ABOUT 700 REVIEWS BY RAE WEST  ('REREVISIONIST')  FOLLOW.

WHY DO I WRITE REVIEWS? Thinking about various forms of persuasion, such as magazines, TV news, film and theatre, books, and oratory, it struck me that language in human beings, on a large scale, does not bring any instinctive inbuilt defences with it. People may be affected for life; consider the Jewish fake 'holocaust' museums, for example. Many people seem to have no natural defences against TV 'drama'. The Bible is a striking example of the lack of resistance of most people to absurd oratory and foolish stories and undefined concepts.

Many of my reviews were written to remind me of the contents and feel of the works, so that rereading is, with luck, unnecessary. Some reviews are of oldish books, to help give perspective on changes in ideas. Some look at changes in science. Some are aimed at young people, hoping to help them interpret old books through older eyes. I try to include sketches of such varied things as 'documentaries', biases, sermons, film sets, plots, and especially Jewish constructions.

They are not carefully sorted, in the hope that mutually-compatible ideas may suggest themselves by chance. I hope to improve readers' values. Some of my reviews are grouped together; others are (faster-loading) solos.

Some Reviews by Topic:- Media, critics, &c | Jews, Christians, Moslems | Race | Revisionism | Women | Richard Dawkins | Martin Gardner | Bertrand Russell | H G Wells

Some sequences, listed by year:- South Place Ethical Society 1933 | Feeney Point 1952-1959 | Instauration 1975-2000 | LibertyBell Revilo Oliver 1979-1998 | Jewish Year Book 1996 | William Luther Pierce 1996-2002 | Luke O'Farrell 2005-2009

Version v. 28 March 2024


I used to mark my reviews «ban  if Amazon removed them, but now those morons ban them all!         Home page

Authors and titles below are grouped loosely by revisionist categories, which are highlit in yellow.

Click for collections below: TV, FILM, MUSIC, CRITS | BOOKS | MAGAZINES | REVISIONIST SCIENCE | NON-FICTION | SCIENCE | REVISIONISM | ECONOMICS | RACE, MIGRATION, CIVILISATION | FRANKFURT SCHOOL | CHRISTIANITY | JEWS, MUSLIMS | 'HUMAN RIGHTS', POLICE, CRIME | PROPAGANDA | REFERENCES | SPIES | EDUCATION | THINKING | WOMEN | WARS | BERTRAND RUSSELL | RICHARD DAWKINS | HISTORY | GEOGRAPHY, CITIES | BIOGRAPHY   OBITUARIES
AUDIO-VISUAL MEDIA   Media reviews have been mostly moved here to save space
TV   10 Rillington Place | Ali-G, Borat, Dictator etc | Apprentice (UK) | Christmas Lectures 2018 |
    [ UK Crime Plays— Morse (1987-)  |  Hetty Wainthropp investigates  |  Cracker (1994/ 2006)  |  Lewis  |  Endeavour  |  Peter James  |  Maigret  |  Vera  |  Jonathan Creek (1997-)  |  Midsomer Murders (1997-)  |  Judge John Deed (2001-)  |  Foyle's War (2002-)  |  New Tricks (2003-)  |  Poirot  |  Ripper Street (2012-)  |  Frost  |  Serial Killers  |  Manhunt (2019)  |  Deathwatch (2002 ish)  |  Van der Valk (2020) (2022) | Big Sister 2018 | Blackadder | Countryfile | Downton Abbey | Dracula 2020 | Harris: Fatherland | Lost in Austen | Masterchef | My Generation (2017) | National Treasure (c. 2016) | Poldark | Portillo on Railways | Rick Stein on US Food | Robot Wars (c. 2000) | Sherlock [Conan Doyle, Cumberbatch] |
    [ SOCIAL ENGINEERING— 'Public Service' Ads (teaching, arms, health...) | Time Team | Dragons Den | 'General Knowledge' | Houses - Red Dwarf | 'Antiques' | Laughter | Perversions | Germans | Gardening | Country ] | Strictly Come Dancing | University Challenge Xmas 2018 | Peter Ustinov: Planet Ustinov | War and Peace |
Music   Roy 'Chubby' Brown | Fairport Convention | Flanders & Swann CDs | Les Miserables | Keith Richards: Life
Films, DVDs   10 Rillington Place | Anonymous | Atomic Testing 3DVDs | Nuclear 'Ultimate' Weapons 2 DVDs | Mel Gibson: Apocalypto | DiCaprio & Hanks: Catch me if you Can [With Jewish interpretation] | Darkest Hour [Churchill] | Das Boot | Jeanne Moreau: The Bride Wore Black | Long Walk to Freedom [Mandela] | Nicholson: Bucket List | Capricorn One | Chabrol: Eye of Vichy | Denial | Educating Rita | Eight Days a Week | Wnendt: Er ist wieder da [Hitler] | Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them | The Fourth Protocol | Girl with the Dragon Tattoo | Gorky Park [USSR] | ICA Reviews | Intruder | Lord of the Rings | Hobbit [part 1] | Last Orders | Mamma Mia Here We Go Again [Abba] | Matrix | Bob Dylan Tour 1966 | Monty Python: The Life of Brian | Remember Me [9/11 etc] | A Single Man [Jewish fakes] | The Sound of Music | Willis: Die Hard - Vengeance | Dennis Wise's Greatest Story Never Told [Hitler] | The Big Short and Inglorious Basterds | Pink Floyd: The Wall | Withnail & I | The World is Not Enough
'Newspapers'   New Day 2016 failure | The Independent
Books about BBC   Robin Aitken: Can We Trust the BBC? | David Attenborough: Life on Air | Asa Briggs: Broadcasting in UK History | John Cole: As It Seemed To Me | Dyke: Inside Story | Clive James | Naughtie: New Elizabethans | Ian McIntyre: Life of John Reith | Whitehouse: Ban This Filth! |
Books about Media   Giles Auty: Art of Self-Deception | Dirk Bogarde: For the Time Being | Michael Caine: What's It All About | Bob Dylan: on Dylan | Nick Mason: Pink Floyd | Marshall McLuhan | Robertson & Nicol: Media Law
Revisionist Notes on Media   Jewish Propaganda UK 1908-1948 | Joad as pre-reset plagiarist | Some notes on 'Jews' in media | Edmund Connelly: Jew-aware film critic
GENERAL, NOVELS Amis: The Alteration | Barrowcliffe: Elfish Gene | Alan Bennett: Untold Stories | Craig Brown: Lost Diaries | Jackie Clune: Man of the Month | Maggie Gee: Ice People | Isherwood: Mr Norris Changes Trains | J K Jerome: Three Men in a Boat | Ann Oakley: ...Eden | Gordon Ramsay: Humble Pie | Rutherfurd: Sarum | Snow: Corridors of Power | Rendell: Road Rage | A N Wilson: Bottle | Colin Wilson: Mind Parasites | Colin Wilson: Outsider | Wyndham: Midwich Cuckoos
MAGAZINES Fabulous Furry Freaks | BBC History Magazine | Candour | CHARLIE-HEBDO | English Heritage | Ethical Record of South Place Ethical Society/ Conway Hall | Freedom Today | Freethinker Magazine | Gadgets | Heritage & Destiny | Instauration 1975-2000 | Mankind Quarterly | Mensa | Private Eye | Which? (Consumer reviews)
SCIENCE
Andrews & McLone: Math Modelling | Auletta: Googled | Dr John Bentley: Measurement Systems | Tim Berners-Lee: Design and Destiny of the World Wide Web | G S Brown: Laws of Form | James Bruges: The Biochar Debate | D. Bryce-Smith: The Zinc Solution | H. S. M. Coxeter: Beauty of Geometry | S Roberts: Donald Coxeter, the Man Who Saved Geometry | Zakaria Erzinçlioglu: The Illustrated Guide to Forensics | Christopher R Evans: Impact of the Computer Revolution | Richard P. Feynman: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! | G. H. Hardy: Theory of Numbers | Gregory Hickok: Myth of Mirror Neurons 2014 | Lancelot Hogben: The Vocabulary of Science | Holmyard, Partington: Inorganic Chemistry | Hooper: Moths | Peter Large: The Micro Revolution | Horrobin: Science is God | Aleksandr Romanovich Lurie: Brain ... An Introduction to Neuropsychology (1973) | B MacQuitty: Discovery of Anaesthesia | Richard Milton: Smashing Darwinism 1992 | Richard Milton: Forbidden Science 1994 | Wendy Moore: John Hunter | Desmond Morris: Naked Ape & Human Zoo | Norton: Drugs, Science, Society | Linus Pauling: General Chemistry | N W Pirie: Food Resources | Humphrey T Pledge: Science Since 1500 | Simon Shack: The Tychosium | Richard Shepherd: Unnatural Causes | D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson: On Growth and Form | Trattner: Architects of Ideas |
SCIENCE POPULISTS & LIARS vs REVISIONISTS
Barrow: Origins of Universe | Jaime Breitnauer: Spanish Flu Epidemic | Fraser Brockington: World Health (1958) | Chaikin: Full Moon | Couper & Henbest: Planets | Davis: Biblical Numerology | Dennett: Designing Minds | Eatherly: (bogus) Hiroshima Pilot | Robin Fox: Kinship and Marriage | Harold Hillman: Living Cell | Ellison: War on AIDS | Hodgkinson: AIDS | Jungk: Thousand Suns | Kelly: Black Death | B S Le Gette: Numera the Craft | Bjorn Lomborg: Skeptical Environmentalist | Bernard Lovell: Jodrell Bank | Patrick Moore: 80 Not Out | Wendy Moore: John Hunter | René: NASA mooned America | Oppenheimer: Crises for Physicists | Osada: Children of A Bomb | Richard Rhodes: Atomic Bomb | Rucker: Infinity | Nuclear Weapons 2 DVDs | Pringle & Spigelman: Nuclear Barons | Mairowitz: [Wilhelm] Reich | Petr Skrabanek: Follies in Medicine | Trattner: Architects of Ideas | Weale: Swastika & Science | Wilson: On Human Nature | Zuckerman: Nuclear Illusion |
MORE NON-FICTION
Margaret Baker: Folklore, Customs. Notes | Hilaire Belloc: The Party System | Melvyn Bragg: Twelve Books | Richard Branson: Business Stripped Bare | Yvonne Burgess: Myth of Progress | Ivor Catt: The Catt Concept - Industrial Darwinism | Chomsky: Backroom Boys | Chomsky: America's Quest for Global Dominance | Dalrymple/Daniels: In Praise of Prejudice | Dalrymple/Daniels: Junk Medicine & the Addiction Bureaucracy (2007) | Family Trees, Genealogies | Martin Gardner | J Gathorne-Hardy: Nannies | J Gathorne-Hardy: Public Schools | Malcolm Gladwell: Thinking Without Thinking | Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Democracy: The God that Failed | Hamilton-Paterson: Empire of the Clouds | Mark Jones: Fake? Art of Deception | David C. McClelland: The Achieving Society | James H Meisel: Gaetano Mosca and the Elite | P H Nowell-Smith: Ethics | C N Parkinson: East and West | John Pilger: Distant Voices | Madsen Pirie: How to Win Every Argument | Pirsig: Zen and Motorcycle Maintenance | Fiona Pitt-Kethley: Pan Principle | Simon Singh: History of Codes & Code-breaking | C P Snow: Two Cultures | Ian Stewart: Mathematical Curiosities | E S Turner: Nostalgia | H G Wells: Anticipations | H G Wells: Outline of History | Wells: Open Conspiracy | H G Wells: Work, Wealth, Happiness of Mankind | H.G. Wells: Complete Short Stories | Wells: Mind .. Tether | Francis Wheen: Mumbo-Jumbo ... Modern Delusions | Richard G. Wilkinson: Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger | Raymond Williams: Keywords
REVISIONISM: ARGUMENTS, JEWS, PLANS, WARS, HISTORY, MONEY, LONG-TERM LIES   Revisionism reviews have been mostly moved here to save space
Berkeley: National Government 1931 | Brackman: Darwin & A R Wallace | Buchanan: Churchill, Hitler, Unnecessary War | A. R. Butz: Hoax of the 20th Century | John Bean: Blood in the Square | Cobain: Cruel Britannia | M Cole: Life of G D H Cole | Tom Reilly: Cromwell | Dangerfield: Strange Death of Liberal England | Nicholas Ennos: Jane Austen | Hensman: Rich Against Poor (1971) | Nick Griffin: Deus Vult | Hobsbawm: Age of Extremes 1914-1991 | Hobsbawm: Revolution 1789-1848 | Irving: Uprising! Hungary 1956 | Irving: War Between the Generals | Peter James: Centuries of Darkness | Peter James: Atlantis Solved | F. J. Irsigler: Who Makes Our Money? | Lane: Alien Menace | Looney: Shakespeare Identified | Manser: Britain in Balance | Gerard Menuhin: Truth .. or .. Devil | Ogburn: William Shakespeare | C N Parkinson: Left Luggage | R Ramsay: Who Shot JFK? | Reid: Luddite Revolt 1812 | Robertson: Captain Cook | David Starkey 'historian' | Life of Gerrard Winstanley | Wise: Hitler Greatest Story NEVER told video | Allen: Buddha and India's Lost Religion | Mary Waugh: Smuggling | Wood: Marco Polo | Bradley Smith: Holocaust Revisionist | Metapedia |
ECONOMICS
Astle: Babylonian Woe | Baran & Sweezy: Monopoly Capital | Richard Branson: Business Stripped Bare | Eamonn Fingleton: Hard Industries | Freakonomics | Hensman: Rich Against Poor (1971) | History of England Plagiarism | Kiyosaki: Rich Dad, Poor Dad | Dambisa Mboyo: Dead Aid - another way for Africa | Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists | Cyril Northcote Parkinson: The Law and the Profits | Robert Peston: Who Runs Britain? | Klaus Schwabe & T Malleret: COVID-19 and the Great Reset | Thorstein Veblen: Theory of the Leisure Class | | Alan Wood: Groundnut Affair
RACES & RACE-MIXING, CIVILISATIONS, ANTI-WHITE IMMIGRATION, POPULATION, 'IQ', JEWS (& LIES, POLICIES—FRANKFURT SCHOOL, MARX, MASS KILLINGS—EU, COMMON PURPOSE)   Reviews of Racial topics moved here to save space
Tammy Bruce: Left's Assault on Free Speech, Free Minds | Coudenhove-Kalergi | C Booker: Neophiliacs | R North & C Booker: Secret History of the EU | C Booker: Scared to Death | Anthony Browne: Political Correctness | Littlejohn: You Couldn't Make it Up | J R Baker: Race (1974) | Chris Brand: The 'g' Factor | Patrick Buchanan: Third World Invasion | Robert Conquest: The Great Hunger | Robert Conquest: Kolyma: Arctic Death Camps | Conway: Demographic History of Britain | Dahlberg: Race, Reason, Rubbish | C D Darlington: Evolution of Man and Society | Barrows Dunham: Man Against Myth | L Dominelli: Anti-Racist Social Work | David Duke: My Awakening | Edward Dutton: Race & Ethnocentrism (2019) | Paul Ehrlich: Population Bomb (1968) | Engels: Communist Manifesto | R Simon: Gramsci's Political Thought | Hargreaves: Immigration, Race, France (1995) | John H Griffin: Black Like Me | Herrnstein & Murray: Bell Curve | Myles Harris: UK Asylum Policy | Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf | Tom Kawczynski: Someone has to say it | Arthur Kemp: March of the Titans | Arthur Benjamin Kemp: Apartheid & Southern Africa | Arthur Kemp: Immigration Invasion | Lanternari: Religions of the Oppressed | Livingstone: If Voting Changed Anything.. | Wayne Macleod: Race in Civilization | Millard: Homeless Jack | Areoye Oyebola: Black Man's Dilemma | Quigley: Civilizations | E Pendell: Why Civilizations Self-Destruct | 'Wilmot Robertson': Dispossessed Majority | K J B Rose Associates: British Race Relations | J P Rushton: Race, Evolution, Behavior | L Stoddard: San Domingo | E. P. Thompson: English Working Class | Polly Toynbee: Has Labour Delivered? | Patrick West: Poverty of Multiculturalism | Anne Wilson: Mixed Race Children | Michael Young: Meritocracy |
'ABRAHAMIC' RELIGIONS & THEIR CONFLICTS: JEWS, CHRISTIANS, MOSLEMS   Reviews of Jews, Christians, Moslems and their interactions moved here to save space
J. L. Allen: Opus Dei | Karen Armstrong: Islam | Hilaire Belloc: Belinda | Hilaire Belloc: Jews | N Bentwich: Wanderer in War | C J Bjerknes: Beware the World to Come | Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner: Penalties Upon Opinion | Blunt: Dictionary of Sects | Britton: Behind Communism | C Caldwell: Immigration, Islam | Chris Caskie: War Against 'Goyim' | Cohn: Genocide | Mark Collett: Fall of Western Man | J Coutts: The Salvationists | C Cox & J Marks: Is Ideological Islam Compatible with Liberal Democracy? | Bella Dodd: School of Darkness | G R Elton: Reformation Europe | Henry Ford: International Jew | Freethinker Magazine | Erich Fromm: Art of Loving | C de Hamel: The Bible | A C Hitchcock: Synagogue of Satan | Hobsbawm: Extremes 1914-1991 | Michael Hoffman: Judaism's Strange Gods | Michael Hoffman: Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare | Kenneth Humphreys: Jesus Never Existed | Jewish Year Book 1996 | Julian the Apostate | Arthur Kemp: Islam's 1,300 Year War | Guest Review: Caskie on Lina on freemasons | Ludovici: Jews | Alexander McCaul: Talmud Tested | Giles Milton: Islam's Million White Slaves | Giles Milton: John de Mandeville | J R H Moorman: History of the Church in England | Malcolm Muggeridge: 1930s, Moscow, Jokes | Melanie Phillips: Londonistan | Bertrand Russell: Religion and Science | K. B. MacDonald: Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism | K. B. MacDonald: Culture of Critique [Jews in 20th Century Movements] | Joseph McCabe: Rationalist Encyclopaedia | Nur Masalha: Palestine 4000 Years | Revilo Oliver: Jewish Strategy | Tom Paine: Age of Reason | Plato: Sophist | Robertson: Jesus: Myth or History? | Wheless: Forgery in Christianity (Entire book) | Cecil Roth: Jewish Contribution | Shlomo Sand: Invention Jewish People | Ben Shapiro; guest review by Chris Caskie | Israel Shahak: jewish history | H P Stokes: Short History of Jews in England 1921 | Furedi: Imperialism.. Moral Imperative | P Findley: Confront Israel's Lobby | Goffman: Stigma | Wistrich: Antisemitism (& Birdwood) | Reston: Defeat of the Moors | Hanif Kureishi: The Word and the Bomb | McHattie: Templars | Mary Sherwood: Fairchild Family | Singer: Christian Failure | H G Wells: Jewish Influence | Robert Winston: Story of God | Zwemer: Popular Islam
LEGAL, POLICE, CRIME, 'RIGHTS', CRIMINOLOGY PROPAGANDA, PSYCHOLOGY
Nick Griffin: Mindbenders - Jew Control of the mass media | Jewish Book Propaganda 1908-1948. Left Book Club, Penguin Books | Trotter: Herd in peace and war | Andreski: Social Sciences as Sorcery | Bernays: Propaganda | Belloc: Free Press | Berne: Games People Play | Raymond Cattell: Analysis of Personality | A Cohen: Attitude Change | Mark Collett: Fall of Western Man | Eysenck & Kamin: Battle for the Mind | Guest review Freud: Moses & Monotheism | Paul Kline: Psychology Exposed | Jordan Peterson: 12 Rules for Life | Philip Leon: Philosophy of Courage | Derren Brown: Mind Tricks + Sacrifice | Derren Brown: Houdini on Deception | Noam Chomsky: Spectacular Propaganda | Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman: Manufacturing Consent | WW2 Propaganda | Individuals supporting WW2
SPIES
R. J. Aldrich: GCHQ: The Uncensored Story | Buchan: 39 Steps | Le Carre: Tinker Tailor DVD | Tony Collins: Open Verdict | Forsyth: Fourth Protocol DVD | Stella Rimington: At Risk | Wright: Spycatcher | Wright: Spycatcher's Encyclopedia
EDUCATION
Iserbyt & Jews | Eds Cockburn & Blackburn: Student Power 1969 | Coleman & McNee: Great Reading Disaster | J C Holt: How Children Fail | R. W. Whitaker: Why Johnny Can't Think | Ed. R. Whelan: Corruption of the Curriculum | Pullan: University of Manchester, 1973-90 | Mabbott: Oxford | Hilton: Mr Chips
TEACHING THINKING Group review
WOMEN   Reviews of Books by Women, about Women, Activists & Useful Idiots, moved here to save space
WAR:   WORLD WARS WW1, WW2   KOREA VIETNAM IRAQ &C
WW2 Newsreel and TV Propaganda | Simpson: Lusitania | Angell: The Great Illusion | Duchess Atholl: Searchlight on Spain | James Bacque: German Civilians 1944-1950 | Raymond Challinor: Struggle for Hearts and Minds | Hans Blix: Disarming Iraq | Clark: Sleepwalkers 1914 | Clough: The Kent-Wolkoff Affair | Thomas Dalton: Jewish Hand in World Wars | 'George Orwell': Homage to Catalonia | Orwell: 1984 | Docherty & Macgregor: Hidden History.. First World War | Reinhard Gehlen: Memoirs | Joachim Hoffmann: Stalin's War of Extermination, 1941-1945 | Kate Hudson: CND | David Irving: Churchill's War part 2 | John Keegan | Gene Kizer: Slavery ... Not Cause.. War Between States | Keith Lowe: Prisoners of History | Margaret Mead: And Keep Your Powder Dry | Laurence Rees: The 'Final Solution' | Bertrand Russell: War Crimes in Vietnam Click for pdf file | Against the Crime of Silence: Russell International War Crimes Tribunal | Salmaggi & Pallavisini: 2194 Days | Sun Tzu: Art of War | A J P Taylor: Origins of the Second World War |
BERTRAND RUSSELL   All Russell-related reviews have been moved here (to save space) RICHARD DAWKINS   All Dawkins-related reviews have been moved here to save space HISTORY
C K Adams: Manual of Historical Literature | Jad Adams: Gandhi | H T Buckle: Civilization in England | Butterfield: Christianity & History | Geyl: Napoleon | Halevy: Labour | Hernon: Victorian wars | Conrad Russell: English Civil War | R M Haywood: Myth of Rome's Fall | Hobbes, Locke, Kings, monasteries, Bible, Spain; groundwork for Jew invasion | John Keegan | Arthur Kemp: AWB of South Africa | A.B. McKillop: H. G. Wells, Plagiarism, History of the World | Richard Milton: Britain and Germany: 100 Years | Mahan: Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783 | M Mahathir: Malay Dilemma | Tom Nairn: Enchanted Glass Monarchy | Joseph Needham: Science and Society in East and West | Murray Pittock: Myth of the Jacobite Clans | Voltaire: Age of Louis XIV | Simon Winchester: Joseph Needham and China | Thomas Pakenham: The Boer War | W Warren Wagar: Short History of the Future | Thomas E. Woods: 33 Questions About American History | Thomas E. Woods: Politically Incorrect American History | J M Steadman: Myth of Asia | Edgar Wilson: Myth of the British Monarchy | J. K. Walton: Fish and Chips 1870-1940 | Owen Wister: Deal or Grudge
BIOGRAPHY
Bellamy: Jolly Green Giant | A. N. Wilson: Hilaire Belloc | Benn: Dare to Be a Daniel | Henri Bergson | Cherie Blair: Autobiography | Anthony Seldon: Blair Unbound | Derren Brown: Confessions | Oborne & Walters: Alastair Campbell | Lucien Price: Dialogues of A N Whitehead | Alex Comfort: Authority & Delinquency | Diana: Her True Story | Frank Harris: Life and Loves | Hitler: Mein Kampf | IKEA Ingvar Kamprad | Andrew Joyce | Carla Lane: Autobiography | Ved Mehta: British Intellectuals | Wills: Homer Lane | Wendy Moore: John Hunter | Bryan Magee: Popper | Rita Marley: Bob Marley | Norma Farnes: Spike Milligan | Johnson: Napoleon | Fred Reed: Grand Adventure | McIntyre: Reith | Keith Richards: Life | R. Crawshay-Williams: Russell | C Moorehead: Bertrand Russell: A Life | Oswald Mosley: My Life | K Tait: My Father, Bertrand Russell | Holroyd: George Bernard Shaw | Holroyd: Bernard Shaw, 1898-1918 | John Tyndall: Call for British Rebirth | Ron Shoesmith: Alfred Watkins | A Wainwright: Ex Fell Wanderer | Alfred Russel Wallace: My Life | Michael Foot: H G History of Mr Wells
GEOGRAPHY, CITIES
501 Cities | Coleman: Utopia on Trial | Newman: Defensible Space | Peter Jackson: Cultural Geography | JANE JACOBS: Great American Cities | Jacobs: Economy of Cities | Jacobs: Cities and Wealth of Nations | Hendrik van Loon: Home of Mankind | Tim Marshall: Prisoners of Geography | John Tyme: Motorways | Michael Palin: Sahara | Lisa St. Aubin De Teran: A Valley in Italy | Alfred Watkins: The Old Straight Track |

