Jewish, Christian, Muslim Religions and their Sources, Copies, and Intersections.
About 40 Book Reviews by 'Rerevisionist'

All being viewed as religions originally scripted by Jews. This site's viewpoint is that whites' religions were hijacked by 'Jews' for their own purposes, by making up scripts to be foisted on non-Jews. A similar trick was repeated later by Jews on Arabs, and later still by Jews on (for example) Jesuits and Quakers. There's no precise line between this sort of power struggle and others—military, invasion, financial—so, I hope, readers might find fruitful points of comparison, even if they disagree with some of the items' presences here.

This article originally entitled  Did Jews Hijack Early Christianity?  tries to present a Jew-centric view of the world, particularly the invention and foisting of religions onto non-Jews.

(The reviews, below, have been separated from because that file grew too large.)

v. 23 June 2017 15:15

Blasphemy Laws in UK | Blunt: Dictionary of Sects | G R Elton: Reformation Europe «ban | Julian the Apostate | Joseph McCabe: Rationalist Encyclopaedia | Robertson: Jesus: Myth or History? | Wheless: Forgery in Christianity (Entire book) | Bella Dodd: School of Darkness | Freethinker Magazine | Erich Fromm: Art of Loving | J. L. Allen: Opus Dei | Karen Armstrong: Islam «ban | Norman Cohn: Genocide | Hilaire Belloc: Belinda | Hilaire Belloc: Jews | Gunnar Dahlberg: Race, Reason and Rubbish | Ludovici: Jews | Malcolm Muggeridge: Moscow | Cecil Roth: Jewish Contribution «ban | Frank Britton: Behind Communism | K. B. MacDonald: Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism | K. B. MacDonald: Culture of Critique [Jews in 20th Century Movements] | Frank Furedi: Imperialism.. Moral Imperative | Paul Findley: Confront Israel's Lobby | Erving Goffman: Stigma | Andrew C Hitchcock: Synagogue of Satan | Robert Wistrich: Antisemitism (& Birdwood) | James 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

Elton-Reformation   Review of Jewish 1960s Textbook Example   G R Elton: Reformation Europe 1517-1559 (1963)

Part of the post-1945 wave of Jewish distortions
Dec 2012

** This review was banned by Amazon 1 Feb 2015! **
This book is a perfect example of the coming together of Jewish interests in post-Second World War Britain. The publication date (1963) was exactly right to catch the generation after the war. Its approach - a breezy run-through with little interest in human dynamics and passions - was just right for pupils/students entering the wave of University expansion, and just right for their teachers/lecturers. I have a much-thumbed copy that was clearly (judging by the precise female names signed inside) passed between several female students of the time. It's slightly unfair to say the book supplies keywords for examinations (Renaissance, theology, Papal bulls, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Charles V, Ottomans, Counter-Reformation ..; and arts and science material - shoehorned notes in passing on Holbein, Titian, Durer; Vesalius, Servetus, Copernicus ...) but generally judgements are conventional givens. More seriously, vast swathes of material are smoothly and deliberately ignored.

It's a safe guess to say almost every 'arts' graduate in the 1960s and 1970s, and therefore a large proportion of anonymous civil servants, BBC hacks, teachers, and journalists in Britain, were exposed to this book.

Elton (father's name Ehrenberg) was a 'German Jew' - his father's book on Reformation finance is listed in the bibliography, along with a volume of the Cambridge Modern History which Elton edited - with what appears an uncanny ability to get promotion; I'm reminded vaguely of 'Gerald Fleming' from the audio-visual aids department at Surrey University). He was a supporter of Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher - who of course both spent their lives working for Jewish power. Another book by Elton, 'The Practice of History', presents an image of historians, especially himself, as gentlemen scholars, examining all sides, in a carefully impartial manner, though drawing the line at anything rigorous. He had a high opinion of Maitland, Mommsen, and Namier; and said little or nothing about Belloc, Buckle, Hume, Malthus, Toynbee. Much of 'The Practice of History' deals with literary style; he says, maybe following Russell, that history is both an art or a science. All this is exactly analogous to, and as misleading as, the image of scientists as honest pursuers of truth through rigorous experimentation and hypothesis testing.

Elton's book has nothing on Luther's views on Jews. This was a serious part of Luther's thinking, but Elton doesn't mention it. However, he does mention Luther on the peasants; in both cases Luther's language was rather violent, but only one of these groups gets attention. There's nothing on Jews in eastern Europe - despite a special section, clearly appended as an unimportant afterthought, on Poland, Lithuania (far larger than today), Hungary, etc. There is nothing whatever on Jews opening the door to Muslims, as also happened in Spain: the Ottoman Empire was lapping at Europe's borderlands but the bitter and vicious struggles are not important to Elton. There isn't even anything on the Fuggers, although the 'Fuggerzietungen' of 1568-1605 (partly published in English in 1926) provided evidence of their financing of Charles V and others. These were an important force against the Reformation; and they lost all their money - which I suspect may have provided a lesson to subsequent Jewish financiers to prefer stocks, bonds, paper. Elton has a curiously detached view of such events. At first sight it appears to be a judicious summary, examining power without morality. In fact I'd suggest it's a Jewish attitude: nobody matters except Jews. The Sack of Rome, for example, [1527] gets a few sentences; but arguably it destroyed the Renaissance, and was a naked grab for money, and surely deserves some examination in a history of Europe? The discovery of the New World - surely one of the most horizon-expanding events ever - gets slender treatment. At least Scaliger Jr. gets noticed.

As to the religious ideas, there is drivel about Catholic abuses, idolatry, the universal church and truth vs individualism; but nothing is assessed seriously, insofar as evidence would allow. It's not credible that the students who read the relevant chapters, probably with decreasing interest, could have taken away any real understanding. I suppose they'd have memorised a few phrases, perhaps the titles of Papal bulls, and some theological terms. Incidentally I wondered if Zwingli was Jewish (Randi, the conjuror, had this surname; Calvin maybe too), and putting the Jewish view. Elton gives no information whatever on Jews' sacred books, though there must have been some influence. For some reason Paolo Sarpi, who wrote on the Council of Trent, is omitted; at least I didn't notice him.

The full reasons for University expansion must have included a desire for trained manpower, of a sort. Whether Elton exploited this novelty, or helped lead and shape it, I can't tell.
Top of Page


Review of 'The Freethinker' is an Anti-Christian Junk Magazine, Parodying Genuine Free Thought   Founded by, or taken over, by Jews for covert Jewish Propaganda Purposes

Established 1881. 'The Voice of Atheism' is in fact covert Jewish propaganda.
25 May 2014
This is a brief review, sparked by my bing-ing a Rev Robert West, a BNP candidate; I know him a bit; just to see what it says. The 'Freethinking' comment is:
... The most successful Christian candidate the Rev Robert West, representing the BNP in Lincoln attracted 3 percent of the vote, and lost his deposit.
A total of 1,367 dipsticks voted for this thoroughly nasty piece of work, who in the run-up to the election, outraged homosexuals, and many more besides, by branding civil partnerships as:
        Perv partnerships which are an abomination in the sight of God and must be ended.
West, founder of a demented outfit called the Christian Council of Britain, went further, labelling the LGBT community as "dirty and disgusting" and "utterly perverted". He also branded the recently introduced Equality Act as:
        An act of hideous sexual perversion.
According to this report, police could be asked to launch a "hate campaign" probe against West following his comments in response to questions put to a number of political candidates by the Leicester LGBT Centre. Leicester LGBT Centre support officer, Dennis Bradley, was appalled by the comments from Rev West:
        We have gay police officers who have looked at his words and believe there are grounds for it being a hate campaign.
Bradley has called on Rev West to immediately retract his comments.
West has an interesting view on racism too. On his website, West is flogging a leaflet headed Racism is not what you have been told. Below is an extract from this piss-poor piece of propaganda: [clipping with the claim that the will of God is that people should live as nations]
All the above has nothing to do with free thought! Using his own style of language, the author, Barry Duke, is an ugly and thoroughly disgusting person, promoting the Jewish view that other people should not live as nations, who likes anal sex, and presumably therefore playing with faeces, and calling in the police to waste their time.
I did a bit of searching of their website, which is in the familiar tradition of being hard to navigate. As I'd suspected, there is nothing on Jews: where are the comments on Jewish Bolsheviks and mass murder, for example? Where are the comments on Talmudic hate, racism, paedophila, anti-goyim destructiveness? On the firmly-established link between fraud and Jews? Between Jews and wars? Where is the triumphalist material on the ruination of the Russian Orthodox Church? Jewish use of whites as prostitutes?

Disappointingly, I found Pat Condell promoted by them; Condell is witty, although this is possibly synthetic, and anti-Muslim, but never mentions the push for immigration by Jews. Just another coward. The Muslim material is so to speak tacked on, something of an afterthought.

Frankly the whole journal is garbage. Don't imagine it has anything to do with free thinking or rationalism. Its virtue is to give yet more proof that publication must be taken out of Jewish control.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   Kevin B. MacDonald [not 'McDonald']: Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism

Twelve years later. MacDonald was basically correct..., September 2, 2010

First published 1998, as some of these old reviews indicate. This paperback is 2004 with a new preface, largely about an essay by P Rubin's (2000), Does Ethnic Conflict Pay?

This book is specifically supposed to be 'Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism'. I give it four stars for what appears to be its boldness, though in fact it has considerable limitations, which I'll indicate--

[1] The index, mostly names, is bare—the word 'Zionism' for example is followed by about fifty page references, without any detail whatever. The readers is expected presumably to comb through all these in search of his/her interest. However there is a bibliography of something approaching 1,000 titles, mostly by Jews.

There is much interesting material inside: each chapter is followed by its own endnotes, and there's a bibliography. As an example of navigational difficulty, consider the Russo-Japanese War: this is not indexed (nor is Japan), but the bibliography refers to a piece in a yearbook dated 1983 by A J Sherman. Looking up this name in the index points to page 106, an endnote on Jacob Schiff financing the Japanese against Russia. (This is sometimes regarded as the Orient starting to become powerful). Annoying. Thus for instance I couldn't find if the Armenian genocide allegedly by crypto-Jewish 'Turks' is in the book.

[2] Internal evidence suggests the book was written as standalone chapters; so when MacDonald found an interesting point, it would be added as a note. Topics include the Construction of Judaism, Self-Deception as an aspect of Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy. 'The Culture of Critique' is similar, with its chapters on Freud, anthropology, the Frankfurt School and Jewish secret roles in forcing immigration on Europe, Canada and Australia. The endnotes to the chapters are full of interest: this volume for example has many on eugenics as a continuous Jewish policy. 'Critique' had one on fondness for pets as being maladaptive.

[3] His books seem cautious (to be fair, they were written, in Internet terms, a long while ago). In effect, MacDonald is following an evolutionary strategy in his publishing. Bacque (1998, 1997) is not included. Nor is Robert Conquest on Stalin (1968). Nor Arthur Butz (1975)—MacDonald seem to entertain no doubts about 'the Holocaust'. He uses the conventional 19th century phrases—'anti-semitism' (newspaper coinage, designed to not mention Jews), 'revolution' rather than coup in Russia. He is cautious about the Khazars (they get about half a page). Tony Martin on Jewish involvement in slavery (c. 1993) is I think not mentioned.

[4] This book is (arguably) too American. There's not much on the German Sozialdemokrat movement, the USSR, Jews in Hungary. He barely mentions Belloc's 1920ish book, with its account of English aristocrats intermarrying, Jews' opposition to everyone else's nationalism, the manufactured surnames, and so on. There is however hidden-away material on Churchill's deliberate sabotage of controls on immigration—they were pouring into the East End of London.

His world history looks 1900-ish: Biblical tribes/ Greece and Rome/ Christianity and the Middle Ages/ modern times. He doesn't seem to mention the wave of expulsion of Jews from most European countries. His accounts of 'reactive anti-Semitism' include the Roman Empire, Spain, and Germany. He seems to claim, reasonably enough, that 'anti-Semitism' (meaning people who are anti-Jews) is 'reactive'—it only develops after Jews appear. Usually they seemed an intermediate caste between rulers and people who were sources of tax. The NSDAP as resembling Jews is not a new idea—Oscar Levy in the 1930s in The Idiocy of Idealism said the same.

I can't help wondering how much of this is continuism, and Jewish projection and story-telling: did the continuity really exist? After all there were many rich Asian towns, but also waves of tribal conquest in the Poland/ Russia area, some destructive, some empire building (the Rus), and rich types might well have been a target.

[5] MacDonald is in my opinion a bit naive about Jews and science and invention. The whole Jewish mind-set as described by MacDonald isn't compatible with disinterested, slow, uncertain processes. Thus Einstein is widely accepted by now to have been a phony. The same pattern is seen in biology, and nuclear physics which Sachs and the Oppenheimers took over in the 1930s. (I don't have the space to outline this here; look at - for example the forum on nuclear science). MacDonald's website, the Occidental Observer, even allows comments on the 'moon landings' being heroic white achievements!
    The alternative hypothesis, that corruption by money explains their success, is unexplored by MacDonald. For example, any honest economics department could produce in a few days evidence that Jews dominate in fraud. This naivety extends to intimidation and violence by Jews—per head it's possible they were/are the most lethal group that ever lived.

All this sounds a bit negative—it's true that a decent index would enhance this book enormously, and MacDonald could have compiled it himself—it's not only Jews who dislike certain types of work! However this book is probably the best available, and repays careful reading. The evolutionary part—'cultural and genetic separation with resource and population competition'—looks technical and no doubt has a disguising effect. The general ideas aren't new—the Bible, Talmud, Julius Caesar etc contain them—and, if you find them off-putting, just ignore them, as MacDonald explains the implications anyway.

Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   Kevin B. MacDonald: The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements

Large book, very important in understanding immigration and other issues, August 24, 2010

Fascinating book. It omits quite a bit of material, but I give it five stars for its groundbreaking nature.

A word to Britons: this book is almost entirely USA-based. There are per head far more Jews in the USA than in England, Ireland, France, Russia and other countries. What he says may seem strange, or over-emphasised, in Europe. But it is of great importance in understanding such things as the ludicrously undemocratic immigration policy of Britain and other countries. If you're unaware of the issues, which is quite likely in view of the censorship of all media, it's as good a book as any for exploration.

MacDonald (not 'McDonald') concentrates on two types of movements: political ones (usually publicised and well-known though the Jewish element was secretish), and intellectual—fought out in universities and by departmental social science journals. The first type is usually described as 'left' by Americans. For some reason, the US never had a proper socialist movement, probably because Jews had already invaded the USA, and such movements were taken over by Jews, who didn't want general alleviation of poverty—they wanted it for themselves only. 'Socialism' in the Jewish sense included support for the coup in Russia after the First World War and the consequent mass-murder, financed and organised by Jews. This is the root of the difference between 'Reds' and socialists, which to this day is intentionally confused.

In the same way, US 1960s radicals were mainly Jewish—there was mass murder in Vietnam, organised by Kissinger, but this seems to have been regarded as unimportant—it was only the pro-Jewish radicalism that appealed to them. In Europe, there were big demonstrations in 1968, but censorship by Jewish media is so great very few people are even aware of US genocide. Fakes like 'Jack Straw' and Daniel Cohn-Bendit illustrate the type—they do nothing for or about Vietnam, and clearly care nothing about war crimes.
To see how Jews and American militarist fellow-travellers co-operate in censorship, read
Russell Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal (1967)
MacDonald does not face the facts of this sort of material, which weaken his case for whites being friendly and peace-loving—unless it can be shown white militarists are simple dupes of Jews.
MacDonald isn't good on feminism, which in the US also was largely Jewish.

