gee's book. The usual rubbish from 'Hollywood', as the digital studios are still collectively described. It has [1] Computer graphics 'on a large scale'; [2] What seems inevitable with these films, a ridiculous contrast between huge events involving millions, and a tiny cast of actors, all as convincing as Jewish 'crisis actors'; [3] Laughable 'science' which I suppose provides a gauge of audience levels; [4] US politicians presented as serious actors. I think this film only had the Vice-President of the USA; I may have dozed off, however. But the point here is the Jewish race agenda: happy black male with white wife, whites migrating to the Third World—just as nonwhites according to Jew lies were invading white countries because of climate issues.
Top of Page

E J Hobsbawm Age of extremes Review of   Eric J Hobsbawm   The Age of Extremes. The Short 20th Century 1914-1991 (First published 1994)
Quality of Content | 'Chutzpah' and Truth Denial
Review by Rerevisionist     16 Nov 2015
hideous Hobsbawm Published by Michael Joseph in 1991. Note that the 'fall' of the Jewish USSR is officially dated December 1991. Hobsbawm's paean to so-called 'jews' in the 20th century must have been pre-arranged. I don't know how many people are gullible enough to imagine the USSR's planned failure (with 'Jewish' 'oligarchs' getting away with fortunes) was unexpected; of course it wasn't. The mentally and physically hideous Hobsbawm must have been tipped off, and compiled this rubbish as part of the propaganda deluge fuelled by the 'Fed' and by 'Jewish' propaganda. Hobsbawm has an 'End of Socialism' chapter, which includes China in addition to the 'USSR'.
    (Added later: looking back, I put the wrong publication date. 1991 is too early—even the hacks would have noticed).

My edition is a hefty paperback; printed I think on thick paper to give the impression of substance. It has a bibliography of approaching 500 books; with further reading, 'for those who want to know more', of about 80 titles including for example Gabriel Kolko.

Hobsbawm is a perfect example of an academic promoted because he's 'Jewish'. He had a sort of flavour of Marx, camouflaging his 'Jewish' tribal race bias. 1991 must have been fed to him; 1914 of course marks the start of 'Jewish' wars aiming for the end of white rule.

Edward Said, in the London Review of Books: It is difficult to imagine that anyone other than Hobsbawm could have approached – much less achieved – the consistently high level of these volumes: taken together, they represent one of the summits of historical writing in the postwar period.
On 'Jews', Hobsbawm writes of 'handful of dead of 1881' and '40 to 50 of Kishinev pogrom of 1903', given in a puzzled way as contrasted with later numbers of deaths of whites in Russia, for example. Slight contrast, is there not? Pogrom revisionism is a new field; see this link, for example.

The First World War 'broke out'. Possibilities of British neutrality or US non-intervention aren't considered, of course. Hobsbawm thinks the US Civil War had 'more casualties than all US 20th century wars' which I suppose is a grateful hat-tip to simple American allies. Others don't fare so luckily: there's nothing for example on the Bengal famine, the Boxer rebellion, Nigeria and Biafra. The inferior races are written out.

On the 'Great Depression', Hobsbawm treats this in the standard childish way, quoting 'Jewish' news sources. (Finance, and money, are unindexed). This leads up to the journalistic-style nothingness of: the dollar, 'keystone of the post-war world economy planned and guaranteed by the USA, grew weaker'. The 'rate of GNP growth in 1980s' given naively as a measure—as it is for 'Jews'..

On the 1920s and 1930s, Hobsbawm has heard of 'the march on Rome', and Fascism, though with no grasp of the arrangement of support. He quotes from the alleged historian Ian Kershaw, that Nazism is 'scarcely capable of rational analysis'—not true, of course, but for the 74-year old Hobsbawm a bit of an effort.

The USSR gets mentions: Lysenko is given some prominence. 'Killing, torture, mass exile... everyday experiences which we no longer notice' is a verdict.

Hobsbawm is of course grateful for the Jewish mongrel and war criminal: the 'universally loved and admired war leader, Winston Churchill'. He quotes the supposed six million total of 'Jews' in the 'Holocaust' fraud, but, maybe as a token to revisionism, says this is 'probably exaggerated'. The post-1945 'fall of Empires' is noted, but the US empire is unmentioned.

Then we have the chapter entitled 'The Golden Years'—from the 1950s—luckily coinciding with Hobsbawm's pseudo-career.

Connoisseurs of scientific revisionism will be amused that the chapter on Science was contributed by John Maddox, an undistinguished editor, includes AIDS, molecular biology, Nobel 'laureates', number of scientific papers as a measure, the ozone layer, wave/ particle dualism, all treated conventionally. We also have chaos theory, presented as though a complete body of knowledge. There's an electron micrograph of a bacterium 'spilling its DNA'. And a section on 'transport beyond the earth. The first moon landing', absurdly suggesting a routine. Naive stuff on opposition to fluoridation.
      Hobsbawm makes no distinction between science and technology; he talks of 'millions of scientists' and incidentally has little on what they do; especially arms and nuclear issues.

The arms industry is at least noticed though; there was 'little else' which a declining industrial state like the UK could sell competitively. Though the GNP is highest ever. A few more scribbles: Rockefeller, raw materials, oil are not in the index. Nor is the Jewish 'news' source Reuters. Isaiah Berlin is quoted: "I remember it only as the most terrible century in western history". TV gets a couple of small sections; Fleming on the 'Cold War' is unindexed; US labor relations are not indexed. There's quite a bit on 'modernising', for example in Japan, with nothing specific. We are told poison gas is 'barbaric', and based on German science and chemistry—guess what lies are beneath this.
Top of Page

E Hobsbawm Age Revolution
Be Jew Aware!
  Review of   Eric Hobsbawm   The Age of Revolution 1789-1848 [Uploaded 2014-08-01]


Part of the standard view of European history promoted in particular since 1945. Hobsbawm was part of a rather inbred world, one of many Jewish immigrants into Britain before 1945, doing no doubt a routine PhD in Cambridge. He had tenure at Birkbeck College and of course became part of the post-1945 era when Britain had been impoverished by the war. His book was standard university fare; I have a copy which was bought in a University Union Bookshop in the 1960s. Several generations were routinely exposed to this material by their teachers. The cover design shown is an Open University set book.

I'll review this in the way it was written: as a Jewish view, unconcerned with truth, but to promote what Hobsbawm's groupthink mind presumably considered Jewish interests. These are Jewish power, and of course money. His emphasis on power is irritating to the truth-seeker: most of science and technology is treated dismissively, Hobsbawm's attitude being like a shareholder, taking little interest in difficulties or practicalities, which are left to the employees. Doctors, including 'some in Germany', appear in lists, but in the employee sense. There is a massive bibliography, in which he is very careful (without saying so) to point to books by fellow Jews, and Soviet reference books, but otherwise shows little discernment. Nevertheless the bibliography almost manages to look more interesting than the book. There are many maps of a hard-edged sort. There are endnotes on each chapter, mostly references, perhaps to remind him who he copied.
      There's curious back-to-front reasoning (64): railways were important BECAUSE they were expensive. This was 'needed if the capital-goods industries were to be transformed' meaning presumably Jewish finance had an interest. His material on the French Revolution has no mention whatever that I recall of Rothschild financing of both sides, nor of the Rothschild financial coup in London just after Waterloo. In fact, the French Revolution is barely mentioned, (The American Revolution is all but unmentioned; its basis in trying to throw off the financial yoke based in Britain is not something Hobsbawm would wish to discuss).
      On Malthus (335) Hobsbawm deems him 'neither as original nor as compelling as its supporters claimed'. Hobsbawm doesn't think in terms of crowding or overpopulation or deaths, but financially– Malthus proved 'the poor must always remain poor'. Hobsbawm mentions (58) small men driven to be 'currency cranks' (the latter phrase is Jewish for anyone commenting on Jewish credit) and is the nearest he gets to a two-tier theory of money. It interested me to see Hobsbawm's pro-Freemasonry remarks when discussing Mozart. 'Ten million tons of coal' in 1800 puzzled me: what does Hobsbawm mean by this? Is it a lot? What are the implications? Naturally war deaths and injuries are pretty much ignored, and readers unaware of Jewish attitudes might regard this as objectivity. His nationalism chapter of course excludes 'Jewish' tribal racism.

The title is rather misleading: 'The Age of Revolution' and the dates 1789 and 1848 suggest the book is largely about revolutions, especially in those years. In fact there's little on either. The general feel and the contents suggest the book was never intended as a single, thought-through work: before the days of word-processors, the career writer would try to avoid the painful process or rewriting). Apologies for the tedium here: we find PART I: DEVELOPMENTS which are 1 THE WORLD IN THE 1780S/ 2 THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION/ 3 THE FRENCH REVOLUTION/ 4 WAR/ 5 PEACE/ 6 REVOLUTIONS/ 7 NATIONALISM an achronic list. Then PART II: RESULTS which are 8 LAND/ 9 TOWARDS AN INDUSTRIAL WORLD/ 10 THE CAREER OPEN TO TALENT/ 11 THE LABOURING POOR/ 12 IDEOLOGY: RELIGION/ 13 IDEOLOGY: SECULAR/ 14 THE ARTS/ 15 SCIENCE/ 16 CONCLUSION: TOWARDS 1848. The shoehorned descriptive non-analysis is discouraging.

Hobsbawm admires Marx, and is entirely subservient to Marxian Jews; the endnotes praise Marx's 'Capital' as 'almost contemporary'. Hobsbawm liked Hegel, who brought the advantage of allowing serious-sounding Germanic generalisations which look profound, though modified to be Jewish. This textbook must be viewed as a product designed to be put before students, rather than a serious work of history. Hobsbawm has a frown-inducing attitude of depending on (76-7) retrospective importance, in that case his estimate of the French revolution; rather like saying (e.g.) Marx was enormously important, so let's investigate his parents and grandparents. The more-or-less Marxist vocabulary is inescapable: 'bourgeois', 'implacable cash nexus', 'mature industrial economy', 'proletariat'.

Non-Jewish material clearly glazes over Hobsbawm's eyes. Subjects get their routinised dutiful sentences: Carlyle? Hapsburgs? Lancashire? 'Industrial revolution'? Music? Science? But there's a flicker of excitement where Jews are challenged: (343) Thierry brothers' idea that the French descended from the Gauls, and the aristocrats from Teutons, and Gobineau. As might be expected, ancient controversies depending partly on sheer lack of information aren't treated fairly: Sir William Lawrence's Natural History of Man 1819 (340) was part of the dispute as to whether natural growing things might be man-made. It's always interesting to see how sympathetic writers are to (e.g.) alchemy, or the very remote prehistory of mankind, or economics before much information existed.

Here's a Youtube of Hobsbawm on the Jewish coup d-état in Russia. Oh, sorry. The 'Socialist Revolution'. And its history. I taped this about 16 years before his death:-
Can We Write the History of the Russian Revolution?
Top of Page

Wells Open Conspiracy   Review of H. G. Wells   The Open Conspiracy. Blue Prints for a World Revolution.
Most commentators here have missed one crucial point, May 14, 2014


1928. Another edition 'What Are We to Do with Our Lives?' in 1931.

Wells believed mankind was essentially one unit. This book is H G Wells, after the First World War, doing his best to design a world which is reasonably fair, socialist in the sense of recognising everyone's rights, not too full of hostilities, and suggesting what people should do to work towards a state in which everyone's humanity is recognised and technology used for other things than wars. He was influenced by Plato's Republic in the sense of thinking about large-scale redesign. Wells regarded Homo Sapiens as a single species, more or less inter-related. He was of course (as a biologist) aware of races. So: a reasonable enough exercise; not as simple as it might sound. I doubt he ever saw through the problem of conflicts of interests of human groups.

However, crucially, Wells was not very Jew-aware; he wrote about Jews, and was aware of the Khazar idea in the 1920s, disliked Sidney Webb, and discussed whether Jews were the 'termite in the woodwork'; but he seemed to like Stalin, shows little sign of understanding paper money, and never seems to have realised that the USSR was a Jewish dictatorship fed by Jewish money from the west. And, exactly similarly, he had no idea the New World Order (his phrase) is planned to be a Jew World Order. If you don't grasp this, you won't understand what Wells is saying; nor will you see that he is NOT advocating a Jewish world plutocracy. At least, that's my opinion.

A related issue is Wells's motivation: he was scornful of paid writers; many Americans now can't even imagine that writers might be independent. Wells I think would certainly have denied being a paid publicist: he wrote what he believed. He propagandised for what he thought were British interests during the First World War; a question mark hangs over his motives, but no more so than most writers of the time.

Open Conspiracy (on this site)
Top of Page

Wells Mind at the End of its Tether   Review of   H. G. Wells   Mind at the End of its Tether 1946
Wells missed the secret Jewish influence. This short book expresses his baffled inability to understand the Second World War.
Rerevisionist April 24, 2015

The title I think has misled many people about this book. Wells (writing in mid-Second World War) bewails the fact that predictions seem impossible, historical processes don't operate, and so on. Wells was resentful and irritable about this; but he did not see through the Jewish push which informed the period. Sadly, he was a simple propagandist, a useful idiot. The material on evolution, time, philosophy is more or less irrelevant, put in for effect rather than as a contribution to his train of thought.

Mind at the End of its Tether (plus notes)
Top of Page

Lothrop Stoddard French Revolution San Domingo   Review of   Lothrop Stoddard   The French Revolution in San Domingo
History book; not anthropology. And non-revisionist. Leaves more questions than answers.   February 7, 2014
The final sentence is: 'The white race had perished utterly out of the land, French San Domingo had vanished forever, and the black State of Haiti had begun its troubled history.'

Lothrop Stoddard became an anthropologist; but this 1914 book seems to have been a history PhD dissertation; I may be wrong about that. However, all the notes at the end are from French sources, some apparently from Harvard's library.

Unfortunately this book is in the tradition of excitement and derring-do and frightful massacres, the sort of thing rather easy to describe and copy. Note the date: 1914. Soon there were to be far more spectacular massacres. (Incidentally, I'd guess parts of the 'Bryce Report', propaganda to keep the Great War continuing, were taken from, or suggested by, Stoddard's book). The hidden aspects of money, trade in weapons, diplomatic promises made and broken, are largely omitted.

Lothrop Stoddard's book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (First published in 1920) is not reviewed here.

Its population predictions are along the lines suggested by modernised medical techniques introduced into areas previously without them; it's something like a reversal of Malthus, presumably fairly temporary. But note that Stoddard had no idea of the parts played by Jews in the 'Great War', or their race-based supremacist 'chosen by G-d' outlook, which propels them into aggression. So his book is not of much use in practical action.


Stoddard describes the history from the early 1600s to 1789 of this and other islands in the region; and has a chapter on the geography, social conditions, and connections mostly with France, but also with Spain (before) and Britain (after). The French part of the island (to the west) became Haiti; it's something like the size of Scotland, and no doubt more important as a myth than a fact.

Then we have four chapters on race; I'm not very familiar with Stoddard, but it seems possible this material caused him to move into anthropology.

We have whites: some from long-established French nobility; some poor white 'adventurers'; some soldiers and sailors. And also whites born there, called Creoles, looked down upon by the whites who sailed from France; bear in mind that travel in those days was slow and must have been expensive.

Then mulattoes: these were called 'free people of color' (in French!) at the time. It's stated that black women wanted to have mixed race children, in perhaps the hope of advancement. There were very fine grades in type of mulatto; and a great deal of 'abhorrence of miscegenation', somewhat like the feeling of shock and embarrassment at 'bastards' at the time and later in Europe. However, similarly to South Africa and South America, mulatto numbers grew. Note that whites were definitely white, with no negro 'blood' at all; when Stoddard writes that whites had 'perished utterly' he didn't refer to mulattoes.

Then we have blacks: Stoddard doesn't call his chapter 'Blacks', but 'The Slaves', for reasons beyond me. Unexpectedly, perhaps, they were not fast-breeding, and in fact tended to decline in numbers: there was for all this time more importation of slaves, and moreover from increasingly distant parts of Africa; eventually even as far as Madagascar. This is now known to have been a Jewish trade. The cost of ships, food, payments in Africa, captain, crew and other things cannot have been low, though of course less per head. Much of the French part of the island (Columbus patriotically named the whole island Hispaniola) seems to have been by the time under discussion planted with sugar cane. Or perhaps cane was there already, but then cultivated. The slaves did the work; the work's described as back-breaking and agonising, but without detail. But there seems agreement that slaves weren't interested, and were whipped to make them work. 'Marrons' (anglicised into 'maroons') were escaped slaves: the climate was hot all year round, and the soil productive, so they we able to live in mountainous forests, occasionally launching raids. Note that 'Vaudoux' ('that fetishism which appears to be the native African religion') is the word from which 'voodoo' came. There are some accounts of blacks, not usually flattering—remember that central Africa wasn't visited by whites until many years later.

Stoddard's book will remind many readers of other events: it sounds a bit like Ireland; presumably there was more money in sugar (and rum distilled from it; and tobacco) than potatoes, otherwise Ireland might have been flooded with blacks. The pure whites (many were absentee landlords) sound (A BIT!) like Jews; maybe 'pure Jews' will be wiped out in the future? And Africa: is it the case that black just can't organise things? Many anecdotes suggest this; surely some of these French people would have been happy to live in Paris most of the time, paying off a percentage to some administrator?

Anyway Stoddard's story revolves around events in France, which were decisive. If the 'French Revolution' had never happened, what might have happened in San Domingo? I don't know, but surely it's worth considering. Stoddard gives little information on trade and money; almost incredibly, after years of slaughter, parts of the island recovered, and with Spanish trade started to flourish again.

Worth reading, but the book leaves very many questions.
Top of Page

Dennis Wise Greatest Story Never Told   Review of Dennis Wise   Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story NEVER told Video formats, Youtubes, DVDs
Collected Hitler Material Almost Ideal for Second World War Presentation to People Naive About Propaganda. (However, it is only a half-way stage to fully intensive revisionism). This review July 8, 2014

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf cover design   Review of Close parallels with the present day. Much better than usual biased accounts state.   Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf


This review is from: Mein Kampf - The 1939 Illustrated Edition (Paperback) October 25, 2013

Judging by the other reviews here, Amazon has almost zero readers able to overcome their century or so of brainwashing about Hitler and Jews. The fact is we are in something like a Reformation, targeted against Jews as the earlier Reformation was targeted against Catholics. Who will win, how long it will take, and what the costs in body counts and destruction will be, cannot be predicted. The book is well worth reading, though volume II is of most interest to the few people wanting to establish a new political party. Volume I has a lot on Austria and Hungary, not Germany, which was something like a multicultural state. It also has Hitler's World War I experiences, and expresses his regret or puzzlement over the survivors, many of whom rather than die dodged the fighting. Most of his comments show a grasp of true Jewish 'ethics'. It is of course pre-WW2 and pre-'Holocaust'. (I have a much longer review here on big-lies.org, too long for inclusion here).

Americans are by now probably more sophisticated about Hitler and Churchill than Britons, many of whom still have no idea about either of these. Let's hope so, anyway.
Top of Page

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi Praktishe Idealismus   Review of Count Richard M. Coudenhove-Kalergi   Praktische Idealismus/ Practical Idealism and Other Works
Strange German-Japanese Cross-Breed, Publicist and Freemason Funded by Jews, Whose Work Helped Deliberately Damage Europe, June 13, 2014
1948 Who's Who 1948 Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi Richard Nikolas Eijiro Graf Codenhave-Kalergi (1894-1972) has become increasingly famous among white nationalists and opponents of the European Union, for the reasons summed up in the caption (left).

This is my assement of Coudenove-Kalergi who seems to me a confused thinker, impressed by his own background rather than other matters (for example, wars), and probably adopted by the E.U. as the nearest thing they could find to a 'founding father' without admitting the Jewish nature of the entire EU project. His most-quoted book is one of his earliest, in German, Praktische Idealismus.
Top of Page



Paul Johnson NapoleonReview of Mediocre 'Populist' Account of Napoleon       Paul Johnson: Napoleon (2002)

Obsolete History Illustrated by Johnson on Napoleon
Johnson's 'Napoleon' is reviewed in depth - click here - revisionist treatment of the nineteenth century.
Top of Page



NATIONAL TREASURE
Reviewed here.
Top of Page

  Review of DOWNTON ABBEY: Jewish propagandist garbage about white wars   Numerous hack actors and scribblers: Downton Abbey

  If you're a simpleton, you may like this superficial simple-minded sentimentality
7 October 2013
Downton Abbey: TV, DVD -- One of many of my reviews banned by Amazon (Dec 2015).

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

brownmiller rape cover   Review of Shallow Jewish view of a nasty issue     Susan Brownmiller: Against Our Will - Men, Women and Rape

Jewish-American Attitudes to Rape 15 March 2013

1975 book which seems to have been reprinted forever after. 450 pages in my paperback version; acknowledgements, sources, long index, and with endnotes. Author was about 40 when this was published.

I don't think any reviews have drawn attention to the specific Jewish biases, which are such a depressingly characteristic part of post-1945 American semi-academic life. So I'll do it here.

Presumably, every single person on earth has ancestors who were raped. For that matter, everyone must have female ancestors who would have preferred someone else; and ditto males. I've sometimes wondered if smaller females are an evolutionary by-product; perhaps races of strong women may have selectively been squeezed out?

Brownmiller (whose parents were New York 'Jews'; Braunmuller a name given by Germans?) is not strong on biology. Her book is rather scrappy, anecdotal, and under-researched. Her writing style is reminiscent of Naomi Woolf: anything vaguely relevant is shoehorned in. She says she 'researched' for four years, largely in New York's public library. Though she clearly limited her own research times.

Part of her Jewish bias is shown in her topics: she has little idea about anthropology, tending to quote fairy stories (Little Red Riding Hood is in there), and stories glorifying rapists, which she seems to think are universal. She doesn't give many examples, probably to avoid stories by Jews glorifying rape of non-Jews, for example in Germany in 1945: not having a Jewish supremacist race background, all I could think of is Old Testament stories; and maybe Jupiter reshaping himself for Leda. Jack the Ripper gets a few pages: several people she quotes are claimed by her to have described him as a 'hero'. She doesn't mention the likelihood he was a Jew immigrated into east London. She includes bits from Freud, the unloved author of much unlovely material, which Jews seem to think they are obligated to mention. Naturally, penises figure largely: Brownmiller seems to think men had to be tamed at some point in history; the obvious fact that no society could survive unless children were supported for ten years or so, at the minimum, escapes her. A typical quotation is: From the earliest times, when men of one tribe freely raped women of another tribe to secure new wives...—when of course there is simply no evidence about 'the earliest times'. The oddest Freudian-style idea, possibly not in this book, is that rape isn't about sex at all, but is a way to control or demean women; the Guardian, an absurd British newspaper in its Jewish way maintains this, incredibly.

There's quite a bit on war, mostly 20th century. She recounts German war atrocities in Belgium. These were reported in 1917 (her endnotes give this date). She doesn't seem to know the Bryce Report (1915) was published by the British in 1915, and in about twenty languages. This of course was propaganda to keep people fighting: the British joined up with great enthusiasm (at least according to newspapers and newsreel media) in 1914, but when many failed to return, they had to be forced by conscription and propaganda. Brownmiller doesn't mention the Balfour Declaration to get President Wilson into the war. Hence of course the 1917 stories. The British government made some sort of apology after the war to Germany; I don't know about the USA, but, since the Fed, and Baruch, had in effect been dictator of the USA after about 1916 I'd guess not.

The Second World War is treated from a purely Jewish propaganda viewpoint: the word 'Holocaust' is not yet used, but Germans are blamed for mass rapes. The truth—rapes of Russian women before WW2, and rapes of central and east European women, notably German, but in all Jewish-controlled countries, go virtually unmentioned. Solzhenitsyn gets a single mention, but not his long poem on WW2. Deir Yassin is unmentioned; so are Jews held in German camps, let out to rape German women., as boasted by the multiple liar 'Wiesel'.

I suspect this book was driven largely by the Vietnam War; accounts from this occur near the beginning of Brownmiller's book. At the time she was working on her book (say, 1970-1975) this war was coming to an end; the USA had almost 25 years in the far east, Jews having made money from control of paper money and from weaponry—helicopters, bombs, rifles, rounds, experimental explosives, napalm, ships, shells, airplanes, chemical warfare, building contracts, and so on, mostly under Kissinger, one of the most repulsive members of the most repulsive group ever to have power in our planet. What they wanted was an exit strategy—the phasing out process to avoid enquiries, blame, and, in particular, examination of the racket aspect.

Whether consciously or not, Brownmiller is part of this process, making no attempt to attach blame at source. Her whole attitude, that rape is universal and constant and part of human life for as long as human beings existed, of course helps that process—if it always happens, why blame LBJ or Kissinger?. I won't quote examples (there are some in the Russell Tribunal, on this site and elsewhere). She tends to pick shooting and mass murder incidents, as I suppose these are more shocking than rapes, where there were helicopter landings, then presumably a translator to tell villagers to line up girls to be raped.

Brownmiller is unfair on male victims here, though admittedly it's a different issue. Traditionally, males were expected to be killed in wars, and many must have found the possibility terrifying, and unfair. I'd guess most Americans, brainwashed by the Jewish media since birth, simply had no idea they were being used: their role was to make money for Jews, and preferably also die to free up real estate. Worth remembering that Vietnam (about the size of New Mexico) had more bombs dropped on it than were used in the whole Second World War). There was (I believe) quite an amount of fragging of officers.

Brownmiller has speculative material on the US Civil War, red Indians, and for example Bangla Desh. She has no idea that the Quran specifically allows/recommends rape, which gives an idea of the shallowness of her work. She mentions pogroms, now of course known to be almost entirely fabricated by 'Jews' so host countries would take them in.

As is a staple at present of Jews, she pretends races don't exist, apart from Jews of course. The far higher rate of black on white rapes to the other way round (40 times is often quoted; 40,000 white women in the USA per year—to be fair, this is not a huge proportion of women there) gets no mention; just the faux Jewish NAACP-style sympathy, designed of course to be anti-white.

There are other issues: false claims, no doubt a lawyer-induced money-making scam. Nothing on technical change—there's more mobility than ever in human history, with cars and air travel. Nothing on what in effect is rape within closed societies, notably Muslim: women can be kept in fear easily enough. Brownmiller mentions, in a very minor way, that there have been death penalties for rape; she instances some in England. In some Arab desert countries, anyone attacking women going to wells for water were killed; Genghis Khan is reported to have had the death penalty for adultery, and therefore presumably rape, among his followers.

It's sad that sound books on this topic seem unavailable; or perhaps wouldn't sell. Brownmiller in effect says, men, hairy and savage, have always been like that so there's nothing much we can do. The final chapter, WOMEN FIGHT BACK, is just verbose inconclusivity.
NOTE: Jewish attacks are usually partial, typically omitting Jewish practices. A good example is Andrea Dworkin who in theory campaigned against pornography. But she never mentioned that Jews control pornography, and Jewish child sex and rape policies.
Top of Page

image   Review of Small Wars     Ian Hernon: Britain's Forgotten Wars

Three books on 'forgotten wars' collected in one, 1 Aug 2013

Note: I only own one of the original three books, Blood in the Sand: More Forgotten Wars of the 19th Century; the notes here I believe are correct. This volume (2003) is stated to collect three earlier books by Hernon, including 'Blood in the Sand'; judging by the number of pages, this claim is correct.

Five stars for effort: literally 19th century (1803 to 1898, I think), possibly based on Annual Registers which appear to to be official British publications. Other sources include The Times, some HMSO reports, and, mostly, books, some of them fairly contemporary, but mostly recent. 'Punch' (1841 onward) is NOT included.

In this volume we have the Gurkha War (1814-16), Borneo Pirates, Madagascar, two Sikh Wars (1845 .. 1849), Eureka Stockade in Australia during the gold rush, Kars, in Turkey, 1855, the Fenian Invasion of Canada, 1866; Orange Walk in Belize (which made it 'British') 1872, and Sierra Leone's Hut Tax War 1898.

As far as I can work out (I only own one of these books) two of Hernon's other books (written within two or three years of each other) look at Kandy War (1803-5), the tiny Falklands 1833 events, Jamaica Rebellion (1865), Ceylon, the Maoris, and others, and the opium wars, Zanzibar shelling. extermination of the Tasmanians, Benin massacres, and others.

There are 'Illustrated London News' engravings, photos, portraits, and so on. Hernon also wrote a pictorial history of Victorian wars.

'.. there was not a single month of that [nineteenth] century when British forces were not engaged somewhere across the globe.'

Hernon explicitly states he's writing in a journalistic mode, and the descriptions he gives certainly sound exactly as the places and events must have seemed at the time, including the slaughter-house aspects, and the individual psychology aspects. His selection of subjects relegates big wars to noises off several of his pieces deal with side-issues to the US Civil War, for example; Crimean War ditto; Afghan Wars ditto. Non-British material barely appears Belgian Congo atrocities, the French Empire, and so on. I believe the 'Boxer Rebellion' may not be included; the Boer War appears to be excluded because it was large, and just out of the time range. Hernon gives detailed descriptions and reasonably fair treatment, though perhaps he's a bit too neutral. I'd have liked more on the string-pullers weapons suppliers, money, news agencies and so on and trade connections such as Rothschilds and opium. All the subjects are now dead, of course, but no doubt we can try to empathise and understand.

One of the interesting aspects of miscellaneous collections is that they are analogous to different individuals each, perhaps, with their own motivations: some wars are for loot, some for territory, some perhaps to make work (just as organisations may buy surplus stuff so as to retain their funding); some for alliances, some because someone wants adventure or fame. The author allows for blunders, incompetence, and mistakes.
Top of Page

image   Review of sociology revisionism   Jane Jacobs: The Death and Life of Great American Cities

Is she the Chomsky of urban life?, June 26, 2010

I was introduced to this book in about 1970 by a girl who'd completed an M.A. on England's first council estate. Both she, and this book, impressed me. I now have, thanks to Amazon, a plump 'Modern Library' Edition, thicker but of similar dimensions to that paperback. It was first published in 1961 as a single volume; but 'portions' were published before this. So this dates to the late 1950s/ 1960.

Jane Jacobs (1916-2006) was not popular with architects; I had an architect's journal of the relevant date which snipes at her.

What suddenly occurred to me and causes me puzzlement now is the fact that some towns known to me, in England—e.g. Reading, Blackburn, Bristol I think, parts of London—had their Victorian guts removed AFTER 1960—typically in the 1970s. (Test yourself here: if you're old enough, and took an interest, when did rebuilding take place? If not, check the history of a town known to you. And I was struck by the fact that nothing at all, not one thing, remained of Atlanta, Georgia, from the 19th century). Suggesting, or proving, that she was ignored, or at least that greater powers defeated her.

IF Jane Jacobs was so influential, how come a lot of what she preached against, took place long after her book? Let me suggest a possibility: maybe Jane Jacobs knew perfectly well—after all, her husband was an architect—that fortunes could be made by demolishing old housing and filling the land with apartments, malls, and the rest. Nothing mysterious about that. And trams, trains, buses, transit schemes could be elbowed out in favour of more profitable private transport. Why not write about this, and how, in her view, cities could be remodelled or developed or left or improved in optimum ways? In fact this book is descriptive, but low on analysis. Compare Chomsky: he wrote on the Vietnam War. How many American generals or airforce people were condemned as war criminals? What actually happened? The answer is—nothing. Even utter *** like Kissinger gets kid glove treatment. Maybe Jane Jacobs is in the same mode as regards towns? Could she have been a decoy, an irrelevance, trotted out to pretend something is being done, people's deep concerns are being addressed? Someone, please, show I'm wrong.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jane Jacobs on cities   Jane Jacobs: The Economy of Cities

Wealth-generating cities: the true atoms of economics?, June 28, 2010

Jane Jacobs (born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, which may well have directed her life's work) wrote on American Cities in 1962 and 1969. This book was written when she was aged about 68 and I think therefore must count as her economics chef d'oeuvre.

Subtitled 'Principles of Economic Life', 'Cities and the Wealth of Nations' tries to reorientate the whole 'science' of economics.

In effect, she asks—what is the simplest atom of economic productivity? A farm or fishable sea, perhaps? Or a factory? A mine, or oil well maybe? Her answer is no—it's a city. In contrast with many people who view cities as dirty or dangerous, she is an optimist about them. In fact she thinks all economic progress is based on cities. The reasons aren't spelt out, but by implication, I think she claims [1] there are people in cities with multifarious skills, and their synergy gets things done; [2] people can also produce novelties, and these are essential; [3] cities also have multitudes of objects which can be bought without too much effort—Jacobs many times gives convincing lists of things which cities can provide, but which backward areas [her phrase] couldn't supply. Think of a taxi in the Sahara—no fuel, no parts, no water...

In summary, most products need a more or less complicated mixture of raw materials, processing, tools, skill, and transport; as it happens, only cities can do this. And only cities with a creative approach will not stagnate.

Her books started with observations on American cities—New York, Boston, Pittsburgh... Then she broadened into Rome, Tokyo, Paris, St Petersburg, Manchester. There are many piquant examples—including settlements which became neglected and emptied—in this book, taken from rural France, Japan, Venice, Rome, Glasgow—and many more.

Another important view she has is that agriculture was invented in cities (or at least towns). When I first read this, I thought it was absurd: one thinks of rural areas with villages growing wheat or rice, with some domestic animals; and then towns slowly growing out of them. Jacobs says tractors, ploughs, hoes, winnowing equipment, everything, was a town product. I don't know if she would have pushed this view right back to prehistory, but it certainly makes sense. (She describes Çatal Hüyük in what's now Turkey in one of her first books. And claims that the mutant form of wheat with multiple ears on the stalk may have been identified by a farmer—not accidentally spread).

With these approaches, she identifies five aspects of cities which are 'import-replacing' (i.e. create their own net wealth): markets, jobs, transplants, technology, capital. She makes a convincing case why countries all have one capital—Holland, France, Britain, Sweden.

She also looks at pathologies of these—there's interesting material on cities as subsidising poor areas, which sounds convincing; on VAT as a damaging force on small industries, as tax is extracted at each stage of production—advantaging huge businesses where VAT is only charged at the end; on weaponry as ultimately damaging and military bases as unhelpful; and on national currencies as not providing valuable feedback—she seems inclined towards local currencies, though she isn't very clear on this: she has a biological analogy of several people all forced to breathe at the same rate by some centralised system, irrespective of what they're doing. She also has material on groups forces to subsidies others; Vietnamese under the French being one example—but readers of this may empathise also with taxpayers in the west subsidising immigrants. Another pathology is clearances—the Scottish Highlands were one example, but much the same happened in parts of the USA. Another pathology is abandoned places, and abandoned centres of empires—Portugal, Turkey. Yet another pathology is capital in the money sense used thoughtlessly: the Shah of Iran, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Tsar Peter the Great, and dams built around the world are some of her illustrations.

There isn't room here to outline everything in the book; however it's well worth five stars. I don't know if anyone took up and developed her work; my guess is that academic economists would simply be too financially in a rut and intellectually timid to risk it, though I would guess some of her ideas were/are used without acknowledgement.

A problem I have is that she is so accustomed to her material that she's too brief with her analytical comments. (This does not apply to her descriptions of places, which are lovingly prolonged). For instance, this seems rather unclear to me: 'We learn this, for example, from the desperate competition, now occurring almost everywhere, for transplanted industries that are up for grabs, which suggests that investments in capital facilities for transplants to plug into have been far out of proportion to the numbers of transplantable industries generated.' (p 107).

The book's Appendix tries to diagram the process of city growth, starting with its exports and imports; then new work added internally; then multipliers; then more added work. There are implications that some 'work' is taken from its hinterland, and so 'work' exported back in an updated way. She is not a mathematician and her diagrams seem logically incomplete or wrong to me; for instance, the way she writes makes it seem there are no upper limits, so that a few generations should lead to splendid wealth for all. Maybe she's influenced by the pervading idea of money value. Maybe her diagrams are valuable and new and point the way to proper analysis of human activity. I don't know, unfortunately.
Important: quick overview of her revisionism to show agriculture started in towns:

I would suggest that permanent settlements within hunting territories were ordinary features of pre-agricultural life ... as natural ,,, as burrows are for foxes or nests are for eagles. ...

... I have asked anthropologists how they know agriculture came before cities. After recovering from surprise ... they tell me the economists have settled it. ... economists ... tell me archaeologists and anthropologists have settled it. ... I think they are all relying on a pre-Darwinian source, Adam Smith.

Smith ... reported that the most highly developed agricultural nations of his time were ... the nations in which industry and commerce were most highly developed. ... the most productive, prosperous and up-to-date agriculture was to be found near cities... Why ... did Smith not make the logical inference that city industry and commerce preceded agriculture? [sic; this isn't entirely convincing, of course]

... At the time Smith was writing, educated men in Europe still believed that both the world and men had been created almost simultaneously, about 5000 B.C., and that man was born into a garden. So Smith never asked how agriculture arose. Agriculture and animal husbandry were givens...

... the dogma of agricultural primacy ... has continued to be accepted ... A sentence from a history of the Rockefeller Foundation philanthropies, published in 1964, is illustrative: 'When man learned to cultivate plants and domesticate animals ... society for the first time was able to plan ahead and organize itself through the division of labour. The thought is pure Adam Smith prehistory...
Top of Page

image   Review of More of Jane Jacobs's potentially important economic history revisionism   Jane Jacobs: Cities and the Wealth of Nations

More on the growth and decline of settlements

The contents: her overview is that import-replacing cities unleash great forces—markets, jobs, transplants, technology, capital; her chapters follow these effects (roughly) as these chapter headings and summaries try to suggest–
1 FOOL'S PARADISE [survey of econometric projection failures etc]
2 BACK TO REALITY [Cities as real]
3 CITIES' OWN REGIONS [Hinterlands including Tokyo, which spreads for miles, some cities like Glasgow without them. Toronto farmers market - rather typical of her slightly scatty approach]
4 SUPPLY REGIONS [E.g. Uruguay; Zambia and copper; oil countries - illustrates no 'import-replacing city']
5 REGIONS WORKERS ABANDON [Wales; Sicily; Spain; Napizaro - Mexico - also illustrates no 'import-replacing city']
6 TECHNOLOGY AND CLEARANCES [Highlands; USA; Soviet Union - somewhat similar to Biblical thing - in the highland case animals get precedence over people]
7 TRANSPLANT REGIONS [areas where factories etc are simply planted; includes battles within US states ego South Dakota angling for Minnesota industries to move]
8 CAPITAL FOR REGIONS WITHOUT CITIES [TVA as a disaster - they ended up trying to sell cheap electricity/ southern Italy]
9 BYPASSED PLACES [Places that sink - she quotes a few people who don't believe it happened] Egypt without papyrus/ American subsistence in North Carolina, retrogressing/ Ethiopia p 130/ medieval Europe]
10 WHY BACKWARD CITIES NEED ONE ANOTHER [Iran and Peter the Great failed to modernize; Venice with fragile small places grew/ Japanese example p146]
11 FAULTY FEEDBACK TO CITIES [includes idea of multiple currencies]
12 TRANSACTIONS OF DECLINE ['.. the very policies ... that are necessary to win, hold and exploit an empire are destructive to an imperial power's own cities and cannot help but lead to their stagnation and decay.'
13 THE PREDICAMENT/ 14 DRIFT/ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS/ NOTES

Engaging descriptions though much on examination (see endnotes) is second-hand, eg Bardou in the Cevennes—though this turns out to be taken from a newspaper! Uruguay as a once-flourishing region, a 'supply region' and its fall when the EU protected against its meat, and plastics replaced some leather. This book was written at the time of 'Can Russia Feed Itself?' by Alex Nove. Volta dam in Ghana is listed as one of many hopeless projects. Jacobs does not however blame engineering companies and builders for grabbing pointless contracts. She is very blame-free, possibly wrongly: she just assumes they acted in good faith but got it all wrong. Iran buying e.g. a helicopter factory, and Peter the Great, trying to buy then-modern economy, both got it wrong through not understanding about what I'd call infrastructure and the network of detail - as do people naturally trying to plonk a factory in high unemployment area. NB she thinks the EU was modelled on USA's states—presumably she couldn't imagine anyone copying the USSR. Also French farmers subsidized by German industries (and Britain). She predates mass immigration—for example at one point comments on famine in Ethiopia, the people having nowhere to go...

The book has no illustrations. It is indexed, and has End notes, largely from Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Toronto Globe and Mail; and books. She's not a systematic thinker—the endnotes show much of her work was taken from newspapers. I visualize her as having collections of suggestive clippings, which she then shaped into her books, no doubt with feedback from her architect husband.
Top of Page

image   Review of E P Thompson's 'marxism'   Edward P. Thompson: The Making of the English Working Class

Condescension as a Literary Form, June 28, 2010

Curiously desiccated 'useful idiot'. Edward and Dorothy Thompson has occasional TV appearances—for example a British Channel 4 thing with Tariq Ali and Sheila Rowbotham. They regarded themselves as lifelong dissidents. They were both in the, or a, Communist Party. He supported Stalin until Khruschev's speech was published. He left in 1956 after Hungary. They lived in a vicarage-style English building; his father wrote on the British in India. Their image was something like Mrs Webb or Beveridge or the Hammonds—conventional Oxbridge people with arrogance and incomes from unmentioned sources. They "always had families with enough [pause] resources.. we shouldn't starve if we were thrown out of a job, or blacklisted.."

He was offered extra-mural teaching in the West Riding. This is where 'The Making of the English Working Class' took shape. With real working people. "19th century mining history. I was corrected by a miner, who said "Like this, Mr Thompson" and drew beautiful diagrams on the blackboard.."—Thompson said this. One notes however that he doesn't seem to have offered to stand down in place of the better-informed miner.

Reading his book, bear this background in mind. The Thompsons were essentially religious heretics—they knew Marxism was rubbish, but couldn't bring themselves to admit that, and as a result evasions and half-truths became their life. Almost all the sources are government papers and reports, and newspapers of the time, top-down stuff. As anyone would expect, he has no feel for technology or the limits of possible social arrangements. It's a book worth reading if you're in the mood for superficial social history over several generations, but the limitations are enormous.
Top of Page

Tony Benn   Review of British Wealthy Faux-Left Politician's Autobiography     Tony Benn: Dare to be a Daniel (2004) (This review was removed from Amazon)

Obsolete Ideas; Stalwart Shadow Fighting With Nineteenth Century Ideas
Benn died, aged 88, in March, 2014. I've slightly expanded this review to serve as an obituary.
Benn's biography has two parts: more than half the book deals with his early life (born 1925; in London, into a political family); then the text of some of his speeches, plus some socialist commentary. He was a cabinet minister for a total of about ten years, mostly under Harold Wilson. Later, he was Labour MP for Chesterfield for years, a Derbyshire mining area, a constituency no doubt chosen because it would always return someone selected as 'Labour'; it doesn't seem to have played much part in his life.

His other books include The Regeneration of Britain (1965) and Speeches of Tony Benn (1974), both collections of speeches on limited topics: Ships for the UN, South Africa, Televising the Commons, the Crown, the Honours System. His speeches (I think it's fair to say) are all reactive, made in reaction to what's being currently pushed by the media. Behind-the-scenes material is absent. Why is this? One clue is in another of his books: Writings on the Wall—Radical & Socialist Anthology 1215-1984 (1984). His introduction says his selection of extracts (in modernised English where necessary) includes '.. values based on the ideas of freedom, equality and democracy.. [but] the very fact that an alternative tradition has been in existence for many centuries is simply not known to many people'. Writers quoted include (my notes; sample from O through S) Lord Boyd-Orr, Richard Overton, Robert Owen, Tom Paine, William Paley, Christabel Pankhurst, Emmeline Pankhurst, Henry Parker, Emma Paterson, Harry Pollitt, Priestley, Jimmy Reid, Sheila Rowbotham, Bertrand Russell, Dora Russell, Siegfried Sassoon, Shakespeare, Shaw, Shelley, Algernon Sidney, George Sims, Tobias Smollett, Donald Soper, Robert Southey, John Strachey. Organisations include: 'Chartists', 'Communist Manifesto', 'Daily Herald', 'Fabian Society', 'Greenham Women', 'Independent Labour Party', 'International Brigade', 'Levellers', 'London Working Men's Association'. Benn did 'Politics, Philosophy, and Economics' at Oxford (PPE) a splendid collection of gentlemanly light topics. Probably these people were condescendingly footnoted.

The most important event of the twentieth century, the First World War, finished not much more than five years before Benn's birth. The Fed (1913) and the Balfour Declaration (secretly arranged in 1916?) and then the formation of the USSR opened the theatre curtains on new perspectives. But nothing of this seems to have entered Benn's consciousness. Most of his socialist writings precede the 20th century world, and when they don't, they ignore the new forces of paper money and international legal enforcements and 'reds', the fake socialism which corrupted genuine socialism, and was and is run by Jews via the paper money nexus. His 1984 volume is astonishingly outdated, largely concerned with Kings and Queens, landowners vs smallholdings, cotton mill owners, coal mines, women's rights, uneducated common people, highland clearances, Biblically-derived arguments such as the Creator making the earth to be a Common Treasury.

That's not to say that Benn is light on ideas. Unfortunately, they were and are outdated ideas. His snowfall of ideas and beliefs has an effect similar to a preacher in a foreign or somewhat lost language. 'Capitalism' is one of the most used and potent. As far as I know Benn never commented on Jewish domination of the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve; if he had done, he might have found an answer to the puzzle of shortage of money for people, but the sudden 'finding' of money for wars that Jews want. I don't think Benn ever analysed the fuzzy idea of 'capitalism'; making speeches is generally the medium for somebody making a transient impression, and speeches were Benn's forte. I haven't found any account of the way companies, if Benn considered they were needed, could be restructured to be less 'capitalist'. Similarly with 'socialism', 'democracy', and of course 'fascism', which like most people Benn conflated with German National Socialism. Benn said fascism is a 'very powerful philosophy', but of course the taboo on Jews kept him from serious analysis.
“I think it's time we did a bit of reexamination, you know, of the 1930s and got away from the idea that the British government believed in appeasement. They didn't .. appease Hitler. They supported Hitler. They backed Hitler. .. captured German foreign office you'll find that when Halifax went to talk to Hitler on behalf of the British government the first thing he did was to congratulate the German chancellor on having destroyed communism in Germany, and acted as a bulwark against it in Europe. And the whole of that 1930s period was a period when western governments were happy to use fascism in order to destroy socialism in all its forms, not just in Russia but in the west as well.

Fascism was the response of capitalism to the arrival in Moscow in 1917 of socialism. However distorted it later became under Joe Stalin it was seen as a threat - in every form - communism, socialism, social democracy - everything that challenged the capitalist system - the repression of it was supported by western leaders. And in my opinion from 1917 until the Berlin wall came down and still today it is the prime objective of any of the governments representing capitalist societies or believing in capitalist ideas to destroy all forms of socialism, and a readiness to use fascism for that purpose.” [From my tape recording]
Mass murder in Russia isn't everyone's idea of 'a form' of brotherhood and freedom; nor is the supply of technology by huge capitalist organisations to Jews running the USSR; nor is it obvious that governments, with their officials and propaganda and civil servants, 'believe in capitalist ideas'. Benn doesn't distinguish Italy from Germany: Italy, probably disillusioned that, even after supporting the Allies in the First World War, they weren't to be awarded anything, decided they need to hang together—there was no Jewish implication. Benn's views on the Second World War were the dominant Jewish-driven ones; to which he seems to have never applied any critical thinking whatsoever, at the time, or subsequently. Nor of course to the 'Cold War'. As the years stretched on after 1945, his misunderstandings widened. For example, the idea that wars could be simple money-making schemes was probably barred to him: he quotes an 1823 classification of wars ('.. some are ...wars of aggression; some .. balance of power; some [assert] ... technical rights; some ... repel invasion')—the war-profiteers/warbucks idea was missing. He 'served' with Harold Wilson at the time of genocide in Vietnam, and in Nigeria, as far as I know doing nothing about either.

Speech 1994 on media workers opposing war with Iraq is fifteen minutes on the start of WW2, defining 'fascism' which he attributes to Hitler, and seriously suggesting that media workers might be anti-war even when the Jewish media owners wanted war.

Part of Benn's belief system was Christian: he believed Jesus was born, at about the generally-accepted time, and was impressed, as many are, by a few Biblical phrases: Bertrand Russell's attention was drawn to the phrase 'follow not the multitude into wrong-doing'; Benn's to Daniel surviving a night in a lions' den. Britain has largely been spared the agonising absurdities of American style fundamentalist Christianity, with block capitals and insistence on the truth of various absurd stories and biological impossibilities. If Benn had taken this line he would certainly have been taken less seriously. As it is, he appealed to large numbers of ordinary voters: they were assured they had been heroic and right to follow Churchill, and that they were entitled to socialist benefits because of their hard work, and so on. Benn worked a bit at the BBC; he married and lived in a rich part of London; his assets were held in trust with his American wife, in America, insulating him from the possibility of revolution in Britain (according to Louis Heren, one-time editor of the Times). He did his best with some republican concerns—trying to remove the Queen's head from postage stamps, trying to remove evidence of his 'elite' education, giving up his House of Lords seat.

I doubt if any part of his life was taken up with money-making, except perhaps his books. And I don't think he ever understood technology. Incredibly, he was made Minister for Technology in the 1960s; his work supposedly included nuclear issues, much of which must have been fraudulent—perhaps that's why he was selected. And perhaps why the 'Labour' Party retained him because he never seems to have had an inkling of the strange relations around paper money and the Jewish connection. Even his diaries (interesting as a peripheral view of events; naturally the real powers are absent from them) were edited by a Jew, so that anything emerging by chance on those topics would have been removed.

The early part of the book includes a fairly powerful evocation of London life, rather puritanical and driven, including his father's timekeeping and deliberate planning of events, and concern with excessive drinking, and writings and sketches in the style of H G Wells; and his mother's religiosity. As with pretty much everybody writing about Oxbridge, the ideas that he was taught or absorbed, and the tutors and the rest, are barely mentioned. There's material on his family, many of whom follow his religion. But the most important parts of this book—how truths can be extracted from secrecy, and how people can be mobilised—are missing.
Top of Page

Jew Obituary: 'Warren Mitchell'. Official death: 2015.   'Jewish' 'Actor' in post-1945 Britain Written 25 Nov 2015
'Mitchell' wasn't, of course, as Wikipedia falsely claims, an English actor. He was what's described as a 'Russian Jew'—that is to say, a so-called Jew parasitising Russians. I haven't attempted to discover his real name. The images (left; none include a silly hat) are from Wikipedia—please don't ever contribute to this Jewish site, funded from pornography! 'Mitchell' was not, as I say, English. The stripy image (far left) must remind anyone aware of 20th century history of so-called 'Jews' in Germany: after Churchill's terror bombing, and Franklin D Roosevelt's backup, and Stalin (supported by the 'tanks for Joe' campaign, among other things) the last sight many German women had, before being raped and murdered in and after 1945, must have been just such a repulsive face. In Russia, of course, the story was worse. But let's be fair—what do a few unimportant goy women matter, compared to an undersized untalented ugly bloke with a loud voice, pretending to be an actor? I'm sure all Jewish-funded pseudo-feminists would agree

'Mitchell', or whatever his real name was, became well-known in Britain though the BBC, the 'British' Broadcasting Corporation. The series Till Death Us Do Part started in 1965, in black-and-white BBC TV, one year after the BBC started a second channel.
Note this example of the propaganda use of TV: Till Death Us Do Part (with 'Alf Garnett') started in 1965, and the derivative American TV series All In The Family (with 'Archie Bunker', by the Jew 'Edward Lear') started in 1971. (I wondered if there was a connection between 'Johnny Speight' and J M Spaight of the book Bombing Vindicated of 1944, but I couldn't find any. However, a publishing company, W Speaight & Sons, which published Zionist books in London, strongly suggests 'Johnny Speight' was another Jewish writer).

This was a part of the the Jewish war against whites; though to this day many white Britons haven't understood this. Yet. (I just watched a BBC episode of Heartbeat with about half the characters the 'characters' portrayed as retards, fools, and what have you.) Till Death Us Do Part (note the obligatory anti-family and anti-Christian implication) had the function of making fun of specifically rather uneducated British whites. Or perhaps working class British whites.

As in the USA, the new caste of Jewish-run TV 'media workers' produced unexpected results: Tony Blair; the Prime Minister's wife—the lawyer who exploited her husband's 'human rights' laws to make money, was the daughter of Anthony Booth, who played the loveable son (or son-in-law?), reading out his politically-correct lines, in Till Death Us Do Part. Booth (or a ghost writer) wrote What's Left? but said little. I'd guess Cherie makes enough money from Jewish supporters of wrecking Iraq to bother her little greedy head with those complicated legal issues now.

It would be nice to say Mitchell (or whoever) did something good in his life; maybe he did, though the odds seem low. I expect he left a psychopathic smear in poor Britain's genes, but nothing of value, in the 'Jewish' tradition. However, note his birth year: 1926. The second generation, born in Britain of self-styled 'Jewish' immigrants mostly from 1890-1905, Cable Street types and advocates of war against Germany and the hoax of Auschwitz and the rest, and supporters of wars against Palestine, are dying off. In the same way that whites need to face the issue of what to do about Jews, so 'Jews' have to decide what to do. Tell more lies for money? Or face the truth? I can guess which they will choose. I hope they get it right; but I'm certain they will not, and I hope they get what they deserve.

The transplant to the USA is a general phenomenon in the entire media world. These days, formulas are sold around the world, provided they are unimportant: it seems unlikely that Germany ever had a sitcom with a young couple breezily pointing out Churchill's war crimes, Jewish lies, Hitler's skills, and why Turkish 'guest workers' were invading Germany.
Some background to the period 1965-1975 of Till Death Us Do Part.
Understanding Till Death Us Do Part: many people still haven't worked out the anti-white, anti-Christian, pro-goyim-war, and utterly irresponsible outlook of this Jewish TV. I'll do my best to get across the underlying themes, which are, and have to be, cryptic, in the Jewish tradition.

The son-in-law, Anthony Booth, played as white and blond, and of course amiable but rather thick, was presumably the counterpart of blonde, white and rather thick American girl in All in the Family. Alf Garnett's script was somewhat more subtle than Archie Bunker's. Garnett would say things like "E made a citizen's arrest of me ... You put your hand on my shoulder. You impeded my egress. You wantonly compelled me to lose my sacred right of mobility". While Archie Bunker laboriously mispronounced single words. Booth (Liverpool voice; known to Spaight?) had to be amiable; how else to act as someone more or less British, required to be dispossessed?

The producer was Dennis Main Wilson. Wilson (and Booth, and Stubbs) are listed as Jewish surnames. 'Mitchell' and 'Speight' too. (Maybe they were all 'Jews'. So-called Jews typically keep their backgrounds well concealed). Sceptics may need to be told that 'Jews' have their own fantasy history narrative: slightly like fundamentalist Christians with different fundamentals. They loathe whites. If you can't believe this, do yourself a favour and watch a few episodes several times. Here's a list of just a few dark Jewish things about that time that they wanted to hide. if they seem strange to you, bear in mind that all your life the information fed to you has ultimately been controlled by the legal force of Jewish-controlled money:–
• 1962 Cuba missile crisis supposedly involving nuclear missiles occurred; in retrospect this was probably to keep weapons sales and profits up, keeping going the idea of a world divided into the 'West' and 'Communism', and needing weapons. As opposed to the truth: Jewish money in control of the US, occupied Europe, and the USSR.
• 1963 Publication of The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving.
J F Kennedy, elected in November 1960, murdered in November 1963. Jewish-controlled media, legal action, and the rest ensured this was never investigated properly. The motive was to install L B Johnson as US President.
• 1965 Capital Punishment abolished in Britain. Largely a Jewish campaign; the motive presumably was to damage Britain, since Jews had murdered German leaders, Palestinians, Vietnamese, and as many others as they could.
• 1965 Bertrand Russell tore up his Labour party membership card; and his Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal was announced for 1967.
• 1967 USS Liberty attacked by Israel. Now known to have been L B Johnson's attempt to start USA war with Egypt
• 1968 Enoch Powell talked on the Tiber 'foaming with much blood'
• 1969 NASA's first fake moon landings of a series.
Laws included 1967 Abortion Act; 1972 European Communities Act; and 'Race Relations' and Immigration Acts e.g. 1948, Nationalities Act, then 1968, 1971, 1976, 1978.

Many people, to this day, have little idea of the power blanket of Jews, operating internationally by intrinsically worthless money, keeping secret as far as possible. Few saw any connection between Jews and unasked-for immigration into white countries. Few in Britain knew that the 'British Empire' was significantly non-British. Few saw the connections with pornography, prostitution and paedophilia. Few realised that supposed Jewish business skills depended on control of currency. Few understood the motivations for Jewish actions against South Africa. For example:–
Enoch Powell never mentioned Jews publically in his speeches
• Public critics of politicians, for example Bertrand Russell and Lord Dacre, had no idea about Jewish influence.
Mary Whitehouse in Cleaning Up TV (1966) and Who Does She Think She Is? (1971) commented on the high viewing figures and controversy for Till Death Us Do Part, but was mainly concerned with swearing: she wrote a letter of protest to the BBC containing the word 'bloody' 44 times, her count for one episode. She mentioned pre-marital sex and 'kitchen sink' plays, but had no overview, and was therefore a safe critic. John Speight seems to have referred to clean-up TV people as 'hypocritically concealing fascism under the cloak of a moral campaign' which might have provided a clue.
• BUT some of the best-informed Britons were east Londoners, working in London occupations which had existed for centuries: in Billingsgate and Smithfield and London docks, and with family memories of 'Jews' invading est London.

Quiz! A few examples of Speight's scripts. See if you can work out the Jewish components and their purpose. Compare and contrast with All In the Family
"Look, your Washkansy [first heart transplant recipient] heart was Jewish.. every part of him, every single organ was Jewish. So I mean, if he's orthodox.. if them organs of his are all orthodox Jewish organs.. well I mean, of course they're going to reject a Christian heart.. because it isn't what they call Kosher. I mean, the same way a Christian would reject a Jewish heart. I mean the same as this black heart what's been put in a white body now. I mean I hope he gets away with it. But I reckon that every white organ in his body is going to.. well, you know.. they won't mix with a black heart, will they?"

"Bloody.. bitch.. coon.. dirty devil.. git.." [but also presented as a Tory, and a patriot, who believed in God and was devoted to the Queen.]

"You and your bloody brimstone and fire God. If we don't agree with everything he says he bungs us in the fire - he's worse than Hitler."

"Animals are better off than we are! If you're an animal they make sure you don't catch anything! ... Old age pensioners 'as to beg like a beggar at a rich man's banquet."

"It's Japanese! Probly wouldn't work if it was British. It would probably be on strike. It wouldn't get up early enough. Four million unemployed. Serves em right"

[Doctor to nurse]: Nurse, you'll get me struck off. Why not get divorced? It should be an easy operation

[Black bloke comes in; he wants to rent Rita's room while she's away] - You know Rita's spare room .. 'e wants to move in ere with you

Note that the BBC Director-General from 1960-1969 was Hugh Carleton Greene, later Sir Hugh Carleton Greene OBE KCMG. '... brother of novelist Graham Greene. A former foreign correspondent, he joined the BBC to head the German Service in 1940. He went on to be Director of News and Current Affairs and Director of Administration. In 1960 he was appointed Director-General.' Obviously a creature of the BBC, and obviously familiar with its 'culture' of lies. Sir Charles John Curran was Director-General from 1969-1977 after 18 years or so; '... posts included Secretary and Director of External Broadcasting'. For much of the period in question, 1967-1972, Charles Hill was 'Chairman of the BBC Governors', but his main interest I'd guess was probably money rather than truth—so feeble is public comment in Britain that it's difficult to be sure.

Anthony Booth I think was born in 1931; he looked young (and appeared as a young thug in the Jew Lynn Reid Banks' film The L-Shaped Room in 1962. He seems to have had numerous affairs, including Nicole in France, a 'well off daughter to Communist [Read probably Jewish] parents'. In 1982, Cherie Blair the 'brilliant' lawyer phoned her dad, Booth, for advice for her hubby on entering what's called 'politics'. Booth phoned Tony Pendry MP; they met in Soho & Pendry suggests Blair puts himself forward as candidate for by-election at Beaconsfield. Blair lost his deposit, but received news coverage and of course was spotted...
Top of Page

Bernard Lovell - Jodrell Bank radio telescope Bernard Lovell and Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope

This is not specifically a book review; it's a warning to look for aspects of Lovell's life and work which have been misrepresented.
Bernard Lovell, Jodrell Bank, and the USSR and Cold War Propaganda. I am undecided on the question whether Lovell was a dupe, a fellow-traveller, ambitious for money, or some other combination.
Top of Page

80-not-out   Review of How the Media Handle Science and Fraud   Patrick Moore: 80 Not Out—The Autobiography

The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth ... Schoolboys

Patrick Moore's 80 Not Out—The Autobiography (Hardback 2003). The US edition is called The Autobiography omitting the cricket reference.

Up to age 30   As people age, their memory for the remote past grows clearer than their present, because new things made the past more memorable than their established way of life. Perhaps. Moore's Autobiography is consistent with that idea: up to about age 30 (1923 to about 1954) he gives a straightforward rather ingenuous autobiographical account. Moore belonged to the world of minor public schools, with fathers doing what they were told was their patriotic duty, and wives dabbling in what they were told was artistic activity. It suited Moore. He was untroubled by the 'Great Depression'; he just about participated in the Second World War, in the air. A young Englishwoman friend died in a bombing raid, and ever after Moore thought all Germans should die - most English people to this day have no idea about the manipulations behind the Second World War: only towards the end of his life was he aware things weren't quite what they seemed.

He was ill for prolonged periods (and lost all his teeth in some undisclosed way). His upbringing left a permanent set of skills lurking within: piloting light planes, keyboard skills - he specialised in the xylophone, but played the piano; and was proud of a different set of keyboard skills: his 1892 Remington Woodstock typewriter. He claimed considerable self-defence skills, I think some variant of judo, enough to fight off knife-wielding muggers. He wrote poetry, which was on the borderline of doggerel, and operettas, ditto; he knew musical notation and could compose. He played chess (one of his games is listed, but there's at least one typo; the book isn't very well proofread), and he played bridge. And croquet. And especially cricket - Moore was proud of his bowling. He was adamant that he was hopeless at art, and hopeless at acting, except farce. He was ambivalent about languages. He had strong views about foxhunting in the English countryside, and strong views about what he saw as bureaucratic and political incompetence. He had a low opinion of the abilities of women.

Up to age 30 ... his intellectual influences   1898 was the most influential year in Moore's intellectual development. Moore, 'at the age of six', read the then-thirty-ish-year old book The Story of the Solar System by G. F. Chambers. Some numbers - speed of light 186,000 miles per second, sun's diameter 864,000 miles for example - and some names - constellations, planets, such moons as had been discovered - clearly remained part of his mental furniture for life, so much so that he must almost have felt he'd calculated them himself. He understood orbits and planetary rotation and the near-astrological observational detail of planetary conjunctions and oppositions and constellations of stars.

He had little mathematical skill: there's no suggestion he could calculate orbits, or work out dates of eclipses or transits, or handle any other long-established Newtonian tricks. Much less was he able to tackle 'relativity'. So Moore felt no expertise in astrophysics, much of which depends on mathematics - or at least that's the image. This meant that apart from a substrate of knowledge he was dependent on other people's views. This makes for polite and definite television, keeping conflicts and disputes down, but, equally, it may perpetuate mistakes and confusions. Moore was, significantly, adamant that he had no practical skills; this is important, because stargazing and rocketry are entirely separate skills. Thus, at a time when Britain made many optical instruments, Moore barely refers to the hardware.

Moore's rise to fame   The second part of Moore's book (roughly speaking - the chapters seem to have been written independently) deals with his period of fame: he had several strokes of luck -
[1] The BBC legally held the television monopoly in Britain; just one black and white channel. Despite their public image of lack of bias, it's clear in retrospect the BBC was just an arm of state propaganda. All their material on the Second World War, Hitler, Stalin, the Cold War and so on was strictly censored. This became increasingly obvious as the Vietnam War continued; in fact no honest person could seriously work for such a dishonest outfit. However, Moore simply had no awareness of any of this.
[2] The BBC needed late night filler material. Piecing together the bits, Moore had joined the British Interplanetary Society (and met Arthur C Clarke) and gave a talk on the moon in 1950, aged 26 or 27. A publisher contacted him; in 1953 his Guide to the Moon was published, written in a few weeks. Moore gives no details beyond this length of time, but it must have been mostly plagiarised - probably from H. Percy Wilkins, F.R.A.S., judging by the foreword.
[3] He was invited onto British TV to take part in a debate on UFOs: invited by the co-author of a 1953 big-selling junk book on flying saucers. Moore must have come across well on TV, facing Dowding, a WW2 bombing type.
[4] As a result, he presented his 1957 The Sky at Night in early 1957. From then on, once every two weeks, (or 'fortnight' since he was English!) the BBC provided him more or less a working life income; the programme was closed in 1992, but reopened three years later, I think. I doubt if it was coincidence that it was stopped after the 'Cold War' officially ended.

1953 Guide to the Moon   It's worth making a few points about this book, compiled when Moore was about 30, and now available as a free (but not necessarily accurate) download. The last two chapters deal rather childishly with space voyaging: the two benefits listed by Moore are better astronomy, and health effects due to reduced gravity. He also comments that e.g. Columbus went on adventures, missing out the rather important points of difference. The British Interplanetary Institute (still in the same building in London, SW8) must have been set up as part of the post-war con which appears to have duped JFK. Of science frauds, this was the only one known to me which had adventure as its motive; mostly they relied on money, fear and hate, as in the nuclear weapons fraud, the AIDS fraud, the 9/11 fraud, the climate/carbon fraud, the 'EcoRefugee' fraud. I doubt if Moore ever asked himself who set up the 'Institute'. He certainly asked no detailed questions about the technology needed e.g. for spaceships to refuel on the moon on their way to Mars. Note that photos were already being faked when the mass killer Eisenhower signed NASA into existence in 1958.

Forty years of astronomy   Sputnik later in 1957 suggested that astronomy wasn't just a theoretical subject; Kennedy in 1963 announced the moon project; after his murder, Lyndon Johnson continued the funding of NASA and of wars, probably to direct money to the usual suspects. By 1969 Moore absolutely loved the stuff about Apollo and his BBC studio. He describes the Apollo 17 launch: '.. Seconds later we were hit by what I can only call a wall of sound. It was absolutely deafening, and yet there was an eerie quality... Slowly at first, Apollo moved away ... The Last Men on the Moon (so far) were on their way.' (This passage isn't easy to find: rockets aren't even indexed in his book). Even a mile or two away the sound was deafening; and the risk of explosion was uncomfortably high. Moore seems to have never allowed himself any doubts about NASA.

His TV dealt with the same sort of material as 19th century astronomers, plus of course rocketry and new technology and theory, though I think his material was almost always second-hand. The menu was: comets, eclipses, new theories, and material on the e.g. visibility of Saturn's rings, invisibility of asteroids, the Andromeda nebula, imminent meteor showers. Transits are too rare to provide a staple diet.

Comets, in practice, tend to be disappointing. Solar eclipses, of course, have a long tradition of interest, and Moore recounts jaunts, mostly to equatorial third-world countries, though personally I'd have liked some evidence that they served some purpose, especially as the most famous one ever was subsequently shown to have been a series of disasters. Rockets to other planets provided the opportunity for pictures and excitement; unfortunately doubts about NASA, and the Hubble telescope, cast a pall over all of this.

Moore took on some administrative work: a new observatory in Armagh; he disliked the political atmosphere. Whether he had organisational ability is impossible to know from his account. Later he helped with a new observatory in Chichester in southern England. (With John Mason, who was subsequently also knighted, with good reason). Moore was in and chaired organisations such as the IAU (International Astronomical Organisation) and tried to act against the destruction of the Greenwich Observatory.

Moore's outlook and character   Towards the end of his book, Moore has a miscellany of chapters - comic news headiness, modern silly laws, dislike of the EU, and a section on his contacts with the public - standardised replies to cranks, and to non-cranks. He didn't want to prevent enthusiasts from contacting him.

The social side of astronomy sounds attractive: the diverse people (Brian May, from Queen, Russian rocketeers, a railway porter, an elderly observer, a 14-year old, Astronomer Royal, appearances by Orville Wright and 'astronauts'...) all seem on terms of amiable equality. Moore liked clubs, for example cricket clubs, where skills with bat, ball, and in catching, running, and throwing, dominate other unimportant concerns. Gardening and horticulture can be similar, and chess and music. This is idealised, of course. Various highly competent mavericks - Peter Sartory, who observed activity on the moon; Halton Arp, who doubted the 'big bang' and expanding universe - were both cold shouldered by their peers.

Moore accepted some deception in broadcasting (this of course happens in all publishing; who can tell whether manufactured pop singers can sing, or politicians can write?) He was annoyed that a programme on Halley's comet was made a hash of; he didn't seem able to announce: this is experimental and tricky, but we'll do our best. He was amused when he was asked to read out, from an autocue, remarks on a subject he knew nothing about, and found many people treated him as an authority. He was annoyed when two guests changed places between some inserted material. James Burke was a similar type (Moore says he had a degree in Italian). The last time I checked the BBC science boss had a degree in English!

Science   Moore, by the time his autobiography was published, became aware that moon landing sceptics existed. He disliked this (and I'd guess NASA was pathetically grateful). But he had no refutations at all. I'm afraid that, outside the eternal truths of astronomy, he was just another useful idiot.

Here's a link to a 1999 Channel 4 TV British moon sceptics broadcast

broadcast, in five Youtube parts. (Opens in another window).

And my short review of Chaikin's Full Moon a coffee table book.

And Couper & Henbest on The Planets another coffee-table book.

Post mortem   Since writing this I noticed the BBC is promoting a hack book jointly authored by Moore, Brian May, and a charisma-free physicist with a Cambridge joke degree. The BBC is not of course supposed to advertise—but where powerful interests are involved this principle is always ignored. Brian May is in the position of famous violinists once—lionised by pushy hangers-on wanting a bit of reflected light, like bits of desiccated dark moon's surface. May seems to be on good terms even with Aldrin, the pugnacious moron and joke. Wouldn't it be nice to see a mockup of the moon—large vacuum chamber, completely dry, heaters in the roof simulating the sun's radiation, walls cooled with (say) liquid nitrogen to simulate space unshielded by our atmosphere, with Aldrin in his 'space suit' clambering into his tiny 'module' to eat, drink, whatever; maybe look at some Hubble telescope watercolours, or maybe show how to take off a space-suit and discard it on the moon. A nicely-updated gladiatorial show.