OBITUARIES
Tony Benn | Alex Comfort | Denis Healey | 'Independent' newspaper | 'Nobituary' David Irving | John Keegan | Richard Lynn | Warren Mitchell | John Pilger | J H Plumb | Alfred N Whitehead

big-lies.org
nukelies.org
'Nobituary': David Irving on hearing of his stroke:-

FEBRUARY 15, 2024 AT 2:06 PM
I worked with David Irving after a brief chat (at the time I was splitting up with someone, and sought paid work). He kept his fpp.co.uk site (Focal Point Press) which he kept on his Apple Mac computer. He was involved in his lawsuit against Lipstadt and Penguin Books -- not the other way round. At this time he lived in his Duke Street flat (=apartment, in US English) with his Scandinavian wife, and young daughter. I never met any of his Spanish family. He had what's called a military bearing, dissimilar from what I now see as the concealed military types, generally Jews using parasitized money to arrange conflicts and deaths.

It was a fascinating experience to attend the Law Courts in the Strand, watch the huge band of Jews working their computer and comms systems, see the parades of young 'Jews' watching, going for lunch there where such dim luminaries as Mrs Tony Blair plied their money-grabbing trade. I was photographed with an infra-red camera, I suppose by some Jewish clown. I noticed Kevin MacDonald now of the Occidental Observer, Lady Renouf (a recent awakener), and no doubt others.

David met many people in those days and told me money poured into 'every available orifice'. I was only slightly Jew-aware at the time, and regret not keeping in touch with him, especially as I developed along different lines, very much suppressed by the 'powers that be', such as the Jewish ownership of all sides in WW2 and for that matter WW1.

I have to say I despair at some of the comments here - Snowden, Assange, Pilger are of course phonies; the Hitler-worshipping types have managed to steer themselves into deep grooves, so the manufactured animosities remain uncorrected; some still believe parts of the Holohoax fabrication; none mention such things as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which ushered in the present era.

Strokes can be fairly harmless, but can be deadly and life-shattering; I fear David may be irreversibly injured. I hope not. I hope he can recover sufficiently to complete his life's work. I'd be even more pleased if he could obtain information from Jewish archives -- if they keep them -- and produce unique new work.

I hope it's too early to say R.I.P. -- I shall just hope for David's revival

Rae West


I remain agnostic of the value of his work as a contribution to truth. As symbols one may take the fact that the last day, the summing-up, of his trial of Lipstadt and Penguin Books was day 33. Significant?   His slow exposure of Bletchley Park and decoding of Enigma over many years was a triumph of dogged research... or was he guided by a careful trail, to adopt the pretence that there were secrets, when the truth was Jews communicated by radio across the world, controlling money, weapons, and troops, to their victory?   Were full archives of the USSR and East Germany etc opened to him... or were Jewish-related archives kept away?

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

Desmond Morris: The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo

For space reasons, this longish set of reviews is here. Please click the link. - RW 5 December 2023
Top of Page

Richard Lynn: Memoirs of a Dissident Psychologist   (2020)

Richard Lynn (1930-2023)
I've copied his online memoir here

"I have generally had a happy life. I have only had two episodes of serious misery".   Epitaph of a self-satisfied man who wasted most of his life in trite controversy


Published by Ulster Institute for Social Research, London.
This is available online; I don't know if it was ever printed by the 'Ulster Institute' in London.
The life part takes 425 pages. Followed by 30 pages of his publications, 10 pages of references, and 8 pages of index.
Lynn spent his life with men of similar psychological types—keen on 'IQ' without much awareness of the difficulties of describing intelligence, let alone measuring it. Like many small groups, from theoretical physicist to campaigners for animal rights, the same names recur often. Much of Lynn's life was spent in issuing warnings about dysgenics, just as in late Victorian times and between the world wars. These warnings were ineffectual; Lynn had no idea what forces were leading to odd behaviour. He liked to discuss race and sex differences, which were considered 'controversial', though probably 'controversy' was an excuse to waste time while unchanged policies were pursued. He has a few stories on attempts at sexual (but not homosexual) blackmail. He thought boys' IQs increased with some maturity, and considered this an important discovery. And he thought boys had more 'general knowledge' than girls; imagine trying to quantify that!
      In his later years he turned to 'psychopathy', another ill-defined idea. But the Talmud is a manual of psychopathy—child sex, use on non-Jews as prostitutes, habitual lying to non-Jews, arranging frauds against non-Jews. Lynn did not know, or was careful to avoid, all this, despite 'psychopathy' being invented as a category in psychology when the late 19th century planned invasion by Jews from Germany, Poland, and Russia took place.

All the researchers into intelligence seem rather dim; possibly less dim people are disinclined to investigate such a complicated topic. Or perhaps it's an artefact of science writing. But it has to be noted: they aren't entirely convincing, and have turned out to be unpersuasive. Lynn indirectly notices this, and his list of about 500 publications have no focus.

Was Richard Lynn a Jew?
Irritatingly, as with Eysenck, this looks likely, and would explain many aspects of his life, as with A J P Taylor, such as easy access to money and easy apparently upward mobility, and joining the Communist Party when Jews thought it as a good idea. I wonder if his work on blacks might have been designed to help race wars along, as Milees Mathis suggests. Here's a passage:

I was born in the London suburb of Hampstead on the 20th of February, 1930. It was there that I spent my first five years. My mother and I lived in a flat quite close to Hampstead Heath, famous from the paintings of Constable, and now a haunt of homosexuals cruising for casual partners, but in those days a thoroughly respectable place. My earliest memory dates to when I was three and is of being lost on the Heath. Some kindly person found me wandering alone and took me to the Police Station, where in due course I was collected by my mother. This was perhaps an early instance of my propensity to strike out in new directions, which has been an abiding characteristic. The child is father to the man. My mother was a single parent, so I had something of a deprived upbringing. My lack of a father was to some extent compensated for by my mother’s parents William and Agnes Freeman who lived close by...

Lynn makes use of official statistics, for example in alcohol consumption by counties, as a result of which he sates that Ireland has no alcohol problem. Meaning that other countries drink more. Rushton made more use of international statistics, including IQ figures. These of course are liable to errors in administration and scoring; and the maths by which integer scores are made to fit the Gaussian distribution are usually not understood. Comparisons of national income give more problems. So do emigration and immigration figures. And crime figures. None of this is Lynn's fault, but he seems sublimely unaware of the problems. This perhaps works in his favour: others wonder about arms spending on income per head, but Lynn just looks at countries or nations.

His book is arranged by places in Ireland and England, and by years, from 'Early years' to 1944-2018. I'd guess he used desk diaries; he recreates the intellectual atmosphere in his mini-milieu with brief remarks on books and their attempts at ideas. His views were mostly orthodox: he believed in nuclear bombs and power and the nuclear threat; he noticed churches without saying much about them, though he noticed fervent believers tend to be less intelligent than—he dodged the issue; he disliked corporal punishment in English 'public schools', he thought Auschwitz was a mass slaughterhouse, he thinks 'left' and 'right' are useful terms, that Nobel Prizes are serious, .he was critical of many lecturers and many books, a useful adaptation amongst a milieu of outputters of books. But he disapproved of the First World War, though exclusively the British dead. He makes comments on 'good music', which was common at the time. He has nothing to say on huge issues; just remarks on people like Thatcher.

It might be expected that Lynn would list people who'd been overlooked for their views. Arthur Keith's New Theory of Human Evolution (1948) which thinks nations are the main evolutionary unit is there. Clark Hull's theory of behaviour 'resembling Euclid's geometry'. Harry Jerison’s book Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence. In this he set out the general principles of the evolution of greater intelligence (1973) 'a masterly analysis which curiously has not been given the recognition it deserves.'


Lynn's work is rather crude, with hundreds of millions of people grouped together. (India and Pakistan are more or less ignored). Many of the assumptions look doubtful. Did mankind in fact emerge from Africa? If north America's natives came from China, couldn't they have done more? Granted that Africa has a hot climate, aren't there dangerous animals, snakes, insects—why are cold areas assumed to be more difficult?
The elephant in the room is of course Jews and their secrecy and numbers. Lynn notes that in a country he's discussing, known Jews make say 2% of the population. He says nothing of other secret groups, such as Freemasons. But Jews co-operate internationally, and Lynn had no figures for their world population. He has no idea that the US Federal Reserve was a gold-mine for Jews but with paper in place of gold. He's heard of the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act but not who promoted it; and the Fed had much the same far-reaching effects—world wars in particular.
      Lynn's misunderstandings extended to the problems generated by types like Soros, a Jew from Hungary. Lynn's power plays extend to a few colleague and employee appointments in a university department or two. He had no feeling for the ways controllers of large sums of paper money, gave it out and got permanent inflows. When a head of some college is told to tolerate fake demonstrations, or the police are instructed by Jewish fixers that they must stand down, then that's what they do. When the BBC and TV media and press all said the same lies, Lynn noted it without understanding why it happened. Lynn had no grasp of the invention of things like AIDS and COVID and fluoridation.
      The unique Jewish contributions include the fantasy of their God, which has penetrated, so far, steadily. And the Kahal system, under which what's yours is mine (after a bit of work). And killing of goyim, preferably by other goyim. Their divide-and-rule system, in which part of a population is split off and paid to patrol the rest—Christianity and Islam as examples—is a masterpiece of remote parasitism. Their promotion of immigration into white countries is essential to understand, but is not in Lynn. Lynn did no work on any of this, or on Jews in the USSR and China. He knows nothing of addictions—alcohol and opiates. Lynn knows nothing of slavery, and the way slaves were sloughed off as mechanical power grew. He knows nothing of Jewish hatred for 'goyim' which shows no signs of diminishing. Lynn has no idea that Jews don't want eugenics—why would they help their enemies? Lynn has no conception of the systematic lying baked into Judaism in the Talmud.
      Lynn gives some minor evidence of activity: as far back as 1978 he visited Jared Taylor and American Renaissance, unaware perhaps of Taylor's link to Jews. Lynn mentions the The Occidental Observer once, but not Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald's TOO ran a laudatory obituary; but MacDonald is the same type, saying nothing important or useful.
      Jewish paper money is essential in keeping education systems under control. University budgets are colossal and probably kept unstably high. Lynn had little interest in money, except for himself. The existential threats of mysterious Jews' representatives explaining to University Presidents that they may be unwise in teaching certain truths are unknown to Lynn.

On the plus side, I only found one typo, 'formerly' confused with 'formally'.

Rae West   25 July 2023

Top of Page

Robert Conquest: Kolyma. The Arctic Death Camps

Here's a guest review, by Chris Caskie, of this book by Robert Conquest. A story which of course has been suppressed as much as possible.

Top of Page

Robert Conquest: The Great Hunger.   1986

I don't like the word 'genocide', a Jewish expression which suggests complete extermination. It was pushed into general use when Jews planned their victory in the Second World War. 'Mass Killings' are the authentic Jewish activity.

Here's a guest review, by Chris Caskie, of this book by Robert Conquest. Conquest was a friend of Kingsley Amis who (judging from several clues, including Martin Amis's absurdities, may have been himself a secret Jew).

Top of Page

See English Heritage crit: late 2023 for a longer version.

English Heritage logo Review of   English Heritage   Members' Magazine
Anglo-Jewish Quasi-Heritage. Shows how Jews work their way in to their targets, then take over.
English Heritage's 60-ish-page Quarterly Magazines     Review by 'Rerevisionist' Sept 2023, October 2022. (The reviews later are mewest first).

Summer 2023 magazine.   Cover design (right) shows Bolsover Castle, with an entertainer.
  • 'Tom Fool' says he purveys mirth and fun. I doubt whether the middle ages knew of paraffin and spitting it through fire. But there was a serious purpose behind the fool; not just the Yorick type, infinite of jest. But—and the only person I remember putting this view, Prof C N Parkinson—the fool was allowed to point things out that the castle's hierarchical summit occupiers might not like. Parkinson claims they performed a valuable function, which is easy to believe. 'English Heritage' knows nothing of this, and substitutes pranks and silliness.
  • Bolsover Castle is an impressive piece of work; note the flat-faced stonework, the elegant detailing, the window openings. English Heritage prefers architecture as a spectator sport and seems to have no-one able to describe the fine points of interior design. I find this rather painful; stone buildings seem rather uncommon around the world—many 'cultures' such as most of Africa having none. Probably masons, architects, people who built scaffolding, people who arranged kitchens and chimneys and roofs, those who had to do with water and cleaning and lavatorial functions, people breeding and training and housing horses, were specialised groups with long traditions. English Heritage knows nothing of this. Instead, we have the Jewish-style assumption that such things will naturally appear if instructed, or paid.
My personal guess is that Freemasons, as a secret and organised group financially controlled by Jews, and arranged in the Jewish 'Kahal' style of two classes, slowly appeared or emerged, based on the great and irreplaceable value of such people. To this day Freemasonry has a hierarchy of ranks, though this can be ascended effortlessly by select elite members. But this is after the constructions have been constructed, not before. And is opposed to the 'slash and burn' style of society with impermanent timber structures and open land.
      I'd guess that English Heritage deals with structures that are considered of little value, in contrast to the National Trust, which handles such buildings as have residual value. Much of the National Trust must have to try to deal with buildings which even in their own day were precarious and overstretched and higher risk than would have been accepted without sales pressure.



List of obscure people & organisations in control of English Heritage. Helps explain why nothing is known of the people around Stonehenge.

      Leafing through the magazine is a depressing experience. Apparently aimed at a supposedly childish level, we find articles on Hallowe'en as a matter of US-style pumpkins and 'witches' and cobwebs. All Hallows Eve was traditionally something like a shadowy ancestor-worship, or perhaps a version of a one-minute silence to contemplate death and past times, probably converted into the Christian attitude of resurrection. We also have a piece on 'most haunted' houses—Bolsover Castle winning the prize. There's an article on Japan and stonehenge; it seems Japan has stone monuments too. But inspection of this piece reveals they have nothing like stonehenge, but only arrangements of small stones in circles.
      Rather saddening stuff.
English Heritage's 60-ish-page Quarterly Magazine     Review by 'Rerevisionist' May 2017 and later

Browsing Youtube videos, as one does, a young Ukrainian wife showed us around her town, assuring us it is peaceful and family-friendly, and likes tourists. She referred to a famine monument, and said "Mmmmm—it was something to do with religion". Victors not only write history, but shape historical perceptions and monuments.