MacDonald is most sound on intellectual movements, unsurprisingly as he is himself an academic, accustomed to the atmosphere of lectures, syllabuses, professors, exams, textbooks and all the rest of it. The Culture of Critique means simply enough the Jewish attack on all aspects of 'gentile' life. The academic topics referred to in detail are psychoanalysis (mainly of course Freud), anthropology (mainly someone called Boas, not well-known in Britain—who spent his life trying to show that races don't exist, apart of course from Jews), the Frankfurt School (what's loosely called 'Marxism', although there's little of Marx in it). MacDonald's long chapter on the Frankfurt School largely deals with The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno and others. This chapter (and the one following) deal with 'Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances'—if you wonder why there seems a positive push against the family, why white abortions are pushed while black immigration is encouraged, why TV programmes show family breakdowns, why freaky sex is promoted—these chapters will help you find the reason.

MacDonald clearly identifies Jews—for example, Derrida, Hofstadter, Freud—which helps clear away a certain amount of fog. He clarifies why their writing style is often absurdly opaque—because of course they can't say what they really mean, or alternatively they are being boosted and hyped.

MacDonald's first journal article was dated 1983; eleven years later his book on Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy was published. MacDonald's novelty is combining theories of evolution of human behaviour—'five factors'—with facts about Jews. To illustrate, the new preface (written after 9/11) has an account of Europe genetically developing on a less tribal basis than herders and other narrow self-defined groups. His analysis relies heavily on rather vague things like 'individualism', but at any rate it's in principle testable or at least discussable in detail. In particular, he regards modern US and Europe as not well adapted to withstand attacks by small united groups.

The most important single point he makes in my opinion is the the relentless support, promotion and propagandisation by Jewish groups for immigration into the USA, a constant since 1924, and ending with the 1965 Immigration Act in the USA. (Very similar events occurred in Britain). At first only Jewish immigrants were regarded as important by this movement: there was of course no pressure to import Ukrainians starved by Jews, or Indians in famine, impoverished Filipinos, Chinese peasants attacked by the Japanese, and so on. The more modern wholesale importation seems to have been suggested fairly slowly and of course secretly. Thus the British so-called 'Labour' party's Jack Straw (real name Jacob Strawinski?) secretly decided in 2000 to flood Britain with immigrants. 'Labour' has been funded by Jews and its level of corruption has increased correspondingly to the present state where only about one white in ten votes for it.

There are of course counter-attack mechanisms, such as the 1920s-coined 'anti-Semitism' which of course MacDonald was subjected to, to his annoyance, since he was dealing with an abstract question of population genetics and competition.
    Organisations masking Jewish policies include the ADL and NAACP in the USA, and myriads of similar groups worldwide, fed by paper money after 1945: AIPAC, the EU, the UN, public opinion surveyors, fake political parties, charities, advertisers, 'Common Purpose' and Freemason style secret collusion groups, fake sciences, yearbooks, 'factbooks', history control groups, 'religious' groups... However, MacDonald is US-focussed and academically-inclined.

The present volume has a preface which updates the book—this new preface mostly consists of journal reviews and disputes, summaries of books published on the topic since 1998, and some media stories including of course 9/11. The Muslim world, the Black Book of Communism, fanatics like Norman Podhoretz, an account of Charles Lindbergh—'greeted with a torrent of abuse and hatred unparalleled for a mainstream public figure in American history', long and detailed account of ownership of the movie industry and other media, and so on, including attempts to censor Internet. Someone called Joseph Bendersky's 2000 book The "Jewish Threat" provides an account of a new hostile elite, according to MacDonald; an elite with a ridiculous sense of unique superiority. Quite a lot of the introduction looks at the 'north Eurasian and circumpolar culture area' and its probable evolutionary effects.
    The preface also has interesting material on Jews in the American media (long lists of names and corporations), censorship and Internet, and autobiographical material tracing his realisation that Jews are intentionally and seriously harming white interests, something that Barbara Lerner Specter in 2010 underlined spectacularly. MacDonald dislikes Jews in the media never announcing their affiliation to Judaism.

MacDonald applies in- and out-group strategies to the modern world. MacDonald is concerned about whites in the USA and Europe, and elsewhere, now, and has to face the problem of why whites seem so gullible. (Including MacDonald himself: following the Jewish mass media, he has no idea of prolonged and disgusting white brutality, and, because he doesn't know about it, does not try to disentangle the part played by those just obeying orders, and Jews behind the atrocities and killing). His comments on whites, evolved in areas with harsh winters, involve 'altruistic punishment', which are based in part on fairly simple experiments of the 'prisoner's dilemma' type, where situations are set up and people's reactions assessed.
    He writes 'This suggests the fascinating possibility that the key for a group intending to turn Europeans against themselves is to trigger their strong tendency to altruistic punishment by convincing them of the evil of their own people. Because Europeans are individualists at heart, they they readily rise up in moral anger against their own people once they are seen as free riders and therefore morally blameworthy ...' These sentences (page xxviii in my edition) are probably the key to MacDonald's message. Self-criticism is exploited by Jews, and has resulted in the present situation. This is well worth reading.
    Note that MacDonald does not explore the question of bribery or violence against 'out group members' although these are significant in Jewish activity. In Britain at present, Ken Livingstone and MPs, and UAF thugs, illustrate those types. MacDonald may seem naive to practical people whose activities have been harmed by Jews: they are more aware of Jewish misuse of legal and financial power, police activities, and systematicised lies. And he may seem even more naive to people whose experiences, for example of war crimes, prove that many whites are not remotely altruistic.
    Interpreting the bare facts of Jewish deception leads to the issue of self-deception: is it possible for persons to shrewdly weigh up their self-interest, but simultaneously deceive themselves? This seems unlikely to me; but intricate logical puzzles of the Russell paradox types on Jewish self-deception are hard to avoid.
A precursor to Kevin MacDonald is The Ordeal of Civility, by John Murray Cuddihy, subtitled Freud, Marx, Lévi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity, published in paperback in 1974. As with MacDonald, it's an explanation of Jewish behaviour, omitting Talmudic material. Cuddihy makes the valuable mnemonic point that 'Id' sounds very much like 'Yid'. To see what Freud meant by 'Id', just think of Yiddish behaviour.

subject boundary | knowledge islandCriticisms: there are many parts of the academic world which are unexamined. (1) History—very obviously there are censorship issues regarding Jewish influences, notably in the Second World War. (2) Economics—I don't think any economics textbooks deal with the issue of paper money or its present Fed/Bank of England monopoly. Arguably, this is the most important single theoretical issue of all. At present Jewish groups actually get paid to organise printing of money. For example Soros in his currency deals is part of a small clique that can virtually print money at will. Unsurprising therefore that he and others like him manage to make money from the system! Similarly MacDonald does not explore such questions as large-scale fraud, profits from wars, and whether depressions and crises are artificially generated. Even Samuelson of the textbook isn't mentioned. (3) Law—MacDonald mentions the US Supreme Court but omits pressure and funding groups—NAACP, Southern Poverty Law Center etc. (4) Science. MacDonald mentions Einstein—the whole issue of fraudulent and corrupt science is, understandably, outside his range, though he does discuss mutual promotion in science and literature—in which members of the closed group publicise other members. Incidentally he doesn't list Khazars in his index, nor does he show any doubts re 'Holocaust' and 9/11. (5) Sociology—MacDonald comments briefly on the Jews Marx, Durkheim and Weber, and on sociology departments in the USA being mostly Jewish, but otherwise says very little about sociology. The once-famous Talcott Parsons as far as I can find isn't mentioned at all.

There are or were at one time plenty of small, energetic, fanatical groups—Plymouth Brethren, Samurai, the Scotch, Italian bankers, the Romanovs, Spaniards, Jesuits, Haitians, Protestants, Prussians etc etc. MacDonald does not I think tackle the question of: why Jews? The best guess, or at least my guess, is domination of legally-enforced paper money. If this ceased to be controlled by an undemocratic cult, they presumably would be just another fanatical group.

If you want to understand the modern world, in particular the USA, this book is an important part of the jigsaw. Incidentally, part of the counter-attack is the suggestion his book is hard to read. (The same thing was said of Arthur Butz's book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century). It isn't—the prose is perfectly OK. But it's slightly complicated because there are three specialist vocabularies—evolutionary, technical Jewish, and political/social science. If you can work out the meanings of 'They are groups with higher levels of co-operation with strangers than with extended family members', 'African Americans are disproportionately characterized by low-investment, high-fertility parenting', 'halachic', 'advocate very high levels of immigration from all parts of the world, so that the U.S. will become ... the world's first "Universal Nation."'—then you'll be OK.

My copy, and I presume this applies in the USA too, is a somewhat pricey print-on-demand paperback, and it has to be said the book would be better with more differentiation between typefaces—the index does not have smaller print for subtopics, for instance. My copy has 1st Books on the cover, a website which seems not to exist. Such are the typical by-products of censorship!

People who know nothing about Jewish activities ought to read this book, or similar ones, since otherwise they will be unable to believe the truth about one of the most damaging influences in our time. Once they understand the ways the influence is imposed, they will be better equipped to understand the modern world. For example, I just—years after writing this review—saw someone called Ernest Becker, died 1973, 'awarded' a 'Pulitzer Prize', a 'Freudian anthropologist', described as a 'Jewish-American intellectual'. His interests include baby excreta, and fear of death. Ah yes; of course.
    I commend satirists who take Jewish expressions and invert them; this is a highly effective way to expose what non-Jews regard as 'double standards'. There is (or was) a group 'OpenBordersforIsrael' in facebook, for example, started in August 2013, though this is under attack.

A note on the title: I take it the title of The Culture of Critique is itself part of MacDonald's intellectual journey: Jewish activities have been vicious and aggressive, but MacDonald's title suggests something cultured, and something querulous. Probably the depth of Jewish destructiveness was not remotely understood by MacDonald when he wrote this book. But if he'd been more aware, I doubt such a book would have been published.
November, 2012. Here's a comment on from Mary Thomas (may not be his/her actual name). It illustrates the effect MacDonald can have. She talks of the USA, but it could be any once-white country: France, Britain, Sweden, Canada, Germany, Australia, ... She follows some of MacDonald's omissions, notably war and war expenditure:

White Americans fought their German brothers during the world wars, and then GAVE the Jews a country of their own, and to thank us they give us the genocide of the white race. The evil I'm talking about here, the betrayal of the good will of decent whites here in America who NEVER MEANT ANY HARM WHATSOEVER TO THE JEWS - the evil is beyond my imagination. As we head into the cannibal's pot, you can BET that we're going to take the Jews down with us. Trust me, when whites figure out what has happened, there is going to be hell to pay. The irony is that we loved and admired the Jews.

I can't imagine that ANY of our major problems could have gained any traction whatsoever if not for Jewish influence. Abortion, feminism, porn, affirmative action, massive immigration—you can rattle off the things that are tearing us down and behind each and every one of those issues you will find malevolent Jewish interests. But it takes a bit of intelligence and research to be able to put it together in your mind. I had NEVER had anything but admiration for Jews my entire life. At one time I had totally accepted that the Jews WERE a superior group and that they DESERVED to be the new mandarin class. I was a liberal for most of my adult life. Then came the bailouts of '08, [i.e. 2008 paper money for Jewish fraudulent housing mortgage lending] and I started digging and reading, and I was shaken to the core when I realized that the entire thieving elite was above the law. I sincerely wish that I did not know the things I know now, because the information causes me great emotional pain. But it is what it is, and the truth cannot be denied.

Added at the end of 2016, after Trump's US Presidential election victory: It must be expected and hoped that criticism will be turned against Jewish 'critics' of the types of Adorno, Horkheimer, and Benjamin. And that public understanding will modernize, deepen and expand.
    A good example is explanations of human racial differences, which of course have been censored by Jews whenever possible. It may be that long arctic nights influenced whites: once shelter and food are planned in advance, there must be some survival value in caution and waiting for warmer times: perhaps this is a reason why some men spend time on apparently pointless activities—woodcarving, playing croquet, studying horseraces, growing easily available plants, solitary piano playing—were hobbies of men I've met; and perhaps fashion, design, sewing are niches appealing to women. It's easy to see how research, laboratories, workshops, collections, libraries might develop from hobbies. And how a dependant employee mentality might develop. On the other hand, in countries near the equator—with dangers close at hand, and not even much need for shelter—long-term occupations such as animal taming, agriculture, writing, and invention of tools would not instinctively have much appeal. Nor would schooling. The Occidental Observer, MacDonald's online website, had a comment on blacks and sports, a hard-to-describe mental outlook, an immediacy 'grounded in the here and now', unconcerned with the future or anywhere else in the present, people for whom today really is 'the first day of the rest of your life'. Can such people develop technologies and lifestyles appropriate to themselves, while fending off aggressive parasites? It seems unlikely.
    I hope that the whole subject will expand, to include the distribution of abilities and emotions in entire populations—probably the balance between strong, nimble, patient, risk-taking, farsighted, trainable, aggressive etc types must itself be evolved. Specialised parasites find weak points in general populations, so this type of work is of great importance. US researchers might try to find explanations for differences between Aztecs, Incas, plains Indians, woods Indians, Haitians et al where this has been discouraged. Mixed races need to be studied. Genetic changes caused by new technologies are important, too; think of the effects of the invention of writing and reading, for example, and the effects of modern medicine.
    All countries with present or past exposure to Jews ought to compare detailed notes, which must certainly show common patterns—for example, the absurd Jewish 'same sex marriage' meme infected many countries at similar dates, and must have had a common source. The Freemason/ Common Purpose/ shabbos goy/ 'Useful Idiot'/ rented thug Jew-conspiratorial power structures need study.
    The Culture of Critique is rather narrow, mainly looking at a few books and university departments, and a few issues, notably immigration, in one country, the USA, in the 20th century. It isn't even very critical of so-called Jews: rage and exasperation are considered unscholarly emotions. And it has unrevised baggage: Americans, Brits and Germans bombing, shelling, drowning, shooting and starving each other doesn't sound much like white altruism. But the book is an important seed.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   Robert S. Wistrich: Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred

Anti-Gentilism—an even longer hatred.., September 7, 2010

.. I haven't read this book (3 stars is the mid-point, not intended to mean anything), but would point out that, following this book, Lady Jane Birdwood in Britain published 'The Longest Hatred—Anti-Gentilism' (opens in a new window) as a booklet, which had a chequered history of prosecutions and harassment. I assume the title was a riposte to Wistrich's book.
Top of Page

Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner

'Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy' - History in English Law. 1930s book.   Review: 20 Feb. 2017

Just a brief note. The first edition was pre-First World War. This 1934 edition was 'revised and enlarged by F W Read'. Loosely based on Charles Bradlaugh in 1878, 'The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy'. There's a larger book, G D Nokes 'A History of the Crime of Blasphemy'. I haven't attempted to survey recent works.

This is English law only, and only the Christian religion: legal and violent actions by Jews, Muslims, etc aren't considered even in passing. The 'Cases and Laws' table starts with 12th and 13th centuries/ Wycliffe, 1378/ Statute of Heretics, 1400/ John Badby, 1410 ... Bowman vs Secular Society, 1915-17/ J W Gott 1922/ Blasphemy Laws (Amendment Bill 1930.) This book naturally assumes that blasphemy and heresy are opinions which should not be subject to legislation. Interesting and curious cases include George Fox and James Naylor (the latter's tongue being bored, forehead branded, and the remainder of his life at hard labour); Paine's The Age of Reason; a forged Act of Parliament used by bishops to make money. However the book is not indexed.