Queen missed out on science revisionism; poor Freddie Mercury died, supposedly of 'AIDS', but as any US person involved in that money-making industry could have told them, of spurious virological treatments. I've just watched a TV thing with May and the drummer discussing the film of Bohemian Rhapsody: all the royalties went to the 'Terrence Higgins Trust'! A successful Jewish fraud—kill them and get them to pay for bogus research! We prey, you pay! One of the downsides of fame and (presumably) wealth is the problem of brushing-off or secretly evading current errors. A website hunt shows May opposes a suggested UK badger cull. Biological science since the 1950s has been damaged by mistakes around electron microscopy, and other techniques, which have been misapplied; the science of TB is therefore not known properly. Unfortunately DEFRA officials hide their ignorance better, as the BSE/organophosphate debacle proved, so May isn't likely to be comparatively convincing on the science side. Maybe John Deacon, who seems to keep out, knows better.
Here are a few worryingly stupid comments from Amazon readers mostly Jan 2013; what is it about these people that makes them unable to understand important issues? Most of my replies omitted here–

M says: This review is sheer scathing ignorance - a determined effort to belittle a man of great intelligence and humility. The effort has failed.
    Reply-Perhaps you'd be so good as to post examples of my scathing ignorance? I'd be so grateful. It's always amusing to collect examples of stupidity.
G. Heron says: This is a pathetic attack on a wonderful man. However anyone taking the time to review your other reviews will see that you have an unhealthy obsession with Jews which you display at every opportunity. I don't mind people leaving negative reviews of any book but the review should be about the book and not be used as a soapbox for your personal bigotry.
John Brain says: Whatever else you think of Patrick Moore, one thing is abundantly clear. He was a generous and kind-hearted man who helped and gave pleasure to many many people. You will not find much evidence of this in his autobiography, since he was clearly a modest self-effacing man. I never met the man, so how do I know this? By the very many unsolicited and spontaneous personal tributes paid to Patrick on a website set up for the purpose. (www.banguniverse.com/sirpatrickmoore), by those young and old, who knew him and by those many more who were inspired by him.
    In the light of such evidence, how then can a reviewer write, of a book written over a decade ago, yet of its author who died just a fortnight before the review was written, that he was "... just another useful idiot"'
    Reply- Are you the novelist? Just curious. He was part of a massive fraud. And he was kind to his mum. I find your inability to understand the relative importance of these things 'offensive' - not that it matters.
Amazon Customer says: It's folks like yourself who automatically, and indeed willfully follow their own confirmation bias... I dare say I understand the world a lot better than yourself.
    The truth is, there's little difference between what you're claiming, and what the likes of creationists churn out... assumptions, rumor, conjecture... essentially whatever you think "feels" right.
    That's not how the world works... that's not what got us where we are today. I appreciate that you have the right to believe whatever you wish... but I too have the right to tell you that it's BS... It's a standard case of rejecting reality and substituting your own...
    And another thing... Patrick was never paid by the BBC. He did it free... his earnings came mainly from his books. Perhaps you should read some of his astronomy books... Then you'd see how knowledgeable he was.
    Doubts about NASA? Oh come on... you're not serious are you?
Marcus Fabius says: This "reviewer" has more chips on his shoulders than a bag of McCains. He had an ENORMOUS number of fatuous reviews with an inconsistent, hypocritical style that defies belief. He seems to have nothing better to do than post vitriolic abuse on whatever takes his fancy. He purports to demand justification of assertions made by his victims, yet he dishes out his own brand of unsupported vitriol throughout his reviews. Referring to Patrick Moore as a "useful idiot" is so typical. It is just this kind of verbal abuse that gives the internet its bad reputation. And of course, Rerevisionist will feel obliged to reply scathingly to my comments. It's easy to anticipate what shallow-minded people will do. Go on, Rerevisionist' show us how shallow you really are.
cloudcatcher Fells says: I'm not stupid at all, you're rude and arrogant. You're delusional as well, the only aspect of your 'review' (underserved personal attack!) that is 'first class' is your obvious utter contempt and belittlement of a figure far, far greater than you! Just get and crawl back under the large dirty stone you regretfully came from! Nothing you say is worth a penny nor of any merit or use to mankind, so don't bother! I'm only bothering some more with you because of your lack of respect to a humble and great man, who was an inspiration to me and to many, many more ordinary people who love to look to the stars ..... I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you really know the meaning of the word, nor own an ounce of humility! You know what you really are 'Rerevisionist', you are a true idiot!!!
Top of Page

The Hobbit movie   Review of Lord of the Rings

& New Multi-Part Movie   The Hobbit (part 1 2012)


Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

mason-inside-out   Review of Pop Culture?     Nick Mason: Inside Out - A Personal History of Pink Floyd

Well-written and partially informative
2007
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Adams Manual of Historical Literature   Review of Historiography of 19th century whites   C K Adams: Manual of Historical Literature (1st edn was 1882)

One-volume survey of White History as seen from the 19th century
10 Nov 2012
Astonishing guide to the white view of history as revealed by printed material: 'Brief descriptions of the most important histories in English, French and German.' 'White' is my word, not his, but it's justified as Adams has nothing whatever on China and Japan; almost nothing on Africa - not even Mungo Park; mostly just Mill (and an opponent, Malcolm) on India. Adams' source was partly the Astor Library in New York. Possibly as a result there is nothing on Jews, except treated as a religion in the exchangeable belief-system sense. And there's almost nothing on Islam - a bit on the Crusades - and nothing on either's sacred texts. The idea that Islam was the destroyer of the Roman Empire, as opposed to 'barbarians' such as the Goths, is omitted; so is Byzantium. All of this was presumably typical of educated whites in the English-speaking world.

The publication date of 1882 (the 3rd edition, 1888, seems to have been a big seller) positions it before the Jewish penetration into the world of ideas. This was the worldview of people in the 1800s. Pick your favourite: Twain? Lincoln? Victoria? Brunel? William Morris? Generals? Bishops? Industrialists? Labourers? All must have had views of the past influenced by the books described in Adams. He naturally has a tendency to neglect older books, but many survive the winnow, obviously including Greek and Roman writers. And there's a lot on states in the USA. Subjects and topics are seen through historical authors: Tacitus, Gibbon, Grote, Michelet, Ranke; ... Baker on Turkey, Bryce's 'Holy Roman Empire', Bullfinch on Chivalry; Carlyle on Cromwell; Geffken on Church and State; the great sensation made by Paolo Sarpi's book on the Council of Trent and Louis Blanc's memoirs; Fuller on the Church in Britain (Coleridge thought Fuller one of the very best writers of English); Gregorovius on Rome; Waitz on German Constitutional history (but only to the 12th century). Authors are viewed by historical authors: biographies of Franklin, Walter Scott, Voltaire. So are legal systems, constitutions, elections, criminal law. Where there's no single dominant author, Adams produces selections of titles, on, for example, Cicero, Russia, small nations of Europe, Whigs, Alexander Hamilton, Sparta—there must be several thousand topics, and any examples I give here can't help but be inadequate. Where events merge chronologically, Adams gives pages of 'suggestion to students and readers', recommending numerous books, more or less in time sequence, selected for their stylistic qualities and viewpoint.

Interesting to see embryonic attempts at scientific history, for example by Buckle, Herbert Spencer, and Comte. Adams must have puzzled over science and industrialism, which are not identified as topics. Economics features as paper money and lists of prices and e.g. Cobden. Empires are treated as though they are simple to understand. (Seeley's Expansion of England is in). There is some sense of anthropology's influence - races of India, general histories of the human race, histories of the evolution of civilisation.

And interesting to look for omissions. One of these (already mentioned) is the misunderstanding of tribal belief systems, treating anything that can be called a religion as set of picturesque verbal beliefs unrelated to the world. Such items as the Talmud, Quran, and 'muti' no doubt sit well in elegant libraries. Adams doesn't begin to adumbrate future panics related to Germany: Fichte and Hegel are omitted, and Engels and Marx, though Bismarck is.

Thoroughly indexed. The contents list is about half the length of the index, i.e. too long and detailed, so the layout of the book isn't very clear—it needs an added condensed list of contents. There are no illustrations.

Quite a remarkable overview of nineteenth century mentality. Adams wrote some introductory material, interesting, though you have to be in the mood for immersion in ideas about the past, and the problems of presenting them.
Top of Page

John Reith biog   Review of BBC Media Trash     Ian McIntyre: The Expense of Glory - A Life of John Reith

The Case Against the BBC - Part 1. Reith

Ian McIntyre: The Expense of Glory - A life of John Reith (1993)

Here's the myth of the BBC (2012; forum comment): '... the saddening part of this farce [BBC resignations, as paedophile cover-ups including Jimmy Savile are partly exposed; while Muslim rapes of little white girls are ignored, as are murders of whites in South Africa, the views of victims of wars in the Middle East, and so on, and on, and on is that an organisation that was set up with all the good intentions to bring unbiased news and entertainment, world wide in some areas, has under the regime of successive governments since its inception, been allowed to be infiltrated and controlled by Marxist idealism without anybody questioning it. ... in its day the BBC was the closest anyone could get to know what was going on world wide...'

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

asa briggs history of broadcasting google extract   Rerevisionist's Review of   Asa Briggs   History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom
    Review 5 June 2015
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page


History of England
G M Trevelyan

History of England
John Frederick Burke
History of England — two versions

Mimicry   by Rerevisionist, 1 September 2016

I haven't traced the book by Trevelyan (1876-1962), though the jacket design (left) appears to be dated 1973 or earlier. G M Trevelyan was an academic, who wrote a large number of books on history; something like a liberal version of Hilaire Belloc, 'liberal' in the unAmerican Whig sense. M is for Macaulay, which revisionists will recognise as a 'red flag'. This book was first published in 1926, and presumably was influential in Trevelyan's being appointed (or whatever the formal word is) Regius Professor of History at Cambridge in 1927. One fears Trevelyan was entirely unaware of the creeping decay to which Europe was subjected. His History of England was revised, or at least added to, several times, including of course material on Hitler.

John Frederick Burke's History of England (1974; jacket right, publisher Book Club Associates), in a thriller style with exciting battles and no mention of Jews, was written by what one can be forgiven for describing as a parasitic hack writer, author of pseudonymous material, of what seem to be faked autobiographies, film and TV 'novelisations', thrillers, and science fiction, short stories. He wrote as Robert Miall for Pan Books. He is listed as having ghosted Return to Auschwitz by 'Kitty Hart', published in 1981.
    He seems to be the same type (conceivably even the same person) as James Moffat, a "Canadian-born UK writer who wrote at least 290 novels in several genres under at least 45 pseudonyms" including Richard Allen, Etienne Aubin, Trudi Maxwell, and James Taylor. He invented 'skinhead' novels in Britain. He was rediscovered by Miles Mathis in late 2016. There are staggering numbers of imitative and derivative writers in all the media, and every possible topic.
Top of Page

Baron Cohen, Ali-G, Borat, Dictator etc
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

  Clive James   A Point of View. And too many other books
    Review by 'Rerevisionist' 28 July 2015
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of BBC junk attempt to survey Elizabeth II and Britain   James Naughtie: The New Elizabethans

BBC TRASH SURVEY
9 April 2013
James Naughtie - 'The New Elizabethans - Sixty Portraits of Our Age'

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

  Review of Robert Harris   Fatherland (Book followed by Jewish-American-British TV film

Jewish-Anglo-American TV/film Propaganda Hybrid
29 Dec 2015
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Mary Whitehouse biography   Review of   Ben Thompson (Ed)   Ban This Filth!
Whitehouse never understood the world. But neither does the author of 'Ban This Filth!'     This review August 29, 2014
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Pieter Geyl - Napoleon   Review of Politically-correct shallow history   Pieter Geyl: Napoleon: For and Against (1965)

Sound signifying nothing (1965 ignorance and correctness with one eye on Hitler)
16 Nov 2012
First published in English translation in 1949, by Jonathan Cape, an arty publisher; but written at least five years before. According to several accounts Geyl, whose interest was Dutch history, was arrested and interned in Buchenwald for part of what became called World War 2; I suspect, judging by a phonetic surname list, he believed himself to be a Jew. I'll assume that, anyway. Geyl says (in another book) that the Second World War brought to France 'catastrophe and humiliation' which reinforces that impression.

Twenty years later: British University education had been expanded, and, naturally, what might now be called politically-correct fodder had to be provided, particularly in the subjects to be discreetly reupholstered as soft-options. Enter Penguin Books, who reprinted this in larger format ('Peregrine') than usual, with nice colour cover. There must be many A-level and degree-level students whose sole knowledge of Napoleon comes from coasting through this book. Certainly the blurb's extravagant praise, by people like A J P Taylor and Alan Bullock (newspaper-style historian of Hitler) might lull people into thinking it may genuinely be the 'best single volume' of the time about Napoleon.

'For and Against' is of course a primitively trite dichotomy. Geyl's procedure is to consider French writers (published from 1814 - 1935) only; it's not very clear what they had to do to count as historians. Some of Geyl's summaries are single pages; others are much longer. His framework is (roughly) chronological: start, chroniclers (the word of course is a slight), reaction against 'the legend', admirers, foreign policy, and end point. With thousands of books to choose from, there's little difficulty approximating to some such scheme. And from the politically-correct viewpoint, Geyl must have had little difficulty in his exclusions; no comment on Walter Scott, for example.

There's a revealing comment by Geyl to the effect that he's not an expert - to claim that, a whole lifetime's reading is needed. How convenient that one man's achievements should be summarisable by exactly one lifetime of study.

Briefly, Napoleon, from Corsica, as about 20 at the time of the 'Revolution' in 1789. After getting into his stride, he carried out about ten years of warfare, collecting such honours as Emperor of France in the process, disastrously invading Russia (it was cold), and finally meeting his end on St Helena, a dot of an island under British seapower, remote from Europe. At the time, much of Europe was a patchwork of small principalities (France had managed to unify, possibly as a result of Chauvin's efforts; Italy was a mosaic; Germany was disunited, the north being Protestant and Austrian parts Catholic; and so on). There were therefore something like twenty potential belligerents, with vast numbers of possible alliances. Moreover, many battles were followed by treaties of great intricacy, trying to bind behaviour to other powers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Geyl attempts no summary, anywhere, of Napoleon's military achievements, though in passing the 'Code Civil', the Concordat, and educational reform loom large through the general fog.

Cynics will notice a symmetry here with World Wars and 'war aims'. The true aims were not to be revealed to the public at the time, nor are they to be mentioned to young students now. In an analogous way, the effects of Napoleon, before and after, are not considered. Geyl (who praised himself on the quality of his Dutch prose) prefers archly to present quotations on moral characteristics: love of war, vanity, force of character, intellect, folly, vulgarity, persuasiveness, impetuousness, foreignness and Corsica. ... and of course there are innumerable views, quite possibly every bit as unreliable as opinions on Jesus, if he ever lived. Geyl's intention is to prevent students of history weighing up or assessing Napoleon; instead, the entire book deals with opinions and shades of wording, and has vast numbers of irrelevancies and subtopics and diversions and picturesque phrases and official judgments and slighted opinions.

Geyl wisely refrains from accepting any view as correct. 'Argument without end' is Geyl's polite assessment; 'drivel without end' is nearer.

Geyl doesn't even attempt to assess Napoleon's wars from the demographic/technical point of view. After all, 20th century mechanised war perhaps should throw some relief onto wars with horse-drawn artillery on bad roads, muskets, food with little preserving packing, absence of railways, communications by semaphore, and so on. Was it really that bad? I'm unsure; but it's a question worth addressing, since after all the romance, such as it is, of Caesar, Theodoric, Charlemagne, Cromwell, Mussolini, Stalin and other such figures, ought to be factually-based; oughtn't it?

What was the net effect of Napoleon? Mazzini said his regime 'crippled feudalism, strengthened the central authority, established schools, braced the soldiery and generally quickened the energies of the people' - possibly a Hitlerian comparison selected by Geyl. A J P Taylor debunks some aristocratic pretensions: 'old aristocracy ... was .. largely 18th century, many the creations of Napoleon; only Habsburg was a genuine historic dynasty. ...' Here's Beatrice Webb: '...new system of industry ... Great Britain... survive[d] the Napoleonic Wars intact, and not even invaded, whilst her ruling oligarchy emerged in 1815 as the richest and most powerful government of the time.' She should have known: her family was part of that process. Lefebvre (p. 380) '... explains the evil reputation of the Directorate by the impossible financial situation which it had inherited from the Convention: worthless assignats withdrawn, a state bankruptcy, all credit gone, nothing but the receipts of taxation for financing the war.' Geyl avoids most discussion of money, apart from suggestions he under-funded his projects, and leaves unmentioned Napoleon's lament that financiers were without country, and that after him money was in the hands of Jews. Was Wellington spared Rothschild's money-grabbing? One has to wonder, but Geyl doesn't.

Geyl has of course to choose discrete topics here and there; it's impossible to be entirely unspecific. He duly considers the shock of Enghien's assassination. But he's unconcerned about 300,000 dead soldiers. This is pure convention. It may well be a Jewish attitude: only Jews count, so the Jewish historian has to note, with puzzlement, that some non-Jews actually agonise over goyim dead - incredible, but they seem to, so let's go along with that. This saves an awful lot of effort of assessment.

Some subjects are evaded entirely: Napoleon may or may not have been vastly intelligent, but anyway surrounded himself with intelligent people: they made aluminium, worked with iodine, kept 3-d geometry a state secret, invented synthetic butter, and baguettes (to fit into trousers; and perhaps go with hydrogenated fats?), and wanted careers open to talent. There were limits - the tin buttons on the soldiers' uniforms fell apart under intense cold, for example. All of this is out of Geyl's range.

Another evasion is to dodge the hired hack idea. Michelet seems to have become something like a state-sponsored official historian, but Geyl sees no connection between his job and his opinions.

You may have been told this book is a first-class discussion by a great historical mind, by people trying to sell it, either for money or reputation. It isn't.
Top of Page


If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Abolish It
Ken Livingstone
Review of Ken Livingstone's If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Abolish It.   (1987; paperback 1988)
Rather Nauseating Example of Post-1945 Jewish Victory Maggots Feeding
I have an old, used copy of Livingstone's "If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Abolish It". The cover photo shows Livingstone, resembling an extra from a PSY pop video. The blurb on the back starts 'The battle for the GLC [=Greater London Council] made Ken Livingstone a national figure, a popular hero who Londoners felt was on their side.' In fact, this was all part of the Jewish post-1945 victory, their policy being to import unwanted coloured immigrants to ruin whites—a long-term jewish object.

I think Livingstone is, or rather thinks he is, a Jew. I found a name change I think from Lebenstein in 1945 in the Official Gazette suggesting this. And the usual signs—promotion of nobody from nowhere, calling lots of people 'fascists' and 'racists' (in the first chapter, I think), going along with the Holohoax fraud, going along with the pretence that the IRA was Irish. Nothing can be taken at face value here; in any case the media will never report anything on Jews accurately. They just will not do it, until they are replaced.

Note that his book's title is a disgusting phoney in itself. The book is full of backroom meetings and plottings and campaigns and P.R. manoeuvres and money, where votes certainly did change things. All this was unreported—in fact a couple of extracts on the blurb specifically state the recording and documentation is necessary, such as it is.

The 'elite' regard immigration as a smorgasbord from which to pick delicacies. I don't think this psychology applies to people like Ken Livingstone, who are more akin to the third-rate incompetents, trusties, informers and torturers in the USSR. Livingstone is clearly indifferent to democracy, and is known to have taken orders from 'left wing' types controlled by the usual 'Marxist' suspects. He must have been picked from large number of ill-educated malcontents, and they knew what they were doing, since he did his destructive job well and apparently tirelessly. Possibly, when he was ridiculed, as a trainee teacher, by white home counties girls, he decided to take revenge. The same psychology appears to apply to quite large chunks of the Labour party—you see them at vote counts—cardiganed elderly men after lives of government makework with odd faces and mannerisms, unkempt women with thick glasses, young 'useful idiots' spouting the current line and too immature to have any idea how the line has varied in the past.

Livingstone was presumably funded; he gives no detail of his payments or his council housing, or of the scripts he worked from in radio interviews. Conceivably, this rankled with him; he made, relatively recently, a few banal observations on such things as the Haavara Agreement, though of course this may well have been just twisted Jew publicity. Khan's campaign for London Mayor included (it's claimed) some Hebrew, though I'd guess just a few phrases. Livingstone has no idea (or if he has, keeps secret) that Jews made up the Holocaust fraud to get money and influence. So far as I know, Livingstone has avoided mention of the Jewish control of central banking, which enables them to throw money at a huge variety of frauds, pressure groups, 'think tanks', newspapers and other media. There's also the twin issue of nuclear weapons and power, both of which are controlled by Jewish corporations and which are likely to be frauds, like most Jewish activity. And there are wars around the world, mostly Jewish-instigated. Livingstone's multiple ignorances and confusions have played some part in ruining the so-called 'Labour Party'. Many collaborators with Jews are low-grade people, going back all the way back to Constantine. US politicians, Giuliani, Obongo, Churchill and his Jew colleagues, thugs who stage fake demos, Mandela and black tenth rate Jew-paid scum illustrate some of the types. 'Crisis actors' and media liars have had their way paved by people like Livingstone and their shadow controllers.

It's very sad that one of the world's historically most important cities has little in the way of accessible documentary record of this important time than a mediocre hackwork, filtered and amended and no doubt reworded and obfuscated by a clutch of editors and 'researchers'.
Review by Rerevisionist 22 June 2017
Top of Page

Elie Halevy: Imperialism and the Rise of Labour   Review of Elie Halévy   Imperialism and the Rise of Labour
Part of the Jewish Colonisation of English History's Conceptual Spaces, June 11, 2014
Most people have little idea that there was, and is, a process of Jewish colonisation of the academic world. Quite a few people are aware that Jews dominate such modern media as TV, film, newspapers, advertisements, although this awareness is intermittent: most news items are assumed true, or true-ish; full skepticism remains rare. But books, libraries, lecture theatres, have a hallowed and mature and possibly simply old feel about them, which makes people even more reluctant to investigate and examine them. And yet, of course, Jewish colonisation is every bit as plausible as more popular, and undeniable, colonisations.

Halevy, a French Jew born in 1870, published this volume in French (1926) then 1929 (English). The notes here refer to the second edition (revised) 1951; it seems reasonable to assume the book was aimed at academics, not the public. It's part 5 of Halevy's magnum opus 'A History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century'. My 1951 copy was published by Ernest Benn & Co.

Halevy's chapters were: 1 England in 1815 [i.e. start after Napoleon's defeat; this is a trick used by Hobsbawm!]. 2 The Liberal Awakening (1815-1830). 3 The Triumph of Reform (1830-1841). 4 Victorian Years (1841-1895) - by far the longest span of years. 5 Imperialism and the Rise of Labour (1895-1905). And 6 The Rule of Democracy (1905-1914). This certainly seems very simplistic; where are the opium wars, for example? Is there consideration of Jewish funding of Napoleon? Why the rise of 'Labour' rather than organised labour? Why should 'imperialism' be dated so late, when for example India was conquered something like a century before? Partly, of course, the framework forces a handy chronological sequence. But—infinitely more important—the sequences of Jewish penetration into Britain are omitted. Freemasons, the important nexus between Jews and promising businessmen, are ignored. The 'manhood suffrage' system, presumably allowing immigrant Jews the vote, is left unclear.

Halevy's book is sometimes presented as an epic view of England in the 19th century. It's sometimes presented as an inquiry into differences from France: why wasn't there an 'English Revolution', like the 'French Revolution'? But if the 'French' Revolution in fact was a Jewish event, the question shifts to why would Jews fund Napoleon at that time; and a natural successor question is whether Jews funded the 'Great War' in 1914. The whole of Halevy's work must have been designed not to mention Jews. It is certainly free from any quantitative assessments: how much money Jews made from Napoleon's thefts; how much Rotschild made from Napoleon's defeat at the expense of British aristocrats; how much was made by non-Jews in Britain indirectly by Napoleon; right through to opium, the Empire, gold and the Boer Wars are questions simply not addressed nor assessed.

Jews worked to remove what were called 'disabilities'; the vocabulary resembles 'deprived' and other syntactically wrong structures of the present time. Some of these restrictions were shared with nonconformists, so Jews allied with them against the Church of England, though with the usual devices of changes of name etc they were often kept invisible. And of course from about 1900 the 'Labour' Party was invented, in which Jewish funding dominated, and which in any case could hardly have operated on dues from spread-out poor populations, and which Halevy must have seen as an extension of Jewish money power. Halevy has the problem of not describing Jewish plans to infiltrate Britain. So he presents Jewish actions as religious. Many more-or-less insignificant Christian cults get a look-in, and it's entirely possible they were deliberately funded to make Jews relatively invisible: certainly they didn't last, and their donations, support, and what have you are very unclear. Thus for example there were roughly ten types of Methodist: Bible Christian, Independent, New Connexion, Primitive, Wesleyan etc etc. There were Anglo-Catholics, Baptists, Congregationalists, Ebenezer Chapels, Presbyterians, Quakers, Swedenborgians, Unitarians. It's difficult to believe these were more serious than, say, pigeon-racing clubs or athletic racing societies. There were Christian Socialists of various types, though it's unlikely they lasted after the Jewish coup in Russia. The Church of England maintained its traditional intellectual torpor, tragically, as that organisation might have investigated Talmudic and Islamic texts and even issued warnings.

Halevy's partial analysis includes such things as 'imperialism' and 'democracy', defined and selected so that finance and Jewish influences are implicitly ignored and bypassed and discounted. There is of course much nothing on the Bank of England and currency and its analysis. And nothing on the profits of wars; at that time South African goldfields and the Jewish part of the Boer Wars made Jews relatively visible, something Halevy of course wanted to suppress.

It's worth recalling that Nesta Webster published Secret Societies and Subversive Movements in 1924, and The Socialist [i.e. Communist, Jewish, 'red'] Network in 1926. It's entirely possible that Halevy's job was to do his best to negate Webster's works, in a standard way—ignoring them completely, while setting up an alternative view containing no Jewish references, then relying on Jewish publicity and tireless promotional work. Probably an examination of Halevy's reputation management would yield interesting sidelights on the inter-war propaganda world.

All through the 1930s Halevy's book was published in three parts by Pelican Books (paperback; part of the Penguin range) as A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE, listed as A9, A16, and A30.
Top of Page

Esther Vilar - Manipulated Man   Review of 1971 book on Male/Female War   Esther Vilar: The Manipulated Man

Part of the post-1945 Jewish Subversion of White Society
  20 March 2016
I vaguely remember seeing, many years ago, probably on BBC TV, a typically staged debate on women's issues. Only with Internet was I able to recover the name 'Esther Vilar'. Youtube now has a reprise: Alice Schwarzer and Esther Vilar in a staged German TV chat. Vilar made quite a good case for males being exploited by women, with work until retirement and differences in life expectation. This of course is not in Third World conditions, with white expectations of competence! Vilar seemed to have little grasp of the medical and nutritional reasons for life expectation differences. Schwarzer presented a rather comical post-1945 'feminist' viewpoint. The clue here seems to be that both are/were Jews, or perhaps near-Jews. The only things they agree upon are 'fascism', and upon mutual implicit indifference to world upheavals at that time.

It is true that women, like men, can calculate advantages and disadvantages. And it is true women's styles are likely to be a matter of pleading rather than strength. And it is true marriage can be hugely advantageous. (Vilar writes: 'Women are physically much weaker than men, their brains demonstrably smaller and not constructed for problem-solving [sic], so dependency could have distinct evolutionary advantages. But the real answer has to be discovered ... in the hormones which race so headily through a man's bloodstream.') Anyone who is shocked by these simple facts might benefit from reading Vilar. Deeper readers will perceive the incipient promotion of 'pornography', homosexual marriage, support for mentally ill persons, Jews using women as prostitutes, men as rapists and child molesters, money-making from divorce, abortion support, family court corruption, and what have you.

This turns out to be just more useful idiocy and divide-and-rule pseudo-debate.
An earlier writer in English on women as cunning gold-diggers was Ludovici; in Woman—A Vindication (1923) he puts women's desire for a family as her motive—testing men rather like a female butterfly testing its food plant. Vilar just puts acquisitiveness there. Vilar says 'The average American woman is a whore. Her vagina is a business, and this business is extortion. Her most cherished goal is to live at a man's expense, to luxuriate in a life without work or responsibility'. Note the misuse of the word 'whore'—the danger, the short-termism, the decline with age, is a typical Jewish misuse of a word. In any society with mobility, and choice, and a legally-policed structure without much in the way of shotgun weddings and rapes, and with control over fertility, such attitudes are going to occur. Possibly in 1923, with deaths of men during the Great War, Ludovici seemed new, but I think by 1971 it's surprising Vilar attracted much attention; assuming of course that the publicity resulted in sales—it's usually impossible to know even approximate figures.
It's worth noticing the specifically Jew-blind attitude of Vilar. 'Moreover, it is women who control 80% of the nation's wealth...' is her claim; the realities of Jews and paper/ e-money are ignored. The publicity given to these people is just another aspect of the Jewish impulse to harm whites. And it's been fairly successful: in the American 'academic' world, many female 'professors' are a bad joke. Vilar has the post-1945 Jewish view of 'feminism', i.e. not the earlier moderate versions: 'Never before have females been so brazenly mercenary as today's "liberated" woman. Feminism, which masquerades as a philosophy which would celebrate character over materialism, has become nothing more than a license to exploit men.'
    And in the legal world, there's been very little attempt to work out rational rules for divorce. There's a parallel with blacks, where Jewish lies have successfully suppressed rational discussion on race differences.
A message here, which many people seem unable to learn, is to follow the money—or in this case follow the funding. When Jewish money is to be used for some harmful purpose, one of the stages is to secretly pay 'activists', propagandists, thugs, or whatever, and to tip off the Jewish media. It's a similar process to advertising some new Hollywood film, or some new target for war.
Top of Page

Webb Suffragettes Terrorism   Review of   Simon Webb   Suffragette Terrorism
Suffragette Terrorism? Explosions in Britain Attributed to Suffragettes before the 'Great War'     12 Sept 2015
Webb appears to be an author who has swallowed all the modern media mythology about 'terrorism'. This book has accounts of outrages, typically from 1909 to early 1914—explosions and/or arson in barracks, churches, libraries, and public buildings. I'd ask serious historians to consider the hypothesis that these explosions were carried out secretly by Jews, leaving behind false flag tokens—books, letters, 'clues', written notes, things supposed to be part of the lives of white ladies.
[Here's H G Wells in his Experiment in Autobiography: 'It is no part of the plan of this book to tell the tale of that nagging, ignoble campaign which ended abruptly with the Declaration of War in 1914, to detail once again the window-smashing, the burning of country houses, churches and the contents of letter boxes, the squawking at meetings, "votes for women" until the discussion of public affairs became impossible, ...']
    Why the hell would anyone want to do something so repellent? I think probably part of the motive was to make people feel nervous and worried and apprehensive: in short, to make them follow the authorities. The feeling must have been: What could happen next? Certainly when war 'broke out', as the evasive phrase has it—in fact, Britain declared war—the suffragettes made peace with Lloyd George. And there was a newspaper campaign suggesting men needed war, civilisation was jaded and dull, battle was a cleansing influence. I'd suggest that Jews had a history of bomb throwing; consider 1905 in Russia. It's hard to believe genteel Englishwomen were skilled in the use of the then-new dynamite; whereas so-called 'anarchists', a code-word for Jews from eastern Europe. And the targets—churches (Christian artefacts are hated by Jews), libraries (full of non-Talmudic material, hated by Jews), splendid public buildings and country houses (evidence of white skills, hated by Jews), and barracks (white soldiers—hated by Jews), make sense as part of a Jewish campaign. Here's a naive remark by Webb: '... no responsibility for these two attacks was claimed by the WSPU, it is hard to know who else could have been to blame. The suffragettes were the only terrorist group operating in Britain at that time.' Note the phrasing: 'no responsibility was claimed'; note that no evidence seems to have been found, either. Webb maintains the destructiveness of these attacks has been underestimated, or forgotten. An alternative interpretation is that, having helped achieve war, retrospective propaganda would simply omit them once their work had been done, in case people might guess, and investigate, what really happened.
    Anyone, now, who thinks all protests and demonstrations are spontaneous and honestly-motivated, to be taken at face value, must be an extremist in naïeveté.
SUMMARY: [Added after Webb showed he can't read]:
I believe (though he isn't honest enough to say so) that Webb thinks he's a 'Jew' and therefore presumably is entitled to lie. The fact is - at least if his 'research' was correct - that the explosive atrocities before WW1 were NOT acknowledged by suffragettes; all that happened was bits of paper were found with 'votes for women' on them. So it's possible, in fact likely, that they were a false flag. Webb also lies in stating there were no bomb-throwers etc around at the time. In fact of course Russia was plagued by them, and they were Jews. Webb is 'raving mad' etc etc.
This is Bertrand Russell in 1910: Anti-Suffragist Anxieties from which it's clear Russell had no idea that front organisations can lead subversions up to the level of war.

Initial post: 13 Sep 2015 S. Webb says: It is hard to know where to begin with such a criticism as this. Perhaps dealing with the obvious misconceptions would be a good place to start. Dynamite was not a new substance in the years before the outbreak of war in 1914; it had been patented in 1867. In any case, it was not used by the suffragettes, who restricted themselves to the more widely available gunpowder and, very occasionally, nitro-glycerine. I have no idea why Mr West believes that 'anarchists' is a code-word for Jews from eastern Europe. He does seem to have Jews on the brain! Those convicted of anarchist attacks in this country at the end of the nineteenth century were not Jews at all. Perhaps Mr West might like to read up on Rollo Richards, who bombed the post offices of south London in the 1890s, or Martial Bourdin, who blew himself up at the Greenwich Observatory. Neither these men nor any of the others convicted for bomb making or arson in this country were Jews.

As for the Jews being responsible for bombing churches in Edwardian Britain; this is a little fanciful. Certainly those caught for such offences, such as Annie Bell, who was found in the act of bombing the St John the Evangelist church in Westminster, were not Jewish. I might recommend another of my books on the subject of terrorism, Dynamite, Treason and Plot; Terrorism in Victorian and Edwardian London, for a more detailed account of bombings during this period. Not one of these attacks was, as far as it known, carried out by Jews. Readers might bear in mind that Mr West has given a five star rating to Mein Kampf; which might shed some light upon his political leanings and explain why he wishes to blame the Jews for everything!

Rerevisionist says: Ah - you must be the author. I read a report that dynamite with a fuse was thrown over a wall somewhere; it was relatively new. the idea Victorian ladies would use the highly dangerous nitroglycerine is absurd.

However, Webb seems to know nothing of jewish actions in eg. Russia (e.g. murder of Stolypin), Jewish support for 1905 war of Japan vs Russia, or the attribution of atrocities to 'anarchists'. Who of course were Jews. However, the point here is that there seems no evidence at all that suffragettes carried out the violent attacks. The use of false flags by jews is a long-standing tradition, in force today. So is (e.g.) the destruction of churches, notably Orthodox churches in the USSR. It's a pity Webb has so little knowledge or interest in genuine history. There's little point reading authors like him, who aren't even aware of the issues.

Incidentally I don't blame jews for 'everything', as Webb flippantly claims. They have large numbers of defenders, collaborators, and so on.

Since Webb doesn't even understand my point, I'd suggest his book is not worth reading.

S. Webb says: As I think I have already explained, dynamite was not relatively new and had been around for almost fifty years at the time of the suffragette bombings. The idea that Victorian women would use nitro-glycerine was not at all absurd; they had the services of an analytical chemist called Edwy Clayton, who subsequently appeared at the Old Bailey. Rather than being a Jew, he came from a Methodist background. It is of course perfectly true that Stolypin was assassinated in 1911 by a Jewish anarchist called Dmitry Bogrov, but this tells us little about anarchists in general. None of those arrested in this country for terrorism in the late nineteenth century were Jews.

It is also true that some churches may well have been destroyed by Jews in other parts of the world. Those which were set fire to and bombed in Britain between 1911 and 1914 were invariably targeted by suffragettes and not Jews. Alice Wheeldon, for example, was responsible for the burning down of the church at Breadsall on 5 June 1914, Annie Bell detonated the bomb at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London on 10 May 1914 and so on. Neither Wheeldon nor Bell were Jews. I'm not at all sure why Mr West seems to believe that there is no evidence that suffragettes carried out violent attacks. There is no shortage at all of evidence for this. Following the bombing of Lloyd George's house at Walton-on-the-Hill on 18 February 1913, Emmeline Pankhurst was convicted at the Old Bailey of inciting terrorism. The bomb itself was planted by Emily Davison, who later threw herself in front of the King's horse at Epsom. Neither Emily Davison nor Mrs Pankhurst were Jews.

If there is any evidence that Jews were responsible for any of these attacks, then of course it would be interesting to see it. Unfortunately, Mr West appears to have something of a bee in his bonnet about Jews and thinks them responsible for many of the world's ills. In this particular case he is mistaken, although any evidence which he wished to produce in support of this hypothesis would be welcomed. The fact that some Jews were in favour of the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 tells us little about who planted bombs in Britain between 1911 and 1914. Looking through Mr West's reviews of other books on Amazon reveals a common thread; he nearly always mentions Jews. Spending a lot of time hunched over a keyboard in a darkened room, writing about the Jews is bound to give anybody a distorted view of the world and it is to be hoped that some friend of Mr West's might have a quiet word with him and encourage him to get out more and find another hobby; preferably one which does not involve Jews!

Rerevisionist says: I don't care much for Webb's dishonest points here. Any serious historian knows Jews murdered tens of millions of Russians, after the Federal Reserve in 1913 put them in the position to dominate the USA economically, which of course Bernard Baruch did. If Webb thinks mass murder is a matter of having bees in bonnets, I'd recommend he either seeks psychiatric help or volunteers for investigation by psychologists.

However all this is somewhat of a waste of time; the hypothesis of Jewish involvement is an obvious one and any serious historian ought to examine it. Obviously it's unlikely the evidence will be freely available.

Clearly I was confusing Webb with someone with a serious interest in the past (and future). Perhaps he should find a new hobby appropriate to his skill level.

S. Webb says: The problem here is really a simple failure of logic. Even if it were to be true that tens of millions of Russians had been murdered by Jews, this would shed no light at all on either suffragette terrorism or the anarchist movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Mr West's thought process seems to be as follows. Some anarchists, such as the man who assassinated Russian Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, were Jews; therefore anarchism was an eastern European, Jewish plot. This is why it is suggested that anarchists is a 'code-word for Jews from eastern Europe'. Of course, the great majority of anarchists were not Jews from eastern Europe at all; many of them were Italians from Catholic families. We remember, for instance, Luigi Lucheni, who assassinated Elizabeth of Austria and in this country, Francis Polti and Guiseppe Farnara, who appeared at the Old Bailey on 30 April 1894, charged with plotting to blow up the London Stock Exchange. One might as well describe anarchists as being a code-word for Catholics from southern Europe. In fact many of the most famous anarchist bombers such as Ravachol and Emile Henry were French atheists. Perhaps we should say that 'anarchists' is a code-word for atheists from western Europe!

Unfortunately, Mr West sees almost everything from the perspective of Jewish conspiracies. Whether we are talking about anarchist and suffragette terrorism, world wars and economic crises or immigration and mixed marriages, there is one solution; it's those pesky Jews, at it again! Unless, and until, we are given some solid evidence to consider, I think that we may safely dismiss this particular hypothesis. Mr West has here a public platform to show us why he thinks that it was the Jews, rather than the suffragettes, who bombed Lloyd George's house and also why he believes anarchism in the early twentieth century to be a Jewish plot. Until he does so, his ideas on the subject are best described as 'bare assertion'.

14 Sep 2015 13:09:17 Rerevisionist says: Unfortunately Webb is too ignorant to face the issue, as his mass of irreleventsia shows. And unfortunately it's therefore clear his book is worthless.

15 Sept 2015 S. Webb says: We are, alas, destined never to learn what grounds anybody would have for supposing that Jews were running around planting bombs in Edwardian Britain. This is a pity, because there is something quite entertaining about the idea of sinister rabbis fooling about with sticks of dynamite! Mr West is apparently a sensitive soul and I have inadvertently put him out of countenance. It is to be hoped that he changes his mind and tells us a little more about this hypothesis. History can be a rather dry topic sometimes and many of us would welcome a lighthearted diversion of this sort.
T. T. Rogers says: Mr. Webb,

I agree that any allegations of Jewish involvement must be supported by evidence. So far, what Rerevisionist says in this matter remains an interesting hypothesis, nothing more.

That said, you must of course know that when Rerevisionist refers to Jews in this context, he is not (or at least, not primarily) referring to 'rabbis'. That you would characterise the supposition in this way is, perhaps, telling.
Rerevisionist says: Thanks for your comment.

I'm in fact grateful to Mr Webb, though he may be surprised to hear it. It simply hadn't occurred to me before that it's extremely unlikely that suffragettes would have started bombing campaigns; after all, the whole point of parliament is to debate and discuss things, and suffragettes were wealthy enough to print 'literature' and make speeches.

And of course Jews in Russia, Germany, and for that matter the east end of London were aggressive and violent and now known to have been prime movers in the disasters of the 20th century.

I don't know Mr Webb's working methods: it may be he has copies of trial transcripts, for example, in which case he could probably investigate the hypothesis without much extra work.

And plenty more in this fruitless vein. It transpires that Webb claims to have lived in Israel for a few years; he comments on the middle east in a twitter account simonwebb54 full of anti-Palestine hate, and shares comment fantasies with a 'Black' and a 'Morgan'. It seems my initial suspicion has been unexpectedly confirmed.
Top of Page

Raymond Cattell - The Scientific Analysis of Personality Review by 'Rerevisionist' of   The Scientific Analysis of Personality   by Raymond B. Cattell 4 June 2017
Misleading 1965 cover design: 'Measurements' are mostly questionnaires.
The Pelican blurb (the book is A712) states that Cattell was born in 1905. There's no indication this book was published before 1965, though Cattell was part of the publish-or-perish industry from about 1945, and his 'over two hundred articles for scientific journals and fifteen books ...' suggests he had much of the material at hand, though chapters are ended with short bibliographies, typically of books published from about 1958-1965.

He of course missed the Great War; he studied chemistry at London University, but switched to a PhD under Charles Spearman. Then moved to university life in the USA. Most of his work seems to have been the rather conventional seeing-if-people-fit-jobs stuff. Cattell's conception of 'IQ' is in the original tradition of looking for pencil-and-paper workers. There is no test for cunning and ruthless manipulation of people, though of course this is arguably important to 'intelligence'.

And indeed all the categories are rather obvious, and also atomistic and individual: for example, nothing much on religion as an organisation, or (in particular) Jews and Jewish clannishness. I couldn't find a concept of the 'I prefer my own group, and would always prefer them' - 'agree definitely, down to disagree completely'. Or 'I would rather cheat than harm my interest group - I always put my community first'. Or 'Most people are so stupid I am entitled to get ahead of them by any means possible.' There is a factor Q3, but it's clear that 'Group adherence' means a subservient follower type, not an aggressive subset.

'Multivariate Experimental Psychology' is the official name for his approach. Part of this is to assign figures to various personality characteristics, and then find a one-figure summary: IQ tests where correct=1, incorrect=0, and a total added up, illustrate a simple version of the type of thing.
      The maths involved is based on least-squares regressions, which is easy enough to calculate, though computers today could do a much more prolonged set of conversions and selections. The 'normal distribution' rules, so for example the '16 PF test profile' (from 1956) has 'stens' assumed to cluster around the middle values about 38% for scores of 5 or 6, and about 5% for 1 and 10. This is all 20th century algebra, excellent for sausage-machine applications—but the derivations are murky and obscure.
      There's plenty of scope for cunning insertion of guessing corrections, tests for cheating, tests for sabotage, and so on, but generally the assumption is that people willingly do these tests, to get jobs or promotion, or perhaps not to get classified as something undesirable.
      These tests often give a sinister impression, I think because they are so obviously based on US mass man outlooks.

At present, IPAT, Inc. (Institute for Personality and Ability Testing) is listed as based in Savoy, Illinois, 'a reliable, validated tool with decades of data behind it.' Cattell directed this, or its precursor, from about 1945 to 1965. His daughter, Heather, as far as I can tell, continues the family business. I wonder if the 16 Personality Factors test translates well.
      probably an underlying attitude is unthoughtful post-1945 Jewish aggression, mediated through US gullibility. Cattell mentions a test question: (p 125) on optimism about the influence of a remote event, such as a gold strike in Pakistan. But Cattell doesn't seem to realise that people with super-national connections might be liable to such optimism. Cattell mentions the Korean War, but permits himself no doubts as to reasons for its occurrence, or war crimes, cruelty etc: his job is to get the right people. He says (p 312) Churchill had 'high assertiveness' and was a leader, but with not the slightest criticism—for example, of Churchill's being paid to do what he was told. P. 356 has Cattell's judgment on monarchs who 'did well for their country': 'Frederick the Great ... and our definitely A(-) Queen Elizabeth I did better for their countries than, say, the warm-hearted Richard I and Charles II. ...' One of his categories is 'Conservatism vs Radicalism', disappointingly news-derived and feeble.

Validation of tests is discussed on pages 84-89. It obviously makes sense that the tests should give results resembling what they are supposed to be. Cattell is very keen to point out that face-to-face interviews seem to be less reliable than good pencil-and-paper tests. He also lists assorted tests, from musical taste to sweatiness, from reaction time measurements to word association, that may give some idea of underlying 'personality'. But Cattell doesn't say much on extremes: long careers, huge stretches of overtime, stress over many months. He assumes personalities tend to remain much the same as before, though of course his technical material is interrupted by real-world problems and issues. It's typical of Cattell that he makes no attempt to list the successes of his techniques. Very likely they are dominated by practical tests: skill in truck-driving or navigation or surgery or hair-cutting or plumbing or acting.

Cattell avoided the classics (i.e. Greek and Latin), going out of his way to point out that claims that they 'train the brain' and 'transfer into other fields' are unsubstantiated (though orators and writers might disagree). But it leaves the door open for neologisms, which avoid the problem of confusing special uses for existing words. Thus we have 'Premsia' vs 'Harria' (= 'protected emotional sensitivity' vs 'hard realism'). And 'Protension' vs 'Alaxia' (='... inner tension accompanied by projection..' vs ?). And 'Autia' vs 'Praxernia' (='tendency to be autistic, to perceive reality in accord with one's wishes' vs 'practical, careful, conventional'). Sizothymia vs Affectothymia, Threctia and Parmia, are two other examples.

I've tried to indicate in passing some of the weaknesses of this book; but possibly the tests might be extended and deepened. Though it might be difficult to get straight answers; many people are expert in deception and distraction.
Top of Page

  Review of Jewish fake science psychology   Arthur Cohen: Attitude Change and Social Influence (Hardcover)

Laughable bullshit-baffles-brains Jewish attempts at enforced attitude changes, February 9, 2012

If you're interested in Jewish contributions to pseudo-science, and the use of elaborate BS as a disguise, plus also altering people's attitudes—for example, to things like 'busing of whites to black schools' in US parlance, this is an example of the genre. Worth having a copy for that reason.

This 1964 book has a foreword by Leon Festinger (of 'cognitive dissonance') & Philip Zimbardo—two similar types. It has rather laughable stuff about the Korean War, and Negroes, but of course nothing on Jews.

There's no sense of the need for true information to reach true conclusions, which gives a rather strange feel to the whole thing—jargon which restates obvious stuff in a pompous but clumsy way, disguising the opinionated material with a sense of imposed views, where facts are automatically considered irrelevant.

Part of the genre of suspect social science research. Possibly funded by people wondering whether minorities would speak up—as in the conformity experiment (attributed to Solomon Asch) with one person among actors puzzled because everyone else said something clearly wrong.
Top of Page

  Review of Jews and Thatcherism   Paul Gordon & Francesca Klug: New Right New Racism

Mid-1980s Jewish lies to advocate immigration
26 Oct 2012
1986-ish 'Searchlight' booklet. Interesting only as purveying the anonymised Jewish worldview of post-1945. This was typeset by the Russell Press in Nottingham, giving more indirect evidence that Russell was duped by Jews. (See online for a long article). I'd guess the Russell Press used what now looks like primitive word-processing equipment; at any rate there is no index, and the presentation is bitty and episodic, probably written in discrete chapters.

Essentially this is a collection of press cuttings and book extracts, many from their own anonymised fellow organisations; interleaved with approved sources—for example, 'Ashley Montague' is described as a scientist! I'd guess the clippings were collected by Paul Gordon, as he seems to have inferior status. There's an appendix of about fifteen 'new right' groups, which has lists of names and might be useful to some people; there are of course no lists of more or less secret Jewish-interest groups.

Obviously it's impossible this could be a reasoned publication; probably this helps explain why it's short—about 60 pages. Klug seems to have spent her life turning out this sort of rubbish; she was even made a professor, I believe at the 'London School of Economics'. (At one time, in living memory, professors were very scarce and very learned, though admittedly often very useless).

To understand this book, one needs a bit of background. Jews believe—or at least have been corralled like cows in a high wind to all point the same way—something like these core beliefs: [1] Whites carried out a Holocaust of millions of Jews, so any amount of money and lying is justifiable; [2] Any amount of lying and deceit is religiously OK, so mass murders by Jews e.g. in the USSR must never be mentioned; [3] Rich Jews are something like royalty and must never under any circumstances be criticised.

Now it's not obvious what follows from this, but with insane unity the cult members have adopted these possibly derivative views: [1] Whites must be exterminated because they are so horrid and nasty; therefore other races must be used to wipe them out [2] Capitalism by Jews—paper money and associated frauds—is good, and buying up white enterprises and assets is good; but profit going to ordinary white goyim is bad [3] Jews and their racism and hatred were not to be mentioned under any circumstances; 'fascist', 'nazi', 'racialist' etc were the nearest approach to discussion, and organisations ('Runnymede Trust', 'Searchlight', Scott Trust earlier, etc were set up, naturally with the costs offloaded onto host communities, to print rubbish like this booklet) [4] Scientific investigations, crime figures, educational figures etc must be ignored or dismissed.

Armed with this decoding mechanism, we can decipher 'New Right New Racism' and many similar booklets. When this book was written, Thatcher dominated British politics, at least in the official news monologues. Her role—which she probably didn't understand—was to never mention paper money (and incoming credit cards etc) and the interest accruing to Jews, and also to move private assets into Jewish ownership, and also public assets where possible. A side issue was to deindustrialise, so Jewish capital could make more money from other parts of the world—wrecking British unions seems to have been easiest. So discussions in this booklet of 'private enterprise' and 'the public sector' and 'trade union rights' are evasive: one of the five chapters quotes clippings about these issues, the 'new right', including quotations from Jewish 'economists' and so on.

A bit more background: in the mid-1980s, South African universal elections were about ten years in the future. There was a huge Jewish-promoted campaign against South Africa (not of course against Brazil, the Indian caste system, Indonesian poverty, etc) which in retrospect was purely anti-white, as is shown by official censorship of anti-white violence and black corruption now. In the 1980s, the EU had not taken shape; for example the European Coal and Steel and Euratom organisations still existed, and the 'Single European Act' was about to come into existence. From the revisionist viewpoint, Euratom was interesting as representing a Europe-wide force to impose lucrative science fraud throughout Europe. Mrs Thatcher made reassuring noises about how inconceivable it was that the French could become less French. The USSR still existed and its no doubt calculated fall, leaving Jewish 'mafia' and billionaires, was in the future. This allowed many people to bemoan 'socialism'—the taboo on mentioning Jews was in full force. Yet another issue was Ireland; in retrospect, the 'IRA' was clearly a controlled organisation, including the usual violent false flags, with the 'intelligence' 'services' warning off serious investigations.

Top of Page

  Review of Jews, 1930s, Oxford, 'Socialism'   Glasser: Gorbals Boy at Oxford

Potentially useful material on 1930s communism and Beveridge, Cole, Crossman, Jews such as Gollancz, Laski
27 Oct 2012
1988 autobiographical book by Glasser (1916-2002; I had to look up his year of birth). Published, and perhaps written, when Glasser, described as a 'psychologist and economist', was 72, it's impossible to know how much of this book is accurate. He omits his year of birth - perhaps one totem of honesty - and omits most of his childhood; what the hell was he doing in Scotland, how come he went to Oxford some years later than normal undergraduates? What work did he do, if any, while there?

The interest of this book is detail on the Communist Party (who was Bill Challoner..?), and people such as Crossman (it occurs to me now he might have been 'Grossman'), G D H Cole, Philip Toynbee, Beveridge, Victor Gollancz, Harold Laski. There are some uncomfortable-reading passages on decadence, including 'orgies', rich women students, and visiting France. And passages on wartime experiences - his were pretty much negligible - including the secrecy aspect - 'Ashenden' a once-well known spy story by Somerset Maugham) provides a chapter title.

It's not credible to me that this material has not been reworked endlessly in Glasser's head. He shows himself as actively aware of the Spanish Civil War, for example. Obviously he had no feeling for revisionist views of Churchill or Hitler, though he at least presents himself as challenging Gollancz (of the 'Left Book Club') on Stalin.

His poor-boy-made-good outlook is something of a facade; some of the reviewers here remarked on his self-pitying whining—after all, his like had contributed nothing to this country; why should the British be expected to support him? Most of these Oxford families would have had relatives' deaths during the First World War. Many would have lost money in the Depression - Churchill being a dramatic example, though it was of course hushed up at the time. Many must have had worries about their future. Glasser's perception of casual flippancies and effortless languor and superciliousness can't be quite right.

Anyway; there may be some useful points made in this book, on Jews, 'Communism', subversion, Oxford as a centre for subversive groups. It's unindexed, which doesn't help hunting such points down. Glasser's book seems to have worked for him, money-wise, very likely though the usual publicity channels; it's the sort of thing the BBC would promote—and seems to have sparked off Glasser on a mini-cottage industry of sequels.
Top of Page

Conrad Russell English Civil War   Review of Conrad Russell's Failure by Tunnel Vision   Conrad Russell: Causes of the English Civil War

Unsuccessful and incomplete work on the English Civil War
Nov 10 2012
This is a short review, essentially to warn people that Conrad Russell's book is incomplete; possibly studiedly so, in fact. (Here's my view of Gerrard Winstanley).

Just a note on his personality. Let me quote from a handy 5-star Amazon review—As the Eton and Oxford educated son of Bertrand Russell, and great grandson of a prime minister, Conrad Russell (d.2004) had arguably the best possible springboard from which to achieve academic prominence - and this he achieved in spades. Bertrand Russell deplored public schools and the aristocracy, at least in his writings; this consummate hypocrisy reproduced itself in his son Conrad, unfortunately. In later life, Conrad Russell was prominent in the Liberal Democrats, though of course he achieved little, as that party was and is an ineffectual adjunct to modern quasi-democracy. Conrad Russell advocated academic freedom, but almost entirely in the sense that he supported what Americans call 'funding' of conventional studies—he had simply no knowledge or conception of censorship and corruption in the academic world (and journalistic, teaching, medical, scientific, political, business worlds).

His book, in addition to the introductory and concluding chapters, has seven chapters on separated-out topics, the approach favoured by Bertrand Russell. 'Multiple kingdoms' (i.e. in addition to England, Ireland and Scotland, both invaded by Cromwell) are an obvious starting-point. Then three chapters on religion, the Church of England being of course the sun around which other issues rotate. A chapter on law. Then possibly the most interesting chapter, on the King's poverty and weaknesses; or rather that of the 'Crowne', something harder to delimit. Finally, 'The Man Charles Stuart', naturally taking a dim view of that monarch. The conclusion, rather oddly, is the shortest chapter. His sources are (roughly) state papers, private papers, and modern-ish books and journals. There is of course endless scope for piquant detail—English musket-makers had moved abroad, to make their money there; such a man had no interest in a war, but felt coerced into taking sides; the King failed to pay many bills, including expenses to the author of a history of Henry VIII.

However, the main point missing from Russell is the conspiracy of Jews to enter Britain after a number of centuries, and to connive in Charles' execution. The Great Fire, the rebuilding in stone, the Bank of England, enclosures and so on all followed, and must have been intentional in outline. Like his father, Conrad Russell's tunnel vision omits a bull in the china shop, and his final structure is consequently ruined. He should certainly have known of the documentary evidence.
Top of Page

  Review of Jews, Race, Immigration, and France   Alec Hargeaves: Immigration, 'Race' and Ethnicity in Contemporary France (1995)

Jewish reaction to Le Pen - hopelessly outdated even when published
25 Oct 2012
This is a junk book (note: 1995) by a minor academic ('Loughborough University') who presumably is an unannounced Jew (check e.g. surname online). It is obviously intended for the English-reading market; it claims to be the only book of its kind since about 1975, and the obvious inference is that it's an indirect commentary on Le Pen.

This 1995 book published by Routledge (there appears to be a newer version this is NOT a review of any other book: there seems little point) predates Zones Urbaines Sensibles (there are hundreds of towns with no-go areas, handily available on Googling maps); and predates Sarkozy, with his Hungarian-Jewish forebears; and predates serious concerns about the EU, which have steadily increased along with oozings of the malevolence of that organisation.

Everything in this book is Jewish-slanted: First World War? - Barely mentioned; there were a few deaths, but not many of Jews, so that doesn't matter. Second World War? - Not many French died to support Stalin's Jewish-run mass murder, so the French deserve no mercy. Vietnam War? A few million Vietnamese were killed, but none were Jews. So that doesn't matter. The Algerian War and Dien Bien Phu are barely mentioned, though obviously they must have had some impact on the French mentality. Plenty more of course in this vein, for example American-controlled media in France (code word for Jewish-controlled).

There's nothing on the actual tenets of Islam, unsurprisingly as they are similar to those of Jews. There's some entertaining stuff on polygamy—apparently all Muslims expect a house for each of their 'wives', and many of them find it difficult to get even one French house; heart-rending stuff. There is nothing much on comparative crime, ineducability, illiteracy and so on; and nothing on the tax burden such groups possibly maximally in the case of sub-Saharan Africans must presumably impose. 'Race' is in quotes as per the usual Boas nonsense.

Almost the only interest in books such as this is the cross-cultural comparisons with other countries. The long list of acronyms, all non-white and alien, and the names of their think-tank advisors and planners, and the secrecy surrounding their funding; the deliberate avoidance of statistics, the media ownership and decisions on vocabulary to lie over inevitability and historical continuity; the corruption of the legal system and strategic placing of judges, lawyers, the votes/ parties/ lawmakers groups... All this sort of thing takes some winkling out, and of course conclusions are certain to be incomplete.

Because there may be some hidden value, I give this a token two stars, but this book carries a stench, and it's not garlic. So I changed my mind.
Top of Page

  Review of A post-1945 Jewish interest example   Barrows Dunham: Man Against Myth

Belongs as a specimen of mid-rank Jewish propaganda with Kevin B MacDonald's collection of evidence, December 7, 2011

1948 book (published in Britain as well), with jacket comments by Joad, Einstein, Dorothy Parker, J B S Haldane, J D Bernal. This book supposedly is an analysis of 'slogans now current... which accepted and repeated uncritically, are misleading the judgment of men. ..' (attributed to Einstein, presumably in German). The blurb also says '.. dissection of beliefs chosen .. for their effect on human behaviour, for their benefit to the minority in concealing or excusing inequality and economic privilege. ..'

This is designed to look like a book on popular errors: at about the same time (1947), Evan Bergen's 'The Natural History of Nonsense' was published; Evans thanked 'Ashley Montagu' (false name) of Hahnemann College) and his topics seemed quite wide—health, great apes and animal behaviour, arctic exploration, savages, sex, murder, circumstantial evidence, though a large influence was 'Ashley Montagu' (real name Israel Ehrenberg), of '... The Fallacy of Race' (1942). Somewhat similar was Ackermann's 'Popular Fallacies' (1907 to 1924, not updated till 1950), and Stefansson (a world famous explorer) 1936 book 'Adventures in Error', the same year as Jastrow's 'The Story of Human Error'. Martin Gardner's 'In the Name of Science' (1952) was somewhat similar, including the phoney no differences have been found between 'races' material.

By coincidence, one hopes, Mencken, a German-origin American of considerable originality, was out of action in 1948 with a cerebral haemhorrage.

Barrows Dunham I presume was in fact a Jew, though nobody says so—nonconformist, dissident etc are the words chosen. He was born in 1905, and went to Princeton to do academic philosophy, ending up with a doubtless unreadable dissertation on Kant. He worked, or at least was at, Temple University in Philadelphia, incorporated in 1907; it must have had a period of expansion, of which Dunham no doubt took advantage. (Incidentally he helped, or claimed to help, Bertrand Russell in his fight with Albert Barnes; later, Russell helped Dunham oppose the HUAC, when Dunham refused to testify and was sacked.)

Anyway... 'Man Against Myth' is a perfect example of Jewish lies aimed against 'Anglo-Saxons' in the immediate post-WW2 period. I call it mid-rank, because MacDonald's material deals with people like Boas and Freud and Marx and Adorno, who for some reason are regarded as first rank. Dunham belongs to a lower level—the Reader's Digest/ mainstream TV and film level, itself above comic books and cheap trash aimed at white 'goyim'.

There are eleven chapters, and ten of them are well-known phrases, something of a mixed bag—You can't change human nature, The rich and fit and the poor unfit, There are superior and inferior races, There are two sides to every question, Thinking makes it so, &c.

Connoisseurs of this kind of thing will recognise the style. There's a sort of compost of philosophy on which his material is scattered; I strongly suspect that Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' (1945, in the USA—it was later in Britain, as there was a paper shortage). Every discussion moves to Jews and their bad luck; Hitler and 'fascist' occur throughout the book, along with uncorroborated stories. There are some quite comic malevolent portraits of his US hosts—an amusingly repulsive one of some chap at dinner with food in his teeth, for example. Then there's the USSR, which is always referred to as 'socialist'—a barefaced lie, of course, which unfortunately even Russell accepted. There's not much point going into detail, though I suppose anyone interested should go through a sample chapter or two.

Anyway—a sample of Jewish lies after 1945. Interesting as part of the torrent which Americans have so far been unable to stand against.
Top of Page

Wyndham Midwich Cuckoos   Review of British 1950s sci fi with Jewish relevance   John Wyndham: The Midwich Cuckoos

Invasion of the mind-snatchers. A parable of Jewish invasion., September 10, 2012

Most fiction addresses concerns of the readership—few people read anything abstract or general. Science fiction no doubt follows this pattern, and therefore, rather paradoxically, usually has little scientific content. No writers predicted digital technology, for example. So it makes sense, looking at oldish fiction, to see which social concerns of the time are present. They may be more obvious looking back than they were at the time. Wyndham's story deals with the 'contesserate mind'—i.e. a mind made of separate units, like tiles, interlocked by 'telepathy', though Wyndham evidently felt this wasn't enough, as his fictional joint mind was given the special ability to influence other human minds. This is, or may be, a commentary on Jewish monomaniacal intrusiveness. It may also refer to television, at that time at its maximum rate of increase in Britain. Much the same thing, in any case. The explosive finale in Britain—others elsewhere are described, but not in any detail—isn't very well worked-out, as a single mind-reading person, let alone a group, would seem unlikely to fail to notice a murder plot against them.

Another issue, not much considered by Wyndham, is the mass rape or mass implantation of embryos. There's not much on medical implications, and not much on people wondering if it might happen again, both rather unreasonable plot devices. One can imagine men from the Ministry turning up. In keeping with the times, an assurance from authority figures suffices for Wyndham.

Four stars because of the inconsistent and not very plausible plot-line. But the scene-setting of the time is quite good—coal fires, rather primitive sports cars, professors a rarity, record players with black vinyl discs resulting from polymer chemistry about to take over, Peter Ustinov at the West End theatre, Flanders and Swann-style entertainment, high status of dim military types, neat suburbs, naive beliefs about Germans and wars.

With computer film (or digital recording) techniques this could be made, with some plot tweaks, much more compelling than the old version(s)—I remember a black and white version with laughable effects, and a more recent US film which was not very impressive.

'Cuckoos also go back and check on the parasitised nest, and if they find the cuckoo egg or chick gone they attack the real eggs or chicks. So it does not always make sense for the individual bird to reject cuckoo eggs'. An opportunity for a sequel? I don't know if cuckoos try to find the same pair of birds as the year before; but 'chain parasitism' seems perfectly possible
Top of Page

Wolfgang Petersen - Das Boot   Review of   Wolfgang Petersen   Das Boot [=The Boat]   DVD 'The Director's Cut'
Not the Second World War: this is Britain vs Germany
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Gorky Park   Review of   William Hurt   in   Gorky Park (1983 DVD)   Genuine mystery film! 2 Oct 2014
The USSR, USA, Jews, and the propaganda/film industry
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Film poster The World is Not Enough—007—nuclear and pipeline themes   Review of Jewish interest in film   DVD: The World is Not Enough

1999 nuclear exit strategy Bond film—Too difficult a film for most Amazon Reviewers!—9 Sept 2012

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Political Theory   Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order

Serious subject; very feeble book., August 22, 2012

As I type this [2009 originally] I see four Amazon reviews, all praising this book fulsomely. They may be planted reviews to help the author; who knows. My view is the exact opposite of theirs...

[1] There are thirteen chapters, or 'studies' as the author calls them, 'most [grew] out of speeches ... sponsored by the von Mises Institute or Center for Libertarian Studies'. The footnotes are about the same length as the chapters themselves, which probably gives some indication of how badly thought out the material is.

[2] There's no attempt to define or measure democracy, or power. Hoppe thinks the 20th century was 'democratic' despite the fact that manipulations of the systems gave and still give virtually one party systems in most places. (Hilaire Belloc was quite good on that in the UK.) The voter bases in various countries altered, but Hoppe does not in any way attempt to show what effects this had. As to power, Hoppe quotes US Federal Regulations, 26 feet of library shelf space. '.. it is doubtful whether ... any ["absolute monarch"] wielded [that] kind of authority..' It is doubtful? Hoppe has no way to decide even this simple example. Another example is his commentary on US military adventures and the accompanying disasters to the victims; he never as far as I can see really concludes anything very useful. They were, in my personal view, a disaster. But Hoppe has no way to judge, so his remarks are isolated and purposeless. After all in a sense the military is its own entrepreneurial system, seeking ways to maximise itself. There's nothing on financial power as a lever affecting opinions.

[3] As might be expected from the sources of these lectures, and the fact that Hoppe received anonymous money, the whole emphasis is economic in the US corporate sense: Hoppe seems to have no idea of technologies—maybe oil will run out; what then?—but has a sort of 1950s blissful assumption that all will be well.

A good book summarising democracy in what may turn out to be a post-democratic era, would be valuable: the original ideologues, the way it was tried, the ways in which it was deformed, the theories of why it should work, or, if you're e.g. a monarchist, as Hoppe seems to be, why it shouldn't, voting systems and their characteristics, education, etc etc, are not dealt with here, in any way at all. This book is badly-written and of no interest except as a specimen of what happens when donors don't donate wisely.
Top of Page

  Review of Film/DVD historical   Mel Gibson's Apocalypto

Imaginative reconstruction, February 23, 2012

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Labour Party   Sketchy Review of BBC Crime 'Drama'
Morse (1987-) | Lewis | Midsomer Murders (1997-) | Foyle's War (2002-) | New Tricks (2003-) | Ripper Street (2012-)

Someone, please, review the BBC in depth!!
19 August 2015
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Review of Conan Doyle and the Case of the BBC (2010-   )   18 Jan 2014
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space).
Top of Page



image   Review of DVD/film thriller   The Fourth Protocol

Crap, February 10, 2012

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Review of Jewish Film
Bruce Willis: Die Hard (with a Vengeance)

Includes Federal Reserve References, Jan 10, 2014

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Review of Great War History     Clark The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914
Anti-Review 10 Oct 2015

Certainly more Jew-unaware junk. Don't waste your time.
Just a caution. I have read many historical works; but I would not bother to read this one. The reason is (judging by these reviews) that Clark has no idea, and has done no research, into the Jewish aspects of this war. Jews are known, though perhaps not by Clark, to have established the 'Federal Reserve' in 1913. They are known to have wanted war against Russia since Napoleon's time. They are known to have fomented assassinations against Russians, and to have funded the 'Russo-Japanese' War. There were large numbers of Jews in Siberia, political prisoners, treated with ridiculous generosity, who clearly wanted to ruin Russia. The 'Balfour Declaration' was clearly a significant part of the war; when the US came into WW1, there was a huge complete change in Jewish propaganda. Baruch became unelected economic dictator of WW1 USA. Woodrow Wilson is known to have been blackmailed by Jews. 'Colonel House' was a main actor in the jew-ridden negotiations at Versailles. Moreover it seems perfectly possible some secret agreement was made with Jews to ruin Russia: after all, that's what happened. Jews ended up enriched by the wars, and had no moral scruples against white deaths: their whole system encourages and likes and wants 'goyim' to kill each other. I'd suggest this book is a waste of time and just another piece of junk designed to waste people's time and say nothing useful. What contempt this sort of book shows for the general population and, indeed, all people serious about the past and future.