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

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

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

My principal dislike is what might be called the overwhelmingly 'politically correct' content, doing nothing to promote public knowledge. I'll give here an expandable list of problems:
• A Woman in a jousting suit of specially-made armour illustrates the rather absurd 'politically correct' content. Another is a struggle for wall-mounted blue plaques, for blacks and Asians! And there's a constant wariness of immigrants, invaded by invitation of Jews, who seem to have little interest in English or any other history.
• Many aspects of English history are elided away: Evidence of the two Empires (including North America) is barely mentioned. Nothing much of shipbuilders, navigators, sailors who once spent their lives sailing around the world. Many industrial revolution sites (Wigan Pier, anyone?) and fishing and farming seem under-represented; instead we have a servants-eye view of bits of Great Houses, of the Pitkin Illustrated Guide sort.
• Church history is shown as ruins with little feel for the politics and power struggles. In the issue I have in front of me, Cuthbert of an Anglo-Saxon monastery, or perhaps later a Priory, seems to have been demoted and then promoted. Hints of how Jewish scribblings were made a power bloc are missing.
• Stonehenge has a special mention in March 2020. No mention of a 'renovation' in which stones were moved by cranes, and concrete used, I think in the 1920s.
• The world wars are shown from a childish pro-Jewish viewpoint. No exhibits showing British-supported mass killings in Jewish USSR, for example.
• Let's look at specific Jewish issues. Just a few:
(1) Many issues, including wars, with Wales, Scotland, and Ireland had Jew intervention.
(2) An article on the 'Second Anglo-Dutch War' (date given as 1666) says nothing about the so-called Bank of England, invented of course by Amsterdam Jews.
(3) Clifford's Tower in York: 'We that the present visit ... Doesn't do justice to the site's important and tragic history..'. It's best known for an influx of Jews, but not best known for the reasons.
(4) Similarly, monuments such as 'Little St Hugh' in Lincoln have not been restored.
(5) Jack the Ripper's predations as far as I know are suppressed—a long tradition of keeping mum about Jews and the East End of London.
(6) Jewish 'race' and separatist education is not as far as I know shown in any museum anywhere.
(7) Now I think of it, primitive Kosher and/or Muslim slaughterhouses might count as 'English heritage'.
• The Second World War and Jewish victory provide endless scope for gawping without analysis: white cliffs, tunnels, emplacements of many types, free gifts for Stalin, dead pilots. It is now known that Germans were tortured in 'the cage' in London; Hess was jailed and killed; a few Britons were imprisoned under Section 18B; propaganda was printed, filmed, and broadcast. Foreigners were blockaded; and so on. Sites may remain which could be made suitable for visitors.
• Great country houses were funded by many means, including the Jewish-run East India Company, and by Jewish money from forcing opium into China, and from killing Boers to get gold. But the presentation of such houses is in the style of romantic novels.
• Castles are treated in the same sort of way, without consideration of Cromwell's Jew-funded cannon against the English, wars with Wales, whatever.
• Gunpowder, Firearms: Note that the long conquest of India by the East India Company and others depended largely on firearms, but all this is suppressed. However, of course Jews benefited from Cromwell, so of course the use of cannon is smiled upon.

Anyway, more in sorrow than anger... I wonder if a time will ever come when true English history is on open display?
[Added Aug 2018]   The October 2017 issue has a 'past lives' piece on Karl Marx in London. It's a straightforward parroting of the usual rubbish. Marx is now known to have been part of the super-rich industrialist group. Here's a good piece on Marx mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf partly on Trier, partly (the second half) on Marx. A house in London had a blue plaque as far back as 1935. It's irritating to find barefaced lies repeated in so-called English Heritage.

I looked at July 2017's issue; even with padding the magazine gets ever-thinner. It has 6 pages (42-47) on films partly show in 'historic sites', including Victoria and Abdul, Wonder Woman, Avengers: Age of Ultron, The Mummy, and Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice. And 4 pages (30-33) on another film, Dunkirk, more trash. There's a page on 'Shakespeare's Birthplace'. And a couple of conservation pieces, on Osborne Palace and Framlingham Castle, though the full expenses/tourist figures are suppressed. It's all very sad. But the long-established English tradition, if it can be called that, telling lies about so-called 'Jews', is maintained.


Top of Page

John Keegan: Historian?


Some notes made from Internet sources, books I own, and other material.

John Desmond Patrick Keegan (1934-2012) dedicated his The Second World War (published 1989 by Century-Hutchinson in most of the English-speaking parts of the late British Empire; I don't know the US/Canada publishers)

To my pupils at
the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst
1960-1986

Click here for rather hostile notes on Sir John Was Keegan a historian?


Top of Page

Oswald Mosley My Life
Oswald Mosley   My Life   (Autobiography. First published 1968)   «This review is banned by Amazon 
Little on his private life. Slightly more on his politics. I've tried quite a serious assessment of this enigmatic personality.     Including: Was he a Jew Stooge, a Useful Idiot, or Something Else?   Links are all into this site.
OswaldMosley.com created in 2000 by FOM, Friends of Mosley, who put My Life online here. It appears to date from 2006; it's not clear how close it is to the original. There are some scanner errors: 'Clifford Alien' for 'Clifford Allen'; 'nattering' for 'flattering'; 'Verweile dock, du hist so schon'.
Unindexed; no list of photos.

[Another site is OswaldMosley.net created in 2008 by Robert Edwards. 'Oliver Cromwell and the New Model Army of the parliamentarians spring instantly to mind. Mosley often invoked those heroes of our British past in his orations to his Blackshirt followers'—sublimely Jew-naive.]


Oswald Mosley (1896-1980) was about 18 when the 'Great War' was begun. No wonder he was torn between thought and action.
He married Lady Cynthia, between 1920-1933, and Diana Mitford from 1936-1980.
Because Jewish archives, if any, are secret: even the Fed is unaudited. And related archives are missing or sealed, for example of Britain's royal family, and of international dealers in money and weapons... I've tried to show the uncertainties surrounding the entire subject, not only Oswald Mosley

[1] Mosley's Aristocratic Life   Mosley's first 18 years were in Edwardian England (plus four years, to be precise). My Life is quite good on county life, and such things as parkland, animal breeders and trees, riding and hunting and shooting. The sort of thing Bertrand Russell thought explained why the 'Labour Party' got few country votes. Mosley mentions his ancestry, but in my opinion shows very little grasp of history. He knew about Roundheads and Cavaliers, but seemed not to know that Cromwell was a tool of Amsterdam Jews. As a few more random examples, he knew little about the Normans, about country houses, about primogeniture, about the effects of the Bank of England in the 18th century, the Rothschilds and Waterloo, and the coming of railways. His descriptions of the lifestyle are quite attractive, for example the large numbers of servants, cooks, horse people, and well-fed butlers with year-round activities. All this ceased in 1914. He was young then, but seemed never to have discovered why 'death duties' (what a phrase, aimed at a sense of honour!) were imposed, or who controlled the gradual seep of propaganda.
      His lifestyle must have included dealings with money, but he was secretive, as is common. Probably he thought that aristocratic dealings were none of anyone else's business. Understandable, but not helpful in an autobiography. His remarks are mostly selfish, not wide-ranging and community-regarding: here a 999 year lease as disastrous for him compared with 99; there, he made money 'in a banal way'. He must have held on to, or made money: after the second world war he moved house at least twice, to large places in both cases I think; maybe through marriage. As to what was left of English aristocrats after World Wars 1 and 2, he says little.
      My Life's blurb says he knew 'everyone worth knowing'. But did he know Sieff? Rothschilds? The Warburgs, sitting on opposite sides of the table at Versailles? At that 'Paris Peace Conference', Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George, and Clemenceau had Jew advisors. He knew Mr Amery, secretly Jewish, 'the chief apostle of protection'. Later, he was a friend of Brendan Bracken, a Jew from Hungary, one of the dark grey eminences of the type made more visible by war.

[2] Mosley and Health, Fitness, Effort, Beauty, Action   Mosley liked fitness, and seemed proud of his physique. He liked beauty in women. He liked action, without really defining it. I *think* he liked the thought of air flight, then of course new: there's a good account in H G Wells's novel Tono-Bungay of the sheer excitement of flight, for the first time in human history. But this assumes a class of designers, mechanics, airfields, fuel—it's expensive. Part of the excitement of war became the use of expensive equipment and machinery—machine-guns, shells, tanks, aircraft, ships—and (up to a point) thought was needed. But it was easy to spread war fever, as Jews soon found.
      Mosley described the 'thought-deed man' (in The Alternative in 1947). 'The prime necessity of the modern world: men who can both think and act.' Not a new idea; Mazzini thought France could act, Germany think, Britain make things, and Italy combine thought and action—changes during and after Napoleon explain why he thought that, and show how writers and their views become outdated. Bergson, influenced by Darwin, said similar things, praising cavalry charges (for example) as combining action and thought. Mosley discusses Nietzsche in My Life. I doubt Mosley's appreciation, as Nietzsche's writings are often incomprehensible or unclear (and Jew-evasive) and Mosley only learned German relatively late in life.
      An oddity, in my opinion—when medical science and biology had made huge strides—in nutrition, water, muscle strength, limits of human bodies—and psychology had made some progress in assessing mental processes—is that many people could believe in 'supermen'.

[3] Mosley's Intellect   He seems to have picked up memes, without realising how they were trickled into the media, often by Jews. Memes such as: Nationalism in the sense of a tightly-defined area with a few bosses, which Jews wanted; the run-up to the Great War; such things as 'guild socialism', 'communism', 'commonwealth', which he never seems to have discussed with any circles of friends, and of course was discouraged in war service. He thought of 'science' in the way simple Africans talked of 'scientific socialism' and seemed to have no idea of advances made in Germany. After the Second World War war, he picked up more memes: the 'brain drain', for example. Even his views on post-1945 Europe sound derivative.
      Individualism was heavily promoted by Jews, to distract from their own clannish secrecy and freemasonry and international collusion. Hence the Führerprincip enabling decisions supposedly of Hitler to be forced on Germans. And hence the controlled media and orators encouraging thoughts of strength and health and power, morphing into battles and wars.
      Mosley was impressed by unemployment, and depressions, which is probably why he joined the Labour Party, perhaps innocently believing it would help labour. Generally he had a tendency to believe he was uniquely on to something, when in fact he must have absorbed reports from, I'd guess, BBC Radio and The Times and HMSO papers and Victor Gollancz's books, all of course mostly presenting Jewish views and propaganda.


On Christianity, Mosley (like very many westerners) seems to have never reconciled its obvious acquisitiveness and partial militarism with its supposed ethics. He seems to have had little appreciation of the part played by Jews in forming Islam. Rather sadly, he has nothing much to say about Keynes, Russell, Shaw (1933, On the Rocks:—'.. capital punishment has been abolished in Russia (liquidation by the Ogpu is not punishment. It is "weeding the garden"), Wells (a science populariser, says Mosley). Wilde is represented by one aphorism. 'George Orwell' is unmentioned.
      All this is very typical of the time, but does not suggest piercing thought. And all the time propaganda techniques improved—radio, cinema, secrecy, and post-1945 television. Only Internet, firmly post-Mosley, has had any countervailing effect.
      Mosley had the habit of picking up unsound opinions by direct contact. One of his evidences for Jews not uniting in long-term frauds was that he spoke to James de Rothschild in Deauville, 'when I was there to play polo. and he to play golf ... he addressed to me some pointed and impressive remarks: "Never believe the Jews are capable of acting together—we have tried to organise them for generations..." Mosley surrounds this with detailed personal descriptions of de Rothschild, and praise for his having left a country house to Britain! I doubt Mosley ever got the feel for the huge expenditures of governments, and even huger borrowings. Mosley is indignant at unethical actions, but draws no useful conclusions. '... the Home Secretary, Sir John Simon ... denounced with fervour over the radio the outrage of the Germans in arresting and detaining without trial Pastor Niemoeller, after he had been acquitted of charges in the German courts.' The same man of course did just the same with 18B detainees.

[4] Mosley and Jews   I suspect Mosley's view of English history was derived from Macaulay, the propagandist for Cromwell and the 'Great Revolution'. In Mosley's own century, Trevelyan and Churchill provided apparently patriotic works, after WW1, which were unperceptive and Jew-naive, and seemed to be patriotic.
      Some Jewish-related issues which Mosley ignores, include
      Mass movement of Jews into east London (note that Churchill hindered action on 'alien immigration' by filibustering Parliament)
      Churchill took part in the Boer wars and must have known about Jew finance there
      Churchill should have known about the founding of the Jewish Federal Reserve in 1913
      Churchill, involved in debates on ships and arms, must have had some knowledge of weapons and loans and profitability
      Mosley says nothing about the 'leader' of the newly-formed Eire being a Jew, de Valera
      Mosley says nothing about Coudenhove-Kalergi, despite the latter's propagandist attacks on Europe.

Modern opinion, taken from Talmudic writings and modern Jewish propaganda, plus the Protocols of Zion, would predict that Jews would plot to kill as many non-Jews, especially the "best", as possible. Mosley seems to have known nothing of this.

Skinhead is an anonymous piece (not by Miles Mathis) with some information on Mosley but which understates the influence of Jews. Interestingly, guesses that Cable Street was an event manufactured for political control.

My Chronology of 'Jews' from early times includes
      Henry Ford The International Jew (1920 onwards)
      Hilaire Belloc The Jews (1922)
      A H Lane The Alien Menace (1934)

After WW2, Jewish censorship was almost complete. It masqueraded as 'American' vs 'Russian'. We have only a few books by tiny publishers:
      Capt A H M Ramsay The Nameless War (1952)
      'Frank L Britton' Behind Communism 1952?
      F J P Veale Advance to Barbarism (1953) omits most huge atrocities, which were only partly leaked over the coming half century, and has only a few mentions of Jews.

With the expansion of universities, Jews seeded into the system were promoted. A good example is A J P Taylor's life and review of Origins of the Second World War. Taylor and others often state that Mosley was impressive, and his ideas were ahead of his time; and he could have been a great Prime Minister, of either the 'Labour Party' or the 'Conservatives'. In my view, this is just Jewish bullshit, and gives some idea how the NSDAP may have been promoted. Arnold Leese, who was referred to anonymously as a vet by Mosley in My Life, ridiculed Mosley as a 'Kosher Fascist', but might just as well have called him a 'Kosher Patriot' or 'Kosher Nationalist' or 'Kosher European'.

[5] Mosley and British and European Politics   My Life ends with what he hoped were to be his contributions, a manifesto. Before that, Chapter 20 tries to explain why he opposed the Second World War—essentially, because Britain still had considerable power, and it seemed unlikely that war could help. He never suspected any of the things which seem rather clear now:—that the murder of millions of Jews was a sham, that Jews benefitted from war by getting forcible repayments from all sides, risking nothing, that Jews in America were perfectly happy to have the British Empire given to them by Jews in Britain, that nuclear weapons were a hoax to keep their Jewish secrets in the USSR, that enormous mass killings in the east were Jewish. He doesn't even seem to know that Stalin was given US and British war materiel.

Here's what Mosley did from 1931:

The New Party was launched on March 1, 1931 [Very long accounts of noise and violence. Mosley noticed that police authorities did nothing to prosecute and control thugs. Just as now, of course. It seems remarkable enough—he might have taken action.]

I was more fortunate in these troubles than most leaders of new parties, whether of the left, right or centre. The whole leadership of the Communist Party melted away after the disaster of 1905; in the Lessons of October, Trotsky claims that he and Lenin were the only survivors of the leadership in 1917. Hitler shot seventy of his previously most trusted assistants on June 30,1934, and Mussolini, not long before his arrival in power, was near to resignation on account of divisions within the party. .... Communism today commands half the world. It rests on a combination of Marxian thinking and communist party action. [Again, Mosley is or pretends to be utterly naive. The Jews leading the coups in Russia did not 'melt away'! Hitler killed off genuine national socialists, presumably as they would soon learn to be suspicious of him. And the idea that 'Communism' is dependent on Marxian thinking is ludicrous, it is dependent on control of paper money].

Between the wars:   Mosley promoted rearmament. Was it unfair on our platform battle of that time to say: 'All wars are good to the Socialist Party on three conditions: the first, that the war should be in the interest of the Soviets and not in the interest of Britain; the second, that our troops have no arms with which to fight; and the third, that socialist leaders are not included among the troops'. (June 26, 1936.) [Mosley confuses Socialism with Jewish 'Communism'. He liked an oratorical style which was difficult to answer within a practicable time-frame].

On the other hand, our British Government's guarantee to Poland was simply asking for war. [Surely, by 1968, he must have had doubts about the motives for the 'Guarantee'].

[6] Mosley and World Politics   Note that John Tyndall (1934-2005) published his Eleventh Hour in 1988, twenty years after Mosley. It had similar errors and assumptions, but at least was Jew-aware.

Problems of world trade were out of Mosley's range, as they were and are to most people.

1945-9 ... the action of the Labour Government at that time not only violated every principle for which they professed to have been fighting the war, subsequently stated in the Charter of the United Nations and the concomitant instruments which British Government later signed, but also casually tossed on the scrapheap the basic principles of our own Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and other sacred institutions long enshrined in British constitutional usage

1956 'the soviets' [i.e. Russians and others under Jew control] 'savage repression of the Hungarian people. Mosley had no idea these were Jews, co-operating. See below David Irving: Uprising!

1959. Chapter 24, North Kensington—Later Renewal of Communist Violence.
      On immigration and overcrowding. 'The Government appeared either entirely impotent or quite unwilling to deal with the resultant situation. ... It was ... one of the chief surprises of my life when we polled only eight per cent of the votes recorded...' Mosley notices immigration, started by a Jew (see Dr Joyce), and of course continuing to this day. Voting fraud is another Jewish importation.

1962, I think. Mosley records East London, where I and other speakers had frequently addressed large gatherings in perfect peace and order ever since the war. ... In innumerable meetings before and since the war I had never previously met disorder of any kind in East London. This time, however, a reception committee was awaiting me from far afield. On arrival at the meeting I found to my surprise that the police had placed two green buses across the path to the platform, and that I must walk alone through a narrow aperture between them to reach it. My supporters were thus prevented from accompanying me. Directly I emerged from this passage I was set upon by a group of men standing near the platform and knocked to the ground, with some of them falling on top of me in their eagerness to get blow or kick in first. I then saved myself from serious injury by holding one of them closely on top of me and rolling from side to side with this protection from blows which were imminent with weapons as well as with fists and boots.

Thus the recipe for closing down free speech in Britain is quite simple, although personally I do not propose to use it: take along a few well-organised roughs to make a row in the middle of a large and orderly meeting; the Government will then close down not the roughs but the speaker. Having passed a special Act of Parliament, curiously known as the Public Order Act, to remove our right to defend ourselves, the Government then also removed our free speech by closing meetings at the behest of any small but highly organised bunch of red hooligans. His son Max was attacked, but was arrested - OM calls this 'curious'. He seems never to have seen through the Jewish behind-the-scenes activity. It remains more or less the same now.


His views on the world's situations seem agonisingly Jew-blind, with unelected scum of the Kissinger type fomenting wars. Here's Mosley, as always taking a simple stereotyped view: ... natural balance to Chinese influence in Asia would be a combination between India and Japan. The energy and executive ability of Japan would be a support to India, and the Indian potential market would be a challenge and an outlet to the constructive capacities of Japan.

My approach to the African question is from an economic and social and not from a racial standpoint. Racialism has really nothing whatever to do with this matter. ....If in the same economic community you mix people of completely different stages of development, you get ... a grave social problem with bitter resentments. I may possibly claim foresight for having devised a policy to meet these difficulties in 1948 when they were not so clearly apparent. It was called the Mosley-Pirow proposals, because my collaborator was generous enough to give it this name, although he had far more knowledge of the subject and did most of the work. Oswald Pirow was at that time a distinguished member of the South African Bar; he had previously been Minister of Defence in 1939 and had occupied several posts in the South African Government, but resigned at the outbreak of war for the natural reason that he was of German origin. Goldman Sachs in China, people like Ronald Kasrils, Roy Welensky, Helen Zille ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

[7] Was Mosley a Useful Idiot? Or a Fellow-Traveller of Jews?
My best guess—bearing in mind that relevant documents are suppressed—is that he was an isolated aristocrat, unaware of being fleeced, acting out a theoretical rôle as 'Leader', possibly as Caesar. His beliefs were fragmentary, and he never achieved a synthesis. He scorned to learn, especially about Jews, their concealed vicious beliefs, and their treacherous subordinates. And people with cryptic information probably kept their secrets from him: Foreign Office officials knew the gas chambers were fake; many people knew Hiroshima was firebombed; the 'Labour' party were planning coloured immigration even before WW2; vast atrocities in Germany and Russia were kept secret by the BBC; the Jewish paper money uses probably were kept from him, though he must have known bankers; he had little awareness of property swindles.
      Was he naive? The BBC, he says, kept him out for years—the last time he spoke on BBC radio was in 1934. And yet he appeared on TV in an obviously set-up David Frost programme—available on Youtube—with a typical Jew fraudster. But did Mosley really expect a hearing?
      Many people were, or seemed to be, Jew-blind: George Orwell, for instance. And deception was the order of the day, as now. Mosley wrote a well-known letter to Russell, suggesting co-operation: Russell's reply proved neither had a clue about the world. If it turns out that the NSDAP was orchestrated by insanely rich Jews, strategically dotted about the world, intent on theft and murder of the best goyim, could Mosley fit in? I'd guess there'd be a constant risk of his refusing to accept some evil sleight of hand. The Jury is out, or, rather, hasn't yet heard the evidence. But in my view Mosley offered nothing new or promising.