People gullible about early Christianity might like this, from the start of the book:
You will search in vain through the law of Rome for any traces of reform under Christianity; but there are two things of which you will get more than enough. You will get laws intended to aggrandise the priests, to shield them from civil and criminal responsibility, and to enable them to extort money with ease and hoard it with safety. You will also find many statues passed to despoil of their property, to banish, and even to kill, all those sects of Christians who did not bow the knee to Rome, but were guilty of the crime of understanding the teaching of Christ differently from the Roman bishops. Few people are aware of the ruthless violence with which all dissent from the Church of Rome was stamped out. Before a century had passed under the Christian Emperors the catalogue of Rome's victims was to be reckoned by hundreds of thousands. In a statute passed in the year 828 against heretics we have a curious enumeration of sects, as regards some of whom even ecclesiastical antiquaries are silent. They were: Arians and Macedonians, Pneumatomachi and Apollinariani and Novatiani or Sabattiani, Eunomiani, Tetraditæ, Valentiniani, Papianistæ, Montanists or Priscillianists, [and about 16 more] and, worst of all, the Manichæans and Nestorians. ... about thirty sects who were broken up and destroyed by the criminal law. [From W A Hunter, LL.D., M.A. The Past and Present of our Heresy Laws.
Note that Hunter has no comment on the people having Christianity forced onto them. This entire book records (in effect) variations in the level of persecution and prosecution of 'the teaching of Christ', which, absurdly, is supposed to be a serious body of connected reasoning.

The period of real or supposed Jewish expulsion (1290 to 1649, say) is not mentioned in any way, as of course is to be expected in Jewish-controlled publishing in England in 1900-ish. They would not want to draw any attention to it. Or to the possibility that (as in Spain) there were crypto-Jews in England. Note that Scotland never expelled Jews; there's no discussion of Scottish laws relating to religion, though there must have been enlightening tales to tell.

Pages 22-25 discuss February 24, 1698: '[An Act 9 William III, c. 32] ... any person or persons having been educated in, or at any time having made profession of, the Christian religion within this realm shall ... assert or maintain there are more gods than one, or shall deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be of divine authority... [then—my wording—if convicted shall be sacked from any job; if convicted again, in addition jailed for three years] ... a Bill was read a first time in the Lords “for the more effectual suppressing of Atheism, Blasphemy, and Profaneness.” ... On March 7 a Bill was read a first time “for the more effectual suppressing Profaneness, Immorality, and Debauchery.” ... On May 18 the Commons disagreed with the Lords' amendment to leave out “having been educated in, or at any time having made profession of, the Christian religion.” ... The Commons represented that the amendment “will subject the Jews who live amongst us to all the pains and penalties contained in the Bill, which must therefore of necessity ruin them or drive them out of the kingdom; ...” The Lords decided not to insist ...'
      It seems to follow that, at that time, the aristocracy wished to disallow Jews from continuing what they presumably thought was a false religion. Possibly the Commons at the time was Jew-supported, much like the 'Labour' party in the 20th century.

Valuable small book to tell, or remind, people how Christianity in its powerful times acted against blasphemy and heresy. Throughout the book, there are accounts of how Christianity was viewed by lawyers, up to the case of Bowman during WW1, when, though not before, it was explicitly conceded that Christianity is not 'part of the law of the land'.

The weakness of this book is, of course, that it has no comparisons with other groups and their censorships, notably of course Jews, but in general with other belief systems. Its possible strength is that it predates post-1945 Jewish supremacism. There may be second-hand copies still available.
Top of Page

History of religious sects   Review of   Rev. John Henry Blunt, M.A., F.S.A.
Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools of Religious Thought (1874)

Interesting for several reasons
I heard of this book years ago. In the 1950s, Bertrand Russell attacked 'linguistic philosophy', practised by such people as J. L. Austin (a friend of Chomsky). Ernest Gellner's Words and Things was part of the same attack. Russell's introduction to that book mentioned the Abecedarians, who believed the alphabet should not be taught, since words enabled readers to delve into heresies. Or something like that. Russell said the Oxford abecedarians were not opposed to all knowledge, but only such knowledge as was not needed to get a First in Greats. (Or 'Modern Greats').

In Blunt's day, a high proportion of Oxbridge men went into the Church of England. Many used their spare and subsidised time to write books. Brewer's Phrase and Fable is another example. Blunt's book is available as free downloads (of varying accuracy) online.

Blunt may be useful in checking what (for example) 'Presbyterians', 'Primitive Methodists', 'Plymouth Brethren' and so on said they believed, and has sections on Buddhists, Mormons, Islam, and so on, plus early Church 'Fathers', and their opposing heretics. Desktop searching software may be the easiest way to read Blunt. I suspect Blunt skewed his examples toward the amusing and piquant. As far as I checked, the importance of sects judged by numbers was not part of Blunt's researches. But another possible interest is in changes in the time since 1874. I suspect the Jewish Bolsheviks disposed of many communities in eastern Europe and Russia. Just as the Jewish-run USA must have disposed of many in (for example) Iraq. Blunt could perhaps help in identifying such communities. A rough count gives about 400 main headings. The book is arranged alphabetically (and the very first entry is ABECEDARIANS).
Top of Page

Ostara Publications cover design Julian 'the Apostate'   Against the Galileans
    Review 1 July 2015
Surviving fragments of Julian the Apostate, as reconstructed by Cyril of Alexandria. And thoughts on Christianity.

It's not possible to fully review a book of which nothing has been found to remain; it lives on only in a reply, from Cyril of Alexandria, or 'Saint Cyril' in Catholic lore. Julian was Emperor (if the chronology is correct) from 361-363, the latter date being of his death in war.

Cyril (not the Cyrillic alphabet man) quotes fairly obvious criticisms of Christianity by Julian. I'm not aware that any other parts were restored or guessed at; possibly the more dangerous personal material was removed; there may for example have been comments on Jews of the time and money, which Julian would be in a position to understand.

Rather than work through this book, let's examine the many other doubts surrounding Christianity.
[1] Did Jesus in fact exist? Many critics have thought not. The best known to me is Prof Wells, a Professor of German, who wrote a series of books pointing to the lack of evidence and clear proofs of spurious insertions into a few works of history.
[2] Why base a new state official religion on on Jewish material? The Romans had many other belief systems to choose from. Why this ridiculous nonsense?
[3] Why were some books selected as canonical, but others not?
[4] How reliable are the chronologies? A modern school of thought, based partly on events such as solar eclipses independent of human claims, and on analysis of claimed ancestral rolls, which appear to have been duplicated as more people decided to stake claims to legitimacy, thinks the dates were in effect made up, probably by the Scaliger father-and-son group. Paid commissions to fabricate impressive histories?
[5] How much material was made up by believers, presumably to add credibility? The throwing Christians to lions in the Colosseum is believed to be a myth. So is the idea of numerous Christian martyrs.
[6] How much of Christianity was rigged up on a pragmatic basis? For example, why have just one religion—why not allow people to be both Christian, plus a local variant of Paganism? Obviously, from a power viewpoint, this would not be likely to work. Another example is careerist attraction: if some work can give an income for life, many people will be attracted, the actual beliefs probably being more-or-less irrelevant. At the Reformation, most priests switched sides. Later, the Vicar of Bray illustrates the footwork of the determined survivor. Later still, Patrick Brontë illustrates the type; most or all Church of England vicars now seem indifferent to their beliefs.
[7] In view of the debates over creeds and heresies, can it make sense for ordinary people to describe themselves as 'Christian' at all? Roman Catholicism seems to have taken that view when (for example) Latin was the only language used in the Mass, and believers had to memorise a simple catechism.
[8] Does it in fact make sense to regard European countries as 'Christian'? The established churches did not for example set laws, as was pointed out in the 19th century. In fact, it's arguable that the separate status of Christianity worked to the benefit of Christendom, giving comparative freedom to thinkers and doers, than was possible in the all-embracing rigid schemes of Muslims and 'Jews'. Jews in quotation marks because of the Khazar issue.
    The separation of church from state in the U.S Constitution therefore seems much less novel than many commentators claim.
[9] There are issues around 'infallibility' which must presumably have weakened the church. If an organisation claims to be a representative of 'God', it may claim to be infallible, but is unlikely to be able to live up to the claim. When there were two Popes, and Churchmen took sides, clearly 'infallibility' was fallible. In the same way that many Islamic leaders thought the Quran was the only book that was needed, but achieved little despite supposedly having God on their side, suggesting the Quran must lack useful information. Modern examples of this problem include Muslims, who claim money from host countries, even though they are supposed to believe 'Allah will provide'. And Jews who see no reason to avoid fraud, despite supposedly being God's extreme favourites.
[10] Should 'Christians' love non-Christians, or tolerate them, or oppose them? There seems no way to decide. And in any case there must be a suspicion that Jewish influence played a part in arguments over 'Christian love' and 'turning the other cheek'.
[11] 'Usury' seems to mean, not just interest, but the policy of destroying creditors if they proved unable to pay, which of course was often easy to arrange, when loans were not permitted to be repaid by friends or colleagues. (See The Merchant of Venice).
[12] The Greek, Byzantine, Orthodox eastern empire seems to have outlasted Roman Catholicism as a continuistic scheme. It seems to have successfully kept both Jews and Muslims out, or at least as ineffectual groups, until they joined forces and invaded.
[13] Monasteries may have been a net credit to Christianity. They permitted long-term experiments; it's arguable that British sheep breeds (think of the 'woolsack') were one outcome of this style of life. Benedictine liqueur perhaps is analogous.
[14] The life of Roger Bacon is a traditional exemplar of the war of the Church with science, and the difficulties of fixing on an interpretation. There is an alternative view, which is sometimes applied to Galileo, that the Church cared little about such ideas, the main opposition coming from what passed for rival scientists of the time. Bacon's writings were (perhaps) descriptive and speculative, rather than helpful; possibly they had more than a touch of Mother Shipton about them.
[15] The Orthodox churches in the white northern countries, notably Russia, may have had some effect in spreading literacy and some sort of civilisation. It's notable that opposition to Jewish violence was an Orthodox policy, though of course it was too weak to face the combined force of German militarism and the probable secret financial support by external Jews.
[16] U.S. Protestants, under the influence of Jews (e.g. the specially-translated 'Scofield Bible'), seem to be the most credulous Christians in the world, except for black African opportunists. These are targeted by Richard Dawkins and his fellows, generally Jews interested in Jewish power rather than truth.
Top of Page

  Review of   Joseph McCabe   A Rationalist Encyclopaedia
1948 Encyclopedia of rationalism as viewed then: Anti-Catholic, pro-Jewish, pro-Islam, with Evolution and other science
Here is my own scanned-in version in Word format with a few of my notes. Represents something like a culmination of Jewish censorship and lies in the 20th century, to the end of WW2. McCabe had a detailed knowledge of Roman Catholic history, but his sources aren't entirely clear where he read the original documents. McCabe was interested in the Moors in Spain in the Middle Ages, before their expulsion, and the expulsion of Jews: his 1935 book The Splendour of Moorish Spain may be pure propaganda lies; the lack of sources is just one suspicious feature. Here's his entry for Spain, Religion in.
Top of Page

archibald-robertson-jesus   Review of Criticism of Jesus   Archibald Robertson: Jesus: Myth or History?

Valuable, Condensed, Thorough, and Little-known Measured Criticism of 'Jesus' Considered as a Genuine Personage. Helps Pave the Way for Future Understanding.
  Review by Rerevisionist, Jan 7th, 2017
I have a copy of this book, in the original small-format red hardback of the 'Thinker's Library'. First printed 1946, second edition 1949. Most Thinker's Library volumes were bound in brown, with black printing, and with a one-colour on white dust-jacket in their Watts & Co. house style. There are other editions, some, I think, more or less pirated; or perhaps the copyright situation isn't clear. Whether these are accurate, I don't know; for interested readers I'd recommend an original copy, just in case.

The contents are more or less chronological, with Chapter 1 containing Christian writings, Chapter 2 writings by everyone else—with some overlap—and Chapter 3 leaping forward to post-Reformation times, no doubt because criticism of the Bible in the Middle Ages is difficult to find. I'd guess Robertson—British son of a theologian in Durham, and impeccably public-schooled and degreed—absorbed much of the material in his father's house. I haven't found any supposed texts showing the existence of Jesus, not found in Robertson. (The book has a fairly detailed helpful index).

My view is that, at the time of the various commentators, nobody influential appreciated the fact the Jews, who were, presumably, behind the Jesus promotion, seem to have a genetic tendency to lie—something which may go back to the days when language was still developing, in the remotest depths of time. Much as visual camouflage would not have evolved until sight had developed, modes of use of language could not predate speech. It's now clear that Jews have an exceptional tendency to lie—this may be compared to some creatures which lie [pun not really intended!] rather than fly, when in danger. Before the days of technological aids, such as writing, and, now, photographs and fingerprints and videos etc etc etc, convincing liars must have been hard to detect. It's now plausible that Jews made up the 'New Testament' as a Jewish fantasy, or film script, or advertisement, or promotion of a Jewish 'hero' aimed at gullible goyim. It's what they do. People who describe Christianity as a 'Jewish Trojan horse' are no doubt correct.

The idea that there was a ferment of religious ideas in the Roman Empire may also be untrue. It's now known that Jewish strategies include defaming and subverting and critiquing rival societies; it's entirely likely the supposed unease leading to religious change was a Jewish manufacture.

The remaining problem is how Jews could have done this; they didn't have the Federal Reserve to print them endless money. They may have had the ear of prominent Romans. They may have used unreliable, dysfunctional, disgruntled people to spread the world, much as non-Jewish 'Marxists' now, and in the past, often fit this description, and often co-operate in treachery which is mildly profitable to them.

A modern question which may occur to the reader is why a Jew-based publishing house should risk subverting their racial group with a serious presentation of the idea of the non-existence of 'Yeshua'. There have been alternations in self-images of Christians, and I'd guess their feeling was that Christians in 1945 were a bit too independent. The story of Jewish collaborators through the centuries hasn't begun to be described yet.

Here's a dispute on Christianity including logic, among other topics. I think Laura is saying that 'logic', properly understood, is the 'scientific method'. And not a collection of techniques, such as syllogisms. Amazon banned some parts of this debate. «ban  Laura B.1 day ago

The ancient remedies for understanding and discovering lies are the science of formal logic and the art of rhetoric. Both have been effectively erased from the minds of the masses by the State controlled schools and media. Read "The Underground History of American Education" by John Gatto.

"Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men." -Plato

"Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong." -Thomas Jefferson

"Logic, therefore, as the science thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("a priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises)

"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, Rhetoric

"The truth or falsity of a statement depends on facts, not on any power on the part of the statement itself of admitting contrary qualities". - Aristotle, Categories

"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". - Aristotle, Posterior Analytics

"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently." -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition

A very helpful tool in understanding effective rhetoric is Aristotle's three primary pillars of persuasion; (1) Ethos (authority), (2) Pathos (emotion), and (3) Logos (logic). To believe an argument that is supported by Ethos alone is to be manipulated by authority. To believe an argument that it is supported by Pathos alone is to be manipulated through emotion. Aristotle advises rather, that we take great pains to avoid being manipulated, and allow ourselves to be only truly persuaded by logos (i.e., logical arguments that are correctly reasoned and well supported by verifiable evidence).


"Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death." -Julius Caesar, 'The Commentaries', regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.

The masses have already been stripped of formal logic and rhetoric, which leaves them intellectually crippled. Our Zionist controllers would like to strip them of their faith as well. They would like us all to be amoral self-absorbed cowards, as well as mindless fools. Why help them accomplish this by attacking Christianity as they do?

Rerevisionist 1 day ago Hi Laura; thanks for your comment.

[1] Logic. I know you like and recommend formal logic. And informal, no doubt. The big problem with logic is that it's only as good as the information it feeds on. 'Jesus' is a perfect example: however much anyone reasons about Jesus, if the factual basis is uncertain, there's no possible reliable conclusion. I suspect in fact this was one reason for promoting logic in Christian times: most people simply go round and round getting nowhere, but leaving the basic stuff unchallenged.

[2] One problem with Christianity is its imprecision: for example, what does it say about war? There is no reliable answer. Christianity has some good points, and imho the good parts ought to be extracted, leaving the mythology apart. 'Good parts' includes for example just simple companionship.

[3] I've come to the view, as I wrote, that Jews either hijacked early Christianity, inserting their rubbish about a sort of hook-nosed wandering hero into whatever beliefs were around at the time; or they may have simply made up early Christianity - possibly there was no new movement.

The persistent modern Jewish lies about holocaustianity made me realise this is entirely possible: Jews like lies and will persist, apparently forever, repeating lies.

So the point is: having injected Jewish rubbish into some existing religion, or made it up, what was the motive? And obviously it was some sort of profit or control. But the control wasn't complete, and in any case, if it spread, it would come up against local customs and beliefs. The early church and popes seems to have been largely Jewish, though of course it's hard to be sure; but locals dotted about Europe would no doubt have their own local versions, and then there were e.g. Russians, the Greek eastern church etc. And all these people resisted conversion for centuries.

So I think there must have been a tug-of-war between Jews and local churches. This is certainly the case now: Roman Catholicism is infested with Jews, so is the Church of England (Welby etc), and Jews must be largely controlling France and Germany and Italy. And of course in the US there's the 'Christian Zionist' bunch of clowns largely based on Scofield. It's naive to suppose there's a simple Christianity vs Jews dichotomy. It will take some effort to cut out the Jewish component, but I think it's necessary: think of all the trash of the 'Old Testament' which must have been utterly irrelevant to all early Christians, shoved into whatever may have been believed. You mention Caesar and Druids - what possible concern would Druids have with middle east fanatics? None at all. I'd urge you to do your best to recognise and get rid of all the faked rubbish, including 'Yeshua', which has been parasitically shoved into belief systems.

Laura B.20 hours ago

You write: "The big problem with logic is that it's only as good as the information it feeds on. 'Jesus' is a perfect example: however much anyone reasons about Jesus, if the factual basis is uncertain, there's no possible reliable conclusion. I suspect in fact this was one reason for promoting logic in Christian times: most people simply go round and round getting nowhere, but leaving the basic stuff unchallenged."

This is a common misconception about formal logic. It is a misconception that has been deliberately cultivated by our controllers for more than a century, and I'd urge you to recognize and get rid of this misconception. Insuring the truth of your premises with verifiable evidence is the first and most important rule of formal logic. Any argument which has been inferred from premises which have not been verified "by you" to be true with adequate supporting evidence should be considered unsound or uncogent "to you". Aristotle makes this abundantly clear in his six treatises on logic, "The Organon". Since you are attempting to persuade your readers with logical arguments, rather than fallacious rhetoric, it would definitely be to your advantage if your audience had some basic understanding of both formal logic and rhetoric. Right now, the vast majority do not.

You also write:

"You mention Caesar and Druids - what possible concern would Druids have with middle east fanatics? None at all. I'd urge you to do your best to recognise and get rid of all the faked rubbish, including 'Yeshua', which has been parasitically shoved into belief systems."

I am not an atheist or an agnostic. But I am also not an orthodox Christian of any sort either. Right now Western civilization seems to be choosing between Christianity, with all of its mythology, and atheism. Atheism is the end of us. It is the end of any hope of throwing off our yoke. That's why the Zionists have been pushing for Darwinian evolution and atheism through State controlled schools and media for more than 100 years. Atheism brings the combined infections of cowardice, hopelessness, and amorality to the masses.

Our Zionist controllers have not achieved this unprecedented wealth and power by being stupid. And they are fighting Christianity with all of their strength. This should give you pause.

Upon seizing power in Russia, the Bolsheviks murdered many thousands of Christian priests.

Ask the Israelis if they would rather be stealing land from atheists or devout Muslims. The answer is obvious.

And "middle east fanatics" are the least of our problems. Our true enemies have seized control of our government and every meaningful lever of power in it. They literally control the forum that we currently communicate through. The thousands murdered on 9/11, and hundreds of thousands murdered in subsequent illegal wars to steal resources are not the fault of Muslims. (I assume that's what you mean when you write "middle east fanatics".)

P.S. The godless, soulless, faithless, and self-absorbed masses of the future will be a much more reliable source of labor and cannon fodder.

[1] I re-read your comment and am baffled as to why you don't realise that logic is hopeless without sound factual bases. Let me give an example. Suppose in [the year] 1400 people are trying to work out why iron can rust. It's now known that water, carbon dioxide, and some way they are in contact with not very pure iron allows iron to oxidise. In 1400, nobody knew about oxygen, carbon dioxide, the properties of mild acids etc. However many examples of rusting [they could find], or examples of cases where rusting hadn't occurred, no amount of logic would help them determine why rusting happens. Another example is lightning: they had no idea what it was; a course in logic would not help in any way. So this is why I think your emphasis on logic is misplaced, where factual bases don't exist.

[2] It's true Jews murdered Russian orthodox priests. But they also murdered millions of Russian whites - mostly educated ones. Jews seem to be racially programmed to kill, when possible, anyone they perceive as superior. You look at this as anti-Christianity; I'd say it's anti-white, or anti-anyone Jews think they can screw anything from. I agree about Muslims - mostly they are useful idiots. The same is true of blacks in the USA. But this isn't a Christian issue. White Americans were happy to rape and murder Vietnamese girls. White Britons were happy to bomb German women and children. They were both in theory 'Christians'. The fact is that Christianity has little practical effect. I agree about the menace of Jews, but their control relies on the 'Quisling' types who work for Jews. Jews can only get away with it if they control propaganda. So I think the whole Christian message needs to be rearranged. I think Jews are starting to notice that their low IQ thugs and puppets are not a source of 'labor and cannon fodder'; it's probably why they are getting worried.

Laura B.8 hours ago

You write: "I re-read your comment and am baffled as to why you don't realise that logic is hopeless without sound factual bases."

You are right, formal logic is limited to inferences from the verifiable evidence that we possess. This is the essence of sound or cogent reasoning.

"All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowledge." -Aristotle, the first sentence from "Posterior Analytics", 4th Century B.C.

What you fail to understand is that to believe the great lies of our government one must violate this ancient rule of logic. For instance, there is no verifiable evidence from which to logically infer that man ever walked on the Moon. Anyone properly educated in the rules of Aristotelian formal logic would be much more likely to understand this. You see, it turns out that it is very difficult to properly support a lie with solid verifiable evidence. (Unfortunately, our "natural logic", the logic that we are all naturally endowed with to varying degrees, most often is not limited to inferences from verifiable evidence. We tend naturally to fail into all sorts of logical and rhetorical traps. And these traps have been well studied since ancient times.)

That is why formal logic has not been taught in State controlled public schools in the U.S. for more than 100 years. John Gatto claims that this has been the case here since the end of the U.S. Civil War. This seems correct to me since I find almost no one, even among the elderly, that has any practical understanding of formal logic. I suspect that this is also true in Great Britain.

"Fallacious Even If Valid So far, we have considered arguments that are fallacious precisely because they are invalid. But arguments may be fallacious for reasons other invalidity --even valid arguments may be fallacious. Thus we have the fallacy category 'fallacious even if valid. 1. Suppressed Evidence When arguing, it is human nature to present every reason you can think of that is favorable to your own position, while omitting those that are unfavorable. Nevertheless, anyone who argues in this very human way argues fallaciously. Let's call this the fallacy of 'suppressed evidence... Questionable Premise The fallacy of the 'questionable premise' is simply the fallacy of accepting premises in an argument that are both questionable and inadequately supported." -Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976

"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory." -Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy

Formal logic is an invaluable reasoning tool. It has been considered so by intellectuals for thousands of years.

Formal logic has been systematically suppressed by our State controlled public schools and media precisely for this reason. Your failure to understand the significance of this completely puzzles me.

P.S. Julius Caesar noted over two thousand years ago the courage that spiritual faith could produce. Many civilizations have taken advantage of this fact to enhance the bravery of their people. The Vikings immediately come to mind.

Our masters wish to force atheism down our throats through school and media to accomplish the exact opposite. It serves their purpose to make us cowards. You don't understand that either?

Rerevisionist 8 hours ago I'm not sure there's much point answering.

[1] You *claim* there is no verifiable evidence for moon walks. But government people, who I agree are liars, pretend there is. Refutation is a factual thing, relying for example on facts about human biology and e.g. food, drink, excretion, resistance to radiation etc. And on rocketry, acceleration etc etc. I don't agree that people knowledgeable about syllogisms would go straight to the heart of it. I don't know of any people who consider themselves skilled in Aristotelean logic, who have done any useful work in dispelling any errors of the sort we're talking about.

[2] You claim that Christianity makes people brave. It takes more than a quotation in a rather obscure language to prove it. How many bishops and archbishops have led battles, for example? Genuine courage in opposing evil is probably a product of rage and indignation and decent armaments more than anything else. Yours an empirical argument, and the fact that Christ was/is popularly supposed to be pacifistic doesn't sound like incitement to courage. --- I wish you'd face the fact that you've very likely been deceived, and you're like someone at a Star Wars convention believing their stuff is true.

And they don't force atheism down people's throats. There are 60? million Zionist Protestants in the USA, for example, all woodenly stupid.

Top of Page

USA 1954 Cold War Jews   Review of   Cold War Relic by a Naive Communist/Catholic Participant   Bella V. Dodd—School of Darkness (1954)
Shrill Corruptee and Jew Payee, Easily Manipulated by the Dull, Lifelong Placeholders in their Dingy Offices.   Review by Rerevisionist June 16, 2016
Dodd (her married name, retained after divorce; born 1904 in Italy) was moved to the USA and came to work in teacher unions etc - hence the title. This book is mostly her autobiography. She became something in the CPUSA, presumably a 'useful idiot'. It's clear from this book that either she had no idea that most 'communists' were Jews, or that she did, but kept it a secret. Her book, like her speech, is breathless and shrill, and I found it impossible to guess if she was hiding anything: but in her Catholic-influenced upbringing, she must have been aware of Catholic-Jew hostility. Too young to register or understand the First World War, she was only in her mid-30s when Churchill declared war, and yet she had observed and carried out years of activism. The interesting parts of her book look at the Jewish manipulators, presumably getting a stipend from the Fed as compensation for their lives of war-promotion, propaganda, educational damage, snarling hostility and lying, support for the ADL, and pretending to work with negroes and workers and teachers. She always referred to them as 'Communists'. Probably (I haven't attempted to check) she made money from this book; there are limits to opposition to materialism! And of course it would not have been published if she revealed truths about Jews or about Stalin or Germany, even if she knew them.

Her book belongs to the world of the Reader's Digest and Jewish-controlled media, including the new television, and the Korean War. She had no idea about Jewish WW2 fakes, notably the fake later called the 'Holocaust', and nuclear hoaxes. She had no idea about war crimes by the USA and Allies.

There's a quote all over Internet from Dodd to the effect that 'we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within'. However, this quotation is NOT in this book, and there is zero information on Catholicism in North America. It seems to be from her HUAC testimony: her vocal style (shrill, rapid, cliché-laden, propagandised, sharing a narrow range of misinformation with most Americans) can be sampled on Youtube. She clearly had no idea whatever about Germany. She was born in Italy, but has nothing useful to say even about Mussolini, or Catholicism in southern America, or the Orthodox Church in Russia. By all means read this, but don't expect much.
Top of Page

image   Review of Catholicism replies to critics   John L. Allen: Opus Dei: The Truth About its Rituals, Secrets and Power

Unsuccessful antidote to Dan Brown. Incomplete, partial, June 26, 2010

2005 Pelican. The cover design of red, orange, and yellow is designed to mimic a sensational expose. So are the blurbs:- 'Controversial ... With John Allen's account ... far more has been revealed than ever before.' Independent [British 'main stream'] / '... For years no one has been allowed into its secret world. Until now...'/ 'The truth about its rituals, secrets and power'.

However, the author is Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter. Opus Dei was [it's stated] founded in 1928 by a Spaniard. This of course was post the Russian so-called 'revolution'. Spain had been neutral during the first World War. Anarchism in a technical sense was popular in Spain, which was in long-term decline, usually ascribed by non-Catholics to its superstitious adherence to Catholicism, or to faith in gold rather than productivity. Its industry was foreign-owned—Rio Tinto Zinc for example—Rio Tinto = coloured river, from minerals. There's not much about all this in Allen's book, at least not overtly. Freemasonry was regarded in Spain as a Jewish cover, as was the 'Revolution' in Russia, and Allen gets red-faced wrestling with the 'Holocaust' and other material. Since the author can't face these issues honestly, the historical background is inevitably flawed. (Opus Dei as a counter-Freemason outfit, and the comparison with Jesuits, suggest themselves; Allen doesn't attempt any point by point comparisons). This is quite apart from such issues as 'Mother' Teresa, genocide in the Belgian Congo, genocide in the Vietnam War—all supported by Catholics. South America, Mexico, population, contraception aren't in the index—but condoms, ban on, is. It looks as though the US invasion by mostly Mexican illegal immigrants gets their support.

Dan Brown gets a few mentions (but only in respect of 'mortification', which he got more or less right). This book is clearly counter-propaganda—I've seen similar books trying to defend Freemasonry. There's detail on the wealth of the organisation. However, in view of the way the EU, Blackwater, the Rothschilds, and other outfits, conceal vast money transfers and losses, it's hard to attach any seriousness to the claims made.

There's some information on members—'supernumeraries' are the unimportant ones who work for them, but live at home. 'Official Vatican figures' had about 85,500 members, with 1850 priests. Many are in Spain. I may be being a bit harsh; the author tried to add human interest, with interviews, real or made-up, with individuals of the type who join these structures.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish ethical and sexual interest   Erich Fromm: The Art of Loving

Like a Zen manual on vegetable growing, written by someone who hates vegetables, November 11, 2011

I remember buying this book in about 1967; I'm revisiting my copy, to see if it had any substantial content. I can remember almost nothing from it—an account of wartime trampling to death; maybe an account of a patient wasting Fromm's time. Fromm suggests to me, now, the Frankfurt 'school'—is the purpose of this book to damage Gentile society? Then again it might be related to Freud—sexual undercurrents, plus weird voyages into excrement and incest. Or 'Depth psychology'? Could it be about traditional love—couples, parents? Intense love? Love of country? Love of tribe? Love of perhaps art and culture—or just possibly food or football games or the mass media? Love of cruelty, perhaps? Love of solitude? Maybe it's full of allusions to the 'dysfunctions' of Americans and Europeans—in 1957, white Americans and Europeans? Of course it could be about the maltreatment of Jews—not anyone else, of course; possibly with emphasis on Germany? Maybe the book was designed to look like a sex manual, for extra sales? Or was it perhaps written to make a reputation—publicity handled by the usual types? Or written to make money? Or to get a job? Or as something like how to influence people and win lovers, but in an artistic way?