'Jew unaware' books and websites are terrifyingly common. For want of a better adjective, I've called these 'joff' books and websites. Here are my comments on some 'joff' sites— quite a number of them.
Top of Page

Raymond Challinor Heart and Minds Second World War   Review of Second World War view from the British ground floor
Raymond Challinor: The Struggle for Hearts and Minds: Essays on the Second World War

Self-published essays on hidden aspects of the Second World War, February 8, 2012; more added Feb 5, 2014

Note: Click here for an online taped talk by Challinor in 1998 on the Second World War

BBC World War 2 broadcasts Smallish book, 1995, 100+ pages, unindexed; self-published by the Bewick Press, by a socialist—Challinor was in the ILP (Independent Labour Party) which to some extent escaped the Labour Party's Jewish infiltration. (That is to say—he is more or less Marxist, with e.g. emphasis on the working class vs bosses and shareholders; but he has no secret Jewish agenda and has no idea of the Jewish agenda, which is only now becoming clearer; Challinor even likes Trotsky. His analyses show a protesting decent-minded indignation, without the obfuscatory tripe of the Jewish fake left). This book's eleven chapters look at messy aspects of the war in Britain: Workers' protests and strikes; low British soldiers' pay; mutinies; hushed-up executions; morale; badly built shelters; tube stations taken over as shelters against official wishes; a once-famous incident of many deaths in a steep stairway at Bethnal Green tube station; housing damage and squatters and rents increasing even for bombed buildings; German patent rights being respected, resulting in British tanks being inferior; children of the Rothschilds and many others shipped out, while evacuee children were seen as nuisances; shareholders' dividends from arms and motor companies clearing through Switzerland; peace movement candidates; shipping cartels reducing production, causing Jarrow to become impoverished; bombing of colonies; British agents helping Franco start the Spanish Civil War; strict media censorship; the 'Blitz'; the Black Game—black propaganda; the 'Blitz' and the effects of bombs (including London's East End and Hamburg); British behaviour in the Far East; Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill on how many million more German deaths...
    (On Jarrow, I've adopted a revisionist view: Jarrow is a small town between Newcastle and South Shields, of no great importance; the 'Jarrow march' was more or less a fantasy. But the Jew liars couldn't pretend there was a 'Newcastle march'. Note that there was a protest against deaths of children—naturally of no interest to Jewish propagandists.)
    He has interesting material on war events; such as French support for Russia when some Germans refused to accept the Jewish peace offer, and continued into Russia. Some of the French obstructed the Germans. Of course, Germany had supported sending Lenin into Russia in the 'sealed train', though Challinor draws a veil over what the trainload (Presumably Jews) did when they arrived.
    The seedy parts of the war—looting, prostitution and shortages, doorway sex, respectable wives and infidelity, sexual blackmail as in Waugh, the rage of men on returning to find what some wives had been up to, go almost unmentioned. Alex Comfort wrote somewhere that prostitution was a 'reserved occupation' but I haven't seen this claim elsewhere.
    The 'Black Game'—fake radio broadcasts, sabotage, murder— and shootings of some trade unionists and soldiers; and the Labour Party's banning of the 'Socialist League' and opposition to Hitler are looked at. Chapter 4 'Betrayal on the Left' is a good account of Labour between the wars; Challinor was entirely ignorant of the Jewish connection, and we are in a better position to decode references to (e.g.) the publishers Lawrence & Wishart, Victor Gollancz and the Left Book Club, Leo Amery calling out "Speak for England, Arthur" to Arthur Greenwood, and the Labour leaders of 1939 as Britain's most outspoken warmongers. (Here's comment on Jewish propaganda for World War).

WW2 Bengal famine
Challinor believes capitalism causes great evils, but I think this is a bit of an escape clause. Maybe serious analysis—notably with Jewish finance—is just too complicated. Interesting comments on fears that the war would result in 'Revolutions'—the official view was the the First World War had caused 'revolutions'; though many must have known it was a Jewish coup in Russia—and other aspects of trying to learn from inaccurate history.

Illustrated with press cuttings, and some cartoons; the back cover shows an irate kilted Scot with a rifle, shouting "Where the hell's somebody to fight?" while top-hatted greatcoated figures in the background laugh—I robbed him of his whisky! I own his slums! I gaoled him for being late to work! I drove him off his land! I starved his old people! Another cartoon shows skeletal Indians, captioned 'The Horror of Buchenwald', and an irate editor phoning the art department—"Who the ---- hell got those photographs mixed up?"

Interesting essays, based somewhat on pamphlets and relatively rare books, plus extracts from general books and some USSR books, for example by Trotsky. The essays are undated. Challinor didn't I think know about Enigma code-breaking.

This is a reminder of what the war seemed like to newspaper readers at the time to the people in the victorious belligerent powers in Europe, who of course had an infinitely better time of it than the losers, and before the post-war straitjacket of lies (such as the 'Cold War', 'Free World competition' and the 'Holocaust') had been forged. Challinor doesn't realise how new 'Germany' was; what Poland was like; how Jewish lending prolonged the war and bankrupted Britain; why the myth of mass murdered Jews was invented; why the myth of nuclear weapons was made up. He thinks war 'broke out'. This is partial revisionism; in the absence of full revisionism such books are needed.
Top of Page

image   Review of First World War False Flag   Colin Simpson: Lusitania

Lusitania a lure to get USA into WW1—detailed, but weak presentation., February 8, 2012

The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915 just off Ireland, by a German U boat. Colin Simpson does his best to establish this was planned, to get the USA into war against Germany. Simpson seems to be, or have been then, a journalist. He wrote this book in 1972, after visiting Kinsale, near Cork, close to the scene of the sinking. Before his book, the sinking was 'proclaimed as an act of naked and brutal aggression'. the incident was more or less analogous to '9/11' and was used to help get the USA into the war. Simpson added an epilogue in 1983, but in it he says nothing about how his book was reviewed or received (or—my guess—ignored).

The 'Merseyside' edition was 'edited' by William David Roberts, some sort of BBC employee who broadcast the story on Radio Merseyside, and was inundated with requests for the then hard-to-find book. (The Liverpool connection was that Lusitania, like Titanic, sailed from Liverpool; unlike the Titanic it sailed to the USA over 100 times). Unfortunately the book is very badly produced: there's no table of the illustrations—it took me some time just to find the map of Ireland. The chapters are numbered, but without indication of what's in each chapter. It's impossible to be sure whether the text is edited, and if so, by whom. It's not clear whether Roberts added anything, or just helped assemble the parts.

This book is about the entire history of the ship—and includes details on the German advertisement of warning in American newspapers, the valuables on board, Churchill's policy, various dirty tricks such as getting the Germans to make announcements which the press would misrepresent, German codes, the naval blockade of Germany, and attitudes to the War—many British aristocrats thought Britain would emerge much stronger, for example; the Americans didn't. There's an impressive list of sources. Some documents are still secret, which alone helps substantiate the conspiracy belief.

A creditable pioneering book on the subject, but without a clear statement of what the author found. Importance is five star; execution of the plan is three star.

• Incidentally, as with Titanic, there's a mystery explosion issue (which I think has an overlooked solution: water coming into contact with red-hot coal flashes into steam; this may account for explosions).

There are several other issues about Titanic:–
• The sister-ship-switch possibility, with Olympic, after Titanic was damaged in collision with a naval ship: with the dual motive of collecting insurance and getting rid of the defective vessel.
(Rather similar to the 9/11 Jewish fraud, which removed the grandiosely-named impractical 'World Trade Center' buildings—and others).
• Another more-or-less identical ship, Britannic came to a wartime end
• Astor and other fabulously wealthy men were drowned on their way to New York; air travel was decades in the future. This was 1912—the 'Fed' was formed in 1913. Could he have been one of the plotters? Or even, possibly, an honest man? For that matter, could he have known the 'Great War' was planned?
Top of Page

  Review of   Owen Wister   A Straight Deal or The Ancient Grudge (1920. Macmillan; USA publication.)

American Propaganda after the 'Great War' — Review by 'Rerevisionist'     11 Jan 2016
My hardback copy was bought years ago; before Amazon, and before Internet. My notes say 1920. When I bought it, I hadn't pieced together the story of Britain, Jews, the Bank of England, and the US Revolution. Followed by the Britain-US War starting 1812. The period was complicated, of course, and dominated, at least apparently, by Napoleon.

Some American views:
Here's 'Torgo1969' in YouTube comments, 10 Dec 2015:
Never forget that England is the USA's oldest enemy that tried to strangle the USA in the crib. And stabbed Poland in the back by encouraging them to fight Germany in 1939 and then turning them over to Stalin at the end of the slaughter. And declared war on Germany (but not the Soviet Union) in 1939 before Germany declared war on them. And on and on and on...
'Black People are Boring', agrees:
... Britain really screwed up the world through their rothschild scum, their helping turkey in the crimea against russia, messing with spain, poland, germany, their messing with the boers, their meddling in america, etc etc.
DeadlyRhythm84: Ever since the Jews reconquered England (Oliver Cromwell let the Jews back in.) The world has been completely dominated by Jewish tyranny disguised as British Imperialism.
Rerevisionist: Well worded. Most British people (including me until some years ago) had no idea of this.
DeadlyRhythm84: Sadly, Most British people see Cromwell as the 'Father of British Democracy'. In reality he is the biggest traitor England has ever known, even worse than these puppet PM's. [such as Churchill]

This struck me as not very well written, in an old-newspaper style with rather silly chapter titles. It's an attempt to persuade Americans that Britain, or England, has in fact not treated them too badly on the whole: plenty of Brits opposed the Revolutionary War; & the tax wasn't that bad in any case, so they shouldn't be pro-German. I don't think there was an edition before 1920, so it seems a bit late. It is apparently quite intelligently revisionist, e.g. acknowledging that slavery wasn't the only issue in the Civil War, and conceding that there were wars against Indians. The contentious point with the new USA, of control of their money, I think is unmentioned. (The book is online; fairly easy to check).

Chapters 9 to 13 (IX to XIII) have some historical details:
IX: Wister on Historians. There were of course many German-descent people in the USA, with anti-English attitudes, in addition to people with a 'grudge' (the expression 'ancient grudge' is from Romeo and Juliet).

The following chapters look at 1783 Treaty of Paris, 1803 Louisiana Purchase, 1823 Monroe Doctrine (which Wister says in effect was made at the prompting of England). Then 1812, including Napoleon, and also Florida, Texas, Oregon, and other territorial fights or threats. Then 1860 onwards: the American Civil War, and UK neutrality during that war. And 1872 Geneva arbitration over the ship Alabama. Discussion of American neutrality. Wister also looks at the 1898 War with Spain, maybe the first false-flag and invasion of modern times. Britain's control of coal for the Spanish fleet played a part.

Wister may be a Jewish name; no surprise about propaganda suppression of Jewish money influences. Or their activities—nothing much on the slave trade, or the nitty gritty of war deaths, for example. I was interested to see that Wister (I'd never heard of him) wrote quite a lot of books; probably many Americans knew The Virginian: A Horseman of the Plains - 'one of the first mass-market bestsellers'. As a survey of England and the USA, wars, and propaganda, just after the 'Great War', revisionist-minded people might like to examine this book and try to work out what may have happened. Bertrand Russell's 'Can Americans and Britons be Friends?' looks at just one aspect of the same—very important—epoch.
Top of Page

Jewish propaganda   Review of Jews and Development and Otherwise of Countries   C R Hensman: Rich Against Poor - The Reality of Aid

1971 Pelican Paperback - Just One Specimen of Mass-Produced Jewish Propaganda
Review uploaded 11 Oct 2015 © 'Rerevisionist'
I've surveyed this book in my section on Jews. I don't wish to claim the book is special in any way; they were huge numbers of similar titles, by similar writers, and with similar characteristics. It's important for anyone wishing to understand the world to get a feel for Jewish propaganda, because it is so ubiquitous and so thoroughly interested solely in Jews, to the exclusion of all other people.

Jews won the Second World War 70 years ago. It's of some importance to check the truth against the claims and boasts of the vast number of post-war brightly-coloured Jewish paperbacks.

The first investigation might be into wars. The ZOG-run USA has bases dotted around the world, and has had many wars; Jews have made fortunes from these, and from science frauds, and of course from the 'Holocaust' fraud. The claims of seeking freedom and peace are clear failures.

'Development' is another topic of great importance. An obvious thing to do is to check on mal-investment and waste. The African 'groundnuts' scheme of the 1950s, with its slogan about fats, now almost forgotten, is worth a visit. So are buildings in the wrong place, or unworkable for some reason: Brasilia and, now, entire Chinese cities illustrate some of this. Roads to nowhere had historical precedents in railways running in huge loops, designed to put costs up. So are ecological errors: silted-up dams, insecticide-infested country, and inappropriate technology are fertile fields. Medical scams and errors are another, for example the 'AIDS' fraud. Many people by now have noted that (for example) Pakistan and India have been independent for more than sixty years; yet there has been little improvement. Much of Africa is nominally independent, and yet of course hopelessly untechnical and with no real sign of any progress, even in local, appropriate techniques. Charities have made themselves into a new, expanding area for money-making; so has the 'European Union'. These markers help to assess post-1945 books, and university departments, and whether supposed theories and models of development were ever intended to be serious.

Certainly the population control measures discussed so often about whites in the 1960s seem to have been largely forgotten, probably because of the unspoken Jewish plan to flood white countries with high-unemployment aliens.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   F. J. Irsigler: Who Makes Our Money?

Revisionist survey of the part played by Jews since c 1694, February 6, 2012

Franz Johann Irsigler (born 1900) was a Catholic who lived in France and South Africa, where he worked in neurology and the brain.

Irsigler has chapters on the American War of Independence, Who Plotted World War I ..., Who Plotted World War II ..., Roosevelt, financing of the so-called 'communist revolution', Churchill, the CIA, the press, paper money, Eisenhower a 'friend of Bernard Baruch ... promoted over 150 others ... without battle experience', 'Why genocide and holocaust', the Soviet Union's covert industrialisation, debt and developing nations, and a lot more. He has quite a good writing style. But his title is hopelessly misleading!)

This book has eighteen chapters, but layout and logical structure is weak; hence four stars. Some chapters are in effect book reviews; others switch between topics; and the bibliographical information is not very good. His sources include books like 'None Dare Call It Conspiracy', 'The Red Pattern of World Conquest', 'The Federal Reserve and Our Manipulated Dollar'. 'Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development' gets an unclear mention. Ingersoll (the rationalist) is quoted—Irsigler notes that Catholicism has the idea of eternal punishment, for example. There's some specific South African influence—the Afrikaners wanted to keep out of WW2, he says; he also notes that going to war was liked by many—they got regular pay.

The collection seems to have been published first in 1980. It needs improved titles, subheadings, a table of contents, and indexing. And really it should be edited to collect the ideas more readably. But anyone interested in revisionist (i.e. true) approaches to the first and second world wars, and related topics, would learn a lot from Irsigler.
Top of Page

image   Review of Political Correctness   Anthony Browne: Retreat of Reason: Political Correctness & the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain

Potshots at a camouflaged moving target, 11 Jun 2009

This book is itself 'politically correct'.

Browne does mention the Frankfurt School, and also, that bane of people who suppress facts about the Vietnam War, 1960s radicals. He also mentions the more or less fraudulent damaging organisations in the UK and USA—Southern Poverty Law Centre, Amnesty, Index on Censorship which now campaigns against free speech, Greenpeace which won't touch the population issue, the National Lottery. And he mentions the outrageous double standards of Asian lawyers, Asian-only housing, and other race-based groups.

His most abstract analysis is that 'PC seeks to redistribute power from the powerful to the powerless.' Try telling that to whites on sink estates, or women in Islamic countries.

What he doesn't point out is the fact that most PC supporters are shadowy, unknown figures. If you look for overt supporters, they're few and far between: three obscure comedians—Jeremy Hardy, Jo Brand, and the transvestite chap trying to get into films; pop musicians—not even C list—they have to give tickets away. There are no serious writers who overtly write in favour of PC material. All the pressure is behind the scenes—fake charities, commercial media owned by foreigners who control hacks, think tanks subsidised in secret ways, trade unionists of notable intellectual lack of distinction, anonymous BBC writers of news items, groups of lawyers making money.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jews and Death Penalty (except for murderers of whites)   Arthur Koestler: Hanged by the Neck

Researchers into Jewish influences in Britain should have a copy, February 5, 2012

BRITISH BOOK. This is a 1961 'Penguin Special' paperback—originally costing 2 shillings and sixpence. Two Jewish authors (Koestler and Rolph) with republished material. Also material from the 'Howard League for Penal Reform', Louis Blom-Cooper, 'Dr Terence Morris of the London School of Economics', and others. Unindexed. A long chapter (pp 103-141) lists 123 murderers and convictions from 1949-1960. Quite a few are described as immature, insane, probably unaware of what he was doing, etc, which seems to be regarded as a good excuse for murder. It's not clear how many near murders, undetected murders, etc, or murders overseas and comparative experience, took place in the same time. The whole book is a compendium of how to do bogus social research.

The campaign to abolish capital punishment was led by Jews (Sidney Silverman MP) was another—or, at least, this seems to be the case, although of course this topic is heavily censored. At the time Quintin Hogg/Lord Hailsham ironically commented that only recently Jews had been very keen to kill German leaders. (The BBC has a radio comment about him on its archives—he also explicitly viewed feminism as promoted by Jewish women who'd been to Kibbutzes).

There are probably many copies of this paperback turning yellow—worth an addition to any Jewish studies library.
Added March 2014: An echo of this style of 'debate' is a TV piece Bullshit! The Death Penalty starring Penn and Teller (2006), at one time a magician double-act. Presented by a bellowing man in the style of traditional US snake oil salesmen, this is a series of non sequiturs, including (after about midway) a Hungarian woman who presumably thinks she's a Jew. It's understandable that 'Jews' - who collectively have arranged more murders per head more people than any other group - should oppose 'the death penalty'. If there's a judicial execution, then 'we are all to blame'; chants of "They say death row, we say hell no"; future research may show why people kill; and killing people is presumably nasty, as with Koestler, are part of their carefully unanalytical process.

NB: there's material in the Occidental Observer website on empirical evidence, and the difficulties of interpreting figures, in the US, on gun laws. They cite 'very flawed research done in the late 1950s by a leftist sociologist named Thorsten Sellin [in] The Death Penalty. American Law Institute, Philadelphia, 1959'. The flaws (essentially, many states with the death penalty never used it) were countered in I. Ehrlich. "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment." American Economic Review, June of 1975. The 'concealed carry' laws were justified by many studies, the latest quoted being H. Dezhbakhsh and J. Shepherd. "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment," Economic Inquiry, July of 2006.
Top of Page

image   Review of DVD/Film Jewish Race Film   Jack Nicholson: The Bucket List

Sausage-machine with synthetic emotions and green screen, February 4, 2012

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Dawkins Appetite for Wonder   Review of Richard Dawkins   An Appetite for Wonder—The Making of a Scientist (Autobiography part 1)
Dead-Heads, July 2, 2014

All Dawkins-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Science: Evolution   Richard Dawkins: River Out Of Eden: A Darwinian View Of Life

Popularised version of 'The Selfish Gene' which doesn't quite work, January 15, 2012

All Dawkins-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Catt   Review of Economics of Employment of Technologists   Ivor Catt: The Catt Concept: The new industrial Darwinism;

Interesting (though dated) attempt to survey the sociology of employment of techies, January 13, 2012

Popular sociology book, in the mould of Parkinson's Law, The Peter Principle, and maybe The Managerial Revolution, Gamesmanship, Future Shock, and so on. Catt Concept It was written before microchips, at a time when computers were insanely expensive and not very reliable. The author was invited to the USA to work in the 1960s, and was impressed, in the negative sense, by US hire and fire—unlikely projects would get funding, which would attract a feeding frenzy of techies, and later the funding tended to dry up. The book (incidentally, it was very successful in French translation) has about ten typical techie manoeuvres, such as the 'incompletion gambit' where exaggerated claims of progress are made, which then slowly get cut back; with luck a boss can be extruded, or other people get sacked, rather than the responsible party. All based loosely on personal experience. This is all private sector material—the comparative frauds and manipulations in the academic world attracted Catt later, and he then became involved in the 'AIDS' scandal of information suppression, and in very heated disputes over family and child law, and opposition to anti-male feminism. The book is worth musing over. I don't know if there's a similar book on politicians and their jostlings: in this book the rather misnamed 'public sector' appears as an interface with the world of techies. In fact there is far more scope for fraud in for example the EU, in wars, in large-scale trade and invasions. The author has little idea about the Second World War, Vietnam war crimes, the myth of nukes, the frauds of NASA, or even paper money as something that can be tapped into seemingly without limit. So it can't be taken as 100% reliable or complete.

The Catt Concept in detail with the author's permission
Ivor Catt, in The sociology and economics of weapons frauds
Ivor Catt on
Greenham Common and electromagnetism cruise missiles commentary

[Updated Sept 27, 2013]
Top of Page

image   Review of Biography: Joseph Needham, the Sinophile   Simon Winchester: Bomb, Book and Compass: Joseph Needham and the Great Secrets of China

Feeble and propagandist book which doesn't do justice to Needham or China, January 7, 2012

Joseph Needham was born in 1900 and lived into old age; the Second World War conveniently bisected his life, and his post-war life was spent absorbed in his series of volumes on China. His earlier life established him as a biologist and embryologist, though he's also described as a biochemist. He was fortunate, or skilled, in obtaining the Cambridge version of tenure in his 20s, and never experienced financial hardship. He fell in love, first, with the Chinese language (and one of its people); and, second, with the country itself, and in particular its scientific history; or rather its techniques and observations. Although he seems to be not very well-known now, he unquestionably led people in the 'west' to become better informed on China.

'Science and Civilisation in China', his magnum opus, which was continued after his death, tries to list and date Chinese achievements, and answer the question: Why did China fall behind in (or not develop) modern science?

I'm afraid Winchester's book is not very good, and is laden with Cold War and other propagandist material. The central core of the book, after his upbringing and early life, deals with Needham's visit to China as part of an official British group in the second half of the Second World War. Winchester presents this as a terrific adventure, in the parts of China not occupied by the Japanese. This is about as realistic a view as TV adventure programmes, where the camera crews, sound people, backup food supplies, spare parts, medical arrangements, security, communications etc are left out. For one thing, the Japanese codes had (I think) been cracked. The actual reasons for Needham's visit seem not to be known; probably something to do with global power struggles, perhaps related to Mao. Needham was certainly an odd one out, and the Chinese could see this, and he made many firm friends, while making his detailed diary notes on techniques, landscapes and people in immaculate handwriting. Unfortunately Winchester has no interest in, or understanding of, science; he doesn't even describe Needham's early volumes for which he was made an FRS, the pinnacle of scientific establishment respectability. (Or his wife's volume). So Winchester's accounts of Needham's journeys are sketchy, and describe travel problems rather than purposes. A rather bitter communication quoted in the book—an expedition by lorries [trucks] costing £3,000 which could have been done by air.. accompanied by his Chinese mistress .. dog Chinese writing—seems likely to be more accurate.

It's unclear why Needham was sent; many career diplomats must have been fluent in Chinese. There's a passage in the book where Needham's diaries, usually overflowing, were silent—when in the company of Murray MacLehose, an ex-Hong Kong governor supposedly training Chinese guerillas against the Japanese. Some of Needham's papers remain closed, apparently at the whim of a librarian, until 2045, though these may be to do with subjects such as nudism, which Needham liked—though my guess is this may be more to do with the discomforts of swimming clothing at that time than any desire for exposure.

Anyway it seems Needham proposed his book in 1948 and funding was granted by CUP; he wasn't even required to do his normal work. He had accumulated a lot of material, all shipped back to Britain at public expense—the 'nearly limitless allowance then offered to repatriated diplomats' gets a mention. His collection was supplemented by a gift from a Chinese friend of the 'Imperial Chinese encyclopedia', a collection of 'all the important' Chinese writings, commissioned in 1700; and by a British Museum collection, something like the Chinese equivalent of the Elgin marbles, found in an extremely dry cave and spirited away in 1907 as twenty-four wagonloads.

During the Korean War Needham was involved in a controversy over biological warfare by the Americans—Winchester has a chapter on this, and notes a typical 'Cold War' 'think tank'—the 'hitherto unknown .. Intelligence Research Department of the British Foreign Office'. Poor Needham was somewhat 'ostracized'—not really the right word—including being refused visas to the USA—but this faded away as his volumes were published, and his reputation increased.

Let's consider the science first. Needham's biological knowledge was of course helpful in assessing human biology—medicine, births/ marriages/ deaths, health, and nutrition; vitamins, and even proteins, were fairly recent discoveries. Not just human biology: Winchester writes of Needham's first experience on China, watching a gardener grafting, entranced by the different techniques the man was using. Needham of course was familiar with microscopic life. Needham's chemistry enabled him to interpret rocks, mineral extraction, hydrocarbons. Needham had some interest in motor cars—the times were ideal for amateur enthusiasts—which must have helped with technology. All of this however gave him a rather condescending overview of Chinese accomplishments. His accounts of Chinese geography use western geological expressions, for example. The labs he saw seemed mostly to be duplicating work long ago carried out in the west—microscopical observations of Chinese flora and fauna, for instance. The question is therefore whether Needham overstated his case; maybe the discoveries and inventions he found had amounted to little, or been tucked away in some remote part of China, or just been an outcome of observation? It's significant that Needham wrote a great deal on Chinese 'alchemy' (he used the Arabic term), which is pre-scientific and empirical—as in fact it would have to have been. Needham reads somewhat like these highly unconvincing BBC programmes, claiming that Muslims achieved tremendous feats. Suggesting part of the motive for funding Needham might have been to flatter China.

Needham is not very good on maths—I know this from reading his volumes. There's not much on Newton, who invented the algebra of varying quantities in a fairly restricted range of situations. He also doesn't say much of broad hypotheses such as Darwin/ Wallace. Winchester doesn't make much attempt to deal with subtle differences in perception of the world, for instance whether 'induction' would have made sense to the Chinese.

So much for Winchester on the 'science' part of 'Science and Civilisation'. As to civilisation, Needham was very impressed by the Chinese not believing in God, something he'd been taught was universal. However, Winchester doesn't mention this. Needham was always left-wing in the genuine, not Jewish/'red', sense. However, he was something of a naive Marxist, although Winchester isn't very good on this aspect of Needham's character. Needham's books are sweeping on such things as 'the feudal system'. Winchester doesn't mention Bertrand Russell, whose book on China was published when Needham was in his early 20s, and whose attitude to China was pretty much identical to Needham's. Russell's book isn't even in the bibliography. It was probably suppressed almost as a reflex by Winchester, as Russell's Autobiography mentions Needham specifically in relation to chemical and biological warfare in Vietnam, and the refusal to allow a 'Viet Cong' (Winchester's word) to London to give evidence about it. Russell was apologetic in retrospect to Needham, for disbelieving him.

As to global power struggles, it seems unlikely that Needham had a clue about Jews in Russia—many others of course were like that, including Winchester. All the secret backroom stuff—who founded the UN, who controlled the 'World Bank', the truth about who McCarthy was hunting, the fakes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and for that matter the probable fake of Nanking—is omitted or not known by Winchester. It seems *possible* that China was viewed as Russia was; the success of Jews in making money from it, while crushing the population, must have suggested the same thing in China: maybe the Korean war, and the ignoring of 'communist China' through the 1950s and 1960s, was juggling to get control of China? It's impossible to be sure, of course.

Winchester's book has plenty of nice touches—amusing stuff on Cambridge being entirely out of touch, Needham's liking for female company, which he extended into theory—he imagined Chinese mandarins conversing with erudite wives and concubines—and practice. When he was left alone in old age, he proposed to three women, who all turned him down. There's some touching detail of land in Cambridge donated to his nascent Institute. On the other hand, Winchester doesn't have doubts about Marco Polo, has no idea about atrocities in Korea and Vietnam, doesn't understand 'communism', dismisses rather abruptly Needham's facty poems on Cambridge life. Winchester generally has little feel for the control of information; he thinks newspapers reflect public opinions, for example; he gives a rather absurd list of reviewers of Needham's first volume on China. And he has no idea about science, giving an account of Jiuquan, a space centre—of course Winchester doesn't understand science fraud—and describes the vast new city of Chongqing in a superficial way. Winchester thinks China's racial attitude of superiority is a 'case-hardened sense of inner certitude that this vast array of invention has given to it'. Clearly nonsense, since westerners had to discover or invent the tradition.
Top of Page

image   Review of Bertrand Russell: America 1945-1970   Barry Feinberg: Bertrand Russell's America, 1945-1970

Survey of Russell on 20th century USA but edited by Jews, December 8, 2011

All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of DVD—Pop   Mickey Jones (Drummer): Bob Dylan—World Tour 1966: The Home Movies

Worth watching to de-romanticise yourself, December 7, 2011

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Review of Bertrand Russell   The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism

Shows Russell as a Dishonest Aristocrat in Thrall to Jews
  © Rae West 2000; First uploaded 2000-07-31

Russell's deliberate omission of Jews from his study of Bolshevism: Why?
All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Bertrand Russell   Prospects of Industrial Civilization

Inconclusive Brew—'Great War', USSR under Jews, Chinese Civilization, Factories..., November 27, 2011

All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Film/DVD   The Intruder

Interestingly shows Jewish penetration of the USA just before JFK's murder, November 18, 2011
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Biography   Bernard Shaw, Vol. 2: 1898-1918—The Pursuit of Power

Timid-minded but industrious author looks at short-sighted lion, November 14, 2011

Holroyd's hefty triptych is now about twenty years old. Holroyd appears to have made much effort—there are huge lists of acknowledgements (and incidentally amusing asides on the teething troubles of then-new word processors). But maybe his effort was confined to mailing out requests for information, and perhaps arranging material in sequence. Shaw was world-famous from roughly (Max Beerbohm's chronology) his 40th birthday, 1896. This fame lasted to the end of his life. But less that ten years after waking up no longer obscure, the First World War began. He was established in the fin de siècle, a contemporary of a mixed crew including Wilde, Beardsley, William Morris—just about, Tolstoy, Mark Twain, Wagner, Whistler, Zola, H G Wells. Why did Shaw become so well-known, or, if you prefer, notorious? Holroyd, in my opinion, is hopeless on this question. As a minimum, to situate X, it's necessary to establish what outlook was assumed by writers before the advent of X; and then describe what he/she did that was so novel as to attract huge attention. It's also necessary to establish the economic and legal framework: it's likely Shaw benefitted from the relaxation of laws on blasphemy, and on the removal of stamp duty from educational publications, and on Victorian wealth, allowing fairly massive attendance at theatres (and music halls)—and no doubt other things. However, Holroyd seems rather incapable of attempting general topics; his accounts of Shaw's work, mostly plays of course, are competent but seem (to me) superficial. Thus 'Heartbreak House' (first produced 1923) was regarded by Bertrand Russell as an illustration of the enfeebled moral and intellectual state of Britain prior to the First World War, populated by people talking about little of importance; and possibly its audiences viewed it in that light; but Holroyd's descriptions, in a long passage in vol 3, of the characters and their speeches, doesn't do much to bring out the irresponsibility of Heartbreak House types.

Even after fairly careful examination of Holroyd, I can't be certain when Shaw metamorphosed from music critic, ghost writer, author of unfinished novels, and author of unperformed plays into fame. Holroyd, in effect, assumes Shaw's retrospective activity must have been important, and we get a great deal of information on Shaw's life and family in Ireland, St Pancras Vestry and local London politics, Henry George—Shaw regarded the 'land question' as absolutely crucial—and Karl Marx as influences, the Webbs, the founding of the 'New Statesman', and so on. Fascinating to read that the LSE was established with the help of a bequest of £10,000. Socialism in Britain started earlier than anywhere else, and was basically nationalistic. This explains a peculiar difference with both the USA and Germany, where Jewish immigration perverted the movement from the start into a secretive pro-Jewish underground force.

Interesting material on Shaw and sex. Volume I ('The Search for Love') ends in 1898; Volume 3 ('The Lure of Fantasy') begins in 1918. Volume 2 ('The Pursuit of Power') therefore covers the shortest time span of the volumes, Holroyd, probably correctly, implicitly deeming the First World War more influential than the Second. But again there's superficiality: Shaw's 'Common Sense About the War' isn't reproduced, and Holroyd is a bit evasive about it, as of course he is in re the Second World War.

The time span of volume 2 included vast Jewish immigration into the East End of London, unnoticed by Holroyd; it's interesting that by 1909 'a power Broadway impresario Charles Frohman' became involved in 'experimental repertory' at the Duke of York's. I wish Holroyd had delved a little into the taboo topic of theatre takings—was Shaw something like an Andrew Lloyd-Webber figure? Anyway, Volume 3 contains 32 years of Shaw ageing from 63 to 94. He clearly had little idea about Stalin, and for that matter little about Hitler. And indeed little about Churchill. His death was eventful—many news hacks and a few religious figures turning up more or less unwantedly. He left money to the British Museum, which later split into two parts, the British Library being the natural destination of his money; however, there was at least one lawsuit over this issue. Bertie Russell said that he was delicious in his attacks on humbug—but also that, his battles being won, his plays were no longer performed. I've seen and heard several people say his plays are "boring".

Holroyd's books therefore are more valuable as reference sources than as a convincing portrait. Interesting to read Shaw on Einstein—not a clue. Or Charlie Chaplin. Or Liberalism—Shaw was brought up when the Manchester School of competition benefitted Britain, especially the entrepreneurial types, and Shaw noted things were changing, and lashed out at Liberalism and Liberals. I expect he helped muddy the meaning of the word—in the USA it's used in truly weird senses. Shaw knew nothing of Judaism (Belloc isn't even mentioned in Volume 3). Or Shakespeare—one of his plays shows Shakespeare jotting down comments from the common people on his wax tablets! I don't think Shaw knew much of India—many of his pithy sayings make sense if you assume that information was restricted, and Shaw was simply assuming that most people were fairly reasonable. It's hard to make sense of his comments on the USSR (Soviet Union) on any other basis—Holroyd has of course quite a bit on this, not of great informational depth. And the same applies to many of his plays—St Joan, for example. Of course, the same applied to his audiences who otherwise would have been less inclined to regard him as a sage.

I have a sort of family anecdote about Shaw: after the War, someone went to Shaw's house to tune a piano (or mend a shelf, or something) and on his return, the others in their workplace asked him what was Shaw like? "Just an old man with a beard."

So—detailed, with many presumably accurate quotations. And full of raw meat, notably on the Socialist movement in Britain, but all somewhat uncooked and indigestible. (There is no real examination of the way Socialist ideals became influenced, corrupted, degraded in their passage to official 'Labour Party' dogma). I don't think I'm alone in thinking this; the laudatory paragraphs in the blurbs don't entirely carry conviction; and my copies ('used', once owned by a school) look unopened. Amazon has virtually no reviews.
Top of Page

  Review of British Education establishment   John Mabbott: Oxford Memories

Minor player in the Oxbridge Establishment,
20 Nov 2012
1986 book. Behind-the-scenes life in the world of Oxford University. There are accounts of marking candidates in 'Greats' and philosophy. With a specific account of A J Ayers and a last-minute discussion on what degree he should be given. As his paper wasn't as good as they thought might be expected. That sort of thing. As far as I know this book is of a very unusual genre; despite the vast resources thrown at education, insider accounts are rare.
Top of Page

Review of James Hilton   Goodbye Mr Chips (published Oct 1934 book) 23 Jan 2014
James Hilton's short novel (18 chapters, 4 b/w drawings; as far as I know, this is his best known of a smallish total output) was filmed in 1939 and several times subsequently. It is always produced as a highly sentiment-laden piece, originally no doubt as part of the lead-up to the Second World War.

It's arguable that the whole piece is a satire on the insanity of the British educational system, and its emphasis, then, on partly-understood classics. H G Wells, at roughly the time of publication, wrote that classicists thought of themselves either as resembling cultivated ancient Greeks, or as spectators of the swaggering, pompous grossness of Rome. Mr Chipping was neither: concerned more with Gerunds and the Ablative Absolute, and jokes such as Obile heres ago fortibus es in aro, and the call-over of names as in the perfect hexameter Lancaster, Latton, Lemare, Lytton-Bosworth, MacGonigall, Mansfield. He disliked the then-new (about 1890?) change in Latin pronunciation from Cicero to 'Kickero', and was aware Julius Caesar wrote about Germans and war. There's no Greek in the book, beyond mentions of Thucydides and Xenophon, possibly to avoid typesetting complications.

Chippings was born in 1848, and toddled at the Great Exhibition. He graduated from Cambridge in 1870 ('the year of the Franco-Prussian War') and went to teach at Brookfield, a fictional minor public (i.e. pay) school; he spoke to and remembered Wetherby, the very old headmaster. He was (we are told) ambitious when he was young. In 1913, he turned 65 and retired, though during the Great War he was asked to administer the place. He died in 1933.

The power of this book is its suggestion of long stretches of time amid tranquil English decency and permanency, with important events suitably remote and muted. Brookfield is vaguely described as Elizabethan, 'rebuilt in George I's time', then arranged as a quadrangle with large playing fields and a 'dependent village', which by the time of Mr Chips had what would no doubt be called a tuck shop, Reddaways, selling cakes. Mr Chipping remembered the first bicycles.

Mr Chips' degree and his discipline was 'not absolutely reliable'. There's a submerged emphasis on discipline throughout the book: Mr Chips is described as nervous when he first 'took prep' fifty years before; however, after one piece of firmness, he had no further trouble. Full steam ahead with construing Latin texts; or perhaps not quite full steam.

The novel ends with the death of Mr Chips, protesting that he's had thousands of children, all boys. At that time he rented from Mrs Wickett, 'who had been in charge of the linen room'. His sitting room was small with a few bookshelves, with sporting trophies, and a few books; but he preferred the detective adventures of Dr Thorndyke and Inspector French, and remembered when Sherlock Holmes was new.

It's made clear enough that he drew no profound conclusions from his work: he considered English people should know a few quotations, sprinkled here and there in English prose. He judged his pupils by their apparently invariable inability to grasp his lessons—which remained the same over his four decades of teaching.

So far from gaining a wide perspective of the world, as for example Hugh Trevor-Roper thought this system was perfectly adapted to give, Chips seemed to have no grasp of anything important. He understood nothing of the events after 1914, beyond deprecating Stink-Manufacturers and their technical weaponry. All this is presented in an emotional fog, and made to sound reasonable and sweet, and rich in occasional lively comedy. The boys are shown full of affection for him, even, in what seems a far-fetched passage, campaigning for him to be kept on at the school. Better this, than part of the slack incuriosity and laziness that led to the disaster of the 'Great War', and boys being sent off, unprepared for life, to Burma (or was it Borneo?), or to die in aeroplanes or at the Somme. Lists of dead boys' surnames mingle with news of the German master's death and a full day's holiday on the armistice, with 'as cheerful a spread as war-time rationing permitted'.

Mrs Chippings appears for a chapter or two, before being snuffed out in childbirth in 1898 on April Fool's Day. She was a new woman, she bicycled, was adventurous, thought women should have the vote, and liked William Morris and Bernard Shaw. Katherine was half Mr Chips' age, beautiful, won everyone over, and arranged a football match with some east end boys. Her Christian name is abbreviated to Kathie; I don't think his name is given anywhere. Titanic is inserted in the same way.

With a bit of tinkering this novel might be made into the savage indictment which I feel it may have been. It became just another bit of wartime propaganda, with Mrs Miniver, Brief Encounter and other creations. There was one Jewish name in the book—an Isaacstein, who wrote an irate letter about a remark made by Mr Chips, inserted perhaps to show Chips' out of touch life.

Goodbye, Mr Chips indeed.
Top of Page

image   Review of American gullibility   Fred Reed: A Grand Adventure: Wisdom's Price—Along with Bits and Pieces about Mexico

A monument to ordinariness at the wrong time, November 11, 2011

I looked through the whole of Fred Reed's website. Fascinating to read someone completely ignorant of all 'conspiracy theory' material. For example, he believes in AIDS. (Though also that someone he knew was cured of it). He believes blacks were brought up in the 50s in white-type households in the 1950s and there was little mutual prejudice where he was brought up. But also that blacks live in a mental world that's ignorant of almost everything. (There's something similar expressed in the idea that LBJ's 'war on poverty' was a deliberate fraud). He seems to think US drug policy is entertainingly silly, because Congress 'doesn't do decisions'; he has no idea it could be deliberate, and even less idea that it is. He doesn't realise immigration is a deliberately damaging policy, nor who imposes it. He doesn't seem to have learned that laws are man-made, and often have functions which are kept secret. He doesn't realise that education might have other purposes than teaching simple reading and writing and a bit of technology so you can get a job and move out of the area. He dismisses evolution because there's no firm explanation for the beginning of life. And because it's hard to imagine the life cycles of insects evolving. He has liked quite a few Jews, so the conspiracy theories there can't be true. He doesn't know enough about science to be aware of scientific frauds. He doesn't know enough about Asia to understand the horror of compulsory prostitution. He avoids thinking about NASA, 9/11, nuclear weapons, the underside of the world wars, facts about money and subsidies and warbucks. He seems to have been a simple-minded 'veteran'. I suppose he's the precise type of the 'universal soldier'—maybe he manages to be both 5' 2" and 6' 4".Fred Reed
Top of Page

image   Review of Workings of So-called Democracy   Hilaire Belloc: The Party System

Still up-to-date as regards Britain; but not very easy reading, October 25, 2011

Short book. First published 1911. Apparently never made it to a second impression—possibly because of reviews and notices being discreetly not published. There's a US edition introduced by Ron Paul, which has two very favourable Amazon reviews.

It has nothing on the arithmetic—proportional representation, gerrymandering of boundaries. But it has a lot on what might loosely be called corruption. And it sounds very like the present day. NOTE it exclusively deals with Britain; there is nothing explicitly on US or continental (or e.g. Japanese, Russian) systems.

Basically he says the main parties—Liberal and Conservative, then—through secretly donated money, control parliament. This control is exercised [1] By the parties—who will never select independent candidates (unless they show promise of toeing the line); [2] By the 'front bench' system—unelected clique who arrange how parliamentary business will be transacted, and which topics will be discussed; [3] Belloc gives many examples of issues in which the voters' interests simply are not raised—[4] and many examples of the techniques by which this is done—ten minutes rule, private members' bills being choked off by deliberately irrelevant debate, the Speaker choosing debating topics in collusion with the 'Front bench'; [5] the fact these people know, meet, socialise, intermarry; [6] The House of Lords as something to be bought into, and secret agreements as to which Bills it will oppose.

Belloc's examples include the Marconi scandal [insider trading], uninvestigated wars [Jameson Raid? and Boer war], Chinese Labour in south Africa—all topics which almost 100 years later sound very familiar. There's also an interesting account of how since the 'Glorious Revolution' and subsequently, party politics had a serious meaning, with genuine conflicts of opinion.

And more. I suspect most or all countries operate in this way and indeed experts on political systems (if such experts exist) could compare the systems and produce interesting accounts on how democracy is bent and deformed.
Top of Page

Hilaire Belloc The Free Press 1918
One of many out-of-copyright reprint cover designs
  Review of   Hilaire Belloc   The Free Press
1918 Allen & Unwin short book praising, and with great hopes for, the Free Press. Suggestive parallels with Internet now.     This review July 20, 2014



Long review of Belloc's The Free Press with detailed comparisons with today's free-ish Internet
Top of Page

image   Review of International Nuclear   Hans Blix: Disarming Iraq

Front Man, Useful Idiot—or just idiot?, October 2, 2011

A few notes on Blix's book [i]Disarming Iraq—The Search for Weapons of Mass Destruction[/i]. He was 'director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1981 to 1997' ... and from 2000-2003 'executive director of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission' until the inspections were suspended in March 2003'. Published 2004, and in paperback 2005 with an added chapter 'After War: Weapons of Mass Disappearance'.

I'd received the impression that Blix was an honest broker, a serious hard-working chap with the interests of humanity at the forefront of his Swedish democratic mind. This book (a charity shop purchase!) shows he's just another part of the problem.

Just a few notes:
* He has no doubts at all about 9/11, or 'September 11' as it's indexed. For someone investigating technical issues, this alone shows he's useless.
* He has no doubts (and produces no evidence) that Iraq was the most murderous regime since WW2—[i]One of the bloodiest regimes the world has seen was eliminated. ... a giant statue of him [Saddam Hussein] was felled.. before the ... television cameras of the whole world.[/i] The naive detail about the statue—the accompanying detail was of course faked—is typical of Blix. What about mass slaughter in eastern Europe, in India and Bengal, in Nigeria, in Vietnam and Cambodia?
* Israel is only mentioned twice; there is nothing on Vanunu or 'ZOG'—this must be deliberate censorship policy on Blix's part, since anyone serious about nuclear matters must have views on Vanunu.
* He gives absurd unevidenced descriptions, which is standard media policy of course. Such-and-such a man is a 'brilliant negotiator', for example. People like Blair, Rice, Colin Powell are given this sort of unhelpful treatment.
* It's suggestive of his mentality that laughably irrelevant personal stuff is included—an operation, what his wife thought, how his hotel had no satellite link—but not whether this mattered.
* His accounts of UN procedures, such as they are, are impossible to judge reliably; there are anonymous briefings, meetings, reports, but no way to tell the status of these events.

Looking over this book, and considering his 16 or so years heading the IEAE, one has to wonder if he was just a gullible simpleton, or a carefully selected well-informed front man? I've read Blix was/is Jewish. Obviously it's easiest just to arrange promotion for someone naive—they never need know. But there's a risk that search a person might awaken and latch onto some topic and not leave it alone.

I'm not even sure it's his own book. The English is formally correct—for example he distinguishes 'illicit' from 'elicit', something many English speakers can't do. How heavily edited was this book? I don't know; but its mass deception is painful to read.
Top of Page

image   Review of Science fraud   Melanie Jarman: Climate Change: Small Guides to Big Issues

Disconnected series of claims and causes with little evidential basis, September 28, 2011

Everyone knows now (after the leaking of computer proof that results had been rigged) that the global warming/ climate change issue has problems. This little book is obviously intended to side with the claimants for climate change. But it's not even successful for that purpose. It has a ragbag of human interest stories—Joanna in Mozambique, an Indian village with 'low energy' light bulbs; mixed with statements from vested interests—the World Bank, the 'carbon market'—people such as Goldmann Sachs are tactfully omitted; with statements from people who may or may not be scientific—Friends of the Earth, Oxfam's Pakistan project, the Stern Review, the Stockholm Environment Institute. Plus about 50 acronyms including the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and various World Banks schemes, plus agencies and institutes. And boxes and graphs which bear some relation to the surrounding chapter, but not usually much.

There are 'resources' at the end of the book—books and magazines, and organisations, all I think explicitly activist groups toeing the line. There are endnotes, listing books and journals, with no indication of reliability or believability (for example NASA gets a few quotes!) The book is indexed.

I'm not sure this book was ever intended to be read; it's possibly more like Chairman Mao's little red book, to be held aloft and waved by chanting protestors, or leafed through to get an alarmed and worried feel. Certainly this can work, up to a point. No doubt their secretive funders cash in and collect their percentages. The book may have been designed to look formidable, assuming most people are too idle to try to check. There isn't for example as far as I could find any estimate of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, to compare with emissions. Nor any estimate of the amount dissolved in seawater. Nor any indication of how the temperature can be measured *of the entire globe*—there must be huge inaccuracies and doubts there. The author naturally is weak on coal and oil, with not much sign of an overview, and has no idea about question marks over nuclear power, if it exists.

One star may seem harsh. But this book is supported by Oxfam and by several publishers (Pluto in the USA and UK—a 'left wing' publisher which is probably part of the Jewish fake left). If they were serious, they'd make a better effort. Is it, for example, even possible that the entire world can be supplied with electricity? Anyway, disappointing. But the book is several years old now, and I see nobody has reviewed it, unless you count quoting the blurb as a 'review'. Hence this warning review.'
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   H J Eysenck: The Battle for the Mind

Recommended reading: Part of Jews vs Science Story, August 27, 2011

Most people are not (yet) aware of the large part played by Jews in scientific fraud; this 1981 book is an interesting example of this ongoing process, which is more or less analogous to the events detailed by Kevin MacDonald in his 'Jewish intellectual movements' books. The book can be picked up for little more than the price of postage and packing.

Hans Jurgen Eysenck left Germany when he was 18, an event he represented as a move away from Hitler's Germany—though one must suspect Jewish relationships somewhere, since his political knowledge was rather slim. By his own account, he intended to study physics, but there were no places left on the university course, so he picked psychology instead. He was not medically trained as psychiatrists are, but had an interest in experimental psychology—Pavlovian conditioning, and things like reaction times and testing and theories about nerves. He (and no doubt fellow researchers) developed quite an elaborate theory of personality, involving excitation and inhibition, stimulants and depressants, extraversion and introversion, psychosis and neurosis. He was good on hypothesis testing, and did not generally veer away from a favoured theory if it seemed to indicate strange results. He took this far enough to suggest a link between liability to cancer and introversion (I could never find the theoretical link.) His publication list is quite long—there's a very amateur website giving information.

The book is in four parts: one by Eysenck, and one by Kamin, both supposedly written independently and sight unseen; then two further, shorter, 'rejoinders'. Kamin is listed last. The copyright seems split between an outfit in Curacao, a company based in England called 'Personality Investigations, Publications and Services Ltd' (this may be an IQ/ testing outfit), and Leon Kamin. I have some doubts about the production (Editor: Susan Raby, Production: Arnon Orbach) for several reasons—there's a mistake on the diagram on page 63, which suggests Eysenck didn't proof read the book; and there are photos dotted about (Hitler, Stalin...) which suggest they were chosen for propaganda reasons.

Kamin by comparison is a minor figure, hardly published at all.

Anyway the best part for my taste is Eysenck's rejoinder to Kamin, 26 pages including references, and giving a good summary against Kamin's piece, starting with statement of the 'adversarial method' and stating that Kamin used that exclusively. In fact Kamin—who gets the final word—illustrates the point when he comes out with material on 'evoked potentials' which, if he'd been serious, would have gone into his initial piece.

The concealed motivation for Kamin presumably is anti-white racism. (Incidentally it's funny to see the final pages of Kamin's first statement, where he is enraged by comments on verminous Jewish children immigrating into London). Kamin wants, as per MacDonald, white society depleted or wrecked by immigration. (Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose are the same type—Rose admittedly like almost all biologists refused to answer Harold Hillman on such frauds as the 'endoplasmic reticulum'.) In fact I believe Kamin is something like an honorary Professor at Cape Town, where he can presumably survey his dream. Kamin of course is anxious to claim no inheritance pattern for intelligence (omitting Jews of course). It has to be said the Kamin school has so far won: I watched a recent sex education TV video with a section on genes, from which intelligence, and for that matter inbreeding diseases, were totally omitted. Eysenck seemed naive about all this: his piece is full of ethical material on not being unfair to people with low IQ scores, but he never seems to have realised his democratic or egalitarian impulse was not universal. I saw Eysenck speak in 1977, by which time he'd been mobbed by thugs after the Jewish pattern; his children had to change their names. He seemed to have no idea of the tricks being played. It's hard to know, of course; he his family had Jewish connections—it's perfectly possible his book with Kamin was simple Jewish ethnic networking, spurious opposition designed to avoid serious issues.
Top of Page

image   Review of Socionomy   Cyril Northcote Parkinson: The Law and the Profits

1960 book on tax levels and government waste—entertaining but bits are missing, August 25, 2011

This book was published three years after 'Parkinson's Law' and is somewhat similar, but doesn't really hold together well—I suspect it was a contracted book Parkinson had to write. The introduction states that many people wrote to him with information (I'd guess about 100) although he gives no names; this might explain a certain bittiness. The whole book is 'popular'—there are virtually no sources or references, and no index. The illustrations are far inferior to those in Parkinson's Law. There are twelve chapters, but the chapter headings are mostly uninformative.

The theme is supposedly government waste, mostly in the USA and UK since about 1900. This of course is related to taxation—Parkinson snipes both at expenditure ('Expenditure rises to meet income') and at taxation. [It's also related to borrowing; the Jewish fraud of paper money provides a huge sponge of blood, to be wrung out later]

Parkinson has an historical attempt to assess taxation in ancient civilisations, coming up with 10% as an estimate. Then he switches to modern times—the First World War being a turning point in terms of tax rates. However Lloyd George's 1909 budget was the real starting point of a sort of swing to 'communism'. Parkinson comments on income tax and death duties as the methods settled on to squeeze people; there's a good account of families of soldiers killed during the First World War having to pay out death duties, perhaps several times, to the 'vultures'. And he makes a good point about death duties (on capital) being spent as though income. Parkinson follows through some consequences: remember he was writing in 1960 and had lived through the Second World War—Britain declared war when he was about 30. He gives good accounts of the psychology of the near-death of private property—taxation hitting more than 90% so that it was impossible to own a traditional estate, and impossible for several generations to build up businesses with integrity. Conversely, 'success' became a matter of maximising money from governments. And people increasingly turn to tax avoidance, and (illegal) evasion, and increasingly feel the law is against them. Young people in particularly (he feels) become disaffected and angry. Taxation is so dangerously high, so societies have few reserves, and disaster may well follow.

On spending all this tax money, he notes that the Civil Service became more secure, and better paid, than much of business, and also that there was no equivalent of bankruptcy or failed technology to prune out useless civil servants. He lists failed and abandoned US military projects (the same thing happened in Britain), and comments on the vast property ownership of the military—covered storage, in total twice the size of Manhattan Island in the US, large landowning (including Crichel Down) and old forts in Britain. Parkinson was uneasy about official science—one of his mini-playlets is a made-up encounter between Isaac Newton and a modern civil servant. They can't promote science, because nobody knows what inventions will be forthcoming; Parkinson lists the failures of the British to equip properly, and the difficulties faced by many inventors of military devices. (There's an amusing parody of the difficulties of people with ideas and projects in the chapter on 'The abominable no-men').

Parkinson lists the amounts paid from tax purely on interest, and on failed projects, and on unaccountable foreign handouts. He also comments on the poor quality of government accounts, notably in the UK.

All of this is quite well-written, and relies on minimal information—Parkinson is very good at drawing conclusions from a few big numbers. (Note that this book postdates the Korean War, and shows no awareness of looming genocide in Vietnam). The weaknesses of this book stem from his having no theory of the motive forces that developed in the world after about 1900. He has no idea about the Rothschild/paper money swindle—Parkinson attributes inflation to increases in tax—and doesn't consider the idea that there are temptations to large scale frauds, of the NASA type. Many of the abandoned weapons projects must have been scams; the nuclear weapon stuff was a huge scam; the EU was in the process of becoming a huge scam; the independence of former colonies, often accompanied by disasters, was a recent series of events. One motivation for wars was simply to make money from supplies; but Parkinson never once makes any criticism of any war. And so on.

Although this book has great omissions, it's thought-provoking and does its best to provide a useful overview of the world and economics and the place of government after 1945. If only Parkinson had been more knowledgeable.
Added 25 Oct 2015: On the subject of the First World War, I mooched around an archaeological dig of Hart Hill House, in Buile Hill Park, Salford, near Manchester. This was built in about 1859; and by the 1920s became derelict and was demolished, part of the financial disaster of the 'Great War'. There is only grass on the site, and seems to be not one photograph of the building - a candidate proved to depict somewhere else; the archaeological website fails to convey anything of the site or the majesty of the building.
Top of Page

image   Review of Geography of wealth/ dumbing down education   Peter Jackson: Maps of Meaning—Introduction to Cultural Geography

Once-fashionable biased trash, August 20, 2011

Some people may have wondered whether it's possible to define human geography in some useful, rational way. After all, people need space, food, warmth, company and so on - surely it ought to be possible to apply human ingenuity to deduce useful and true overview statements? Are cities and dwellings subject to some laws of nature which shape them and shape human lives? Possibly. This book is a kind of soft 'politically correct' thing, essentially of the sociology shaped by Jewish 'thinkers', with their own agenda, wrapped up with a few token maps. It's as though a sociologist looked for a job and found one, lecturing in a geography department. His came out of UCL - University College London was a 19th century foundation, always described as having its roots in rationalism - you didn't have to believe in the '39 Articles' of the Church of England. Books of this type (and possible analogies with the later LSE and SOAS) make me wonder whether the foundation had another policy, of pushing Jewish 'thinkers', too. Dated about 1989, and therefore eight years before Blair's handlers' 'New Labour' project, this book is simple-minded garbage on things like 'racism', prostitution, materialism, sexuality, the wonders of Marx and what have you. There's a huge bibliography of books that could only have been written by force-funded liars. Avoid this, or study it as a sort of textbook example of worthlessness, material that ought to have been interesting, but in fact is ideological junk food.
Top of Page

image   Review of Evolution   Cyril Dean Darlington: The Evolution of Man and Society

Survey of history with evolutionary biology basis, July 30, 2011

The first three chapters—less than 10% of the book, and smaller than the bibliography and index—are well worth a careful read, as they summarise the whole business of types of ape and monkey -> chromosomes and other genetic links to mankind, including variations between species of these animals which hint at the way mankind evolved. Darlington mostly discusses (of course) the finer points of change, not speciation as such. This includes externally caused changes, such as sickle cell, and also changes in structures needed for speech. He examines monkey societies and the relation to oestrus. He discusses variability, and the connection with breeding strategies and such things as incest taboo and genetic distance between breeding couples. He looks at the way diseases and parasites (and carriers of parasites) were influenced by man's expansion. He looks at ecological niches—fishing, cold climates, farming, hunting—and boundaries between territories, such as mountain ranges, and the effects of climate on races. There's interesting anthropological material, much of it from India.

The great bulk of the book examines human history so far as it was known. There are omissions—China, the Mongols, the western hemisphere are rather underrepresented. Moreover, as is liable to happen with history, some of it is wrong—he has for example his map of the spread of Jews shows he had no idea about the Khazars. He is pro-Lenin for some reason. However he's good on the biological effects of (for example) celibacy in some organisations, control of fertility, insistence on inbreeding, the uses of castration, royal dynasties.

Roughly speaking, whenever Darlington generalises and makes use of many sources, he's sounder than when focussing on individuals. The first three chapters are recommended for an overview written in pre-DNA times.
Top of Page

image   Review of Bertrand Russell biography   Caroline Moorehead: Bertrand Russell: A Life

Vacant—interesting mainly for scandal, and Russell's last years, July 8, 2011

All Bertrand Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

campaign for nuclear disarmament   Review of Completely Standard Quasi-History Ignoring Jewish Money and Frauds
  Kate Hudson: CND. Now More Than Ever - The Story of a Peace Movement


19th-century South Bank Polytechnic was enlarged and changed and renamed South Bank Poly University in 1992. 2003 seems to have been the date of its rechristening as LSBU. Kate Hudson seems to have been teaching Russian and east European politics and history. The book's biographical note describes her as 'Head of Social and Policy Studies at London South Bank University'; she was presumably appointed when LSBU was newly reorganised, and this seems to coincide with her being 'Chair of CND' in September 2003. She wrote several books, one on the collapse of Yugoslavia, which left Amazon reviewers unimpressed. She was in the Communist Party of Great Britain until recently.

A not very helpful website of LSBU yielded a mention in issue 1 of 'Connected', a magazine of that University, in winter 2006:–
Social sciences mark 40 years at the cutting edge
In May, the Department of Social and Policy Studies celebrated its 40th anniversary. Head of department Dr Kate Hudson hosted a celebration for everyone involved in teaching and research over the past 40 years. `The Department has made a significant contribution to the development of social science, both nationally and internationally, and been at the cutting edge of theoretical developments in the study of sociology, social policy and politics,' said Dr Hudson.
    "At the same time, our commitment to active practitionership means that our work is actually helping to shape the society in which we live.
I could find no information on what 'Dr' means here; I would guess some rehashed material given a Ph. D.

The University website, curiously, puts huge emphasis on the employability of its graduates: we learn their starting salaries are quite high. It's probably true to say it's an organisation funded by Jewish paper money, ultimately at taxpayers' expense, to produce gullible half-trained young people.

The claim 'our work is actually helping to shape ... society' seems false. CND had no effect, and her 'Communist' pseudo-leftism hasn't either, unless 'Communism' is equated with 'Jews': there are wars everywhere, for example.

CND is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. This meant unilateral disarmament of Britain. Kate Hudson's 'CND' is the official history of the 'nuclear world' including the UN, World Court and so on, interleaved with fragments on CND personalities—Bertrand Russell, Canon Collins, Tony Benn, up to E P Thompson, Ken Livingstone, Bruce Kent; all of them utterly ignorant of the tricks being played—and the organisation itself. And other arguably-related activists and activities.

The book is indexed, fairly usefully. The content is absolutely standard official history. Everything in her book could be taken from the New York Times. Her sources (listed at the back) include books by journalists, popular authors, and 'useful idiots'; her staple source for background, in 3 volumes, is Lawrence S Wittner, 'The Struggle Against the Bomb' vol 1 -1953 (pubd 1993); vol 2 1954-70 (pubd 1997); vol 3 1971-present (pubd 2003). Stanford University Press.

It's a strange experience to read a revisionism-free book - the first nuclear sceptical Youtube was 2008 - in all senses. It's not correct to say Hudson knows nothing; she actually knows a negative amount, far more errors than truth.

She has absolutely no knowledge of sciences/ scientific method, or statistical calculations, or history. Thus, her introductory chapter (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) quotes a few old publications, including Osada, translated into English. She has no idea of the dubiousness of this material, or the effects of US censorship for years in Japan after WW2. She has no idea about radiation, and how difficult it is to detect; and the fact that no evidence of genetic damage whatever was found. One of the amusing aspects of the book is the way that every stage seems to be more dangerous than the one before: probably the book was written as separate chapters. She can't separate the effects of chemical warfare from other effects: I could find no mention of chemical warfare in Vietnam, for example.

On statistics, she does not (for example) present a chronology of scares, and see if conclusions can be drawn. On history, she has little grasp of population figures: it may, for example have been better if Hitler had wiped out the British forces at Dunkirk, since it's possible Stalin would have been defeated and eastern Europe spared mass rapes and murders. She prefers to quote Rotblat. She has no idea how the media can shape perceptions; she thinks some events capture the attention of the media, and doesn't understand the way the media can force fakes, wars, corruption onto the public. Vanunu is a perfect example of a faked scoop.

Hudson has no idea Jews control the fount of money, mostly as far as I know through the Fed. No doubt some of it went to her university department. She has no idea of the net effects of wars - cui bono? How much money do Jews make from wars? What were their motivations around the year 2000? She has no idea about 9/11, the subject of her final chapter.

The only value of this book is as a reference list. The chapter headings look at 1 Hiroshima etc/ 2 Aldermaston / 3 'Vietnam War to neutron bomb' (poor Russell's Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal isn't even mentioned)/ 4 Cruise missiles/ 5 Cold War, Gorbachev/ 6 Post Cold War/ 7 9/11 'World Trade Center'. Disputes and debates and publications of CND are described in a rather perfunctory way: there's no discussion of who funded whom, and which organisations promoted what. Many of the people involved must have known nuclear weapons were a fraud all along; there must have been a lot of cynical laughter behind the scenes.

The most important missing element is, of course, Jewish influence: she may be Jewish herself, or believe herself to be Jewish - certainly her associates and life and memberships are consistent with that, as are her whole treatment of history, for example the USSR. She does however mention Palestinians and UN resolutions about Israel a few times. Much of this is in the past, though the waste and devastation remains. As to the future, Hudson mentions NATO and people like the neo-cons and the 'Project for the New American Century' (PNAC) but not AIPAC. So her futurology is worthless.

It's tempting to say that women just can't handle serious issues, and, disappointingly, that seems truer now than ever. But of course there are plenty of males going along with nonsense, too.

Published by visionpaperbacks, a tiny publisher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkG7Ac6ZprM
Is a video (Titled 'ADHOCRACY: A Rally of Speeches: Models of Resistance and Moments of Resilience') with this blurb:
Kate Hudson, General Secretary of CND uses the CND experience as a framework to discuss politics and protest, effective methods for bringing about change, and the practice and principles necessary for success.
Top of Page

A. H. Lane (Arthur Henry Lane)   The Alien Menace. A Statement of the Case
First Published: 1928. Enlarged Edition: 1934   Review: 22 August 2017
One of the small number of books hostile to Jews published in Britain between the wars. Deals with the period from the founding of the so-called “Labour” Party, to Europe after the ‘Great War’. Although sound enough, it includes some common errors, which weaken his case, and persist today. Not therefore perfect; but filled with detail.
For my online version of Lane's book The Alien Menace, click here.
US reprint of The Alien Menace
Arthur Henry Lane (1868-1938) was essentially a vet, from a time when horses were the main transporters of men and materiel where there were no railways. As far as I can deduce from Wikipedia, Lane took part in removal of horse waste, and removing horses from Boers, in about 1900, and during the 'Great War'.

A few points of comparison: three utterly Jew-naive people were H G Wells (born a little before him, in 1866); Bertrand Russell (born a little after, in 1872) and J M Keynes (1883-1946), fifteen years younger. Arnold Leese was ten years younger, Archibald Maule Ramsay about 25 years younger. Lane knew Ramsay (who wrote Land of dope and jewry/ land that once was free/ all the Jewboys praise thee/ as they plunder thee./ Poorer still and poorer grow thy true born sons...) Here's my formatted version of Ramsay's Nameless War. Ramsay had longer historical awareness than Lane, back to Cromwell, but never integrated Christianity with his findings on Jews: his post-Munich Mr. Chamberlain was Burnt in Effigy in Moscow leaflet was issued by 'MILITANT CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS'.

When Queen Victoria died, Lane was in his early 30s. The Empire must have had a profound effect on him; he regarded anyone as alien who ‘did not serve in the British Empire or its Allies in the Great War.’ Lord Sydenham of Combe supplied his foreword; Combe was a colonial administrator, but, presumably, not concerned with money or assets. At that time, it remained fashionable to associate aristocrats with book publicity.

Lane is a perfect example of the type described by Hilaire Belloc: The Great War brought thousands upon thousands of educated men (who took up public duties as temporary officials) up against the staggering secret they had never suspected—the complete control exercised over things absolutely necessary to the nation’s survival by half a dozen Jews, who were completely indifferent as to whether we or the enemy should emerge alive from the struggle. Lane, as with many opponents of Jews, was unable to work out any united front against their simple secret cunning crushing uniformity. Lane regarded Germany as an evil opponent—this was years before the theft of European state papers by the USA was well known—and distrusted the Irish after 'they', treated as a unit, got their supposed independence; Lane was not very aware of Jews in Ireland, though of course he was aware of their name-changing fraudulence. Lane knew of Schiff and other Jew financiers, but I think had no theory of the gold standard, knew nothing of the Fed, and neglected to identify the part of the Empire which was Jew-controlled and not British. He also hated ‘Communism’ which he thought, like many others, was a belief system of its own, rather than just a smokescreen for Jewish supremacists. Jews committing atrocities were called ‘anarchists’ before 1917, but changed their name to ‘Communists’ after the Jewish coup d'état, as Lane might have noticed.

The strength of his book isn't really theoretical, but observational—he describes various events and structures, notably the so-called "Labour Party" (he always puts "Labour Party" in satire quote marks). He is acute on the BBC, on Jewish control of films, on Jew name-changing, and Jew crimes. Much of this, unfortunately, is just as applicable, and much more so, today.

I'll try to list Lane's objections to Jews (and others; but mostly Jews), inventing my own categories:–
NUMBERS, PARASITISM, DANGER, COLLUSION BY OFFICIALS. I 'The Alien Problem' is an overview, including Parliament and Trade, much controlled by Jews. II 'Number of Aliens and How they Get Here' includes wrong official figures. III 'Over-Population and Emigration' makes the case for expelling aliens. IV 'Unemployment' lists ways in which Britons are discriminated against. V 'Public Health' includes housing (though not rents and money policy), hereditary diseases, and Galton. VII 'The Cost of the Alien' has 'Labour' Party ministers and evasion of costs. And material on steamships, presumably Jewish-run. And supplanting British labour. Appendix I on 'Alien Immigration includes fake students, and fake official figures.
CRIME, MORAL DEFECTS, CROOKS, LAW CASES. Chapters VI Appendices IV ('Alien Crooks') and V ('Cases in the Courts') and VII provide a lot of newspaper-style information—including Jews who place big orders, ship them overseas, the disappear—Jan Lamprecht mentions a modern case, in South Africa.
ALIENS IN MEDIA AND EDUCATION. Chapters VIII (Films), IX (BBC) have lists of names, and such events as harming the nascent British film industry, anti-British films, the BBC's Jewish foundation, and the BBC censoring Nesta Webster. Chapter XV (Education) looks at the LSE, in particular, as an entry-point for Jews, and lists professors in many subjects, generally history, sociology, psychology and other subjects ripe for invasion by Frankfurt-School types. (I was interested to see Peierls, made a physics professor, who later became part of the atom frauds). Appendix II has an instructive piece on censorship, giving a letter from a US Jewish group requesting that a book by Lothrop Stoddard should be ignored. Henry Ford's 1920-1922 four books on world-Jewry, and his 1927 recantation are here.
ALIENS AND POLITICS IN BRITAIN. The so-called "Labour Party" (and "Independent Labour Party") is mentioned throughout. Lane likes the English Constitution, the Monarch/ House of Lords including Church of England/ House of Commons/ Party System, despite its precariousness and liability to money penetration. Chapter XVII 'Naturalisation' makes suggestions. There are many special issues: changes of name, infiltration, secrecy, forcing of unwanted immigration, secret conferences, and the subverting of aristocracies. Appendix III joins Marx, Engels, and the Hohenzollerns; Lane distrusted Germans.
      Appendix IV discusses aliens and name-changing, often to Scotch or Irish names. 'A census which returns the children of Aliens as British is misleading even if the children were born here.' Think perhaps of Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, Sutherland of Goldman-Sachs, Denis MacShane the Jew from Poland who helped Muslims rape white girls in Rotherham ...
WORLD POLITICS. Chapters X (Aliens and Revolution), XI (The Hidden Hand), XII (Aliens in Politics), XIII (Aliens in Ireland), and of course XVI (Alien Control in Palestine) help underline the infiltration, or perhaps just exposure, of the Bank of England and other groups. For example, there's a long account of the 'Rutenberg Monopoly' and a 1921 monopoly in Palestine. And an account of Dead Sea Concessions.
MONEY. XIV (Aliens in Industry and Finance) has many names of Jews (and Nesta Webster's books). Chapter XVIII (War Debts) is a depressing list of losses and payments following the 'Great War'. Well worth reading as an antidote to the mythology of ‘heroism’, and survey of the sordidness of industrialised war and its and its furtive secrets of money and equipment and propaganda.
SUGGESTED ACTION. Lane discusses VI Leglislation in and since 1914, and VII Draft Act of Parliament - Aliens Restrictions and Status. And XIX What Should Be Done.