RW   2018-11-18


Top of Page
Kinship and Marriage   by   Robin Fox   (First published 1967)
Review: 'Rerevisionist' 26 July 2018

How Jews Ruin Serious Research Work
John R Baker (in Race (OUP, 1974) fixes the close of the period in which both sides in the ethnic controversy were free to put forward their views... as 1928, with Piritim Sorokin's Contemporary Sociological Theories. The 'ethnic problem' being inequalities in races.

Robin Fox was born in 1934, aged about ten at the official close of the Second World War, when practical people started to look around for promising life's work. Without attempting to check, I'm assuming he identified with Jews: Boas, Lévi-Strauss, Ashley Montagu (real name Israel Ehrenberg; Fox calls him 'the last public intellectual'), Freud, numerous Harvard 'thinkers', David Attenborough (who helped conceal atrocities in eastern Europe—and elsewhere), even Margaret Mead. Many get absurd plaudits from Fox.

I re-examined this book after reading part II by 'Gerry' (www.mileswmathis.com/phoen2.pdf), which includes illustrated speculation on the Assyrian 'tree of life', considering whether these trees are a diagram of intergenerational breeding of lord(s) or monarch(s). An obvious question is the genetic soundness of such processes; if the tree interpretation is accurate; what can be deduced?

Fox admits he has almost no knowledge of genetics. And—although he doesn't say this—he makes no comment on the huge upheavals of the 20th century: for example, huge Jewish-run massacres in the USSR; some areas converted into huge whorehouses; prostitution and rape in Germany; for that matter, writing in 1967, prostitution and rape in Vietnam. Most of his book therefore inevitably looks at obscure places—though less so Africa with its largely unpleasant history. It's an exercise in credulity to read his accounts, or mostly of course other people's accounts, of various supposed customs and their interpretations. It's impossible to know how accurate the accounts ever were. And it's difficult to 'hindcast' the models: Fox writes as though groups were seeded across a territory and then had to deal with that situation as though it was new. One test is to try to work out a likely pattern in (just one example) the stonehenge area: what seems likely? The explanations are often in diagram form, since, just as beads were popular in Africa, diagrams are popular with light sciences. Another omission, I need hardly say, is of Jewish practices, despite their partial documentation.

There's a lot of introductory material, which reads like, and probably is, sets of notes for the young audiences of 1960s university expansion. It's slightly reminiscent of LGBT stuff today; if some women call others 'sister' even if they aren't, well—it's their choice of wording. It's also reminiscent of discussions, if they can be called that, on 'patriarchy', though 'patrilineal' fortunately seems more helpful. I'm pretty sure Fox doesn't conclude anything: he likes phrases such as 'reciprocal-exogamic direct exchange system' 'cognatic descent groups' and '... cognatic version of the Chinese practice of incorporating the wife of a man into his lineage'. He gives almost no references: I checked Shoshone, Murngin, and Purum as examples and found it impossible to check who wrote what about them, and when. The fact seems to be that 'kinship' is just a part of life, embedded within territory, food, expectations of children, alliances, work, diseases and accidents and disasters, laws and customs, seasons, external power(s), and limitations of memory. I doubt whether many people ever completed this book; I see Amazon has only two reviews, of standard types.
      In my view, Fox hasn't successfully separated out the 'models' from what might be considered the 'noise'. It doesn't help that after 1945, groups of Jews have paid and recruited each other, and have colonised most important topics. The harm done is incalculable.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

three men in a boat engraving
1889 domestic life in England. This was before television; and before radio and cinema. Before colour photographs, refrigeration, telephones. Before commercial electric light; gas lights were at that time leading-edge recent inventions. No motor-cars; London had many horse-drawn cabs, and of course horses needed such things as livery stables and horse tack and food and shoes—and disposal facilities. Flying machines were widely believed to be an impossibility. The very first ocean liners dated from about 40 years earlier; clippers (fast sailing ships) had died out 20 years earlier, after the Suez Canal removed their raison d'être; iron ships, both coal steamers and sailing ships, scene-set in the novels (for example) by Joseph Conrad, W. W. Jacobs, and Jack London, were a vast global haulage industry. A threat to British sea power was 'unthinkable': so Bertrand Russell wrote looking back—not knowing that the sea power appears to have been Jewish, not British.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
Norman Bentwich (I think) is under-represented as an influence; he is unindexed in Culture of Critique, for instance. His life was taken up by apparently academic studies of Talmudic topics, such as the Promied Land, War and property, Commercial Law; the English academic system accommodated many of his type. He moved thanks to the 'Great War' into official positions such as Attorney-General in Palestine (until 1931). Wikipedia of course modestly conceals the reasons for dislike of him.

A Wanderer in War was published in 1946 by Victor Gollancz, a Jewish propagandist.

Wikipedia says he was Norman de Mattos Bentwich, suggesting Iberian Jewish extraction, 1883-1971, born in Hampstead in London. His wife Helen Caroline (1892-1972) is given no detail in Wikipedia, as is usual with Jews.

I mention Bentwich after noting Norman Bentwich is noted with great disgust in a booklet Jensen on the myth of world food shortage a piece opposing food rationing after 1945 in Britain.


Top of Page

Crime and the Penal System

by Howard Jones B Sc (Econ), Ph D

A Stage in Jewish Intrusions into Britain. Criminology after the Second World War. What to look for!
Review by 'Rerevisionist' 21 June 2020
First published 1956, 2nd edn 1962, third edn 1965. Published by University Tutorial Press Ltd, Foxton, near Cambridge. I tracked down Howard Jones, below:–

Howard Jones, BSc (Econ), PhD, D.Litt., [1918-2007; his D Litt was in his retirement year; they may have had difficulties finding a retirement award] was Head of the Department of Social Administration at University College, Cardiff from 1969 to his retirement in 1984, and died December 31 2007, aged 89. He received a D. Litt. from the University of Wales in 1984 and became Professor Emeritus on his retirement that year.

Howard belonged to that generation of social researchers who were self-made intellectuals. He left school at 14, worked for a glass firm, local government, and estates before joining the YMCA as Deputy Warden to supervise the training of boys in farm work. In a sense, he may have been defined as a 'problem youth' himself, being a pacifist conscientious objector during WW2. In tandem with ten years in youth work, casework and residential social work, he completed a London degree as an external candidate part time, and went on to take a Diploma in Public Administration, qualify as a psychiatric social worker (training at the Tavistock, a leading edge place for psychoanalysis and group work), and do a Ph.D. under Hermann Mannheim at the LSE, all of them except the psychiatric social work part-time. This sense of commitment and of 'doing it my way' carried with him till the end of his days and it is interesting to reflect how conventional are the backgrounds of most academics (and politicians) nowadays in comparison.



Fascinating to decipher or indeed 'deconstruct' lives and influences. My copy of this book (first published 1956, when Jones was about 38) attracted my attention by several things, for example the Attenborough connection with Leicester University, and the inside jacket blurb which is clearly aimed not at prisons, but at waffle—this is the Third edition ... well established as a guide ... for workers in the correctional and social services ... for Students of Sociology ... causes and treatment of crime ... Note the publisher's name; it is a mimic of academic publishing. And Hermann Mannheim [Hermann Mannheim worked as a researcher at the London School of Economics, from 1935. Mannheim developed into an internationally leading criminologist and in 1946 he was appointed a professor] was yet another Jew at the LSE. I was surprised to read in Jones' obituary that he was a 'pacifist conscientious objector' in WW2; until of course I realised that Jews didn't fight in the Second World War—they sensibly preferred others to kill each other.
      He began academic life as a lecturer in social studies and then senior lecturer in sociology at Leicester 1953-65, [the present book declares him Senior Lecture in Sociology at Leicester] before moving to a Readership at Keele 1965-69, where he ... started criminology there. Then, after study leave at Berkeley, he moved to Cardiff as Professor in 1969, to head the then Department of Social Administration and School of Social Work...
      I'm pretty sure Jones thought he was a Jew, though he may have been a 'crypto' hanger-on. His biog lists eight books, mostly by different publishers, though there were two Penguin paperbacks, Crime in a Changing Society (Penguin, 1965), Society against Crime: Penal Practice in Modern Britain (Penguin, 1981). Penguin of course was thoroughly Jew-promoting. I won't do a thorough review for this antiquity. But I will pick out details which inexperienced new-to-Jew people ought to know. These are in no particular order: 
  • Never talk about Jews. This was and largely remains part of the Modus operandi of so-called Jews. The international reach and absorption into local nations, to be rather invisible, is essential to understanding 'Jews'. Changing names is part of this chameleonic process. The references list after each chapter of Jones include a high proportion of Jews, though this is never stated.
  • Internal hints in suspect Jews include evasion, lies, and Jewish steppingstones and covert assistance.
  • Mannheim in Jones' case is a good example of a Jew, with what are recognisable as typical Jewish ideas—often Talmudic, but of course more modern in addition—given almost unnoticed influence.
  • Eugenics. Jones gives a chapter on this, which is incomprehensible to those who are untutored in Jewish myths. The secret is the extreme racial feeling of being 'the elect'. They don't like the idea of races and groups applying principles to try to improve themselves. And have rather frantic views on such topics.
  • Wars. Germans, Slavs, Ukrainians are hated by Jews, along with Romans and others touched by Jewish mythology. It is necessary to understand the absurd double standards of Jews—enthusiastic about killings, but not of themselves, and indignant when anyone points this out. (See Jew Parasite Evolution Theory for an overview).
  • Assessments of crimes obey Jewish policies: such judgements assume the insignificance of 'goyim', for example by freeing violent criminals from gaols if they can be used against whites; crimes by Jewish fraudsters such as embezzlement are minimised—listen for example to William Luther Pierce of the US National Alliance, in this case on fraud. Another example is sex with children three years old; another is legality of forced prostitution in Israel; another is Kosher cruelty to animals.
  • A more complicated example is Christianity. In my opinion, the Catholic church barred normal people from charging interest, under a pretext, the net effect being to give Jews a monopoly. The Catholic church in one historical period seems in the lead, collecting tithes and other income, while the same people may have little idea of the existence of Jews. At another time—for example now—the Church is understood by may people to be corrupt and dishonest.
  • Race. The link has some of my reviews on race. Newcomers must develop a feel for the reasons Jews have a compulsion to tell lies about human races. As they do about human sexuality. This sort of thing shows itself in support for immigration by Jews into white countries, but not into Israel or New York.
  • Jewish frauds—psychoanalysis, nuclear weapons, economics that never mentions Jewish money, Nazis, Holocaust, 9/11, slavery, Jewish origins of wars. And slogans, demonstrations, violence, and many pretences which rely on on-Jewish front men. A good example is Tony Blair.
  • Use of 'trigger words' or 'loaded words'. These are inserted in the manner of fashions and are more temporary than people at the time may believe. Atheist capitalist fascist communist kulak bastard nazi racist hate genocide—are a few 20th/21st century examples. 'Atheist' (I think) has lost a lot of its once-horrified implications. 'Bastard' (I think) meant a lot when legitimacy had huge legal advantages. 'Hate' is being promoted by Jews around the end of the 20th century, to blackwash people believed by Jews to have similar emotions to Jews.
          As time passes, these words fall into obscurity; who for example is shocked by an accusation that someone is a 'paedo-baptist'?
          Since Jewish techniques involve unintelligent shouting and screaming, watch for such words. Criminology is a subject Jews, with their group-decided bullshit, love.
  • Beginners need to identify mutual support methods by Jews, for example in filling job positions—Jewish teachers in New York exchange information on new teaching jobs. Jewish Academics support each other, and suppress opposition, in a way which makes US universities almost a self-contradiction.
          In its way, this is more Jewish mimicry: goys praise other goys if they think they're good, or skilful, or amusing, or clever. Jews mimic this with high levels of pretend praise for the most mediocre Jews. At least when they're a minority.
          Another example of mutual support is all the mass media: they use the same news sources, show the same films, support the same lies about wars, promote the same rubbish using the same words.
I can't face trudging through the 21 chapters of this book, but I do encourage people to read such books critically, and to learn to discern the habits of Jews. (Here's my chronology of Jews; I add material from time to time). It is similar to becoming interested in a strange monkey type, with secret communication methods and hidden territory and the ambition to take things from tribes of (mainly) Europeans of a different type. Your life may depend on understanding some of this!

© Rae West   June 2020

Top of Page

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

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

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

Top of Page
Marshall McLuhan's Work

Long, detailed look at McLuhan and his failure.

marshall-mcluhan.html

Right-click the link to load the review into a new tab.


Top of Page
Lucien Price: Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead

I wrote this to help people who may be inquisitive about Whitehead. My best guess is that Whitehead has little useful to say on philosophy and mathematics. But Lucien Price's notes may be helpful, even though it's impossible to be certain about his reliability, especially as the period is 1930s to 1947.

price-lucien-dialogues-whitehead.html

Right-click the link to load the review into a new tab.


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

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


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

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

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

Top of Page

Review of   Colin Fraser Brockington   World Health   (Pelican, UK, about 400 pages. 1958)

1958 World Health book
^   Paperback cover design back and front. I've emphasised the print, at the price of making the image a bit grubby.


I've owned this old Pelican book for years. It suddenly attracted my attention because of its title:

NOT World Health Organization, but simply World Health.

This looks to me to be an English or British edition; it doesn't seem American or continental. And 1958 seems puzzlingly old.

The back cover blurb (Brockington 1903-2004; yes, he lived to 101) lists many qualifications, but he seems to have been under-rated; my bet guess is that subjects such as 'sanitation' began to sound obsolescent and Victorian. I wondered if he had Jewish roots, and tried to cover them with flamboyancy, like 'Theodore Dalrymple' now and Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg) back than, at the start of the Jewish UN in New York. On balance, I'd say not, as he seems entirely sincere in stating that everyone is entitles to true health and mental stability—not of course traditional Jewish views. (Pp 15-21 attempt to define 'health' an its grades; Brockington aims very high).

What sets this book far apart from the now-established Jewish-based view of health is the 'Chosen People' aspect. Bill and Maleinda (surely a male?) Gates and people such a Fauci illustrate the types perfectly: liars and schemers, interested in Jewish money, unknown to straight answers, and clearly plotting, if possible, to exterminate non-Jews. As I type this, the period 2020-2022 has emerged as a long slow slog, a fake 'pandemic', sometimes called a 'plandemic', an unforgettable interval in which serious testing has been abandoned and fake 'vaccinations' have been forced on people if they weren't able to resist. It's not possible to say whether this will stop; clearly the perpetrators want to continue. It's a conclusion which is completely omitted from Brockington.

I'll try to skip through the book, commenting on some of the passages.

'The Charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco in 1945, had inserted the word 'health'... on the proposal of Brazil ..' is the agonisingly brief account. 'The first WHO Assembly, ... in Geneva in June and July 1948 ... absorbed the UNRRA ...' (The UN Refugee Relief outfit was of course for Jewish refugees only!)
    A severe blow ... was the virtual withdrawal in 1949 of Russia, and during the next eighteen months, ... all the other eight Cominform countries...' ['Russia' of course means the Jewish Soviet Union. The were of course many such incidents; the 'Cuba missile crisis' being still used as propaganda to this day, with fake nuclear missiles.]

An interesting chapter on Industrialization is the final part of Geography, Beliefs and Customs, Family Life, ... and Food. I *think* it is cautious and slow, because Jews regarded hardware and factories as being their own—a similar attitude to the Kahal jews-versus-the-rest instinct, with the workers an inferior caste. The whole vocabulary around industrialism, from 'the Industrial Revolution', shows that attitude, similar to the folk-song "Stalin was mighty man, and a mighty man was he" and the whole Second World War export of the USA's gold to conquer the USSR and China. Miles Mathis has good accounts of all this.
    Anyway, it helps explain why industry is rarely treated as something that might be useful or wholesome. Whether this will ever change I can't tell. But it does explain the lack of enthusiasm for modern farming and food, experimental ways to grow food, denser and more intricate towns and suburbs and close-packing.

Obviously Brockington, writing 70 years ago, inevitably seems outdated in parts. He was before the huge growth in organic chemistry, with (or example) pills doing odd things with heart failure. He was before X-rays and their modern variations. The sinister aspects of modern 'medicine' did not exist yet. Some discoveries had not been made: allergy to wheat, inability to digest milk, problems with alcohol. Some old practices were part of some memories: the 'Appleby Knotter (1878) probably influenced man's diet than any improvement since ... the horse.'

Brockington was a practical chap, and we have many pages on simply recording data. (This period was mostly before punched cards and electronic data processing). He has four chapters on Inadequate Health Statistics, Standardization of Recording, The Measurement of Morbidity (lots of detail), and The Use of Sampling and Surveys. The references include statistical papers (and these endnotes are quite difficult to find, not unlike Kevin MacDonald's). Pp 332-3, Writing the Report, includes praise for pioneer surveyors and their skill. And their great minds. Comparing these with the typically Jewish advertising and childish money-making style, one has to fear for what has been lost.

 

Rae West   big-lies.org   12 Aug 2022

Top of Page

Norton Drugs, Science, Society

Review of Alan Norton: Drugs, Science, and Society (1973 revision)

MISLEADING TITLE!   Much more wide-ranging than the title suggests. Author was DM, FRC Psych and his book might be entitled '20th century medicine and Society'. He presumably preferred medicine to psychiatry
Snapshot of Medical Practices around 1975 Britain
I'm putting up this review because Norton gives a snapshot, which may be helpful in dispassionate assessment.
      There's far too much to explain in detail; I hope these notes and the index entries might prove helpful for general concerned people.
  • Norton must have been somewhat aware of the limitations in biological research, which Harold Hillman did his best to highlight. The bottom line was/is that empirical research went ahead, but degenerative diseases remained untreatable.
  • Biochemistry and trace elements were not well researched then, and, while better now, remain uncertain because of the enormous experimental difficulties.
  • Norton was unaware of race issues, for example problems with mixed races, and the injection of sickle cell anaemia. And he had no idea about selective rates of reproduction, in effect pushed by Jew lobbyists.
  • Norton was aware of the health effects of clean water, good food. He didn't appreciate salt, however. On vaccination, he was well aware that previously common diseases had dropped enormously, and provides detailed graphs. His results are useful in countering the huge, Jewish-based push for vaccinations.
  • The dangerous addictive drugs, familiar in the USA, were not common in Britain at the time.
  • The anti-fluoride 'lobby' used arguments such as 'it's unethical to force it on people; children's teeth improve if people discuss it; sells illusion that sweets can be eaten with impunity between meals'. Science education was a feeble force against pressure groups, BBC and TV lies.
  • It's important to try to be objective: a note says 'Polly Toynbee [journalist, probably undeclared Jew] Dec 1993 on medical treatment earlier this century: describes diphtheria, pneumonia, tuberculosis, scarlet fever, polio etc in horrific but probably exaggerated terms.
  • Norton assumes wars are acts of god. Nothing much on effects. For example, at the time he wrote, medical records of women infected by US troops in Britain were being burnt.