On reopening my copy, I was surprised to find I'd made notes—it was unindexed—years ago, mostly on authors—Spinoza, Albert Schweitzer, Freud—on Sex, but also 'Civilization and its Discontents', Isaac Babel, Weber and Jung, Simone Weil (a notorious 'survivor'), Calvin (on the Christian Religion) and Luther, William James, Meister Eckhart, Maimonides (of 'The Guide for the Perplexed'), Heraclitus, Hegel, Marx and Aristotle, Marcuse. Non-authored written material includes the Talmud, the Book of Jonah, the 'story of creation' and the Old Testament, and material on mysticism and Indian beliefs and Zen. Fromm refers to the 'Western Enlightenment' which *may* I think be a code-word for Jews being allowed more freedoms—the Renaissance and Reformation getting less, or no, attention. Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale of the strenuous self-improvement types are in there.

And there's quite a bit of unreferenced stuff on India, China, the 'mystic poet Rumi' and so on, and on earlier cultures, all mostly uncheckable and vague—patriarchal and 'matriarchal' systems, the function of 'orgies', possibly meaning holidays, and so on.

It's strange how little psychological material there is: H S Sullivan with an 'interpersonal theory'. The blurb describes Fromm as 'possibly the greatest of the post-Freudian psychologists..'

The book has four parts—I Is Love an Art?, II The theory of Love—by far the longest section, III Love and Its Disintegration in Contemporary Western Society, and IV The Practice of Love.

Quite a lot of the book explains that an 'art'—and Fromm includes anything that needs training—needs concentration, patience etc. It reads like a child unwillingly forced to do piano lessons. He has a very strenuous outlook, at least in theory, though I can't imagine he ever put it into practice.

The 'theory' section includes types of love. People in (or having heard of) the Christian tradition will be familiar with the idea that everyone deserves love—though perhaps only after a dose of correction. The idea of universal Christian love is almost absent from this book. So is the idea of loving a small racist cult! It's striking how unloveable Fromm finds people—he states most people have never met a mature adult in their lives; and zombie-type people who chatter without thinking should be avoided; and how hardly anyone has known real love. Insanely, he then describes mother love in terms of the highest praise, despite presumably referring to real mothers. This is 'unconditional love'. Fatherly love is conditional on the child doing things the father likes, however. There is a male principle which inserts, and a female principle which receives. However everyone has a bit of each—Fromm reads almost as though he thinks sex is a 'social construct', but isn't quite ready yet to push such nonsense.

The final practice chapter has more strenuous material, pages of absurd stuff on 'faith', which Fromm confuses with scientific belief, and some samples of psychological oddities.

In fact the book is full of sentences which are nonsense, or obviously untested or not properly defined. And I mean this! I can only think he considered his target readership unable to manage long sentences, or so impressed they won't notice they are evasive. Some examples:-

'The nature of unselfishness becomes particularly apparent in its effect on others, and most frequently in our culture in the effect the 'unselfish' mother has on her children.'
'Love of man is not, as is frequently supposed, an abstraction coming after the love for a specific person, but it is its premise, although genetically it is acquired in loving specific individuals.'
'The basic need to fuse with another person so as to transcend the prison of one's separateness is closely related to another specifically human desire, that to know the 'secret of man'.'
'To be concentrated in relation to others means primarily to be able to listen.'
'[Erotic Love] is often confused with the explosive experience of 'falling' in love, the sudden collapse of the barriers which existed until that moment between two strangers.'
'There is hardly any activity, any enterprise, which is started with such tremendous hopes and expectations, and yet, which fails so regularly as love.'
'Giving is more joyous than receiving, not because it is a deprivation, but because in the act of giving lies the expression of my aliveness.'
'While it raises no objection to apply the concept of love to various objects, it is a widespread belief that, while it is virtuous to love others, it is sinful to love oneself.'
'If love is a capacity of the mature, productive character, it follows that the capacity to love in an individual living in any given culture depends on the influence this culture has on the character of the average person.'

There's some material on 'capitalism' which, as is customary, isn't defined accurately. Of course Fromm says little about the USSR and its hellish history. Fromm has a problem common to anyone who claims psychological expertise, but also claims to dislike a social system, namely how can you give sensible advice if the whole society is skewed or hostile to most people?

Unimpressive. And difficult to review because of its gelatinous opacity.
Top of Page

Karen Armstrong Islam cover   Review of   Karen Armstrong   Islam (First published 2000)
Review by Rerevisionist     25 May 2017
Shameful Rubbish. Its only value is in helping understand sinister Jew & Muslim collaborative lies, and the media
Harold Hillman [biology researcher] once told me that a paperback by Steven Rose [Jewish fake researcher] was a "very good book". In response to my bafflement, he explained that it gave a good account of then-current beliefs about cell biology, but they were largely wrong.

Something similar applies to Armstrong's book. To understand the book, it's necessary to understand Jewish information controllers' attitude to Islam. In 2000 a process was well under way: A Financial Times review is quoted, on the paperback cover in the UK, as 'A thoroughly good guide ... as well as being an excellent antidote to prejudice'. This was before the second round of 'American' attacks in the Middle East and Africa, notably of course Iraq. In the UK, the so-called Independent newspaper, established 1986, virtually unread, but quoted on (((BBC))) news, was preparing part 2.

Karen Armstrong's History of God. A short history' (1993) came after her alleged life as a Catholic convert and deconvert. Plenty of scope for abuse allegations—but only against Catholics, part of the Jew agenda. She's described as 'a teacher at the Leo Baeck College for the Study of Judaism'. She received some award from a governmentally-approved Muslim set-up, and a TED award! Incidentally, the BBC promoted Robert Winston's similar Story of God about ten years later (book and TV link 2005), just before Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion. As far as I can tell, she has no qualifications except an Oxford degree—no information on that—but is FRSL and OBE.

She was a talking head on TV, now and then. On one occasion, she referred to a well-known case, or meme, of a sea captain who marooned Jews, without mentioning the captain was hanged. At any rate, she said what Jews wanted. The most convincing idea I've heard is that so-called Jews entered into a secret agreement with Muslims—in exchange for not reclaiming Palestine, their control of US/UK/EU governments would enable them to move Muslims into these countries, giving them food, housing, water, and such education as they could manage.

Anyway; Karen Armstrong's Islam. The first thing to mention is that the target readership has little feel for true history: the sort of people who think 100 years is a long time, and that what they see is what causes events. Armstrong gives a dated list of Islamic events, right down to the year, with no qualification and no apparent doubt. Nobody would guess that even the existence of Muhammad was uncertain. And many events of course are described, for example the Crusades ('aggressive Western intrusion' ... 'still lagged behind the Islamic world'). But not massacres in what's known as the 'Hindu Kush', though there's a sentence. In each case, as in a girl's dream, a male leader is named.

Armstrong's attitude is that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are more or less uniquely based on 'God', and independent. She doesn't seem to know that Christianity was imposed entirely by Jewish scribblers making up stories about 'Yeshua'; and she doesn't have any purchase on the idea that what's now called propaganda played a part. Nor that exchanges of money had any influence. Similarly, she has no idea that Islam is believed by Jews to have been an outcome of Jewish efforts too—to gain an army of gullibles who could be used for plunder. She has no idea that alliances are possible; the siege of Constantinople, for example, which needed new expensive weaponry. Jews holding the gates open for the invasion of Spain are not part of her sparse mental furniture. Jews in Saudi Arabia, ditto. From an Arab point of view, the centre of the world is south-east of Europe, and struggles over Turkey, central Asia, the north-west frontier, and India itself, have dutiful but incomprehending accounts, with lists of Caliphs and the rest of it.

In girlish mode, Armstrong has no interest in actual achievements of Islam, if there were any: destruction and desertification, takeovers of others' constructive work, kidnapping of children and women, and progressive invasions for example east into Indonesia and south-west into Africa, being a considerable proportion. As far as I recall, the capture and castration of black slaves goes undiscussed. The Armenian genocide isn't mentioned.

This book should be read as an entirely partisan view of Islam, any unpleasant material being omitted, including from modern times. It's clearly aimed at innocent and rather ignorant people, and was of course published and promoted by Jews exploiting their domination of the media.

No value in any sort of assessment of Islam. Incidentally, 9/11 was added in to a 2001 edition, falsely attributed of course to Moslems.
    I wonder if in fact Armstrong is Jewish, as reticences in her biographies suggest. As with Theresa May and Milo Yiannopoulos and the present Pope, it's a long-established pretence of many Jews to be Catholics.
Top of Page

  Review of Jewish interest in the world of Islam | Caroline Cox and John Marks: The West, Islam and Islamism: Is Ideological Islam Compatible with Liberal Democracy?

No serious value in understanding the three-way war, 15 Sep 2008

Ten years ago, I'd have laughed off Islam as a quaint absurdity. In fact it's a model of what a rigid belief system can do. So it should be understood. There are 1.6 billion reasons why. This book is at first sight OK BUT:--

[1] This book draws no conclusion; in a sense it's useless.

In Britain these people get more rights than the 'natives' and deliberately outbreed them. Women have few rights (the police and the system collude in not helping them; Muslim police are known to be relatively corrupt). The women have arranged 'marriages', polygamy, are often uneducated and in fear, and have little choice but breed.

So what should be done? There are roughly four possible approaches: [1] do nothing with the virtual certainty there'll be an ineducable underclass—or overclass; what might happen—probably a sub-scientific society—is not discussed in the book; [2] hope they can be reformed, and encourage reform; [3] withdraw their benefits etc; [4] explicitly do everything to remove them, by, for example, enforcing laws against ritual slaughter and mosques, preventing separatist education, and prosecuting all apostles of violence.

This book is dishonest in not clearly facing the options.

[2] Sceptics will be irritated by the book's assumptions about 'liberal democracies' compared with Islamic societies and Marxist societies. A table: 'Western societies.. pluralism is encouraged and realised. .. there are commitments to equality..' I'd rather live here than there, but the blithe assumptions are of course nonsense, as wars in Vietnam, Iraq and so on, and attacks on democracy in for example the EU, and censorship, prove.

[3] One clue to this book is that it understates completely the role of Jews in the west. In many ways Judaism is similar to Islam:
*ritual slaughter and food taboos
*circumcision and (arguably) distinctive odd clothing
*very pronounced racist (Judaism) and tribalist (Islam) feeling
*deliberate dishonesty (Kol Nidre in Judaism, Taqqiya in Islam) similar to 'Jesuitry'
*Legal system of a sort
*Sacred texts
Much of the material comes from American Jews e.g. Daniel Pipes. Naturally such people don't draw attention to these similarities. BUT Jews in the 'west' OUGHT to be studied as an analogous case, to predict what might happen.

[4] The differences between these religions are crucial:
*Sheer population numbers—Islam is not particularist, unlike Judaism, and can spread anywhere
*Slavery—very much emphasised in the Quran. Caroline Cox has appendices about the Sudan showing Islamically-encouraged slaughters and abductions. These of course are horrible and savage; but what about the 'west' and its actions? What about Catholics in South East Asia?
*Jihad—struggle. It sounds very like 'Mein Kampf'. In fact parts of this book—for example 'The Project'—resemble the 'protocols' and may even have been written to suggest such a parallel.

[5] The book assumes 9/11 was Islamic—sceptical readers will know of course this is nonsense. Both authors assume the 'Holocaust' was a fact, and generally regard Hitler as irrational etc, which doesn't improve the book. They also think al Queda exists in a way it is known not to. These mistakes ruin any chance that this book can reach useful conclusions.

[6] There is some solid information here, for example, 7 prominent individuals in 20th C Islam, and 12 prominent organisations. Whether these are accurate, one has to doubt. But the drawbacks of this book are so serious, as is its failure to take the subject seriously, I can give only one star.
In contrast, some 2012 truths by 'Paris Claims' about Britain:–

"According to numerical calculations based on government statistics from Wikileaks and media reports, the British government spend a minimum £18 billion a year from tax revenues on unproductive Muslim immigrants. While the government is trying to create £12 billion in annual cuts from benefit payments by targeting the handicapped, elderly and poor amongst its own citizens, they have neglected to reject from the country a group that is highly overrepresented above anyone else in welfare exploitation.

Daily Telegraph reported in 2012 that 75% of all Muslim women are unemployed, while 50% of all Muslim men are unemployed - risen from 13% for men and 18% for women in 2004. Muslims are also on sick leave more than anyone else, with 24% of females and 21% of males claiming a disability (2001 figures). Muslims are the most likely among all religious groups to be living in accommodation rented from the council or housing association (28%); 4% live rent-free (2004 figures). As if this is not enough, the total prison population in the UK amongst category A and B criminals (the worse crimes) is now 35-39% Muslim.

Although the statistics do not make it fully clear how many actually collect benefits, a rough estimate can be made. Money-wise it means that out of 5 million Muslims living in Britain (2012 demographics), 4.25 million Muslims, or 85%, live off tax payers. If we average this with the minimum benefit payment of £67 a week, at least 284,750,000 per week (£1.1 billion per month) is spent from taxpayer money to feed and care for Muslims who don't contribute anything whatsoever to Britain's revenues—except making more Muslims.

And that calculation doesn't even include housing benefits, childcare support, medical care and other coverage utilized by the population. We can estimate that with housing, child subsidies and healthcare, Muslims cost the British government at least £1.5 billion a month, or £18 billion a year. The Muslim population doubles every 7-years in Britain. By 2030, Britain will have a 40% Muslim population. And who will feed and house them? There is simply nowhere for the British economy to go but a collapse. 32 percent of Muslims on UK campuses believe killing in the name of religion is justified, 54 percent wanted a Muslim Party to represent their world view in Parliament, and 40 percent of young Muslims in the UK want the country to be governed under Sharia law (2004 report).

And some 2016 truths, in Germany, from Karlfried (Occidental Observer, October 27):–

In Germany the situation is as follows: That said group has a name (young refugees without parents, short form: MuFl). They are paid for by the German state. The costs are high. — Per one year and one person of this group the "caritative" organisations get 40,000 to 60,000 Euros paid from the German taxpayer. It is more than ten times the money that a German family has for its own child. This money is pressed out from the working parts of our folk. This puts the German churches (protestant as well as catholic) into the same group of money-grabbers and criminals as the big drug cartels of the world. In a time not too far away, this greed and German-folk-killing actions will break their neck. German families can now see easily to whom the money is given and to whom not.

Both these authors make an important mistake: the huge payments are not made from yearly taxation, since they would immediately be seen to be impossibly high. Instead, they are made by loans, increasing each nation's debt, to Jews controlling the banks. It's similar to Jews lending corrupt third world dictators vast amounts to waste, then expecting the people to pay them back.
Top of Page

Cohn warrant for genocide   Review of 1967 book on Holocaust Exterminationism   Norman Cohn: Warrant for Genocide

Part of the post-1945 Jewish house of cards,
10 Nov 2012/ minor changes 2016-12-24
If you don't have the subtitle, you won't know this book is a supposed history of the 'Protocols of Zion'.