This is not a cheering book; following Jewish impulses, there's nothing to suggest any effective work might be done either in Britain or overseas. The British Empire fell in due course (and the French Empire), assets to be taken up presumably by triumphant Jews in the USA. The impression left with me is that new theories and systems are needed, a mental revolution of the power of Newton or Wallace/Darwin.
Top of Page

image   Review of Shakespeare/ de Vere Controversy   J T Looney: Shakespeare Identified

Pioneering revisionist Shakespeare work, with surprising implications, June 24, 2011

Looney's double-o is for emphasis, in some languages, e.g. Dutch, as in 'brooch'—everyone points out he isn't pronounced to rhyme with 'loony'. This book was published in 1920, after some years' work. It's not the first alternative authorship book: in 1910 for example a Baconian work was published. Looney is always described as a schoolmaster or teacher in Gateshead (a town on the other side of the Tyne from Newcastle), though so far as I know, no school in the area claims him.

Looney's method was to comb the plays for clues as to character, then comb what's known of the Elizabethan world for a person to match, detective fashion. It would be inaccurate to state that controversy raged thereafter. He was largely ignored and shrugged off. But he must have made a bit of impact, since one volume of Galsworthy's Forsyte Saga mentions the theory.

This book therefore has some historical significance. Just a few notes:
[1] It's a tremendous proving-ground for theories of revisionism. Every possible attitude—derision, contempt, accusations of ignorance, etc—and every possible style of counter-argument—pulling of rank, ridicule, concentration on trivia etc—has been used against Looney, and, for that matter, by his supporters when on the defensive.
[2] In principle, deletion of the 'Stratford man' (probably an illiterate war profiteer in food) should allow a far better appreciation of the Elizabethan period. This means historians would have to do some hard work, however. (One edition of this book included an excellent description by Capt. Ward of England as engaged in a war with Spain, comparable with the First World War, and far removed from the ahistorical merrie England stereotype of for example 'Shakespeare in Love').
[3] What does it matter?—Well, there's an effect on educational theory. Occasionally , educators look at the real world, and even more occasionally, at genius. Their view of 'Shakespeare' therefore is of some importance. If the traditional story is correct, genius can appear anywhere, even to someone of little education, who is thought to be able to deduce almost everything about the world. But if Looney is right, education is of paramount importance. Present-day acceptance of poor educational standards therefore owes something to the 'Shakespeare' myth.
________________

I haven't seen this paperback, which I assume is a straight reprint of the 1920 book, 1920 typography and all.

Looney struck lucky—on his quest he found just one single published poem by Oxford, 'Women', which conformed to his checklist of characteristics. This was the clue which he followed up relentlessly.

There's a two volume American edition of 1975, edited by Ruth Lloyd Miller, which of course has added material—including a good piece by a Captain Ward, pointing out that there was war with Spain at the time and that as a result there was widespread poverty, famine, and high food prices. The 'merrie England' stuff as in 'Shakespeare in Love' is fantasy. Miller's volumes are lavishly produced with may monochrome and colour reproductions of portraits etc.

However; I do have something of a warning. De Vere put his own life story into his plays and sonnets. As you come to understand 'Shakespeare' it becomes clear that de Vere was an aristocrat obsessed by his own sidelining—he was a monstrous egotist. His work describes Elizabeth's court with unsparing accuracy, but beneath it all is an aristocratic world view with no room for the masses—unless they are amusing writer/actor types.

A further point: the 'Shakspere' mythology has been guarded by a ridiculous corps of professional careerists. To this date, this still applies, though possibly the USA is shedding this absurd skin more successfully that Britain. However, a similar pattern is appearing amongst the Oxfordians, who have their own ring of paid journals and publications and speakers. I tried to get a 50 minute speech by Burford/Beauclerk on Youtube, to help diffuse the message more widely. He didn't want it up there, possibly on copyright grounds, or because he considered it lacklustre, though in my view it was an excellent introductory overview. Most of the content was Looney, paraphased.
Here's a 6-part talk presenting the Oxfordian case; right-click to watch in Youtube:--

Edward de Vere as Shakespeare
Top of Page

image   Review of Nuclear frauds   Claude Eatherly: Burning Conscience: The Case of the Hiroshima Pilot

Widely believed to be a pure fake, April 21, 2011

' ..an elaborate and influential imposture which, although it may have originated in the mind of one man, was knowingly propagated over the whole world by legions of scribblers, barkers, and "artists" for the benefit of the Bolsheviks.'

Well. I'm not sure about 'Bolsheviks' by 1961. William Bradford Huie's book 'The Hiroshima Pilot', debunks Eatherly. (This book was reviewed in Britain by Malcolm Muggeridge). However the truth is still not known for certain - possibly Eatherly in effect blackmailed the US government, as he might have known what really happened at Hiroshima.

Anders worked with Russell's Peace Foundation, contributing articles to their journal, for example. Russell quite often contributed forewords to books in somewhat the way Chomsky does - there's one for example in Osada's 'Children of the A-Bomb' - a book which Russell cannot have read carefully. William Bradford Huie's (1963?) book 'The Hiroshima Pilot', debunks Eatherly. However the truth is still not known—possibly Eatherly in effect blackmailed the US government, as he might have known what really happened at Hiroshima.

[Gunther Anders—fake name; it means 'Others'—was a Jewish 'philosopher' who helped promote Eatherly's fraud]

Keywords: Eatherly, Eathely, Eatherley, Etherly
Top of Page

image   Review of Nuclear frauds   J. Robert Oppenheimer: The Flying Trapeze: Three Crises for Physicists

Same old, same old.... negative evidence for Oppenheimer as a fraud, April 19, 2011

These are transcriptions of three lectures, or rather talks, which somebody recorded. They were the '1962 Whidden Lectures' at McMaster University, Toronto, which has Bertrand Russell's papers. The lectures are titled SPACE AND TIME, ATOM AND FIELD, AND WAR AND THE NATIONS. (Their caps). It's strange that physicists and mathematicians have had so little self-confidence to challenge such material. There's the square root of v squared over c squared material, derived from simple Euclidean right angled triangles, mostly based on the myth of the speed of light as a limit. There's assorted stuff on acceleration etc. There's material on e.g. alpha particles, the two slit experiments, a bit on quanta and the assertion that disintegrating nuclei are indeterminate. Twenty years after the real or supposed bombs, this material isn't even pedestrian. The final lecture, when it gets started, must be a network of lies mixed with speculation, though possibly Oppenheimer's list of dramatis personae includes most of the players apart from financiers. However, it's impossible even to be sure of that.
Top of Page

image   Review of Biography   Jad Adams: Gandhi

Warmed up scraps—nothing important, April 15, 2011

Jad Adams' sources are mostly Gandhi's papers (100 vols now!) and a couple of books by Gandhi) not included in the 'papers', presumably). There's a bibliography—books on Jinna, partition, Wavell, Nehru, Curzon etc.

Unfortunately the spirit of 'revisionism' has left Adams untouched. Gandhi was a media figure, and the motives of those who controlled the media are unmentioned. His activities cannot have been entirely autonomous; Adams provides no useful clues as to what forces were at work. Thus the 'salt tax' protest and the Lancashire visit and the Indian style clothing—all of little importance—get space in this book.

As examples:-
[1] Adams has no clue as to what the British did in India. For instance there's no mentions of the Thugs. I don't think suttee (the self-burning of widows) is mentioned, either. He realises the British built some infrastructure, but the purposes are unknown to Adams. Was the railway system designed for exports, and of little use to Indians? I don't know, nor does Adams. A popular claim made often is that the British 'stole' things from India—Adams says its attraction was 'great wealth and manpower'—now usually an excuse for immigration and continued 'aid' sixty years later. Adams has no summary of the net effect, even just economically, of Britain. This means he has no way to judge whether things in fact didn't change much, after Partition. The word is the thing; India as cheap labour and with an 'elite' may in effect be Gandhi's work.

[2] Adams has no idea of the fanatical and tribal nature of Islam—he seems to imagine it's just another religion. He also isn't much good on Hinduism; he's aware of the caste system, and aware that Gandhi campaigned against it, or said he did, but doesn't castigate the 'racism' which would seem logically consistent. This is Adams, but Gandhi himself seems to have no idea, either. The problem, which I take it was and is immense, of population growth causing ever-increasing stress, was obvious to some observers at the time, but Adams says nothing about it. The vast mass killings at Partition—far larger than the Bengal famine, possibly as large as anything during the second world war—must have had seeds planted throughout the 20th century, and politicians must be partly to blame. But Adams, in his interminable accounts of Gandhi going here or there, gives little information as to how Gandhi addressed these issues, if he did at all. It's not even clear why Gandhi disliked industrialisation: air transport—then of course tiny compared with now—and publishing, railways, and factories are four things referred to—probably he didn't care for Lancashire mill towns or the Indian equivalents, but would he really have objected to tractors and metal ploughs, Henry Ford style factories, industrial cutlery and crockery?

[3] Adams of course puts quite a lot of emphasis on sex, and Gandhi's rather futile attempts to rise above it (live in a state of 'brahmacharya'). He would sleep with nubile young girls—literally sleep, not in the modern idiom. Mountbatten has been accused of buggering young boys, which seems equally worth mentioning in a history of that time, but of course there's no such reference.

[4] The whole process of altering countries, both from inside and outside, is a blank to Adams, who incidentally has no grasp of the nature of the USSR or the forces that converged to create the disaster of the Second World War. This is relevant to Gandhi in South Africa, where he practised as a lawyer (he trained, and 'trained' seems the right word, in London). Gandhi was unimpressed by black Africans, one gathers, though not from this book. Adams simply has no idea of the forces behind the various pretences which have culminated in the present day violent and dangerous South Africa, its resources of course still in the control of foreign owners.

[5] Adams accepts without the remotest reservation the views on both 20th century world wars. He of course has no estimates of the costs in human or any other terms of India being 'automatically' on the side of Britain after Churchill declared war on Germany. Gandhi was 70 at the time and one would guess somewhat out of it—the pronouncements quoted here simply suggest he thought it just another war against just another country.

A lightweight superficial rehash which reads almost like a black and white newsreel of the 1930s.
Here's an online burrowing by 'Josh G' into the truth about Gandhi and his family's wealth and background. And a new (or at least new to me!) overview of his politics and the uses that were made of him. All this includes a well-written account of the 'Inner Temple', which the Indian leaders all attended, and the City of London as a financial area of extraordinary longevity. And an account of the LSE and Harold Laski. And Allan Hume, of the Indian Civil Service, and the 'Theosophy' movement, or project, and opium, and the Indian 'Intelligence Bureau' and attitudes influenced by the 'Indian Mutiny'. And the Partition. And the possibilities of multiple Gandhis.
Top of Page

  Review of Race   John Randal Baker: Race

Interesting, detailed, multifarious, wide-ranging, but inconclusive, April 2, 2011

Baker on 'Race' (1974) is a 600+ page book. It's difficult to review because much of the material isn't clearly to do with race, and the arrangement is a bit arbitrary.

It's in four main parts: 1 The historical background; 2 The biological background; 3 Studies of selected human groups; 4 Criteria of superiority and inferiority. It also has appendices, a long bibliography of 1200 or so items, an Index, and a very short 'table of races and subraces' listing about thirty. The index and bibliography are unusually well laid out, with selected keywords in bold text.

Note that Baker commented on arrangements for tribal group reproduction; he concluded that most of these systems were in effect calculated or arranged to reproduce the gene pools of the various groups. However, these did not include polygamous groups of Muslim types, or the effects of inbreeding and caste (as far as I recall; I don't have the book in front of me as I type).

Various Jews objected to publication, for example 'Ashley Montagu', though there is little or no comment withing the book (as far as I recall).

1 The Historical Background—is the history of writings on races, including Monboddo (an early speculator on man descended from non-man), Kant (who was more aware of geography and peoples than I'd realised), Voltaire and Rousseau, Gobineau and (later) Spengler, and Americans such as Lothrop Stoddard. Much of the material resulted from explorations of Africa and the new discoveries of gorillas, chimps, monkeys, and so on. Mostly this was a long time before photography, and before audio recording. Baker records that the sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, in 1928, was the last person to describe alternative views on race. 'Those who believed in the equality of races were free to write what they liked.' This outlook is often ascribed to, or blamed on, Franz Boas, but he is barely mentioned by Baker, except for his belief that the US environment changed immigrants' features. Some material—for example, Latin and Greek writers on Europe—is not included here, but put into the descriptions of race types. Moreover the whole book seems to emphasise Europe and Africa—there's not much on China or the Indian subcontinent; I'm at a loss to understand why this should be.

2 The Biological Background discusses 'race', in quite an extensive sense, including races of animals and plants and insects. He includes for example dogs, and several races or varieties of Anopheles mosquitoes, and certain butterflies. Naturally he has to mention things like the 'ethnic taxon', and generally wrestle with the vocabulary: he invented or popularised the word 'stirps'. He discusses of course the interbreeding aspect. There are discussions on e.g. gorillas and assorted new and old world apes and monkeys. There's a long section on skull shapes, with some quite spectacular illustrations of differences: skulls give a lot of information, and of course can be preserved, as Cromagnon and other types illustrate. Size, shape, teeth, eye orbits, and other comparative parts, have been measured and listed and compared. (This sort of thing goes back to Albrecht Dürer; somewhat different from d'Arcy Thompson's regular grid, which is then deformed). Baker gives material on genetic differences—blood groups (including monkeys of course) are one rather unavoidable issue, despite the fact these seem purely empirical: I couldn't find anything in Baker giving sound reasons for blood group differences. It's just that they were discovered by 1974. Similarly with sickle cell anaemias. And with the substance phenylthiourea, which was found, purely by chance, to be perceived as tasteless by part of the population, bitter by the rest. However, races involve multiple genes, and Baker discusses the problems involved here. Many people believe, or at least quote, various factoids

HOWEVER there is little on internal organs and biochemistry—hormones etc—nor is there a model for aggressions, emotions, in and out groups ... in fact all the really important stuff is omitted: we're interested in behaviour, both the autonomic sort, and the sort where the brain is involved and beliefs come into play. How are emotions inherited? If people with 'excessive' adrenalin can't sit down and concentrate, is it impossible for them to learn? Are hair-trigger tempers a product of uncertainty? Are some people naturally fanatic? What does it take for other groups to be treated as friends or foes? Baker doesn't have a working model of all the main emotions. Galton has quite a number of mentions (including on dog intelligence).

3 Studies of Selected Human Groups is the longest section, about a third of the book. As I mentioned, for some reason China/ Mongolia ('Mongolids') etc and India and what's now Pakistan and Bangla Desh ('Indianids') are under-represented. Hence I suppose 'Selected'. All the names are geographical, with 'white' names—I'm reminded of geology and mineralogy and the Linnaean scheme, where the oddest names get assigned to strata or rocks or plants.

Thus we have Europids (with subdivisions—Alpids, Mediterranids, Nordids, Lapps). Jews. Celts. Australids. Sanids. Negrids—four separate sections on these. 'Sanids' are bushmen, who Baker mentions partly for their bodily constructions (there are some female genital pictures which appear odd) and partly for their rock face art, which he praises highly as work of genius though it seems the eroded sandstone with overhangs which they used is not very permanent.

In each case Baker examines the name, the primary characters, and the secondary characters. His Europid material has a digression on how the name 'Caucasian' came about, and discusses hybrids of whites/blacks (Baker has noticed the journalistic use of 'black' in the US). He discusses Britain as a 'mongrel race'—'note that all these peoples were not only of one race (Europid) but of one subrace (Nordid).'

He discusses Jews and 'Armenids' with some characteristics. It's striking how variable his source material is—classical authors or other ancient writings, explorers' notes, archaeologists, modern anthropologists. In this case Baker uses Biblical material (he seems unaware of the Talmud etc). Baker mentions the Khazar/ Cozar group, attributing the rediscovery to Joseph Jacobs, who regarded their kingdom as destroyed by Russians in the 10th century. (Jacobs also wrote on renowned Jews, though judging by Baker he had thin material to work on).

The chapter on Celts relies mostly on archaeological evidence—Hallstatt, Danubian evidence, and for Britain Julius Caesar, Iron Age evidence including Maiden Castle, and discussions on migrations.

Baker's four 'Negrid' chapters rely largely on explorers' accounts—in fact he lists his main sources as Fynn, David Livingstone, Galton, Du Chaillu, Speke, S W Baker, and Schweinfurth. It's all interesting stuff—ghastly 'witch doctors', innocent tribes corrupted later by whites, unbounded faith in 'fetishes', cruel customs—but one wonders how much is relevant to race. Of course Africa is a huge continent; 'Sudanids' and 'Aethiopids' appear, and Berbers and Moors and Nilotids and Nilo-Hamites. Baker doesn't seem to consider the general question of subdivisions—race, subrace, then maybe tribes? Perhaps because there seem to be endless complications. He barely mentions Nigeria, for example. He does his best to be even-handed and fair; he includes for example a list of plants domesticated by blacks—but these include maize and tobacco, which of course were introduced from the new world by whites. He does his best to check on and allow for hostile things such as bilharzia, though I don't think he considers geography in sufficient detail—vast plains are for example much harder to defend than regions split up by mountains and water barriers and snow.

Section 4 Criteria of superiority and inferiority has several chapters on Race and Achievement. These include twin inheritance, IQ tests and so on, and sporting achievements (no surprise that some races are better at sprinting, high jumping, etc—though Baker doesn't seem to consider examining less socially approved behaviors). He goes on to try to assess civilisations, including the cruelty of the 'Andids'. None of this material is very satisfactory; what about wars, for example? Baker's conclusion is a bit flat—groups vary, but also overlap, so nobody can say entire groups are superior or inferior. And 'colour' is not much use as a category.

Anyway... interesting, detailed, multifarious, wide-ranging, but inconclusive because it has no way to analyse behaviour differences. I should add that Baker assumes Darwin originated evolutionary theory—he doesn't know about Wallace. And he accepts all the post-World War II mythology (and pre-war) about Nazis, the 'Holocaust', and so on.

Note added later:
Baker, in chapter 27, part of the long section on 'race and achievement' suggests 21 criteria for 'societies ordinarily regarded as civilized...', which I've abbreviated here:-
1 ordinarily clothed
2 keep clean
3 don't severely mutilate or deform
4 build in brick or stone if available
5 many live in towns or cities
6 cultivate plants
7 domesticate animals
8 metals if available
9 wheels
10 use money
11 laws and peaceability
12 defence for accused persons
13 no torture
14 no cannibalism
15 religious systems include ethical elements
16 use script
17 at least a start in numbers
18 calendar accurate to a few days
19 instruction for young
20 some art appreciation
21 knowledge valued for itself
TREY says: Rerevisionist, What would you recommend as the best book you've read on this subject?

I don't know any book that covers the subject. Such a book would need, for example:
  • Information on genes. Some genes are more important than others: if the entire body plan is genetically disrupted, the foetus usually dies. But eye colour doesn't matter much. So variations in type of genes have to be allowed for. Some genes aren't yet understood, notably to do with intelligence, understanding, character, and psychology. The way alleles show up as 'dominant' or 'recessive' is probably just one simple example of DNA not being understood. And the way the entire system developed is not known, although it determines all the parameters of life: for example, the brain is not understood, and therefore the limits of thought can only be speculative.
  • Information on the statistics of inheritance. There are vast numbers of combinations permitted by sexual reproduction. And the effects of reproduction patterns need to be understood. Harems, kidnapping, celibacy, life partnerships, polygamy, selective abortion etc etc introduce variations into races.
  • Information on living creatures . Diseases, parasites, aggressors, availability of food and water, vitamins and minerals, digestive needs (for example, of animal milk). And the living environment: for example, Australia has its own flora and fauna, and human beings form part of this. And human beings themselves: for example, the long period of defencelessness. Geography and soil and climate and gravitation are meta-variables. The way populations evolve can be studied in the animal kingdom much more easily: reproduction rates are higher, behaviour is almost unaffected by inventions and imagination and skills, and there is reduced projection of human attitudes than when trying to study human populations. The subtleties of parasitism, and the highly specialised life-styles of many species, give suggestive parallels to human lives.
  • Information on individuals and the groups they are part of is needed to examine social systems. Probably over a long period micro-evolution makes groups fit their environment.
  • Sub-groups nearly always form: age, sex, expertise, temperament play a part. Large populations offer more scope than small populations, and they may be inbreeding within groups. If several subgroups fit an environment better than undifferentiated groups, presumably they are more likely to survive. This is part of the argument for nations, namely that each group of long-term inhabitants is likely to be better-adapted to its own lifestyle—in this case, territory.
  • Because of the learning abilities of human beings, the effects of language, training, experiment, oratory, and their genetics, are important. For example, the Khazar hypothesis suggests Jews evolved from 900 AD or so under the new influence of imported Talmudic books, which affected the population concerned.
  • Reliable information may prove evasive. There are doubts about many biological techniques, raised by Dr Harold Hillman and others. For example, there are doubts over DNA extraction, and to whether ribosomes generate energy, and whether DNA operates by making proteins. Evidence may be kept secret, in for example crime figures, exam paper performance, war crimes, and behaviour patterns.
    The unabridged, long, version of Race, Evolution and Behavior by J. Philippe Rushton (3rd edn 2000) may be the best available general survey. But I've only seen the short version.
    Maybe there's a book with contributions from many authors; maybe Russian, Chinese or Indian rather than 'western'. if you find one, let me know!
Top of Page

image   Review of Science history   Betty MacQuitty: Battle for Oblivion: Discovery of Anaesthesia

William Morton as the first anaesthetist, March 9, 2011

1969 book. Makes the case for William Morton in 1846 (an American dentist) being the first to operate under anaesthetic—in his case, ether, for the removal of 'a tumour'. There are several other claimants (Jackson, in USA; Simpson, in Britain, who thought chloroform was better). Long accounts of events leading up to this (including the discovery of chemicals and gases), and long accounts of what happened after, including claimants for precedence etc.

There are also agonising accounts of what many operations were like before anaesthesia.

I won't go into detail; the point of this review is to explain what the rather odd title of the book means.
Top of Page

Metapedia   Review of Online Encyclopedia using Wikipedia Software and ConventionsPromising Jew-Aware Reference Site

Metapedia - Same Software as Wikipedia, but Race and Jew Aware - January 18, 2014

Metapedia (.org, not .com), is a promising online site, using (I think) the same software as Wikipedia. The prefix 'meta' is chosen to indicate that it's outside or above or opposite the 'mainstream' media. It may (for all I know) be a riposte to Barbara Spectre's 'Paideia' in Sweden. At the time I write, Metapedia's index page list sixteen language editions, all European. The numbers of articles in each language vary widely: Magyar has more than the others put together; German, English, Swedish, and Spanish follow. This suggests the editors may have been Hungarian, perhaps in Jobbik, but I could find no information about the planners or the contributors.

Click on the language to find the corresponding subsite of metapedia, for example en.metapedia.org, the English language subsite.

If you wish to find Jew-aware information on any person or organisation, try Googling - for example, googling 'metapedia rerevisionist' finds my entry.

The English and American entries are intended to counter the 'strongly biased and hostile "researchers" like Searchlight, Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center, Simon Wiesenthal Centre ..' As yet the content is variable; use the 'search' box to hunt for people and topics. There's a very detailed article on Carleton Coon and his race ideas. 'Martin Gilbert' produces one critical short article (22 million Jewish deaths??); David Irving has a large, but not huge, entry; the Federal Reserve entry is good and detailed; the New York Times entry is mostly historical, not covering post-1945 policies well. On the other hand, Lyndon Johnson is under-researched (Jewish? Intentional damage to blacks? Vietnam War a Jewish money-making scheme?); there's nothing on Larry Silverstein (though the entry for the Jewish judge who awarded him money for the WTC is long); the Bertrand Russell entry doesn't know about his Jewish contacts; there's nothing on Muslim massacres in the Hindu Kush; searching on 'US bases' yields nothing; there isn't much on Lindbergh, though his 1941 Iowa speech is quoted.

Worth bookmarking or remembering. I hope it will increase in quality and quantity. And it may be a valuable resource for Europeans in researching into the histories of countries foreign to them—mythologies, national heroes, views and facts on invasions and conquests. British people know little of the histories of (say) Poland, Finland, modern Greece, Germany, Hungary ... and although machine translations aren't (yet) available (the page URL with minimal effort needs to be pasted into Google translate), this may prove a valuable feature. Each language has its own articles; there seems to be no systematic translation between them. [German metapedia entries on Hitler and Stalin, 'probably the worst criminal in human history', were here.] The Swedish branch of this site, sv.metapedia.org, includes Barbara Spectre (who believe it or not, 'is one of the initiators of the lobby group One Sweden'). I test-drove the Hungarian branch hu.metapedia.org but was a bit disappointed not to find much on Dracul, Vlad the Impaler, the terror (I take it) of Islam. There is no Russian edition; a link to 'WikiSlavia in Russia' doesn't work, but its site volgota.com exists. 2006-2009 was the period of maximum addition of new languages. Possibly the site is growing; possibly it has stalled; possibly it awaits some multi-alphabet interface.
Important Addendum June 2017 This site had some sort of internal takeover, and disappointingly has declined. I can't recommend it. A new rightpedia.org may prove better.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   Bradley R Smith: Break His Bones: The Private Life of a Holocaust Revisionist

Courageous and interesting (but one topic only), March 5, 2011

Interesting book and low-cost; it's readable online in fact.

Bradley Smith has considerable courage—or maybe he just likes taking on an apparently formidable opponent. Founding CODOH is not something a conventionally prudent person would do.

He describes (among other things) his life experiences (few details given, though; has he killed anyone?)/ his first reaction to the taxpayer-funded Holocaust industry building in Washington/ his Spanish wife who's sceptical of his income-generating skills, quoting what sounds like the Spanish version of 'a bird in the hand..'/ the various intellectual games with the ADL etc. I'm tempted to suggest his literary-, and maybe life-, styles are modelled on Hemingway.

I haven't read this very carefully, because there seems to be a missing analytical section. Consider someone like Foxman of the ADL: he's rich in a dollar sense, but compared with the big shadowy figures, the Rothschilds and the rest, he's a small figure. He is paid to lie, like some advertisers, lawyers, or diplomats. If he can't answer, he has to evade and dodge. He has to threaten and bully and use secret thuggery. He has to promote and bend ridiculous laws and exploit their small print. He simply has no option: he can't stop and dismount. He'll go on and on, as will the thousands of similar 'chosen' fanatics. No doubt on his deathbed he'll still be spouting lies with subsidiary clauses. Now Bradley Smith is very good in describing the manoeuvres that necessarily happen when trying to deal with such people. But the real importance is the endgame. And I don't think Smith has a feel for this. There have been huge frauds in the past—but how have they been brought down—if indeed they have? Are there lessons from 9/11, from NASA, from Tonkin, from Hiroshima? Should academics be granted tenure in a more serious sense? Should laws be tightened up to force people to give testimony? Should professional liars be punished in some way proportional to the effects of their lies? Should their collaborators in lies (think e.g. Spielberg) be treated similarly? Should there be retrospective compensation for people who turn out to be libelled? Should all people caught up in huge swindles be guaranteed (say) $25M for full details leading to punishments? I don't know, and I don't think he does—though to be fair nobody in four centuries has come up with anything helpful. His descriptions are a bit like descriptions of bullfights, with Bradley, almost alone, waving his capote; and various cavortings taking place with dangerous snorting animals. It remains to be seen whether he defeats the bull, or is gored himself.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish history of science   Richard P. Feynman: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (Adventures of a Curious Character)

Ingenu Theoretician Who Missed A Lot But Scored Some Successes, December 26, 2010

About forty apparently first-person chapters or stories—collected by Ralph Leighton (who played the piano, and also drummed, with Feynman). The chapters seem, to me, tape recorded, but the method isn't stated). Edited by Edward Hutchins, introduced by Albert R Hibbs of the Jet Propulsion Lab. First published 1985; Feynman died in 1988 'after a long illness'—presumably they were published with Feynman's permission, though I'm uncertain as the chapters are all undated. The book is faintly reminiscent of a book on A N Whitehead by Lucien Price—though the contrast between modes of expression could hardly be more extreme.

Feynman was (judging by these chapters—they may misrepresent him) rather self-effacing and socially inept ('Surely You're Joking..!'), and also not very literate—there are quite a few accounts of his imitating the sound of other languages (Chinese, Italian), and quite a few accounts of his not having read books and indeed whole booklists. I suspect this made him underestimate plagiarism: his account of ants veers towards Fabre; and every single thing in his popular physics books comes from other sources, in my view, except a bit on asymmetry and tau particles. The popular, hyped view of a great educator forging new ways of looking at physics is, in my view, completely and totally wrong.

This book includes most of the material for which Feynman was famous—including appreciation of the female form, safecracking, secret codes—though he seems not to have heard of 'Enigma'—and dislike of religion ('Is Electricity Fire?' shows lack of enthusiasm for Orthodox Judaism.

Just a few chapters:
'He Fixes Radios By Thinking!'—an account of his life and experimentation from about 10 to about 18, including inventing his own notations.

'Always Trying to Escape'—something like an account of lucid dreaming, and the psychology of introspection.

'Meeeeeeee!' a not very convincing commentary on hypnosis—Feynman's attitude was like Derren Brown's.

'You Just Ask Them?'—Account of the social psychology of girls and also whores—Feynman seems to be unworried by commerce and sex—but the chapter is deeper than that (and rather like another chapter, where a con artist tries to get Feynman to pay to be insured against horse race losses—at each step Feynman works out how the fraud operates).

'Lucky Numbers'—Feynman comes across as a 'calculating boy' (there seem to be no 'calculating girls') using a combination of memorised logarithms, roots, and calculus. Probably meaningless to innumerate people, though

'A Different Box of Tools'—some of Feynman's triumphs were working out time-saving calculation methods. But of course since the whole discourse was calculus and related physics, none of this was new or invented by him; he just happened to remember the techniques. Some people will warm to his accounts.

'Testing Bloodhounds'—quite an amusing account of what is almost a 'damn fool experiment' (Erasmus Darwin—played the trombone to his tulips). Feynman wondered how sensitive human smell is; the answer is, surprisingly sensitive.

'But Is It Art?' is Feynman on learning to draw and learning that people can be pleased by commodities—the audience for physics being relatively dispersed. When Feynman was at Caltech—the art galleries and the rest were in places like Pasadena.

'Judging Books by Their Covers—Feynman's venture into the world of book-publishing for schools, and how godawful the books were—and are.

'Bringing Culture to the Physicists'—an account of Feynman decoding the Mayan number system (a complicated thing with bases of 20, and 18) and finding the relationship to Venus—the morning and evening star. (I'm not sure this is credible—surely others must have worked on this?)

'Cargo Cult Science' at the end is a good chapter on American cranks/ fraudulent science, and on controlled experiments (not his phrase) though maybe he is harsh on people for whom knowledge is so remote that is appears unachievable. ('Altered States' is another chapter, looking at the vogue for flotation tanks).

==============================================

My conclusion:

There's an abyss between theoretical and applied physics. Feynman is unquestionable on the theoretical side. There are a few accounts of expensive physics equipment—a cyclotron at Princeton (Feynman was ecstatic at its chaos and messiness) and another at Cornell (about a yard across, but could be unscrewed and mended). Feynman gives no anecdotes about CERN, or electron microscopes (I infer from a mention of ribosomes that he must have had some acquaintance with these). He doesn't mention radio telescopes, though surely Lovell of Jodrell Bank would have been happy to show him around. He also, very significantly, does not mention gaseous diffusion at the Manhattan Project. He has no idea that radar (according to the Chrysler Co) cost more than the Manhattan Project.

One motive I had for checking this book was the specifics of nuclear weapons, since films of tests are now known to include fakery. Feynman talks of uranium nitrate solution, and also carbon tetrachloride; suggesting no in-depth knowledge. There's an account of the 'Trinity Test' (in 'Los Alamos from Below')—when Feynman was about 27—which he claimed to have watched from 20 miles away through truck windscreens. His account mentions a flash, clouds, and a 'big orange ball of smoke' and a 'tremendous bang'. This description helped convince me Feynman was a mathematical physicist only; a serious physicist would surely have mentioned other things. His tau particle asymmetry (for which he got a *joint* Nobel Prize) relies on observations from other people's particle accelerators—but Feynman seems never to have checked for artefacts in these devices. If there was skulduggery, I don't think Feynman was a part of it—he sounds to me a 'loose cannon', not a suitable subject for lifelong fraud.

Not for everyone, but a 5 star performance.
Top of Page

image   Review of British Politics and Jewish Interventions   John Tyndall: Eleventh Hour: Call for British Rebirth

Interesting mainly for its thoroughgoing alternative position, December 25, 2010

** LONG REVIEW WARNING!**
John Tyndall 1934-2005 The Eleventh Hour 1988, revised 1998 (it's unclear which parts are new).

About 550 pages; indexed fairly thoroughly, though concepts are hard to relocate—Tyndall several times describes his attitude to ordinary voters, but I couldn't relocate these passages.

This was largely written in 1986 during (I think) a six month gaol sentence for 'incitement to racial hatred'; or for telling the truth—Ronald Rickcord says this in the introduction. He, with John Morse, Tony Lecomber, and Nick Griffin are all thanked for assisting with this book. Possibly they supplied Tyndall with books, in his cell; Tyndall gives shortish extracts from Correlli Barnett, Barry Domvile, David Irving, Basil Liddell-Hart, Oswald Mosley, Carroll Quigley and lesser-known writers—Ludovici, John Terraine, Peter Peel.

This is a combination of autobiography, British and world history, and the record of small parties and their activities.

The autobiographical side is not enormously detailed: how Tyndall funded himself, for example, is not clear, though this is partly to protect other people, in an atmosphere where free speech is deliberately opposed by the authorities. His daughter, like Eysenck's kids, seems to have had to change her name. When young he did national service in Germany and was unimpressed by the officers; but he read up on German and Russian history. He visited Moscow and noted the couriers were mostly Jewish.

Tyndall is Britain-centred and I think over-emphasises the Empire, which in my view was not as immense as Britons liked to think. (Almost all the western hemisphere was American; much of northern Asia was Russian; the French had a huge empire; and so on). Perhaps he overstates decline, as a result. He's very serious about race, and deplored the American Revolution, and hoped for restitution of the Dominions—Canada, ANZ, and south Africa. He thinks whites will have to return to Africa. Tyndall has quite a long view of history: he deplores the Boer War; he deplores the abandonment of the Anglo-Japanese agreements before the First World War.

Naturally he takes wars with Germany very seriously: these sections are most contrary to present mass opinion. Like many advanced thinkers, Tyndall deplored the First World War. He also deplores the Second, which he regards as partly related to Germany's economic policy. Tyndall favoured allowing Germany to defeat Stalin. And Tyndall lists the various bits of lying and deceit (lies about Germany, invasion of Poland as an excuse, alliance with USSR as a crime, Churchill not shown as the pathetic pawn he was in Roosevelt's hands etc.)

Another unconventional position is his discussion on paper money, notably of course the Rothschilds and others. Obviously this is a taboo topic—I doubt the Financial Times or Wall Street Journal has ever had pieces on the insane secret profits of printers of money and their modern electronic equivalents.

His history of ideas sections are of course contrary to mass opinion. They deal with wide ranges of topics: democracy (Athens, 18th century, assumption of interparty strife); liberalism (putting personal gains before a nation); tariffs; balance of power (and why this was disastrous for Britain after about 1900); race and territory (he has a more or less Darwinian outlook, rather than the statistical sociobiological view); verbal tricks, such as defining the end-points of 'extremism'.

Tyndall outlines the various mini-parties, beginning (perhaps) with the League of Empire Loyalists, a pressure group within the Tories, which must have started after 1948-ish. A K Chesterton was a member. Tyndall makes it clear that all these groups were non-violent; his claim is that all the attributions of violence are phoney. He makes many comments on new parties: leaders remain while the faint-hearts leave; there are several types of disruptors; the general public aren't to blame for their inertia. Or not entirely. Tyndall doesn't go into much detail, possibly because leafletting and canvassing aren't very exciting. Some of his information is on the anti-free speech movement: for example a bookshop was started in 1989 in Welling, Kent, but closed in a few years by a combination of thugs and the Labour, Tory, and Lib Dem parties. There were agents provocateurs: Combat 18, for example, a fake group set up probably by the 'intelligence' 'services'. John Kingsley Read was another variety of fraud.

The last-but-one chapter is 'The British National Party' which summarises his view of it up to 1998. Since then, that party has expanded considerably; the main internal split is on the issue of immigrants who have been in Britain for a few decades.

This book is as far as I know unique in its overview and grasp of the period; I recommend it for anyone wanting to understand the issues. You'll learn far more than is possible from the routine agenda-skewed opposition publications. It's not bullet-pointed or summarised, and has to be treated as a long read. I don't think it's a pioneeringly first-rate work, in the sense of rearranging facts about the world into a convincing new vision. But in the face of modern censorship, it's an important book.

============================

Some general points: --
* Tyndall was keen on physical fitness—rather like the Duke of Edinburgh, except that he practised it himself. Tyndall dislikes poor posture and general laziness and unfocussed slacking. This of course is fair enough, and most opponents of 'decadence' pay lip service to this sort of thing. Tyndall extends this puritanism to dislike of homosexuality and pop music, which however, don't seem to me very politically important.
* Tyndall isn't very good on economic causation and money power. As an example, he wonders how Zionism is able to influence so many people. He doesn't investigate bribery and purchase as in for example Bilderberg. One politician, or for that matter police chiefs or judges or editors or TV producers, bribed, or appointed because of their views, can have vast effects. This of course has to be secret, provided there's any remaining power of public opinion.
* Tyndall I think isn't good on the macro-economics of states either. He thinks India was a drain on Britain (in contrast with the 'imperialist' idea). In effect, India may have been a sort of quango for otherwise unemployable military or engineering types. I don't know if this is true, but Tyndall doesn't produce evidence. Similarly with south Africa: he registers the huge campaign against apartheid, but doesn't seem to notice that the mineral wealth ended up (I believe) controlled by jews while the general population go to hell. Another example is the fall of the Soviet Union, which Tyndall, like most people, thinks was a genuine revolution. In fact, surely the case must be that the assets must have been legally tied up with some care, mostly by Jewish 'oligarchs'.
Tyndall's anti-unbacked-money comments aren't quantified. No doubt the issue (pun intended) is important, but just how important remains unclear.

* His book was written during a long period of 'Conservative' power, and so is a useful counterweight to the present, when we've had 'new Labour' for about ten years. However, Tyndall is useful in reminding the reader how the Tories' cowardice in tackling anti-free speech thugs helped the country get into a mess. Tyndall discusses general elections from 1974 through to 1997 (though 1992 is missing for some reason). For example, 1979 was a high point for the National Front, in the sense that 301 constituencies were fought, nearly half the total.

* Tyndall is quite good on laws—for example, the way the Public Order Act of 1936 was misused (pages 182-186). Obviously, in an era of general deceit, there's no option but to read the texts of laws with great care, since obviously the subtext will be hidden where possible.

* His book predates 9/11, which may be counted a start-date to anti-Muslim struggles. Islam is barely mentioned, except when discussing Arabs and the Middle East. Tyndall's book predates the secret agreement of 2000/1 when 'Labour' decided to flood as many immigrants in as possible without any democratic mandate. And it predates the spin doctor era of Blair.

* Tyndall discusses whether America is an empire (and whether it was ever seriously separate from Russia). However he does not integrate the views of such people as Chomsky and Pilger: are corrupt third world countries that way because of the people, or because the CIA and corporations have made them that way, through wars, assassinations, and so on? There are severe limits to Chomsky and Pilger—notably their ignorance of Zionist influence, and their lack of technical knowledge of everything from populations and their food to raw materials and technological needs. But Tyndall (and anyone serious) should take their opinions into account.
Top of Page

image   Review of British history   Philip Baker: The Putney Debates: The Levellers

Profoundly disappointing, December 25, 2010

I bought this book out of general interest—is it true that Cromwell's soldiers invented democracy? Is it true there was a series of debates going to the roots of politics?

Note, five years later: Emerging from the murk, it seems clear Cromwell was a tool of Jews, who wanted to enter Britain, to start their Bank and exploit England, Ireland, and the New World. Not 'democracy'. But Jews may have wondered about opposition from the landed (and traditionally rather warlike) aristocracy. Could these 'debates' have been set up as a divide-and-rule strategy? It seems likely enough. (At this time I happen not to have access to my books, so I leave the question here).
I found putneydebates.com, on The 360th celebrations, at St Mary’s Church, Putney, October 2007. This site sells 2 DVDs:
Film 1 The Story of the Debates Extracts from the play are intercut with comments from historians: John Morrill, Antonia Fraser, and Quentin Skinner; Rev Dr Giles Fraser, politicians Justine Greening, Susan Kramer, Martin Linton filmed on a 17th wherry rowed from Westminster to Putney; and Civil War re-enactment scenes.
Film 2 What’s Wrong with Britain’s Democracy? A modern Putney Debate chaired by Geoffrey Robertson QC. with Billy Bragg, Shami Chakrabarti, historians Tony Benn, Tristram Hunt, Antonia Fraser.
Antonia Fraser wrote (among other 'history' books) Cromwell, Our Chief of Men. Robertson introduced the book being reviewed; see notes below on his money-making legal scheme. Billy Bragg is a sort of zero-intellect folk-joke singer. Here's my review/obituary of Benn. Chakrabarti is one of many rented foreigners, paid as she long as she remembers what lies she has to tell.
    All this certainly adds weight to the idea that 'democracy' was a fake, foisted on England in a way designed to support Jewish crime. To this day it appears to be defended by a corps of liars and collaborators.

All this may help people decipher what such outfits as Common Purpose mean by the 'post-democratic era'.
DeadlyRhythm84: Youtube 10 Jan 2016: Cromwell certainly tried his best to let the Jews back in, But the English parliament of the time rejected it.
Rerevisionist: the Bank of England was established. Those were the 'Jews' Cromwell was paid by.
Matt Thompson: And then London burned down. lol...
Rerevisionist: Possible connection with the 'Great Fire' and the later Bank of England. 1666 Great Fire/ St Paul's Cathedral in the Blitz.

This book has the texts (or claims to have the texts) of seven pamphlets, with modernised spelling and probably some rewording. All but one predated the 1647-1649 debates, and formed, presumably, part of the mental atmosphere of the times. There is a single chapter on the Putney debates; about 40 pages. All the text selection and annotation is by someone called Philip Baker; Geoffrey Robertson's sole contribution is an introduction of about twenty pages.

After some poking around on Internet, it seems clear the definitive edition of the Putney debates was edited by A S P Woodhouse, a literary historian who died in 1964. His first edition, confusingly titled 'Puritanism and Liberty', was published in 1938, taken from shorthand documents organised by Clarke (I think). Baker, irritatingly, gives almost no information on the printed sources, not even the size and scale of these publications; nor on his reasons for choosing the selections—and in any case a badly-worded comment suggests he may have not consulted the originals.

I was surprised to find the 'Debates' were far more formal and constricted than I'd assumed. British readers will know what I mean when I say it reads a bit like 'Question Time', a BBC/state propaganda thing. There was quite a small cast of characters, including Cromwell. It's amusing to find that women were automatically not considered. Nor were beggars and a few others; however one has to wonder about what a 'freeman' actually was.

Robertson's introduction describes the start of the Debates, but he soon peters out and turns to legal precedents—such as rights in written form, the comfort of prisoners, and juries deciding against judge's direction—supposedly set at this time. Unfortunately, for several reasons, I found this unsatisfactory;

[1] There are numerous conventions which Robertson accepts without realising they are disputable: 'Areopagitica' is trumpeted as advocating a free press without any qualification; the English priority for written documents seems doubtful—for example, at the time of Magna Carta, there were lots of similar documents promulgated throughout Europe. The change in meaning of 'leveller' from an insult is mentioned, but not discussed. The funding of Cromwell by Dutch Jews, which may (or may not) have underwritten 18th century oppression in Britain.
[2] The fact is that trial by Jury, Parliament, habeas corpus etc existed well before the Civil War. Is it really the case that important precedents were set? One has to wonder even about regicide—there must have been innumerable examples of the execution of failed leaders.
[3] Robertson rather disturbingly imports assorted anachronisms: jack-boots (in the populist modern sense), 'appeasement', 'charisma', 'revolutionary'.
[4] Robertson has no idea of economics and productivity—he simply assumes we have progress. No doubt if industrialism fails, slavery will return, and types like Robertson will argue why it's necessary and desirable. His introduction ends with a paean to the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'; ignoring small matters like voting fraud, intimidation, puppet electees, and widespread wars. And the unelected EU making law, about which Robertson makes no comment.

It turns out that Robertson (QC) has 'Chambers' in Doughty Street, slogan 'At the heart of human rights'. He seems to have some enthusiasm for revolutions and violence, no doubt in practice of the desk warrior type. (The cover of this book includes an advert for a book on Trotsky—mass murderers? No objection—and also the witless Eagleton on 'Jesus Christ'). Modern human rights of course is a euphemism for taking government and pressure-group money in anti-white activity. It's curious that lawyers' actions, because of the process of precedent, live on. Unlike advertisers, hired to promote some third-rate product, lawyers have to pretend for the rest of their lives that they really believed in whatever absurdity they promote. And also in the non-existence of other 'products'. (I see for example Robertson is very anti-Pope, because of child abuse allegations. Where is his activity on Muslim paedophile grooming? Where is his activity on Eastern European women used as prostitutes in Israel? What about cover-ups of paederasty/paedophilia in Britain?)

In sum, it's impossible to recommend this book. The history of the period is shaky, the legal material problematical, and the sociology looks unreliable. Worth mentioning also is the tiny typeface, lack of index, and godawful cover design. This is a 'Verso' book (left-hand page, geddit?) with all the limitations of the Jewish fake 'left'.

My notes (in this same page) on Gerrard Winstanley.
Top of Page

Media Law   Review of Fascinating Inbuilt Assumptions of Simple Advocates   Geoffrey Robertson QC & Andrew Nicol, QC: Media Law (4th edn; Penguin Books; 1984-2002)

** Amazon removed this from their reviews after a few days ** approx. 12th April 2014
This review was banned by Amazon UK!! Read it here!
How to Get Away with Things ... BUT only if you're politically correct
  5th April 2014
Read between the lines to understand the Jewish menace within a corrupt legal system.
Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Edmund Connelly: Jew-aware film critic

  15th January 2014
Moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Christians and Poverty   Yvonne Burgess: The Myth of Progress

If you're rich, you can laugh at riches...., December 8, 2010

Published by a small British press, Christian in the Iona Community sense, agonising over poor areas of cities, or, as here, Africans.

Strange hypocrisy throughout the book—she takes up some post in an African village, paying her, no doubt, many times what the locals can earn, able to fly home, cushioned with luxuries. Or chats to an African with an 'affluent, jet-setting lifestyle' who explains to her they want the same things, to her embarrassment. She seems to have been a missionary, in absurd contrast with her claim (page 149) 'Surely it is self-evident that people should be accepted and respected as they are, on their own terms, and .. should not be required to become like Westerners before we take them seriously.' (All whites are 'Westerners' however different they may be; yet the author takes care to distinguish black tribes). She is of course 'anti-racist'. And I suppose inevitably—though why one guesses this isn't clear—she knows nothing of Moslem slavery and atrocities, or the near-universality of slavery before machines. Nor does she know southern Africa had a small population; it has now, thanks to whites, multiplied probably 500-fold, I'd guess. It's true that much of Africa—the Congo for example—must have needed skill to survive in. But she has no interest in technique: 'It was explained to us that the trade in tropical crops was what had enabled Britain to become a world power.')—as far as she's concerned, black simple life is tales and chants and dances and benign spirits.

I bought this book because of the interesting title. The content is only of interest as showing the white guilt trip of a poorly-informed woman—probably well-meaning, but it's not even possible to definitely assert that; could she be resentful of rich men who joked about her missionary parents?
Top of Page

image   Review of Immigration but without Jewish mention   David Conway: A Nation of Immigrants?: A Brief Demographic History of Britain

Solid shortish book on population movements into Britain, designed to oppose errors, December 8, 2010

Published by 'Civitas' (civitas.org.uk) of The Institute for the Study of Civil Society. Short book—about 100 pages. Has endnotes, but is not indexed. It's unillustrated; this may sound trivial, but it means there are no graphs, maps, photos or other aids. The 'Gumball' video illustrates something like the opposite approach; it can be more effective.

Conway clarifies at the start that the 'nation of immigrants' claim presumably is the claim that a majority of people in Britain are descended from immigrants who entered Britain at some stage, when Britain existed—i.e. not the mists of prehistory.

British history is split into five time zones - up to the Roman Conquest (and its fall)/ Up to the Norman Conquest in 1066/ then to the Reformation/ then to Second World War/ finally, 1945 to the present—publication was in 2007.

He's picked these dates because they represent various types of immigration:
* Up to the Roman Conquest—the view now is that agriculture replaced hunter/gatherer life by diffusion, not invasion. Then of course 'Romans' invaded, tho these were mostly Belgae etc. So his first interval includes the Romans.
* There were Angles, Saxons and so on, and Vikings. And some Jews. Conway adduces evidence that the numbers weren't large.

Throughout there is evidence from DNA studies, some on bones a thousand or more years ago. B Sykes and S Oppenheimer are cited here. The Reformation introduced religious refugees, Protestants mostly. These included the Huguenots, whom Conway praises as does almost everyone.

* Up to the Second World War there were Jews round about 1890. Alien Act 1905. And Alien Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919. Their numbers however were dwarfed by the Irish. Conway is good on the reasons for England allying with Scotland, then Ireland—defensive measures against France.

* After the Second World War. Conway quotes official figures illustrating the 'staggering growth', mostly in England. He subdivides the period: 1945-1948 (including Poles left from WW2; and Ukrainians—I met an 82-year old Ukrainian woman who bemoaned men she knew from the next village getting married in UK bigamously); 1948-1971 1948 British Nationality Act (under Attlee, Labour) 'extended a right to them all [i.e. Indians and Pakistanis], even after independence' 1969 Commonwealth Appeals Act p 76; 1971-1997 1971 Immigration Act and 'patriality' (p 76) and where the EU had a problem with the eastern borders when the USSR failed, and 1997 is the start of Tony Blair's disastrously dogmatic 'New Labour' regime; 1997—present includes the further unfolding of chain immigration, arranged marriages, female genital mutilation, 'honour killings', fake asylum, fake students, movement of labour, and all the rest. [1981 Nationality Act changed legal meaning of 'British'—under Labour]

Conway identifies some influential publications and people:--
* 1996 'Commission for Racial Equality': 'Roots of the Future: Ethnic Diversity in the Making of Britain'. Conway says in effect this was propaganda rubbish promoting the lie of a 'mongrel nation'.
* 2000 Barbara Roche speech on 'UK migration in a global economy'. Conway says this was the start of the odd idea that unskilled illiterates were valuable to the economy and would 'pay our pensions'.
* 2004, R Winder, 'Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain'. Conway, here implies this book is simple propaganda, aimed at an increasingly annoyed white populace.
* 2006 B Sykes and S Oppenheimer publish, says Conway, books with very similar accounts of results of DNA research into Britons, showing small penetration even by Angles and Saxons who were supposed to have invaded en masse.

This book needs to be read several times over, to get the feel for the way politicians have slanted and lied about the issues. 'The relatively high level of social harmony Britain has enjoyed results from the fact that earlier waves of immigrants ... had to adapt... Now our culture, and our nation, are in danger of fragmenting...' Conway doesn't tackle, or I think mention, the possible real differences in races—for example the lack of achievements by Africans. ome influential publications and people:--

Top of Page

image   Review of Race psychology   Malcolm Gladwell: Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking

I decided in a few seconds this book is crappy psychobabble, December 8, 2010

It's not clear whether this book has anything in it that could be called a 'theory'.

Gladwell (if he wrote it—there's so much race awareness that I can't help wondering if the book was ghosted for a professional half-caste) has two characteristics, typical of the market aimed for: [1] They must have no knowledge outside any conventional establishment beliefs, [2] They must be swayed by emotions—violence, typically, though softer emotions peep in as well.

Some of Gladwell's examples are taken (I'd guess from popular books) from such worlds as art appreciation, wars, police activity, market research into drinks, and formal music. In each case the 'American' view is assumed without thinking (even momentarily). A few examples: Tom Hanks has appeared in essentially misleading films on e.g. AIDS, Vietnam war, Second World War, NASA—but Gladwell knows nothing of this, and quotes some real or imaginary casting person talking about Hanks's supposed wonderful screen image. There's an account of a cheap brandy, packaged in a boring way, losing ground to another brandy, packaged attractively. There's something similar about 'colas'—the amazing insight that one sip of a drink may have a different effect from a whole bottle. A 'veteran' of Vietnam is discussed (there is a painfully long digression on military matters) with no discussion of the rather overwhelming superiority of firepower.

The examples Gladwell gives of accurate split-second decisions generally need huge amounts of preliminary work—e.g. whether a classical trombone player is good, whether an artwork is a fake, how to sell cars, whether a facial expression exists—two men (who appeal to Derren Brown) get quite long mentions, but their decisions are only possible because videos of facial expressions now exist. All of this material is what might reasonably be called 'learning'. Some material, for example the effect of facial expressions on emotions (in addition to the other way round—something claimed by William James) or of words of a certain tone on people's behaviour (New Yorkers becoming polite because of reading scrambled sentences with polite words in) doesn't seem to connect with the general idea of the book.

One star. But only because I'm in a good mood.
Top of Page

image   Review of Blacks with some Jewish interest   Rita Marley: No Woman No Cry: My Life with Bob Marley

A review from England!, December 8, 2010

This is presumably aimed at black(ish) women. And the idea is to think how wonderful.

This was co-written by Hettie Jones, who apparently lives in Manhattan and seems to be a sort of professional black. It's impossible to tell how much of it is Rita Marley's own words.

The blurb says she was 'the mother of Bob's children'—a b/w photo shows eight of them, many by other women. This was after Marley's death in 1981 apparently by cancer after a toe injury—I have to say this sounds odd to me. His first recording 'One Cup of Coffee' was 1973; his total musical career was thus about eight years, much of it on the road. They started off selling and distributing their own records. I don't think they had much studio equipment. Thus for example Boney M's versions of No Woman No Cry are infinitely technically superior.

I *think* though this is hard to check that Marley appealed to the Jewish promotion industry—as with the NAACP (run by Jews) much of the promotion/ ad/ press. 'Four Hundred Years' fitted this. The actualities of deals and record promotion are missing from this book, as are the details about the 'Bob Marley Foundation' which she 'helps run' but the plain fact is advertising and legal stuff and collecting royalties and the rest is expensive. My guess is if he'd written songs on (say) Che Guevara and revolution he'd never have become famous.

Much of the book is about Jamaica of course but I found it rather hard to make sense of. One moment the place seems full of gunslinging political killers murdering each other, with starving prostitutes and drug addicts dotted about; then there are respectable homes, built admittedly in a shack style, with tasty market food and happy people. ('.. one of the best houses around.. 18A Greenwich Park Road, Kingston').

Marley kept an open house—though this may not have been by choice, as various more or less shady types tended to turn up looking for shelter or help or money.

Let's hope Rita wasn't ripped off too much—Marley died intestate and there were internal dislikes in the Wailers. Because of the wonders of recording, there are endless possibilities for exploitation: think of Jim Reeves—whose voice was recorded without backing, so he could be reissued endlessly after death; Elvis Presley and his film entanglements. Marley probably makes more money dead than alive now but the whole of this sort of thing is left rather mysterious.

She apparently lives in Ghana in a house she bought, driving a BMW I think.
Comment from 'Cowan Bellarmino' Aug 31, 2011

Interesting review. Your thought on his promoters is probably correct. He was signed with Island records, run by Chris Blackwell (dubbed "Whiteworst" by Peter Tosh) of sephardic jewish heritage, and the heir of the Appleton Rum estate. I find that interesting because of the obvious connections with the slave trade that rum and sugar production entail, and the prevailing message of much of reggae music. Blackwell did promote Bob to become a solo act, steering him to cast off Bunny and Peter, although incremental fame probably had a lot to do with that separation as well. Subsequently, he formed Mango records which released much of Bunny's first solo productions—more slices of the pie. My own sense is that Bob was exploited, perhaps in some degree willingly, by this promotional network that was very adept at molding his earnest message of black redemption to fit its own global strategy. Of note is that toward the end of his life, he was finally able, after many attempts, to become baptized into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. His earlier attempts at this were blocked by certain "Rastafarian" interests, who promised to cut his life short if he did that. A famous, international star becoming an Orthodox Christian would not only harm the promotion of Rasta (controlled by masonic and/or kabbalistic interests), it would also turn many of his fans onto something that was outside of the control system. This fact remains hidden to this day, and when the eventual Marley biopic is released, I'm sure it will be completely omitted.

While "One Cup of Coffee" was actually recorded in 1962, it's a modified cover of Dylan's tune "One More Cup of Coffee." The song was produced by a Chinese-Jamaican named Leslie Kong, who was a business partner of Chris Blackwell. A closer look at the promotional network that advanced folks like Dylan and Marley indeed yields some interesting results.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish science fraud   David Mairowitz: [Wilhelm] Reich for Beginners

Freudian Marxism—but—most important info about Reich is missing, December 8, 2010

Reich is little-known, not surprisingly as he achieved nothing much. His book 'Listen, Little Man' however was liked by some people whose views deserve respect. As far as I could find, it's not mentioned in Mairowitz and Gonzales' comic illustrations book.

The format is unusual and there's no reason for it not to work. I don't think it does here because, with tedious inevitability, this is just another Jewish/USA book. Throughout there's the usual stuff about Nazis, Hitler starting the war (in fact, Britain declared war on Hitler), omission of the effects of the First World War. In the USA, the Rosenbergs are referred to a 'so-called 'Atom-Spies'', Joe McCarthy is a baddy, and all the rest.

Reich was Austrian and resembled Freud in some of his ideas, notably the sex bits—'sexual revolution' I suppose being based on the 'Russian Revolution'. Reich seems to have made money as a therapist and author; all this is not very clear (and may not be known for certain, of course). Later in life Reich became a pseudo-scientist, in both biology and physics: for example he thought up an 'orgone accumulator'—like many people, he constructed beliefs around the word 'energy'. He devised what he apparently believed to be a rain making machine—this cartoon book implies that it worked, which cannot be correct. By this time he was in the USA, and there was FDA action against him; he felt and perhaps was a victim—it's hard to judge and the effort of ploughing through court transcripts is off-putting.

Reich deserves a small book, but it would need a sympathetic understanding of Jews, wars, mass propaganda, science, and the psychology of getting science wrong. This book isn't it.
Top of Page

image   Review of Crowd psychology   W Trotter: Instincts of the herd in peace and war

Smug and agonisingly badly-written—evolution of groups—Germany and England, December 7, 2010

Wilfred Trotter was a surgeon (born in the same year as Bertrand Russell) who, coming up to 40, wrote about the 'herd instinct'. A few years later, these essays were incorporated into this book, published in 1916, before the USA came into the war. The title of course reflects the war. There was a second edition in 1919.

His essays may have been suggested by Gustave le Bon; but le Bon was enormously influenced by the French Revolution as it appears in conventional history, and usually regarded crowds as irrational and easily swayed, So this book is not just a nationalistic version in the way Sargant (British) ripped off an American author on 'brainwashing' and Korea. Trotter mentions Freud, then rather new, possibly because Freud was medically qualified too, distinguishing him (and other psychoanalysts) from ordinary medically-untrained psychologists. Trotter's writing style is agonisingly plodding, I'd guess as a gentlemanly badge—I'm sure he could easily have written in a more sprightly manner. He reminds me a bit of Dalrymple, writing today, an expert wanting to step into a more general field.

Trotter thinks 'herds' should be expected to have 'instincts' for evolutionary reasons. 'Herd' is perhaps an attempt to translate the Latin grex, from which 'gregarious' was coined—it's not meant in a pejorative sense. Trotter thinks one-celled creatures were limited evolutionarily; evolution into multicellular creatures allows evolution fresh scope. (He doesn't attempt to explain how organs developed, though). Trotter then extends this into herds, which have further scope—though it's not exactly evolution, since a herd doesn't reproduce itself. Some of his evidence comes from animals—not the vast range as deployed by Dawkins, but more domestic dogs, cats, bees, sheep, horses—and also, especially, wolves. (E.g. solitary herbivores could not exist, if they spent most of their time watching for predators). Some evidence is from human beings—mostly English and Germans. He does NOT discuss bringing up children, which surely is a good reason to develop groups—maybe he thought it's unmanly? Much of this is derived from Karl Pearson (who for decades has provoked shrieks of 'eugenics'). Trotter is unobservantly nationalistic: 'The nation, if the term be used to describe every organization under a completely independent, supreme government, must be regarded as the smallest unit on which natural selection now unrestrictedly acts'.

Interesting idea, but hard to develop. As regards people, Trotter regards self-preservation, nutrition, and sex as 'obvious instincts' but then adds gregariousness. There's obviously a problem with ingrained, but wrong, beliefs, so he includes 'suggestibility' as a factor. And he distinguishes 'stable minded' or 'socialized' people, typically military or religious types, who believe and do what they've been told, from the 'feeling' type who because of what they've experienced may not to.

Trotter, following Freud, regards the unconscious as a squalid, animal-like thing, which seems a bit unfair; if someone e.g. works hard through cold weather, and then makes him/herself comfortable in an animal way by warming up before a fire and eating—why should that be 'primitive'?

Trotter also doesn't seem to realise (this is from Leibnitz) that an unconscious is necessary, just as memory is, or you'd spend all your time just thinking the same thoughts over again.

He's also irrationally fierce on 'irrationality': 'He will have strong views upon military and naval strategy, the principles of taxation, the use of alcohol and vaccination, the treatment of influenza, the prevention of hydrophobia, upon municipal trading, the teaching of Greek, upon what is permissible in print, satisfactory in literature, and hopeful in science. The bulk of such opinions must necessarily be without rational basis, since many of them are concerned with problems admitted by the expert to be still unsolved, while as to the rest it is clear that the training and experience of no average man can qualify him to have any opinion upon them at all. The rational method adequately used would have told him that on the great majority of these questions there could be for him but one attitude—that of suspended judgment.'

He has a solution to irrationality: 'The solution would seem rather to lie in seeing to it that suggestion always acts on the side of reason; if rationality were once to become really respectable, if we feared the entertaining of an unverifiable opinion with the warmth with which we fear using the wrong implement at the dinner table, if the thought of holding a prejudice disgusted us as does a foul disease, then the dangers of man's suggestibility would be turned into advantages.'

---
ENGLISH VS GERMANS. Much of this book is on the difference between Germans and English (not British—the word barely appears). No doubt the readers liked it... England tends to be taken off guard by foreigners. Trotter regards wolves as highly organised, and thinks they take mad vicious risks when they're in pack mode—he doesn't see them as animals needing to eat. So the Germans are 'lupine'—and the fall of the Roman Empire, as taught in England, illustrates this. He says Germans (or Prussians) are nasty and punishing to their underlings; he doesn't seem to factor in such facts as English trenches being far worse than Germans—trench foot was commonplace; deserters were shot, and so on. He doesn't consider the geography of Germany as a relatively exposed vaguely-defined land area. He mentions Germany as having brilliantly won a series of small wars, without mentioning that Britain had done more of the same. He doesn't even mention, in the second edition (1919), that Britain didn't win on its own.

So all this is conventional and disappointing. And by Trotter's own criteria, Trotter had no right to any of these views!

---
There are a couple of famous bits -

MEETING SOMEONE NEW: 'When, therefore, we find ourselves entertaining an opinion about the basis of which there is a quality of feeling which tells us that to inquire into it would be absurd, obviously unnecessary, unprofitable, undesirable, bad form, or wicked, we may know that that opinion is a non-rational one, and probably, therefore, founded upon inadequate evidence'

THE DOG SNIFF TEST, quoted somewhere in Aldous Huxley: 'When one hears or takes part in these elaborate evolutions, gingerly proffering one after another of one's marks of identity, one's views on the weather, on fresh air and draughts, on the Government and on uric acid, watching intently for the first low hint of a growl, which will show one belongs to the wrong pack and must withdraw, it is impossible not to be reminded of the similar manoeuvres of the dog, and to be thankful that Nature has provided us with a less direct, though perhaps a more tedious, code.'

----
I'd intended to quote some more examples of Trotter's writing style, but on second thoughts they're simply too long. But take it from me—it's an endurance test. Scriptwriters who wanting a boring post-Edwardian interminable sermon-like speech, while the hero and heroine plan something exciting, might copy chunks of it.

This is a smug non-urgent book, by an author with no idea of the destructiveness and harm likely to result from war. It's quite sickening in that sense, in fact. However it is not aggressively nationalistic or warlike. I doubt if it sold more than a few tens of thousands.
Top of Page

image   Review of Junk political biography   Anthony Seldon: Blair Unbound

Fascinating to see lightweight journalistic trash, December 3, 2010

Fascinating to see what in effect is an official account of Blair. The sources are largely anonymous interviews and it's amusing to think of the rubbish deposited at the Bodleian. There are three authors listed overtly, and a dozen or more in the acknowledgements.

The author is a headmaster and 25 titles are listed since 1981, many jointly authored or edited books. In effect these books are ghosted by teams, and most input seems to be from journalists. The acknowledgements state that 'any profits will go to charity' and one suspects the whole thing was a funded job by pressure groups, probably NWO/ Bilderberg/ Labour Party/ Jewish groups.

The style was I think established by books on J F Kennedy: lots on clothes, food, arguments, interior decor, meeting places. Lots on personalities insofar as permitted. Nothing whatever on underlying military/ financial structure, establishment officials, banks and money, weapons.... Imagine a book on schoolboys educated in nothing much squabbling while the real actors make decisions elsewhere. That's this book.

What does it miss out? Well—it kicks off with 9/11 2001. The description says nothing of radar defences of the USA, airport manipulations, Silverstein. Rather amusingly shows the 'intelligence heads' and Blair watching TV. Nothing about WTC7 and the BBC. The implication is that Blair and the rest are innocent bewildered people overtaken by events, naturally enough the official version.

Without going into immense detail, the same sort of thing is true throughout the book. Kosovo for example has no mention anywhere of Muslims; probably Seldon knows nothing about them in any case. Iraq is represented as it might be by CNN or the BBC. David Kelly, probably murdered, isn't even in the index! Such things as the PFI scandals and for example 'academies'—an excuse for 'sponsors' to take public money—barely get a mention.

Throughout the time supposedly covered by this book, Britain and Europe were subject to what must be deliberate flooding by immigrants, an EU policy. The Human Rights Act was used as a pretext to allow this. Again, it isn't even indexed. There is establishment stuff on the EU—constitution, referendum etc—with no indication that any of the authors have a clue as to its likely impact—for example the closing down of Parliament and rule by unelected bureaucrats.

I bought this out of curiosity, remaindered for £4.99 about 18 months after it was published. It is utter trash. Britain has caught up with the plaster monument era of J F Kennedy.
Top of Page

Whos Who
Review (mostly) of Alex Comfort's Authority and Delinquency. A study in the Psychology of Power.
(1950 Routledge & Kegan Paul; paperback 1970, edited in unspecified ways, Sphere Paperback)
Could be a Jew in Crypsis. And/Or a Thoroughly Bamboozled Concerned Citizen.
The Writers Directory 2000
I've owned this book for years, but found it puzzling, and intend to review it here.

Comfort was born in 1920; and so aged about 19 when Churchill declared war with his French colleague. Who's Who says he 'Refused military service', but I have no other information on that. As his Who's Who entry (for 1948) shows, he seems to have regarded himself as a poet and novelist. He went to Highgate School, north London, and in my informed opinion probably thought of himself as a Jew. He had an unusually mixed education, in Classics and Sciences, then Pathology and Surgery—I haven't attempted to decipher his memberships or evaluate his results. His PhD was in mollusc shell pigments (no detail), and a D.Sc. in gerontology; he is supposed (Pelican book blurb) to have written a standard work in gerontology, but if so the title has evaded me. As he was medically qualified, he might have become a psychiatrist, and seemed to have implied he was; certainly psychoanalytical expressions pop up in his work. His first book on sex, Sex in Society, seems to have been published in 1963.

He is best known ("is remembered by" is a journalistic staple) for The Joy of Sex of 1972 or 1973 in hardback and paperback—depending on the country. Since then, production details have emerged—including the couple, the photographer, I presume the artist who converted photos to drawings, and information on Comfort, such as his nose-picking habit. He seems to have changed his image from prim and scholarly to hairy and Jimmy-Savile-like. He divorced in 1973.

Comfort wrote a large number of poems, plays, novels, screenplays (see the Writers Directory 2000 extract), but, judging by his style in Authority and Delinquency, these must have been heavy going.
      Comfort is sometimes described it terms such as 'a leading expert on the natural history of ageing and human sexuality'. I doubt if there's much truth in this. It's true he 'directed' some research groups. His underlying attitude seems to have been (from Nature and Human Nature 1966) '.. with six hundred teams clocking on daily in the USA alone to work on problems connected with ageing ... results should soon appear. ... [In] 1958, 1959 and 1960 the US Department of Health spent ... $4.5 M, $7.7 M, and $12.4 M on research projects in the field of age studies..' His books as far as I know quote from other authors, with nothing much in the way of critical enquiry. Medical training is mostly by rote. 'Gerontology' is something of a made-up neo-pseudo-specialisation, a composite of materials on people who have got old, rather than a study like embryology.

Comfort claimed variously to have been a pacifist and an anarchist, the latter being a common enough Jewish fake—as in Chomsky. This was a Spanish Civil War movement, supposedly successful; but if Chomsky supported it, clearly it was just another Jewish system for the credulous. Comfort's book on Authority is (see the exhaustive list) almost his only attempt at serious study of society. As a plausible guess, I'd expect Orwell's 1984 (of 1948) and Russell's first BBC Reith Lectures (delivered 1948, printed 1949) were significant seeds. And of course there was the end, or claimed end, of the Second World War, and the supposed invention of nuclear weapons, plus material on the 'Nazis' as the Jewish media always called them, the supposed horrors of concentration camps, the behaviour of Stalin (still alive), the 1948 war in Palestine. The UN, basically a Jewish-arranged outfit, was embarking on political activity.