CONTENTS:
PREFACES
1 THE CHANGING WORLD OF MEDICINE
2 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
3 DRUGS
4 PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
5 POPULATION PROBLEMS I: GROWTH
6 POPULATION PROBLEMS II: AGEING
7 THE RISE OF PSYCHIATRY
8 GENERAL THEORIES OF DISEASE
9 FRONTIER MEDICINE
10 NEW DISEASES
11 THE NEED FOR A CHANGE IN MEDICAL EDUCATION
12 THE FRAMEWORK FOR PRACTICE
EPILOGUE, NOTES, REFERENCES
INDEX


CONTENTS IN MORE DETAIL:
PREFACES
1 THE CHANGING WORLD OF MEDICINE [13/ 16: THE PLAN OF THE BOOK]

2 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE [17: THE INVASION BY SCIENCE/ 27: THE ASCENDANCY OF THE LABORATORY/ 27: AUTOMATION AND COMPUTERS/ 29: INTENSIVE CARE/ 30: HAEMODIALYSIS AN KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION/ 34: HEART TRANSPLANTATION/ 35: EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE/ 39: PLACEBOS, DOUBLE-BLIND TRIALS AND ETHICS]

3 DRUGS [44; 45: THE CREDIT SIDE/ 51 WHERE DRUGS COME FROM/ 56: CRITICISMS OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY/ 61: CONTROL OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY/ 64: SIDE-EFFECTS AND TOXICITY/ 71: THE EFFECT ON MEDICINE]

4 PREVENTIVE MEDICINE [76/ 78: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS/ 83: MIGRATION/ 85: SCREENING (PRESYMPTOMATIC DIAGNOSIS)/ 92: PRESENT PROBLEMS]

5 POPULATION PROBLEMS I: GROWTH [97: EXPLODING POPULATIONS/ 99: BIRTH CONTROL/ 101: ABORTION/ 105: STERILISATION/ 106: CONTRACEPTION/ 111: POPULATION QUALITY/ 112: EUGENICS, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE/ 115: REMEDIES/ 116: BIOLOGICAL DISCOVERY]

6 POPULATION PROBLEMS II: AGEING [119: FALL OF MORTALITY OF THE YOUNG/ 123: AN AGEING POPULATION/ 124: GERIATRIC MEDICINE/ 128: GERONTOLOGY/ 128: EUTHANASIA]

7 THE RISE OF PSYCHIATRY [132; 134: THE INFLUENCE OF TWO WARS/ 139: US Army 'always rejected a far higher proportion of recruits..'/ 140: THE STUDY OF SOCIAL SETTING/ 145: THE INFLUENCE OF FREUD/ 147: THE SUCCESS OF PHYSICAL TREATMENT AND DRUGS. 147: Eysenck says about two thirds spontaneously recover/ 151: THE TREND TO COMMUNITY CARE/ 154: A CURE FOR ALL ILLS/ 158: THE LIMITS]

8 GENERAL THEORIES OF DISEASE [7: Omits oncology. 163: DIVISION AND UNITY IN MEDICINE/ 165: THE PSYCHOSOMATIC HYPOTHESIS/ 168: THE STRESS HYPOTHESIS 168: Hans Selye, 169 Selye's hormone theories/ 171: THE HYPOTHESIS OF AUTO-IMMUNE DISEASE i.e. fault in immune system/ 175: AETIOLOGICAL THEORY 175: rheumatoid arthritis most baffling 177: 'two hypotheses and rheumatoid arthritis, corticosteroids, ulcerative colitis, hyperthyroidism, and the vast kidney-hypertension-arterial degeneration complex. ... the two theories seem to be so irreconcilable that their adherents.. ignore each other..']

9 FRONTIER MEDICINE [179; 180: HEAT/ 182: COLD/ 184 COMPRESSION AND DECOMPRESSION/ ACCELERATION AND DECELERATION/ 191: WEIGHTLESSNESS/ 193: THE VERTICAL FRONTIER/ 195: SENSORY DEPRIVATION/ 201: CONCENTRATION CAMPS 206: Long-term psychiatric effects]

10 NEW DISEASES [208: FROM DEARTH TO PLENTY/ 209: Personality development cliches/ 209: Lady Wootton's 12 causes of delinquency which she dissected/ 210: ARTERIAL DISEASE 213: Morris' Blood pressure and cholesterol indicators/ 214: CANCER OF THE LUNG 215: tuberculosis/ 216: DENTAL CARIES/ 217: ADDICTION 217: Drinking control 219: 1964 use of 'dependence' 225: hallucinogenic drugs all Mexican? 225: LSD/ ATTEMPTED SUICIDE/ 230: ACCIDENTS now the commonest cause of death below 40; 231 table of causes of death [up to 34]; 232 deaths from motor vehicle accidents [by 1969, all between 14 - 30 deaths per 100,000] 234: motorcycle deaths in young people in Britain]

11 THE NEED FOR A CHANGE IN MEDICAL EDUCATION [236: 'no country.. wiser reports.. no country has done less..'/ ; 238 SEVEN QUESTIONS. 1 Has medical education adapted itself to the vast increase in scientific knowledge? 2 Has medical education kept pace with the scientific techniques of clinical medicine and with the drug revolution? 3. Has medical education come to terms with specialisation and the centrifugal forces in medicine? 4. Has.. taken accounts of developments in preventive and social medicine? 5. What response.. to the growth of psychiatry? 6. Have teaching hospitals adapted themselves to an ageing population?/ 7 Is the need for postgraduate pre-registration medical education being satisfied?/ 243: British-trained doctors to Canada and USA]

12 THE FRAMEWORK FOR PRACTICE [245: a mobile of five pieces - disease, patient, doctor, relationship, context in which medicine is practised 246: THE EFFECT OF THE ENGLISH POOR LAW; 246: 1845, 1911 Acts; Clough: 'Thou shalt not kill..'; 247: 1867 investigations into the condition of the sick in workhouses.. 248: Boer War and condition of army recruits; 249: old age pensions 1908/ 250: THE LLOYD GEORGE SCHEME 251: [NOTE: CONFLICT] 'Put simply, he had a battle to fight on three fronts and he chose his tactics accordingly.. 1 friendly societies.. 2 industrial insurance companies.. 3 the medical profession; 251: AMA opposition to the 'general good'/ 253: MEDICAL PLANNING BETWEEN THE WARS 253: Dawson Report (also 271); 254: 1926 Royal Commission; 255: 1936 Cathcart Committee/ 258: FROM BEVERIDGE TO BEVAN 1942 Beveridge Report; 1937: 'means tests have become odious'/ 263: ADVANTAGES OF BRITAIN'S HEALTH SERVICE Ministry of Health in 1939; 266: Nye Bevan and National Health Service Act of 1946/ 267: DISADVANTAGES OF BRITAIN'S HEALTH SERVICE 'the provision of any form of medical care always makes the situation more overt'; 268: table of % of GNP on health compiled by WHO/ 273: EXPERIENCE OF OTHER COUNTRIES 273: 'USSR.. integrated service.. fully specialised hospitals at the centre, with polyclinics.., and in rural areas, clinics and heath centres at the periphery..; 274: Treaty of Rome (EEC); 274-6: Medicare legislation in USA; 276: NOTE: CONFLICT: '.. from c mid 19th century British GPs battled with the staffs of the voluntary hospitals, especially.. specialising in particular diseases, whom they accused of treating, free, patients rich enough to pay GPs. From this struggle was evolved, around the turn of the century, the referral system, by which specialists agreed not normally to see patients unless they were referred by a GP...'; 278: [More on American medicine] '.. not enough doctors to meet demand.. suggests virtually no limit to the number of doctors wanted. .. Medicine as an international currency is hoarded in America like gold in Fort Knox. ..'; 279: 'clash between medicine as luxury and necessity best seen in mental illness.. profitable psychoanalysis.. [but] state mental hospitals.. in 1964 29 of 279 had no psychiatrists on their staff at all. ..']

EPILOGUE [282: Quotes Tertius Lydgate, Dr in George Eliot's Middlemarch]/ 283: THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF SCIENTIFIC MEDICINE: 283-4: Polio, diabetes, schizophrenia, clinics, obesity, alcoholism, renal dialysis, transplantation, intensive and coronary care.. science-based medicine 285: Tom Paine, Rights of Man etc/ 287: New Ethical Problems: abortion; advertisement; contraception; euthanasia; experimental medicine; dialysis; transplants 289: THE FUTURE]

NOTES, REFERENCES [Numbered notes to the chapters; might as well have been footnotes]

INDEX [GOOD; ABOUT 18 COLUMNS: Inc: abortion, accidents, Afghanistan, aggression, AMA, amphetamines, anaesthetics, anti-depressants, arterial disease, Australia, auto-immunity, Baird, Banting, Bateson, barbiturates, BCG, Belgium, Bettelheim, Bevan, Beveridge, brainwashing, BMA, Canada, cancer, Ceylon, chloramphenicol, chronic bronchitis, Churchill, community care, concentration camps and survivors, congenital malformation, contraception, cost of medicine, Cousteau, criminal responsibility, Czechoslovakia, death rates, dental caries, diabetes, diphtheria, DNA, doctor-patient, Doll, double-blind trials, drugs, Dunlop Committee, eczema, education, ECT, ECG, EEG, EMG, ethics, Eysenck, Finland, Fisher R A, Fleming, FDA, France, Freud, fringe medicine, Galton, gas gangrene, GMC, general practitioner, geriatrics, Germany, germ theory, Ghana, Grafenberg ring, Greece, haemodialysis, health insurance, heat, hospitals, Human Tissue Act, Huxley Aldous, hypertension, iatrogenic disease, immunisation/ology, India, industrial health, influenza, insecticides, intelligence, IUD = IUCD, Israel, Italy, Japan, Java, Jung, Kennedy J F, Keynes J M, Kraepelin, Laing R D, League of Nations, leprosy, Lloyd George David, Local authority, Lubeck disaster, LSD, malaria, manic-depressive psychosis, Margulies spiral, marijuana, Marx, mass media, mass radiography, Mauritius, Dr Thomas McKeown [who seems to have been the first to state that hygiene etc had more effect that medicine], Medawar, Medicare, Metropolitan Asylums Board 1867, molluscicides, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, mongolism, Moran, morphine-like dependence, motorcycle accidents, NHS, National Insurance Act, Netherlands, neuroses, Norway, obesity, orthopaedics, overeating, oxygen, paediatrics, Pakistan, Pavlov, patent law, patent medicines, penicillin, Penrose Lionel, peptic ulcer, personality disorders, Peru, pharmaceutical industry, phenothiazine drugs, phenylketonuria, Pickering George, 'Pill', Pincus, pink disease, placebos, plastics and polymers, Poland, poliomyelitis, Political and Economic Planning [PEP], population, Poor Law (English), postgraduates, preventive medicine, prisons, prostaglandins, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, quarantine, quinine, rabies, radiation, Red Army, religion, Rhesus incompatibility, rheumatoid arthritis, Road Safety Act, Roman Catholic Church, Rowntree, rubella, Russia, Sabin A, Samaritans, schizophrenia, scientific revolution, screening, scurvy, Selye Hans, sensory deprivation, Shaw G B, Shell shock, Sickle-cell, Simon Sir John, social change, statistical methods, Stopes Marie, subnormality, suicide, Sweden, Switzerland, syphilis, Tavistock clinic, Taylor Rattray, tetanus, tetracyclines, transplantation, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, ulcer, U.N., U.S, vaccination, Van Allen belts, Vietnam, war, Watson-Crick, Webbs, W.H.O., yellow fever, Yugoslavia

Upload 5 Apr 2019 | Top of Review | Top of Page

Monopoly Capital UK cover

Paul A Baran & Paul M Sweezy   Monopoly Capital

'Rerevisionist' reviews a UK Pelican paperback printed in 1968 


Jewish economics after the 20th Century Wars were mostly over.   Another Jewish social science invasion.
The preface of this book (my copy is a UK Pelican paperback) is dated Jan 1966, but it was written before that—almost exactly ten years' gestation period, wrote Sweezy, after Baran's claimed death. He added that 'factual material ... was gathered and used as needed but [with no] systematic attempt at updating.' It's an expanded essay, padded with items from the Jewish press, 'An essay on the American Economic and Social Order'. I must have been influenced: my old copy contains a clipping on a 'bumper wheat harvest'.
      The simple typography—this was before computer typesetting, which allows easy insertion of subtitles and the rest of it—gives a misleading appearance of smoothness. In fact, it's badly-written, as is usual in Jewish texts. So, is it worth reviewing this 60-year old book at all? I think it is, as a revisionist. For one thing, blacks in South Africa are talking of ‘white monopoly capital’ and I hope they can be set on the right path of awareness.

The cover design (see right) shows 'dollar assets of the ten largest American companies compared with gold and dollar reserves of selected countries for 1966.' Two different things being compared, in traditional Jewish style.

The author notes (left) on Sweezy (1910-2004) and Baran (1909-1964) were scanned from the paperback. To awakened people, they show wearyingly familiar aspects: Sweezy (or whatever his real name was) was a Jew in New York, presumably (I haven't tried to check) from a then-recent immigrant family from Europe or Russia. He was at the London School of Economics, then moved in the significant year of 1934 to Harvard. He worked in the then-new O.S.S.   In 1949 he's stated to have co-founded Monthly Review with Leo Huberman, no doubt with US money directed by Jews. Monthly Review still exists, at least online, calling itself 'AN INDEPENDENT SOCIALIST MAGAZINE'—yeah, right. Sweezy praised the 'Cuban Revolution'—Monopoly Capital is dedicated 'FOR CHE'—which I hope most of my readers will recognise as a phoney 'revolution' led by Jews of Spanish or Portuguese origin.
      Baran (or whatever his real name was) seems to have been born in the Ukraine, of Lithuanian Jew stock. It is unclear what he did up to the age of about 30 in 1939: possibly he was at The Plekhanov Institute of Economics in Moscow, which sounds like the LSE, and the New School of Social Research of the USA (in which Sweezy worked), though I'd guess Hebrew or Yiddish predominated. Perhaps he dodged military service, a common feature of Jews. Interestingly, Baran worked at the Federal Reserve for a bit.
      In short, Baran and Sweezy were analogous to the Jews of the New Deal and academics of The Culture of Critique in other 'disciplines' and activities. And they must have been fully aware of the parts played by Jews in the USSR and militarism around the world. It's not clear to me if they knew of famines and Slav killings, the Holocaust fraud, WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles, the nuclear frauds, and all the rest. The book was published in the USA just after the 1965 Hart-Cellar Immigration Act was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, who appears to have been a full Jew, but I can find no explicit mention of it in Monopoly Capital.

At this point, I want to digress into Marxism, in particular the idea of 'surplus value'.   Monopoly Capital relies on this idea—well over half the book is based on it, and it appears throughout the rest. Although the book looks difficult—I recall years ago someone saying he might read it “When he had a spare year”—it pivots round 'surplus value', padded by other Jewish stuff.
      I'll use as a reference Bertrand Russell's book Freedom and Organization, first published 1934. It has a section on Socialism, with four of its six chapters on Marxism. (All his life, Russell thought that Marxism was 'socialist'; he was Jew-naïve). I pick him because he's a clear writer! This link is my preparation of Chapter XIX, Russell on surplus value, and I recommend a look. But Russell thought ‘dialectical materialism’ was more interesting, and more true. Here's Russell explaining it:–

The same theory which is called Dialectical Materialism, is also called the Materialist Conception of History. Engels says: The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders, is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in man’s better insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the {219} modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.

It's amazing how people (me, in this case) can read stuff without noticing the point. The fog of harsh phrases obscures the obvious meaning. Marx belonged to rich Jewish families, who for very many centuries had been traders, dealers, shippers, wholesalers, and the rest of it, including rabbis ‘chosen by God’ and expecting to be supported financially. What could be more obvious to them than this:– wealth, production and distribution and exchange, is the basis of society, and what Jews work for, the basis of society, and is made up of classes—presumably meaning Jews and goyim—the latter being non-human scum. If that's all you live for, materialism must be right—what else could there be? And Hegel's philosophy said the Prussian state was the best that existed in the world so far; Jews may well have agreed, since they hated Rome, and since what's called Germany allowed Jews some liberties! Hallelujah!


  Baran & Sweezy's absurdly feeble description of 'surplus value'
      Back to Russell on surplus value. Again, note the attitudes of 'trader Marx'.
• (1) Marx uses 'value' as it seems to a trader: 'value' is what something can be exchanged for. The actual usability or function doesn't count; only what other people offer in exchange counts. Baran and Sweezy give all their estimates in dollars; it's so natural to Jews they don't even think of justifying it.
• (2) The ‘Labour Theory of Value’ is assumed to be true. For example, virgin land including possible ores is assumed to have zero value! Future costs, for example on maintaining buildings, repaying money, policing, seem to be shrugged off.
• (3) 'Value' is seen as a more or less meaningless abstraction, an attitude only possible to people with no idea of starvation, thirst, injury, homelessness. Joan Robinson in Economic Philosophy (published 1962, similar era to B & S) wrote ‘Value ... like all metaphysical concepts when you try to pin it down it turns out to be just a word.’ Just a word? That's what she said.
      I suppose being accustomed to comfort makes that claim—value is just a word—seem just about credible. Given the vast changes in human life over millennia it's hard to take it seriously, and hard to see how economics could ever have been treated as a science, since foods change, discoveries affect things, famines and disasters and mass killings and theft may happen, plans can go wrong or go well, predictions can drift, expectations may fail. Some stability seems essential in writing about economies, and Marx's long family history, including the bearded freak elements, must have led him to assume a patterned history as a fixed feature of life—except for Slavs, whites, shiksas, defaulters, litigants, and other goy disturbances.

Russell's chapter on Surplus Value has a simple example, from which surplus value turns out to be about half of the total value, in this case, a field of wheat. It's a childish example from Marx. Exams on accountancy could use it to show simple errors. And Russell cuts into it, but is more interested in showing Marx is weak than finding something correct. Probably Marx intentionally left errors, as he did in 'dialectical materialism', to confuse the plebs/goyim.

Value Produced Per Acre
Seed £1 9s   Tithes, Rates, and Taxes £1 1s
Manure £2 10s   Rent £1 8s
Wages *£3 10s   Farmer's Profit and Interest £1 2s
Total £7 9s   Total *£3 11s
Marx wrote that the two figures marked with asterisks (*) were wages and surplus value. All this is not very meaningful, and is only a small part of the entire world. It's significant that empires played no part in Marx, despite Jewish funding of wars, the Americas, the slave and opium trades: even enthusiastic Marxists admit that Hobson's Imperialism (1902) had to be quoted by Lenin and other Jews. The best way to view Marx seems to be Miles Mathis's view—that Marx set out to destroy genuine workers' movements, by spreading confusion. (Probably peasants' revolts were quashed in similar ways.) While you're at it, look up Marx's wife, Jenny, too. [Note these files are on my site; https doesn't work on Mathis' site, and anyway I want to avoid the chance of his site vanishing.]

Why ‘surplus value’ is such a worthless concept—and why Jews like it.   I'll try to spell this out clearly!
'Surplus value' is all finance in the control of Jews. It's the difference between total availability of money, less whatever minimum has to be paid to goyim. Naturally, this is liked by Jews, and introduces 'cognitive dissonance' (a Jewish phrase) in Jews. They, as usual, evade this dissonance by the usual verbal tricks typical of Jews.

All 'value' has legal and loan implications. If you're sitting in a house or business, it will probably be mortgaged—subject to payments, maybe for years. The people around are probably liable to future taxes. Some of the people may inherit, in due time. This sort of thing makes Phillips' simple table rather absurd.

The specifically Jewish issue is this: Jews control the Fed. So USA money is divided between Jews and 'goyim', and you can be sure Jews will favor themselves. Weaponry, housing, wars will favour Jews. And Jewish traditions will ensure they direct their money into bribes of Congress and Judges and Professors, and into forced immigration to dilute whites, and other variable issues: at one time male homosexuality was illegal, so Oscar Wilde and his friend Lord Alfred Douglas (who revealed the fact that Cromwell was bribed by Jews) could have their lives ruined. More recently, Jews support absurd sexual oddities, in the belief his helps Jews. Another issue is education: I've just read that Trump assigned a few million dollars to a Holocaust fraud, and this is just one example of control of education by Jews. Another is so-called 'busing' in the US, by which Jews have wrecked the education of vast numbers of whites—though Jews are permitted their own hostile systems.
      Jewish control of the 'Fed' allows them to conjure up huge amounts of fake money, which they so far have forced whites to repay under long-term loans. As a recent example, the Fed added $2 trillion between October 2019 to May 2020. (Figures from Miles Mathis). If the population is about 330M, with whites about 50%, and working age say 18-65 we have about 100 M whites, roughly expected to pay for the rest. The additional debt is is about $18,000 per head. (Check: $2 trillion = 2,000 billion = 2 million million. Divided by 110 million gives 2 million/100 = 2 x 10^6 / 1.1 x 10^2 = a bit less than 2 x 10^4. Most people get worried by this sort of thing). This is on top of the debt already there.
      In effect, the huge state sector is run by Jews to suit themselves, fanaticisms and killings and frauds.