Cohn's book is not remotely scholarly or thorough. Disappointing, because the factual story of the documents would be interesting. Cohn makes no attempt to even summarise the 'Protocols'! Or of course the 'Holocaust'—the expression being then-recent. Cohn just about mentions Maurice Joly at the time of Napoleon III. Rosenberg's 'Myth of the Twentieth Century' has many mentions, but is dismissed as 'unreadable'. Houston Chamberlain gets a couple of references. The Russian Orthodox Church is skated over. There's nothing on the Khazars; this book predates Koestler, but even so Cohn doesn't seem aware of that issue. Pretty much every serious topic is ignored: Carthage? Middle Ages? Modern financial frauds? Chosen people? Soviet Union? Secret societies? This book is just part of the ridiculous apologetic stuff which marred the second half of the twentieth century.
    Looking back, I assume this rubbish was written as a career move, though I haven't checked Cohn's pseudo-career.
    Here is an elaborated edition of the Protocols online, called Basic Training for Revolutionaries (2009). It has introductory chapters, mostly quotations and short extracts, starting with the American Revolution, which is taken at face value. And with quotations on Cromwell, the French Revolution, and Hungary (under Bela Kun, or Hun as it's spelt) and Russia when it was the USSR. I recognised an extract from Bertrand Russell as not being correct; I think the quotations are taken from online. The style is intense and reminded me slightly of 'The Communist Manifesto': a call to action. The author/editor includes some comments in brackets on recent events. Useful to survey the whole picture of the Protocols; it reads like a megalomaniac plan, compiled by fanatics. If reading it helps people understand Jews, it will be valuable and (with luck) useful
Top of Page

Review of Hilaire Belloc   Belinda (1928)
1928 romantic novel by Hilaire Belloc which mentions Rothschild and ruin after Waterloo, May 23, 2014

This is set in the mid-19th century; I can't help wondering if it was written as a rival to Pride and Prejudice. Like Austen's novel it begins with detailed information on finance: revealing 'with frankness and sobriety/ The economic basis of society' in the words of W H Auden. But it's more realistic than Austen, adding to country houses the feeling of unwise speculation, mortgages, debt, and regular visits by an agent to check on the books. Belloc seems to assume that rents were enough to finance country houses; I don't think he tackled the issues of industry, rail travel, agricultural changes and what have you. I don't know, because my information is from an extract from Belinda #948 of Everyman's Library published by by J M Dent. Here's a short extract; note that Belloc takes a romanticised view of Napoleon. It doesn't seem to have occurred to him that money can be made by financing both sides in wars. I've tried to address this in Napoleon revisited.

It was at the moment when the fate of Europe hung in the balance, when the Corsican adventurer had broken loose from Elba, and all England was in an agony of expectation to learn the event of the decisive action to be determined on the plains of Flanders.

The rumour spread by Herr Amschel—later and better known as the Baron de Rothschild—that the glory of Britain had set on the field of Waterloo, had led Sir Orlando (for such was his name) to sell three per cents upon account, in the hope of reaping an immense profit when all should be acquainted with the fatal truth. He had not allowed for the business acumen of the great banker. For Amschel-Rothschild had secretly procured the news of victory in advance of all, and had had the admirable foresight to spread accounts of defeat for the better preparation of the market.

It was upon these accounts that Sir Orlando had speculated in London, confident in the ruin of our cause. But within forty-eight hours it was known that the Iron Duke, despite the blunders of Blücher and the cowardice of the wretched foreigners under his command, had driven in headlong flight the insolent usurper from the field of Waterloo. The three per cents enjoyed an immediate and extraordinary rise in value, and the too sanguine expectant of future fortune was broken.

Sir Orlando was embarrassed beyond repair. Loan succeeded loan. The unfortunate gentleman sank into a premature grave under the burden of his misfortune, and his young heir, Henry, succeeded to the position I have described.
Top of Page

Review of Post-WW1 survey of Jews   Hilaire Belloc: The Jews (1922, 1937)

Pioneering English-language book on the Jews in Europe, Russia, and the USA

The Great War [First World 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.
For detailed notes on this book (and Belloc's life and writings) click here (opens in new window)
Top of Page

Review by 'Rerevisionist' of
RACE, REASON and RUBBISH   A Primer of Race Biology for the Plain Man
GUNNAR DAHLBERG Director of the State Institute of Human Genetics in the University of Uppsala [Sweden] translated from the Swedish by LANCELOT HOGBEN, F.R.S. Regius Professor of Natural History in the University of Aberdeen

'An Examination of the Biological Credentials of the Nazi Creed'   'Published by GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD for THE SCIENTIFIC BOOK CLUB 121 CHARING CROSS ROAD LONDON W.C.2   1942; Scientific Book Club edition 1943
This Review: 23 June 2017
Dull book (by the same author: Statistical Methods for Medical and Biological Students) padded with material on race, and with a final chapter supposedly on Jews. The author appears to be an administrator, not a scientist. Both Dahlberg and Hogben presumably worked for the Jew war effort. Interesting as wartime propaganda, not science.
It's now known that both Britain and Sweden had considerable numbers of people considering themselves Jews, and who kept their supremacist fantasies (chosen by God!) very secret. Probably this book was intended to fit a gap in the Jewish race war propaganda battle; most of it is a wearying routine trip through cells, freshwater polyps, plants, banana flies, rats, genes, and the algebra of simple random genetic combinations. The book does at least admit that definite answers are not known to important questions. Hogben presumably was a Jew in Britain, perhaps specifically Scotland, and his name must have been added as a sales gimmick, since Hogben admits 'Professor Dahlberg's command of English is much greater than my limited grasp of Scandinavian languages.' On top of the routine material is added Jewish pseudo-science. The two final added chapters are on race, and, inevitably on Jews. The book is unindexed.

I personally remember seeing this book, in a school library; it's in a similar vein to Martin Gardner's and many others.

Pp 219-232, Chapter XII, listed (in the Contents) as The Jewish Question—Conclusion begs a trot-through, as it's the whole point of the book, and the attempt to justify mass slaughter around the world, the Jewish intention all along. Here's a list of the arguments, such as they are:
Top of Page

  Review of   Anthony Ludovici, but writing as 'Cobbett'   The Jews, and the Jews in England (1938)

Pseudonymous book which is utterly unhelpful on the Jewish Question.     This review February 22, 2015

Ludovici was a Catholic, born in London in the 1880s. For a time, he was secretary to Rodin (of 'The Kiss'); he must have spent time in France. His most interesting books were on sex, or perhaps gender roles: he regarded women as prompted by instinct to seek out rich mates, to provide for their children. He thought the one thing women will never forgive is failure. He believed men should have mistresses, when wives were pregnant, and when not. He was a Nietzschean, though whether Nietzsche would have thought so seems unlikely to me.
    This short book on Jews, which appears to have been two essays put together, was published nearly 20 years after Belloc's The Jews.. Unlike Belloc, Ludovici doesn't even begin to look at any serious issues. He reads like a myopic old gent recounting what he was told years previously about Biblical events. There is nothing about money, finance, wars, newspaper propaganda, populations of Jews, influence in the USA, the Jews in the so-called 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics', Stalin, etc. The distinctions between (e.g.) Hungarian Jews, Jews in Poland, Jews around the Mediterranean, 'Marranos' in the Spanish peninsula are missing. Ludovici seems to have believed in natural aristocracies, but seems to have had no idea of the importance of secret support behind the scenes.
    Ludovici has no doubt that Jews were nomadic middle eastern Semites. Much of his book is the sort of quasi-history that traditionalist religious types took seriously, because it had never occurred to them to read the subject critically. Probably he had no doubts as to the existence of an historical Jesus. Possibly his book is unhelpful because of a lack of Papal guidance. Such persons' friends, everyone they knew as colleagues, their teachers, their morning papers, their Roman Catholic Eminences, all said much the same about Jews. The nickname 'Cobbett', and the publisher, Boswell, suggests an urbane traveller venturing to alien parts of Britain, to report the odd attitudes of 'Jews', to his fellow club members and readership. It's an interesting reminder that non-Jews did not all anticipate a huge war even as late as 1938.
    Ludovici is a rather laboured and ponderous writer, who saw no reason to use helpful chapter titles, headings, or sub-headings. He was not the type to explain things which he took for granted, such as the mechanisms of property ownership, and the meaning of 'capitalism'. I'm afraid this book strikes me as a waste of time.
Top of Page

Review of One of the few novels about Stalin's USSR   Malcolm Muggeridge: Winter in Moscow

Realistic novel of westerners collaborating with Stalin's regime

Four stars because Muggeridge, a journalist in real life, observes well, but does not make much effort to penetrate behind the scenes—foreign loans and secrecy; big well-known western companies and their deals; weapons and their military; prisons; Gu Lags. He accepted the historical mythology promoted by Jews, for example about pogroms. But admittedly it is asking a lot to include all these aspects.
Characteristic quotations:-

Pp. 147-152: In most Russian towns there are certain shops whose windows are well stocked with food and clothing. They are called Torgsin shops. People stand outside them in little wistful groups looking at tempting pyramids of fruit; at boots and fur coats tastefully displayed; at butter and white bread and other delicacies that are for them unobtainable. They cannot buy in the shops because only gold or foreign currency is accepted, and most Russians possess neither. Even if they do possess a little gold it is dangerous to disclose the fact. The shops are mostly patronised by foreigners and by Russian Jews who receive remittances from relatives abroad. For the general public, like the special Ogpu stores, and the special Red Army stores, and the special stores for important Communist officials, they are closed shops.

P. 234:       "Why do you hate it?" Bramwell Smith asked.
      "Not," Wraithby answered, "because they're starving; or because they live in filthy nearness to one another; or because their lives are dull and unhappy; or because of the din of monotonous, shoddy propaganda; or because the bosses are megalomaniac fools and the rest terrorised into imbecility; or because you like it. In its very texture something absurd and trivial and barbarous. Every stale idea vomited up again. Everything that you believe in and that I hate. All the dingy hopes that have echoed and re-echoed over Europe for a century and now are spent. The poor little frightened soul of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is what I despise. Not its works."
      "Supposing two or three million peasants do die this winter," the Jewess said mechanically, getting up. "What of it?"
      She was off to a lecture on the Film and the Class Struggle. As she revolved with the revolving hotel doors, red lips flashing like a lighthouse lamp, Wraithby understood pogroms.
For detailed notes—all references to Jews—from Muggeridge's book (and notes on Muggeridge's life) click here (opens in new window)
Top of Page

  Review of pro-Jewish myths and history   Cecil Roth: The Jewish Contribution To Civilisation

Cecil Roth's 1938 book—Judaic Mythmaking: the Claimed Jewish Contributions to Civilization.

I have a copy of this slim volume (the 1943 'pocket edition', published 'under the auspices of the Leeds Lodge of B'Nai B'rith'). The preface says it was first published in February 1938—obviously a sensitive time, of course. It was adapted for America—there's at least one online downloadable version (the following link is the 1940 US edition; but the plain text version is full of scanner errors)----

The bibliography is largely European-language books specifically on 'Jews' in for example Venice and Majorca, and by activity—letters, or the arts, or the 'economic sphere'. The science chapter is the shortest in the book. There's biographical material on quite a few obscure individuals. I suspect from the general layout and development that much of the book is simply taken from encyclopedias. There's almost nothing on e.g. Sachs, Baruch, the Flexners, Trotsky, Beria, Kamenev etc. The Rothschilds get the sort of treatment to be expected. It's a slim volume and rather laughable—e.g. 'England produced only one Shakespeare' but there are several Jewish scholars! There are inventions such as the motor boat. I recommend it to people who are critically-minded to try to genuinely assess 'Jews'. The overwhelming impression is that the alleged achievements are largely bullshit; it's worth a look for the most absurdly childish and self-adulatory tribal material, a bit like a family with a pronounced criminal history saying how much they always loved collecting art. The 'Nobel Prize' story is part of the mythology, these 'prizes' having been given out for a strange mixture of work, some of it fraudulent, such as Katz's. I would advise people not to take Nobel Prizes at all seriously.

Another issue is patents: It's typically stated that Israel puts in the most patent applications, and invent new things constantly. But—patents are expensive. Ownership of property rights is a financial matter—many inventors work for corporations who take over patent rights. It hadn't occurred to me before that Einstein supposedly being a patent clerk, and industrial spying and the well-known covert explanations to Jews of US military matters, may be part of the same syndrome.

The whole system has been funded in effect by frauds, notably at present getting a percentage from paper money, and a lot of percentages from legal ownership of mineral wealth obtained by the paper money route. There's of course the 'Holocaust' fraud. And also science frauds—NASA, relativity, nuclear bombs, 9/11 in its demolition element, AIDS, and a lot of other medical matters, mostly as far as I know hinging on exploitation of cell biology errors. Investigation of scientific fraud is in its infancy, unfortunately; Kevin MacDonald for example doesn't begin to look at it.

[Michael A Hoffman II states that Jews ran most of the slave trade; and this started in Surinam, in what's now called South America. The index entry for slavery is just ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRADE (capitals); there is an entry for Surinam. Neither credits Jews with this lucrative trade. There seems no good reason to suppose anything by Roth is true.]


(Roth's book more than slightly resembles the 'black inventions' mythologies that are out there. See this debunking site about black invention myths
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish violence and lies   Frank L. Britton: Behind Communism

Detailed Short Reference to 'Communism'—Fairly Thorough Documentation, May 2, 2011

These notes are based on my copy of an undated booklet, with about 120 maps and unsourced illustrations, which judging by internal evidence -- Korean War, but Stalin still alive, Hollywood -- was first published about 1952, in the USA. There were some spelling errors—these may or may not have been corrected later in the more recent edition—I don't know.

The original 96-page booklet had details of Jews and the myth of persecution, up ot the point where Jews began to be expelled in the 13th century. The period marked by the evictions -- 1300 to 1650 -- also marks the period of the Renaissance. Britton goes on to deal mostly with the lead-up to World War I, Russia and the 'Russian Revolution', Germany, and Hungary and Bela Kun. Then there's a big gap, missing the entire period of the 1930s and Second World War, resuming with the USA of about 1950. It looks to me that Britton's text was prepared before the 1930s, with the final part, on Iron Curtain dictators, atom spies and Hollywood, 'Atom Spies' and 'New York—Jew capital of the world' being tacked on later. Possibly a shorter version was published in the 1920s or 1930s.

Frank L. Britton gives no autobiographical information, not even whether Britton was his actual name. (Could he have been a frank Briton?)

His blurb says: '... Unfortunately, any deep-down discussion of communism and Marxism involves the Jewish question. We cannot honestly discuss the subject without revealing -- and commenting on -- the fact that the founders of Russian communism were Jewish. Neither can we ignore the fact that all but a few top leadership of the American communist party -- including the recently convicted spys [sic] -- are of the same race. ...'

His sources were
Encylopedia Britannica (Corporation was purchased by the Julius Rosenwald interests in 1920)

Funk & Wagnall's Jewish Encyclopedia
Not to be confused with the 10 volume Universal Jewish Encyclopedia published by Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Inc., New York, 1939. Both, however, are authoritative Jewish publications, compiled by and for Jews.
Valentine's Jewish Encyclopedia, Shapiro Valentine Co., London—1938. England.
Outline of History, third edition, by H. G. Wells.
Obviously the then-recent material on the atom and New York must have come from news sources or then-modern reference books.

Falls short of being exhaustive, and omits e.g. Khazars, 'Holocaust' and related topics, industrialisation, and much of the history of ideas, especially the 'Torah' and so on. The reproductions of photos are mostly unsourced; it's often uncertain what they show.