I'd guess Authority and Delinquency was a flop—I can find little evidence of its making any impression, apart from in some feeble 'anarchist' apologetics. Archive.org has no downloadable version. Comfort himself could not have taken it very seriously—by 1970, he might have commented on both the Korean War and Vietnam War, and the supposed H-bomb, and the 1956 Hungarian revolution, but Comfort added nothing about them. A 1988 reprint has a short introduction, adding not much. Very little seems changed in the 1970 edition: the end-of-chapter bibliographies remain pre-1950 books; it was only by careful reading I could find anything suggesting updates. However, Comfort says he took out 'those passages which I now think were wrong'—and there may be many significant errors elided away. His successful sex book was a few years in the future; probably Authority and Delinquency was a pot-boiler aimed at a circle of his fans and promoted by the usual Jewish publicists.

The paperback blurb, I presume in the hardback version's jacket design too, sets the tone:
The government of a modern industrial state, backed by the police, the army, the media of communication, wields powers undreamed of one-hundred years ago.
The abuse of these powers by political opportunists, gangsters, psychopaths and authoritarian cliques pose a far more serious threat to society than the ordinary criminal.
This book is a pioneering attempt to apply the methods of criminology to the 'criminals in office'. It raises and answers a number of vitally important questions...
A few questions suggest themselves: even when these powers didn't exist, governments and other groups had powers, including making wars, famines, slavery, misery; is it in fact worse now, all in all? And: why did Comfort confine himself to governments?—what about organisations which span across many states? And: is there evidence that gangsters and psychopaths are worse than the common run of political schemers? And: did Alex Comfort in fact not only raise, but answer questions?

The book has only two parts: I DELINQUENCY and II THE STATE, with part I about twice the length of II. Comfort's approach is unusual, in looking at psychiatry rather than (say) law, or education, or control of money. Comfort seems undeterred by the fact that psychologists can't even get satisfactory definitions of mental states and their pathologies. However, it does allow a lot of sinister-sounding descriptions to be deployed—'aggressive egocentrics', 'fantasy delinquents', 'paranoid psychotics', 'aberrant personalities', trail through Comfort's chapters—but 'criminals' or 'prostitutes' or 'bombers' or 'offenders' may sound worse than the actual people.

The United Nations as a new religion. This idea only occurred to me as I wrote this review, influenced by the idea that Jews invented both Christianity and Islam for their own purposes. After winning the Second World War, Jews had endless money to fund both a new religion, and large numbers of believers, housed luxuriously in their new buildings in New York. Compared with Rome's miserable defeat, and the desert Arabs, this was unbelievable opulence.
      Comfort's introduction begins: In 1948 the Beirut conference of UNESCO initiated a large-scale international research team ... on the causes of international and intranational hatreds and tensions. ... [including] a study of the methods by which Fascism was established, and ... the presence of psychopathic or criminal elements in the government of states. ... followed by the inevitable unfocussed discursive comments on research, psychiatry, criminology, and the 'Unesco Tensions Project'.
      Note Comfort's assumption that 'Fascism' involved psychopaths or criminals, the omission of Jews, and the conference site, in Lebanon in 1948, where Jews were starting wars—as usual. The UN deserves study; and of course has an intimate connection with Jews—Ashley Montagu, real name Israel Ehrenberg, in effect a founder of 'anti-racialism', being a typical specimen. 'Anti-racialism', obviously something Jews never believed in, was a plank of the UN, in effect part of its new religion, intended to appeal to all races, except perhaps whites and Asians. My reviews include Gunnar Dahlberg and Martin Gardner as just two writers of the 'anti-racialist' dogma; Gunnar Myrdal was another.
      But as with other religions, Jewish control was never complete, and the equivalents of heretics and reformations and national orthodox variations would be expected. This 2011 forum exchange Understand UN and Israel looks at some few of the issues.

Comfort is very careful to distinguish 'delinquency' from 'crime'. I have to point out this is a typically Jewish trick, on the same lines as the Frankfurt School/New School of Social Research, 'Critical Theory', and all the rest of it. It's not defined well; Comfort's main example seems to be laws against homosexuality, and perhaps the death penalty—he seems unperturbed by huge wars, famines, mass thuggery, as his book title might suggest.
Alex Comfort on Crime:
Crime is the deliberate violation of a provision which the law upholds by threat of punishment. ... ‘The great leading rule of criminal law is that nothing is a crime unless it is plainly forbidden by law.’ [And much more].
Alex Comfort on Delinquency:
Delinquency ... is a name given by psychopathologists to those forms of behaviour disorder which manifest themselves in injury to others, or to society. [And much more]
There are difficulties here (why 'deliberate' violation? What about other types of legal structure? What about torts? What about conflicts of laws? ...). However, since Comfort's whole book is supposed to be about 'delinquency', the most important issue is deciding 'injury to others, or to society': who knows e.g. whether a murder might not benefit society? What if parts of 'society' are harmed, but others benefited? What about dead people; should they be considered? Comfort thinks crime is 'arbitrary' in its definition—rather in the way some student radicals described exams as 'random tests'.

As an example of mass delinquency, here is Alex Comfort on British governments:
[p 29] 'One very characteristic—indeed, defining—character of persistent criminals is their baffling ineducability by experience... their behaviour is compulsive. There is an analogous ineducability in government, among the advocates of 'strong' policies. ... successive British 'strong' men (not all of one party) ... [repeated] in Palestine, Cyprus, India and Suez the identical attitudes and errors which lost them Ireland, nor Marxists from repeating the aberrations of the Czars. ... these are examples of stereotyped behavior ... performed for ... immediate emotional satisfaction ... [with] unjustified self-confidence, total disregard for others and the substitution of vague objectives such as prestige or revenge for concrete gain...'
All this is transparent Jewish bullshit. Note for example that the entirety of the Second World War is omitted—Jews and their collaborators won it, so why discuss it? Comfort says nothing on eastern Europe, Eisenhower, Stalin and mass murder in the Jewish USSR, nothing on the 'Great War' for that matter. It's comical that he accuses others of 'ineducability'.

Comfort on 'Types of Leadership' and 'Aberrant Personalities':
[p 39] '... The idea of the 'collaborator' as a wartime phenomenon has no basis in fact—collaboration, in the derogatory sense, may originate in a masochistic delight in defeat, but a large part of it is the wartime counterpart of the normal executive status'
[p 42] '... the issues of foreign policy are increasingly imaginary—issues created so that they may be dramatised, crises requiring sensational acts of personal statesmanship, threats of an emotionally-satisfying kind to liberty or existence, the matter, in other words, of the film and comic book. ...'
[p 52] 'women prison offices—The terminal phase ... may perhaps be found in the records of the Belsen trial'
[p 54] 'A number of the fantasies of the first World War, such as the 'corpse factory' were actually realized by the combatants of the Second World War.'
[p 55] '... elderly company promoter ... suborned two thugs to decoy and murder a young man of whom he was jealous..' (No names or information; one of the very few presumably true stories)
[p 57] 'In extreme cases (Stalin and Beria's Russia and the CIA come to mind) one may end with a paranoid hard core, quite beyond policy control, flanked by a large force of borderline delinquents, informers, and double, treble or quadruple agents who may dismay their superiors by private enterprise spying or assassination. ...'
Comfort says odd things about what look like the Vichy area in France, and Quisling in Norway; but he may mean Jews in Poland—it's hard to know. His view of war declarations as dramas is true, though Comfort avoids comment on Jewish media control and its drumbeat of lies. He takes without the slightest effort of checking the propagandist versions of Germany. And Comfort seems to be taking the line, beloved of Jew apologists, that the USSR and CIA were out of control; it's a perfect cover for Jews in the USSR to pretend Stalin was untouchable, just as it's perfect cover for Kissinger and that type to pretend unawareness. His 'criminological investigation' is pure fantasy.
Comfort on War and the Corps d'Élite
[Pp 63-68] '... Operatic attitudes such as 'unconditional surrender' or 'massive retaliations', derived from exhibitionist leaders, supersede intelligent thought. ... Problems can be shelved and replaced by action or by appropriate gestures. ... The genuine fear and hatred of war under these conditions cannot hide its satisfactions. ... This ambivalence makes the threat of war and the promise of war two of the most important political forces of our time. ... It is essentially the socially maladjusted civilian who is happiest in wartime—his problems are shelved... the criminal can redeem himself ... the paranoiac is at grips with an enemy whom others beside himself recognize and revile. The adjusted individual finds his entire life disorganized ... Neither the German exterminations of Jews, nor the Allied massacre of enemy civilian populations, ... the two most ... serious group-delinquent manifestations of the second World War, were spontaneous. .. Public sentiment against war is and was traditionally strong in Britain and America, and was by no means absent in Germany. Elaborate trickery was ... required to reconcile public opinion ... the Pearl Harbor incident was manipulated ... and the change in American public opinion between 1939 and 1941 was unquestionably due in part to ... government pressure. A marked exception was the forcing of war upon the British Government in 1939 by a spontaneous public reaction, [after] widespread suspicion of complicity between British right wing thought and Nazi ideology. ... The replacement of Hitler by another less paranoid leader ... might have produced a marked change in the pattern of history. ... There is documentary evidence relating most of the calculated and indiscriminate war crimes to the invention and planning of individual psychopaths in office. ... Etc etc.'
Again, Comfort exudes an inconsistent and unevidenced news-gawper view of what was, after all, a hugely serious issue. He has no interest in detail. The desperate sadness of a population, often not well-off, in rented housing, coming from an economic depression, forced onto rations and living in tents, buffetted by unending official propaganda, urged on by Jew puppets of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, is not part of Comfort's outlook—they are mere goyim, who should sacrifice their lives and possessions to the master race.

Comfort's 'Remedies' at the end of part II includes a few pages on 'Revolution' and on 'World Government'. The first is a trot through conventional histories of the last few centuries plus some 'anarchist' sidelights. It is descriptive, but of course excluding Jews, money, and secret fomentations of revolutions, and invasion and control of weak countries. (Surprisingly, 1956 Hungary gets a sentence or two). But his chapter is no help to anyone. Somewhat to my surprise, Comfort comes out against World Government, on the grounds that four powers of so-and-so's can't be expected to be helpful. He favours enlightened public opinion which is willing to stand firm.

How much did Comfort know about Jews? Possibly the 1950 first edition had information cut out by 1970, including anything unfavourable to Jews. But it's not credible he could have been completely ignorant. If books were plants and animals, Comfort's would be a weed which flourishes by blotting out other plants while dying itself; or an underwater creature squirting opaque clouds to obscure the view of others; or a frantic embedded parasite desperate not to be exposed to public view. No wonder his work is largely forgotten, with the exception of his books on sex. I wonder if he was tempted to include arty sketches of a rabbi having sex with a three-year old girl.
Top of Page

Obituary   Denis Healey CH, MBE, PC (1917-2015) Review: Dec 4 2015
"Life is not a rehearsal" — luckily for Healey

As the Second World War (Winston Churchill's nomenclature) recedes into the past, the survivors can hardly help reassess its events as the assumptions and propaganda of the time fade from memory. If we take a British perspective, we might examine the people aged about 25 in 1945: one such is Denis Healey, a politician notable for coiffed eyebrows, an education mainly in the Greek and Roman classics, and a reputation for great intelligence despite his lack of knowledge of everything important to the modern world. He was somewhat in the mould of Tony Benn.

Healey's official posts were in 'Defence' (1964-1970), under Harold Wilson, just after the Cuba and J F Kennedy Jewish coups in the USA, and during the peak of bombing and genocide in Vietnam. And, again under Wilson, as 'Chancellor of the Exchequer', a picturesque title hiding the Jewish foundations of this role. Healey must have been groomed for such roles; he was ideally unqualified. He held no further cabinet posts: Thatcher shifted the Jewish focus to taking over British assets, as the Common Market morphed into the European Union and began imposing its entirely undemocratic Jewish worldview. I doubt if at any time Healey understood the world: in his youth he was in, or effectively in, the Communist Party: in other words, happy to be either a supporter of Stalinist mass murder, or a hater of Russia, or a subordinate of Jews. Whether he knew this, or preferred not to have doubts, must be in doubt. He never understood doubts about nukes or the 'Cold War'. As far as I know, he never understood or opposed the monstrous fraud of six million Jewish deaths: He was not exactly thuggish, but impervious to new views. I remember a TV appearance (probably BBC) in which a German WW2 army group was praised by a chap with an unfortunately high voice as excellent or first-class 'fighting men': Healey replied their record was 'well-known and excoriated'.

As the post-1945 world developed according to Jewish financial plans, Healey, like everyone, faced novelties: BBC television emerged from the chrysalis of BBC radio, with the oleaginous Richard Dimbleby exemplifying the covert Jews—funded with paper money, genetically programmed to lie, passing his poisoned chalice to his repulsive sons David and Jonathan. Myths such as the 'Labour Landslide', the honourable victory against evil Germans, and accurate reporting on budgets, were ideal for the new medium. The BBC was resolutely anti-intellectual: all reports are fronted by vacuous actors, reading their lines. Never by experts. My piece on the 'satirical' Private Eye tries to sum up post-1945 Britain.

Nick Griffin on the way the BBC mispresents serious news.
Jews won the Second World War. They got into their stride with a vengeance—a vengeance against any possible enemy. Eastern Europe and Russia were occupied or wastelands. The Holocaust fraud, as yet unnamed, was born. So was the fraud of 'atom bombs' over Japan. Both these things were hugely lucrative, paving the way to NASA and medical frauds, up to 9/11, which fifteen years later remains officially uninvestigated—unless you count a 'commission' under Kissiger— unpunished (plus of course many false flags, such as Tonkin, and many assassinations, the most notable being J F Kennedy). H G Wells's 'World Brain' did not appear for at least 50 years. Within a few years Elizabeth, a negligible intellect, was crowned. And 'Stalin', the masqued disguise of Jews, died, probably poisoned. American-ZOG bases spread around the world; so did Rothschild central banks; so did violence in Palestine; so did undeclared wars. And the start of Jewish transports of blacks into Britain, starting with the Jewish-owned MV Empire Windrush to London's port area.

There seems little point in tracing Healey's career from one low point to the next, up to his trips to the House of Lords to collect his attendance money and his 1989 (according to Wiki—I haven't checked) autobiography, The Time of My Life—hefty, thick, and I imagine (I haven't read much of my 'used' copy) laughably naïve. He seems to have managed just one mot juste, or whatever the phrase equivalent is: "Life is not a rehearsal." (I've just remembered another oratorical triumph: he described an attack by Geoffrey Howe as like being "savaged by a dead sheep").


Wikipedia says Healey 'was succeeded by Roy Hattersley' (b 1932, not quite the next generation), giving his full title as: the Right Honourable the Lord Hattersley, Baron Hattersley FRSL, PC. As with Healey, an alphabet soup of state-bestowed distinctions accumulated, as worthless as African PhDs and Nobel 'Peace Prizes' and TV appearances with David Dimbleby. Hattersley divorced after 57 years of marriage to marry his Jewish literary agent in 2013, though one wonders whether Internet writings have displaced his 'golden mediocrity'. (I quote the Occidental Observer on Hattersley, and Healey - http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/12/let-them-eat-cake-the-army-of-fanatics-at-the-heart-of-europ - which prompted this review as thoroughgoing and complete un-democrats. The author is the first person I've seen to describe the 'Labour Party' as a criminal conspiracy in disregarding the voters' views and disregarding crimes such as rape of whites, in a similar way to the 'Bolsheviks' whom I doubt many people would regard as a 'political party').


Healey probably never had any sort of genuine socialist feeling. From his early years, Jewish propaganda in the UK had been overwhelming. Healey did not begin to have the independence of mind needed for intellectual appreciation of the world. Ben Pimlott's 1992 book Harold Wilson said (I quote from Lobster, a supposed inside mag on spies and politicians, which is either Jew-unaware or a front for Jews: '... Labour politicians after the Second World War, for whom Oxford was an entry-ticket into the governing class, if they were not members of it already. Hugh Gaitskell, Douglas Jay, Richard Crossman (all New College), Frank Pakenham [later Lord Longford], Patrick Gordon Walker, Christopher Mayhew (at Christ Church), Denis Healey and Roy Jenkins (at Balliol [College in Cambridge]) shared staircases and ate dinners from their very first term with well-connected, well-off young men who already had a confident view of their own place in the world. ... ' The Labour Party was supposed to have been funded mostly by Trade Unions, though I suspect this was a misdirection; certainly, now, the 'Labour Friends of Israel' must loom large. (I'd guess confidently Corbyn now is just fake opposition, a double-act with fellow Jew Cameron). Later in Healey's life, here's another extract from a Lobster book review, revealing Lobster and of course most commentators' utter failure to understand Jewish money and frauds:– 'Before his well known roles as Minister of Defence and Chancellor of the Exchequer (during the Tory-induced inflation of the late 1970s), Healey was a central figure in the Anglo-American defence establishment, an intellectual who knew enough to talk and write about NATO policy and nuclear strategic theory, not just deliver briefings.' Lobster's 'Tory-induced' comment is part of the mythology of politics then: Healey's role probably was to support genocide in Vietnam (with Jewish-provided reasons to hide their money-making) and to support capital flows in a Jewish direction. Probably post-war 'Labour' had some sort of secret agreement not to mention Jews; there was no publicity for repayments of war loans to Jews, or Jewish control of marketing boards and trade, or Jews and the IMF and World Bank, or of course paper money.

What part Healey played in MI5's claimed attacks on Wilson are not yet known; I would guess there were a few honest Brits, perhaps (who knows) influenced by the King David Hotel, or by 1956 Hungary, or the subjection to the Fed. Healey (according to Jon Ronson, quoting Healey) 'created' the Bilderbergers in 1954 (the same year as Dien Bien Phu), with Joseph Retinger, David Rockefeller, and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Healey wrote in praise of Bilderberg, but with a complete absence of any traditional socialist feeling. Obviously enough, Jews after the Second World War's official endings must have fished about for collaborators, and people in the 'Labour Party' with their internalised feeling of being on the indubitably correct side, plus their officially-sanctioned 'good' education and social-climbing ambitions, and the endless paper money in the background made available as a series of pleasant surprises, plus the free availability of BBC publicity, must have made a 'no-brainer', in the silly slang of more recent years. And in addition, the exciting goad of being in on a criminal conspiracy. An unexamined aspect of all this is the Civil Service: the 'servants' in effect have life tenure; at the time there were few careers—perhaps teaching— offering such security. There have been very few exposures of their mistakes and incompetence. But the battles and manipulations with Healey must have been profound, though perhaps like the blind leading the deaf. The Bilderbergers must have marvelled at the gullibility of the parade of goys. And their purchasability. Anyway; let's stop there. Healey is as dead as a napalm victim.
Top of Page

image   Review of Biography of war leader   David Irving: Churchill's War part 2

Essential—one of the three (or I hope four) books needed to comprehend World War 2, December 3, 2010

Second part of a trilogy—part three despite being promised for 2007 seems not to exist yet; Irving has been hounded out of house and home, partly as a result of his disastrous libel lawsuit, partly as a result of further state and personal actions against him.

This huge volume deals with, roughly, 1941 to 1943, the period when the war existed between Britain and Germany, but, as with the First World War, the USA stayed out at first. Consequently there's not much on the Battle of Britain, or on the Allies invading Europe, but a great deal on Roosevelt and war by Japan in China, as well as North Africa and Rommel, France and de Gaulle (including information on torture), and of course Stalin. The book is well-indexed, and also of course has detailed notes, one of the trademarks of Irving. There's a colour plate section of posters, portraits, documents, and black and white photographs of generals and airmen and personal material, including Churchill's family, and a British crowd applauding him. A double-page photo shows Churchill in 1943, with a general, in north Africa, with a sea of troops in shorts—not unlike trusting sheep...

Irving pays a lot of attention to the physical appearance of his books—sections marked off by colophons, small caps at the start of subsections, quite elaborate typography. The jacket and notes include comments on attempts to silence him, and the generally shabby piracy of his earlier volumes by inferior researchers. Personally I'd prefer the chapter names to have been less pun-filled—just my taste though.

The mass of detail allows material to be extracted on, for example, restricted information. Here's an incomplete list:-

'... Dr Hans Lammers, chief of the Reich chancellery, had phoned to inform him that the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, had *repeatedly* ordered the solution of the Jewish problem 'postponed until after the war was over.' This did not suit Kempner at all, and when the file was returned to the document centre this particular photostat was missing...'

'... the 1,600 glass plates, on which Goebbels had had the diaries filmed for safety, were discovered by the Goebbels Diaries expert Dr Elke Froehlich in March 1992. ... The conditions in these archives in Moscow's Viborg street were, it must be said, challenging: Soviet archives were designed for keeping things secret, and the very notion of a public research room was alien to them. ...'

' ... On the instructions of the minister of the interior, on July 1, 1993 the archives [i.e. Bundesarchiv's federal archives] banished me forever from their halls, without notice, two hours before the conclusion of my seven years of research on this subject. ... As one consequence, evidently unforeseen by the German government, the Bundesarchiv has had to return to England its 'Irving Collection,' half a ton of records which I had deposited in its vaults for researchers over the last thirty years. These include originals of Adolf Eichmann's papers, copies of two missing years of Heinrich Himmler's diary, the diaries of Erwin Rommel, Alfred Jodl, Wilhelm Canaris, Walther Hewel, and a host of other papers not available elsewhere. ...'

'... The files on Anglo-Japanese relations for September and October 1941 are still closed. The prime minister's 'Japan' files for December 1941, and for January and February 1942, are missing, as is the entire 'Japan' file from Eden's papers. ...'

'... for many years the prime minister's November 1941 file of cables and messages to President Roosevelt was also closed. Even now there are gaps: There are indications that Churchill sent one or even two as yet unreleased messages to Washington after one that we shall meet later as his 'thin diet' telegram of November 26. That date was unquestionably a turning point in the crisis. ..'

' .. That diplomatic historians never once bothered in thirty years to visit the widow of Joachim von Ribbentrop's state-secretary Ernst von Weizsaecker, father of the subsequent West German president, was a baffling mystery to me. Had they looked for the widow of Walther Hewel, Ribbentrop's liaison officer to Hitler, they would have learned about his diaries too. And who are these over-emotional historians of the Jewish tragedy who, until I did so, never troubled themselves even to open a readily available file of the SS chief Heinrich Himmler's own handwritten telephone notes, or to read his memoranda for his secret meetings with Adolf Hitler? ...'

'... Hess was forbidden to speak about the past. His letters were censored, his daily diary regularly destroyed. Aged ninety-four, he outlived Churchill and his entire cabinet, as well as all the Nuremberg judges and defendants. ...'

' ... the contemporary R.A.F. court of inquiry [into Sikorski of Poland's death] contains some weaknesses which, if it were published, could be embarrassingly exploited. ...'

' ... Churchill masterminded a slew of 'dirty tricks' designed to help Roosevelt to stir up public feeling. Most of the British files on these are still sealed, but some episodes are known ...'

' ... It seems that there are items of Churchill-Roosevelt correspondence which, if not lost or destroyed, are still awaiting release. These were just some of the two or three hundred signals which Sir William Stephenson's organisation in the U.S.A. passed each week via the radio station of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) to the Secret Intelligence Service (S.I.S.) in England, using a code readable only by the British. (Stephenson was director of 'British Security Co-ordination,' with headquarters in New York.) Some items have now reappeared, having been removed from the three depositories of Churchill papers ...'

' ... the key Japanese intercept which we shall meet on the way, known to historians as the 'winds-execute' signal, has disappeared from all wartime American files, thereby relieving certain generals (including George C. Marshall, Leonard T. Gerow, and Walter Bedell Smith) of the need to explain why nobody at the highest levels had paid heed to it. ...'

' ... Suffice it to remark that American historians have signally failed to spot the evidence of high-level falsification in their own archives. ...'

A lot of Vichy material is closed: '... One aspect of [operation] Torch worried Eisenhower. His country was about to launch an unprovoked attack on Vichy France, which was technically a neutral and a country with which they maintained friendly diplomatic relations. As General Eisenhower would later write, it met every criterion of a crime against international law, unless some way could be found of persuading the French to invite the Americans to invade ...'

' ... Even now, parts of the F.O. [British Foreign Office] file are closed until the year 2016 and all the papers relating to Rougier and the Churchill-Petain deal have been physically removed by the British government from the late Lord Halifax's papers. ...'

' ... For a historian born that very day, when the British empire was at its greatest influence and extent, it is truly baffling to review the archives and compare the specious estimates of Hitler's aims and capabilities in the British records with what is revealed by the German archives. The former are strewn with the distortions of Britain's foreign-policy-making elite, inspired by hatred of Germany imbibed with their mother's milk decades before the Nazis and their atrocities. These men have created legends of magisterial permanence. The legends pollute the history books and have a charm and existence of their own, devoid of any foundation in the archives. ...'

To understand the Second World War, Irving on Hitler, and his two Churchill volumes, plus, if/when it is published, the third on Churchill, probably render other books redundant, except perhaps to dip in and marvel at the sheer magnitude and perseverance of liars and lies, their deceit and self-deception, and the cowardice and corruption and violence of the 20th century.
Top of Page

image   Review of Spy thriller   Stella Rimington: At Risk

It's terrifyingly possible that 'intelligence' people really are like this..., December 1, 2010

The basic outline is: 34 year old woman graduate (subject unspecified) settled for a career in 'intelligence'. As with (say) a vicar's wife, she permits herself no troubling questions on her career choice. This story essentially has a male Afghan, family wiped out by US war criminals—not the author's phrase—who seeks revenge by trying to bomb a US baddie. To do this, he passes 36 hours crossing the North Sea from Germany, teaming up with a woman. Together, they make a bomb with ingredients easily bought in any high street. Their bomb isn't powerful enough to cause enough damage though, and by then they're both dead.

We're asked to believe in intelligence people without satnavs, communicating by roadside phones. And a service station deeply worried about thefts, installing CCTV which isn't good enough to record number plates. And an entire turnout—helicopters, police, armed police, army personnel—a whole galaxy of economically unproductive people in fact. Just to detect two people.

The plot reminds me slightly of Lord of the Rings from the opposite perspective: why not just send an eagle or two and drop the ring down the crack? In the case of this book, why not get some local person—the woman on her own would do—to do a bit of shopping and also do some work on where to plant the bomb?

There are a few human touches in the book—notably an account of the hero's family getting wiped out. Another human touch—not perhaps the author's intention—was Anthony Blair, quoted as saying he didn't want rivalry between the various Services: '.. in her ten years, Liz could not remember such unflinching unanimity'—contrasting ludicrously with the described events. It's entirely plausible that Blair was ignored. Another thing is the indirect portrayal of various well-heeled types. Those of us with genuine interests will I expect find these characters' vacuous lives jaw-droppingly antihuman.

Something I found absurd was the female baddy saying "the British will never give up" if someone is murdered. Tell that to Kriss Donald's family! Incidentally the baddy white woman is subject to attempted psychoanalysis: her family split up; she took magic mushrooms; she is 'maladjusted'. Anything except legitimate revenge.

Years ago I read that girls in school always describe clothes; boys never do. Or never did, in those days. It's striking how much detail of clothes, and things like perfume, there is. Also there's a sort of 'appearanceism'—most of the criminals and baddies look nasty. Most of the male intelligence persons look distinguished and personable. Like many women Rimington hasn't decided on her heroine's attitude to sex; most of the males are presented as more or less lecherous or flirty, but this wouldn't do for her, would it?

By the way, the ITS = 'Islamic terror Syndicate 'Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the myriad others..' I do hope this novel isn't representative of 'intelligence' services, though I fear it is.

The overwhelming impression is the sheer irresponsibility of these self-contained, self-perpetuating, organisations. On the plus side, I found only one typo.
Top of Page

image   Review of Economics BBC lies   Robert Peston: Who Runs Britain? And Who's to Blame for the Economic Mess We're in?

Worthless unintelligent innumerate BBC-style flannel from a hack, November 30, 2010
**LONG REVIEW WARNING!**


This book was published in Feb 2008, written, according to the flyleaf, by the BBC's 'award-winning' Business Editor. Among other things, he had the 'Scoop of the Year on Northern Rock seeking emergency help from the Bank of England' which must mean only that they told him first; I wonder why...

It has ten chapters with childish titles (e.g. 'The King of Jackpot Capitalism')—a mixture of human interest drivel—either to hide Peston's ignorance, or to give the audience something easy, or to simply evade the truth.

1 Starts with his autobiography—an ordinary Jewish boy (he notes without comment his ex-school is now largely immigrant|). There's scattered information—his parents, the post-WW2 world, non-dom and wealthy entrepreneurs, tax havens, capital movements, Indian steel, China, executives' pay. Almost all is unsourced, though sometimes the Financial Times or Times or some magazine ('an analysis in Prospect magazine'). He claims to believe the usual conventions on entrepreneurs and performance-related pay (except one must assume for BBC hacks, of course). Obviously there are thousands of relevant people; the choice no doubt is made for him by editors and scribblers and publicity-seekers.

2 Borrowing: goes through the general idea of company takeovers using borrowed money, by comparison with house prices bought on mortgages, in a time of rising prices—he gives no explanation of why these should be rising. He comments (p56) that Gordon Brown confused US 'venture capital' (putting money into promising typically high tech start-ups) with a British sense (putting money into asset-strippers etc).

3 and 4 deal mostly with Philip Green who bought a chain of clothes shops and made money by improving them; or something like that. (He was knighted 'for services to the retail industry'). His strength seems to be that he knew the business thoroughly—letters of credit, warehousing buying from China, cancelled orders etc—if only civil servants were knowledgeable. Chapter 4 looks at an attempted takeover of Marks and Spencer. I have to assume Peston's book came out in a hurry as all this material is anecdotal and essentially of its time.

5 'Poison Manufacturers'—a chapter of random bits and pieces about Robert Shiller's book 'The New Financial Order' on e.g. unlikely schemes such as insuring against house price falls, and more significantly reducing the gap between wealthy and 'developing' nations [except in Palestine?] China, Japan, oil and gas are listed as great exports though none are quantified. One figure quoted is $600bn of sub-prime mortgages as 'toxic debt'; however even if people borrow too much, after throwing them out some value is recoverable—typically, Peston makes no attempt to quantify this.

6 is largely on Goldman Sachs (almost as an anthropology subject—omitting one fact), and JP Morgan. The City of London—330,000 people—is said to be 'astonishingly productive' although of course what it actually does is unstated. Peston quotes a few facts, or perhaps factoids: (p204) ten hedge-fund managers in 2006 earned more than $500M says 'Alpha', presumably a magazine. A German paper, Bild, (p210) says they are 'like a plague of locusts .. devour everything, then fly on..'. P 215 has a conflict of interest—the holding funds don't want the companies they own to outperform themselves.

7 Pensions: long chapter bemoaning the way Britain's pensions have been under long-term attack. The long account is unsourced, and its impossible to know how reliable it is. Just as the Tories changed the definition of 'unemployed' to suit themselves—20 times? 30 times?—the laws on pensions and things like tax relief, % limits on contributions, inflation linking or not, tax credit, ACT, valuing of the liabilities have been changed so often by Lawson and Brown and others—quite apart from the ONS getting things wrong—that the subject is highly confusing; very probably intentionally.

8 'Democracy for Sale' is mostly about Levy, fundraiser for the 'Labour' Party—as it's still called—but also the Conservatives. Including not declaring loans—if they expect their money back, it's not really a gift, is it? It's impossible to know how reliable this material is. Tagged on is material on cash for honours. As an example, Gulam Noon is quoted, supplying 120,000 packaged meals a day to Sainsburys [a supermarket chain]. These are designed say Peston for immigrants—for some reason Peston fails to mention that taxpayer's' money for housing, expenses, health, and benefits and presumably barbaric slaughter methods, with standard industrial equipment did all this; Peston typically regards this as wonderful.

9 Royal Mail (the Post Office—renamed Consignia for a bit) was reorganised by Allan Leighton. Peston duly notes that he swore sometimes and gets up at 5 a.m.

10 Who runs Britain?—Well—whoever it is hasn't told Peston!

It's hard to criticise unresisting imbecility, but let me list a few things:---

** Naturally as with all subjects trying to evade scrutiny inspection Peston uses the elaborate junk vocabulary—'tax efficient', 'wealth creator', 'stakeholder'—you can imagine.

** (p171) 'financial products whose dangers were misunderstood'—175 'hard for regulators to work out which hedge funds, or pension funds, or insurers, or banks are actually holding the instruments'. Peston does NOT address the issue of why banks charge low rates of interest on risky matters. Reorganisation mightn't work; bag of miscellaneous loans might fail. It seems likely that there must have been collusion. 'Private Eye' ran a piece in about 1975 called 'Pension Fun' on tricks used by pension funds holders to get money on the side. Another likely issue is the Rothschild money printing aspect of things and the Bank of England/ Fed. (Peston makes no mention of 'Quantitative easing'). There's amusing material on Standard and Poors, to the effect they pleaded in court they were only giving a journalistic opinion on AAA style judgements. Substandard and Poor, indeed.

** Like all hacks, Peston has no imaginative comparisons. Consider for example average North American/ European people. They don't (or didn't) pay much attention to things like drink and cigarettes and junk/spree spending; say £100/year isn't really noticeable. If you put the adult population at say 800M, this amounts to £80 billion a year. The 'entrepreneurs' might be regarded as hoovering up spare change in obsessive mode; this sort of approximation is important to avoid silly panics.

** As an example, chapter 9 on the Royal Mail reorganisation states it was losing about £1M each day. Say, in a year, getting on for half a billion. Is that a lot? Well, that's about what is 'paid' in 'free' legal advice to 'asylum seekers', all of whom have broken the law about travelling to the 'next safe' country. Peston thinks in his simple-minded way that 30,000 'redundancies' (i.e. firings) and 3,000 or so Post Offices closed was worth that. Recently, some energy company (i.e. holding company that had been sold some of Britain's utilities) made £8bn reported profit—enough to keep post office open 25 years. It's also about a third of the value of homes given to immigrants in one year—not counting the free services

** Peston says nothing about contributions to the EU—with its accounts not signed off; I've seen a figure of net $6bn, but wouldn't swear to it. The cost of wars, de-industrialisation, financing Indian steel and space and airports (Britain gave a steelworks to India; and also paid for an entire supermodern airport). The cost of the 'global warming' fraud—supported by the BBC, incidentally—the cost of selling off utilities, the astronomical costs of immigration are all ignored by Peston.

** It's perhaps worth making a wry note on 'charitable' giving. For example on 'academies'—where a huge building is given in exchange for a fraction of its value. 'AIDS' work is another notorious fraud. I noticed (p202) £1M for a 'Lib Dem think tank' run by 'Jennifer Moses, a retired Goldman Sachs banker'.

Peston appears to still 'work' for the BBC. He should be out of a job and his 'pension' removed surgically.
Top of Page

Moved to Brackman on Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin, and Evolution
Top of Page

image   Review of Evolutionary biology   Richard Dawkins: Ancestor's Tale

'Meme pool' collected from Darwinian biologists and others (but pre-Darwinian social awareness), November 26, 2010

All Dawkins-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Evolutionary biology   Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author

Muddled morass with trademark PC plagiarism, November 25, 2010

All Dawkins-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Century-old socionomy futurology   Bertrand Russell: The Impact of Science on Society

Future of Mankind as affected by Science. Very wide (but flawed) survey, October 25, 2010

All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Review of Bertrand Russell   Human Society in Ethics and Politics (published in 1954)

Collection of Essays on the Theory and Practical Application of Ethics. BUT freighted with Ethics from Christianity, and Cold War and Other Wrong 'Useful Idiot' Assumptions.
All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page



Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare stored elsewhere


Dear Bertrand Russell Searle cartoon   Review of Bertrand Russell   Bertrand Russell: Dear Bertrand Russell: Selection of His Correspondence with the General Public, 1950-68


Barry Feinberg - Bertrand Russell was a dupeRonald Kasrils, fake Jew, pretending to be South African Bertrand Russell's post-WW2 postbag, through Jewish filter, October 24, 2010/ Jan 21, 2014

All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Bertrand Russell   Bertrand Russell: War Crimes in Vietnam

Vietnam—some of the (very repellent) truth by a very skilful writer, October 18, 2010

All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

  Review of Science, Technology and China   Joseph Needham: China: The Grand Titration: Science and Society in East and West

Disappointing—disjointed lectures & articles, often not to the point, October 15, 2010

I have a copy (sold to me fifteen years ago by a public library) of Needham's 'Science and Civilization in China'—5 volumes of 27 sections. Sections 1-7 are all in volume 1, and give an overview of the history and geography of China, the travel of ideas to Europe, pseudo-science (including Feng Shui), and so on. Needham began in 1938, and grew more ambitious, or perhaps gained Chinese collaborators; at any rate my edition has five separate books, but two of these, including the fattest, are volume 4. The final section, 27 at that time, dealt with mechanical engineering. The book is well illustrated both with line drawings and monochrome plates on art paper. I believe more sections have been added subsequently.

'The Grand Titration' is a tremendous disappointment. I'll explain why in bullet-point style:-

** The title is misleading. Titration—Needham states in his footnote that everyone does chemistry these days—is a precise process, involving a drop-by-drop check on a chemical reaction. The title suggests the book is a detailed comparison of China with the rest of the world. But it's not so; this book has eight chapters, each of which is a lecture, paper, or contribution to a collective book. Written between 1946 and 1964, they simply don't belong together. 'On Science and Social Change' and 'Science and Society in Ancient China', 'Time and Eastern Man', 'Human Law and the Laws of Nature' illustrate the type of thing.

** Rather few examples recur throughout the book, no doubt because they struck Needham as important. These include: efficient horse harness, iron and steel, mechanical clock, 'the standard method of converting rotary to rectilinear motion', segmental arch bridges, and the Cardan suspension—yes, I had to check what that was. Also the equatorial sky co-ordinate system. And the three Baconian things—paper, magnetism, and gunpowder.

** The latter three in particular need more treatment, which Needham does not give. Paper—but what about Egypt? Magnetism: Needham pays great attention to the angle of dip of magnets—but, if you're trying to navigate, who cares? As for gunpowder, it's a complicated thing, involving extracting nitrates from urine (not that they knew that) and discovering carbon and sulphur burnt fast with it, and give off what we'd call gases; it's really several inventions, plus empiricism.

** Another Chinese claim is the seismograph; they made them first. And yet why would Europeans want seismographs? Europe is fairly stable geologically—but when it isn't it's been catastrophic, so careful measurements seem a bit pointless.

** Needham has a persistent tendency to be hyper-theoretical. His account of scientific method virtually ignores empiricism, and yet for most of human history people very much depended on straight observation: why do people eat? What is disease? Why does brown ore with coal give iron?—these are some of countless questions which have only been answered for a couple of hundred years, if that.

** Needham seems unable to simply describe things; he follows the wretched Marxist-type tradition of arms-length dislike plus silly criticism. He doesn't make it clear if 'alchemy' in China means the same as 'alchemy' anywhere else. 'Feudalism' of course ditto, and the 'oriental mode of production'. There's a lot of material on Confucius, Taoism, Mohism, plus sundry ancient Greek philosophers, and more recent Europeans; but there are no very helpful comparisons. Despite the fact that China never had a full money system, he uses the idea of 'capitalism' without analysis of finance—a 20th century tradition of course—don't mention the Jews. There are other influences—'bureaucracy' for instance which surely couldn't be the same as the European version. There's also a great deal of material on science (Needham, and his brother, started as biochemists), but this is contaminated with then-contemporary material which may or may not turn out to be science—particles vs waves, for example, and Einstein worship.

** Needham introduces irrelevancies at great length; he's a generous-minded internationalist and anti-'racialist', very like Russell in his appreciation of the Chinese. He says 'each people enters the modern world with its own offering of thought..' which even if untrue is a nice thought—but it's irrelevant to the main issues.

** Needham does not discuss important issues sufficiently! On time, Needham says almost in passing, that Chinese artefacts were meticulously dated, and there are 25 dynastic histories written from about 90 BC through 1736. I believe there are very many older writings, too—which sounds far more impressive than Europe with the Doomsday Book and Rolls etc. Similarly: Needham mentions in one essay that the idea of a civil service goes (or went) deeper in China than anywhere else—even fairy stories ended with the heroin marrying a mandarin or 'bureaucrat'. He comments somewhere that stories about heroic water engineers are peculiar to China (heavy rain needed contours, canals, flood controls—in fact China was hard to invade because of canals). And that the only investment was land purchase, so bureaucrats did that until the proportion of tenant farmers was dangerously high.

Some of these comments may appear a bit philistine. All I can say is—you'd have to read it to see. A great opportunity wasted. I'm tempted to give 2 stars, or even 1, but defer to the sheer erudition quotient.

NB I'm assuming the reprint is unchanged!
Top of Page

  Review of Vietnam War   Edited by John Duffet: Against the Crime of Silence: Proceedings of the Russell International War Crimes Tribunal (Stockholm, Copenhagen) (Foreword by Ralph Schoenman)

Ed Ken Coates, Limqueco, and Weiss: Prevent the Crime of Silence: Reports from the Sessions of the International War Crimes Tribunal Censored facts about the Vietnam War—a Nuremberg style inquiry, October 6, 2010

Rather little-known report. Organised by Bertrand Russell (and others) in 1967—when Russell was 95. There are two different hardback versions, published one year later, and some reprints. Based on, and edited down from, a large amount of witness testimony, some American, some (with translators) Vietnamese. Well worth reading to get the Vietnamese perspective on American war crimes and the racist anti-'gook' mentality. I suspect in retrospect the whole thing was Jewish-driven, with Kissinger as front of a policy to make money from war, and collect a percentage from currency from south-east Asia.

The idea was to mimic the Nuremberg Trials, though obviously without official support; in fact the Harold Wilson 'Labour' regime in the UK banned at least one Vietnamese witness. It's now known of course that the Nuremberg Trials were a fake, purely concerned to set up post-war mythologies.

Includes Chomsky and Ralph Schoenman among many others.

WARNING—much very unpleasant material. Note that the material is available online as internet documents, though this is not in book form. (In fact, I put the HTML there myself with permission in late 1997 to early 1998).
Top of Page

Peter Wright Spycatcher   Review of Peter Wright with Paul Greengrass   Spycatcher
The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer.   March 6th, 2014
Spycatcher: Peter Wright with Paul Greengrass (1987). I bought this book in 1989, but have only recently read it and made some notes. There was in effect a lot of publicity over the book; whether this was from genuine government concern is impossible to say.

This review is based only on the (detailed and interesting) book. I haven't made any attempt to check the supposed facts behind hostile comments elsewhere; nor have I attempted to find out who Paul Greengrass is. This book is indexed, but weak on signposting: it has 23 numbered, but otherwise untitled, chapters without section divisions, plus a short glossary (which doesn't include MOSSAD). The few photos are all portraits (including J Edgar Hoover). Page numbers refer to my paperback edition, (Heinemann Australia).

Peter Wright was born near the end of the First World War; his father was at one time head of research for Marconi and (for example) helped install ships' radios. He knew Sarnoff, of that American outfit - Radio City? His son must have picked up technical information from him; however, his father was sacked, following some company rearrangement, when Peter Wright was 15. One of the undercurrents of this book is sudden unexpected sackings: e.g. Arthur Martin, after 20 years (p 233). Later, Peter Wright developed new audio and radio spy techniques, though the detail is a bit vague; it's not clear how many people worked in labs, and there must have been some changes when transistors were invented, infra-red isn't really mentioned, satellite transmission is barely mentioned. And so on. Much of Wright's action was wartime Admiralty research, and Leconfield Road and Gower Street buildings in London, from 1939 to 1975.

Wright's views on power politics were disappointingly conventional: the First and Second World Wars 'broke out'; there's not the slightest awareness of Bolsheviks as Jews; there are hostile references to Germans, and I doubt he knew the implications of 'Nazism'. There's nothing whatever on deaths in eastern Europe both pre-and post-WW2, nothing on the Anglo-Israel War, nothing on Korea and Vietnam and genocide. There is no reference to 'the Holocaust'. There is nothing on Hiroshima as deserving of scepticism, the developing European Union, nothing on the murder of Kennedy as Jewish coup déetat, nothing on racial politics.

Wright comes across as painfully naive, outside his specialist field, in which (for example p 362) he suspected that Gaitskell had been murdered. Wright had been told by the media that the 'Soviet Union' was the enemy, now, as he was told Germany was 'the enemy' previously. It seems almost certain that MI5 and MI6 helped the USSR: all the secrets (such as the 'Berlin Tunnel', dug at great expense into east Germany) were handed over; before the tunnel was even dug, in that specific case. Wright's account of Hollis summoning him to his office and laughing at Wright's claims (pp 289ff) before retiring to his country cottage, and Hollis a bit later (p. 336 ff) on the point of retirement, 'interrogated' over two days by a gentlemanly chap, Hollis sidestepping and blurring any tricky question, suggest there was never any real security. Wright says (p 125) the Foreign Office tended to support the USSR.

Probably the whole policy was misconceived, because the people who were Jew-aware were on the side of the Jews, or at least liked their paper money. To take a few examples: there is no suggestion at all that I could find that international banks, the IMF and so on were spied on. There must have been some commercial espionage, but it barely figures; vast capital transfers and payments go unmentioned. Thus Wright says (p 158) 'Lenin understood better than anyone how to gain control of a country... the political class had to control the men with the guns, and the intelligence service, and ... neither the Army nor the political class could challenge..' Note the failure to mention Jewish money! On military matters, and fake military matters, Wright confines himself to copies of things like ICBM plans. He didn't even realise that 'American' 'atom spies' were Jews, with reasons, important to them, for lying. There's some material on Victor Rothschild who (my guess) was worried he might have been exposed as pro-USSR: '[Blunt] admitted being recruited in 1937, a year or two after Philby, Burgess and Maclean... Tess [Rothschild] ... went terribly pale ... "All those years," she whispered, "and I never suspected a thing." (p 216); Rothschild interfered in the process of appointing a new head (p 370) though he ended 'as head of the Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS). Never was a man more perfectly suited to a job. ...' (p 347); Rothschild asked PW to make a list of possible damage that Blunt's will might cause. Wright admired Victor Rothschild; it never seems to have occurred to him that Rothschild had his own motives. In retrospect, the whole nuclear fraud was being rigged up; but e.g. in the investigation of Fuchs the Jewish issue is not mentioned; nor is it in the Rosenbergs and Cohens and others (p 139).

Page 139 shows Wright's patient analytical methods: starting with files on Soviet espionage cases, arranging by KGB and GRU categories, then by singletons, sleepers, illegal spies with runners, illegal residents running illegals 'and so on', patterns took shape... Except for Lonsdale... Wright's book is approximately chronological, though of course the accounts of investigations span many years: much of Wright's later working life was spent sifting through files and testing codes and talking with witnesses from the past. Each investigation was given a code word; each agent had a code (Hollis was 'drat'); there are plenty of acronyms. Wright's vocabulary includes 'indoctrinate' (meaning tell someone about something), exfiltrate (persuade someone to leave a group).

Let's fast forward through some of the chronological material.
• By 1914, Wright claims, intelligence systems had been established in expectation of war. He doesn't take a long-term view.
• 'Communism' (p 253) as a religion or catechism or list of articles of belief doesn't seem to have been taken very seriously by Wright. The fact it covers up the Jewishness of the protagonists seems to have been unknown to Wright.
• The 'vast KGB machine' (p 187) was built. Including (p 206) Dzerzhinsky's death-trap organisation of fake white Russians.
• 1928 ARCOS intelligence case was well-known at the time.
• (p 246 & others) Cambridge University, and the Oxford Ring', and the 'Shadow of War'. Wright lived through this period and found it fascinating. There is no mention of such people as Victor Gollancz.
• 1938 'Maxwell Knight smashed the Woolwich Arsenal Ring'
• Churchill ordered all anti-Soviet intelligence work to cease during the wartime alliance (p 182)
• The Berlin Airlift (1948-9) may have been generated to cover atrocities in Palestine by Jews. If so Wright had nothing to say about that aspect.
• (p 184) Wright notes in 1954 some change in the USSR, when duplicate one-time pads were discontinued
• McCarthyism (e.g. p 330) is referred to with distaste; just one example of Wright's failure to understand the connections between so-called Jews and so-called communism
• Suez (1956) must I think have been more or less specifically Jewish: if you don't believe me, see if you can find a good account, anywhere, of what it was about. Vague evasiveness and unhelpful material are often found in Jewish topics. Wright has an interesting account of the Egyptian Embassy in London: 'Soviet' operatives arrived to sweep it, but in fact left a bug in a phone, possibly to allow the British to see the 'Soviets' were serious.
• 1961 Cuba 'Bay of Pigs'. Castro may have been a Marrano Jew. If so, Wright shows no awareness; he assumes Castro has magical powers, like Lenin.
• Penkofsky appears from nowhere as an agent (e.g. 204). His expertises were supposed to include Cuba, Kennedy and nuclear weapons (though my guess is he was a Jewish-promoted spy whose rôle was to keep up the myths of nukes and Cuban independence)
• Nossenko appears from nowhere as an agent (e.g. 305 ICBMs, Israel).
• 1962 Cuba 'Missile Crisis'. The USA bombed Vietnam for more than a decade; it seems only to be Jewish media control that made Cuba seem self-directed and independent. Jews used Cubans in future, notably in Africa.
1963 Harold Wilson elected Labor [sic] Party Leader; (363). Prime Minister in 1964. For many years, rumours said Wilson was a 'Communist'. Wright has little on the Labour Party and Jews in it. But quite a bit on groups opposed to Wilson, one of which invited him to join. '.. political climax in early 1974, with the election of the minority Labour Government. MI5 was sitting on information which, if leaked, would undoubtedly have caused s political scandal of incalculable consequences. ..' Wright compared the possibilities to Watergate, but gives little information about the leakable material.

Let me return to more Jewish material, which flickers throughout the book, and the lack of action on it. James Jesus Angleton wanted the MI5 file on Armand Hammer. But Wright didn't give it to him; Angleton seems to have been annoyed by this. P 145 states two NSA cryptanalysts 'defected to the Soviet Union, betraying vital secrets'. It's a plausible guess they were Jewish! '.. The Russians had a train of agents inside the American atomic weapons program ... some of these cases were solved..' It is unlikely any of these people were properly debriefed, if that's the word! On p 317 we find: '[The files] belonged to Victor and Tess Rothschild. "Victor is one of the best friends this Service has ever had. ..." "They are Jewish. David and Rosa are Jewish names ..." It sounded like KGB anti-Semitism to me...' Of course; nobody could possibly object to Jews, could they! P 345 states Kissinger opposed the expulsion of Soviet spies from Britain; this was some sort of toughening up process, perhaps. P 347 says 'Angleton always jealously protected his relations with the Israeli secret service, Mossad' which I think is the only mention of Mossad in the book, incredibly.

A significant part of the book, which I'd guess appeals to more readers than anything else, is the descriptive material about the intelligence men and the various associated women (Evelyn McBarnet, Anne Boyd-Orr..). The 'top men' seem to have been rather lonely, their whole lives revolving around their work and sometimes their hobbies. There were plenty of personality clashes; and it's surprising how much leeway they were given to arrange or rearrange their methods. But, considering the vast issues supposedly in the air - Nuclear war? Other wars? Vast expenses? - one has to wonder whether the whole spy issue was misdirection away from the deep events, a pretence it was Russians vs the West rather than Jews carrying out divide, rule, and lie. Peter Wright in my view comes out very well from this book: agonising over the right thing, dong his best to present useful evidence - such as names - to politicians and civil servants, serious and competent, unhappy with secrecy and cover-ups, exasperated with Hollis' destruction of some records. But unless he was an agent himself I think he missed the multiple elephant lurking in the rooms of the nations. Five stars; but one less for his gullibility.
Top of Page

image   Review of Cold War etc   Richard J. Aldrich: GCHQ: The Uncensored Story of Britain's Most Secret Intelligence Agency

Unintelligent, Unresearched, Unhelpful. Official Only—Boys' Adventure Stories, October 6, 2010

[A 2009 book, attributed to 'Christopher Andrew', The Defence of the Realm - the Authorized History of MI5, was reviewed in TheOccidentalObserver in August, 2017, by Francis Carr Begbie, in a nuclear-naive and Jew-naive review, mostly of the Second World War. Here's a serious revisionist review— ]
Aldrich doesn't describe his methodology: the sources he gives are British National Archives, plus some unpublished archives, e.g. British Telecom's, and about 50 sets of British and American 'Private Papers'—including Churchill, Lyndon Johnson, various Admirals, Air Commodores, Generals and the like. It's not clear how much of each, if any, was consulted. The notes begin with an (incomplete) list of abbreviations. The bibliography includes about 450 books—a couple of Billy bookcases full—largely on warfare, and biographies of politicians, spies and 'spymasters'. Technology, cryptography, and finance seem to be not Aldrich's strong suits. The book has a flavour of thrilling boys' action adventures; I don't think there's one single lesson drawn by Aldrich. Is 'intelligence' worth the money? Maybe worth more? Is it true that not one single difficult cypher has been cracked? Are these people perhaps careerists? What's the balance sheet between historical success and failure? What of events that might have taken place, but didn't? What general laws seem to apply to secrecy? Is it better to have many small intelligence groups—Norway, Holland, and other small countries are praised. Could negotiation be improved to bypass some of this?—Aldrich gives no answers.

Judging by the endnotes, we can reconstruct Aldrich's writing technique: I'd guess Aldrich made a list of topics that were published in the general press—'burst onto the front pages'; then opened some popular books by (for example) Tony Benn, P Calvocoressi, Montgomery Hyde, H Sebag-Montefiore, Duncan Campbell; on such topics as the Cold War, nuclear weapons, Iraq, jungle warfare, Suez, Turkey, spy satellites, U2 and Gary Powers, 'the war on terror'. And then looked up private papers or biographies illustrating some picturesque act of derring-do, or, perhaps, heavy bombing against soft targets—for example, what he still calls 'communists' in Malaya.

The approach is 'open source research'—pioneered perhaps by James Bamford (American), and possibly Duncan Campbell (British). The idea is to fish through published material and look for disregarded but important bits, supplemented by Freedom of Information requests. It's similar in approach to Arthur Butz on the so-called 'Holocaust'; and Frederick Forsyth, who used published sources on the entire layout of 10 Downing Street for a novel.

Aldrich has the curious moral imbecility which comes with accepting all conventional views. Aldrich talks of the 'notorious South African secret service (BOSS)' but thinks nothing of the millions of deaths of Vietnamese, for example, and the forcible movement of populations there—some of the biggest ever in human history. His book gives the general impression that powerful countries can afford expensive intelligence, which helps them do what their steering elites think they want—the quality of the intelligence being more-or-less irrelevant.

The later chapters naturally can't use old documents—because these are still secret (or non-existent). So we have scattered topics—Diana and 'Squidgygate', drug crooks in south America using a computer, banks not wanting to reveal online frauds. And of course the fall of the Soviet Union—my guess is because the Jewish mafiosi no longer thought it worth keeping on—Aldrich prefers to think it was magic. And 9/11—Aldrich, comically, repeats all the Al Quaeda stuff; this alone shows his book is official and worthless. Many generally-censored topics don't make it into the book: there's just a little bit about massacres in Indonesia—compare Pilger on this. The genocide in Clinton's time in Africa doesn't get in. Nor do many of the wars in Africa—Biafra was one—although intelligence must have been involved. No comment even on Pakistan/India war in 1948.

Other omissions include: Caversham Park listening station, part of the 'independent' BBC; weather forecasting as part of the MoD. Aldrich doesn't seem to know that physical examples of the Enigma machine were needed—there's an account somewhere of a U-boat tricked into surfacing. Nor does Aldrich mention the Berlin microphone, listening for settings of the wheels. There's little detail of cryptography; Littlewood pointed out that 'every cipher is breakable' is a legend (1953) and it follows inevitably that indirect methods—stealing coding pads, tapping phones, interceptions, bribing 'assets', have to be used. The only convincing thing I found is an account of 'public key cryptography' described as two padlocks (a technique relevant only to computers). There's not much on Hong Kong and China or Japan.

Some omissions probably exist for ideological reasons. Hungary 1956 is omitted. Vanunu is omitted. A Rothschild made money after the defeat of Napoleon, by reliance on a private signalling system—and no doubt the lesson has been retained, though of course Aldrich wouldn't mention that (though there was a Director of Economic Intelligence—Michael Kaiser—in the MoD who intercepted 'a large number of commercial telegrams'). Given that Soros and others speculate, presumably with more or less indefinite backing, against other currencies, this is of some public interest. Not just currency, but also raw materials are omitted, as is customary with hack historians: no mention of oil stealing by Kuwait. There's nothing on military actions around uranium ores. Tony Collins' '25 Mysterious Deaths in the Defence Industry' (1990) isn't even in the bibliography. A practical example of the downside of spying—the Tupolev TU-144 built from smuggled Concorde plans of a rejected design—is omitted.

Technology: Aldrich appears to have no serious grasp of technology, and accepts what must be a great deal of mythology—suitcase nuclear bombs, for example. He has no inkling that there's something odd about the entire nuclear issue. Microwave controlled microphones sound like someone's little joke. NASA- why didn't intelligence listen in to the 'moon' stuff? With their unmatched radio technology! Aldrich's accounts of old computers read like PR ads of the time, designed to promise the earth and hide unreliability. Aldrich discusses the rise of satellite transmission, though I don't think he has any idea how they work or what they do.

He dodges technology, but, possibly because it's easy to grasp, or is human interest as recommended to scriptwriters, gives descriptions—though not analyses—of numerous rivalries: RAF vs NSA, GCHQ vs SIS, secrecy vs exposure by legal systems, police vs GCHQ (amusing account of Prime), CIA vs NSA, NATO vs MI5, 'tradecraft' vs buggings. And US manufacturers of cypher machines vs European manufacturers—notably Swedish; US army vs US navy vs US airforce; Chile vs Argentina; land based spying vs spy ships vs satellites; competing unions (once) in GCHQ; KGB interdepartmental jealousies. Aldrich likes to use what presumably is still the language of military intelligence—'assets', 'acquire their targets with their radar', 'assisting SIS on the ground', 'degrade Argentine intelligence systems'. He also likes to judge people, in a way which rationally is hardly possible: '.. distinguished security intelligence operator .. most skilled interrogator' [How can he be sure?]. One thing that amused me was '.. Denis Healey, one of the most intelligent people ever to hold ministerial office..'

Finance: It seems odd, in a world where 'foreign aid' from Britain is tens of billions per annum, and the costs of immigration fraud are probably greater, that Aldrich should have no idea of the relative costs of intelligence. Throughout his book there's a sense of "just look at this great big number!" I think this is a by-product of secrecy; I suppose hacks like to pretend they know these things. A typical example is the Manhattan Project, which allegedly produced the atom bomb. More money was spent on radar (according to Chrysler).

Bias: the bias most obvious to me is the complete omission of Jewish influence, notably over the USA, but also of course in Europe. The post-war money-making fraud of 'the Holocaust', and control over countless pressure groups, trusts, quangoes, unions, media and what have you goes unmentioned. The spies for the USSR, and indeed USSR as Jewish, is unmentioned; so is the secret export of western technology to the USSR. The Anglo-Israel War gets virtually no mention. The 'Liberty'—an intelligence gathering ship—is 'controversial'. Kissinger seems to have almost monopolised US foreign policy under Nixon—in fact the Vietnam War may well have been an attempt to get overall Jewish control of money in parts of south-east Asia. Many publicity outfits in the UK—the Rowntree foundation, the Scott trust of the 'Guardian', the New Statesmen, many unions, the violent 'Searchlight' organisation, are Jewish-funded. And so on up to 9/11. At any rate, here there are innumerable intelligence links which are completely unexplored by Aldrich.

Readers might be amused at this mistake—someone 'was born in the Soviet Union in 1908' (page 80). Something similar applies re Islam: Gaddafi and Libya, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Muslims in the heart of Serbia have some cursory account, but the full complications with oil and gas are omitted. And of course the third world inevitably get the sticky end; for example after World War 2 they were sold Enigma machines by the British, deliberately, as they were known to be crackable. Aldrich seems not to know about innumerable interventions in the third world, many of course very bloody.

Failures of intelligence are listed very rarely, in little paragraphs. They include: Pearl Harbor in 1941—unbelievably, Aldrich professes to think this came figuratively out of the blue. We also have: Hitler's attack on the USSR, the 'outbreak' of the Korean War 1950, 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, 1967 'Six Day War', 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, 1973 'Yom Kippur/Ramadan War' by Egypt and Syria, 'failed to predict the end of the Cold War' 1989, 1990 Iraq against Kuwait. Aldrich draws no useful lessons from all this. Needless to say, the third world gets little mention. However, there's Ireland. The bombings suggest this was an intelligence failure—it looks like a failure to me!—but Aldrich doesn't draw this rather obvious conclusion. (Nor does he have anything useful to say on legalities—is the legal system up to the job?)

So—what is the point of this book? So far from being uncensored, it clearly follows the official establishment line at every step. It's possible it was commissioned by the 'Labour' regime disaster—it was recommended by the BBC, a sure sign of official approval. The idea may be to show the government is in control and despite a few understandable small mistakes, knows what it's doing for our benefit. Scarlett—appointed by Tony Blair—is virtually omitted, though there's a 2003 photo giving evidence into David Kelly's death. And yet he seems to have been complicit in public lies on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Presumably the entire organisation is under the control of people who will lie if their promoter pulls their strings. This must surely have some effect on morale at 'the doughnut'. Typically there are accounts of bodged reforms—'[Roger] Hurn's review team .. included Alice Perkins (a.k.a. Mrs Jack Straw) and David Omand...' It's almost incredible that Strawinski, who undemocratically decided to open the UK to mass immigration—no public consultation—let's not mince words; he's scum—should have a wife who is officially permitted to tamper with arrangements that might have a permanent damaging effect. There isn't much consideration of the mass of employees at GCHQ; they seem mainly interested in money and one gathers quite a few computer experts leave—politicians may reward bureaucrats, PFI schemers, lawyers, and company board member shareholders, but people who actually do useful work get left out in the cold.

If you're looking for a compendium of official views on GCHQ, in a form mimicking genuine research, this book might do. If you think the control of information is an important and difficult issue, you might decide to cross off Warwick University from future consideration.
Private intelligence?

In the same way that oil companies have their own systems of diplomacy, and given the huge increase in electronic communications, it seems likely that the wealthiest groups would have their own systems. Judging (e.g.) from Hungary after 1956, and US and Mossad activities overseas, GCHQ may come to be regarded as an amateur state outfit. Individual secure communications, secret archives, worldwide secure locations, murder/ interrogation/ torture and body disposal are the sorts of things likely to be found.
Top of Page

image   Review of Germany and Britain   Richard Milton: Britain and Germany: 100 Years of Truth and Lies

'Political Correctness' and 'Holocaustianity' as official ideology, October 1, 2010

This book exemplifies how an ideology, made up from a combination of censorship and propaganda, can outlive what usefulness it ever had. Milton's book assumes a number of things without evidence—that both the First and Second World Wars had objects; that the phrase 'master race' was in wide use; that there's a connection between people who died of starvation and disease and eugenics. And many other things—his book is highly superficial. Let me try to describe it:-

Firstly, the title ('Best of Enemies—Britain and Germany: 100 years of Truth and Lies') is misleading. The book has 23 chapters, each referenced in scanty endnotes. It's clear that most chapters are book reviews and with little connection to the supposed subject.

Chapter 1, the only one specifically about interrelationships of Brits and Germans, from about 1850, is not very satisfactory: Albert and Christmas trees, monocles, German industry (Milton doesn't mention the Trade Marks Act which helped inflame British workers against German imports), and holidays in the Alps, plus upper class shooting, and the Kaiser wanting his own fleet, are about it. German scholarship (much of it plagiarised by Britons), education, German Unification and undemocratic structure, are barely mentioned. There are no quotations that I recall from pro-German Britons.

Milton is influenced by A J P Taylor (who was broadcast on TV when Milton was in his 40s): Taylor made the railway timetable claim, and also explicitly stated that most ideas attributed to Germany were taken from Britain. His examples—geopolitics, race issues, population issues, boy scouts, Boer War and concentration camps—were pretty much the same as Milton uses, though Taylor also thought Marx was a British thinker!—Taylor was always careful not to mention Jews, and Milton follows this convention; Milton, like Taylor, doesn't even mention the Jewish roots of the USSR and indeed always refers to 'Russia'.

Milton also has debts to a book by John Carey, on population growth and the 'masses' and the effects of new huge cities. Anyone who disliked that (presumably including Coleridge, William Morris, Dickens) is called a 'fascist'—Milton doesn't analyse 'fascism' and his use of the word is virtually the junk media/ school level.

There's a chapter on 'Mass Observation', the archives of which are available. Milton's emphasis is on the understandable general ignorance of policy of these 'masses', most of whose information came from the press. Or so Milton states: there's almost no mention of BBC radio, despite its crucial importance in getting the state's views across, possibly because most of the broadcasts were not easily recordable at the time. Oddly, the name 'Harrisson' is misspelt throughout as 'Harrison'.

Edward Bernays gets a full chapter—Noam Chomsky promotes him, too. It's hard to see why: Bernays' secret methods were entirely standard, typical of Jews working secretly on shady projects.

Because of Milton's methodology, oddly conflicting accounts occur in different parts of the book—for example, of the British Empire. Several chapters say (in effect) that a quarter of the world was under the violent, iron heel of Britain—the Amritsar Massacre gets a description. But in the chapter based on Ponting, the Empire appears as a ramshackle collection of near-bankrupt territories, overstretched, difficult to defend, and a net loss to Britain. (Milton doesn't consider oil as a special case).

There's a chapter on 'British Way and Purpose', a red hardcover army propaganda book of which Milton seems to have a copy from a second-hand bookshop (as I do). The whole issue of what the Second World War was about is not discussed in any detail—just as in the First World War. One of the elephants in the room that Milton doesn't talk about is the competition between military types, both between countries and as against their own people. (Referring to the Kitchener poster, Milton states that recruitment in 1915 was insufficient so the government 'was obliged to introduce conscription'—the aims of the war, and possibility of British neutrality, are unmentioned).

There's a chapter on Sefton Delmer, typical of the Jewish type of anti-German propagandist. And a chapter on Goebbels though of course the source material here is of dubious accuracy. And on 'Mein Kampf', including authorship questions.

Of the serious weaknesses of this volume, let me mention the Jewish-related ones first. Milton simply has no idea of the pivotal influence of Jews in this period. He doesn't seem to realise there was a decision in 1916 linking the Balfour Declaration with the entry of the USA into the war. If the US had stayed out, there must have had to be some sort of earlier Armistice. As it was, Russia was subject to a coup by Jews, basically with money from overseas. This of course was the basis for most Germans' dislike of Jews, and their desire to do something about the USSR. The other issue is propagandist—Milton has no doubts about 'the Holocaust', though he's a bit puzzled over Nuremberg. From the modern point of view, all this has morphed very oddly: there were emaciated bodies as a result of bombing, starvation and disease; Milton thinks this means nobody should worry about such issues as the increase of diabetes after insulin, or cousin marriages and birth defects.

Another serious weakness is failure to examine the way large-scale arms affect societies. The 'military-industrial complex.' Once wars start, powerful forces want them to continue. Some of these forces are psychological: in 1916 the Times was full of letters from octogenarians, all wanting the slaughter to continue. Milton dodges this issue simply by assuming the wars had to be fought. He doesn't consider that, as the war clearly was ending, various groups started to manoeuvre for post-war power. He does however include a book review of Charles Higham, 1983, 'Trading With The Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949' on the Bank for International Settlements and US investments in Germany.

Other omissions include matters tacitly censored from the PC 'consensus'. The Belgian Congo mass murders, and those of the USSR (and the Indian famine) appear not to be known by Milton. The post-war treatment of Germans (cf. Bacque) is unmentioned. Race is dealt with by Milton in a naive way, quoting dubious DNA research. This is a bit odd, as one of his books was critical of Darwin and evolutionary theory, using the 'fly paper method'—evolution-related arguments and puzzles and disputes assembled together. In fact of course there's abundant evidence of racial differences.

In fact, so 'correct' is this book I can't help wondering if it was specifically funded. The best I can say about 'Best of Enemies' is that people who've been so naive as to accept the official views, might go on to consider far less palatable truths.
Top of Page

Bell Curve Herrnstein Murray   Rerevisionist's Review of   Richard Herrnstein & Charles Murray   The Bell Curve   (first published 1994)
    Review 5 March 2015
Extra material is needed after 21 years. The effects of intra-human conflict must be understood. The most important group to understand is 'Jews'.

'Intelligence and class structure in American life.' Murray wrote this book after the death of Herrnstein; and Murray is laughably naive: 'Becoming an American requires only that immigrants buy into a set of American ideals. You can move to America from anywhere in the world, be of any ethnicity, social class, or race, and become an American.'

Let's try to see what's needed.

The 'bell curve'. This curve has been known for a few centuries (discovered by Gauss, in fact). It is also called the 'error curve': underlying the shape is the idea that a large number of small changes combine in the final result. For example, heights are more or less distributed like this, at least in similar groups, and allowing for gender. BUT the curve is misleading when applied to test scores. The scores, significantly called 'raw' as though they are inferior and in need of massaging, are modified to make them fit a 'bell curve'.
    To take an extreme case, imagine a population with two types of people, some of whom score 0 on some test, and some of whom score 100 out of 100. These cannot be fitted into a bell curve at all, but there's nothing impossible in such a distribution of scores. Part of the point of converting ranges of scores into a 'bell curve' is to make them look continuous; the aim is to support the idea that mental faculties are continuously distributed. In fact, they may be, or may not.
    In practice, the juggling is done by taking scores with quite a high range of marks, then dividing into (say) tenths of the total numbers tested. If there's a possible range of scores of 0 to 100, it may be found that about a tenth of tested people score 0-2, 3-8, 9-13, 14-25, 26-29, 30-35, 36-40, 41-48, 49-69, 70-100. I've deliberately picked some strange-looking ranges; in practice test items are weeded out in many ways, for example to try to make female and male scores the same.

Herrnstein and Murray seem to assume there must be a single curve. Probably they'd accept that (for example) colour blindness, damage to infants, malnutrition complicate the issue. But if there are exceptional abilities—mathematical, musical, skill in estimating other personalities—these will only be detected if the tests look for them.