Let me say a few things on the specifically Marxist jargon in Baran and Sweezy's 1950s book. These phrases are not indexed; they are introduced without comment in the text. They may be translations of Yiddish or Hebrew expressions of the 'Kulak' type. The Chapter The Irrational System includes some of them.
• (1) False consciousness Example from B & S: ‘ ... the religious perception of the world is ... always ... false consciousness ... Christianity and other organized creeds have served to ... justify conquest... and inhumanity. And yet ... the Roman Catholic Church ... acted as the guardian of language, scholarship and thought in Europe's darkest centuries...’ — Seems to be a Jewish view where all Jews agree. (When there is demarcation, Jews are supposed to leave other subsets of Jews to their own devices: Jewish frauds in different countries for example I doubt would be included as examples of 'false consciousness'. But I doubt the phrase would apply to (for example) 'the Holocaust' even though that fraud is a good example of falsity! I think it has to be fairly obscure. In the case of Roman Catholicism, Jews started it anyway, so there's some tacit agreement that the victim of 'false consciousness' hasn't understood what happened.)
• (2) Fetishism seems to come from anthropology; worshipping or believing in the power of certain objects. Marxists use it to harm people who don't accept Jewish ideas on e.g. cruelty, Jewish laws, or Jewish power. Example: ‘Social reality is conceived ... in outlived, topsy-turvy, and fetishistic terms. Powerless to justify an ... inhuman social order and unable to answer the increasingly urgent questions which it pose, bourgeois ideology cling to ...stubborn upholding of old fetishes and half-truths which now turn into blatant lies. ...’
• (3) Contradiction Fascinating word, presumably translated directly from a Jewish idea. The assumption is that some process continued permanently will inevitably cause some disastrous conflict with another process. In each case, a rabbi, presumably, is entrusted to predict the final outcomes. If they get it wrong, simple Jews aren't supposed to object.
• (4) Communist Society (and socialism) seem exclusively to apply to a Jewish state, but run cryptically in case people notice. This would mean that all 'goyim' should be subordinated to Jews, or rather something more severe, 'goyim' viewed as worthless cattle. Unsurprisingly, the final phase of 'communism' is never described. But maybe this will change.
• (5) Capitalism remains astonishingly undefined. Like 'prejudice' and 'racism', it's expected people will believe it must be horrible. The problem is that Jews control money, especially now, with Jews able to print money more-or-less at will. Jews want their money not to be noticed. So 'capitalism' is supposed to mean people disliked by Jews trying to run businesses. Since the Rothschilds allegedly discovered how to lend to countries, and get repayments whatever happened, it is a serious matter. Paul Baran worked with the Fed some time between 1941 and 1949, and must have known all this.

affluence?
It's essential to understand the Jewish view of money. Not very many Jews, since the English 'Civil War' fought by Cromwell to introduce Jews into England, the central 'Bank of England', and poverty to most people, into Britain, Jews regarded money as their own preserve, an outlook spread by the British Empire, the US revolution, and the French Revolution. And other Jewish activities. Always Jews have a two-faced attitude to money. If you don't understand this, at least in outline, you're set up for a fall.
      See the graph (right) from Monopoly Capital. Note the word 'surplus' and the generally cheery suggestion. 'The estimates of total surplus ... as percentages of Gross National Product, have been running higher in recent years than ... before or immediately after the Second World War.' Note how the huge peak around WW2 is more or less ignored. This was the time when Jews in Russia were having deliveries of vast amounts of material from the USA, entire factories and I think 400,000 jeeps, for example. The way Jews controlled paper money after 1913 allowed them to claim wars as a boon, of course the Jewish view. In effect, whites were starved of money, and violent Jews stuffed with money For example: 'but the [First World] war did come—in the nick of time; and the picture changed from stagnation to boom'. The deliberate cutting down of credit caused the 'Great Depression'; I don't think anyone described what might have happened without Jewish control of American money. Then '... during the Second World War, unemployment was really wiped out for a few years. ... more than ten million men in the most productive age groups ere being mobilized into the armed forces... .' Jews wanted the Second World War, probably to kill off whites, and did not want creative work expanded in the USA or anywhere else. This full interpretation is relatively new, at least to me: see The 'Master Race' and the Second World War, and Difficult Questions on the Second World War.

The simple point here is that the Federal Reserve allowed Jews to print money, at low cost, and lend it to the government as though it was of some value. The government was controlled easily enough by the vast payments, bribes, financial frauds; just as Balfour in Britain, and Churchill later, were heads of vast systems of corruption. Including not just politicians but news media and academics and the press and publishing, legal systems, police, businesses, and hidden thugs.
      After the Second World War, inflation set in, Americans returned home (if they were lucky) to find good neighborhoods full of Jews. It was the task of the media and education to prevent people finding the truth about Jewish control of money. And the attempt was very successful. Baran and Sweezy were, in themselves, small-time Jewish propagandists—but there were many millions like them. Americans were under hopeless attack. Remember too that vast atrocities had been carried out by the Allies, and by the rather unspoken ally, Stalin, another Jew. In fact, the huge lie of the 'Holocaust' was invented. So were huge lies about nuclear power and weapons. Various international groups were set up by Jews, designed to sound good, but be bad. This was the start of the huge campaign to pretend there were no race differences between 'goyim'.
      The perennial Jewish desire for mass killings, plus the stupid viciousness of ordinary whites, extended into world-wide military bases and wars. It's not surprising that Jews felt on top of the world. But possibly—we do not know yet—the seeds were planted for future disaster for them.
      Important note on the 'Cold War': Jews, controlling the media and also controlling governments in the USA and USSR [=Russia and its empire), maintained the fiction that Marx was more-or-less banned in the West. In fact the social 'sciences' were heavily reliant on the sort of thing Jews such as Baran and Sweezy assumed almost instinctively. US studies were almost at the Jewish equivalent of Biblical studies. Non-Jews had little option but to go along with this, just as non-Jews in the BBC went along with endless rubbish.

MONOPOLY CAPITAL - CONTENTS

1 Introduction
2 The Giant Corporation
      This is a very disappointing chapter. It should be interesting to be informed on easier travel, easier movement, larger freight loads, larger populations, and have them tied together in some useful way, with technical changes. But this chapter—in 8 sections—has established writers who leave a blank taste: James Burnham, W H Whyte, Berle & Means; a novel/film (Cash McCall); material on expensive head offices; very little on finance, and even less on monopoly finance, and nothing much on oligarchies, admirals on boards, overseas assassinations and corruption. There are anecdotes on ownership and control, managements and boards. It's not even clear to me whether corporations weren't equalled in the past: many families have roots going back far earlier than the last few centuries.
3 The Tendency of Surplus to Rise
4 The Absorption of Surplus: Capitalists' Consumption and Investment
      'During the 1930s ... 'too much' took on the dimensions of a universal disaster...' Appears to be a Jewish view of the 'Great Depression' Crises of Overproduction?  Really?
5 The Absorption of Surplus: The Sales Effort
6 The Absorption of Surplus: Civilian Government
7 The Absorption of Surplus: Militarism and Imperialism
      'From its earliest beginnings in the Middle Ages capitalism has always been international ... with one or more leading metropolises at the top...' This of course is the Jewish view, based around the Mediterranean and their shipping.
      '.. we must dispose of one very common argument ... that the spread of socialism is a mortal threat to the existence of the capitalism...' Is a very sad line of Jewish thought. Jews ran both the USA and the USSR; Both labels of 'capitalist' and 'socialist' are just Jewish lies. It's very sad that most Americans hadn't a clue about the world, in modern times and since the U.S.A. was established.
8 On the History of Monopoly Capitalism
      '.. wars must be divided into two phases, the combat phase and the aftermath phase. Both involve a shaking-up of the economy... great wars like those of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 [my Pelican book is 'translated' into English English] are, economically, similar to epoch-making innovations.' Important comment by Baran and Sweezy. Many whites think of wars—under the influence of propaganda—as dangerous fights to the death, involving danger and medals and expense. Jews prefer to make money from wars, and make careful plans. And many whites think of epoch-making events as inventions, overlooking such possibilities as discoveries, for example of the Americas, or events such as Jews in 1913 getting a monopoly of printed USA money.
9 Monopoly Capitalism and Race Relations
      'Race prejudice as it exists today is almost exclusively an attitude of whites and had its origins in the need of European conquerors from the sixteenth century on to rationalize and justify the robbery, enslavement, and continued exploitation of their coloured victims all over the globe.' I quote this at length because the same material is pumped out today by the Jewish media. In fact, any groups can be prejudiced against any others. Note also the typically Jewish suppressions: the slave trade was Jewish, the opium wars were Jewish, though the British helped grow opium in north-east India.
      'Opposition to immigration began to be voiced as early as the 1880s, but before the war it had never prevailed against the interest of powerful capitalists in having an ample supply of cheap labour' is the nearest Baran and Sweezy get to talking of the huge planned push to get Jews into the USA. The idea they were imported as cheap labour is of course untrue.
10 On the Quality of Monopoly Capitalist Society
11 The Irrational System
      Here's a typical vague passage, typically Jewish. Jews are completely omitted; their warmongering and massacres are entirely omitted. The founding in 1913 of the Federal Reserve, the blackmailing of President Wilson, the Balfour Agreement—everything is ignored. The system does indeed seem irrational from the viewpoint of whites, but Baran and Sweezy's case utterly fails. (1930s economists—none of whom addressed the Jewish problem—are not criticised by Baran and Sweezy.) 'The giant corporation withdraws from the sphere of the market large segments of economic activity and subjects them to scientifically designed administration. This change represents a continuous increase in the rationality of the parts of the system, but it is not accompanied by any rationalization of the whole. ... with commodities being priced not according to their costs of production but to yield the maximum possible profit, ['profit maximisation' is of course a natural buzzword; whether it applies in truth is another matter] the principle of quid pro quo urns into the opposite of the promoter of rational economic organization and instead becomes a formula for maintaining scarcity in the midst of potential plenty.' Etc. Just more Jewish drivel, series of non-sequiturs.
      The Marxisan, or probably modern Jewish, phrases of the 'false consciousness' type, occur in this chapter, reinforcing the generally distractional feel. Jews just want their activities hidden, and "bullshit baffles brains".
12 Joseph D Phillips, claimed to be a statistician, on Estimating the Economic Surplus
      The entire concept needs to be replaced, and needs assessment of Jewish concerns to do it.

 

Bits of Information, including scans, and lists of names in the index and the topics in the index. These may help to give some feel for the 1950s and 1960s.

Only 1 review in Amazon, which censors severely. This is a typical Jewish praise-other-Jews plant:
"Monopoly Capital" is a classic of radical literature. ... it argued that oligopolies had taken over the U.S. economy and that oligopolistic industries inevitably generated more "surplus" than the economy could absorb under peacetime conditions. As a result, although huge military spending during World War II and the Cold War had staved off depression, the U.S. economy would tend toward stagnation and idle capacity in the long run. Meanwhile, capitalism would divide the races and ruin the quality of sex and leisure activities.
      It's hard to know how to review an old masterpiece like "Monopoly Capital." A few parts were plainly goofy, such as the pop-Freudian analysis of the American family. Other parts were only marginally relevant to the central argument, such as the diatribe against the American school system. The book was shockingly blind [sic; of course this is nonsense—Baran & Sweezy knew all about Jewish mass murders, and like all Jews were in favour] about the defects of the Soviet Union. Most damaging of all, central parts of the analysis were overtaken by later developments, such as the rise of corporate takeovers (which empowered financial markets) and globalization (which subjected oligopolies to gales of foreign competition). I suspect the book would be quite different if Baran and Sweezy were writing today.
      "Monopoly Capital" is ... so good that it almost restores one's faith in the power of social science to rise above convention and triviality, and to probe deeply into the economic basis of society. Bravo to Monthly Review Press [this was co-founded by Sweezy, funded by Jews] for keeping it in print all these decades!
[Note: For some reason, ADL, AIPAC, ACLU, NAACP, are all missing from Monopoly Capital - RW].
NAMES found in Jewish books on history about this time. Just a selection. Acheson, Bakunin, Baran, Berle, Blanqui, Burnham, Robert W Campbell, Castro, Davidson, Dubos, Ehrlich, Emmanuel, Engels, Festinger, Floridablanca, Frank, Galbraith, Gerbert, Goldsmith, Hayek, Heisenberg, Herzen, Hitler, Jaspers, Lyndon Johnson, Kahn, Kennan, Kindleberger, Kolko, Lenin, Leontiev, Magdoff, Malinowksi, Mandel, Mao, Marcuse, Marx, J P Morgan, Nicolaus, Ortega y Gasset, Pareto, Peral, Proudhon, Plekhanov, K Popper, J Reed, Ricardo, Robertson, J Robinson, Rostow, Rothschild, Rousseau, H Salisbury, Samuelson, Schumpeter, Solzhenitsyn, Suessmilch, Sweezy, Toynbee, Unamuno, von Mises, von Neumann-Spallart, Voroshilov


  Clumsy attempt—and this may be intentional—by Baran & Sweezy to model government spending changes. Note that Jewish finance is not considered, and the negligible cost of Federal Reserve money, an overwhelming benefit to Jews, is ignored. So is inflation, war dead, opportunities wasted, costs of repaying national debt.

  Final table of US 'surplus values'. There are four similar tables before this one, of corporation profits, depreciation, rental income etc, from official figures of 'national income' plus estimates. Part of the point (last column) is to claim 'surplus values' tend to go up.
  Can you spot the problems?  If not, see the critical sections on 'surplus value'


FULL INDEX Baran & Sweezy AUTHOR INDEX

Adams, Walter, 74n
Adelman, M. A., 221n
Adler, Irving, 306n, 308n

Baran, Paul A., 19n, 21n, 25n
Barger, Harold, 365n
Bator, F. M., 149n, 153n, 154, 164n,174n
Bauman, Jacquelin, 106n
Bereiter, Carl, 315n
Berle, A. A., Jr, 32 3, 46
Beyer, Glen H., 293n
Boulding, K. E., 152n
Braden, Anne, 248
Bright, James R., 321n
Budd, Edward C., 357n
Burkhead, Jesse V., 356n
Burnham, James, 46, 189
Burns, Arthur R., 69, 70n
Burns, James MacGregor, 166n

Cairncross, A. K., 111
Cary, William L., 152n
Chamberlin, E. H., 64 5, 121 2, 127n
Cheskin, Louis, 125
Clark, Kenneth B., 301n
Compton, William H., 57n
Conant, James Bryant, 298n, 301n, 312, 321 3
Cook, Fred J., 210n, 283n
Cox, Oliver C., 178n, 206n, 246n, 258n
Cutler, Frederick, 113n, 196n

Day, Noel, 268 9
Dempsey, David, 45n
Denison, Edward F., 357
Dernburg, Thomas, 241n
Dingwall, Eric John, 343
Domar, Evsey, 89n, 361n, 363
Dreiser, Theodore, 45n
Duesenberry, James S., 27n, 69n, 77n

Earley, James, 36#0, 51, 59, 76
Eden, Philip, 228n
Eisner, Robert, 359 61
Elliott, Osborn, 49n
Engels, Friedrich, 18, 177n, 179n, 288n

Fabricant, Solomon, 361
Faulkner, H. U., 227
Fisher, Franklin M., 138 41
Fitch, James Marston, 289
Fleming, D. F., 185n, 187 8
Frazier, Franklin E., 266
Freedman, Mervín B., 315n
Freud. Sigmund, 338, 341, 342, 343
Fuller, J. G., 42n
Furtado, Celso, 215

Galbraith, J. K., 79, 82, 156n, 162
Gardner, John W., 297 8
Gilpatric, Roswell, 214n
Gleason, Gene, 283n
Golanskii, M., 361 3
Goodman, Paul, 332, 348
Gordon, R. A., 225
Gorham, William A., 311
Gottman, Jean, 295n
Graham, Robert E., Jr., 106n

Gray, Horace M., 74n
Greenewalt, Crawford H., 56n, 57n,58
Gregor, James A., 272n
Grilliches, Zvi, 138 41
Grwen, Victor, 295n
Grutzner, Charles, 285n

Hechinger, Fred M., 312n
Hamberg, Daniel, 134n, 148n
Handler, M. S., 256n
Hansen, A. H., 96, 98, 162n, 224, 233 4
Harrington, Michael, 278
Hartman, Chester, 288n
Hawley, Cameron, 43 4
Hazard, Leland, 45n
Heckscher, August, 297n
Hegel, G. W. F., 16
Hemdahl, Reuel, 283n
Henning, John F., 255
Higbee, Edward, 288n, 289n, 292n, 296n
Hilferding, Rudolf, 18 19
Hodgins, Eric, 134n
Hollingshead, August B., 163 4, 304 5
Houghton, NealD., 184n
Hwtchins, Robert Maynard, 307, 314, 319, 320

Isaacs, Harold R., 246n, 247n
Isaacs, Reginald R., 156n

Jacob, P. E., 319n
Jacobs, Jane,295n

Kaldor, Nicholas, 83 4
Kalecki, Michal, 66, 96, 115n
Kaplan, Norman, 363n
Kaysen, Carl, 34, 46, 57 8, 138 41
Keezer, Dexter M., 102n, 128n, 134 n
Kennan, George F., 184
Keynes, John Maynard, 65, 146
Kimpton, Lawrence A., 315
Knight, Edgar W., 316n
Kravis, Irving B., 151
Kretschmar, Robert S., 142n
Kuznets, Símon, 151, 217 18, 222n

Labini, Paolo Sylos, 104n, 149
Lazarus, Ralph, 300n
Lenin, V. I.i 17, 18, 19, 75
Lesansky, Helene T., 299n
Levinson, H. M., 86n
Lewis, Cleona, 111
Lìeberson, Stanley, 257n
Lieuwen, Edwin C., 203
Lilienthal, David E., 192n
Linklater, Eric, 308n
Lintner,John,48n,88n
Lynd, Albert, 308n
Logan, Rayford W., 247n
Logue, Edward J., 284 5

Malthus, Thomas Robert, 118
Marshall, Alfred, 64, 124, 125
Marx, Karl, 18 20, 20n, 23n, 2# 5, 25n, 53 4, 55, 73, 76, 98n, 117, 118, 119, 132n, 144, 357n, 173n, 177n, 178, 179n, 235, 258, 278, 280 1, 324, 325n, 329 31, 338
Mason, Edward S., 35
Masters, Dexter, 134
Mayer, Martin, 303n, 306n
Mazur, Paul, 128
Means, Gardiner C., 33 4, 46, 222n
Miller, Herman P., 253 4, 266n, 281n
Mills, C. Wright, 15, 29, 46, 131, 300
Morrison, Philip, 99n
Myrdal, Gunnar, 244 6, 248

Norris, Frank, 45n

Osborn,Fairfield,296n
Owen, Robert, 329

Packard, Vance, 132n, 134, 297n
Parker, William Riley, 313n
Phillips, Joseph D., 24, 355
Piel, Gerard, 212n
Pigou, A. C., 124, 125, 126 7
Pizer, Samwel, 113n, 196n
Porter, Sylvia, 99n
Potter, David M., 123n

Quinn, T. K., 60

Rackliffe, John, 12
Rapkin, Chester, 282n
Rathbone, M. J., 34n
Reeves, Rosser, 133
Rickover, H. G., 310n, 322n
Riesman, David, 335
Robinson, Joan, 64-5, 66n, 101
Rose, Arnold, 245
Rothschild, K. W., 129n

Samuelson, PaulA., 126n
Sanford, Nevitt, 312n, 315n
Santos, Eduardo, 203
Schlamm, William S., 185
Schluter, W. C., 226n, 227
Schuman, Frederick L., 185n, í89
Schumpeter, J. A., 54n, 60, 81 2, 9, 105, 180n, 224, 226, 233 4, 35
Scitovsky, Tibor, 63n, 122
Seligman, Daniel, 169
Sexton, Patricia Clayo, 301n., 302-5, 321 n
Simon, Herbert A., 35 6
Sismondi, Jean Charles L. de, 118
Slichter, Sumner, 210
Smith, Adam, 76, 78, 329
Smith, Mortimer, 315n
Smithies, Arthur, 234
Sombart, Werner, 119
Srole, Leo, 350n
Steindl, Josef, 66, 95, 103n, 222n, 224, 35
Stewart, John B., 367n
Strachey,John,85
Strand, Kenneth, 241n
Streever, Donald, 232 3, 236, 237
Sulzberger, Cyrus L., 204, 214
Sutherland, E. H., 42n
Sweezy, Paul M., 19n, 30n, 89n, 155n

Taeuber, Alma F. and Karl E., 256
Thorp, W. L., 225 6
Trace, A. S., Jr, 298, 309
Tugan Baranowsky, Michael, 89n
Turner, E. S., 123n