However it's a good shortish facty summary of Jewish actions.
My scanned-in online version here (opens in new window)
Updated printed version available from Ostara Publications (Author unstated, but probably Arthur Kemp. Includes South Africa).
Top of Page

  Review of Jewish fake history   Frank Furedi: New Ideology of Imperialism: Renewing the Moral Imperative (1994)

A mock-Intellectual tribe who shall dwell alone, 17 Sep 2010

'Pluto Series in Racism & Imperialism')

1994 book, written (one gathers) by a Hungarian Jew. I'll write this review trying to adopt what I take to be the Kevin MacDonald evolutionary approach.

This is supposed to describe the 'New Ideology' that arose, or was invented, after the 'collapse' of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Furedi of course refers to the Jewish coup in 1917 as the 'Russian Revolution'. Throughout this book there is not the slightest recognition that mass murder carried out by Jews (funded largely from Jews in the US) was an immense danger to the whole of Europe. His description of 'Nationalism' and the reactions to it is entirely through the racist lens of Jewish interest. This of course makes for inconsistencies which he avoids by the simple device of not mentioning them. For instance, Israel is not even indexed, nor the war with Britain over it.

The 'Nazis' of course are unspeakably bad—Furedi naturally promotes the fraud of the 'Holocaust'. On the other hand, what he calls African nationalism—he doesn't distinguish tribes; 'tribes' aren't even in the index—they are just another lot of goyim, but he pretends to take their side, since he doesn't like whites. Incidentally the ANC and South Africa's 'non-racial democracy' are more or less coeval with this book—readers of Kevin MacDonald will be unsurprised that the minerals controlled by Jewish interests, a significant piece of 'imperialism', are unmentioned.

Furedi relies somewhat on Hobson/Lenin on imperialism—he has to, as Marx was moribund or dead when modern imperialism was being constructed. Probably this sort of thing helps make his book shaky and uncertain, since there's no holy writ to follow.

It's striking how little evidence there is here, though of course if you're of the chosen race this is dispensable. Neither old imperialisms or new are measured in any way; who knows whether India benefitted from railways and tea plantations, for example? There's nothing on modern aspects—oil, for example. Amusingly, Furedi is silent on what would become known as neo-cons; Jews aren't even indexed, nor of course is ZOG; even Kissinger isn't mentioned.

Furedi's technique is to quote—he resembles Chomsky in this respect. News clippings, bits of books, and some Public Records are quoted from—but it's impossible to know how representative his samples are. In any period, someone can be found saying pretty much anything, after all. There's a troubling index reference to the PRO being in 'Kew Gardens' which suggests Furedi may have dispatched an underling to harvest quotations. It's amusing to see some of the civil servants' comments; Furedi seems unable to realise most of these were public school/Oxbridge types who'd been offered a job in the colonies and had no special interest in them, or in imperialism. I couldn't find any acknowledgement in his historical comments on the ramshackle nature of empires—protectorates, small islands, large islands, militarily-assembled jigsaws, and what-have-you. Legalities are not of interest to the religious-minded.

Furedi is mainly concerned with Africa—he was at SOAS and wrote on Mau Mau quite early on. He is unconcerned about population issues: Africa's population will soon approach one billion, probably twenty times its 1900 level. But that's no problem—the goyim can cope with that. There are some references to Islam; there's an endnote on the brutal actualities of African slave trading tucked away; there's nothing at all on Biafra/Nigeria or war crimes in Vietnam—a curious mixture. The explanation is that Furedi shoves in anything that opposes whites, and omits anything which casts light on atrocities and frauds by his fellow cultists—as per MacDonald's evolutionary theories.

If you want to understand ideologies or power structures or economic webs as they were 15 years ago, or now, or in the future, this book is a waste of time. Properly speaking, this isn't a book at all; if Furedi had something worth saying about the 'New Ideology' it could fit on half a page—better to waffle. This is a publish-or-perish thing, in effect part of a continuous assessment scheme. Unfortunately Kent University swallowed it.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   Paul Findley: They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby

Interesting stage in criticism of Jews in USA. But very incomplete, June 26, 2010

Findley, a longish-term Congressman, was drafted more or less by accident into a middle east subcommittee. This book is a record of what resulted. It's not, however, a full-blown critique. Findley visited several middle east countries, and met high officials there; he also of course met assorted American people and organisations. His criticisms are mostly of AIPAC—so well-known the indexed didn't even bother to spell out the meaning of the acronym. Findley seems to have no doubt about the 'right' of Israel to exist—he doesn't seem to know about the Khazar idea. Also he has little idea of the effects within the USA of Jews. Most of this book, therefore, is about US foreign policy—usually weapons, with related material on e.g. spies and bribes and the 'Liberty' and unlikely alliances such as Zaire. Another related matter is fundamentalist US Christians, a type that hardly exists anywhere else in the world: there's a chapter on this, including such issues as e.g. Christian desire that Jews should convert. The book was distributed with some difficulty—mail-order, small quantities on sale or return, book-shop picketing, radio programme ads. (My second-hand copy was sold by an Islamic centre). I think the emphasis on foreign affairs must have reduced sales and impact, as of course most people are more concerned with home matters. Findley doesn't know about second world war revisionism. He also seems entirely unaware of Jewish pressure for e.g. mass immigration into the USA, anti-racist movements (except Judaism!), issues such as the Fed, and internal corruption which manifested in e.g. 9/11. So this book was quite important, but is not in any way complete. Four stars for historical signposting.
Top of Page

Erving Goffman Stigma   Review by Rerevisionist (2017-01-29) of   Erving Goffman   Stigma. Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. (1963)

Jew Pretends to Describe Jews Amid Non-Jews   Jan 17, 2017   This review was banned by both and  
Erving Goffman (1922-1982; remarkably few photos exist) was a Jewish sociologist, or 'sociologist', part of the 1960s Jewish invasion of the academic world, no doubt fuelled ultimately by paper money in the USA. Probably every student of sociology was exposed to the works of Goffman, promoted by Jewish ethnic networking.

A survey of 1960s sociology needs comment on Karl Gunnar Myrdal (1899-1987), and his wife Alva Myrdal (1902-1986).  (Myrdal is a place in Norway, near one of the deepest fjords; I wonder whether this place-name is a Jewish signifier?) They collected between them a large clutch of grandiose appointments: Professor of International Economics; Director of the Swedish Institute for International Economic Studies; UN Economic Commission for Europe, 1944-1957; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI); Latin American Institute; UNESCO; Economics Nobel-style Prize; Nobel Peace Prize—remember Kissinger and Obama!—and parents of Sisela Bok, 'philosopher and ethicist', among others.
    Karl Gunnar Myrdal is best-known for An American Dilemma, (1944; co-written with R. M. E. Sterner and Arnold Rose). The date, 1944, clearly situates Myrdal as part of the long-term Jewish push on race; with a world war raging, why that subject?
    Anyway, the early 1960s were from the media viewpoint distinguished by the Cuba nuclear weapons crisis. Despite Myrdal's so-called peace research, he noticed nothing odd about the nuclear mythology. It seems unlikely he had any effect on alleviating world poverty. People who still believe in this event might look at or online videos. Shortly after, Kennedy was murdered or spirited away, leaving Lyndon B Johnson in place to shore up the paper Fed, use up paper money on genocidal wars, and in 1964 start the so-called War on Poverty, moving on to the Hart-Cellar Act in 1965.

Compared with the Myrdals, Goffman is a miniature figure. I don't know if Goffman is still part of Jewish networking circles. In case he is, here's a hostile but accurate review.

Goffman's career was mostly in the USA; I haven't been able to find an account of his finances. His footnotes are mostly books by Jews; his chapters don't seem properly worked out, and get progressively shorter towards the end. I'd guess his mode of working involved consulting a thesaurus to provide long words in place of his short ideas. His writing style is similar to R D Laing's; it's no surprise to find a prefatory page—a girl without a nose—is from a 1933 novel by a Jewish author. His title, Stigma is exquisitely ambiguous; it wouldn't surprise me if he spent as much time on it as the contents. It succeeds in encapsulating anti-Catholicism, the idea of punishment, Greco-Latin culture, and a message which might be unintentional or deliberate. At one point, Goffman contrasts status symbols (a new phrase then) with 'stigma symbols'. He talks of 'stigma management'.

Goffman's aim of course is to criticise anything non-Jewish, and not to criticise anything Jewish. It sounds evident enough, but I expect most readers were trained not to notice. One trick is to list miscellaneous topics, suggesting they are on the same footing. For example, we have mental disorder, imprisonment, addiction, alcoholism, homosexuality, unemployment, suicide attempts, radical political behaviour, 'the world of prostitutes', negroes and niggers, Jews (p 36), concentration camp (p 63). 'Mental disorder' presumably could cover anything from slight memory loss to homicidal aggressiveness. 'Unemployment' everything from complete unemployability to executive job loss. 'Radical political behaviour' of course here means Jews and their shills. Prostitution—a Jewish favourite topic—anything from a lifetime to a one-off payment. 'Physical disabilities' includes in his pages amputees, speech impediments, ugliness, and (depending on your reading) frigidity, impotence, and sterility.

Goffman talks of 'professional criminals'. He may in fact have popularised the term, aimed probably to annoy people considering themselves professionals. As far as I remember, Goffman talks of 'criminals' without mentioning crime. They could be people driving without a licence, or multiple rapists: this resembles the Jewish media world view, of course. We have someone who 'molested' very young girls; the evasive word is characteristic, and so is Goffman's pretended surprise that people didn't like him. There are odd insertions which probably are Jew constructions: he says several times 'both had college educations' as an approving clause. His idea of status symbols are money-based. His discussion of epileptics and polio and wheelchairs mentions Roosevelt: surely nobody could fail to recognise his importance! He makes special remarks on name changing, and married women, entertainers, and bishops—naturally he omits Jews who change their names.

He talks of 'normals' vs 'stigmatized', somewhat as Jews think of 'Goyim' as indistinguishable cattle, and J K Rowling's books talk of 'muggles'. The Penguin book cover design (UK, 1968) echoes this idea, though I have no idea if Goffman had any input into it. There's more that could be said—blind, deaf, coleostomies, scars, harelips, multiple sclerosis—mixed with drug needle marks, in the process of being promoted teaser-fashion, and leprosy, which Goffman obviously didn't understand. There is some material on 'self-hate': the earlier (whites only) phrase, 'sense of sin', having been purged. But let me finish with a short extract: He might be called an in-group deviant to remind one that he is deviant relative to a concrete group, not merely norms, and that his intensive if ambivalent inclusion in the group distinguishes him from another well-known type of deviator—the group isolate who is constantly in social situations with the group but is not one of their own. No mention of Jewish gangsters, Jewish mass killings, Jewish frauds.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jewish interest   Andrew Carrington Hitchcock: The Synagogue of Satan

Lists standard info on 'Jews', partly with a fundamentalist Christian standpoint, July 11, 2010

'The Synagogue of Satan' is a Bible-inspired phrase. This book points out that modern Jews are Khazars, and therefore phoney, which, with the conspiracy material, is something the Bible supposedly predicted. There are many Christian fundamentalists in the USA and this book is probably aimed at them, though the author is British. (The feel is slightly like Nesta Webster).

Hitchcock's book's format isn't very impressive—it's a print-on-demand book with the left margin being too wide, so it's not wonderful to handle physically. There is an index, but no bibliography, though there are some sources in the text: Washington Post, Stiglitz—an economics writer, Public Order Act in UK, 'papers' written by 'Jews' in the US administration, for example. There are no diagrams, graphs, or illustrations, except for info on Texe Marrs, the publisher, who has a website, and seems to work from Texas.

The layout is essentially one chapter, preceded by a longish introduction by Texe Marrs, whos stresses the fact that 'You may be silent, yet your inaction makes you a willing accomplice'. Hitchcock's single huge chapter has dates—in fact, years only, in bold—from 740 AD (Khazar conversion—Arthur Koestler cited), and then 1649 (Cromwell—but with a list of dates of expulsions of Jews), up to 2005. My edition is 2009; it has not been updated for the last few years). The chronological style gives a .feel for the timing of events, but of course tends to fracture the view of anything which existed over a long period.

This book despite the poor signposting (the index doesn't include Reagan or Thatcher!) and production values is quite good as a conspiratorial compendium, including the founding of the 'Bank of England', Illuminati as German 'Jews' pretending to be Catholics, French Revolution, US and the slavery connection, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln and other connections with greenbacks and the Fed etc, Jews and the USSR, financing of Hitler, Second World War and propaganda, 1965 Race Relations Act in the UK as a deliberately designed wrecking strategy, phoney opposition to apartheid, 9/11 and the anti-Islam movement and the Iraq War. It ends on a high note, prophesying that the system will collapse as the extent of Jewish corruption gets known.

Like David Duke, Hitchcock thinks 'communism' is Jewish even in China, which always seemed unlikely to me—this is a typical example of where sources would have been useful. There's not much on medieval Europe, and generally much more could have been put in (and there are modern huge money scandals which seem under researched, while smaller ones get prominence).

All in all, Hitchcock's book is a bit cheaply produced—but, then, it probably would be, since patriotic people generally don't fund projects that may get them into trouble. It also isn't well sourced, and is bitty. Moreover there are various more or less irrational things taken from Christianity mostly. However, it is a handy one-volume compendium; if you've never read such material before, there are a few hundred pages of miscellaneous Jewish activity for you to ponder.
Top of Page

image   Review of Naive history, American Jew influenced   James Reston: Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors

Picturesque descriptions, but doesn't help understanding, October 28, 2011

The author mostly wrote novels. This book must have been suggested by 9/11—he states it took 3 years of research, and indeed lists 'reference librarians' at the 'Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' and at the Library of Congress. He also visited Europe, though his contacts seem to have been official and diplomatic. He specifically mentions September 11th, falsely attributing it to Arab activists. The first 'acclaim' is from the 'Jerusalem Post'). It's a 'tapestry' and looks at the 'converging strands' of the final defeat of Islam in 1492 Grenada War, the Edict of Expulsion of the Jews, and Columbus's first voyage—in fact Columbus returned in 1493.

This is not a very satisfactory book beyond the picturesque descriptions and the politics, at a time when princes were many and acquiring a title guaranteed a percentage of the territory, but also guaranteed rivalry and menaces. There's a little, but not much, speculative material—suppose Isabella had married Richard III of England, or the Duc de Berry? Suppose the Borgia Pope had been someone less corrupt?

Columbus plays quite a small part in the book and even so one has to wonder if he's overstated. Portugal (because of its high coast to land ratio) and Spain both had large numbers of mariners. Columbus' achievement was to go west, and discover things. He had to overcome natural fears—Newton's demonstrations of the essential symmetry of the globe, reinforced by his tidal evidence, were more than a century into the future; it made sense to worry about an edge to the world. However, improved navigational techniques must have helped; as must have shipbuilding methods—cork, for example, was used by the Portuguese in their caravels. Reston has little to say about technology; I suppose he thinks it happens naturally. Anyway, once Columbus and some of his colleagues returned, the possibilities of adventure were proven.

There's some material on myths, legends, and stories about the world, for example Mandeville's book on his supposed travels. Reston doesn't seem to be aware that Marco Polo probably never visited China.