IQ tests allow for this to some extent by trying to test mathematics, vision and spaces, and language separately, though to make them markable they tend to look at numerals, diagrams, and alphabetic phenomena, of the types used in puzzles, rather than in the real world.

A deeper look at IQ tests. These tests were and are used because pencil and paper tests appear cheap and simple to administer. (Imagine a set of machines that gave a comprehensive overview of a person's intelligence and other characteristics, but cost $100,000 for each subject). But many people never developed an alphabet, or any other sort of writing, and never had paper. To sit IQ tests needs fine motor movements, appreciation of documents, and appreciation that signs can represent something that they don't resemble. They may have not had counting, and not had diagrams. It seems unlikely that such people can have been selected to be good at pencil-and-paper work. IQ tests were invented as a fast way to test for something like office work employability.

A deeper look at human populations. It doesn't seem to have occurred to many people that reading and writing need a certain number of biological skills and abilities, which presumably may be selected for over the generations. The same sort of thing is true in principle for almost any change: the switch to agriculture may have selected for people with long-term patience and observation, rather than skill with wild animals and tracking. Staple foods—wheat, rice, maize, sorghum—must have had selection effects. Alcohol, animal milk, deep sea fish, animals which could be tamed, types of timber and so on must have had their effects. Philippe Rushton and others have looked into this, but as yet not in great depth. And—note particularly—most of these factors are largely external, not human. Rushton's view in effect was that local climate and local foods and building materials and plants and animals determine most of the variable part of human genetics. How deep this goes in attitudes seems uncertain: Roland Joffé (directed The Mission) said he found South American Guarani 'Indians' in modern cities preferred to be surround by life, including dangerous animals.

Most people who can understand evolution (and large numbers can't) understand these aspects of human micro-evolution. They realise Africans who are skinny can run faster than tubby Eskimos. They are uneasy about insulin, since ever-more children are dependent on injections to keep alive. They may know that Down's syndrome ('mongolism') can now last into adulthood.

The next phase in human evolutionary studies, which is invisible in Rushton, is rivalry within human groups, something that presumably can be assumed to have increased with every increase in skill. The easiest way to refer to this is as parasitism, and as symbiosis. We have, in my view because of the effects of documents and their propagandist effect, against which there seems no inbuilt defence, a perfect example in so-called 'Jews', caused originally by 'Talmudic' material operating on nomads in the Khazar country. Their characteristics involve logically absurd beliefs in texts which are self-contradictory, plus a class of 'expert' interpreters, producing the genetics to be expected from people with such ancestry.

Let's consider a bell shape, a surface of revolution from a 'bell curve'. Or, if this makes no sense to you, another bell curve but with different tests, for such things as untruthfulness, secrecy, selfishness, egocentricity, callousness, manipulativeness, lack of empathy. (These are taken from the US Diagnostic and Statistical Manual which has sections wrestling with so-called personality disorders, sociopathy, and psychopathy). Whether such characteristics can be measured by self-tests seems unlikely; why should cunning people say they're cunning?

The challenge for successors of Rushton and the others is to develop understanding of parasitism and of symbiosis. From the point of view of non-'Jews', 'Jews' have had a devastating impact, though of course this has been kept secret. My impression is that the elucidation of 'Jewish' behaviour counts as a new discovery, just as some new life-form might be found under the sea, or a new ecosystem discovered somewhere, or a new island or country. At present 'Jews' are spread across many countries, a little like a parasitic fungal infection.

'Jews' operate by parasitism, but with the aid of symbionts. These are of great historical importance: Cromwell and Napoleon are examples, but the 20th century has vast numbers: Balfour, Lenin, President Wilson, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin are just a few. Obama is a perfect example. The next analytical stage in human race examination is to try first to understand, then to quantify, the effects of Judaics. And model the effects of character traits. Maybe it will be possible to roughly estimate the effects of eugenic policies. Or perhaps 'genics' is a more neutral word, since it's not completely clear what 'eugenics' means—even putting aside the absurd judaic propaganda against eugenics, which is presumably designed to hide judaic supremacist violence, it's not obvious what counts as 'good', though presumably adaptation to modern conditions must be part of the assessment.
Top of Page

image   Review of   Human Races   J Phillipe Rushton: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (2nd Special Abridged Edition)

Convincing overview but the vast panorama leaves a bit of doubt..., September 9, 2010

Highly recommended (and—maybe I shouldn't say this—the abbreviated version is downloadable; it appears to be a fifth or less in size than the unabridged version). I have a few doubts:--

Note on r/K or r and K selection theory.   I'd suggest intelligent people treat this phrase, and deductions supposedly from it, with scepticism. I've been unable even to find where the phrase came from, or what the abbreviations mean, or any theoretical derivation, or what sort of populations it is supposed to apply to.
The general idea is that some organisms have huge numbers of tiny offspring, but don't take much care of them: clouds of spores from fungi, plants with large numbers of tiny seeds, fish which eject clouds of eggs and clouds of sperm illustrate the r type.
    K-type is illustrated by mammals, where the complications (heart, lungs, skeleton, digestive system ...) and need for viability at all stages of growth make vast numbers of offspring impossible.
BUT in human beings this simplicity need not quite apply, since care and feeding can be offloaded: under Jewish influence, parasitic human offspring are encouraged as part of their anti-'goy' policy. Probably this fact made Jews censor the original idea. In its simplest form, k/R does not mention parasitism, but it begins to approach it, in a style worrying to Jewish financial controllers of science.


[1] Geographical and biological: Is Africa benign, or dangerous? The climate is more manageable than the colder northern climates. But it's not only man that likes it—there are snakes, insects, parasites, poisonous and spiny plants, predatory animals that make books on African diseases such horrific reading. Large parts have soil (as does Australia) that isn't much use for growing things—laterite, full of iron oxide. Does Africa encourage fast breeding with little parenting? Maybe. Or maybe not.

Much of the world is something like pure accident: some areas have dates, or rice, or crops able to be bred as maize, or wheat. Some seemed to have no staple. Some have clean springs of water; others presumably don't. Some have edible animals. Some have tameable animals. Some have timber suited for building. Some have good soil. Some have specific raw materials: gold, copper, naphtha as in 'Greek fire'; some don't—I believe Australian soil is low in molybdenum. 'Raw materials' are themselves a matter of knowledge: from a sheep farmer's viewpoint, grass is a raw material. Some have earthquakes. Some have everyday aspects which have long-term risks. There must have been a huge element of luck in human development.

Because of the way inventions depend on other inventions, and because science is so recent, empiricism must have had a tremendous effect throughout human evolution. Fire, metal alloys, plants suited to make fabrics, ropes, easily-cut stone... pottery, knives, symbolic writing ... gunpowder, shipping.. Thus for example glass was unknown in China for centuries. Science was invented by a few westerners and this depended to some extent on inventions: fire, lenses, weights and measures. It's easy to imagine the amazement of aborigines in Australia on entering a wooden sailing ship.

Another important distinction is defensibility: Europe is exceptional in having territories marked off by mountains, seas, snow barriers—to this day, countries are identifiable by these geographical markers. But other areas are trackless and unbounded and vast—prairies, steppes, mountainous regions, jungles, marshes, seas. Any area unable to defend itself is at risk: imagine mediaeval London magically moved to Timbuktu or Turkey.

I'm just making the perhaps obvious point that environments have a vast effect. If China had had a calm inland sea like the Mediterranean, maybe they'd have colonised the world. If nobody had happened to find that urine could be used to make potassium nitrate, perhaps gunpowder would never have been discovered. It's as well to be cautious in speculation.

[2] Rushton considers blacks, orientals (these are 'yellow'—rather than Indian), and whites. As far as I can see, he doesn't face another taboo, of 'semites'. They appear to be completely omitted. Kevin MacDonald has filled this gap on analogous lines to Rushton, though his work is more ideas-based than biological. MacDonald's work is an important reminder of the importance of 'memes'. Rushton has an r-strategy, and K-strategy. MacDonald adds in- and out-group strategies for internal competition.

[3] Inheritance is a digital matter, but Rushton doesn't (I think) look at the cases where some characteristic definitely does, or doesn't, exist in an individual. For example, the ability to make enzymes that digest alcohol or milk. He concentrates on gross effects, which of course may be the sum of many genes. One has to assume that (e.g.) genetic tendency to violence can't be mental, but must be a function of hormones and musculature and quickness of irritability and recognition; reasonably enough, Rushton doesn't go into detail. However it's as well to be aware that the actual mechanisms are not known or not well understood, so this allows a loophole for environmentalists to criticise.

[4] AIDS. It's fairly well-known this is a mistake. (If you prefer, a fraud). Discount all this material in Rushton!

[5] The problem with genetics has been that it's easier to study rare, isolated genetic oddities ... but populations are another study in themselves. It's amazing really that Rushton seems novel—people have been saying much the same since long-distance sea travel. The reason of course is the 'Jewish' stranglehold on education and information. NB Rushton's full-length book may answer many of these comments; I hope so. Well-worth reading. Much of it in fact has a familiar, if remote, ring to it; surely you've heard it before? You have, and it's been censored or buried or evaded. Revise your outlook, therefore! It's too important to ignore.
Top of Page

image   Review of Maths history   G. H. Hardy: An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers

There is no such thing as 'number theory'!, August 8, 2010

I'm not as impressed as the other reviewers here with this book, despite it's being in some sense a 'classic'.

I take it some people—I have no idea what proportion of the population—now and then are struck by properties of numbers. For example, if a number AB is added to BA, the result always divides by 11. If the difference is worked out, this is always a multiple of 9. (E.g. 75 minus 57 is 18, a multiple of 9). Or (e.g.) Any number cubed, less the number, will always divide by 6 and is also the product of three consecutive numbers. (e.g. 5 cubed is 125; less 5 gives 120, which is 4x5x6). This sort of thing is the basis of 'number theory'.

There are at least two problems with this book. Firstly, there is in fact not yet such a thing as 'number theory'. This book is a ragbag of techniques and things which have been identified and passed down by lecturers. But it is NOT a coherent 'theory' in any sense. Perhaps I might compare it with a book on 'chess theory'. Chess books have accounts of such things as opening gambits, sacrifices, end games—including some with extremely precise techniques needed for victory. And there are things like 'zwischenzug' and assorted events which are rare, but have some interest. But does this make up a body of 'theory'? I'd say not. Anyone looking to this book for insight into the Pythagorean mystery of number will in my view be more or less disappointed.

Now, what follows from this is my second point, which perhaps is to do with human psychology, or the capacity of the human brain. What is it that makes some people fix on a certain type of problem? For example, this book, like most or maybe all on number theory, starts with prime numbers—probably discovered as a result of packaging and division of actual objects. This of course had practical applications, such as the Babylonian 360 degrees, and our 12 inches, 14 pounds, 1760 yards, and so on. A collection of techniques (e.g. Eratosthenes' sieve), formulas, limits and other results has accumulated. Looking at Euclid's proof of the infinity of primes, his method was to multiply all the primes, and add 1. This function in effect is designed to use the properties of primes to generate a new prime. However Hardy and Wright don't attempt to generalise this process. Maybe Fermat's Last Theorem could be proved elegantly by inventing some ingenious function which combines the properties of addition, multiplication, and powers—repeated multiplication by the same number? What is it that makes some problems (so far) insoluble—and many of them are very trivial to state?

So we have here a collection of results, embodied in symbolism which is far enough from the actualities to (perhaps) look more impressive than it really is. Integration, for example, is basically simple enough, but the long s and the notation removes the reader from the real world...

And there's a related problem, which is that the connective material, explaining why the next bit is there and what it is supposed to illustrate, is completely missing. The result is like a tour of museum exhibits, where the tourist is expected to infer the significance of all the specimens. Or like a concert, where one sample piece of music is played after another, from which the auditor is presumably left to infer a theory of music. In fact, I've just decided to demote the book to two stars!
Top of Page

Hooper Moths Evolution ** THIS REVIEW WAS NOT ALLOWED BY AMAZON! Tue 17 Nov 2015 **

Review of   Judith Hooper   Of Moths and Men (First published 2002)

Review by Rerevisionist     17 Nov 2015
Largely a Study in Irrelevance
In Britain, this was first published in 2002 by 4th estate 'A Division of HarperCollinsPublishers'). Judging from Amazon it has had several subtitles: Intrigue, Tragedy & the Peppered Moth. And 'An Evolutionary Tale. And The Untold Story of the Peppered Moth. The book may have been triggered by Ted Sargent, one of three authors of a 1998 chapter from vol 30 of Evolutionary Biology.

Let me announce from the start that the whole topic is somewhat of a waste of time. It is just a picturesque illustration, or, if you prefer, a faked example, of a change in population. It has nothing to do with genuine deep evolutionary theory, and does nothing to prove or disprove evolution. All it shows is that many living things eat many other living things, probably the food nearest to hand.

H G Wells and Julian Huxley's book The Outline of Life helped popularise the story, with photos of normal and dark forms of the moth biston betularia, dead and pinned to tree bark, some dark in industrial areas, others light with lichen. An early case of misleading/faked photos, to be followed by film.

H G Wells was familiar with the world of observers and collectors of specimens; his father was something of an observer. Wells's short story, The Moth, has a hero driven mad by the desire to have a moth named after him. Some of the names have English echoes: for example, the Observers Book of Larger British Moths by Richard L E Ford—though I don't know if he was related to the E B Ford (1901-1988) in Judith Hooper's book, known jokingly as 'Henry', a raconteur type, who owned but had stolen two Ruskins, a Constable, and a Gainsborough, who was the Oxford University part of this story.

Bernard Kettlewell (1907-1979), big, energetic, loud, was the moth collector, breeder, experimenter, copulator, and even lepidopterophage. He lived a half-life, overlapping with Oxford FRSes. He married a Birmingham society hostess. His daughter Dawn was a nymphomaniac, who died young, possibly a caricature of both her parents.

When Hooper's cast of early characters were young, the world was less built-up; birds' eggs and beetles and butterflies and moths and newts were more obvious and more easily collected. Victorian collectors' cabinets had caterpillars the size of small fingers. And many, many species of speckly moths very similar to the peppered moth, though only biston betularia seems to have had the possibility to darken genetically. The outdoor world was more living than today; Hooper quotes Ted Sargent (in the USA) on this theme.

R A Fisher (1890-1962) invented or polished-up or practised much of statistics; a pioneer deserving a serious biography—though the biographer would need to understand the maths, understand the hidden assumptions, have some idea where it might lead, and understand what is needed to develop it further. Not for the lightweight. Hooper says he had thick specs, supported eugenics, and had lots of kids.

Other parts are played by 'Niko' Tinbergen, and then Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, each with their post-1945 intentional lying and evasion on human races, in absurd contrast with their fanatical 'Jewish' racial beliefs. Armand and Michaela Dennis, prominent in early television, are in there. Plenty of other characters appear: Sparrow of All Souls, sitting on a huge pot of treasure, apparently a victim of the Franks Commission, which sounds like a post-1945 'Jewish' investigation. Hooper misquotes Medawar's Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?. Hooper includes Wenner, a critic of von Frisch's bee dance. We have gossip from secretaries and wives—Hooper is amused by male inability to cope while doing complicated work.

It has to be said that Judith Hooper is somewhat naive, as is necessary for widely-published American writers, of course. She is shocked by 'appeasement', thinks darky moths mean 'racism', quotes one of the moth men as shouting 'Kraut!' to a German in a hotel for keeping him awake 'from 1941-1945'. It's difficult to tell where her researches (books, science papers, the Bodleian Library, private papers) take over from received views: for example she doesn't know much about Alfred Russel Wallace, almost certainly the genuine originator of the theory of evolution; she quotes the first edition of The Origin of Species selling out in one day; and quotes the Soapy Sam Wilberforce story with no signs of doubt.

A lot of the book is taken up with melanic variation (from the Greek; 'Melanie' means black) and opinions about trees, lichen, and birds. Rather silly experiments are described with mercury vapour lamps, muslin sleeves, enamel paint dots on the wings of captured moths. But there are endless complications, as critics pointed out in ever-increasing numbers: bird eyesight (how did the moths appear to them?), bird feeding (did they in fact eat moths at rest?), bats and other less visible causes of insect mortality (weather, food shortages, viruses, fungi, parasitic insects, spiders, small mammals, insecticides ...), other causes of melanism such as 'pollution' in food, diurnal resting habits of moths, difficulties with releasing and recapturing moths. (Hooper omits Wallace's observation that the lightest moths, at night, presumably are most visible: is this a night-time form of warning colouration?).

Paradoxically, Oxford itself shows intense Darwinian competition: similar creatures compete for territory in a rather narrow habitat. Hence the perpetual bitterness and testing criticism—except of anything important—which Hooper notices. I'm reminded of Patrick Prunty or Brontë, jumping through verbal hoops to get his curacy. It's curious how remote this process is from natural selection, or survival of the fittest: trashy modern historians, biologists terrified of having no usable techniques, trash economics avoiding all realism about money. Though they do share the isolation from the great world, as they pursue their myopic self-interest.
Top of Page

Humphrey Pledge Science Since 1500   Review of Science history   Humphrey T Pledge: Science Since 1500

Brilliant Overview of How All Sciences Developed, August 8, 2010

This latest reprint appears to be the 1966 edition, which is a reprint of the original 1939 best-selling first edition. It was published as a 'Harper Torchbook' in the USA.

Pledge worked in the (London) Science Museum Library from about his mid-20s. His Cambridge degree was in the 'Natural Sciences'—a B.A. in those days. The title is slightly misleading—there are four chapters up to about 1600, after which the story deals with individual centuries. Pledge's sources were mostly books—I don't think he did original research—including G Sarton at Harvard, and both specific and general histories. He seems to have read German. He included the social background in his book, and makes many shrewd comments. There's an index of proper names—I estimate about 1,200 men along with place names and institutions. And an index of topics—about 1,500 starting with abacus, ending with zoology. There are three interesting charts of great scientist-teachers, family-tree style outlines of who learned what from whom. And maps of scientists' birthplaces, plus of course some plates on art paper.

Possibly for space reasons, technology is a bit under-represented—there's nothing on radio, despite this being an important force at the time he wrote. Nothing on weapons.

The value of this book is that it is entirely free of the modern 'politically correct' Frankfurt/neo-Marxist style rubbish. There are no claims that the USSR invented everything, or blacks. Moreover wideawake people are aware that science has been corrupted, partly in fact as a result of US/Jewish frauds and money—it has to be said. So a lot of biology research, much of NASA, much medical research including AIDS, climate science etc is so inaccurate that it is best omitted. So this book is not really out of date, except of course for not including lasers, computers, jet engines, plastics—most of which are technology, in any case. If you'd like a short accurate account of the discoveries of what makes food; what thermodynamics is about; how nuclear physics developed; the origins of geology; the structure of matter... this book is a very valuable one-volume summary. I do have a slight reservation—Pledge is slightly conventional—Semmelweis, for example, seems to have been driven mad by the medics of his time refusing to wash their hands, and thus refusing to spare women from death, and though Pledge hints at this, he's not condemnatory. Similarly with the inaction over scurvy in sailors, when it was known how to prevent it.

I said above, 'he makes many shrewd comments'. Here are some examples:-

BOTANY AND FAUNA: 'Natural history.. took its rise in regions of varied.. or remarkable flora, fauna, or rocks.. the Alpine mountain system, [with] forms appropriate to very different climates in close contrast; islands with their long-isolated life; Scandinavia, where the operation of cold and other .. limiting factors is evident'

GENETIC RESEARCH: 'Cistercians by greatly improving the wool-bearing quality of English sheep, laid one foundation of this country's economic supremacy... Mendel's was no new activity within monastic gardens.. the forbidding lengths of time needed on present methods [ie pre-D.N.A.] for acquiring genetic knowledge. No way of life is more fitted than the monastic to afford the necessary continuity...'

ORIGIN OF ZOOS: 'It is easy to preserve dead plants by drying them, but .. [not] dead animals... The collection of live animals .. by the end of the 15th century had become a choice form of ostentation for princes with venturesome mariners and curious minds. Lisbon, the capital city of the earliest explorers, had one of the earliest zoological gardens. ...'

MEDICINE: 'Military medicine often led to improvements: 'rulers indifferent to the fate of their civilian subjects were very much alive to that of their soldiers, and we shall note many decisive biological advances made by military surgeons'.

Pledge is detailed, but compressed, on the history of ideas; interesting to (for example) see how Galen was transmitted, both through Avicenna and Gerard of Cremona.

Plenty more—mathematics, attitudes to the universe, Harvey on the heart as a pump at a time when pumps were introduced to drain British wetlands, evolution, the importance of glass....

Highly recommended to anyone wanting a shrewd one-volume account of people, ideas, inventions, and discoveries. This book is downloadable free.
Pledge unfortunately died relatively young (1903-1960); he might have established a faculty somewhere on the history of science. His papers (donated by his wife) are held in 'The Keep', which is connected in some way with Sussex University. Most '... are related to Pledge's projected synthesis of knowledge.' These boxes may well be interesting; but I don't know whether anyone has taken them very seriously.
Top of Page

  Review of Jews, science, weapons, frauds   Baron Solly Zuckerman: Nuclear Illusion & Reality

Inchoate and not even unconvincing, August 3, 2010

For some reason—perhaps Churchill's influence—Britain's nominal military advisers have often been rather odd alien types. This book (1982) is I think absolutely typical of the genre. (I) There's no consistent argument in it—Zuckerman seems to be making a case, or cases, but the writing switches between politics and personalities, to supposed history and the supposed then-current reality, so there's no discernible thread. (II) Zuckerman seems to be saying there was no point in further testing, since there was already overkill, though he seemed unable to prove the point. (III) Zuckerman seemed weak on the actual science—for example there was a lot of dispute over fallout; dangerous or not? Which he does not resolve. (IV) Another unresolved issue is the matter of vested interests. He seems to suggest no testers wanted a ban, purely because they'd be out of a job. He comments on Carter's and Reagan's 'defense' budgets in the couple of hundred billion range (in 1981, 1982) and seems to imply a lot is wasted or useless or harmful. But, again, the message is vague.
Top of Page

John Tyme and motorway inquiry objections     Review of Protest and Motorways   John Tyme: Motorways versus Democracy

Doesn't give the case against motorways, February 26, 2013

25 year old book. Disappointing; it gives information on public inquiries, from June 1973 through to November 1977, into motorways, bypasses and Archway Rd in London. Tyme regarded motorways largely as swindles imposed by 'faceless bureaucrats' and government officials. He states '.. it is my belief ... that the motorway/trunk road programme with all its ramifications poses a consummate evil, and constitutes the greatest threat to the interests of this nation in all its history.' This appears to be based on a similar train of thought to that of Fred Hoyle, who said that roads are a positive feedback phenomenon: the more roads you build, the more cars you get. Neither seem to have thought that there must be an upper limit on cars; would every single person want to spend their whole lives acquiring the maximum possible number of cars? It seems unlikely. Tyme states he'll produce 'a forthcoming book' on the case against motorways, but seems to have never done this. Interesting paperback and with many detailed accounts of fury against planners etc, probably usually stoked by personal housing issues, such as house prices. (Something similar happened when railways were new; as in, for example, Dickens). An opportunity missed.

This (pages 1-2) outlines his objections, in one long paragraph:-
As is made clear in a forthcoming book, it is my belief, and one shared by increasing numbers of people, that the motorway/trunk road programme with all its ramifications poses a consummate evil, and constitutes the greatest threat to the interests of this nation in all its history. None of our national enemies have so mutilated our cities, undermined the long-term economic movement of people and goods, destroyed our industrial base, diminished our ability to plan our community life, and reduced our capacity to feed ourselves. The more highways we build, the more we generate traffic to fill them, the greater the congestion and snarl-ups, and thus the more highways we require to build. The more we build, the more we confirm and perpetuate the horrendous accident level (approaching a million people a century killed, to say nothing of the mutilated and injured) as motorway-generated traffic makes its way onto crowded city and suburban streets. The more roads and motorways built, the more inevitable is the decline of alternative transport modes. The more roads, the greater the housing loss and destruction of community and the less house-building and resources for hospitals, schools and other social services. The more highways, the more we are committed to the disaster known as 'dispersal planning' based upon the notion that distance between residence and work, shops and schools, recreation and medical services is no object; and the more dispersal planning, the greater the loss of land and agricultural production (now estimated at an average county area every ten years). The more resources we commit to road transport, the more we create social inequity (with all its imponderable political dangers), as the well over 40 per cent of households who do not own cars and are now never likely to, are left unable to pay the rising cost of public transport, simply watching the cars and juggernauts go by. The more we construct highways, the more we fuel the inflationary spiral as people are compelled to buy and maintain cars they cannot afford simply in order to get to work or get their children to school, to the dentist, the doctor or the hospital. The more motorways, the greater is our national dependence on the car industry, the one industry that, for reasons of energy and materials costs, can have no medium- let alone long-term future; the more roads, the greater the threat of unemployment of nightmare proportions as that industry and all its associated industries collapse before a vanishing world market. The more roads planned, the greater the industrial as well as housing blight, as blue, orange, green and red routes lie across our city maps for decades. The more the concrete miles proliferate, particularly in development areas, the more economic decline proceeds as direct investment declines in industry and in housing and those social services which together stimulate economic activity and create a contented work force. The more freight and personal movement we commit to roads, so the self-proliferating highway programme can only lead to a transportation catastrophe for this country as rail, waterway and public transport levels decline in real terms to the point where, when the great energy spree finally comes to an end, we are left in this country without any viable transport system whatever. And finally, the more roads and motorways we build, the more we commit this country to the desperate international struggle for increasingly scarce resources (including energy) to maintain the profligate and wasteful society that they so create and so exemplify - and that way is a short cut to world nuclear conflict.
Top of Page

image   Review of Social re-engineering of buildings for manipulated populations   Oscar Newman: Defensible Space - People and Design in the Violent City

Part of the Jewish takeover of the USA

1972 book (1973 in UK). Many black and white photos, with maps and diagrams in the then-current architectural style, with a certain amount of freehand line drawing and what look like felt pens for bigger detail.

This is a study of 'housing projects' in the USA, roughly in the 25 years post-1945. Kennedy's murder was somewhat past the half-way point of this interval, and L B Johnson the most serious ingress of Jews to date then in the USA. This of course was when US genocide in Vietnam peaked; as for that matter did NASA's fraud. Newman's book should be considered in the light of mass fraud at home and mass killings outside. There is of course no trace of this in this book.

Domestically there was anti-white pressure: immigration had been intentionally made simple by Jews, and correlative pressure was applied in 'busing' etc to damage areas and neighborhoods. Look at Arthur Cohen's Attitude Change (1964) on experiments like the Asch 'conformity experiment', where people tell obvious lies when under some pressure. The film with William Shatner The Intruder from the same era has the same message.

Newman assumes that large manipulable populations will live (and pay rent) in these structures; his book entirely concerns how muggings etc can be reduced by redesigning smallish details of such buildings. There's no discussion of why people should be expected to be at risk, or why people should be given no voice in their housing, in what is or was their own country. Newman represents the Jewish viewpoint - no discussion on choice, take what you're given, pay rent, be a pawn. The financing is of course not mentioned: who profits from these dull buildings, why not build proper towns and neighborhoods?
Top of Page

alice-coleman-utopia-on-trial   Review of Social engineering of housing in Britain   Alice Coleman: Utopia on Trial - Vision and Reality in Planned Housing (1985)

Omits several elephants in the tower block, Mar 3, 2013

1985 book published by Hilary Shipman, presumably a small specialist publisher. The work was carried out over five years by a team directed by Professor Alice Coleman, of the geography department at King's College, London. There were five main members of the team, all women.

The title is supposed to include the idea of a trial: the defendants being the vision of planners - not the planners themselves (including architects, council 'officers' and so on), but rather the vision, a compound of the Garden City idea and Le Corbusier's still-futuristic visions as processed by post-1945 'socialists'. Fixed-size gardens, Radiant City, and roads in the sky as interpreted by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Her alternative, or at least contrast, seems to be a more-or-less free market model, with builders building what they find people want: 1930s semis emerge well from this, partly because the population had been thinned out by WW1 slaughter so houses were cheapish. (£500 for a semi, £550 for a detached, I remember being told). Coleman likes Jane Jacobs ('Death and Life of Great American Cities') and Oscar Newman's 'Defensible Space' (1972; her book resembles this but with fewer illustrations). There's a sex divide here: male architects discuss design and people as fitting in (or not) with their pet structures; women tend to be more aware of things like crowds as crime reducers, and town centres with a variety of shops and businesses. Coleman quotes approvingly from an author on shanty towns.

I'm not certain Coleman knew the meaning of 'utopia' when she wrote this.

In fact the book was a bit late - page 7 has a photo of a controlled demolition of a 10-storey Birkenhead block!

Coleman set out to find weak design points - 'design disadvantagement' features - and listed 15 of these, all architectural and, specifically, spatial - tower and slab blocks, blocks per site, entrance types, corridor positions and whether they were observed, vertical routes such as lifts (elevators), interconnecting exits, and confused as opposed to clearly-delineated outside spaces.

Buildings were assessed by several criteria - litter, faeces ('usually dog'), children taken into care, and others. (Table page 205 lists these, and correlation coefficients). There were interviews, though such issues as feelings of fear, feelings of loneliness, and actual violence weren't factored into the calculations. Blocks in Hackney and Southwark, and, for comparison, Blackbird Leys in Oxford were looked at; 4,099 of these blocks, plus 4,172 houses. And a dozen other parts of Britain, plus Toronto, Puerto Rico and Hong Kong. Thirty or so woman-years in total.

There's a fair amount of statistical work. I have to say I found the 'threshold level' calculations incomprehensible.

The basic idea seems to be pretty simple, in fact: if you have a place to live in, normally there are few ways to get to it, and out of it: a main road, a side road, a front door, maybe several floors; and maybe a back door or fire escape. The number of neighbours is not very great. BUT if there are several big blocks scattered around, and linked by walkways, there may be many ways of getting to several entrances, and many ways of getting to the apartment or maisonette. Corridors may be menacing or unobserved or isolated. So what? Well, IF there are burglars or other criminals or thugs, the living space is threatening and worrying. (This is quite apart from the issue of looking out of windows with precipitous huge drops down). In some societies, this may not matter: '... Japan had a high crime rate ... which fell after the American occupation force departed, and they now assume virtually all crime is due to foreigners. ... the Japanese people are reacting rather like the British but at a much later date, so they have reached only a mild stage as yet' wrote Prof Coleman to me. This sounds to me like a low crime population. She wrote: 'The architects who designed the inferior estates genuinely believed they were superior dwellings, and they certainly cost more than houses would have done.'

The solutions - removing walkways, having external balconies rather than interior corridors, blocking off vertical shafts, would make journeys home longer, of course, but perhaps that couldn't be helped. Houses were to have improved visibility by giving them bay windows, and doors with glass facing out, and fenced gardens.

There are several issues not faced by Coleman, possibly because the project was 'funded' by the Rowntree Foundation, basically a Jewish-controlled quasi-think-tank which had the pro-Jewish policy of damaging British society. There's no mention of such phenomena as Rachmanism. Another plausible Jewish-related possibility is that housing desiogned to put the goyim in their inferior place, while also benefitting Jews through subsidies, was deliberate but hidden policy. Ernö Goldfinger (1902-1987), a Jew from Hungary, illustrates. [Goldfinger note added 2013-10-06]

In the first place, there's the issue of criminality: if nobody ever attacked or robbed anyone, a completely open-plan architecture would be fine. In fact, crime was rising all the time, and this of course was disproportionately due to immigrants. Possibly the architects preferred not to face such facts.

There's no consideration of the part that could be played by concierges. (The 'caretaker' is the nearest approach).

Another point is that mansion blocks can work perfectly well: the Barbican, Brunwick Centre, and other high-density architectural constructions work well enough. And certainly many blocks now have railings, all round, not too obtrusive, with railed gates opened electrically by buttons out of reach of the other side of the fence. Probably the lessons were learned.

Another very serious missing consideration is the Freemasonry/ Common Purpose effect: if big companies can get big contracts on big sites which use relatively deskilled labour, they're onto a winner, from their point of view. Coleman makes the mistake of viewing demolition as 'financially disastrous'. This is true of income taxpayers and property tax payers, but not of the beneficiaries, who in fact can make much more money from bad schemes than good. Councils were actually offered a cash bonus - the taller the block, the more money. And the density was deliberately kept low.

Note that Alice Coleman teamed up with Mona McNee, and between them they wrote on another money-making disaster, low quality teaching of children to read and write. But again they omitted important parts of the dynamics.
Top of Page

image   Review of Social engineering of education, dumbing down   Mona McNee & Alice Coleman: The Great Reading Disaster: Reclaiming Our Educational Birthright

Important issue treated with passion, but ..., Sept 3, 2008

NOTE: If you have a 'dyslexic' child, or child discouraged from reading, or know an adult who has been damaged by crap teaching of reading, try www.phonics4free.org -- Mona McNee's website.

Alice Coleman wrote on the architectural disasters of British tower blocks, and how to cure them, and deserves very considerable respect for this. Mona McNee was/is a teacher. (Google and search for videos of her; she by the way is promoted by the BNP).

The claim made (2007, by a small Exeter press—www.imprint-academic.com) iis very very important, namely that children weren't taught to read properly, which means by identifying letters as the—so to speak—atoms of words. When this was done most kids could read by, say, 7. (I'm talking of the English or 'Roman' alphabet). The authors maintain the 'look say' method was introduced by 'progressives', starting with Fred Schonell whose views ruled from 1945-1975, in which children were shown the shapes of whole words. Unsurprisingly they failed to learn and the result was decades—from say 1970—of near illiterates. Fascinating idea. In addition there's a lot on the official experts of what they call 'progressivism' and indeed one could guess what happened purely from analogous cases. E.g. not answering, legal threats, sackings and non-promotions, not reviewing books, pretending the issues were debated in the past, etc.

The question of whether this was deliberate isn't really gone into—but after all it's entirely possible that social engineers wanted other people's kids' education held back.

BUT
[1] This book is a perfect example of how not to write a revisionist-type text. There is no summary anywhere of what claims they are making, or what evidence they have. It's a long long book and the reader has the burden imposed of trying to extract the message. They know what they're claiming—they should say what it is clearly!
[2] Some of the material seems simply incredible, such as trying to teach the outline shapes of words. For one thing, there are numerous typefaces, so the shape of words isn't fixed. The authors don't consider this. *** What I meant is, if there's such a naff system, why didn't people react? ***
[3] Not much international comparison. The one striking example is a page of Arabic script, with the comment that English looks like this to a child. It's clearly absurd to memorise words.
[4] Lots of deeply-felt criticism of opponents. This is understandable, and important, but should be kept in subservience to the aim of the book.

The book deals with a hugely important scandal in Britain, and perhaps elsewhere, and its thesis ought to be discussed and hard decisions taken about what to do. (Gordon Brown's appalling bunch of nonentities, including Balls, will of course prove useless). **BUT** in my view the failure to get to the point is a huge drawback of this volume. The authors should ask intelligent people, many from outside the education industry, to read it as consumer research. With luck it could be reshaped to make unanswerable and essential reading. It's unlikely they'd get any government funding for this, however, since the official experts will no doubt strongly advise against.

Incidentally the Daily Mail a British newspaper of typical UK quality has helped promote this cause, as has Civitas, a think-tank which unlike most seems not to be funded by Gordon Brown's unelected clique.

NOTE 1: There is an outline of Mona McNee's teaching method; anyone with a child with reading difficulties might do well to buy this book for that, and the background information.
NOTE 2: The authors believe that dyslexia is a genuine condition. But they say children taught by the sensible alphabetical method, even if liable to be dyslexic, should not ever manifest dyslexia. In other words, the huge epidemic of dyslexia was caused by 'look say'. This of course allows the teaching 'profession' to absorb more money correcting their own errors. At the cost of unruly and bored classes, frightened of never getting a grip on literacy.
NOTE 3: It follows there's a class issue here—in the societal sense! Obviously households of a middle-class type have books and magazines as a matter of course, and in any case the parents are familiar with reading and can teach it themselves. In effect the losers are the lower echelons. And these are the least likely to get any sympathy.
NOTE 4: P. 266 goes some way to quantifying the waste: school education cost £36 billion in 2005, some time before this book was published. Shockingly wasteful for a substandard product. The authors seem slightly naive in not perceiving that the people getting all that money may see it differently...
Are would-be reformers serious? October 2012

Deliberately-planned but secret damage to education is an off-topic thread on 'nukelies' (clearly a dumbed-down unscientific population is not much of a threat; on the other hand it will not create much).

Two topics are the 'look say' method for not teaching you children to read and write - part of the critics being by (ex?) BNP member Mona McNee, along with Alice Coleman (who is or was famous for her excellent work opposing some tower block design errors). These two don't see anyone behind systematic attacks on traditional education (though they are aware of paedophile rings).

I'm asking the question: Were Jews - as education ministers, 'gurus', promoters, publishers of articles, publishers of books, promoters of think tanks, funders of this or that, supporters of damaging teaching union leaders etc the moving force behind 'look say'?

As an example, here's a BBC blurb for a radio programme (22nd October 2012): Michael Gove [Jewish Minister of Education, under Jewish Prime Minister Cameron plus Jewish Clegg] is a fan of E.D. Hirsch, the American educational thinker. Fran Abrams explores Hirsch's radical ideas and how they could transform schooling in England. A similar issue is: were the post-1945 attacks on grammar schools (but not public schools, as expensive schools are called in Britain, and not Jewish schools) orchestrated by Jews? Or (if you dislike grammar schools) were comprehensives designed to produce bad results?

There are many other issues - dumbing-down of universities, failure of universities to back free speech, altering of syllabuses - and I'm just interested in raw evidence. Were they or weren't they, or to what extent were they, Jewish designed?

  Review of America's Secret Establishment - Skull and Bones Society   Anthony C. Sutton

Page 62 and on has an account of 'look say' in the USA. Originally it was a method of teaching deaf-mutes.
Downloadable as a free PDF file. sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119639.pdf


Iserbyt on US education   Review of Jews and Educational Dumbing-Down   Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt: The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

Lots of frantic rhetoric about commies and mind control, but no analysis of Jews
Jan 2013

Kevin MacDonald's evolutionary 'social identity theory' predicts (I take it) that Jews in the USA would have intentionally damaged the education of 'Gentiles'. In view of their 'intellectual' predominance, based in my opinion on Jewish control of paper money, Iserbyt if serious would investigate their effects. She doesn't; there is no mention of Jewish influences anywhere in this book.


Miseducation blamed on Germans and US industrialists   Review of Miseducation, but blamed on Germans and US industrialists   Paolo Lionni: The Leipzig Connection (1980)

Short book mostly based around 1900 putting the blame for 'dumbed-down' education onto Germans.

Some material on much higher standards in 19th century USA, though the evidence is sparse. A scientology book; the same material on e.g. suspicion of Wundt (and other psychologists) and Rockefeller, but with a Jewish pro-immigration slant, and a fundamentalist dislike of evolution is widespread on Internet. But there's nothing about Jewish influences on ideas and education. Such issues as race integration, anti-Christian views, sex education, American and world history (to name just a few) cannot be understood without understanding Jews.
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2013 6:52:14 AM PST Rerevisionist says:
I'm inclined to think this reviewer is right. Someone sent me a copy of this book in the post; it's striking that the cover design doesn't say what it's about; the review extracts give no clue; the cover photo conveys nothing; there's no index; the chapter headings convey little. My personal view is that the US (and European) education systems have been deliberately damaged, notably at the level of ordinary people as opposed to 'elites', and I'm inclined to think this must be the work of Jews, acting as per immigration, deliberately intended to damage host countries. Many supposed psychologists were Jews, of course. This is an hypothesis that ought to be considered. But this book isn't much help; it's mostly based on the 1920s epoch in any case.


Gatto on Miseducation   Review of Miseducation   John Taylor Gatto: Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling

Someone please write about Jews and education..., January 7, 2013
I haven't read Gatto's book; judging by the reviews it's not worth reading.


It's well established (see e.g. MacDonald's The Culture of Critique) that Jews in the USA have been in the forefront of promoting immigration, concealing the truth about Jews in the USSR, concealing the fact that Jews have huge influence because of the paper money fraud, and that this money filters down, so Jews own all the media, and control most assets.

Therefore it makes sense to assume Jews have had a huge impact on education, since naturally they want their rivals to be as dim as possible. Mixing in blacks, promoting useless schemes like 'look say', all forms of dumbing-down, writing junk textbooks, starving serious universities and colleges of funds, discouraging languages, encouraging truancy etc etc are the sorts of things to be expected from Jews.

Someone (or some group) ought to write a well-researched book on this topic.


To: Campaign for Real Education (October 2012)

Dear Chris McGovern---
I found your website (while searching on 'Campaign for Racial Equality' I think) and would like to pose a question. (If your organisation is no longer functioning, apologies).

In view of the fact that Jews have had a systematic long-term campaign to damage Britain through immigration and increased crime and (for want of a better word) perversions of various types, has the 'Campaign for Real Education' made any attempt to check for Jewish influences in movements which damage education?

For example, the 'look say' method may have been promoted by Jewish 'gurus'; the downgrading of standards by e.g. Jewish 'experts' in education, publishing houses, and what have you; the faking of history by disallowing history teachers to teach wars etc except in ways approved by Jews; economics weakened by insistence on Jewish influences studiedly being ignored. (These examples are not of course intended to be exhaustive).

Since you're presumably serious about the need for real education, obviously you must have considered this issue.

Regards
Top of Page

  Review of autobiography   Michael Caine: What's It All About

Interesting though not perfect, August 3, 2010

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of U.S. post-1945 psychology   David C. McClelland: The Achieving Society

Post-WW2 statistical sausage machine and applied naivete, August 3, 2010

Not 1967; in fact 1961. My attention was drawn to this by 'The Great Reading Disaster'. It seems to have been well-known, and quite influential amongst some social science types, when new.

It really is quite an odd book, but deserves to be commended for its boldness. However, I think it fails completely. In a way, it's an example of applied maths—throughout there are tables of analysis of variance, chi-squared, and so on. However, the it's not clear that underlying theory of these tests (for example, normal distributions of pencil and paper tests), could be expected to operate, or even that the theory is understood. They appear to be sausage-machine applications.

I don't think I'm being far-fetched in being able to identify this as a pre-word processor book. The first parts seem to aim at one, modest, proven claim; then this is expanded; and again—the 'goal' of the book turns out to be a series of 'goals'.

The bibliography lists ten books from the 1950s jointly-written by McClelland, or books to which he contributed a chapter. Some are on children and parents; most are on motivation, achievement, talent, success. This book therefore is McClelland's attempt at a significant work of synthesis. It tries too be something like a look at the rise, decline and fall of societies.

What's striking is the way immediate post-war US attitudes are taken for granted. There's something to be said for ignoring the past; to look at (say) Ireland, or the USA, or Japan without taking their histories into account, to step away from the past and take a fresh look. However, this is easier said than done, and McClelland settles for attitudes of the New York Times of the era. Adorno's book on authoritarianism was new. McClelland seems to have no doubts that the USA is democratic, although he must have heard comments to the effect that it was run by a few dozen (or hundred, or whatever) men. Germany and Japan are of course judged. There's vagueness over Spain and Portugal. 'Russia' is talked of, not the USSR, a clear ideological point—he compares 1929 with 1950! Israel has no mention of subsidies. Vietnam is not known of. McClelland throughout assumes 'entrepreneurs' are responsible for 'achievement'. He doesn't seem to have noticed the statism introduced by the Second World War. He's perfectly aware that (e.g.) Mexico's electrification was being carried out almost entirely by American bosses—hardly 'entrepreneurs' in any traditional sense. He's aware Kuwait and Arabia were wealthy, but without any noticeable prior 'achievement'. Moreover he says nothing about the vast expansion of the military. All this is entirely conventional, part of the post-war censorship tradition. Because of all this, 'entrepreneurs' tend to morph into 'managers'.

The book tries to correlate three things with rise, stasis, and fall of civilisations. These are 'n Achievement' (lower case n, upper case A), 'n Affiliation', and 'n Power'. These aren't described or defined, or even listed in the index. They're supposed to be something like raw achievement, presumably of many people—hence the 'n'—is some way contributing jointly to their 'society'. 'n Affiliation' is something like friendship or kinship or tendency to associate together. And finally 'n Power' is something like the impulse to selfish power, rather than societal cohesion and advance. Although it's supposed to apply to civilizations, this morphs into 'the economic development process'. McClelland doesn't seem to know about raw materials, so the idea of locally appropriate technology is entirely missing. Roads, gasoline cars, airplanes, suburbs are the unquestioned measures of progress, whether in Africa, Asia, or presumably Greenland. He even uses electrical power output as a measure of 'achievement' despite the fact that it was introduced by a few experts. Moreover his idea of history is taken from the traditional easy 19th century outlook—Greece and Rome; then the Middle Ages; then modern times, including the Reformation and a few other advances. South America, Africa, China and central Asia, and the Indian peninsula aren't part of history, though he does consider them as modern states.

Part of what attractiveness the book has, is its odd choice of ways try to measure things which are rather hard-to-measure. This is where his previous academic contacts come in. We have doodles, children's stories—usually mass published ones, though he also uses ancient Greek literature, colour preferences. However most of the research was carried out on children, who were administered pencil and paper questionnaires—typically in rather tiny numbers. Why children—who after all can't have much idea of progress, technology, careers, or work—should be considered suitable targets, rather than adults, isn't clear to me; probably it reflects his earlier writings. How can a schoolboy be expected to know how risky stockbroking is?

A couple of chapters which may have been based on stand-alone chapters, don't fit this scheme: there's one on Hermes, which must be influenced by a classicist trying to keeep up to date; there's another on race and climate, which as per fashion, McClelland doesn't think much of as explanatory factors.

Conclusion: of great interest if you want to examine the shallow post-WW2 optimism of academics who do the safe thing and publish rather than perish. I don't think it's of much help in charting the course today.
Top of Page

image   Review of technology history   Christopher Riche Evans: The Mighty Micro: Impact of the Computer Revolution

Attempt at futurology with some successes, 15 July 2010

This was essentially futurology—written in 1979 so it's the 30th anniversary. Mildly interesting to see how well Evans did.

The book is not very satisfactory, though it's not easy to state quite why. I *think* it's because Evans has no real methodology or approach; he just chucks in a collection of items which don't have any logical coherence.

He gives a history, such as it is, with the usual suspects, including Turing. (I've been told that none of the pioneering computer engineer types had even heard of Turing). He has short term 1980-82, middle term 83-90, and long term (-2000) in three chapters.

Remember at the time he wrote, pocket calculators had only just ousted slide rules; and quartz watches were new. Displays were those glowing red things. Liquid crystals weren't invented. Microsoft isn't mentioned—their software in the Apple II (and III) was high tech. Electronic mail existed, but not Internet- though he got keyboard and TV. Evans thought this could be used for voting—as it can, but not for elections.

Evans considered the Soviet Union (ceased 1991) might be unstable. (When 20% of a population have phones, they can't be kept down, he quotes—he doesn't consider they might assist civil war or invasion). He assumed the US had immense wealth; also that US technology was far ahead—after all, they got to the moon!

I was slightly impressed that he predicted emotional attachment to computers though of programmers—a relatively rare breed. He didn't predict chatrooms, but, influenced by Eliza, thought therapy by program might work.

Some of his guesses seem based on other popular books: he thought 'ultra intelligent machines could prolong life to age 1000'—ie things which might measure blood or neoplasms, and even repair them. I just spent about half an hour trying to connect my PC—the idea of Ultra Intelligent Machines can seem a joke.

He thought self-diagnosis by machine would be easy; I suspect he underestimated the cavernous ignorance of most people. He thought legal decisions might be computerisable and, though Chomsky isn't mentioned, 'natural language' is. Of course, he had no way of estimating 'complexity' or 'interconnectedness'—if he, or anyone else, had, they might guess quite accurately whether such things could happen, and guess when.

Evans thought the working week would reduce, further education would go further, to, say, 25, and retirement ages drop. This seems a middle class view unmediated by awareness of jobs which are not easily mechanisable. (Quite apart from oil shortages etc). He thinks the third world needs education—'affluence has only sprung up when ignorance has been conquered'—though he only seems to come up with tourism and 'exchange of information' to help them. Education, agriculture, economic planning, and 'climate control' should all help the third world.

So—a mixed bag. Not very impressive! Recommended to anyone trying to predict—this book will give you a feel of where you may well go wrong though conscious or unconscious bias—or simple ignorance.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest music   Bob Dylan: Dylan on Dylan

Promo material with minimal info, July 15, 2010

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Fake 'left' in USA   Tammy Bruce: The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds

Unconsciously reveals—in part—how money controls American propaganda, July 15, 2010

Published 2000 so somewhat outdated, though in a way this can help give perspective. The material is mediocre—all the topics are north American 'news' items, formatted as separate pieces thrown together under chapter headings. Important, trivial, joke, and irrelevant items follow one after another. The cultural stuff is almost exclusively film and corporate magazines and other material. It's obviously aimed at a mass market of people assumed—probably rightly—to be 'dumb'—with the accompanying tripe—'award-winning'.

She assumes the naive modern American dream:-- the Civil War was about freeing slaves/ Walter Cronkite was truthful/ Martin Luther King was a great reformer/ 'for over 300 years, people have left everything behind... [for] freedom' when in fact many came for money, and many kept connections with their roots/ the 'Holocaust' happened as in the media.

To keep this review short, I'll make notes:--

[1] Secrecy. Steinem, Ireland, Friedan are revealed to be 'communists'. NAACP gets some mentions, including its handling of Rosa Parks. So does ACLU with its 'pro bono counsel'/ and the ADL 'one of the more respected Jewish hate-monitoring groups'. All this of course shows the Jewish influence which is at least officially unmentioned. It's difficult to tease out the other threads—obviously other groups have interest groups too.

[2] Examples of money. By comparison with national scams, the sums are tiny, of course. Note therefore the evasion of serious issues involving money including the likely funding of anti-free speech groups:--

* Jesse Jackson has three homes.
* NOW—National Organisation of Women, only a few thousand members—took $800K during Clinton/Lewinsky (1995 on)
* 'ebonics' invented to try for money for bilingual teaching

'The left's assault on free speech' is something of a code phrase. If you want to understand the bizarre way some crimes are ignored and others made into endless 'news', and how pressure groups work and laws become corrupted, this unfortunately isn't the book.
Top of Page

image   Review of BBC media   Robin Aitken: Can We Trust the BBC?

A little boy tries to criticise the big boys..., July 15, 2010

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Review of John Cole's As it Seemed To Me moved here together (to save space)


image   Review of media shit   Greg Dyke: Inside Story

Horrifyingly Shallow. Two stars because there is at least some content.

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish state secrecy and Churchill's real role in WW2   Bryan Clough: State Secrets: The Kent-Wolkoff Affair

Bafflingly presented—needs complete overhaul, July 15, 2010

Exposing Winston Churchill
David Irving Youtube.
Private channel between Churchill and Roosevelt.
About 25 mins
This book is badly presented—it's only by reading these comments in Amazon that I could work out what it's about! At the time (Second World War) the outline of the story must have been well-known, but the author seems to assume any reader would know that. It's therefore difficult to piece together the point of this book. It has no reproductions of e.g news items at the time; and the quotations from other books (typically, this 'affair' was one chapter in ten or so spy stories, published after WW2 to make money) aren't distinguished by typeface, or by facsimile reproduction. The chapter titles are silly and unhelpful ('Second Spin Cycle', 'Kent Speaks'). Moreover the author is an unreconstructed believer in all WW2 mythology and cliché, with for example no grasp of the 'Holocaust' and Pearl Harbor as frauds, or the truth about the treatment of Germans. Capt Ramsay MP gets some mentions; so does William Joyce, 'Lord Haw Haw'. And a rather large cast of judges, officials, MI5 and MI6 men, spies, Ambassadors, military people, Joseph P. Kennedy etc. Needs reformatting, re-editing, illustrating, and critical reshaping.
Extracted from 'Heritage and Destiny' Nov-Dec 2012–
    ...During the phony war period [Capt. A H M] Ramsay [MP] distributed the verses of a poem he had written entitled "Land of Dope and Jewry", a parody on "Land of Hope and Glory", As well as stickers with slogans such as "War Destroys Workers" and "This is a Jews' War".
  By January 1940 Ramsay had collected details of nearly thirty subversive societies engaged in various stages of revolutionary activity. The principal names were: Prof. H. Laski, Israel Moses Sieff, Prof. Herman Levy [?possibly Hyman], Victor Gollancz, D. N. Pritt MP, and G.G. Strauss, MP.
    In May 1940 Tyler Kent, a cypher clerk at the U.S. Embassy showed Ramsay a collection of cables containing conversations between Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in which the former among other dubious things was trying to inveigle the United States to fight on England's behalf. Release of this information could have affected Churchill adversely, but would undoubtedly have scuppered Roosevelt's re-election hopes in November, 1940. Captain Ramsay planned to divulge the contents of these cables in the House of Commons, but he was arrested on May 23, 1940, three days after Kent had been arrested, US Ambassador Joseph Kennedy having waived Kent's diplomatic immunity.
    Ramsay was then confined to Brixton prison under Defence Regulation 18B, where he would remain until September 26, 1944. On his release he returned to parliament, but did not seek re-election in 1945. ...
Top of Page

image   Review of Science history. Chemistry after 1945.   Linus Pauling: General Chemistry

Similar effect to Lavoisier only more so ... abstractifying the subject, July 13, 2010

First published 1947. This Dover reprint is the 1970 edition. About 950 pages. Naturally has excursions into physics, including the structure of the nucleus and electrons, and things like electron shells. Also of course gas material from Avogadro onwards, and the relation with atomic and molecular weights, vapour pressures etc. And states of matter, such as ice, and water including deuterium and tritium; and crystallography. He doesn't clearly distinguish theories from empirically established material—but this is very common and part of the legacy of overblown mathematical treatments. Naturally enough, it has to deal with chromatography, and mass chromatography—i.e. separation by weight. This book predates most colour chemistry. Pauling made a mistake over 'high energy bonds'; he has quite a bit of material on biochemistry, perhaps foreshadowing Pauling's later vitamin C obsession, including hormones, vitamins, amino acids, and enzymes. There's some metallurgy. There's also an account of Ektachrome colour photography—state of the art then. Much of the book is organised on periodic table lines, for example by metals with similar characteristics, and inert gases etc—and of course the full table had only recently been elucidated when Pauling wrote first, as not just transuranics but a few other gaps had been filled only in living memory. Other periodicities of course are discussed. And there's the maths of thermodynamics (includes in effect thermite—as in 9/11), heats and rates of reaction, and 3-D geometry and some other things. He gets supercooled things wrong, and I think the kinetic theory of gases.

Errors in Pauling's book: there are three things mentioned in my review: high-energy bonds, so-called, in biochemistry. There was a debate, which never really concluded, with Barbara Banks. The superfluid comment is a reference to superfluid helium, which is misunderstood still. There are issues in thermodynamics which are complicated, and also with the kinetic theory of gases, which can't be right as the little cannonball effect doesn't model gases accurately. There are also in fact issues to do with nuclear theories, which I'd say he got wrong, but he wouldn't have been allowed access to the material anyway. (His later vitamin C theory is is not of course in this textbook)
If you like to know how things are made, and what from, and have a sense of historical continuity, this is a very good one volume reference. Pauling was not one to admit he was uncertain, so this book is more hard edged than it ought to be—I suspect in lectures and teaching Pauling would have been less dogmatic. The emphasis on overviews, and mathematical models, does however remove some of the picturesqueness of earlier chemistry texts, with accounts of mercury mines in Spain, or German minerals and Paracelsus, or wallpapers and 'poison green', so it's relatively austere. Highly recommended for people with science interests, and some maths, who like to ponder the slow processes of unravelling truths.
Top of Page

image   Review of Education frauds   John Caldwell Holt: How Children Fail

Poignant descriptions of young children struggling to learn, July 11, 2010

First published 1964 from notes made in what in England are called primary schools round about 1960. Four categories: Strategy (tricks children use to get answers), Fear and Failure, Real Learning, How Schools Fail.

Let me give extracts to give the feel of this book:-
'The teacher ... told these children that a verb is a word of action—which is not always true. ... She said '.. a verb has to have action; can you give me a sentence, using "dream", that has action?' The child thought a bit, and said, 'I had a dream about the Trojan War.' Now it's pretty hard to get more action than that. But the teacher told him he was wrong, and he sat silent, with an utterly baffled and frightened expression on his face. ...'

'When Nancy and Sheila worked the balance beam last year, they were often close to the truth, but they could never hang on to it because they could never express their ideas in a form they could test... Once one of them said, 'Things weigh more further out.' This was a big step; but they couldn't think of a way to check or refine this insight..'

'.. I had what seemed .. a bright idea. I thought if I could get her to think about what she had written, she would see that some of her answers were more reasonable than others, and thus ... an error-noticing, nonsense-eliminating device might take root ... I ... asked her ... to compare her answers, check with a tick those she felt sure were right, with an X those she felt sure were wrong ... A moment later I got one of the most unpleasant surprises of my teaching career. She handed me her ... paper, with 7 x 1 = marked right, and *all other answers* marked wrong. This poor child had been defeated and destroyed by school. Years of drill, practice, explanation, and testing ... have done nothing for her except knock her loose from whatever common sense she might have had to begin with. ...'

'We had been doing maths, and I was pleased with myself because ... I was 'making her think' by asking her questions. It was slow work. .. we inched our way along until suddenly, looking at her as I waited for an answer to a question, I saw with a start that she was not at all puzzled by what I had asked her. In fact, she was not even thinking about it. She was coolly appraising me, weighing my patience, waiting for that next, sure-to-be-easier, question. ... The girl had learned how to make all her previous teachers do the same thing. ...'

'What is most surprising of all is how much fear there is in school. Why is so little said about it? Perhaps most people do not recognise fear in children when they see it. ... the subtler signs of fear escape them. It is these signs, in children's faces, voices, and gestures, in their movements and ways of working, that tell me plainly that most children in school are scared most of the time, many of them very scared. ...'

John Holt is (was?) American. The special feature of this book is the observation of evanescent and transient states of mind, most which take far longer to record than they do to actually happen in life. The impact of this book is its rather depressing nature; and this includes the behaviour of teachers. Fortunately Holt wrote 'How Children Succeed' a few years later.
Top of Page

image   Review of Ireland revisionism   Tom Reilly: Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy

Splendid revisionist work though I'd prefer a little more, July 11, 2010

It's a bit harsh to give this only four stars. Generally most things about this book are excellent. The sources are laid out fairly clearly—a bibliography, mostly 20th century and some nineteenth, and 'Miscellaneous Publications' including such things as a BBC programme, one edition of a newspaper, and a lecture. Each chapter has endnotes, and their references match up with the bibliography, at least usually.

However there are some niggles:

[1] Not many original documents are mentioned, and the presumption is they've been printed accurately. But one can never be sure. To be fair many have probably vanished or decayed or would be difficult to get hold of in the original.

[2] Reilly often enough says such-and-such a person never visited Ireland, or some similar definite statement; how can he be so sure? No doubt he's likely to be right, but ...

[3] He doesn't state the official Irish view of Cromwell. We're not all Irish, and some of us haven't been exposed to the Irish education system. Reilly does lay out clearly the object of Cromwell's military expedition, viz to control Ireland, and take lands from Royalists. But it's left rather unclear. Admittedly a revisionist book doesn't have to deal with every aspect of a topic, but the reason Cromwell's of interest in Ireland is exactly because of what he was supposed to have done. (As an example—take 'plantations'. They couldn't have been for spices, sugar cane, tobacco; were they trees? Or what?) Under the rules of the age, was it accepted that a supporter of a losing side should lose possessions?

[4] He doesn't give details of real or supposed massacres of Protestants before Cromwell got there. (Or subsequent events such as the 'Black and Tans').

[5] He seems to take Cromwell as a great commander as an established fact. But it certainly appears at first sight as though the main advantage he had was simply lots of cannon of various types. Cromwell just battered away at town walls (and these medieval towns were small—400 yards was a typical narrowest width). The Drogheda commander seems to have not realised what he was up against.

Some of the reviews here lay stress on one or two documents—and it's often a suspicious sign when conclusions hang on the words of just one or two witnesses, or supposed witnesses. Connoisseurs of this kind of thing will recognise parallels with other atrocity stories, though on a much tinier scale, and parallels with later historians repeating parrot-style. Reilly maintains that much of the force of the 19th century Irish 'rebel' movement was based on fake atrocity stories. The whole idea of Ireland as 'the most distressful country that ever yet was seen' needs a bit of realistic debunking.

I'm sure Tom Reilly started something in 1999, though I wouldn't dare guess how long it will be before he becomes mainstream.
Top of Page

Hill Winstanley   Rerevisionist's Review of     Selections from the Works of Gerrard Winstanley edited by Leonard Hamilton. Introduction by Christopher Hill (1944)
    Review 30 Sept 2015
Not Very Clear Presentation of the Last Days of the English Civil Wars About 1650

365 years later, the English Civil Wars remain confusing, and of course a primary reason is the squid ink of obscurity over Jewish activities. The funding of Cromwell by Jews in Holland was known by about 1900: a letter having been found, with as far as I know the involvement and publicity skills of Lord Alfred Douglas. Christopher Hill is (or was in his heyday) always referred to as a 'Marxist'; therefore it is extremely unlikely he would draw any attention to Jews in his historical writings.

Scotland is a player in this drama: Scotland is claimed never to have expelled Jews, and no doubt there is a close connection between Jewish funding and Scottish politics and Freemasonry in Scotland. Note also that the Putney Debates were discussions, a few years earlier in 1647, between members of Cromwell's New Model Army, concerning a new constitution for England. These debates (not published in Britain till 1951) are sometimes regarded as the foundations of democracy: the debates no doubt must have been steered by Cromwell, in a pro-Jewish and pro-Freemason direction. So it seems clear much of the foundation of what became known as 'democracy' was founded during and after the 'Civil Wars', and ought to be studied by specialists who wish to 'deconstruct' democracy's inbuilt inferences. The monarchy was restored in 1660, Charles II returning from the Netherlands and being installed about 11 years after Charles I's execution, as King of Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Soon after (1661) Cromwell's body was exhumed and exhibited. This has been explained as reaction to Cromwell as a traitor, or as a reaction to his puritanism. But perhaps he was no longer useful to money power. Soon came the 'Great Fire' of London, and the building of the 'Bank of England', and the gradual impoverishment of many sections of the populace.

Another issue was the Church of England, administratively called into being in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy. In other words, by the time of the final Civil War, the Church of England was about a century old, making allowance for a few decades for its policies to settle. The battles, the weakness of clerics against violence, the feelings against Rome and Catholicism, and the progress of science, combined to accelerate that Church's long decline into careerist compromise and intellectual emptiness.

This book's contents include the texts of pamphlets (spelling and punctuation somewhat modernised) including (for the first two I attempt to mimic the typography): The True Levellers Standard ADVANCED: OR, the State of Community opened, and Presented to the Sons of Men (1649), A DECLARATION FROM THE Poor oppressed People OF ENGLAND DIRECTED To all that call themselves, or are called Lords of Manors, ... (1649). And A Letter to Lord Fairfax and his Council of War, (1649), An Appeal to the House of Commons (1649), An Appeal to the House of Commons (1649), An Appeal to all Englishmen (1650), and An Humble Request to the Ministers of both Universities and to All Lawyers in every Inns (1650).

According to Hill, Winstanley came from Wigan before leading the Diggers in St George's Hill (which they called George-Hill, omitting the 'saint') and coming into contact with Kingston magistrates and others. He had some education, e.g. quoting Latin. Chris Hill says the Diggers were a nine days wonder; 'no one knows where or when Winstanley died.' He was anti-clerical; see e.g. the summons of Winstanley and Everard, and the decision of officialdom not to act, while the locals, including the parson, dug up their seeds and pulled down and burnt 'houses'. (I'm uncertain how solid these 'houses' were).

All sides in the Civil Wars drew parallels from the Bible, in English: The Coverdale Bible (both 'Testaments' in English) of 1535 being the first, and the Geneva Bible of 1560 being the most detailed. Thus there had been about a century for the curious and fanatical messages to permeate the Church of England, and the English mind.

Winstanley wrote, at first, mystical religious writings, of which the editor has included none. He went on to a 'Magnificent panegyric against priestly obscurantism and deception, and in favour of education and rational science.' And to what are now called political writings, largely based on Bible tales. "When Adam delved, and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" illustrates the principle from a couple of centuries earlier. Winstanley had a 'Law of Freedom' based (I think) on his interpretation of ancient Biblical times, published in The Law of Freedom in a Platform, or True Magistracy Restored (1651), a draft of new laws which I have not attempted to understand. He wrote '.. Every single man, male and female, is a perfect creature of himself.'

Christopher Hill of course accepts the 20th-century Jewish pretence that their power struggle is a 'revolution': (my emphasis)
  'This [Diggers on St George's Hill] occurred at the climax of a great revolution when the victorious Parliamentary Army was enforcing the confiscation of church, crown and royalist estates, and had brought Charles I to the scaffold. The whole country was in the throes of a political and economic crisis. Many men had been evicted from their holdings; taxes and free-quarter had ruined others as well as Winstanley, and there had been much unemployment. The rank and file of the Army, to whom lavish promises had been made, were anxious to share in the fruits of victory. May, 1649, was to see a revolt of the Levellers in the Army, which aimed at universal suffrage, and legal and economic reform in the interests of the small man. ..'

There's a fascinating emphasis on the Normans in Winstanley, something which more recent divide-and-rule tactics (religions in Thirty Years War, black slaves, American colonists, French vs the rest, classes, Germans etc etc) have completely suppressed:-
  [The question] Whether William the Conqueror became not to be King of England by conquest, turned the English out of their birthrights, burned divers towns, whereof thirty towns were burned by him in Windsor Forest..'
  Therefore, England, beware: thou art in danger of being brought under the Norman power more than ever. The King Charles that was successor to William the Conqueror thou hast cast out; and though thy Parliament have declared against the kingly office and cast it out and proclaimed England a commonwealth, that is, to be a free land for the liberty and livelihood of all her children, yet William the Conqueror's army begins to gather into head again, and the old Norman prerogative law is the place of their rendezvous. ..
  [1651]: 'Sir [Cromwell] God hath honoured you with the highest honour of any man since Moses' time, to be the head of a people who have cast out an oppressing Pharaoh. For when the Norman power had conquered our forefathers, he took the free use of our English ground from them, and made them his servants. And God hath made you a successful instrument to cast out that conqueror, and to recover our land and liberties again, by your victories, out of that Norman hand. ..'

Interesting times which, I hope, the new discoveries of revisionism will help clarify, perhaps for the first time.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest in South Africa   Arthur Kemp: The Lie of Apartheid and other true stories from Southern Africa

If you were in South Africa or Rhodesia, worth reading, July 11, 2010

Nine essays, rather short in total; value for money is unremarkable. This book is indexed and has b/w photos reproduced on ordinary paper.

1 THE LIE OF APARTHEID. Kemp has an admirably simple theory of nations: they have to be mostly homogeneous, or they will fall. (Essay 7 has more on this). The 'lie' is simply the idea that apartheid could ever have worked; he says white farmers and householders had huge numbers of black workers—the whole meaning of the word 'apartheid' is unclear; note also it did not exist in then-Rhodesia. He prints population figures from about 1900 to about the present day, which underline the staggering problems; these may be insuperable, though Kemp expresses no view on that. He does not consider the idea that medical aid should simply be withheld from fast breeding populations who didn't originate it. He thinks the Afrikaners must found a new state of their own.

2 THE MYTH OF MAHATMA GANDHI Revisionist look at Gandhi as a high-caste racist. Does not examine the question of his murder—was it a Hindu enraged at collusion with Muslims?

3 THE PUZZLE OF AUTOGENOCIDE Whites in South Africa were roughly four types: [1] Relatively recent—say post-WW2; [2] Long-established English; [3] Dutch ancestry; [4] Jews. Roughly speaking, the Dutch farmed, the British kept order, the Jews were active more or less secretively in finance and minerals. Kemp maintains all except [3] favoured black rule, at least in theory; for example many recent migrants had no special affection for South Africa, but went purely in the hope of making money. 'Militant leftist Jews' helped the ANC—on this see essay 8. He says 'educated' whites were most prone to propaganda. I'd assumed Kemp would comment on the vast anti-apartheid movement promoted outside South Africa by news media, but he doesn't.

4 HOW THE MIGHTY FALL on the South African military. I can remember when sorties by South Africa into neighbouring countries were reported as bloody events. Now, Kemp produces evidence from the South African Parliament and newspapers there of the lack of equipment, lack of fit soldiers...

5 WHEN THE RIVER RAN RED on the Battle of Blood River; and includes the neglected 'Church of the Vow' (built in 1840).

6 WHEN THE WEST LOOKED AWAY on Zimbabwe. Mostly on murdered whites there, notably farmers, and the fact they're ignored—by for example Peter Hain of the British 'Labour' regime. I remember being in Rhodesia; the journalists most manic about majority rule all left when it was inaugurated. Incidentally calling the country 'Zimbabwe' was rather analogous to calling Britain 'Stonehenge'. There was a joke at the time: Year 1, Zimbabwe. Year 2: Zimbabwe ruins. Despite Kemp's interest in populations, he hasn't looked closely at the demographics—for example the British offers about land at the time they made them were generous, but swallowed up by population growth.

7 INTERVIEW BY A FLEMISH MAGAZINE is Q/A session by I'd guess someone from the Vlaams party. Includes material on Kemp's book on whites, 'March of the Titans', and third world immigration into Europe. (Kemp's book is downloadable from his website, though I won't give the URL here). Kemp has a low opinion of Christianity, right down to the present day—the churches are anti-white.

8 CONSPIRACIES AND THE ASSASSINATION OF CHRIS HANI Is Kemp's own account of this killing. Kemp—who was nearly killed by a bomb—knew some of these people personally—journalists, police, conservative politicians, radicals—and gives his account of the shooting. Kemp was involved through a journalistic attempt to show Mandela's huge house after he was released from prison: incidentally it doesn't say much for the South African intelligence people that they didn't know where the money came from—if, in fact, thy didn't. Kemp is very concerned, throughout this book, to have nothing to do with 'conspiracies'. This I think is a mistake—for one thing, this case alone took four years to resolve. Kemp supplies a photo showing both Mandelas and someone called Joe Slovo, in front of a huge hammer and sickle. It seems entirely credible that Chris Hani wanted to nationalise South Africa's mines and minerals, and, as this was not in the interests of controlling Jews there, he was killed.