Van Alstyne, R. W., 160n, 181n
Veblen, Thorstein, 41, 51, 136, 152, 207 8, 311

Walcutt, Charles C., 308n
Walras, Léon, 64
Weber, Max, 28, 324n
Whyte, William H., Jr, 52, 169n, 283n
Wiesner, Jerome B., 213 14
Williams, Eric, 246n
Wood, Robert C., 160n
Wurster, Catherine Bauer, 291

Yntema, Theodore P., 367
York, Herbert F.. 213 14

FULL INDEX: Baran and Sweezy SUBJECT INDEX

Abrams, Frank, 43 5
Absentee Ownership and Business Enterprise in Recent Times (Thorstein Veblen), 136n
Accumulation of Capital, The (Joan Robinson), 101n
accumulation of capital, primary, 54 5,324
Acheson, Dean, 188 9
Administered Prices: Automobiles (Kefauver Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly), 70n, 91n
Administered Prices: Steel (Kefauver Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly), 70n, 85n
advertising, 120 35
'affect crippledness', 338
Albee, Edward, 338n
American Capitalism (J. K. Galbraith), 79n, 83n, 162n
American College, The; A Psychological and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning (Nevitt Sanford, ed.), 312n, 315n, 319n
American Creed, 244 5, 305
American Dilemma, An (Gunnar Myrdal), 244
American empire, 182 3
American High School Today, The (James B. Conant), 295n, 312n, 322n
American Woman, The: A Historical Study (Eric John Dingwall), 343n
America's Capacity to Produce (E. G. Nourse and associates), 233n
America's Stake in International Investment (Cleona Lewis), l Iln
armed force, role under capitalism, 178 81
Arms and Politics in Latin America (Edwin C. Lieuwen), 202 3
Automation and Management (James R. Bright), 321n
automobile, as epoch making innovation, 216 17, 230 1; relation to suburbanization, 293 6
automobile model changes, costs of, 13841, 366 8
automobilization, 236, 239 40

Big Red Schoolhouse, The (Fred M. Hechinger), 312n
Black Bourgeoisie: The Rise of a New Middle Class in the United States (Franklin E. Frazier), 266n
'Bloody Monday', 248
bourgeois ideology,324 9
Bowles, Chester, 185
Brown, John, 260
Business Annals (Willard Thorp), 225n, 227
Business Cycles (J. A. Schumpeter), 224n, 226n, 234n
business cycles, timing of from 1890 1914, 224 6
Business Cycles and Economic Growth (James A. Duesenberry), 27n, 69n, 77n
Business Fluctuations (Robert A. Gordon), 225

capacity utilization, 232 3, 23# 9, 240,242
Capacity Utilization and Business Investment (Donald Streever), 232, 237
Capital (Marx), 18, 20n, 23n, 25n, 53n, 55n, 76n, 98n, 117n, 132n, 173n, 178n, 278, 281n, 324, 329n, 331n
Capital in the American Economy: Its Formation and Financing (Simon Kuznets), 217n
capitalism, international character of, 178; Marxian analysis of, 18 20. See also Monopoly Capitalism
Capitalism and American Leadership (Oliver C. Cox), 206n
Capitalism and Slavery (Eric Williams), 246n
Capitalism as a System (Oliver C. Cox), 178n
Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (J. A. Schumpeter), 54n, 60n, 81n, 82n, 100n, 144n, 181n
Cash McCall (Cameron Hawley), 41 5, 50
Caste, Class, and Race (Oliver C. Cox), 246n, 258n
Changing Values in College (P. E. Jacob), 319n
Civil War, 247
Civilization and Its Discontents (Sigmund Freud), 338n
class struggle, 22
Class Struggles in France, The: 1848 1850 (Marx), 157n
Cold War, 210, 214, 329
Cold War and Its Origins, The (D. F. Fleming), 185n, 187n
colonies, treatment of by Marx, 120n
Coming Defeat of Communism, The (James Burnham), 189
Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels), 73n
communist society, 325n
company man, 43 5. See also Management
competition, basis of Marxian economic theory, 18; effect of innovations under, 100; non price forms of, 76 9
consumption, capitalists', 87 8; effect of advertising on, 131 2
Contemporary Capitalism (John Strachey), 85
corporate paradigm, 28 9
corporate policy, objectives of, 51, 58-61
corporations, profits of from foreign investments, 193, 197 8. See also Multi National Corporation and Soulful Corporation
costs, selling, 137 8; socially necessary, 135 41, 144; tendency to fall under monopoly capitalism, 76 80
counter revolution, U.S. commitment to, 204 5, 351 3
Critique of the Gotha Programme (Marx), 325n, 329
Cuban Revolution, significance of, 198 201

Das Finanzkapital (Rudolf Hilferding), 18
debt, mortgage, and consumer, 239-40
Decline of Competition, The, A Study of the Evolution of American Industry (Arthur M. Burns), 70n
Decline of Laissez Faire, The, 1897 1917 (H. V. Faulkner), 227n
defence spending, effects of, 207-11; limitations on, 211-13
demand, stimulation of, 115 16
democracy, bourgeois in the U.S., 157 61,327
depreciation, 105 10, 358 64
Der Bourgeois: Zur Geistesgeschichte der Modernen Wirtschaftsmenschen (Werner Sombart), 120n
Dethrick Report, 297, 298n
Development and Underdevelopment (Celso Furtado), 215n
Dilworth, Richardson, 341
Diminished Mind, The: A Study of Planned Mediocrity in Our Public Schools (Mortimer Smith), 316n
Discrimination, U.S.A. (Commission on Race and Housing), 256n
dividends, 47 8,88
division of labour, 329 3]
divorce, 276 7
Donner, Frederick, 368

Economic Philosophy (Joan Robinson), 66n
Economics of Welfare (A. C. Pigou), 124n, 127n
education, college and university, 311 20; elementary, 308 10; high school, 310 11; in the Soviet Union, 298, 309, 322n; outlays on, 298 300, 301
Education and Freedom (H. G. Rickover), 310n, 322n
Education and Income: Inequalities of Opportunities in Our Public Schools (Patricia Cayo Sexton), 301n, 302n, 303n, 305n, 321n
educational system, aims of, 297; and social inequality, 300 7
Eisenhower, Dwight, 208, 290
Elmtown's Youth: The Impact of Social Classes on Adolescents (August B. Hollingshead), 164n, 304n, 305n
empire, defined, 179 80. See also American Empire
epoch making innovations, effects of, 216 19
equivalent exchange, principle of, See 'quid pro quo'
Essays in the Theory of Economic Fluctuations (Michal Kalecki), 66n
Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth (Evsey Domar), 89n
Ethnic Patterns in American Cities (Stanley Lieberson), 257n
excess capacity. See Capacity Utilization
Exploding Metropolis, The (William H. Whyte, Jr, and others), 169n, 283n
external stimuli, major, 216 21

'Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate', as component of national income and absorber of surplus, 143 4
Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles (A. H. Hansen), 162n, 224n, 233n
Fitzgerald, D. A., 201n
Ford, Henry II, 42
foreign aid, economic, 201n; military, 201 5
foreign investment, 110 13, 194-200
foreign trade, interest of corporations in, 191, 196 8
Fourier, François Charles Marie, 329
1400 Governments (Robert C. Wood), 160n
Freedom, Education and the Fund [sic]: Essays and Addresses, 1946 1956 (Robert M. Hutchins), 319n, 320n
Fromm, Erich, 333
Fulbright, William J., 185
Full Recovery or Stagnation ?(A. H. Hansen), 96n, 224n, 233n

General Motors, 63, 70, 91, 368
General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, The (J. M. Keynes), 65, 66
Gentlemen Conspirators, The (J. G. Fuller), 42n
ghettoization, degree of, 256 7. See also Negroes
Giant Business: Threat to Democracy (T. K. Quinn), 60n
Goals for Americans: The Report of the President's Commission on National Goals, 290n, 297n
Goheen, Robert F., 269
government spending, changing composition of, 153 5, 161 2; growth of under monopoly capitalism, 147; limits to increases of, 162 3; military, 176 7. See also Defence Spending
Great American Celebration, 15, 26, 279, 290
Great Depression, 17, 161 2, 230, 233 5, 261, 279
Growing Up Absurd (Paul Goodman), 332n, 348n

Higher Learning in America, The (Robert M. Hutchins), 308n, 311n, 320n
Higher Learning in America: A memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men (Thorstein Veblen), 312n
highways, government spending on,174 5
Home and Foreign Investment (A. K. Cairncross), 111n
Hoover, Herbert, 235, 280
Hoover, J. Edgar, 340n
housing, condition of in U.S., 281 5; and migration to suburbs, 291 3; prospects for, 289 91; public, 168 9, 286 9; and U.S. Census of 1960, 282
Housing, A Factual Analysis (Glen H. Beyer), 293n
Housing Question, The (Marx and Engels), 289n

immigrants, role of in U.S. economy, 248 50; and segregation in housing, 256 7
immigration, and quota system, 250
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (V. I. Lenin), 17n
Industry and Trade (Alfred Marshall), 124n
inequality. See Educational System
innovations. See Epoch Making Innovations
interest, 364
interest groups, 30 2
interpretation of sales and production, 135 42
investment, foreign. See Foreign Investment
investment outlets, endogenous, 95 6; and innovations, 97 110; and population growth, 96 7

Jim Crow, 247, 267
Johnson, Lyndon, 278, 280
Juggernaut: The Warfare State (Fred Cook), 210n
juvenile delinquency, 275 6

Kennedy, John F., 170
Kennedy, Robert F., 11
Korean War, 150, 151n, 176

Landis, Judson T., 344n
Laxdale Hall (Eric Linklater), 308n
leisure, character of under monopoly capitalism, 333 6
Lippmann, Walter, 185

management, behaviour and class position of, 46 7
Managerial Revolution, The (James Burnham), 46
Marshall Plan, 189
Maturity and Stagnation in American Capitalism (Josef Steindl), 66, 103n, 223n, 224n, 235
Men at the Top (Osborn Elliott), 49n
Midtown Manhattan Study, 350n
migration, from rural areas to cities, 249 50
military establishment, role of, 202 4
Miller, Arthur, 335
Miller, Henry, 338n
Mitchell, James P., 260
Modern Corporation and PrivaTe Property, The (A. A. Berle, Jr, and Gardiner Means), 33n
monopoly, effect of innovations under, 100 9; growth of, 221 2; treatment in Marxian theory, 17 20; usage of term, 20n
monopoly capitalism, future of, 349 53; lack of understanding of, 11 12; and military machine, 332; need for study of, 19 20; and planning, 63; and race relations, 244 73; relation to smaller business, 63; technological change under, 330 1. See also State Monopoly Capitalism
Monopoly in America: The Government as Promoter (Walter Adams and Horace M. Gray), 74n
monopoly price, 66 8
Monroe Doctrine, 182
'multi national corporation', 192 201
multiplier, balanced budget, 130, 147

National Product since 1869 (Simon Kuznets), 222n
Negro in American Life and Thought, the Nadir, 1877 1901, The (Rayford W. Logan), 247n
'Negro removal', 288
Negroes, and Africa, 273; black bourgeoisie, 266 8, 271; and Civil War, 247; and compromise of 1870s, 247; and co optation, 268 9; distribution of income among, 266; effect of technological trends on employment of, 260 2; employment in government of, 262 5; and ghetto housing, 256 7, 271 2, 282; and ghetto schools, 272; and income distribution, 266; migration of from Old South 248, 251 2; occupational statu# of, 253, 255; as pariah group, 259 60, and slavery, 246 7; and 'status hierarchy', 259 60; and tokenism, 265 70; and suicide rate, 275; and technological trends, 261 2; unemployment among, 255, 261; 'white' and 'Negro' jobs, 258; white superiority/Negro inferiority thesis, 246 7; urbanization of, 251 2, 288
New Deal, 160 2, 175 6, 234
New Forces in American Business (Dexter M. Keezer and others), 102n, 104n, 128n, 134n
New World of Negro Americans, The (Harold Isaacs), 246n
non white employment in government. See Negroes
non white unemployment. See Negroes
Norris, Senator G. W., 167
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 189 90

obsolescence, built in, 134 5
oligopoly, 20n, 71
Oligopoly and Technical Progress (Paolo Sylos Labini), 104n, 149
Organization Man, The (William H. Whyte), 52n
Organizational Revolution, The (K. E. Boulding), 152n
Other America, The (Michael Harrington), 278

People of Plenty (David M. Potter), 123n
philanthropy, 55 8
Pit, The (Frank Norris), 45n
Political Economy of Growth, The (Paul A. Baran), 19n, 21n, 25n
population growth, and investment, 96 7
poverty, defined, 281; in the 1950s, 280; under capitalism, 278 9; and urban renewal, 287 9; war on, 278, 280
Power Elite, The (C. Wright Mills), 30n, 46n, 300n
Present as History, The (Paul M. Sweezy), 30n
Pre War Business Cycle, The, 1907 1914 (W. C. Schluter), 226n
price competition, continued existence of, 72 3; taboo against, 68
price leadership, 69 70
prices, regulation of under monopoly capitalism, 73 4
Principles of a Growing Economy (Daniel Hamberg), 148n
Problems of United States Economic Development (Committee for Economic Development), 156n
profit maximization, 33 40, 51, 53,142
profitability schedules, 91 5
profits, from defence contracts, 207
Project Talent, 311
Proxmire, Senator William, 209
Pursuit of Excellence, The: Education and the Future of America (Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.), 321n

Quackery in the Public Schools (Albert Lynd), 308n
Question of Government Spending, The (Francis Bator), 149n, 164n, 174n
quid pro quo, principle of in bourgeois ideology, 324 6

race prejudice, nature of, 246 7, 258 60. See also Negroes
race relations, and monopoly
capitalism, 244 73. See also Negroes
railway, as epoch making innovation, 216
railway epoch, 223
Reality in Advertising (Rosser Reeves), 133n
Reich, Wilhelm, 343
rent, 364
Research and Development, 98, 109 10,134
Ricardo, David, 118
Rich Man, Poor Man (Herman Miller), 281n
Rising American Empire, The (R. W. Van Alstyne), 160n, 181n
Rockefeller interest group, 31 2
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 280
Rusk, Dean, 168n
Russell, Senator Richard, 209 10

saving, effect of advertising on, 131 2
school integration, effects of, 272
Schools, The (Martin Mayer), 303n, 306n
schools, private, 300; social function of, 300
Selected Correspondence (Marx and Engels), 177n, 179n
Sharp, Morrison, 60n
Shocking History of Advertising, The (E. S. Turner), 123n
'situations of strength', 188 9, 190
slum clearance. See Urban Renewal
slums, 2824
Slums and Suburbs: A Commentary on Schools in Metropolitan Areas (James B. Conant), 301n, 323n
socialism, 261n, 296n, 325, 328, 331, 351, 352
'soulful corporation', 34, 57
South Vietnam, 184, 202
Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, 190
Soviet Finnish War, 184
Squeeze, The: Cities Without Space (Edward Higbee), 288n, 289n, 292n, 296n

Standard Oil Company, 31 3; world wide scope of, 192 5, 198 9
stagnation, 224, 230, 236 9
Standards We Raise, The (Paul Mazur), 128n
state monopoly capitalism, 75
State and Revolution (V. I. Lenin), 75
Status Seekers, The (Vance Packard), 297n
steam engine, as epoch making innovation,216 17
Studies in Economic Dynamics (Michal Kalecki), 66n
subsistence minimum, 281
suburbia, 291 6
suburbanization. See Automobilization, Suburbia
suicide, 275
surplus, contrasted with surplus value, 24; definition of, 23; government absorption of, 150 1, 155; measurement of, 23; modes of utilization of, 117 19; tendency to rise under monopoly capitalism, 80 1, 92
surplus value. See Surplus

teachers, salaries of, 299
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 167 8
Theories of Surplus Value (Marx), 23n
Theory of Business Enterprise, The (Thorstein Veblen), 41n, 51n, 208n
Theory of Capitalist Development, The (Paul M. Sweezy), 19n, 89n
Theory of Economic Dynamics (Michal Kalecki), 66n, 96n, 115n
Theory of Monopolistic Competition, The (Edward Chamberlin), 122n, 127n
'theory of vanishing investment opportunity', 233 4
tokenism,265 70,271
Tomorrow's Illiterates: The State of Reading Instruction Today (Charles C. Walcutt), 308n
transportation, urban and suburban,293 6
Truman Harry S., 184n, 187
Truman doctrine, [NB: cp. 'Monroe doctrine' - RW] 187 8, 189
20th Century Capitalist Revolution, The (A. A. Berle, Jr), 46
tycoons, 40 3

Uncommon Man, The: The Individual in the Organization (Crawford H. Greenewalt), 56n, 57n, 59n
unemployment, 227 30, 232, 236 8, 240 3, 250, 278 9; white vs. non white, 255 6, 261
unincorporated business, income of, 356 7
United States Steel Co., 70, 92 4
Urban Renewal (Reuel Hemdahl), 283n
urban renewal, 169, 286 90. See also Housing

Wall Between, The (Anne Braden), 248n
war on poverty. See Poverty
wars and their aftermaths, as major external stimuli, 219 21, 230
waste, as component of economic surplus, 365 6
Waste Makers, The (Vance Packard), 132n, 134n, 135n
We Can Have Better Schools (Ralph Lazarus), 300n
Wealth of Nations, The (Adam Smith), 76n
Welfare and Competition: The Economics of a Fully Employed Economy (Tibor Scitovsky), 63n, 122n
What Ivan Knows That Johnny Doesn't (A. S. Trace, Jr), 298n, 309n, 310n
What We Want of Our Schools; Plain Talk on Education from Theory to Budgets (Irving Adler), 306n, 308n
Where Shall We Live? (Report of the Commission on Race and Housing, Berkeley), 256n, 257n
White Collar Crime (E. H. Sutherland), 42n
Why People Buy (Louis Cheskin), 125n
Williams, Tennessee, 338n
Wirtz, Willard, 261



  Typical Jewish all-media political campaign. This was Lyndon Johnson wanting land clearance to build high-status housing. This involved clearing out blacks from what were planned to be select homes, and offering black women money for children, provided they lived singly. So: black population growth at white expense, plus ruined families. Baran & Sweezy pretend the campaign came from nowhere.
      Media campaigns promoting films, records, TV had the same sort of unified thrust and mutual support.

HTML, research, scanning, styling, Rae West - first upload 31 May 2020

 

I don't seem to have found time to review this book (Hensman on rich and poor). The best I can offer is comments in Teaching About Jews which is one of my sites on Jews.
RW 31 May 2020

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
image   Review of WW2 revisionism   James Bacque: Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950

1997 pioneering book, still undigested, June 26, 2010

Based mostly on Soviet records and Hoover Institution Archive, Stanford. First published in 1997 (after the Soviet Union collapsed, of course; before this, Bacque published Other Losses after three years' research in 1989). Bacque is Canadian, or lives in Canada; his bibliography has German sources, but not Russian, suggesting he is fluent in German. The book has black and white photos on art paper, a couple of badly-reproduced maps, and appendices, notes, and index. The book (published by a mainstream US publisher) seems to have had a reception similar to David Irving's book on Dresden. In my view this book is part of the long slow process of facing facts about the Second World War—and the First, as there was forced starvation in Germany after that war too. Bacque I think estimates 9 million deaths to 1950. I have to say he seems a bit cavalier in his use of percentages to infer deaths, as population pyramids and other things ought to be taken into account. But there were staggering numbers of prisoners taken—I believe something like 6 million Russians surrendered to the Germans, for example; later, things reversed as millions of Germans were expelled from the east though it's not entirely clear how many of them had moved there since the 1930s. There were colossal numbers of atrocities too, in addition to starvation and deaths, all censored from the smug cottonwool of the BBC, NBC and the rest and the press.

Cynical readers might wonder why an ordinary American publisher would handle such a book and it comes as no surprise to find Bacque accepting much of the usual quoted material. This book is a landmark, but after thirteen years it's still 'controversial'.
Note added 4 Nov 2018: Other Losses, a film by James Bacque ('Executive Producer Robert Steinart, Editorial Team Elisabeth Bacque, Lt Col Afred Zips', ... 11 witnesses... numerous archives). Kyffhaeuser-verlag.de ('Shop for antiquarian books' says Google) is linked from David Irving's site fpp.co.uk on November, 2018.
      I suspect this publishing event—which appears to be tolerated both in Germany and on Youtube—is simply part of the controlled release of controlled information. A red flag for me was the mention of Victor Gollancz, a Jewish publisher of propaganda, including greuelpropaganda, before WW2. Another is the Holohoax assumption. There is no mention of Jewish funding for Jews vs whites. No doubt aware viewers will find other omissions—for example the fate of Germans (and others) not under 'Allied Occupation'. And of course other nations/ races/ groups which have suffered under Jew-directed atrocities.