As to the Islamic and Jewish issues, Reston is entirely politically correct and is in effect a ZOG mouthpiece. He notes at one point (not in the index; nor is Muslim, Moorish, or Islamic invasion) that Jews 'held open the gates' for an invasion, but seems to have no concept this might cause just a little resentment. Near the end of the book he notes that the myth of Prester John (vast wealth, huge armies) appeared to be Ethiopia and/or the Coptic Church. These areas of course are in north east Africa, and if there had been any amity with Moors the area could have been explored without having to travel all around Africa, or overland past eastern Europe, or through Turkey. He simply has no concept of the beliefs of Islam.

This topic is more lively in the USA than Europe, because of the proportion of Spanish speakers there. So far as I can judge from book reviews, there are few pro-Spain, anti-Jew academics, as would be expected in the USA. In effect, Jews helped Moslems to loot Spain; the present-day system, in which Jews are legally allowed to loot money, and then hand it to invaders, is not so very different.

Part of the belief system here, which has been partly fanned into life by oil money, is that Spain had a wonderful civilisation. Why the whole of north Africa, for more Islamic, should be a desert with (for example) Roman aqueducts destroyed, largely a goat-infested wilderness, is not explained; nor is the fact that many books, which were under Islamic control, were left untranslated for 500 years and more. He refers to Muslims as 'infidels'; Kuffar and Goyim and variations do not appear...

Something similar applies to Reston on Spanish Jews. There's an entire chapter on the 'blood libel'; against Jews, not Spaniards. Spain, as with little St Hugh in Lincoln, had suspicious deaths. Reston of course produces no evidence as to the truth or otherwise—he says as little about Jewish beliefs as about Islam. Reston gives no account whatever of what Jews actually did; he says, on several occasions, that Jewish captives were released, presumably on large payments, but, as is of course traditional, does not explain the source of that money. The expulsion is treated entirely as a matter of faith, despite the fact that Reston is perfectly aware that the activities of supposedly devout influential people took a large account of money and influence.

There's also a chapter on the Spanish Inquisition, though it disappointingly lacking in facts and figures. Clearly any victim could be impoverished, in the same way that a noble on the wrong side militarily might be replaced. This is all rather routine material. The question of how else the Spanish could have proceeded isn't gone into.

The battle scenes and preliminary arrangements are described in the traditional more-or-less heroic manner. This is at a time when gunpowder was proving decisive, notably against the castles dotted about Spain. There must have been a large and secret industry in casting cannon, obtaining the raw materials for gunpowder, making steel, but there's no information here.

Another nagging weakness is a lack of the basic economics of Spain and Portugal. How many slaves, for example, could anyone really need? Didn't they realise that if gold and silver were common, they would no longer be valuable?

Anyway—two stars for descriptions and picturesque detail, and for outlining personalities and politics and conflict. But it's little help in genuine understanding.
Top of Page

image   Review of Muslim interest   Arthur Kemp: Islam's 1,300 Year War Against Western Civilisation

Packs a punch ... makes its point, July 15, 2010

Shortish book, paperback 'perfect-bound', I think printed on demand by

Starts with a map showing Muslims as a percentage of populations. I'd seen a similar map—percentages shown as shades of green—at an open day at the Mosque in Regents Park, years ago, where 'Cat' Stevens was in attendance. At the time I thought it was merely statistical; but later I thought it rather sinister, as the Quran has specific instructions as to what believers should do if the percentages go up.

Kemp's book doesn't say much on the Quran, either its beliefs, or its origin (much is copied from Arab tribal habits of the time; much—the tribalism, rituals, hatred of non-tribe members, 'sacred' books—is copied from Judaism). In a sense, it's not necessary—Kemp simply recounts the military successes of Islam, with graphic detail—Constantinople, and the massacre at Otranto, for example.

As some of the reviews here point out, it's extraordinary how the nature of Islam has been misrepresented, mainly because the 'west' has been in the scientific lead for at least four centuries. (Gibbon was pro-Muslim, as were some 20th century rationalists, Joseph McCabe being one. H G Wells thought Islam was the best available system at the time it was new. I think these views were largely a result of anti-Catholicism). Apart from war, Islamic slavery is being rediscovered as an academic subject.

An important omission—I couldn't find it, anyway—is the invasion of India, something like a thousand years after the establishment of Islam. Hindus today estimate 100 million deaths at the north west frontier zone—the 'Hindu Kush'. It's a censored topic—Indians, after independence in 1948, do their best to keep quiet about it.

If anyone tells you Islam is a, or even the, 'religion of peace', you might present them with this little book.
Top of Page

image   Review of Muslim history   Giles Milton: White Gold: The Extraordinary Story of Thomas Pellow and Islam's One Million White Slaves

Pointlessness and cruelty of Islam, December 1, 2010

One-volume guide to north African war which is still little-known

This is mostly an 18th century story; it ends in 1816. The very last endnote quotes that at least a million European Christians were enslaved from 1530-1780, in NW Africa—from Tunis then west to Algiers, Tangier (just south west of Gibraltar) and down to Salé. It's a coastal area bounded by mountains. Giles Milton's story is based on the memoirs in English of Thomas Pellow from Cornwall, who was captured at sea aged 11. At least, the blurb say so, but the endnotes reveal a lot of detailed research, mostly English or French books, some translated from Arabic.

Moulay Ismail, the dominant character, died in old age (as with Henry VII, his death was kept secret for some time—in his case about two months). He spent more than forty years in architectural construction with daily inspections, with the Koran carried before him (p156] at Meknes. The palaces were largely built from lime and 'earth' and pebble mixture—'lime' meaning genuine calcium oxide—supplemented by marble etc robbed from the remains of a Roman town. Meknes is inland and fortifiable. There's no convincing illustration of its impressiveness—the illustrations are mostly engravings and aquatints, plus a few photos. When he wasn't watching slaves in their construction work, he killed large numbers of people, and fathered large numbers of others. Milton describes some of the executions—such as sawing a man in half. I don't think Milton makes any attempt to estimate the total deaths, or even to describe the overall system; maybe they just grabbed what food they could, and lived in what hovels and tents they could arrange. As in the USA, there was some sort of slave breeding programme; p129 says a deliberate breeding of mulattos.

There are character studies such as (p152) his 'first wife' Lala Zidana 'black, of a monstrous height and bulk'—who caused, with a made-up story, the sultan's next favourite 'wife' to be strangled. And quite a few emissaries sent to deal with Moulay Ismail with rather uniform lack of success—one stamped his foot and damned him to God, others were pliable and smooth, others rather insulting. There are accounts of the locals being polite, genteel, and civilised which contrast oddly with the accounts of executions. One technique of Moulay Ismail was simply to be unpredictable.

Pellew's account may I think be unreliable—he seems to have had suspiciously exceptional luck. He 'turned Turk' under torture, learned Arabic, was found attractive and clever by Moulay Ismail; he even shot at a heavy door to keep the latter out when he'd been ordered to keep everyone out. The many misfortunes sound too great, to me. But who knows; whites/ Europeans often had useful skills: crafts, carpentry, casting cannon, using cannon. There are signs Milton has 'gone native'—he says nothing about white treachery which allowed Europe to be invaded—Vienna isn't even indexed. In 1648 first transaction of 'The Alcoran of Mahomet' was printed: there was a 'clash with the censors' who agreed eventually to publication in 1649. '.. it provided the raw material for countless bilious sermons and diatribes against the Islamic world.' Milton describes someone called Humphrey Prideaux who wrote 'The True Nature of Imposture' was a 'runaway success' being reprinted up to 1723. {Milton describes him as an 'anti-Islamic bigot' but says nothing about the actual content of the book]. It's surprising how little impact the Islamic world made, at least in Britain: Brewer's collection of vast numbers of almost obsolete expressions in 'Phrase and Fable' has very little on Islam.

Whites were also often ransomed—the figures put into modern money sound incredible—so they were valued for that. The 'black guard'—like the Ottomans, Moroccans had a policy of taking young people and bringing them up as bodyguards, and executioners. There was a Jewish element too. There's some material on the Reconquista, and expulsion of about a million Muslims from Spain.

There are striking contrasts with Europe: e.g. Henry VIII (some time before) had trouble finding one heir; Moulay Ismail had 1,200 children and on his death, huge battles over succession.

The reason for the rise of corsairs isn't very clear to me; maybe it was just the general rise of shipping and piracy as Europeans discovered the world was round and navigable and sometimes profitable.

After I'd read this, I realised I already had a book by the same author, on Elizabeth I and exploration. It has a similar pattern of rather superficial realism with derring-do. The author *might* be an historian sick of overarching theories of history and progress, writing in a rather novelistic style about issues which in retrospect have something for today. And clearly truth about Islam is a serious issue now.

Note added November 2013: I saw extracts of a BBC programme in which David Dimbleby, a professional BBC liar and hack and piece of excreta of long standing, mentioned the siege of Algiers, stating, twice, that only men and boys were kidnapped. Of course this is a lie - it's BBC policy at the present time, and of course has been for years, under their Jewish and other control to omit paedophilia and rape characteristic of Jews and Muslims.
Top of Page

image   Review of Jews, Muslims and London   Melanie Phillips: Londonistan

Nothing about London! Valueless tribal rant., February 5, 2012

[1] Problems with Sources: most of her sources are UK newspapers (though in the many chapters on Jews there are articles authored by Jews). None of these are reliable; newspapers of course most people surely, by now, know to be paid hackery. The intelligence stuff is usually not attributed. Absurd groups—Runnymede Trust, Phillips of some Race thing, Muslim Council of Britain, are treated as though they are independent. Many of her interviewees are third-rate NuLab hacks—Blunkett, Charles Clarke.

[2] Problems with bias: this book is pure tribalism. There's no mention of such things as Deir Yassin massacres or British troops hanged in Jerusalem. Nothing about remote killing by drones in Afghanistan. Phillips accepts fictions like the 'Holocaust' and 9/11 which of course have been demolished as thoroughly as some past-their-peak insurance job skyscrapers. She clearly hasn't a clue about malpractices of 'our' 'security' 'services'.

[3] London: despite the title, infuriatingly, there is almost nothing about London. Ken Livingstone is mentioned as having been reported as having spoken to or invited such and such a person. One gathers (from other sources) Livingstone took his instructions in a pub from a bunch of seedy 'lefties', but how he managed to help wreck London is of no interest to Phillips, whose sole concern is her 'tribe'.

[4] Phillips' fake naivety which is not so much annoying, or puzzling, as rather disgusting. For instance immigration to northern towns was not as Phillips claims 'cheap labour'—all the housing, education, police and other costs were offloaded onto the taxpayer. Phillips must know the law was deformed to allow access to the social safety net to people for whom it was never remotely intended. Race Relations Acts and the like were largely promoted by Jews, just as in the USA. She sounds amazed that (e.g.) teachers are careful not to 'offend' Muslims, yet she must know that they could easily lose their jobs if they tell the truth. Her faux outrage is repellent. She says 'socialism fell', clearly a reference to the Soviet Union—by implication, she regards it as 'socialist'—there's no mention of the part played by Jews in the mass murder of Russians.

[5] Phillips has no interests outside propaganda. For example, does 'Al Qaeda' actually exist, or is it just 'the database'? Are the various groups she quotes anything that can be said to exist seriously, or are they just tiny groupuscules? Did Ahmadinejad really say 'wipe Israel off the map'? Osama bin Laden—was he a friend of the Bush families? Are judges 'independent' as she asserts, given that they are promoted by a secret decision-making process?

There is one sentence in the entire book where she states that immigration levels to the UK are so high that the entire population structure will be altered, unless something is done. I doubt though she has the mathematical skill to prove this.

Londoners and others need, of course, to wake up. This book is not a useful contribution to that process. Phillips is part of the tribal problem. [Added 2015: it seems after a lifetime of lies Phillips has moved to Israel].
Top of Page

  Review of Jewish interest   Christopher Caldwell: Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam and the West

None of these reviewers mention Jews as forcing immigration

I haven't read this book, but, judging by these reviews, there's no good reason to do so. There appears to be no mention anywhere of Jews as the main force behind pushing unwanted immigration onto all white countries.
..... For newcomers to this sort of discussion, may I suggest The Occidental Observer online? I won't give the URL. Interesting serious material on immigration, and the evidence that all the effort behind the push for immigration was and is jewish. Which is why books not mentioning it are not worth mentioning.
[Here are some comments from very unpleasant trolls:
Guy Mannering says: 12 Aug 2014
Well, the law doesn't permit us to hang, draw and quarter him. But if your figure of £325, 000 is correct I would more than willing to sign a petition.
Mr. Edward P. Campbell says: 12 Aug 2014
You left out the 'tarring and feathering', afterwards. I hate sloppiness and unfinished business..! Besides, what's wrong with a shared 10' x 6' with 'Big Mo', at only £25,000 per annum..?]
Top of Page

Image   Review of Jewish interest   Hanif Kureishi: The Word and the Bomb

Misses most important things—strange evasive mixed race book, 17 Jan 2012

I thought, from the title, this might be something to do with nuclear issues and the third world. Selling as a 99p remainder; I don't remember hearing about the author. This turned out to be nine short essays or 'Guardian' articles—this is a newspaper funded privately, basically Jewish-controlled garbage which has a monopoly on BBC job adverts for no reason ever publically explained. The latest date was 2005—I hadn't realised this was, by remaindered books standards, a greybeard.

Some of these essays were published with screenplay related material—he wrote or was credited with 'My Beautiful Laundrette' (not launderette) and 'My Son the Fanatic', apparently a 1997 film. Kureishi says films have no place for meandering subtleties—they're like short stories.

Piecing together a few clues, we find he was the son of a Muslim and a white woman, brought up in Kent. At some point he must have moved to London—there's stuff on sex, women—presumably white—drugs; and on Yorkshire. And Islam. Every single thing, without exception, is what would be approved by the Jewish/ fake left/ anti-white racists of the Guardian/ BBC type. This may sound odd, or extreme, but is entirely true.

Let's look at omissions: there's nothing on what his mother was doing; why would any sane woman marry into a ridiculous cult? My wording, but it's a legitimate question. There's nothing on the partition of India—one might imagine a few million deaths might have been worth a passing comment. There's nothing on the segregation of women—forced into backrooms as breeding material. There's nothing on benefits—free housing, money, thanks to the Jews controlling the so-called 'Labour' Party—but not forgetting the 'Conservatives'. We have no mention whatever of the actual contents of the Koran, unsurprisingly, of course. There's nothing on 'grooming' and paedophilia. Or voting fraud. Interestingly, there's no comment on 9/11. Does Kureishi know the truth?

We leave the book in a weird limbo: Pakistan (military coups unmentioned, vast populations living after independence in muck not mentioned), Islamic schools in England, probably a device to get semi-illiterate girls as breeders...

I don't know if there's an equivalent word for 'Uncle Tom' Muslim types, but this material is a perfect example. It's daring Mills and Boon for people waiting for the real world.
Top of Page

McHattie Templar book   Review of Faux romantic history   Gil McHattie: The Knights Templar: Influences from the Past and Impulses for the Future

Undeclared authorship: these are all Rudolf Steiner people
24 Oct 2012
This book looks at first sight a serious study of the Templars, with about fifteen contributions by authors who attended a 2009 meeting. Unfortunately all, or most, of the contributors add nothing to the subject; there are comments on organic farming, Hershey chocolate, the Cistercians... Most of the contributors believe that people started as a spirit, which then took human form. There may be useful comments here and there. But I doubt it. Unindexed. AVOID THIS BOOK.
Top of Page

HTML, reading, writing, scanning etc © Rae West. On 5 June 2017 this file was separated from the reviews/index.html file to reduce the length of that file.