9 THE DEATH OF JOHANNESBURG a collection of depressing photos showing previously thriving buildings—hotels, parks, markets - reduced to a mess. Mostly taken from moving vehicles. There are similar photos of Detroit.

Arthur Kemp doesn't try his hand at a prognosis; I fear there must be a vast population crash there since black populations are I estimate 500 times higher than in say 1800.

Top of Page

Review of Martin H Millard   'Homeless Jack' 19 Jan 2014
Millard is a contributor to Western Spring, a British white nationalist race-aware site, run, as far as I know, by a member (or ex-member) of Mensa who works (or worked) in finance. Millard's articles are usually attributed to 'Homeless Jack', and written in a US hobo style, perhaps modelled on Jack London. I was not very impressed; but decided to look on Internet.

Martin H Millard has three books advertised online under the name H Millard:  2001 saw publication of 'The Outsider', a title in common with other books—Camus? Colin Wilson?  Then 2002 'Roaming the Wastelands'.  And 2004 'Ourselves Alone and Homeless Jack'.  Looking at the ISBN prefix suggests these books were published by iUniverse, connected in some way with AuthorHouse and which also publishes 'Authors Choice Press' and 'Writers Club Press'. (I may be wrong about some details; all this is taken from Internet).

Millard appears in 'New Nations News' on newnation.org/Millard. The front page of New Nation News has attacks on whites by blacks, in the USA, taken from such media sources as print them.

Millard has a blog, based for some reason on what I presume is British software, cmpress.blogspot.co.uk with the usual problems with blog format websites: old entries are filed away tidily, but they are very difficult to research, and it's difficult to check through their comments. Millard writes about Costa Mesa, part of the coastal sprawl of Los Angeles, a territorial chunk in Orange County by Newport Beach, near the southernmost end of LA, and about a hundred miles from the border with Mexico. The USA is inundated with illegal immigrants, encouraged by Jews running the USA. The Costa Mesa 'homeless task force', and feedback into ever more immigration, and politicians and the money made by 'charities' and suppliers of 'free goods' to the immigrants, is a large part of this blog. Millard opposes this. The USA has more experience with blacks than any other white country, I think: the views and attitudes deserve examination. For that matter, Europe has longer experience with Jews than any other group of countries; maybe reciprocal learning is possible?

Millard has only a few topics. Maybe; I haven't read his books, only articles; but it's easy to guess the subject-matter of 'Roaming the Wastelands' and 'Alone and Homeless'. There's an evolutionary/ genes thread, based on a 'philosophy of Arman' about whom I could find nothing; my guess it's Millard himself. Whites should not be forced to mix races. Millard recognises that the Second World War was a disaster for whites, fought by 'the stupid generation'. (So was the 'Great War': Bertrand Russell wrote he was 'proud to belong' to the stupid generation responsible). This shades into something like G B Shaw's evolutionary 'supermen', who were able to change biologically by willpower. In my view Millard doesn't understand DNA: he hasn't realised DNA must itself have evolved from something simpler.

Many people don't really understand evolution: they insist on introducing teleology. Millard thinks there is always struggle, and always should be; it's what Life decrees. But better-adapted creatures struggle less—they don't need to make extra effort. Millard thinks the object is numbers, not seeming to understand that in the web of life, numbers now don't guarantee numbers in future. He emphasises individuals (this may well be as a result of propagandist efforts to discourage co-operation). For example, he says 'we are born alone and die alone', although in fact of course most births are accompanied by a mother. And he doesn't face the counter-argument that, if life is set on increasing numbers, why don't whites have vast numbers of kids? But Millard's are common enough misconceptions.

More important than the theory is the present-day ideas. Millard likes white genes, and thinks whites should not be forced to live alongside blacks. The USA has experience of this. Does it apply in an ideal world of some sort? H G Wells thought all persons are interrelated, admittedly some of them very remotely. The present day is (I'd say) unique in human history; the combination of technology, some of it life-preserving, with fast population transport, from anywhere in the world, has never existed before. The most honest answer seems to be that it's uncertain; but why take the risk? Races may well be incompatible, and the constructional achievements of whites are so much greater than other races that the dangerous experiment should certainly be stopped now.

There's another argument which flickers through Millard: the gullibility of whites. Anyone who tries e.g. chatrooms, forums, or other online sites, or just conversations with strangers, knows that discussions of race and Jews are still taboo. Much of Millard is (and ought to be) a sign of frustration, trying to get people to make some effort. In that sense his work is helpful.

Millard is impatient of people who criticise Jews. It's worth pointing out something entirely missing from Millard: he doesn't understand Jews as evolutionary parasites, with camouflage, lies, and mental control much as in animal parasitism in the biological world. The control of money and media by Jews is not yet in his worldview. He thinks whites should compete, struggle, act, not understanding the hefty bias to 'Jews'. Their control of the 'Fed' and Bank of England means they can simply print, or electronically invent, money. He even recommends get rich schemes, and 'self improvement' think-yourself-to-riches books. The fact his hero seems to be homeless suggests he doesn't even believe it himself. So far from multiplying as much as possible, the purpose of Jewish life seems to be to exterminate whites. (See all over Internet for this).

In Costa Mesa, as he correctly points out, immigration must be a net loss to Americans, since all the housing, health, education, crime and other costs fall on Americans. Millard doesn't seem to understand that subgroups of Americans can profit, and offload the costs onto others by inflicting debt on them. This is a Jewish role, certainly in part. It's possible the WesternSpring site is Jewish-run (judging by names) and therefore trying to preserve white countries, whilst also preserving Jewish privileges and corruption. They would in my view do better to face the facts.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest ww2   Patrick J. Buchanan: Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

Half-way piece of revisionism designed to conceal part of the truth, July 11, 2010

Interesting book and incidentally not as bulky as it's made to appear—large typeface in the text and huge bibliography see to that.

I don't think there's anything new here; however the fact that it's published by a large publisher (part of Random House) I suspect marks a milestone. The post-WW2 German deaths are a relatively new mainstream topic, having been censored for about fifty years. The First World War material, in particular the secret agreement with France, is well-known, as are the effects of Versailles—self-determination unless you're German. Buchanan is (I think) unusual in considering the British planners of war reluctant; he misses out the gung-ho feeling of the time though a bit inconsistently he is sound on the vicious anti-German feeling promoted about 1940. Buchanan has done a half-decent job, literally, in looking at the results of war; I suppose at the simplest level you need a feeling for assets, before and after; populations, before and after; and the way these were changed. What's missing from Buchanan is the entire Jewish element. For example Buchanan deplores Leninism, Fascism, Stalinism, Communism without noting 3 of 4 were Jewish. And he says nothing about finance and the issue of paper money which of course became more important when the gold standard was abandoned. He accepts the myth of the 'holocaust' though he's quite good on e.g. Saddam Hussein's relative lack of power.

This looks like a history book. Really though it's a sign of a change of policy. For fifty years or so there's been a behind-the-scenes promotion of immigration into the USA and Europe. I say behind the scenes because there is no one promoter or inventor of it. There's no source, just a groundswell, which of course has to come from somewhere. In my view the people who have promoted the policy are having second thoughts. And about time too, in fact. However there isn't anything in this book to suggest Buchanan understands or will humanise US policy. The Vietnam War and other US atrocities isn't even indexed. Four stars because it's a signpost, not because it's good.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   Patrick J. Buchanan: State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America

Good outline, convincing solution, but ignores the other elephant, July 11, 2010

Buchanan is a Republican, and this book is (I expect) his attempt to change the Party from its self-contradictory and suicidal path.

He wants, among other things, a border fence—a double fence with road in between, with motion sensors—to keep out Mexican immigrants. Easily paid for out of savings. (His suggestions are in the last chapter. This book was of course published before Obama, and clearly its suggestions were not taken up).

Buchanan looks at these topics: [1] USA and Mexicans in particular and the 'Aztlan plot'; [2] Mexicans' view of their history and the US takeover of SW USA—at the time Mexicans there were as rare as blacks in South Africa. This is a good overview; [3] Europe and Muslims, treated in much the same way; [4] A good overview of immigration laws in the USA going back several centuries—there were many controls until about 1965—attacking the myths of 'a nation of immigrants'; [5] General accounts of population explosions, unskilled and uneducated nature of immigrants. Buchanan has a good account of American blacks forced into competition with Latinos, often enough violently.

He's less good on patriotism and nationalism. It seems obvious enough that things like language and habits about food, families, ownership etc tend to bind groups together, on common sense grounds—it can take years to learn a language, find out about promotions and hierarchies, become trained, stake ownership claims. Buchanan has a more mystical view which seems a bit unnecessary to me.

He's also not very good on legal corruptions which work in favour of 'minorities' (in fact they are majorities). These are mentioned in passing, but not really commented on: a Russian party which was banned; illegals who get benefits of every kind against the will of most whites; the 1965 Immigration Act in the US which had the opposite effect to that promoted and yet was never changed. 'Sanctuary' cities in the USA where criminals are untouched. Drugs which are imported with little obvious police opposition. Asylum laws are ignored in Britain, but in an outrageously pro-immigrant way. There are prohibitions on free speech on racist violence. And so on.

Buchanan additionally persistently talks of cheap labour, when of course it isn't cheap—the ancillary costs are offloaded on whites, who have this extra burden, and incidentally have fewer children—Buchanan notes this but doesn't say why.

Another omission—probably necessary in the USA, or Buchanan would have been kept out—is the Jewish influence. Buchanan is wrong in stating the USA had full integration of its citizens, since this group never integrated, and is a model in many ways of what other groups want, i.e. selective favours, most obvious in external relations and in immunity from criticism. Mexicans are pursuing this and have a lot to gain, since their neighbouring country might be forced to pay them vast amounts in the way Israel is paid. Buchanan also fails to note the NAACP and ADL and other Jewish outfits promoted immigration (they failed in the 1920s) probably to make themselves less conspicuous.

Anyway, well worth reading, and a companion to Buchanan's other part-revisionist books, which have similar good qualities, and deficiencies. I wonder if the Republican Party noticed? Incidentally Buchanan says nothing about vote reform—maybe proportional representation might help destroy the two party system which is such a very blunt instrument.
Top of Page

Weale Science and the Swastika Channel 4   Review of Anti-German and anti-science Propaganda
Adrian Weale/ Channel 4 books—Darlow Smithson film and TV production: Science in the Third Reich

Completely worthless propaganda by moronic non-scientists
7 Mar 2013
Book 2001 published by Channel 4 books - Darlow Smithson film and television production. The book is based on four episodes and look liked padded-out scripts for the voiceover types, actors etc.

Unconsciously funny book made by the morons who seem accepted by the TV industry. I don't know how long situation this will last.

It's a shame, because there was a divide between German science and the rest of the world, one of the few times two fairly competent groups evolved with some independence. For example, Germany introduced electron microscopy, improvements in metallurgy, public health improvements (things like effect of sun and exercise and nutrition vs hospitals), town planning improvements including water supply and autobahnen, etc. So comparisons could have been interesting. There is nothing intelligent in this book, which is pure Anglo-Jewish propaganda - some of my readers will know the type.

There's a small bibliography of about twenty books, an odd collection including three volumes of Kershaw, and Deborah Lipstadt, and even Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk, as though these were serious books. However, it hardly matters.

There are three themes: 'eugenics' and 'the holocaust' - the author(s) simply have no idea about genetics, and no idea about winnowing out the truth from propaganda. Another topic is physics and the 'atom bomb' - again, they simply have no idea. (On this topic, Google nukelies). Not worth reading, unless you want specimens of every possible variety of deception, as some sort of exercise.

Comment made by me (Occidental Observer, November 15, 2017

You [Andrea Letania, attributing bad science to post-1970 era] need to update your views to take into account science fraud. Banning of Jews in Germany in fact INCREASED the quality of their science.

. . . In the several decades following the end of World War II, the impact of ideological taboos had a minimal negative impact. This is so wrong it’s painful. Under the protection of Jewish lies, processes of institutionalised lying about history, science, law, media, economics, militarism – every subject – and ever-increasing insertion of Jew incompetents, damaged every facet of societies under Jew control, i.e. virtually all countries.
Top of Page

Colin Firth A Single Man Colin Firth   A Single Man
    Review 17 June 2015
Low-Budget Film with Multiple Jewish Frauds

Colin Firth as something like a British Tom Hanks. Curious Zombie Film.Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

  Review of Lying Jews-in-Finance Film   The Big Short

Deliberate Lies
Reviewed by guest reviewer
  Review of Sadistic Lies about War   Inglorious Basterds

Deliberate Lies By Jewish Prostitute
  Reviewed by guest reviewer
Media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Review of Child's View of the 'Hitler War'   Pink Floyd: The Wall


Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Britons as subservient trash   Richard Grant: Withnail and I

Backhandedly realistic.

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of American economics   Thorstein Veblen: The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions

Pedestrian gawping of little value, I'm afraid..., July 11, 2010

I'd been to led to expect this book was an account of rather silly snobberies by the rich. And that it was exquisite in scholarship, writing style, and detail. Wrong.

Thorstein Veblen—1857-1929—and I only checked these details after reading this book—was one of many children of Norwegian immigrants into the USA. They were, or may have been, ripped off, though his father seems to have made money afterwards—I'd guess via a gift of land from the US government, though if so he seems to have been ungrateful. 'The Theory of the Leisure Class', published in 1899 when he was about 42, caused a stir—or at least that's the story. It precedes Ida Tarbell on Standard Oil by a couple of years.

Veblen's writing style is agonisingly plodding, repetitive and dull. He includes a few Latin and other tags. This must have been a deliberate attempt to project an educated image. He took time to explain his use of some English terms (e.g. 'invidious'). Part of his effect is achieved by using words in slightly the wrong sense. He used 'evolution' rather than 'change'—it sounded more up to date. His typescript (or MS) must have been the sort publishers' readers dreaded. I can't quote a sample here for space reasons.
----
His model of human history is very simple indeed. There *WERE* at one time two types of people and societies:

[1] The sedentary village, low on force and fraud. He calls this 'quasi-peaceful'. There's a law of status. (pp 215 & 236). 'Savages' (undefined) have this sort of lifestyle.

[2] Barbarians, who hate manual work, and prefer 'exploits'. They are ferocious, self-seeking, clannish, disingenuous. They like hunting. A predatory type. Veblen often calls them 'peace-disturbing dolicho-blonds'. (He himself had very dark hair—remember Norway and Sweden separated at about this time.)

---------
However, *NOW* (about 1900) there is industry.

[3] Veblen takes progress as given: 'as populations grow denser..', '.. stage of society..', '.. as the community advances in wealth and culture', are typical phrases. These days, the collective interests of modern industry work against the ferocious or selfish aristocrat type (p 227).

4] There is a 'hierarchical gradation of reputability. Ownership on a large scale [is]... the most reputable of economic interests. [then] banking .. law.. the lawyer is exclusively occupied with the details of predatory fraud..' (p.231).

-----------
Veblen means by the 'Leisure Class' property and company owners, financiers, bankers, lawyers. In other words, anyone not concerned with direct manufacturing. Much of his book is concerned with the way they spend or waste money, and the way other people attempt to follow or imitate their behaviour.

What is of value in Veblen?
I have to say I was struck by the small number of piquant examples of oddities in spending and consumption; I'd expected more. Dogs as useless deferential mouths to feed; clean clothes uncontaminated by evidence of work; William Morris's Kelmscott Press. Of men—walking stick, and powdered wig (from Alexander Pope?) On women, bodices, bound feet in China, and general feebleness, were signs of wealth in the husband. He has an odd passage about public parks—men keep the grass tidy, and this is an example of conspicuous consumption, because they are more expensive than cows.

He doesn't seem to know about Chinese mandarins' fingernails, British sumptuary laws, rose gardens and knot gardens and huge country houses as statements of things which are attractive, but unnecessary. He doesn't know about follies, or for example the Hell Fire Club and the Parthenon, both of which in their ways offered employment. Moreover he doesn't seem to understand the economics: a US department store would not stock very cheap items—there's not enough money in them and will reduce other sales. They will cater preferentially for richer customers—and offer, say, sherry, wine, champagne, brandy and other glasses, just to make more money. Veblen's examples are a mostly natural outcome of normal economics. As further evidence, consider that, if Veblen was right, any conspicuous waste might happen: burning of notes, buying of things just to destroy them.

As to the 'leisure class', Veblen, surprisingly, barely considers inherited wealth. New England had many sons and daughters waiting to inherit and the 'leisure class' would seem to fit them perfectly. But Veblen concentrates on other targets. Like Marx, he assumes factory owners just sit back and collect loot—he doesn't seem to realise such people *may* work extremely hard. Similarly, many younger sons of British wealthy families went off to die in various white man's grave parts of the world. For that matter, the 'wolfish earls' in 'Shakespeare' weren't exactly leisurely.

Veblen comes across as a man who moved directly from a peasant society into a much more technologically advanced one. (This must be common now, with uncontrolled mass third world immigration into some modern societies.) It's not surprising such people gawp, and feel fear, and boost their egos with cautious contempt. But I don't think ultimately this book delivers very much.
Top of Page

Old neophiliacs   Review of   Christopher Booker   The Neophiliacs
Might be considered an example of 'Jew Shock', the phenomenon of people with no awareness of Jews, but who nevertheless notice that something is amiss with the world. It's a difficult book to review sensibly, but my review is in my Private Eye article.
Top of Page

image   Review of EU   Richard North & Christopher Booker: The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union

Essential single-volume history of the EU, July 11, 2010

May I recommend (though not 100% wholeheartedly) The Great Deception by Christopher Booker & Richard North. (First published 2003. New edn 2005—possibly there's a newer one by now). This book goes right back to the roots. It puts most of the blame on Monnet, who acted through various others who generally wanted, and got, the attention; the original idea coming from Salter (civil servant influenced by international control of shipping) and Monnet himself (rather shady uncreative businessman, more interested in sales and secret deals than productivity)—these two types of person seem to have established the pattern. I think there was an unconscious wartime input: de Gaulle and others were treated as governments-in-waiting or in exile, which established a pattern in which unelected groups formed shadow 'governments'.

This book disentangles many myths—the sort of thing vaguely remembered from incompetent and inchoate BBC programmes. Such as the myth of the post-war carve-up—in fact the federal ideas were thought of much earlier, but one of the main arguments for federation—that it would prevent war in Europe—clearly hadn't worked. Another myth is about Britain and CAP; the French would not accept Britain unless we accepted huge sums for French farming, which of course was a bit pointless from our point of view. Britain as a slow foot-dragger was the message. Fascinating to read how the 'supranational' idea was disguised and hidden by euphemisms: the intent all along was undemocratic. There's an alphabet soup of organisations, mostly with 'E' in—Council of Europe, ESDP, EDC, EDB, EIB, EMS, etc etc. These helped kill off other approaches to Europe—supernational, free trade, etc.

Booker & North don't treat the EU in isolation—world events such as Suez and Berlin and the U2 incident and nuclear issues are factored in, often with new information—Suez for example was re-arranged between Israel, UK, and France, but went wrong. Macmillan, Thatcher, Major and others are shown to have never really quite known what was happening.

However, it's not a perfect book; Booker is an unrevised right-winger; I never liked him—he regards for example Dien Bien Phu as a 'disaster'. North I assume to have done much of the research (including from original documents on Internet, and recent material released under 30-year or other rule). The book doesn't mention the Soviet Union at all, incredibly, despite the model it must have provided for decades; nor Russia as a European unit; it's not too good on raw materials—e.g. oil; and north African gas which was one of the motives for inclusion of Africans in Europe. The book mentions, briefly, the CIA's funding, and Bilderberg, and Foundations such as Ford and Rockefeller, though not (yet?) Common Purpose. Briefly, though—the idea the book is full of conspiracy theories is entirely wrong. If anything, there are too few conspiracy theories—for example UKIP gets few mentions, but its failure to do anything much is widely interpreted as it's being a fraudulent party invented to waste votes. Booker and North seem not very good on law—how on earth such a system be expected to work? Their book does not disentangle exactly why the USA opposed 'communism'—if indeed it did. It has a few pages on immigration.

But it's a handy and hefty one-volume reference/ source/ account. It has a twenty-page detailed index which in a book of this size is a very valuable enhancement. It is in places hard going, but the fact is, much of the analysis necessarily deals with bureaucratic language, or the language of politicians with a long tradition of evasive wording, or conventionalised phrasing designed to disguise or soften actualities. Booker & North's writing is always better than the material they have to deal with—their presentation is probably about as good as it could be. Considering the bulk of this book, it's cheap, too. I foresee and hope that as the EU starts to crack, there will be updated version(s) of this book.
Top of Page

image   Review of Europe travel   Lisa St. Aubin De Teran: A Valley in Italy: Confessions of a House Addict

Multiple Refractions June 28 2010

Fascinating autobiographical book of the 'we are artistic, and stumbled on a lost treasure—at low price' type. Dated 1994—five years after Peter Mayle got to work advertising Provence so successfully.

The author's style is breathless and convoluted—'My childhood fantasy of musical bedrooms was coming true. Ever since reading Orlando one summer while a reluctant inmate of the children's ward at the South London Hospital for women and children, tied down by drips and tubes to a bed among many beds, I'd longed for a house where I could ramble from room to room, sleeping at random on unknown territory.'

She seems unreliable, omitting such details as money and the nitty gritty of building. This may be due to the genuinely enduring taboo against money, in polite conversation. I suspect in fact she's shrewd about purchasing, judging by occasional remarks—selling their apartment in Venice, for example.

On her name—she was educated in London, but this process was ended, or perhaps postponed, when she ran away at 16 with a Venezuelan described as a 'landowner'; I'd guess Italian links with South America influenced her. She remarried twice by 1994 and I assumed she'd retained the most exotic surname she could (in the manner of Doris Lessing)—it would be amusing if her maiden name was, say, Lisa Smithers. Her husband at the era of this book was a painter six years younger, Robbie with a double-barrelled surname. Fortified by this information I searched on Internet and found an art gallery site which says he's self-taught; his paintings include nudes in a shiny metal-finish effect, rather like that chap with green female torsoes popular in the 1970s, and character studies of moody Italian peasantry, and still lifes. One visualises him upstairs in the mansion, agonising over the high discounts that galleries ask, while his model gets either sunburnt, or chilly and damp, in the roofless studio.

The account is largely of falling in love with the remains of a palatial villa; as far as I've been able to decipher, they found out little about its past. Neither of them seemed to even know where Umbria was. Her description gives the illusion that Italy has no autostrade or agenti di proprieta or other modern conveniences, and that her building was like some South American lost monument amid jungle.

She talks about 'restoration'—taken seriously this may involve local-ish bricks, marble, terracotta, timber, glass, lime mortar and plaster—all of which sounds very difficult, now; however there is no detail, and though few people would want an itemised list, it would be nice to know what the 'workmen' got up to.

There are cameos, vignettes, aperçus, stories and digressions about her family (beautiful daughter, then 15, who modelled), Italian holidays, food—ham, salami, wine, tomatoes boiled into a paste with basil, panettone. And visits from the locals, banking and the mysteries of Italian employment, corruption and slow mail deliveries, the tobacco crop, etymological bits and pieces. There's disappointingly little about the Second World War (or the First), which events after all were partly responsible for the decay of parts of Italy and the rest of the world.

It's easy to see why some reviewers loved the book—and also why some threw it away in exasperation. There's a reliability issue—she says, as just one example, that sudden Autumn storms left deep pools of water inside the building; they developed a strategy of rolling up carpets and stashing possessions safely, and all would be dry by next day, which seems unlikely.

Her style has a parallel with her own romantic attitude—the reader has to fight through tangled allusions and byways to finally glimpse and explore the half-expected treasure.

Naturally, having been drawn in, many readers must feel triumph in merely having made the effort of the journey, a displacement which indirectly reinforces the power of the words in a way which a more straightforward account wouldn't. It's a matter of opinion whether the final book is as alluring as the ruined building that she found on the hills.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish science fraud   Robert Jungk: Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists

Belongs as a specimen of mid-rank Jewish propaganda with Kevin B MacDonald's collection of evidence, September 25, 2012

Originally published in German in 1956. Some English universities recommended this in the 1960s as general reading. First English translation 1958. It covers events up to the claimed Soviet nuclear H bomb, and the 'Lucky Dragon' incident of supposed irradiated Japanese fishermen. Jungk was apparently a Berlin Jew, born 1913, who studied European classics and got a PhD in 'modern European history'—presumably on Europe since the French Revolution.

I reread this to try to disentangle mythology from truth. Jungk, as might be guessed, says virtually nothing about the science or technology—or mistakes. There is (for example) no account of separation of U235; no account of why 'heavy water' might be important, or how it's isolated; no account even of where uranium was mined. Jungk says in effect that radioactive poison can now be made more or less indefinitely—but this seems not true since the supply of neutrons seemed/seems fixed by the amount of uranium mined. Jungk made little attempt to check anything, though there are a few letters to him from physicists.

Jungk's main attitude is rather awestruck reverence in quotation—for example, a Japanese physicist is quoted as saying only an atomic bomb could do this. (Wrong, in fact). All his judgments of the competence of physicists are second-hand. This approach tends not to work: for example, Jungk says hugely detailed calculations were needed. (He doesn't say what they were and in fact one has to wonder whether it's true—but I suppose if computers then resembled pocket calculators, well, they would be of some use). But if the need for elaborate calculations is true, how come the measured blast from explosions was supposed to be far greater than estimated?

Unfortunately Jungk is also uncritical as regards the political material: as an example there's a whole section on Oppenheimer's fall, but although the type of building, sofa, characters of the interviewee/interrogators, weather, tone of voice, taste in poetry, etc etc are detailed, it's not made clear what he was charged with—let alone of course how serious the charges were. He accepts all World War 2 mythology—on for example Pearl Harbor. He does not take the cost of the operation very seriously.

Sometimes he gets things right—his account of Groves is convincing, for example. So is his belief that the US Navy wanted to get in on the act—hence Bikini. His accounts of security and control of information sound right. The preponderance of 'foreigners' was acknowledged at the time—this may be a codeword for Jews, though Jungk barely mentions this.

An appendix is the 'Franck Report' to I think Stimson. This is full of comment on dangers of nuclear weapons, proliferation, treaties, control, and so on. Astonishingly, this was dated a few months before the first test, at night, in a remote country area, ten miles from observers, with full military secrecy! They had a lot to lose if their huge funding was found not to work.

**There is a very good account of Göttingen University in its great days, mostly of course taken from other sources. Read it and weep over modern times.
Top of Page

Review of Junk-style unoriginal history   John Kelly - The Great Mortality .. BLACK DEATH

Trivial book which is little more than a series of copied anecdotes 11 Sept 2013
2005 book which has almost nothing to recommend it. There are trots through accounts of various towns and cities and people, but of course records are sparse and there's no evidence Kelly made any attempt to identify sources or point out where information comes from, or how detail might be filled in deductively. I don't think he even refers to the problems of the calendar.

The medical stuff is inconsistent: sometimes victims have 'buboes' in glands in their neck, groin, whatever; sometimes they're covered with infections. Sometimes they die, sometimes they (for example, people digging graves and hefting corpses around) unaccountably live. Ships full of dead sailors manage to sail into ports. There seem to be no accounts of people bitten by fleas, despite this being the supposed transmission method. Some apparently serious research which puts the death rate much lower than (perhaps) alarmist accounts is simply swept aside.

Picturesque or sensational detail rules, with no attempt at assessment. How important, for example, were 'the flagellants'? It's a sort of National Enquirer view of history. Conversely, the possibilities of food contamination, or some novel poison conveyed deliberately or otherwise along trade routes, or what have you, are underplayed—surely a bit unreasonably in a book of its title.

It's typical of the oddity and/or funniness of our times that Jews are focussed on: maybe half Europe died, but Kelly comments on Jews. Interestingly, it seems highly possible that Jews were responsible perhaps for poisoning or otherwise spreading disease; Kelly's map at the beginning shows almost no deaths in the eastern European area, for example. And it's well known now, when Jewish junk US academics state openly how desirable white extermination would be, that Jews largely have that outlook, and in the superstitious days of the Middle Ages would presumably have held it more strongly.

Amusingly, Kelly takes 'the AIDS virus' seriously, and. also amusingly, compares the deaths with the 'flu epidemic' after the First World War (when huge numbers of deaths due to weakness, starvation, lack of care, lack of medical materials and cleanliness, were routinely ascribed to influenza). Connoisseurs of crap will be amused also that he compares parts of Black Death Europe to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Kelly has endnotes, but no bibliography, and judging by the acknowledgements, must have been pretty much instructed what to read, or more likely what passages to quote from. He seems to have had no special methodology, to e.g. trace the way the accounts of the 'Black Death' (and its relatively late name). I doubt if the books listed (incidentally one is by Norman Cohn) form a useful guide.

I would guess this book was an attempt at a routine update, maybe of once-famous books, popular in their time; perhaps Zinsser's Rats, Lice and History (1935) and maybe Ziegler's Black Death (first published 1969, I think). The time separation seems about right.
Top of Page

  Review of Hiroshima fraud   Ed Dr Arat Osada: Children of the A Bomb (1959, Eng. trans. 1963)

Does not support the idea of an atom bomb on Hiroshima, July 1, 2010

A collection of essays, apparently written in 1951, by school and college kids, six years after Hiroshima was bombed. They are arranged roughly in age order, from about 5 years to about '12th grade' when the town was bombed; and of course six years older when they wrote. There are 67 accounts, 'out of more than 2,000'. It's impossible to tell how close the English translations are to the original, or how typical they are. The English version was first published in 1959 (i.e. fifteen years after). Assuming the accounts are fairly reliable, they don't support the idea of an atom bomb. The book has a fold-out map at the end, so the locations these children were in 1945 can be found when they give that detail. There is (or was in the early editions) a preface by Bertrand Russell.

Here's a thread from the Nuke Lies forum on Osada's Children of the A Bomb.
Top of Page

image   Review of US PC   Thomas E. Woods: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

3 way war—Protestants vs Catholics vs ZOG, June 29, 2010

I.m.h.o. the way to view this book is part of a Catholic fightback, where the author is being careful not to tangle with the Jewish 'ZOG' which of course is much of established 'PCness'.

To see the idea—in Europe, the Jewish/Marxian types—the descendants of the USSR mass murderers—promote immigration, much of it Muslim, presumably to damage the host countries. It's a three way war of white Europeans vs invaders vs Jews. So far, there's been an alliance, not necessarily even recognised, of invaders and Jews. Whether this will continue, I have no idea, though I hope not.

Now. In the USA, illegals etc are usually Mexican, not Muslims. So possibly there's a three way war of White American Protestants vs Catholic invaders vs Jews. (There are blacks too). Again, so far there's been an alliance of Mexicans and Jews. I don't know whether it will continue—again, I hope not.

Woods's book I think must be predicated on that. He reconsiders WW2 as far as he dares—probably because the USSR more or less extinguished the Russian Orthodox church. He thinks the pilgrim fathers were all the same—as far as he's concerned, they're all Protestants. The official Catholic view on 'capitalism' is to frown on it, but support private property [I think—no doubt there are numerous encyclicals]. The Spanish Civil War was essentially Russian Jews vs Catholics, just as countries like Poland were the same—'communists' vs Catholics. I think if you read between the lines, this is what Woods is hinting at, though there are of course other issues. Catholics like to think democracy developed through them. They are only just starting to fight back against the WW2 consensus. I think this explains the rather odd nature of Woods's book and I'd expect there to be further detail which confirms this.

(Why not comment with your thoughts?)
Top of Page

image   Review of US education   Robert W. Whitaker: Why Johnny Can't Think

Subtitled 'America's Professor-Priesthood', June 28, 2010

The title is based on 'Why Johnny Can't Read', an American plea for phonics (I think)—the same battle is still being played out in the UK—see Alice Coleman and Mona McNee. The subtitle however more accurately describes the book's central idea. It's simple enough—the professoriat has its own vested interests, and does what it can to reinforce itself as yet another interest group. They appoint successors, use examinations to ensure orthodoxy, ensure they get public money, censor and suppress opposing views—including by inciting violence, and do not examine their own possible limitations and mistakes. Whitaker's book is shortish and not very precise—but teasing out all the intricacies would be difficult. For example, he assumes bureaucrats and the professoriat (my word) are the same people—he doesn't analyse the vast number of low-level foot-soldiers—the teachers, employees of government, the hacks who mislead. This is all intertwined with 'communism'. Whitaker favours something like economic democracy—he says actors tend to be 'left wing' because they'd rather do undemanding work, that people won't pay for, than conform to public requirements. Whitaker assumes government control (a) is 'socialist' and (b) must be inefficient, neither of which is quite true. All this naturally overlaps with Jewish material—the USSR being a Jewish invention. Whitaker in effect describes the religion of Political Correctness, which is more or less the same as 'Holocaustianity', though Whitaker cautiously avoids saying anything like that. Whitaker assumes 'communism' is a homogeneous movement, something open to doubt; I know no evidence that Mao was a pawn of Jews—but then again I have no evidence he wasn't. Whitaker is a bit conventional here—he thinks the 'Viet Cong' existed, although in fact there was never any such group. This in my view muddies the water. Whitaker also, correctly, identifies a main strand in political correctness as anti-white racism; he quotes at least one person favouring extermination of whites. And others wanting third world immigration—but only into white countries.

Whitaker has quite a high opinion of science and uses it to counterpoint the fragile absurdities and wishful thinking of 'social science'. He knows about Semmelweiss, and Galen, and is fully aware that modern medicine took about 1500 years to develop, in the teeth of opposition from entrenched hacks. It doesn't logically follow that social science is in the same position, but clearly it could be. And religions, of course.

This book is available (quickly) as a secured PDF download from Whitaker's own site—the pages are a scanned image. A paper version may be easier to deal with.

Here's a very small sample of his prose style:----
Students hear their professors say, "Follow the money" when it comes to how greedy businessmen are. Students hear media commentators say "Follow the money" when it comes to how greedy oilmen or defense contractors are. So why do professors ignore the fact that black Africans were as guilty of selling black slaves as white slave-traders were of buying them? Could it be that they are just following the money? ... A college graduate who never outgrew his diploma cannot imagine that professors might have a bias. He cannot imagine that professors follow the money...

In an ideal world, this book would be seen as a rather lightweight expose of rather obvious possibilities of corruption. But in today's world, it's quite a punchy revelation of a group foisting its own image onto the rest of society and causing untold harm as a result.
Top of Page

image   Review of female education   Jane Robinson: Bluestockings: The Remarkable Story of the First Women to Fight for an Education

Smug, with no good reason, June 28, 2010

This is Britain-only (apart from a few asides on US women's colleges) and university only—the subtitle ('.. First Women to Fight for an Education') is misleading. There's a chronological table which incidentally dates Oxford from post-Norman Conquest. As other commentators have stated, it's anecdotal—the author contacted elderly women and interviewed them. The result is attractive enough and makes a nostalgic impression. Worth mentioning is that the academic studies are barely referred to—if you want to know what work these women actually did, you'll be disappointed—but this of course is a feature of very many biographies with Oxbridge and redbrick as background.

BUT

[1] The hermetic, isolated nature of university education is unconsciously emphasised—the author (a graduate in—of course—English) isn't even aware of this. For example (p. 176) 'Nineteen-eighteen was a momentous year for several reasons. ... the first dance to which Girtonians could invite male partners was held. ... permission to smoke in their own rooms was granted to lady students.'
[2] The underlying social conditions are similarly skated over ... the main period she deals with (19th and 20th centuries) was on the whole characterised by increasing wealth. Robinson seems to present it purely as a battle against reactionary males. She has little idea of the way token education can be used to mop up new wealth.
[3] It follows, I suppose, that the single most important part of this book, the essential few chapters, are missing. We have female new blood trickling, then flowing, into education. Where are the tremendous exciting achievements of educated women? What did they do? What new breakthroughs, and corrections of errors, were made by these women? --- Unfortunately, to ask these questions is to answer them. Despite the pother about education, there are few if any contributions by women to science, technology, or applied science—such as medicine; nor in any sort of critical activity, from history to criminology, from psychology to studies of religion. Most went in for conventional careers, in many cases of course teaching or administering teaching.

If you think women vicars are a mark of great social progress, you'll like this book rather better than those who think there's little value in increasing the numbers of rather parasitic and uncreative retailers of feeble ideas.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   Noam-Chomsky-Media-Control-Spectacular-Achievements-of-Propaganda

Not at all plausible or accurate, June 28, 2010

I suspect this book might appeal more to Europeans than Americans—Chomsky has many European supporters, including, up to a point, me.

Try to see propaganda from the US perspective. What is the single most spectacular achievement of propaganda? I'll avoid here the obvious censorship of the 'ZOG' groups in the USA, despite their importance. I'd fix it at 1916, when the intention was to get the USA into the European War. Up to 1916 there was isolationism; after, given a huge wave of atrocity stories and anti-German propaganda of every sort, the USA was at least apparently keen to get involved. Chomsky does NOT mention this at all. Instead this small book is mostly devoted to the lightweight marketing tricks of PR people, notably that chap related to Freud—I almost forgot his name—Bernays. Thus the single most decisive war in the last hundred years which started huge devastation isn't even examined by Chomsky.

Another chapter deals with 'communism'. Chomsky says such things as in India, there is a lot of starvation and poverty. Chinese 'communism' was no worse. Or something along those lines; it's not really important. What Chomsky does NOT consider is 'Communism' in the USSR, which because of its industrial nature was possibly the most ruthless and cruel regime in History. And of course run and financed by Chomsky's fellow cultists. Now that also is a remarkable propaganda 'achievement'. Moreover he assumes Chinese 'communism' was the same sort of thing as Soviet communism. But was it? I don't profess to know—and the evidence in any case would obviously be secret. Most Americans of course fall for this—they think, falsely, there was something called the 'Viet Cong' and they were 'communist', as though rural peasants in a rice based Buddhist economy were interested in class war in Manchester.

Just a few examples! This book is tenth-rate but might have the virtue of inducing people to step back, and consider abstractly what they've been told, and how much was propaganda.
Top of Page

image   Review of Actor's autobiography   Dirk Bogarde: For the Time Being

Luvvies like bubbles on a river, June 28, 2010

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Race   Elmer Pendell: Why Civilizations Self-Destruct

Tries to puts the case for stupid people over-breeding wrecking civilizations, June 28, 2010

'Historical Review Press' publish this book under the name 'Elmer Pendel'; his name seems to have been Elmer Pendell, in fact (and Amazon may record him as Pendel Elmer!)

It's undated, but internal evidence suggests about 1975—that's the latest publication date quoted. Incidentally there is absolutely nothing about the vast influx from Mexico and South America into the USA—it was written before that became a major issue. On the other hand there is a detailed proposal for a law requiring people to register before being allowed to have children.

Nearly two-thirds of this book is concerned with personal psychology, and group psychology—there's a lot on consciousness, for example. It's interesting enough, but peripheral. There's also a great deal on early man, including the effect of ice ages, which Pendell considers must have had a good genetic effect. He goes for the ice-cap theory—must have weeded out people of less good brainpower. (He also says, just once, that deserts have the same effect; and he says the Black Death improved Britain). There's quite a bit on fossil man, but Pendell doesn't seem to realise how very tiny the total amount of evidence is—a few years ago all the human fossils so far discovered could fit onto a table-top. Incidentally he conflates 'evolution' in the full species sense, with population shifts or races within species.

The issue in the title only really gets addressed near the end of the book, and even then Pendell introduces other possibilities: silting up of waterways; lead poisoning; over-powerful central administration; loosened family ties; raw materials having to be imported. He does at least discuss the issue of what civilizations are—he says, something with an organizational network. This permits e.g. stonehenge people to count contra-etymologically as 'civilized'. He thinks all civilizations 'self-destruct' and doesn't seem to consider that they may have been abandoned, or survivors moved somewhere else. However his main emphasis is on slaughter of brave men in wars, small families of the best types, and large families of the worst. He doesn't convincingly explain why the worst types have larger families: they have less self-control, and aren't motivated by important things, says Pendell. Also of course medical care is important here, since, more or less by definition, they must be less good at child support. Modern USA and Europe suggests civilisations can fall if tight control by 'elites' strangles thought; it may be that a firmly-enforced legal system operating with ruinous forces simply has to fell, just to free things up.

Anyway: that's his book. I don't think there's any doubt that there's substantial truth in his thesis. But it's weakened very much by his inability to show how self-interest, and the interest of groups, can work in such a way as to damage the whole structure of a civilization. For example, many clever people work at things which are harmful to a society, if they're paid to, but Pendell believes in unsocialist societies, and can't face this issue, since he seems to think personal cleverness must always be of general benefit. Incidentally he seems to have worked all his life in universities, including Chicago (funded by the monopolist Rockefeller!) but seems to think he would make a great independent pioneer type.
Top of Page

  Review of Psychology   Paul Kline: Psychology Exposed or the Emperor's New Clothes

Unique and intelligent examination of psychology as a funded closed circle, June 28, 2010

Fairly short book and well-written—the author is sensitive to nuances and appears serious in what he says. The final chapter, Eight, 'The Way Ahead' has a handy summary of the rest of his book, followed by research suggestions. His summary claims that experimental psychology studies trivia, largely because of funding issues, of adherence to a form of scientific method, and personality quirks. It looks worthless, and when stripped-down, is. He can't quite mean this, since one of his objections to some standard psychology is that it redescribes everyday behaviour in ways which are designed to sound technically impressive. This means it's tautologous rather than worthless. I won't consider his suggested ways forward, as they are tentative and in any case not part of the main thrust of his book.

His chapter-headings dealing with psychology are on memory, psychometrics (Kline wrote a hefty volume of this, and his then-university Exeter appears to specialise in it), attitudes and group processes, cognition, and animal psychology. Many of his crits are sceptical and literary. 'Cognitive dissonance' for example may be something everyone knows about, dressed up. Animal psychology may have no relevance to people.

When this book was written, sociobiology was about 13 years old (Wilson, 1975; and also The Selfish Gene 1976); attacks on Freud were well-established, including by Kline himself 16 years earlier; Cattell was going strong on personality (e.g. 1981); Jensen on race and intelligence was published (e.g. 1981), Kamin on IQ had been published twenty years earlier. R D Laing was near retirement age (and death). 1988 was the date of approval of an 'SSRI' anti-depressant. All this—and a great deal of media and cult promotion—was part of the mental atmosphere of psychologists at the time.

This book is the only one known to me that makes a serious attempt at the equivalent of psychological analysis of the whole subject. Such books are rare—I know of one in sociology, and a few sceptical surveys of the academic world. **It's worth a careful read.**

Two cautious notes: Kline sounds very humanistic, but it's fairly well-known that torture has been and is used often enough; there's no mention of this underside which must have some psychological connections. For example, Israel regularly tortures. The other note is a bit more difficult to pin down. Kline adopts much of the conventional spirit of the time. Leafing through, we find assertions made about 'Mother' Teresa, Hitler, the social system of Germany, religious beliefs (in which all manner of systems are lumped together), animal behaviour, primitive peoples, Mao Te-Sung, Von Neumann, nuclear weapons, computer hardware and programs, parental feelings, schizophrenia, and Margaret Thatcher's effects. Inferior writers—I've noticed this in USA women's light fiction—rely on American product brand names as their background and scenesetting: Kleenex, coca-cola, Texaco, and what have you. Kline reminds me of this, though his units and atoms are more subtle. But they are just as much products of campaigning and advertising.
Top of Page

Captain Cook Myth book   Review of Jewish interest   Jillian Robertson: The Captain Cook Myth

Revisionism of Capt. Cook and Australia, June 28, 2010

By an Australian woman journalist living (then?) in England. Her conclusion on Captain Cook: '.. glorification.. in Australia has something to it of the irony of Anzac Day, .. horrendously mismanaged debacle. ..'

'.. Cook.. wasn't interested in Australia, and had small faith in its possibilities. His achievement lies.. in what he took away: Terra Australis Incognita. What Australia owes to its "discoverer"—the continent's fifth? tenth? fifteenth?—has been greatly exaggerated. He charted Australia from Cape Everard to Torres Strait and he did it well. That is all.'

- Includes much interesting stuff, e.g. centres of map-making, international rivalry, Cook's ambition, his use (probably) of other people's maps and even place names from e.g. French, his supposed house in England which seems a fraud, supposed tree in Australia at which his ship was falsely supposed tied, his wife's destroying all his papers, doubt what he was really like (as journals were all examined), etc etc.
Top of Page

  Review of history education   Richard Mansfield Haywood: The Myth of Rome's Fall

The Myth of Education..., June 28, 2010

'The Myth of Rome's Fall'. Interesting title. What could it mean? Perhaps [1] the church took over from the Empire, and, if assessed properly, had total power about the same as the empire? Hence, no net fall! Or maybe [2] the 'barbarians', properly viewed, melded into the Empire and produced something equally huge? Or why not [3] The Roman empire was on the road to recovery, but Islam killed it? I'd hoped the thesis might have been something unexpected like that. Unfortunately, not so. 'The purpose of this book is to tell in a straightforward and non-technical way what contemporary working scholars think happened to the Romans.' 'Contemporary' means of course the 1950s; 'scholars' presumably are no doubt mostly American. This is The Reduced Gibbon Company's product, in miniature competition with Spengler and Toynbee. The title is misleading.

The chapters are divided by centuries from the birth of Christ—a scheme which of course didn't exist for much of the interval under consideration. I winced at a description of Christians not wanting 'to turn the clock back' to Paganism. I suppose Shakespeare had an alarm clock in Julius Caesar; but the anachronism is painful—as is a reference to Christians being sent to the lions. This is not anything like my field—however I recall a guidebook to the Colosseum stating clearly that Christians were never thrown to lions—the Colosseum had been disused for years before any such possibility existed. Haywood accepts what may well be a real myth—the Pax Romana: Gaul and Dacia receive only a few lines. Haywood's style is US-centric: I was struck by a comment on a 'government contract'. This was at a time when the expectation of life of an emperor was a few years. The book thins out and pretty much ends with islam.

Probably, to interpret this book, after World War II, the USA expanded education—clearly a 'good thing'. It was made into a career. There's a brilliant account by John Holt of the Irish in Boston public schools—education was a chore to be carried out in a monotonous rote way, the syllabus set out, the half-truths set in stone, the check collected, the kids uninspired.

'But can we not learn something of the future by our study of the Roman Empire? Will that study not yield some great secret of civilization? The answer is "No." There is no one great and portentous lesson.. although there are innumerable minor ones, nor can it offer us a prophecy of the fate of our own times.'
Top of Page

image   Review of H G Wells   H.G. Wells: The Complete Short Story Collection

First-class humanistic stories redolent of Victorian and Edwardian life, June 26, 2010

Wells (according to his Experiment in Autobiography) kept a card index of ideas for short stories. He'd pick a card and work up the idea into a story. He wrote at a time when magazines and journals were multiplying—they therefore needed material. I'll look at just a few of the sixty-three stories here:-

The Time Machine—this made Wells's name, in 1895. Incidentally the equipment is Victorian glass and brass, with bicycle power, and the whole indoor scene lit by candlelight.

The Sad Story of a Dramatic Critic—about the 'phenomenal unnaturalness of acting'. Very amusing story about a critic who ultimately can't help expressing himself in the emotional symbolism of theatrical conventions, such as "be kaynd to her."

A Slip Under the Microscope is about cheating in examinations, and also about rivalry between social classes of students.

Little Mother up the Morderburg is one of Wells's only two attempts as far as I know at a Munchhausen style of tale.

The Story of the Last Trump—variation on a Biblical idea. The last trump carelessly falls to earth and is found by a Wells hero in a junk shop. He promptly blows it, and the 'Last Judgment' begins. Another very attractive story.

The Grisly Folk is an attempt to write up the clash between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens—assuming this ever happened.

The Star (1910) is Wells's fictional account of a comet approaching dangerously near the earth.

The Truth About Pyecraft is an extraordinarily skilful story about a fat club bore who wants to lose weight. In true Wells's style, there is genuine science fiction here, based on the confusion between 'mass' and 'weight'. Wells's SF is usually based on genuine scientific principles teased out or modified by a master storyteller.

Miss Winchelsea's Heart is a comedy of manners—the defeat of love by snobbery. Magnificent story incorporating an Italian holiday of about 1900, and the fading away of the obligatory Baedeker references which seemed appealing at the time.

In the Modern Vein: An Unsympathetic Love Story is an account of a rather hypocritical man of letters, dabbling with the possibility of an affair with a suitably exotic young woman. Very amusing conflict with domesticity and wifedom. I would not be at all surprised if this was based on Wells's own experiences!

There are many more, of course. Note that more Wells stories were published later, as The Man with a Nose and other Uncollected Stories of H. G. Wells, I think found by the H G Wells Society in Britain, which had been rejected for various reasons, though I'm not sure they were inferior—Wayde's Essence for example, a placebo, the 'Water of Success', which its inventor reveals to the 'Successful Man', perhaps returning him to failure.
      I see a new volume is to be published soon; I don't know if it includes his unpublished stories, but I'd hope so.
Top of Page

image   Review of Victorian biog   Frank Harris: My Life and Loves

Harris was a very intelligent man—excellent material on 1880-1930, June 26, 2010

Harris was born 1855; died 1931. He was famous as an editor (and helped publish H G Wells)—as famous as Whistler, said Wells. He wrote about twenty books.

This large book was published in five volumes originally, starting in 1925—with censorship difficulties as with Lady Chatterley's Lover. I suspect this was to try to make money: like Wilde he was somewhat isolated in Europe. It's much more interesting and varied than most people would guess from the reputation: it includes much material on middlebrow people like Maeterlinck, Kipling; and political stuff on Bismarck, Russo-Turkish War, Rhodes, Jameson Raid, Boer War, Congo atrocities etc, Boer War, First World War, and people like Meredith and Wilde and Wells and Shaw; plenty on Shakespeare and Jesus; and accounts of visits to America, Greece, Germany, Africa, Japan, China and other places.

Erotic encounters are interlarded here and there and include a negress called Sophy and Indian, Japanese, Chinese, and young, women. He states [as an introduction, just before printing a letter from a lesbian] that he has no experience in perversions, being wholly taken up with normal desires. The whole writing style is different, mainly because there's no established vocabulary—'my powerful instrument' type of thing.

Most of his life was pre-'Great War': his outlook is Victorian and Edwardian and includes comments which must have been commonplaces at the time, but have been progressively eroded away by Jewish lies, to put it simply. Expenditures of about a billion pounds on South African wars against the Boers would have been better spent on settling a white country in Africa, he thought. He noted the immense profitability of diamonds in Kimberley, prospectors being offered a tenth of the value since proper appraisal could supposedly only be done in Europe. He commented on people like Wernher and Beit and 'Barney Barnatto'. Incidentally, it's possible gold was used by Jews in a similar way to paper currency notes and the Federal Reserve: I'd suggest the net cost of gold was not high; and in view of fractional reserves the value would in any case be amplified. He appears not be be Jewish: as far as I recall, his interest in the press was in making copy that sold; large-scale systematic propaganda was not his interest. It's hard to tell how much is actually true. I haven't attempted to check on Harris beyond the usual anecdotes; there seems little chance the book was reviewed at the time, in view of its being banned in 1922. I found an online review by Alfred Armstrong, who sounds sensible, but whose sources seem only to be prefatorial notes: note that volume 5 was unfinished at Harris's death and the first publication seems to have been anti-bowdlerised, i.e. the sex expanded and the rest reduced. Some editions have footnotes of instances when Harris' meetings or exchanges with anyone of significance have been challenged. Some incidents are known to me to appear elsewhere, and could have been copied, as in e.g. Whistler's comment on looking at Beardsley's drawings, or an apparently face to face statement by Wilde on how he learnt drama technique by studying French plays. Did Harris really talk to Bismarck? Karl Marx? Herbert Spencer? The Duke of Marlborough? On the other hand, when Harris gives supposedly verbatim conversations with Carlyle and Dowden and Mallock, or recounts his experiences with Alfred Russel Wallace or Bret Harte or Bunsen, one feels these people aren't from the common point of view stellar enough to warrant invention. And similarly the accounts of houses, hotels, towns, travel, and manners—although of course feeling very different from today—less mechanical, more biological, more rural—are convincing enough.

Much on Christ, Shakespeare. Also on literary influences post-Dickens and pre-say 1900; his modern style makes it easy to miss the fact that the authors he talks of, e.g. Carlyle, Browning, were living to him. Harris is unusually cosmopolitan—he lists John Hay, an American of Pike County Ballads, Whitman, Emerson, Fiske and Gould of the Erie Railway, and others; and also Henry George and radical journalists, like Harden in Germany whom I've not heard of before.

He actually knew and met Alfred Russel Wallace of evolution theory, and comments on 'Forty-five Years of Registration Statistics.' 'proving vaccination.. useless and dangerous'. He met Ehrlich, of STD (VD then) fame. Harris complimented a German scientist for not patenting his inventions, unlike Alfred Nobel.

He said, of the Belgian Congo atrocities, Britain 'could have stopped it with a word'. The First World War & war against Russia was 'for money'.. 'series of diabolical crimes.. committed during the last half-century almost without protest..' A very interesting and lively book, full of independent judgments.
Top of Page

image   Review of fakes   Mark Jones: Fake? The Art of Deception

Attractive museworthy well-informed and well-illustrated catalogue, June 26, 2010

1990 large-format paperback, published by the British Museum. I bought a copy when it was sold off as a remainder; the prices quoted here seem very high. Lavishly illustrated in b/w and colour. Over 330 numbered entries, some multiple. Most of the things discussed are illustrated in this book. They seem clearly happiest with the 19th century, many of their exhibits being from their own collections; very few 20 century forgers are represented (for example Eric Hebburn wasn't known of, then, though his work is here). About 100 people contributed.

It's written in direct British English and clearly aimed at the public. The contents page doesn't include all the detail; on leafing through, the top right corner has handy running titles on monkish forgeries, political forgeries, science, and the more predictable artworks—faked etchings, paintings, sculptures, ceramics, jewellery, coins, watches, furniture, carpets, antiquities from the remote past.

We soon find Beringer's fossils baked by his students, Dawson and Piltdown, the Zinoviev letter, replicas, passports, stamps, African masks, fairies at the bottom of a garden. John Logie Baird's televisual apparatus was a reconstruction and in any case not important. We have literary forgeries including of course Ossian.

Here's a bare listing; introductory essays -- WHY FAKES? Mark Jones / FORGING THE PAST David Lowenthal / TEXTUAL FORGERY Nicolas Barker
Then the catalogue...
1 WHAT IS A FAKE?
2 REWRITING HISTORY
3 THE LIMITS OF BELIEF: RELIGION, MAGIC, MYTH AND SCIENCE
4 FAKING IN THE EAST
5 FAKING IN EUROPE FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE 18TH CENTURY
6 THE 19TH CENTURY: THE GREAT AGE OF FAKING
7 FAKING IN THE 20TH CENTURY
8 THE ART AND CRAFT OF FAKING: COPYING, EMBELLISHING AND TRANSFORMING
9 THE SCIENTIFIC DETECTION OF FAKES AND FORGERIES
10 THE LIMITS OF EXPERTISE

Much material on the motives of forgers—to make money (often, or perhaps usually, to feed a demand—modern Chinese fossil fakes illustrate this), to gain fame, to push some obsession or aim. The authors estimate 5% of the current art/ artefact sales to be faked. They don't generally consider the deeper issues—forgeries at the basis of Christianity, forgeries in effect of the word of Allah, forgeries of medical notes to avoid legal action, forged TV information, faked information to start wars.
Top of Page

image   Review of Nuclear frauds   DVD: Atomic Testing (3pc)

Good value for studying supposed tests and related social films, June 26, 2010

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of Popular evasionist science   Daniel C. Dennett: Essays on Designing Minds

Evolutionary strategies to get funding..., June 26, 2010

I leafed through this now 12-year old book, withdrawn from stock and sold by a public library. There's no biographical info in my copy—a page has been torn out possibly by some reader irritated by such trivia—but MIT clearly plays some part. The evolutionary strategy needed to produce such books seems to need [insert elaborate qualifying sentences here]: (1) Amiable relationships with a list of people; some mature in the field, e.g. Putnam; some famous for other reasons, e.g. Chomsky; some conceded to be exciting, e.g. Hofstader. (2) Writing style has to be adapted to a paper—an issue must be raised, thoughtful comments made at the appropriate level, which are then unanswered—definite answers are to be deplored, for one obvious reason. (3) Technical stuff must be referred to only in an overview sense. There is for example almost nothing about actual computers or hardware in this book, which seems odd. Nor is there awareness of the real structure of the brain. (4) The outside world must be referred to occasionally, and always in a way suggesting no criticism of authorities. (5) A certain palette of references from the past is needed, such as Turing, and the 'Cartesian Theater'. (6) It's permissible to puzzle over animal behaviour, but not to suggest animals have much the same abilities as people, but can't easily put the into action. (7) Padding can be provided by games, models, toys, and puzzles—the 'game' of Life is an example, though for some reason nobody ever speculates how changing the rules would change the game.

I don't think computer-generated papers are quite possible yet, but they're working on it. Whether any form of civilisation will survive to provide readership is another matter.
Top of Page

Hillman's Living Cell cover   Review of genuine science   Harold Hillman: The Living Cell: Re-examination of Its Fine Structure

Very important book—explains why fundamental medical science has stalled, June 26, 2010

100-page but fact-packed book on how cells have been misunderstood, because of flaws in techniques. Something like half of research into biology is wasted as a result. This has been the case for thirty years, and shows no sign of reversing. People trying to draw lessons from such events as 9/11, NASA, and even Pearl Harbor and other exercises in misinformation will be pleased to know there is also a theoretical basis for their suspicions over the failure of medical science to progress much, apart from technological matters. The theoretical basis is that structures believed to be part of cells, and around which a lot of research effort is made, such as the endoplasmic reticulum, simply don't exist—they are an artefact caused by misinterpretation of electron micrographs. Careless work, and absence of control experiments, have led to a NASA-like situation of entrenched errors.

One of the authors, Peter Sartory, an optical microscopist—and also expert with telescopes—died, I think of emphysema. Harold Hillman is alive, but not very well. This book was intended (thirty years ago) for doctors, researchers, O and A level biology students, though it fell rather flat due to entrenched opposition. His latest and probably last book, Evidence-Based Cell Biology took him eight years to write and is in a sense a much amplified version of all of his books.
Top of Page

Review of   Wendy Moore   The Knife Man—Blood, Body-Snatching and the Birth of Modern Surgery by Rerevisionist   25th June 2016
mid 18th century London
1746 London. 'Leicester Fields' came to be named 'Leicester Square'.   Note Castle Street to its east.   Golden Square was one of John Hunter's residences; the other was in Earl's Court (off the map, to the west).   A few churchyards are included in the map.
1714 - Fahrenheit's mercury thermometer invented
1728 - John Hunter born 13/14 February at Long Calderwood, East Kilbride
1748 - Joins his brother William at his anatomy school in London
1754 - Becomes a pupil at St George's Hospital; discovers placental circulation
1756 - Spends five months as a house surgeon at St George's
1759 - British Museum opened
1760 - Enlists as a surgeon in the army
1762 - Hunter's first research paper, on the descent of the testes and congenital hernias, published in William's Medical Commentaries
1763 - Leaves army and sets up practice in London
1764 - Becomes engaged to Anne Home
1766 - First paper, on the Siren Lacertina, an 'eel-like amphibian', published by Royal Society
1767 - Elected Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS). Begins experiment on venereal diseases, perhaps on himself
1768 - Appointed surgeon at St George's. (Unpaid - p 307)
1770 - Edward Jenner, a 'kindred spirit', becomes Hunter's house pupil
1771 - Publishes first major work, The Natural History of the Human Teeth; marries Anne Home
1775 - Offers private lectures on surgery
1776 - Appointed Surgeon Extraordinary to George III; treats David Hume
1777 - Attempts to revive Revd William Dodd after hanging
1778 - Publishes A Practical Treatise on the Diseases of the Teeth
1779 - Publishes 'An account of the free-martin' in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
1780 - Accuses brother of stealing his discovery of placental circulation
1783 - Moves to Leicester Square; steals body of Charles Byrne, the Irish Giant
1785 - Consulted by Benjamin Franklin; performs popliteal aneurysm operation
1786 - Treats William Pitt; awarded Copley Medal by RS; publishes A Treatise on the Venereal Disease
1787 - Treats Adam Smith
1788 - 28 Leicester Square Museum opens twice a year; treats Thomas Gainsborough and young Byron
1790 - Appointed surgeon-general of the army
1792 - Begins writing Observations and Reflections on Geology
1793 - John Hunter died 16 October at St George's
1809 - Birth of Darwin
1823 - Birth of Alfred Russel Wallace
1850 - Gray's Anatomy 1st edition
2005; paperback 2006. Published by Bantam/ Transworld/ Random House, Broadway/ Crown/ Archetype. Or something like that. The title, and cover design, obviously gave problems: not many people had heard of John Hunter, at least before this book. The title must have been chosen to titillate, and isn't quite accurate, as modern surgery wasn't really born, but slowly emerged against serious frictional human opposition. And 'physiology' no doubt was too difficult a word for a book title. John Hunter (1728-1793) is hard to categorise: he loved nature, had the good fortune to live at a time of explorations and world adventures, and was curious about all aspects of the living world.
    Hunter amassed a vast collection of specimens and 'preparations', which in effect seem to have been of three types:
  1. Spectacular objects—for example a stuffed giraffe, the first ever seen in Britain;
  2. Ordered and sorted specimens, showing similar structures in different species (e.g. skeletal structures, tendrils...), or similar processes in different species (circulation, digestion, breathing...), or developments in the same species (e.g. eggs developing up to the point of hatching). And
  3. Unusual or pathological specimens. He wasn't the same type as typical Victorian collectors, with birds' eggs in mahogany cases.
John Hunter's most recent biography (1969) was by Jessie Dobson, in the Association of Chartered Secretaries, a curator of the Hunterian Museum: an online pdf is purchasable from John Wiley. An account just after Hunter's death is a 'short account' by Everard Home, included within 'A Treatise on the Blood, Inflammation and Gun-shot Wounds' (1794). Most of Wendy Moore's information comes from books and other publications in which Hunter is mentioned in passing, plus notes by pupils, and Hunter's own works, plus 4 volumes of 'Case Books' (1993) which survived the depredations of Everard Home, Hunter's brother-in-law, who burnt large quantities of Hunter's papers and notes, and plagiarised the contents. William Clift, a Cornish impoverished clever young man, perhaps selected by Hunter as an apprentice after the fashion of Faraday by Humphrey Davy, guessed this might happen; 'The loss was incalculable; Clift broke down in tears'.

There's a handy chronology by 'big Al' on Moore's website, which I hope they won't mind me repeating here (with a few changes).

John Hunter did not have a conventional career. He came to London, following his brother, with a background in investigating the life all around him in Scotland. He may have been 'dyslexic'; he was reluctant to use neologisms, though he needed them—'embryology' would have been useful—perhaps he felt the lack of Greek and Latin; he disliked medical books, which of course were based on traditional errors; he disliked lecturing, perhaps conscious of a heavy accent; he was amiable though laconic—the testimonies are somewhat varied and inconsistent. But they all insist he worked, possibly to the limits of human ability, and largely on dissections and examinations of all the life forms then known. He was unequalled in this.
    His income came from private practice and students' fees [p. 409] but he spent heavily. His museum was opened in 1788, in (I think) his Leicester Square house. The map section (right) shows Leicester Fields, a name that seems to have been interchangeable with Leicester Square, judging by 18th century maps. Note Castle Street to its east: the back of the Leicester Square house had less elegant housing to its rear, where deliveries could be made by 'resurrection men' and other more respectable types. His death was only about five years later; he bequeathed debts. And the Leicester Square house had only a short remaining lease. Anne, his wife, 'Leaving her elegant home and servants and abandoning her circle of literary and musical friends ... was forced at fifty-one to take a job as a ladies' chaperone...' Perhaps Everard Home considered himself justified in collecting honours and money; perhaps he helped his sister, though one suspects not.
    The Hunterian Museum now, at the Royal College of Surgeons, is illustrated by a reproduction of an 1840 watercolour in Moore's book. It shows what looks like a caissoned ceiling, with curved side windows and upper and lower book- or specimen-lined galleries, with colonnades of pillars and huge display cases at floor level.

Hunter dissected a few thousand human corpses. And made 'preparations'—for example of the unfortunate Irish giant, Charles Byrne, victim of a pituitary tumour, though nobody knew that at the time. After death, the body, in a lead coffin to be buried at sea, was intercepted, removed, and taken back to Hunter, who cut off the flesh and boiled the body, then assembled the bones with, presumably, thread or wire. Total cost believed to be £500. Moore discusses 'resurrection men' in some detail. The procedure was something like the Thuggees in reverse, digging at the head end of a fresh grave, smashing the coffin, tugging up the corpse. They seem to have avoided murder, perhaps on legal advice, or because of the fear of the Tyburn tree. The trade seems to have received its death knell (so to speak) when murders became noticed. Wendy Moore has not looked in detail into the legal system of the time; how did they get away with stealing bodies? How did anatomists get away with frequent human dissections? There are modern equivalents, of course, to legal blind eye turning.
    Hunter regarded human beings as 'the most perfect animal' [p 498] but classified monkeys and inferior races (I'm not sure if that's his expression) on a continuum. He came within a whisker of inventing evolutionary theory, and indeed it's an astonishing fact that Wallace was so late relatively: surely Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, or British seamen might have constructed such a theory? All that's needed is a feeling for long stretches of time and space, feeling for inheritance, and some conception of needs of food and shelter and reproduction. And some freedom of thought and action.
    But human specimens were a tiny proportion of his collection: '.. eventually it would encompass more than 1,400 animal and human parts preserved in spirits [i.e. alcohol]; over 1,200 dried bones, skulls, and skeletons; more than 6,000 pathological specimens ...; and more than 800 dried plants and invertebrates, as well as ... stuffed animals, corals, minerals and shells. ... more than 500 different species ... nearly 3,000 fossils ..' [p 468].

Hunter taught surgeons-to-be; a total of about 1,000. Some went to the USA, others to hospitals in Britain. Despite his supposed dislike of lecturing, he was popular, far more than rivals, if others can be even considered rivals. Three names—Caesar Hawkins, William Bromfield, and John Gunning [p 305], (and later Thomas Keate, and William Walker)—represented the old guard, bloodletting, cupping, and killing. [p 55 has incredulous accounts of traditional techniques]. Or, more precisely, instructing others to do the dirty work.
    The medical 'professoriat' disliked Hunter. They seem to have commissioned a hostile book by Jessé Foot for £400 after Hunter's death. [p 527] The grounds seem to have been that he was an unqualified showman and mountebank. It's interesting to contemplate how single-minded Hunter had to be. If he'd never lived, perhaps phlebotomy and anal bellows would be current practices. There are many analogies at the present day: just two of them are fluoride, a poison put into otherwise clean water; and 'AIDS', so far a thirty-year fraud. Psychology is at present at something like the level of surgery in the 18th century; empiricism seems unavoidable. Maybe in future years there will be exhibits of the brains and biochemical systems of Henry Kissinger and George Soros in some museum of monstrosities.
    The process of 'professionalisation' had barely started: the Royal Society (c 1660), and for example the British Museum (c 1753) and Royal Academy (c 1768) had been founded in Hunter's time, and the Royal Institution (c 1799) after Hunter's death, but specialised learned societies with acceptable qualifications were in the future. The everyday system then was more like apprenticeship, not surprising where there was little general education.

Empirically, though, Hunter's grasp of anatomy made him indispensable. Moore gives an account of a caesarian section, at that time a rarity. In principle, it looks fairly simple: a bulging abdomen, and some sort of knife. But of course the ethical surgeon would not wish to cut off or damage bits. P 309 gives an account—the operation, as the old joke goes, was successful, but both patients, mother and child, died fairly soon. But it was obvious Hunter was competent. This sort of thing produced a change in the social atmosphere: after a few decades, post mortems became accepted, we're told.

The sciences generally were making progress: a good example is Scheele, (1742-1786) who was said to have discovered more new chemical substances than anyone else. Priestley (1733-1804) is generally credited with discovering oxygen in 1774 (his birthplace was Birstall, scene of likely false flag killing of Jo Cox MP), though as far as I know Hunter did not incorporate oxygen in his biology. Lavoisier (1743-1794) invented, or perhaps just arranged, modern chemistry before Dalton (1766-1844).
    In Hunter's world, hydrochloric acid was known, and had been for centuries, but of course its composition wasn't known, and the name was in the future. Oxygen, hydrogen, proteins and their properties were mostly in the future. Opium and alcohol were the only anaesthetics. The electric eel was not understood, since electricity itself was not understood. Microscopes had been publicised about a century before Hunter started his work in London [Robert Hooke's Micrographia was 1665] but microscopes have only two mentions in Moore's book. It seems fair to regard Hunter as mostly a naked eye worker, not unreasonably, since the fine detail must have been almost impossible to decode. To this day, microscopic structures cause problems, notably artefact of electron microscopy. Hunter did however make use of instrument makers, for example for specialised thermometers, I'd guess working in the Clerkenwell area.

Portrait of John Hunter hanging at the Royal Society. The artist, Robert Home, was his wife's brother, and brother of Everard Home. The dog may be Lion, his wolf-dog hybrid.
    Exotic animals are described by Moore [e.g. p 287] with their temporary English habitats: examples include 16 big cats at the Tower of London's menagerie, 'wild beast' Brookes of New Road, and a local fishmonger. Hunter had a house and garden in Earl's Court, where Hunter kept his exotics, such as zebus (Asian buffaloes), had an underground dissection room (cooler; no fridges), and carried out botanical investigations in 'orchards, hothouses, and conservatory'. Hunter had a lifelong interest in bees. Moore carelessly describes his activity as 'pottering', which must surely be unfair.
    And Captain Cook's return to England in 1771 after a few years sailing the south Pacific in the Endeavour with Joseph Banks and others [p 284, departure from Plymouth; p 317, return to Deal, in Kent] 'brought back ... 1,400 new plant species, more than a thousand new species of animals ..., more than a hundred birds, over 240 fish, and ... molluscs, insects, and marine creatures'. These were (I think) all preserved in some way: they may have liked a live kangaroo, for example, but the tiny ship could not accommodate one.

An interesting aspect of John Hunter's life work was his experiments with what are now called genetics. He successfully tried artificial insemination of silkworm eggs [p 280] which Moore thinks was pioneering, though surely livestock breeders must have used such methods long before. Interbreeding between species, or claimed species, was important, to try to fix boundaries, if any, between species. Hunter tried interbreeding domestic dogs (themselves of course of many varieties), and jackals, wolves, and foxes. [Published in 1878 by the Royal Society: p 491]. Jenner wrote to Hunter: 'The little jackal-bitch you gave me is grown a fine handsome animal; but she certainly does not possess the understanding of common dogs. She is easily lost when I take her out, and is quite inattentive to a whistle.' Thus, part of the effect of increased transport around the world was the possibility of reuniting long-separated animal groups, which evolved separately for many generations. This presumably is relevant to human races, about which Hunter probably wrote, though, if so, Wendy Moore is a bit evasive.

Moore is good on the social side of 18th century London, and I'd guess she may have been trained in Eng lit. She talks of Dr Johnson and his biographer Boswell (Sam Johnson 1709-1784; James Boswell 1740-1795). And of Smollett and Laurence Sterne. And Byron (Hunter recommended treatment for his foot, which Byron appears to have been too impoverished to carry out at the time. William Blake lived within sight of Castle Street, and probably referred to Hunter as 'Jack Tearguts'. Robert Louis Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde may have been suggested the contrast between by Hunter's opulent Leicester Square façade and the unattractive resurrection men back entrance.
    David Hume (philosopher), Adam Smith (economist), Benjamin Franklin, George III, Prime Ministers, and other aristocrats and well-known persons flicker through Moore's book, usually when near death. She's also good on artists: with no photography, drawings were necessary. Joshua Reynolds painted a couple of portraits of Hunter, one, which his wife disliked, with a fuzzy beard. Joseph Wright of Derby painted scenes of experiments, though I'm not certain these bear the usual modern interpretation. But the most important artist for Hunter was Jan van Rymsdyk (1730-1790) who drew quickly and slickly; I presume his works were engraved for reproduction on paper; they seem free of the fuzziness of etchings. His drawing of a foetus is far more impressive than Leonardo da Vinci's sketch.

Moore is not good on the power politics of the time. It's clear enough now that, after about a century, the Jews in the Bank of England were extending tentacles everywhere, not unlike on of Hunter's expanding growths. Culloden in 1746 was a last gasp of non-Jewish monarchy. The newly United States of America had an issue with the East India Company in 1775. France in 1789 had an issue with Jewish anti-Catholic Church activity. The results of these and many other events were far-reaching. It's likely enough that George III was poisoned, a favourite activity of Jews. However, Hunter probably had no inkling of any of this, beyond perhaps wondering about rents and leases, lack of public money for science, and what things like 'the Spanish Succession' had implied. There was, at the time, little overt Jewish control over opinions, freedom of enquiry, and research, in dramatic contrast with the present day.

Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   Friedrich Engels: Communist Manifesto—Introduction by A J P Taylor

Taylor missed almost everything...., June 26, 2010

Taylor's summary of Marx is on these lines:--

*** [1] Philosophers were puzzled by change. Hegel made this the basis of his system; ideas clashed, to produce the synthesis. He was fumbling towards the idea of evolution, but had to have an external moving force; in his case, the dialectic. However, progress—for 19th century thinkers were both self-confident and optimistic—would not continue forever, but would terminate in the Ideal.—viz. Prussia. Marx, who was a radical before he was a philosopher, accepted all this, except that he made the conflict in the actual world. In other words, dialectical materialism, ending inevitably in Utopia. This gave him the pattern for change, but not its practical expression or driving force.

*** [2] Marx's radical journalism made him an exile, in Paris. "Although it was half a century since the French Revolution, all French politics centred on it. ... nearly all the modern world stems from it, though the debt is now less acknowledged." Marx accepted the idea from Blanqui of a short, sharp revolution—like the French Revolution, with its 'days'—in spite of its un-Hegelian form. French analyses were 'class in the crudest form.' The Jacobins had lost; so now they were dismissed as petit-bourgeois, and the poor, renamed 'the proletariat', might do better. Another approach concerned the vote: the bourgeois 'appeared to have become rich through acquiring political power,' so universal franchise was the frequent call. However Marx thought property determined power—'characteristic of a legally trained mind in an orderly age. Of course property determines power if the rights of property are respected...'

*** [3] Marx still needed a driving-force; the Ideal of revolution wouldn't do. Engels, whose 'Condition of the English Working Class' was published in 1844, provided this—the search for wealth, which every economist stressed, generalised from the Lancashire cotton industry, then at the level 'say, of present-day India'.

*** [4] The subsequent story—Marx's followers and meetings, Engels' 'catechism' on communism, the composition of the manifesto with historical asides and corrections includes the printing history, literary style, selection of title, effects of 1848, summary of all four parts of the pamphlet and prefaces from 1872-1893 originally in German, Russian, English, Polish, and Italian. It's often said the manifesto is a powerful work; in fact there's a lot of dull material: absurd history ('history.. is the history of class struggles'), very limited technology finance and technology, attacks on other writers, and so on. Quite a bit of Marx, for example the Labour Theory of Value, isn't in the Manifesto, or not that I could detect.

What Taylor missed out:--

*** [5] The entire movement of science and invention is missing. Raw materials and resources were needed, and were used in increasing amounts; suppose they hadn't existed? Marx had no scientific background. He simply assumes things will expand. Taylor, being a historian, has minimal feel for this either.

*** [6] The division between developed and 'third world' economies is completely missing. Marx just assumed Europe was superior. Of course population issues don't arise with this outlook.

*** [7] The class analysis is absurdly minimal and crude. Modern societies have immense numbers of intersecting sets of people: lawyers want to maximise their gains, militarists want to expand, and the branches of the military ditto. Directors, owners, boards, financiers, shareholders, customers, unions all have different interests. Entire countries have different objectives. Civil servants form their own small groups, with their own interests. Taylor has no way to even begin tackling this.

*** [8] The whole Jewish aspect is omitted: Taylor should have known the USSR was a Jewish phenomenon; it's simply inexcusable to omit such a significant part of the puzzle.

*** [9] Taylor thinks peasant societies are the places for revolutions—because of Russia and China and possibly Vietnam. He doesn't realise that in these cases, these countries had external interference.

Whatever one's views on the Manifesto, Taylor's comments are woefully inadequate.
Top of Page

image   Review of pop sociology   Richard G. Wilkinson: The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger

Interesting hypothesis. Terrible investigation, though..., June 26, 2010

Is there some optimum level of 'equality' that makes a society good, or stable, in some sense(s)? Interesting question. But this book is a very good example of how *not* to rush into a topic without working out a methodology first.

Rather than criticise in an overview sense, I'll just list some bullet points:

[1] The authors use difference in income between the average of the top 20% and bottom 20% of various countries. (Usually perhaps to fit the results onto graphs these are just 50 'rich' countries). The ratios of this 'income gap' go from 3 to almost 10: see page 17. Note that capital wealth is not included; if it was, these ratios would be hugely increased. Thus, the authors omit wealth and presumably use official inland revenue style figures for 'income'. Needless to say, distribution of capital could produce very different results.

[2] The authors don't seem to realise large countries might be expected to have larger 'income gaps'. Imagine a small village: the 'income gap' is naturally not that large. Imagine a vast country: even if it's egalitarian, its 'income gap' might legitimately be very much larger. Six tiny countries occur at the low end. The USA is at the high end. (Brazil, India, China etc are omitted).

[3] Their measures often rely on life expectancies. However, these are calculated only historically—it's hard to see how else they could be. Life expectation at birth is assumed to be the same as that of the entire cohort of ancestors now dead in that country. There is of course no particular reason to expect conditions to stay the same. A war might wipe them out, for example.

[4] The biggest threat they can see is global warming—clearly they are naive children of the media! Overpopulation, nuclear weapons, oil supply crashes go unmentioned. There is quite a bit on CO2, nothing on oil, weapons, and so on.

[5] Page 260 says: '.. it is easy to forget that a longer view reveals an almost unstoppable historical trend towards greater equality.' This seems extraordinarily optimistic. For one thing, almost nothing is known about the very long term—there must be tens or hundreds of thousands of years more or less lost historically. It's perfectly possible that technological needs will enforce inequality. One of the authors studied economic history—I'm amazed at such an obviously ideological claim has been made.

[6] They assume that peoples, races, and so on are more or less homogeneous. Thus 'poor' people are assumed to have less good health because .. well, I suppose because they can't afford good healthcare. In fact many people eat bad diets, smoke and drink, catch STDs, don't exercise, can't understand cookery, are accident prone, and so on—and there may well be some genetic intelligence link. Violence is well known to be far greater among blacks but this fact (which they note on page 78 as might be expected correlates with lower life expectation!) is glossed over.

[7] They accept unthinkingly the idea that money can be a solution. They seem not to realise that many people given money would no doubt spend it on drink, gambling, guns, and prostitutes; generally they have no idea of the way prices can reflect structural things within society. They are of course personally funded—assorted university posts are quoted—and I expect unconsciously assume that money is paper stuff which is handed out.

[8] With incredible naivety, they quote the sorts of figures charities use to extract funds: 'A million British children are estimated to be mentally ill' for example. 'The use of illegal drugs is more common in unequal societies.' An example that struck me was a graph on page 52, of 'most people can be trusted' % agreeing, against income inequality. Sweden has about 2/3 of people agreeing with the statement. Yet Sweden now has for 7 million Swedes, 2 million Muslims. The authors probably are unaware of anything non-'politically correct'.

Plenty more in this vein. Their conclusion 'More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better'—MAY be true. But this book does not clarify the issues.
Top of Page

John Bean cover   Review of   John Bean   Blood in the Square
Ostara Publications tries a non-revisionist and presumably-new novel, with an outdated model of 'Nationalism'.     Review 18 Feb 2015
Quote: '... the Nationalist characters like Blackwood and the party's war hero chairman, Sir Edric Frampton, winner of a Military Cross against the Germans..'

. . . . I'm afraid Bean belongs to the transitional generation [Bean was 18 in 1945] who still favoured big wars, without understanding who wanted them, and what the results were intended to be. It's an outdated and in fact Jewish-corrupted version of 'nationalism'.

My comment, confident though I haven't read this novel, but read longish extracts online on two sites. Presumably the book is new, though it might have been a dusted-off old piece of writing for all I know. Bean's book was advertised, with a long flattering review by Colin Liddell (Bean's book shows 'great political insight... long career in British nationalism... unrequited love of the British monarchy... predecessor to a second holocaust [sic; in the 1950s and 1960s?] ...') in The Occidental Observer' online, dated February 16th, 2015. The 'Square' in the title is presumably Trafalgar Square, commemorating the victory over Napoleon, but not commemorating the financing of Napoleon by Jews. The extracts in Liddell's review emphasise fights, though this sounds anachronistic to me: part of the Jewish process in the 1930s was to disrupt meetings violently. Bean's book seems intended to prolong the image of 'right wing' violence. Bean contributed to the BNP's 'IDentity' journal in the 2000s, as a 'veteran nationalist', but I fear only to the extend of a few comments on current affairs as reported by the conventional media. He seems to have spend his further education years in the British Navy; as of course many others did. Some went to university under special post-war schemes, but not Bean, as far as I can tell. By the 1970s Martin Webster had already worked out that Jews intended to flood white countries with immigrants, if they could, and that 'Communism' was Jewish. It was becoming clear that the 'Military Intelligence' groups were Jewish, or heavily Jewish. Jewish central bank money manipulations were known, but not by many. CND was characteristic of the time (and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations). As far as I can tell, Bean did nothing, and does nothing, to assist such educational information to emerge. He also seems to have retired just after various movements had been made to fail.
This seems to be the first venture into fiction by Ostara Publications, which is or was Arthur Kemp's imprint of books on race, and related issues, though not I think Jews and their money and activities. I believe the publishing scheme was prompted by his book on white history, March of the Titans. I noticed [added later: this may be wrong; possibly a confusion over the name 'Ostara'] they have started reprinting crime fiction, mostly I think from its 1930s heyday. Possibly some copyrights have been given to Ostara. Anyway; many Ostara books are well worth reading. I like to hope for more analytical material on the world's most serious problem and how to remove it.
[I've just found an online interview, dated November 2012—about the time the BNP had been finished. Bean is reported as saying: 'With Hitler's rise to power in 1933 his actions meant that he had virtually declared war on the Jewish people. It is therefore understandable that Jewish money and its reflected power in the media should be harnessed with the militancy of the communists to not only bring down Hitler and his National Socialism, which Fascism had morphed into, but also any party that expressed sympathy towards any aspect of his policies. This included the BUF. Hitler's intransigence meant that there was no turning back, that war was inevitable, and that Mosley's BUF could not survive.' Nothing on USSR, the Fed, Jews in Germany and Hungary. It's clear Bean preferred world war and widespread ruin to reduction in Jewish money power and their other frauds: he thought worldwide devastation was justified, so that Jews could continue to defraud. Bean probably did as much damage to Britain's nationalist movement as any other single person. Quite possibly, in view of a remark of his online, that he was from an impoverished background, and in view of his ridiculous name, Bean may have been yet another crypto-Jew.
Top of Page

image   Review of technology history   Tim Berners-Lee: Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web

Not very perceptive techie material, June 26, 2010

Most of the action here, assuming it's not updated, is 1990 to 2000. The end-point seems a bit dated now—Amazon gets a mention, but not Google or Windows XP or e-Bay. Modern solid state disks and I think narrow screens didn't exist. There's no anticipation of the huge crash which happened soon after this book was published—though e-Trade is in—and which can be dated at about 2000. He doesn't predict spam and the Nigerian frauds. On the other hand, Mosaic, now almost forgotten, was at that time one of several browsers, and Windows 98 a new product.

I was interested to try to find how much truth there was in the idea that Berners-Lee 'invented' Internet—any spectacular invention tends to have many inventors, in fact. The first thing to note is that 'internet' already existed—Berners-Lee claims to have invented the 'web'. He worked at CERN where of course there were assorted incompatible computers made by different manufacturers. There were also intranets and email. I think Berners-Lee understates by a huge factor the way that de facto standardisation made things easier. For example, everyone uses 8-bit bytes; Mac hardware now is the same as IBM PC hardware, though just one fixed form of it; and the fact most PCs now use the same chip makes it far easier to write common programs. There are standard connections like USB of various types and 'firewire', and their earlier versions—RS232, Centronics, whatever. One very important hidden aspect which Berners-Lee seems not to have noticed is language: all this work was done using the Latin alphabet, and mostly in English. Japanese, Chinese, and other scripts weren't used; even accents, as in French and Vietnamese, weren't taken seriously.

As far as I can see, Berners-Lee managed to get people to use standard 'protocols'—things like IP and ISP and ways of doing things which are highly technical—how difficult to write on these topics without the in-house 'dedicated' jargon! HTML—hypertext mail link, the plain (but Latin alphabet) text plus commands in <these brackets>—was a relatively small part of the action. Sun's Java language, presumably relying on the standard chip, allowed little programs to be run (and introduced the possibility of 'viruses'). The author always talks in a mystical way of how the web is out there, and everything is accessible anywhere, and yet this can't be true, because (as he points out) to check up on say mysite.com must need some sort of look-up system. He also seems to understate the sheer quantity of cables, wires, satellites, transmission systems, hardware etc etc which must be needed. It's a bit disappointing to find hints of misrepresentation. Another aspect is his rather wounded defence of not making money from it—there's an account of a live TV interview which he clearly hated.

What he doesn't say is that CERN was staggeringly expensive, and in fact may have been a waste of money, like NASA. These people at CERN were in a privileged financial position. In fact it's possible the web will be CERN's only legacy.

In between the techie stuff is the human material, mostly rather affectionate descriptions of assorted hardware and software types, and business people typically at shows trying to make sales. However, in my experience, in real life many of these people are grasping and egocentric, and I suspect his accounts are like actors and 'luvvies' praising each other often through clenched teeth. He's quite good on historical parallels—e.g. he regards tables of contents and indexes, in books, as hypertexts; and he compares tied-in software with a TV that goes straight to one channel and displays it better than others.

There's also intermediate stuff on e.g. censorship. And on secrecy—he described the public key/ private key system but to be honest I couldn't make sense of it.

So—interesting but with bits missing.
Top of Page

image   Review of US PC 'history'   Thomas E. Woods: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask

Partial American revisionism with the usual failures of courage, June 26, 2010

The author is a free market type (funded by the Ludwig von Mises Institute—like many proponents of 'libertarian' ideas he prefers to be financially supported). He's also a Catholic and has written on the Church as the founder of civilization in Europe. Both these ideas sound more than a little outdated; moreover I think there's nothing original in these books—his sources are mostly recent books. However there is a coherent overview which makes his book interesting.

I think every topic here is designed to oppose US political correctness, sometimes providing historical evidence, sometimes based on von Mises-type theory.

The historical material is often US constitutional history, but from a non-PC viewpoint. Thus he looks at States Rights (three chapters if you count 'general welfare' chapter); Presidential power (and its assessment by historians, generally using interventionist criteria); Juries, and whether they are entitled to reject laws; the Constitution—living and breathing? Elastic?

Some of the material is Constitution-related without being within the document—e.g. the founding fathers' views on immigration, Presidential powers.

Some is general US history: were the 'Indians' in fact ecology minded? Did they supply valuable agricultural hints to the colonists? There's revisionist material on the 'wild west' which wasn't very wild and in fact was largely planned and charted—just as immigration into white countries is (secretly) arranged. Was M L King very wonderful? Why was the black G W Carver hyped, whereas another and much more successful black, S B Fuller, pretty much ignored?

Some is economic and statistical: interesting chapters on what caused the 'Great Depression' (it wasn't a depression for everyone, though). Was the supposed boom during the Second World War an artefact of statistics? What is the legal basis for Social Security—is it in fact insurance, or a tax?

And these chapters shade into economic theory—for example, American Unions are described as, in effect, outside the law, and a factor in wrecking US industry.

In my view, Woods' economics ignores the mass production evidence, which Carnegie and Rockefeller forced on the world's attention. He doesn't seem to recognise the malignities of huge corporations. And things like dumping. Quite apart from resource depletion. However, there is clearly *some* truth in what he says.

There's another set of chapters on race—affirmative action, educational achievement etc where Woods like most Americans is afraid to point out the truth. But the most important chapters don't exist: What about huge frauds—Pearl Harbor? Gulf of Tonkin? 9/11? Weapons expenditure? War crimes? The Fed and the paper money scam? Control of information? Tax exempt trusts?

The book is a mixed bag and the author clearly stretched himself to get 33 pieces—there are two similar ones on Clinton encouraging Islam in Kosovo, for example. It could have been a far more powerful book—though it would also have been far more difficult to publish.
Top of Page

image   Review of law discussion   Richard A. Posner: The Economics of Justice

Indirectly casts light on US law and lawyers, June 26, 2010

1981 Harvard University Press book which I found while bookshop browsing. It has discussions on Homeric society, and such phenomena as honor killings—they can work, because relatives of a killer may well hand the killer over rather than risk endless attacks. I thought it might be interesting. On examination, this book is part of the dominant strand in US law, which unfortunately is dominated by Jews. It may be worth reading on that account, though some effort is needed to tease out all the strands.

There are four very unequally sized parts, nominally on 1 Justice and Efficiency (largely a thumb-through of old disputes about utilitarianism and Bentham); 2 The Origins of Justice; 3 Privacy and related Interests; 4 The Supreme Court and discrimination (automatically assumed against blacks).

Just a few notes. Posner is absurdly naive about prices: if someone pays for anything, it must be worth the money paid—he has examples mostly to do with oranges and tomatoes, possibly to hide his assumptions. He naturally assumes justice many millennia ago must be 'primitive'. In fact, it's perfectly *possible* that in such societies 'justice' was in fact better than now—but he's a circuit judge, so he's not going there. Posner gives no consideration whatever to problems such as possible damaging effects when (e.g.) lawyers collude. On 'privacy', most people know roughly what they mean; but Posner instantly morphs into secrecy. 'Privacy' is not the same as keeping secrets, though it is for crooks. This of course is an aspect of the bogus 'human rights' legislation, from which lawyers have profited so abundantly. On discrimination, he assumes, with no evidence pro or con, that blacks (who are always assumed to be 'minorities'—he doesn't consider black countries with white elites, or black elites for that matter) are discriminated against, and moreover are otherwise indistinguishable from whites.

I won't say more, though there's enough. The book is badly written, despite having several pages' worth of help from 'more people than I can hope to mention'. Some readers might dig up a copy and muse on it, and on the state of law in the USA.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish propaganda theory   Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

This is not the book you think it is, June 26, 2010

I've made a repeat attempt to tackle this book, which I've always had reservations about.

[1] The main theory—'propaganda model'—is only 35 pages, less than a tenth of the book—it looks like the initial seed which has been padded out.
[2] The 'model' is: five 'filters', though another is sneaked in. These are (1) Ownership of media [this is pre-Internet, and mostly refers to print]. (2) Advertising and its withdrawal, direction etc. (3) 'Sourcing'. This is almost entirely state sources, including academics and 'think tanks'. (4) Flak and enforcers. (5) 'Anticommunism as a control mechanism'. Then (6) in effect biasing the report, clearly shown when switching sides.

The rest of the book is examples: (i) bogus elections, in El Salvador, Guatemaa and Nicaragua. (ii) 'The KGB-Bulgarian Plot to Kill the Pope'. (iii) Indo-China wars—this section is about half the whole book.

So what's the problem? I'll be brief and schematic:
** Although Chomsky emphasises the money-making press, the fact is (pp 19-23) that for example the Pentagon's publishing was 'sixteen times larger than the nation's biggest publisher'. The USAF, US Chamber of Commerce etc etc and 150,000 'professional' PR people would appear to dwarf the press, if I'm reading this book correctly. In other words, in the unlikely event that the publishing combines tried to become open and honest, their output would still be a tiny fraction of the total 'source'.
** Chomsky has a persistent tendency to assume organisations have a genuine purpose. He (as many have noted) has no truck with 9/11, NASA moon frauds, and so on, which are of course hugely expensive frauds. And yet, if you consider the huge military spending, why should it happen to be needed year on year? It's perfectly possible they bombed and burned Vietnamese just as a time-filling and money-making makework exercise.
** The whole idea of 'manufacturing consent' seems wrong—the slogan is out of kilter with the facts. What 'consent' have you, reader, given for mass immigration, for example? Or bombing Kosovo? Or invading Iraq? Absolutely none. 'Manufacturing stupidity' or 'manufacturing indifference' may be nearer the mark; but nothing really is 'manufactured'.
** There's a whole section on bogus elections, but Chomsky doesn't seem to compare this with the USA's first-past-the-post system, which has naturally morphed into two big parties. Democracy is a remote ideal, indeed, in the USA too.
** On 'communism', Chomsky never mentions the Jewish funding or personnel, which marks it out as entirely distinct from genuine humanitarian movements. Nor does he mention Mossad plots.
** Chomsky gives figures e.g. (p. 50) 10,000 deaths in El Salvador in 1980, 'disappearances' in Guatemala estimated at 40,000. Out of very roughly 5M and 8M populations at that time. It's an unpleasant thing to say, but knife, gun, and drug crime, infant mortality and so on are rife too.
** The final half of the book, on the Vietnam War, is important as of course it's largely censored. However, again,. what consent did ordinary Americans give to it? And what effect has Chomsky actually had in practice, for example, prosecuting Kissinger, or getting reparations?

I don't think the 'propaganda model' even begins to describe the reality. However the book may be valuable in opening people's eyes to military mass murders. Hence 3 stars.
Top of Page

image   Review of maths history   Siobhan Roberts: King of Infinite Space: Donald Coxeter, the Man Who Saved Geometry

Difficult topic handled womanfully, June 26, 2010

Biog of Coxeter, a Canadian professor who flourished in the 1960s and was famous for having 'saved geometry'. Famous amongst mathematicians, at least. His books were and I expect still are on university maths reading lists. The authoress is Canadian, and it's her first book. It has to be said she hasn't been bold in her comments. For example it's not entirely clear what Coxeter's life work really amounted to. Nor does she try to tackle the highly disputable elements which seem taken for granted by these people, on such things as multiple dimensions and groups (defined in ways not in conformity with the usual meanings, I'd guess deliberately), geometry of curved surfaces—which has been given a sort of fantasy ethereal feel, and the extremely simple and therefore implausible derivation of e=mc squared.

Coxeter seems to have been happiest with extensions of the Platonic solids (in 'Regular Polytopes'), and related activities, such as the standard system for describing crystals (by their nodes etc), geodesic domes, possible implications for molecular structure, and so on. There's quite a bit on domes (which he didn't invent) and buckminsterfullerene, a form of carbon generated by evaporating carbon in a vacuum whereupon the atoms because of carbon's valency of 4 tend to like as sheets, but by default curl round. Whether anyone's found a use for this, seems not to be known by Roberts. Another thing Coxeter didn't find was Penrose's simple-seeming slightly asymmetrical tiles.

Coxeter used algebra rather heavily and extended into regions where he then tailed off and others' expertise ruled. His book of 'twelve essays' hardly sold any copies. There are quite striking accounts, if you read between the lines, of inter-departmental and inter-university rivalries.

Coxeter was a pacifist and appears to have had little to do with WW2; and was also a vegetarian. Although highly praised (e.g. there's an intro by Douglas Hofstadter) his own university (Toronto) seems to have eased him out—though this may have simply been standard practice.

Various other figures—Newton, Kepler, G H Hardy, Escher, Martin Gardner, Buckminster Fuller, Polya, Einstein, several Penroses etc naturally enough appear.

Recommended as a general biography though it's light on both explanations and sceptical analyses.
Top of Page

Review of Propaganda Novel   Christopher Isherwood: Mr Norris Changes Trains

A curiosity of propaganda by a sad little poof (who may not have been English)
25 Sept 2013
** This review was removed by Amazon in the USA! **
First published February 1935
Second Impression March 1935
New edition June 1937

It's quite interesting to read this curiosity, clearly written as a propagandist 1930s thing, and published by Hogarth Press, of Bloomsbury.

One of the reviews or blurbs here (on Amazon) described this as about 'pre-war Berlin' - probably whoever scribbled that hadn't heard of the 'Great War' or 'First World War' as it would soon be renamed.

The whole thing is not credible, and I have to wonder whether Isherwood spent any time in Germany at all; the descriptions are so utterly devoid of anything characteristic of Germany that one has to wonder if in fact the whole thing was made up, with a bit of guidebook backing. I can't remember, for example, a single street or building being named; and the German language extracts are exiguous and barely exist.

And it's amusing to see from these Amazon reviews how Americans in particular, doped by their Jewish controllers, think in terms of films rather than facts.

Thus Isherwood presumably liked anal sex (there's a school reference suggesting this). And, therefore, Germans were decadent! Mr Norris is shown as a violence fetishist; this of course means that Germans are fetishists! Isherwood's narrator presents himself as a neutral observer; in fact, after naval blockades during which many Germans starved, it's unlikely they would be as well-disposed to him as this novel suggests. (He's put forward as a teacher of English, with German pupils, but with nothing to suggest this was in any way genuine).

For some reason many reviewers think the descriptive writing is excellent; in fact it's rather laughable, and mainly concerned with people's faces; Norris is described in rather painful detail, mostly in conflicting ways as the book drags on. However he does just manage to emerge from one dimension into one and a bit. He has zero plausibility: a man with an inheritance, which he squandered, and which Isherwood is careful not to trace to any roots, with obvious character and money problems, completely ignorant of any ideology, is not credible as a spy; the plot in fact can only be held together by withholding essential evidence.

Isherwood's grasp of the politics (this was a time when Stalin's murder machine, funded and run by Jews, was building arms factories, tanks, and so on, preparing to invade Europe) is infantile. It's conceivable that Jews might have decided to change sides; if, for example, Germany in the First World War had offered to guarantee Palestine. But of course there's nothing in this book of possible twists of history.

Top of Page



Rutherfurd Sarum   Review of   Sarum by Edward Rutherfurd   (First published 1987, by Century in London, Melbourne, Auckland, Johannesburg. Unindexed)
Heavily-Promoted Lightweight Jewish Pseudo-History   Rerevisionist's Review 27 July 2016

The author's real name is stated to be Francis Edward Wintle (date of birth 1948). His pseudonym may have been suggested by a name from the Battle of Trafalgar: in Admiral Collingwood's column, the new British ship Swiftsure under Captain William Rutherfurd fought opposite an earlier captured British ship, the Swiftsure, the novel claims. The novel has a short chapter, The Spire, subtitled April 1985, an account of money-raising for the spire. Possibly this suggested the project. Or perhaps a book, Endless Street, published in 1983, by Dr John Chandler, which Wintle says was his 'constant companion'. Incidentally, Wintle is listed in an online Jewish surname index.

Sarum has about 20 chapters; an average of about two weeks per chapter, if the author's claim to have spent over three years on writing it is true. All the acknowledgements are to museum curators and other specialists in English and ecclesiastical history. There are no historical, aristocratic, or military sources credited. The history in fact is entirely official history, and therefore of course biased by Jewish outlooks. I only became aware of this on plodding through the book, picking up clues for example when reading about Edward's expulsion of Jews, and Cromwell's payment to infiltrate them back. Sarum was a New York Times fast seller, and certainly it passes the Jew filter tests. The acknowledgements include an agent, and two editors ('Rosie Cheetham of Century Hutchinson and Betty Praksher of Crown Publishers').

The entire novel is embedded in world affairs, generally Europe, but only in a shallow manner, as in a newspaper aimed at simpletons, or a light history book, with events strung out like beads along time's string—Roman province; Alfred in a walk-on part; war between Britain and the the USA after its declaration, then the Reform Bills. Most chapters are structured around a principal event, fleshed out with generally accepted backdrops, such as new printed books. This often leads to odd disproportions: the Black Death (half the population dead?) followed by excitement over for cloth output. (I suspect Wintle/Rutherfurd may have studied the wool industry—fruit and veg, salt, horses and transport, buildings and water, inventions and science, are samples of very much under-represented activities). The chapters have a feel resembling the BBC series Blackadder, with a set of similar characters reappearing in different times: maybe it reflects a Jewish attitude to 'goyim'—Curtis, Robinson, Fry, Elton and no doubt others thinking they are Jews. Each chapter may have been assembled in isolation. Or for that matter by a set of authors working to instruction, just as soap operas are assembled from a plot-line issued by a producer or writer, then fleshed out as from card index notes by a number of hacks. This is a convincing idea, but there is evidence against this: Rutherfurd is dealing with the 'English Civil War' more than three-quarters through the book, suggesting an enthusiast who was reined in—the final chapters being skeletal with almost nothing on both the First and Second World Wars. My copy appears to be a first edition; subsequent versions may have incorporated more material.
      The repetitive simple descriptions in each of the chapters certainly feel like production-line jobs. Characters with blue eyes, red hair, and a fiery disposition repeatedly pop up. Others with deformities, prehensile toes, a creepy and secretive types, recur, as do characters with a large round head, pointed nose, craft skills, a small body, and stubby fingers. Mostly it's written in standardised interchangeable simple English, plus some technical terms. There is some concession to eras, but not much; I'm tempted to compare it with Star Wars simple dialogue. So I seriously suspect this is a group writing effort, written to order. Each chapter perhaps following period feature insertions (clothes, famous writers, new inventions, changes in religion, alleged Jewish misfortunes) and passage-of-time landmarks, such as weathered buildings, disused sites, evidence of buried ruins such as a Roman road or remains of a villa. Scene-setting includes topographical descriptions, all of which seem to be taken from maps. Even from high British hilltops it is difficult to identify remote features with any reliability, such is the foreshortening. The 'five rivers' meme seems inaccurate to me.

The jacket blurb provides an authoritative summary of the 'families': Tep is the prehistoric outcast, with prehensile toes, and narrow face 'like a rat' who becomes the Wilsons. (This seems to be an often-adopted surname by Jews). Nooma, the architect of stonehenge (the format dictates single experts, not groups of them) later emerges as Osmund, sculptor of much of the Cathedral interior, with a large round head, stumpy fingers, and inelegant small body. Porteus is a 'Roman in exile': the emphasis on the Sarum area inevitably forces a theme of failed ambition and life in a backwater. The Shockleys descend from Saxon thanes (or thegns): red hair, gold hair, carroty hair, blond and blonde hair, plus blue or violet eyes, and an unruly temperament, are the handy markers. And we have Godfreys, who came with with William the Conqueror from Normandy. The latter three don't seem to need a prehistoric background.

Declines and falls are not described in detail: the chapters have something like the equivalent form to Victorian histories: Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Middle Ages, fast forwarding between. The first two chapters are separated by 3,500 years. Another convention is the stasis which perhaps the form of such books leans towards, as in Tolkien: there has to be continuity simply to provide threads and paths to be followed. Each chapter has descriptions of habits of the time, always described in flat prose, and often not credible, at least to me: stonehenge goes up in what seems a very short time, as does Salisbury Cathedral. The Reformation doesn't take long. Trial by ordeal, the stocks, sheep breeding for wool, illuminated books, clothing and costumes, the South Sea Bubble, south coast smuggling, and what have you are introduced in passing. The basic framework always assumes paid workers: British peasantry are more or less elided out, as are Caesar's communal groups. Naturally therefore money is involved: some people are 'rich', some have 'huge sums', but there's not much sense of proportion: wars for example may be 'profitable', or 'expensive', but detail stays at the family level. There's little feeling for changes in knowledge and skill and communications: the permutations of groups of people who combine in new ways against other groups remains unexplored. The suggestion is that what seem large changes are dwarfed by the changes over vast stretches of time: an excuse for simplified vision and cut-down descriptions and absence of insight.

All the plots are between families, usually just one member being infuriated with a rival family, and plotting revenge; the pattern recurs and in each case is distressingly similar, relying on a single establishing event, often slights over business and property and status, followed by more or less cunning subsequent plotting. The location conveniently rules out huge issues: there are no Rothschilds or City events here. The nearest are such things as the young man whose parents borrowed to buy his commission, being casually insulted by the aristocratic types chatting about Napoleon. And the plots are often sexual: accounts of young women, typically 13 years old, usually with similar descriptions of firm bodies and breasts, are common; so are unhappily married women. Now I think of it, there may have been a distribution of stresses by chapter: attempted rape in the first chapter, wartime adultery in the last chapter; a homosexual encounter here, a staid woman seducing the cat-like wiry athletic moody impoverished farmer there; a red-haired harlot and a loud Flemish trader, another chapter being allotted unrequited love, and yet another the guilty Jewish slavegirl from Palestine.

A single page, with a 1915 date, deals with the sale of stonehenge to a local man. A short chapter 'The Encampment' May 1944 is laughably lightweight: a wartime affair between an American air person and a female FANY driver—both with surnames based on the family trees in the book, which are not so much trees as single names: possibly this is a Jewish maternal descent idea; it's difficult to imagine that mental picture in anyone with a feel for populations and their expansions, growths and changes. The sale of British assets, the mass murders of the USSR, the groundwork for final control of the world, all slip over Rutherfurd. I searched for mention of modern synthetic Jewish horrors: 6 million dead? Nuclear weapons?—but all there is is tea and quaint Britain. The final sentences describe a 13 year old thief with a narrow face stealing from a locked car.

On the positive site, the book gives a potted history of a part of England. The negative side is all the misleading material: Charles Kingsley, on Cardinal Newman, inclined to suspect Newman of inserting one single passing hint ... one little barbed arrow which, as he swept magnificently past on the stream of his calm eloquence, seemingly unconscious of all presences, save those unseen, he delivered unheeded, as with his finger-tip, to the very heart of an initiated hearer, never to be withdrawn again. Rutherfurd's Sarum delivers quivers of such arrows. The view of Englishmen, saturated with Jewish corruption, a view held by many Europeans and white south Africans, is completely absent here.
I haven't read and doubt I could recommend Rutherfurd's other books. His own 'official site' describes his 1991 book Russka like this: Warriors and hermits, boyars and serfs, romantic heroines and rich old ladies, fortune-builders and exiles—the characters in RUSSKA inhabit the rich, astonishing, evocative and contradictory world of forest and steppe, icon and axe, Orthodox faith and Jewish persecution, of gorgeous churches, magnificent palaces, and squalid villages; of Russian folk art and sumptuous opera, of Tolstoy and Lenin, Tchaikovsky and Rasputin. Connoisseurs of this sort of thing will understand what 'Jewish persecution' means, and will note the absence of the Jewish USSR.

London (1997) and New York (2009) no doubt follow the Jewish line. His most recent book is or was Paris (2013). His official website gives this blurb about Paris: From the days of Notre Dame and the mighty Knights Templar to the expulsion of the Jews; from the age of heroic Joan of Arc, to cunning Cardinal Richelieu and the bloody conflict between Catholics and Huguenots; from the glittering court of Versailles to the Terror of the French Revolution; from the heyday of the Impressionists to the shame of the Dreyfus Affair, and the tragic mutiny of the First World War; from the 1920s when the writers of the Lost Generation could be found drinking at Les Deux Magots, to the Nazi occupation, and the heroism of the French Resistance. All this is clearly largely Jewish propaganda—no mention of Jews and the 'French' Revolution, for example, or the 1913 Fed, the funding of both sides in 1914, the reality of the 'French Resistance'.

The series of books is worth reading only by people trying to unpick Jewish infiltration, and looking for a comprehensive series of Jewish-assembled views of the world.
Top of Page



image   Review of British WW2 history and nukes   C P Snow: Corridors of Power

Snow as an outsider, describing times before and after World War 2, June 26, 2010

This book is probably the best-known of a series of novels by Snow, which he wrote almost after the manner of Dickens, about one every couple of years, starting in 1940 with 'Strangers and Brothers'. He gave the same name to his series of I believe eleven titles. (Snow got off to a false start with a detective novel; then a story about science fraud, The Crystal, which H G Wells liked—Snow had a science background, but couldn't or wouldn't make a career of it).

Snow was something of a poor boy made good, as Malcolm Muggeridge pointed out—a similar type to Melyvn Bragg and Clive James in the BBC later. Ambitious, and certainly not willing to rock the boat. In my view, his novels give a highly realistic picture of conventional life in Britain both before and after the Second World War. Even if Snow ever harboured dangerous thoughts, he would not have put them into his novels, except in the actions of flawed characters, which of course his novels have. (E.g. a convinced technical Communist; an unsatisfactory wife; a scheming head of an Oxbridge college).

'Corridors of Power' fits into all this... as a shrewd reviewer here noted, there is in fact very little about actual 'corridors of power'—Prime Ministers, Civil Servants, Cabinet Ministers, military heads, nuclear physicists, directors of research establishments, and so on. The action is outsider stuff looking in—candidates for Parliament, backbenchers, people in country houses, acquaintances. Snow is incurious about the 'Hitler War' as he calls it, the 'Cold War', Churchill—he accepts all the usual attitudes. He accepts the oddities of the Oxbridge system, has no criticism of the legal system (his protagonist is a lawyer), believes in removing capital punishment because progressives did. If you're looking for something of this sort—an evocation of England in the 30s, 40s, and 50s—I think Snow's series must be high on a list of consistent portrayals of the period as perceived by people in Britain who hadn't learned to look below the surface.
Top of Page

image   Review of Good wide view of, mostly, traditional philosophy. Not Jew-aware   Bertrand Russell: History of Western Philosophy

Best single volume on philosophy, June 26, 2010

All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of   Bertrand Russell   Power: A New Social Analysis   published October 1938

Bertrand Russell wanted to invent a new science of human power, June 26, 2010/ 4 Sept 2013/ 4 Sept 2014/ 18 March 2015/ 4 July 2015/ 18 Sept 2015
All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

  Review of science fraud   Ralph René: NASA mooned America

More difficult to assess than NASA!, June 26, 2010

I genuinely don't know whether to recommend this book. It hinges mostly on photo and physics evidence, as inferred from NASA and TV etc, and from a stream of books which Rene has combed through in search of inconsistencies. There isn't much on biology, although requirements for food, water, heating/cooling, air, excretion and so on offer fertile grounds for a crit. Also there is no summary of what the missions supposedly involved—several stages of rocket, various orbits, various landings and departures.

My copy is dated 1992; it's been edited twice, apparently after two publishers broke promises to publish. The book is a bit shorter than A4—must be some specifically American format. It's stapled and has black tape down the spine—not quite perfect binding. It appears to have been produced on a proportional spaced IBM carbon film typewriter, a type no longer made. There are photos supplied by NASA; 14 in total. Plus charts. Getting on for 200 pages.

The evidence is partly photographic, which isn't quite convincing as some of the shadows *might* be distorted by uneven ground. There's a mass of material on heat dissipation, water coolant requirements, air pressure, radiation of heat, effects of vacuums and low pressures, physical size of hatches, solar flares and radiation, rocket fuels and weights, position of the earth in the moon's sky....

Rene mixes in sociology and economics of grandiose frauds. By now he may have produced an updated version; I hope so. I don't doubt he's right, but even if you're right, thoughts need marshalling and ordering.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   Geoffrey Best: War and Law since 1945

Terrible rubbish, June 26, 2010

Printed and reprinted 1994-1997 and maybe beyond. The author was a professor of history in Britain at several places. This book was partly funded by the Rowntree Foundation, one of these quasi-trust/think-tanks with a covert agenda. The book takes the form largely of discussions on documents from about 1948 (considerably hypocritical declaration of Human Rights) through the 1950s and 1960s.

The problem is, the chap is a completely conventional news-headline style historian, fully believing in mantras—'Cold War', 'Communists', 'Viet Cong', Pearl Harbor, Nuremberg, 'Pinkville' and Calley. There's a curious disconnection with people who carry out atrocities; I've noticed this before—for example I once chatted with the founder of the 'Peace Studies' department in Bradford, who refused to discuss e.g. rape victims or chemical warfare victims in Vietnam. Things like declarations of war aren't even indexed; nor of course are fake justifications—are there legal penalties here? Africa isn't indexed despite the innumerable bloody conflicts and genocides, though there are bits on Nigeria and Algeria and Angola. Arms control has a few mentions—but again shouldn't arms sales be under some legal control?

Just another book concealing realities.
Top of Page

image   Review of forensics   Zakaria Erzinçlioglu: The Illustrated Guide to Forensics: True Crime Scene Investigations

Fascinating sidelight on theories of knowledge and truth, June 26, 2010

Interesting material on (e.g.) -- abrasions, Bertillon, bite marks, cadaveric spasms, Chechen hostages, chloroform, Arthur Conan Doyle, drowning, Dunblane, ethnic groups, fingerprints, genetics, ground-penetrating radar, haemoglobin, Hitler diaries, Identikit, J F Kennedy, Libyan Embassy, maggots, Georgi Markov, mass graves, narcotics, 9/11 [five pages], nitrogen, Occam, polygraphs, quicklime, radiocarbon dating, Rasputin, ricin, Rwanda, security in bomb blast areas, sexual differences, Shipman, steganography (hiding messages in long computer files), taphonomy, teeth, vitreous humor, Waco (edited down from a long list).

What interested me also was the philosophical aspects here. We all know philosophers never say anything useful on knowledge—they are paid to be evasive. But in forensic investigation, theories and observations and witness statements all contribute to the final result. There are two pages on 'expecting the unexpected', trying not to be biased by preconceptions. Interesting comparison of crossword clues with real life—all the bits have to fall into place, and it may be as unexpected and yet as satisfactory as the solution to a 'cryptic' crossword. This of course is somewhat idealised—in practice there are investigations as with Dr Kelly, or JFK, or Diana Spencer where truth takes second (or third..) place.
Top of Page

image   Review of revisionist ancient history   Peter James: Centuries of Darkness

Thoughtful revisionist overview of the near east ancient world, June 26, 2010

I saw this book reviewed in History Today and the Fortean Times in, ooh, 1997? And met Peter James by chance. He told me in effect—I think this is right—that his work was the seed which David Rohl grew and made his own, at least as regards the Biblical material. The basic thesis here is that Egyptian inscriptions are the only really solid basis for middle east chronology—they go back thousands of years. The principle is rather like British Parliamentary documents, which are all dated as year such and such in the nth year of the reign of such and such a monarch. However, if there's an error in the chronology, by the familiar processes it becomes institutionalised, and as hard to remove as Japanese knotweed. James and his colleagues extend in many directions—Greek and Roman views on dating, dendrochronology and carbon dating, the Trojan War, Schliemann, Babylonian artefacts, Newton, Ur, Knossos, Marathon, Solomon, the discovery of the Hittites from an incredibly tiny smattering of clues; there are attractive monochrome plates, and many line drawings, taken from earlier books. The introduction by Colin Renfrew, 1990, provides its own internal dating statement. I haven't attempted to follow up the impact this book had, or very likely, hadn't. Peter James told me the first printing didn't sell out, and I'm unaware if there was ever a paperback edition.
Top of Page

image   Review of revisionism of ancient history   Peter James: The Sunken Kingdom—the Atlantis Mystery Solved

Catastrophes aren't liked by timid scholars, June 26, 2010

Much of this book is based on Plato's Timaeus and another part of Plato's work. 'Timaeus' was very popular in medieval times—more than most of Plato—and this fact was explained condescendingly by labelling medieval people as very silly. In fact it's a long account in 'catastrophist' mode, and makes perfect sense. PJ's solution is a kingdom or town now in Turkey, where some of the sites are huge mounds. The Atlantis legend had a long history, largely I suppose oral, and it's pleasing to find a claim to have pinned down the original disaster and its retellings and distortions. I give three stars on the principle of averaging—I'm not sure he's right.
Top of Page

Peter Ustinov in Fiji, Hawaii, ANZ, India, South Africa   Peter Ustinov 4-part TV 1998   Planet Ustinov (4:3 aspect ratio; c. 200 mins)
    Review by 'Rerevisionist' 25 June 2015
Reborn Coudenhove-Kalergi With Tangled Family Roots Tries His Best.

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

  War and Peace   Weinstein, BBC etc Review by 'Rerevisionist' 14 Jan 2016
Moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

image   Review of British social history and songs   CD: Flanders & Swann complete

End of the 1950s.... conventional sophisticated humour, June 26, 2010

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)
Top of Page

Cobain Cruel Britannia Jews Portobello Books   Review of   Ian Cobain   Cruel Britannia
The point of this book is to direct attention from Jewish cruelty and frauds.     Review 19 Feb 2015
Cruel Britannia appears to have been published in 2012. Published by Portobello Books. Ian Cobain is described as 'a senior journalist at The Guardian', in a Daily Telegraph review. Without going into detail, the point of this book is, as always with Jewish publications, to deflect attention away from Jews. Many people by now must have understood that the Second World War was a Jewish operation, and that Nuremberg was a festival for Jewish torturers who lived in the USA. This of course is not a view in the Jewish media, such as the Guardian. Cobain's book, on for example Bad Nenndorf and 'The Cage' (described as being 'near Kensington'), is designed to offload the burden onto horrid whites. If the 'dirty tricks' files of Churchill and others are ever opened, and if serious history and journalism survive, maybe the true story will finally emerge.
Added May 2016: favourable comment in CODOH: In 2012, however, the fact that CSDIC tortured German prisoners and compelled them to sign false confessions became quite well known, with the appearance of Ian Cobain’s Cruel Britannia: A Secret History of Torture. Although Cobain does not specifically mention Aumeier [who was tortured and hanged], the book gives a general idea of what happened in the London Cage...'
Top of Page

misleading modern cover design   Review of   Tressell/ Noonan   The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists
1900-ish working class Britain novel; with several twists in the tale     Review 3 June 2015
This novel has something of a back-story. It's attributed to 'Robert Tressell', and is sometimes described as the only English novel written by a genuinely working-class person. It appears to have existed as a manuscript, in which the final version was never set down. This may explain the repetitiveness and length of the book. In fact the author was Robert Noonan, with a background from Ireland and South Africa. The original subtitle, Twelve months in hell, suggests to me the author was someone who felt he had descended in the world. Another oddity (my prompt for this review) was a claim by George Galloway in Hastings, in 2015, that the book included a defence of Jewish immigrants, including arguments of the "they are different" type, (Galloway didn't mention other facts, such as the joint refusal of Jews to co-operate when white girls were butchered by Jews, or their manufacture of fake atrocity stories). This suggests Noonan may have been, or thought of himself as, Jewish.

The book was unpublished until 1914, and even then in bowdlerised form. Noonan as far as I know had no biography published until after the Second World War. In its way, his novel was too late to be of much use. It has many plaintively touching scenes, for example children gazing at a shop-window of a Christmas display, aware that those things were not for them. And of the uncomfortable chilly clothes of house painters. And the honest hero going to his public library to look up details of ancient Egyptian buildings and stylistic details, to decorate (I think) a town hall.

The principal parts of the theory are the 'money trick', in which a piece of bread from their meagre daily fare is divided up, and the workers' share being shown to be less than the total. I was told a curious twist on this: someone's dad had realised, from this, that he too could become an employer, and make money from it—probably not Noonan's intention. It's possible local politicians drew similar lessons, now I think of it. But this 'money trick' does not of course include the more advanced money trick, as exemplified in the Federal Reserve.

Does Noonan in fact suggest any way out of the Hell he placed in Mugsborough (probably Hastings?) I don't think so.

Top of Page

C N Parkinson caustic history Marx Wilson   Review of British Socialism and Jewish Influence   Cyril Northcote Parkinson: Left Luggage – A Caustic History of British Socialism from Marx to Wilson

Some suggestive material. By Rerevisionist on 6 June 2015, and 25 Oct 2015
Parkinson had no real idea of the part played by Jews in Britain's history and downfall. He had no idea of the start of the Second World War. For example, he describes Victor Gollancz as a 'humanitarian Jew' - something like the opposite of the truth. Parkinson had little idea about the subversion of socialism by Jews - though his book includes quite acute material on Beatrice and Sidney 'Webb'. He had no idea about Jewish control of money, and with infinite naivete assumes that Gollancz's books were subject to the normal problems of costs that apply to non-Jewish businesses. No doubt Gollancz was subsidised; and no doubt when their usefulness was over, after 1947, 'Left Books' were discreetly dropped. This book is mixed; a stage in the slow processes of revisionism.


Parkinson was observant of everyday fairly obvious factual material, but less so of books and information: if (say) 90% of printed material technology is ultimately owned by Jews, wherever there's a Jewish interest censorship is likely. There's a function which varies with Jewish interest: not much when the subject-matter is beekeeping or bagpipes or pigeon-racing, but very high when looking at eastern Europe, or occidental religion, or money-supply, or 'Jewish' politics. It's easy to miss the constant extreme skewing of printed (and broadcast) material, and the constant injection of Jewish bias.

I put material on the 'Left Book Club' in my big-lies website, as an integral part of Jewish propaganda leading up to WW2. Here's a link directly to 'Left Luggage'. And here's a link to Parkinson on the Webbs; well worth reading. Parkinson appeared not to be Jew-aware, so that frantic claims of 'anti-Semitism' cannot be substantiated.
These extracts are from Chapter 1 of Parkinson's book, Two Nations an interesting piece of rather myopic descriptive scene-setting. Revisionist-minded people will note that Parkinson was unable, or perhaps unwilling, to isolate Jewish influence from British influence. Consider for example the sack of Peking and the earlier conquest of India, and the impoverishment of Britons in several stages—Cromwell and the Bank of England, the Rothschilds after Waterloo, the enclosures. And the technologies of food and building. Parkinson's uncomprehending account of the hesitations in Britain are in bold, below. They bear some relationship to the 'Culture of Critique' in the USA after about 1913.

'.. Most industrial centres were in roundhead country; where manufacturers and methodism went together. Chapels might be colourless but the worshippers filled their minds with drama and light, with visions of a golden heaven and glimpses of a scarlet hell. .. you could drink yourself out on a Saturday night or think yourself out on a Sunday morning. The alcoholic was thus twelve hours ahead. The Methodist had more, however, for his money; for he added to the satisfaction of being 'saved' the happy knowledge that his noisier neighbours were undoubtedly damned. .. the Methodist sermon turned itself into the political oration or the trade union appeal. Common to both was the resentment felt against those who refused to join, the 'blackleg' being the secular equivalent of the unregenerate and the word 'chapel' having a meaning outside the strictly religious context. ..'

'.. Their mistake.. was to suppose that their own immediate fate was the result of deliberate policy. .. The eighteenth century, when the original mistakes had been made, was a tough period in British history; more harsh perhaps than the Middle Ages had ever been. Indifference to individual suffering was partly the result of the external effort being made. With so much at stake—the future for example of America, Australia, Canada and India—little attention was paid to town-planning in Huddersfield or Leeds. There was the same atmosphere in the United States when the westward movement was at its height. Families could perish by the wayside but they were regarded as expendable and probably to blame for their own misfortune. And.. casualties leave something to hand out.. and fewer to share the final spoils. Where we are wrong.. is to see the cotton spinners and coal miners as the only victims.. Men were just as callous in the colonies or at sea. The aristocrats were just as ruthless.. among themselves. When the army is advancing rapidly, the wounded are often left to die. Their chance is sometimes better during a siege or even.. a withdrawal. For one thing, they are more likely to be seen; for another, they may be regarded as valuable. Florence Nightingale's chance at Sevastopol arose from the fact that the campaign had been brought to a standstill. She could have done nothing for Wellington's army at Vittoria and no one would have noticed it if she had. Humanitarianism begins.. after our momentum has been lost. ..'

'.. In British society there were no rigid barriers dividing the nobility from the gentry or the gentry from the middle class. Agriculture was linked with industry and both with commerce. Church and university were linked with politics and both again with law. There was a contrast .. between the southern counties and the coalfields, [Parkinson dates the Industrial Revolution at about 1870] and indeed between Liverpool and Manchester, but all had worked for the same purpose: the defeat of France and the expansion of Britain. .. the diversity of means made the ends attainable. All opposition was overwhelmed by frigates and diplomacy, by textiles and rum. The Duke of Wellington and John Wesley were not only allies but distant relatives. To any given problem the means applied might vary from naval intervention to financial subsidy, from the gospel to gun-running and from trade to war. .. The public schools, a late development, were only a minor factor in the process but they came to symbolize the unity of leadership. .. the aristocrat and the business man, the lawyer and the civil servant, the army officer and the merchantman's captain, had all been to the same sort of school. .. What they did gain.. was a reliance on each other's loyalty and courage. A typical [sic] instrument.. was the East India Company.. the various elements.. knit together fir the intertwined purposes of trade and war. ..'

'The Two Nations of 1845 produced two kinds of history.. the school history .. 'Deeds which Won the Empire'.. all battles from Agincourt to Waterloo. .. from about 1900, the school history which centres upon 'The Life of the Common People'; a lament for proletarian hardships from the Enclosures to the Dole. ..' [Note by rerevisionist: remember that book publication was largely in the hands of rather few rich Jews. Jews controlling the funds of the 'British' Empire were keen on encouraging British 'heroes'. From about 1900, Jews had other aims. Hence, probably, the histories which Parkinson notes, without understanding.]

'.. Cambridge.. Oxford.. people who have read Modern Greats as a preliminary to.. Westminster, Whitehall, Fleet Street or the B.B.C. .. England needs Scotland, Guernsey needs Jersey, Yorkshire needs Lancashire, the Worcester needs the Conway , the Lifeguards need the Horseguards and the detectives need the criminals. ..

'.. Eton.. Harrow.. The idea has come.. to prevail that the alternation of two parties in office is essential to the British system of parliamentary government. .. the British think of politics in terms of cricket. ..'

'The sudden movement of those whose resolve was to escape from the slum gave a powerful support to the general cause of.. Liberalism. But the movement brought.. bitterness.. Leaders who emerged from the slum .. felt a savage resentment.. The portly parson and sporting squire .. investments were in industry of which they saw little but the dividends. .. The idea of the average village having a resident lord of the manor [sic] is purely Victorian and implies a background of industry. In terms of agricultural income it had always taken several manors to support a squire and hundreds to support a Peer of the Realm. .. The best kind of rural [Victorian] landlord was the man whose income came from somewhere else.

'.. Western civilization was triumphant.. Britain's leadership was quite widely accepted. .. institutions models to be copied.. ideas.. in vogue. .. few questioned the value of a classical education. Fewer saw anything amiss with Christianity, or the Bank of England, the Royal Academy or the House of Lords. .. virtually above criticism.. Royal Navy to the National Debt, .. Royal Yacht Squadron to the Jockey Club. Orthodoxy was among the highest virtues.. Quite suddenly.. the mood changed. .. first.. to come under scrutiny was the one most basic to traditional and rural society; the Church of England itself. .. Gothic Revival.. Tractarian Movement.. if the British had been wrong about the Renaissance and the Reformation who was to say that they were right about anything else? .. wavering.. coincided with the publication (in 1848) of the Communist Manifesto . .. momentum had begun to slacken. In another fifty years or so it would be lost.'
Top of Page

image   Review of US holocaust revisionism   A. R. Butz: Hoax of the Twentieth Century

Thirty-fifth anniversary of this pioneering work, June 26, 2010

Butz's book was first published in 1975, followed by a second edition in 1977. It seems to have been produced on an IBM compositor—a film ribbon proportional-spacing typewriter. Butz's methodology once his interest had been ignited, was to obtain documents and books, some in German and French, through the university inter-library loan system. (He is or was an electrical engineer, specialising, as I understand in pylons and electrical transmission). So far as I know, this was the first ever detailed book specifically on holocaust revisionism. As might be guessed, it's been the target of red-faced rage and indignation, but no point-by-point refutation has been written. It's far better known in the USA than Britain—look at the comments on amazon.com from about 2000 onwards, and the extreme distribution of 5-star and 1-star reviews, usually a sign of a 'controversial' book. An updated online version exists; in fact, of course, Internet now allows Butz to be read online. However, the 3rd edition (2003) exists as hard copy.
Top of Page

image   Review of US power discussion. Either not Jew-aware, or intentionally Jew-suppressant   Noam Chomsky: Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance

Not good enough—superficial with inherent bias, June 26, 2010

I've owned this book for years & thought I'd try to review it. There are several points that ought to be made:--

[1] The 'white guilt' aspect. Chomsky talks of the USA (and, earlier, Europe) as though decisions made by 'elites' are group decisions. ('Manufacturing consent'—doesn't that imply that *you* consented to e.g. bombing Vietnam, or supplying Turkey with weapons?) I'm not saying this is a dominant thread, but it lurks in there.

[2] He loves quotations—there are 8 to 10 on almost every page, probably 2000 or so total. However, the people quoted are mostly journalists from the USA or state (or tax exempt) 'think tanks'. One has to wonder whether such people are simply paid hacks; they are trained to pick out misleading statistics, to disguise what they say, to use emotive language, and all the rest, including of course supporting decisions already secretly made. As a check, I looked up the extended passages on Nicaragua, and virtually all the notes were were US sources, apart from eg a Nicaraguan Society of Doctors. Much of this book reads like patients' testimonials in regard to an illness; it is evidence, but not of the most serious type.

[3] Chomsky systematically and, it must be deliberately, ignores the Jewish element in the world. For example, he says Russia was invaded after WW1, which is true. What he omit is the Jewish coup and subsequent mass-murders, supported, not by 'you', or even in a sense the US 'elite', but by the specifically Jewish component which had links with eastern Europe. It's inconceivable he doesn't know about this. It must be deliberate suppression. Having granted that, it must be deliberate that he refuses to consider the truth about e.g. Pearl Harbor, Kennedy's murder, 9/11. He describes Israel as a 'client state' of the USA—an alternative view is that the USA is a client state of Israel. Certainly if someone donated billions to me, I'm not sure I'd count as a 'client'!

[4] Chomsky seems to insist there must be purpose behind killings, but I'm not sure that's true. If a corporation makes money from supplying weapons, it doesn't matter to them what if anything they're used for. If another corporation simply dismantled them again, that would be as profitable as bombing people—more so, if it's the same corporation! This is related to other issues, e.g. the question of NASA's fraudulence, and issues related to whether weaponry, particularly the really costly sort, in fact works, or whether it's partly a way to mop up tax dollars. My personal belief is that nuclear weapons may be of this sort—there's clear evidence the early film of tests is faked. There's plenty of evidence that money is wasted on spurious weapons projects—the secrecy of course helps keep it covered up.

[5] His writing style resembles that of the 'screamers' who turn up to scream slogans to disrupt meetings of e.g. revisionists. Time and again in this book Chomsky turns from what may be a serious topic (e.g. the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' clock), to another topic—in this case, the Cuba crisis (if it was a crisis!) He switches constantly to discussions on Italy and Germany in the 1920s, and so on—Manchuria, Ethiopia. He never mentions the fact that national socialism, fascism, and whatever Japan and Spain had, POSTDATED so-called 'communism'. He is of course convinced that Germany was the worst nation that has ever existed. And yet, again, he MUST know about revisionist work—he even wrote a pro-free speech preface for a book by Faurisson which, I'm sure, he never read.

[6] Some of his historical generalisations are wrong, I think mainly because of an innumerate approach—some massacres, after all, are bigger and presumably worse than others. Here and there Chomsky seems to be saying that all massacres are equally bad—but, he also maintains the 'Holocaust' was the worst thing ever, which is a complete counter-argument, unless you assume Jews are different.

Another problem is changes in the meaning of the word 'war'. He says for example that Europeans spent much of their time slaughtering each other. There are of course some examples of that, notably post-Reformation, just as the US had a bloody civil war. However many 'wars' in Europe were so localised and small most people had no idea they were even happening. He seems to have little idea of the dynamics of countries which so far aren't very industrialised; Islam being the now-obvious example.

[7] As to 'hegemony', what niggles with me is the fact that it seems untrue. Of course, now, with Obama, the true state of the US economy is being revealed. But even when Chomsky wrote, it was obvious that there wasn't much in the way of 'hegemony' over the world's oil—notably in Saudi Arabia, who have received absolutely astronomical amounts of money for a resource which they knew nothing about, and did nothing to use or develop. Chomsky takes a traditional view, which is that countries exist, and should own their territorial resources. However, like it or not, the fact is things are distributed unevenly.

[8] Chomsky entirely ignores the criticisms of the 'Fed' and these other organisations designed to secretly take a percentage of everything. His anti-capitalist stuff seems very outdated—though this must be deliberate, I think. He also accepts the material on global warming, on the say-so of various people—though he has no methodology that I can see for deciding which group's views are more likely to be true than some other group.

Hence I think 'superficial' is a correct remark; so is 'inherent bias' in the sense of ignoring Jewish influence. My best guess is that he's a splinter group of Jewish intellectuals: mostly they agree (e.g. they want third world immigration; they are undemocratic almost by instinct; the Germans were the worst people ever etc). BUT there are other issues—not all Jews favour mass immigration now. Possibly Chomsky represents a humanitarian movement within Judaism?
Top of Page

image   Review of Women   Sheila Rowbotham: A Century of Women: The History of Women in Britain and the United States in the Twentieth Century

Uncritical trot through other people's quotations, June 26, 2010

Disappointingly dim (and also English-language only] book. It describes life for women—and describes occasional protests—but of course has no suggestions how they could themselves improve matters. At the end of the book is a list of famous women with brief biogs—example Kate Adie [she read out censored material about Iraq wearing camouflaged clothing] and Diana [married a rich royal] and Margaret Mead [phoney academic]—generally women of no great character. The cover design perhaps sums up the book—a woman perched on metal eagle's head on a skyscraper, holding a large bellows camera—all the artefacts being designed by males.

She went to St Hilda's College, Oxford. One of her books says '.. my intense visionary moments didn't help.. read Gibbon and Macaulay or study the growth of the judiciary in the Middle Ages or the boundaries of the Austro-Hungarian empire. I found this kind of history boring at the best of times.' She seems to have been influenced far more by her experiences later, for example with supposed lefties influenced by what everyone still calls the 'Russian Revolution'.

The social material is entirely convention—Suffragettes, World War 1, then World War 2 with judgments about e.g. Jews, 'appeasement', strikes. Then 'the pill', civil rights, capitalist use of the labour of married women...

She has the usual inability to grasp the importance of science; and of course power structures aren't analysed. So weapons or cars or medical advances or whatever 'develop'. 'Poverty' is the 'cause' of hardship. 'Capitalism brought new relationships of property and domination. It brought into being a class which did not own the means of production, 'free' labourers who had to sell their labour on the market.' She doesn't face the fact that consumers could presumably have still bought hand loom stuff, but preferred the new machine stuff.

Rowbotham had two books published in 1973, Hidden from History—300 years of Women's Oppression and the Fight Against It, which is a bit of a ragbag or conspectus, arranged by topics pre-selected by other writers. She has a footnote on the 'Churching of Women' perhaps taken from Dora Russell.

And another 1973 book, Woman's Consciousness, Man's Worlds. She was influenced by Betty Friedan, 'The Feminine Mystique' which Rowbotham dates 1968, and steals from: 'graphically describes a sense of isolation.. suburban coffee meeting in an American city.. dissatisfaction.. yearning.. 'Is this all?''. Rowbotham is, compared to these Americans who were funded deliberately to promote agenda, a very soft type.

I'd guess most of the material in this book is taken from other works, and that she has taught women's issues—in fact, I checked using Google and she seems to have been at Manchester.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   Rudy Rucker: Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite

Is this statement true: 'this book is a collection of mistakes'?, June 26, 2010

The modern theories of the infinite were invented by Georg Cantor, though there's no notable starting date, as they emerged in a series of papers. They were anticipated by (for example) Zeno, and Euclid, or whoever it was who proved there's no largest prime number—you can always find a bigger one. Pascal pondered such questions as the value of the St Petersburg game—a coin is tossed, and if it's (say) heads the first time, you get 1; if heads second time, 2; if heads the third time, 4; then 8, 16... so it appears the game is worth an infinite amount. Anyway, Cantor invented a notation; he influenced Bertrand Russell, Gödel, and others. Rucker's book has collected together most of this material, added stuff on relativity, the mind, the big bang, and other rather dubious ideas, notably problems with self-referential language, to make this book. Some of it's been reworked to make it look original to him, e.g. a Mount Om, I think it was, much the same as the frog hopping half the distance to the end of a round pond, and never quite getting there.

My opinion is that all the material on the infinite is fallacious, because it assumed there's a continuity between colossally huge numbers and 'the infinite'. The starting point is 'one-to-one correspondence' where for example 1, 2, 3, 4,... are matched with 1, 4, 9, 16,... and the conclusion is made that if you continue forever, there is the same number (aleph subscript zero) of each of them. Then we have an aleph 1, and so on. I don't think there's any useful application or deduction that's ever been made from this construct. This isn't quite the same as infinite series, many of which have a limit, the bits left over becoming vanishingly small, so the problem of similar size bits left over doesn't arise.

The verbal problem is a similar construction and maybe appeals to similar minds. "I am a liar" illustrates the principle: there's some reference to the same sentence. Now, obviously, languages evolve and change and develop to provide useful information, maybe factual, maybe persuasive, or whatever. It's not surprising problematical marginal cases where language doesn't work can be made up. -- "Some adjectives describe themselves. Most don't—fat, red, smelly, for example. But some may do—adjectival, elongated. Let's call an adjective that does not describe itself 'heterological'. Is 'heterological' itself heterological?" It obviously is, yet it can't be.

Russell thought questions of this sort were the logician's equivalent of experiments.

Rucker includes quite a bit of related material—he must have combed through a university library—plus, as I've said, things like the highly suspect 'big bang' and the highly suspect relativity. And the inevitable material on religion, three-in-one, God, and so on. He includes some problems, and even gives his answers.
Top of Page

image   Review of NASA fraud   Andrew Chaikin: Full Moon

May be worth owning a copy if you're interested in the truth about 'moon landings', June 26, 2010

Hefty hardback volume, about one foot square, published 1999, with photos on art paper, mostly with black backgrounds. They must have been selected with as many as possible of the suspect photos removed—there are a number of totally black pages suggesting some last-minute editing out! It's likely some have been rephotographed, maybe in their original, terrestrial, locations. It's a small number, considering how many photographs were supposedly taken, and how many missions were involved—they numbering goes up to 128 and quite a few are non-informational blurs of e.g. red flames from rocket engines or photos of the moon or earth. A lot of effort's gone into making the lunar ones sharp and convincing. Note that the National Geographic in the late 1960s and 1970s had well-reproduced sharp photos too, so cynics might like to do comparison jobs. The end of the book has thumbnails of each picture, plus written material. Includes #90, full 360-degree panorama where they forgot to include the module, and 106 with reflections (in space) of TV monitors, and quite a few fish-eye lens photos of reflections in visors.

Worth getting a second-hand (or 'used') copy cheaply IF you're interested in all this. However the total material is smaller than appears at first sight. I have no idea how many stars to give—I'll pick two, to be at the low end of the approvals rating.
Top of Page

  Review of science of diet and its revisionism   D. Bryce-Smith: The Zinc Solution

Zinc is an essential trace element, June 26, 2010

Zinc is an essential trace element in human nutrition—you don't need huge amounts, but you need some. This is a fairly recent discovery—I've seen a British WW2 manual for housewives telling them that galvanised iron vessels (galvanised = covered with a coating of zinc, to prevent rust) could lead to 'zinc poisoning' which is true but off-putting. It seems rather odd that a book on this subject should have been published by a publisher specialising in alternative, new age-style books. Prof Bryce-Smith was/is a chemist best known for opposing lead tetraethyl in petrol, though he's not a biochemist. He ought to be known for getting the subject of trace element nutrition taught to medical students—when he started, they had just one hour on the subject in their seven-year course! This book must have helped push interests in nutrition into the middle-class mainstream, though of course many supposed experts were antagonistic, considering that ordinary food contains sufficient micro-nutrients. It has a test for zinc deficiency (can you taste zinc sulphate in water?), and says deficiency is linked with anorexia, schizophrenia, wound-healing, vision problems, infertility, and other hard-to-treat conditions. Much of this material seems to be mainstream now. One of the interests of this book is the resistance of psychologists to the idea that a simple cure can be had with a simple supplement. They'd prefer to get paid for something that goes on indefinitely.
Top of Page

  Review of Science frauds involving nukes   Pe