Top of Page
Vittorio Lanternari: The Religions of the Oppressed 1963 (English translation)
This book is not available as a free download, as far as I could find. It deals with 'nativistic, messianic and millennarian religious movements'. It has a good bibliography and index. It seems to have been influential; I haven't attempted to determine whether Lanternari is Jewish—if so, his book doesn't deal with his own millennarian movement!

Lanternari's book seems to be based largely on second-hand sources. Some of his remarks are ludicrous—e.g. his list of African derived religions (see below) includes the Quakers & the Salvation Army! In keeping with post-1945 lies, Lanternari does not suggest these groups of people are rather dim.

I'll overview the contents here.

I. Nativistic movements in Africa. [44 pp] — Congo, Central and South Africa, Nyasaland, West Africa, Others
II. The Peyote Cult [38 pp]
III. Other Prophetic Movements in North America — Iroquois, Ghost Dance, Dreamers, Earth Lodge Cult, Sanpoil, Comanche, Menomi, Shakers
IV. Central and South America [28 pp] — Jamaica, Haiti, Brazil [inc. Condomblé], Colombia, Argentina, Peru
V. Messianic movements in Melanesia [30 pp] — Morphology, Taro, Cargo cult, Australia, return of dead, great feast, the ship of the dead
VI. Polynesia: Fiji, Hawaii, New Zealand [20 pp]
VII. Messianic movements in Asia and Indonesia [28 pp] — Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Continental Asia inc Burma, Thailand, China
VIII. Conclusions [16 pp]

Other topics: North American Indians: includes Plains Indians and 'Indian nations' e.g. Apache, Arapaho, Comanche, Hopi, Iroquois, Mohawk, Nez Percé
Congo, Simon Kimbangu & the Salvation Army
Nigeria, 53-4: Yoruba cult
Peyote cult in north America
Jamaica and Rastafarianism are discussed, quite well though a bit baldly. It's described as a typical 'escapist' movement, not messianic; most of the detail is from a mid-1950s book by G E Simpson. '.. its followers.. almost totally ignorant of geography.. regard Ethiopia as Africa.. in part from the fact that Ethiopia avoided colonial rule
List of 'pagan-type religions': Church of the Brethren, Christian Science, the Salvation Army [sic], the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Society of Friends [sic], Jehovah's Witnesses, the Pentecostal Church, the Mission Church of God, and the Bible Students. ..'
Australia's lack of prophets
Polynesia
Maoris
Cao Dai in Vietnam (heavily Roman Catholic)
China since the Treaty of Nanking of 1842, including the Taiping movement, which seems according to this account to have been very destructive.

RW 13 Aug 2018


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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For such a short book this is a very useful condensed examination of money power, well worth reading.
Wells Outline of History
  Review of H. G. Wells   The Outline of History.
Magnificent and Influential (but Jew-free) World History, Published in Many Formats.. This note by rerevisionist 26 March 2018


Wells' post-WW1 book deserves a place here. I posted in 2009 a counter-attack to a book by McKillop published in 2000, but neglected to post a link in my reviews. West on McKillop on Wells is here (pdf format; only 812 downloads, so far). It includes of course a great deal of information on the history and later editions of Wells's two-volume work, with a lot of information on the various characters who contributed their views and opinions, including Wells's collaborators, and legal witnesses. It is mostly, though not completely, Jew-naive. It is science-naive, to some extent, following the convention that history is an 'art', and not a science. Speculations on population numbers, overcrowding, limits to numbers of friends and acquaintances, food supplies, strength, human micro-evolution, raw materials, the limits of science etc are limited.

BOOK I THE MAKING OF OUR WORLD
I THE EARTH IN SPACE AND TIME / II THE RECORD OF THE ROCKS / III NATURAL SELECTION AND THE CHANGES OF SPECIES / IV THE INVASION OF THE DRY LAND BY LIFE / V CHANGES IN THE WORLD'S CLIMATE / VI THE AGE OF REPTILES / VII THE AGE OF MAMMALS

BOOK II THE MAKING OF MAN
VIII THE ANCESTRY OF MAN / IX THE NEANDERTHAL MEN, AN EXTINCT RACE / X THE LATER POSTGLACIAL PALAEOLITHIC MEN, THE FIRST TRUE MEN / XI NEOLITHIC MAN IN EUROPE / XII EARLY THOUGHT / XIII THE RACES OF MANKIND / XIV THE LANGUAGES OF MANKIND

BOOK III THE DAWN OF HISTORY
XV THE ARYAN-SPEAKING PEOPLES IN PREHISTORIC TIMES / XVI THE FIRST CIVILIZATIONS / XVII SEA PEOPLES AND TRADING PEOPLES / XVIII WRITING / XIX GODS AND STARS, PRIESTS AND KINGS / XX SERFS, SLAVES, SOCIAL CLASSES, AND FREE INDIVIDUALS

BOOK IV JUDEA, GREECE AND INDIA
XXI THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES AND THE PROPHETS / XXII THE GREEKS AND THE PERSIANS / XXIII GREEK THOUGHT AND LITERATURE / XXIV THE CAREER OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT / XXV SCIENCE AND RELIGION AT ALEXANDRIA / XXVI THE RISE AND SPREAD OF BUDDHISM

BOOK V THE RISE AND COLLAPSE OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
XXVII THE TWO WESTERN REPUBLICS / XXVIII FROM TIBERIUS GRACCHUS TO THE GOD EMPEROR IN ROME / XXIX THE CAESARS BETWEEN THE SEA AND THE GREAT PLAINS OF THE OLD WORLD

BOOK VI CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM
XXX THE BEGINNINGS, THE RISE, AND THE DIVISIONS OF CHRISTIANITY / XXXI SEVEN CENTURIES IN ASIA (C 50 BC TO AD 650) / XXXII MUHAMMAD AND ISLAM / XXXIII CHRISTENDOM AND THE CRUSADES

BOOK VII THE MONGOL EMPIRES OF THE LAND WAYS AND THE NEW EMPIRES OF THE SEA WAYS
XXXIV THE GREAT EMPIRE OF JENGHIS KHAN AND HIS SUCCESSORS (THE AGE OF THE LAND WAYS) / XXXV THE RENASCENCE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION (LAND WAYS GIVE PLACE TO SEA WAYS) / CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 650-1683

BOOK VIII THE AGE OF THE GREAT POWERS
XXXVI PRINCES, PARLIAMENTS, AND POWERS / XXXVII THE NEW DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICS OF AMERICA AND FRANCE / XXXVIII THE CAREER OF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE / XXXIX THE REALITIES AND IMAGINATIONS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY / XL THE INTERNATIONAL CATASTROPHE OF 1914

BOOK IX THE NEXT STAGE IN HISTORY
XLI THE POSSIBLE UNIFICATION OF THE WORLD INTO ONE COMMUNITY OF KNOWLEDGE AND WILL / CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 1563-1920
To give an idea of the detail in Wells, here are his subheadings for just one section from his book VIII -The Age of Great Powers:- XXXVI PRINCES, PARLIAMENTS, AND POWERS
  • 1 Princes and Foreign Policy
  • 2 The English Republic
  • 3 The Dutch Republic
  • 4 The Break-up and Disorders of Germany
  • 5 The Splendours of Grand Monarchy in Europe
  • 6 The Growth of the Idea of Great Powers
  • 7 The Crowned Republic of Poland and its Fate
  • 8 The First Scramble for Empire Overseas
  • 9 Britain Dominates India
  • 10 Russia's Ride to the Pacific
  • 11 What Gibbon thought of the World
  • 12 The Social Truce draws to an End
At the risk of appearing statistically obsessed (real experts of course are innumerate) I estimate Wells's Outline of nine books, in forty or so chapters (listed above), amounts to 287 sections in total. These average about 1500 words. If he wrote one section a day, it would take him less than a year to complete the book, assuming his illustrators, photographers, compositors and so on could keep up. Much of the brilliance of course lies in designing the plan in the first place.
Note that Wells's sections aren't purely rehashes of then-conventional wisdom, but include concepts and attitudes and ideas – even when the factual basis is weakened by new discoveries his book retains considerable power. I took a few typical Wellsian ideas from his Outline. This list isn’t intended to even begin to approach Wells’s full breadth of material.
  • Tendency of English speaking races to promulgate statements e.g. Magna Carta, U.S. Constitution, Wilson’s fourteen points
  • Severe criticism of the use of the word ‘bourgeois’ by Marxists to include a huge range of human types - Francis Bacon, landowners etc
  • Private enterprise after the Great War speculating in rents, not providing housing; insisting on closing state shipyards; buying up remunerative public enterprise after WW1
  • The importance of print to the human mind and its bearing on the political future
  • Distinction between race, nation, and language groups [discussing ‘Aryan’]
  • Intellectual tangles due to the differences between Realism and Nominalism
  • ‘The Science of Thwarting the Common Man’
  • Idea that not too severe conflict causes ideologies or philosophy: divided Greece, shattered and captive Jewry; disordered China—‘insecurity and uncertainty seemed to have quickened the better sort of mind.’
  • Geology—slow changes with long spans of time; such as the Mediterranean flooding
  • The vulgar error that the Roman Empire at the height of its power "united most of the known world."
  • Could the Inquisition have been a debating society that took for its motto “Hear all sides”?
  • Sea routes contrasted with land routes
  • ‘need of the transferable vote to prevent the “working” of elections’
  • Various partitions of Poland
  • Ridicule of the idea that early medieval Ireland was the main centre of culture in Europe
  • Colonisation and e.g. reasons why eastern States of the U.S. are tiny compared with western states

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


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

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

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

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

Open Conspiracy (on this site)

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

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

Mind at the End of its Tether (plus notes)

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

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

Top of Page


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

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

Top of Page


NATIONAL TREASURE
Reviewed here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
Googled
Ken Auletta   Googled   2009 publication.   Rerevisionist Review: 1 April 2018
Jew-Naive View of a Powerful Force in Information Processing by Computer
The subtitle is 'The End of the World As We Know It'; Blurbs include 'The New York Times Bestseller' and 'Walter Isaacson, Former Managing Editor of Time' saying it's 'A triumph of reporting and analysis, ... revealing scenes, fascinating tales, ... candid interviews' which help suggest part of the reason for on-line reading and viewing success. Auella's books heavily lean to Jewish censorship and money—but of course only the outcomes: Nothing, for example, on the 'Fed'; nothing on loans leading to wars—'the Business of News' (9/11, anyone?), Microsoft, TV Networks (in the US, the Lehman ('official') story, Schlumberger. Probably Penguin thought he was just right to do Google!

Auletta's working technique seems to be to read the official newspress (New York Times, Financial Times, trade news, maybe press lunches at business meetings...) but also interview people. He 'conducted a total of about 150 interviews' and made 'many weeklong visits to the Google campus in Mountain View...' though he was shepherded round by David Krane, an 'early hire'. I imagine filed-away mini-tape-cassettes, but who knows. The notes at the end list his 'author interviews', but the more-or-less legendary Larry Page and Sergey Brin only seem to have granted three interviews, a (presumably) preliminary one on Oct 10th, and/or 11th, 2007, from Brin, then Larry Page (March 25th, 2008) and Sergey Brin (Sept 18th, 2008).

At the time of writing, this book is ten years old, at which time I had no active website, had just posted a few videos to Youtube (bought by Google, in November 2006), and knew about NASA's frauds, and the Holohoax, though not about nuclear frauds. Skype existed, but was not used by me, nor mentioned by Auletta. He doesn't mention hardware generally: thin screens, laser mice, solid state storage, improvements in hard disks. Auletta seems uninterested in the problems faced by all-encompassing digital storage. If, each year, there are [insert number] websites of average size [insert megabytes], what's an approx graph of storage requirements? Can newspapers be scanned and stored? How many disks (or whatever), how much cable (or whatever), how much electricity, how much downloading, is needed? It's all very well to talk in terms of revenues of billions, but a chunk of expenses must be owning large secure sites and maybe power stations round the world. Auletta is a bit like someone who wants a laptop, but can't be bothered to work out its specification. But on a huge scale.

My best guess is that Google was spotted and in effect funded by Jewish paper money, no doubt hidden behind assorted 'independent' companies and investors. And thus became part of the 'secret state'. Hence, I think, buying out Youtube at an absurd price, getting control over online movies, and ten years after Auletta pruning out some Jew-aware stuff. If you have paper money, who cares if you lose it? Intelligence persons faced the intoxicating prospect of endless information on everyone—or at least normal people who weren't fake 'refugees' etc. Google maps and pageview are terrific, but perhaps worrying. I've never found the stories of Page and Brin very convincing. The Jews-in-Moscow thing will leave nobody with any grasp of Jews and the USSR with any sympathy. Moreover, the search engine seems to have only used internal links between sites as an assessment factor. And yet, given vast numbers of downloaded HTML files, what else was there to use?

The insultingly small number of interviews suggest the intrepid author wasn't looked on too favourably by Brin and Page. I'd guess there was a contract covering what was not to be printed, just as Richard Branson's wife was/is contractually obliged not to discuss anything. Auletta's background detail is a bit samey—scenery, cafeteria, some clothes details, but nothing on voice, presentation—do they shout? Have nervous tics? Fear dogs? Say "Oy vey"? Feel older than they were?—and nothing is permitted describing sexuality. Maybe the retired masseuse with her shares is 'smoking hot', for example. Maybe we'll never know.

There's an online page (in 2018) called something like searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf, a document file giving guidelines probably for English speakers in India, to keep the costs down. The range of websites is rather staggering—from lightweight trivia and junk sites, cunning phishing and fake sites, to serious hard-to-assess intellectual sites. A search finds a few 'hate' sites—with a totally unbiased note that the Holohoax is very well documented. I'd be very surprised if this public document is the last word in Googleography; Jews have committed world crimes to such an extent that there must be serious documents, with sayanim in background positions poised to strike. I wonder if they're paid a lot? After all, it's their fraud too.

Watching a few elderly broadcasts of Who Wants to be a Millionaire suggests that the 'phone a friend' 'lifeline' was killed off by Google. Clinton Dawkins says something similar in one of his books—it's now easier than it ever has been to get official answers to the sort of questions asked in quizzes.

There's quite a bit of material (in effect) on copyright, and the disruption of US media, though Auletta does not approach the devastating fake-news crits of Trump on such things as the 'failing New York Times'. Maybe this is a common thing; there are countless Jewish 'workers' in US junk media, which is easier to produce, with computer typesetting, green screens, super sound editing, terrific still graphics, and probably many are so accustomed to lies that they can't imagine things may change.
An online source (a Youtube video) states that about 2000 Excite was offered Google for a low price with some strings, e.g. using Google's search methods. Excite turned it down. It's probable that the Jewish policy of not promoting whites might apply to corporations, too. Youtube banned a recorded talk by 'historian' E Hobsbawm on the USSR, absurdly describing it as infringing so in-house hate nonsense; it's easy to see how this works.

Top of Page
image   Review of technology history   Tim Berners-Lee: Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web

Not very perceptive techie material, June 26, 2010

Most of the action here, assuming it's not updated, is 1990 to 2000. The end-point seems a bit dated now—Amazon gets a mention, but not Google or Windows XP or e-Bay. Modern solid state disks and I think narrow screens didn't exist. There's no anticipation of the huge crash which happened soon after this book was published—though e-Trade is in—and which can be dated at about 2000. He doesn't predict spam and the Nigerian frauds. On the other hand, Mosaic, now almost forgotten, was at that time one of several browsers, and Windows 98 a new product.

I was interested to try to find how much truth there was in the idea that Berners-Lee 'invented' Internet—any spectacular invention tends to have many joint inventors, in fact. The first thing to note is that 'internet' already existed—Berners-Lee claims to have invented the 'web'. He worked at CERN where of course there were assorted incompatible computers made by different manufacturers. There were also intranets and email. I think Berners-Lee understates by a huge factor the way that de facto standardisation made things easier. For example, everyone uses 8-bit bytes; Mac hardware now is the same as IBM PC hardware, though just one fixed form of it; and the fact most PCs now use the same chip makes it far easier to write common programs. There are standard connections like USB of various types and 'firewire', and their earlier versions—RS232, Centronics, whatever. One very important hidden aspect which Berners-Lee seems not to have noticed is language: all this work was done using the Latin alphabet, and mostly in English. Japanese, Chinese, and other scripts weren't used; even accents, as in French and Vietnamese, weren't taken seriously.

As far as I can see, Berners-Lee managed to get people to use standard 'protocols'—things like IP and ISP and ways of doing things which are highly technical—how difficult to write on these topics without the in-house 'dedicated' jargon! HTML—hypertext mail link, the plain (but Latin alphabet) text plus commands in <these brackets>—was a relatively small part of the action. Sun's Java language, presumably relying on the standard chip, allowed little programs to be run (and introduced the possibility of 'viruses'). The author always talks in a mystical way of how the web is out there, and everything is accessible anywhere, and yet this can't be true, because (as he points out) to check up on say mysite.com must need some sort of look-up system. He also seems to understate the sheer quantity of cables, wires, satellites, transmission systems, hardware etc etc which must be needed. It's a bit disappointing to find hints of misrepresentation. Another aspect is his rather wounded defence of not making money from it—there's an account of a live TV interview which he clearly hated.

What he doesn't say is that CERN was staggeringly expensive, and in fact may have been a waste of money, like NASA. These people at CERN were in a privileged financial position. In fact it's possible the web will be CERN's only legacy.

In between the techie stuff is the human material, mostly rather affectionate descriptions of assorted hardware and software types, and business people typically at shows trying to make sales. However, in my experience, in real life many of these people are grasping and egocentric, and I suspect his accounts are like actors and 'luvvies' praising each other often through clenched teeth. He's quite good on historical parallels—e.g. he regards tables of contents and indexes, in books, as hypertexts; and he compares tied-in software with a TV that goes straight to one channel and displays it better than others.

There's also intermediate stuff on e.g. censorship. And on secrecy—he described the public key/ private key system but to be honest I couldn't make sense of it.

So—interesting but with bits missing.


Note added 6 Nov 2018: It hadn't occurred to me to check for Jewishness, but the name (Berners? Lee = Levy?) made me look at his naive comments on Internet as a possible Jewish worldview. All comments I've seen attributed to him are ignorant of the actual world, and have a typical Jewish flavour. Probably he will be ignored by serious people; as he probably deserves.

Top of Page
J R H Moorman in Who' Who
John Richard Humpidge Moorman   A History of the Church in England   Review by Rae West

J R H Moorman (1905-1989) was a lifelong 'Divine' in northern England.   His Whos Who entry for 1948 (when he was in his early 40s, and of course a few years after the nominal end of the Second World War) gives some idea of his career. Musing over a copy of his A History of the Church of England may perhaps lead others to wonder over this organisation.

[1] His father was Professor F W Moorman (1872-1919), who, says Wikipedia, was an expert on Yorkshire dialect. He wrote and edited poems; Since reading Miles Mathis on Ewan MacColl (Jew with a fake name who wrote fake folk songs) I've been suspicious of folk, unless more-or-less guaranteed genuine, and indeed Songs of the Ridings includes The New Englishman with a mention of Marx. Among other such items.
      He had obscure origins, including Germany. And secured an appointment in the English department of what was then known as the Yorkshire College, in Leeds. Leeds was somewhat of a Jewish area. This became the University of Leeds. His books included a 1910 private-print The Place-Names of the West Riding of Yorkshire, taken apparently from local source material, very possibly from Yorkshire College's shelves. He died relatively young, and was succeeded, not immediately, by J R R Tolkien. I found little on his wife, surnamed Humpidge.

[2] Moorman's Whos Who entry says little on his early life, as of course is usual in such condensed summaries. It does reveal that, aged about 25, he married the daughter of G M Trevelyan, a historian who became very popular with his social history lite books. Moorman had in my view a similar approach to history: it can be compared to family histories of the innocent type, where 100 years is a very long time, and the extended family members lead acceptable lives of the time, but varied by chance—A joined the army and was killed, B worked at the great house of Lord X, and C was the brains of the family, becoming a doctor in days when microscopy was new. I was impressed, but not favourably, by Moorman, who produces one story after another—William the Conqueror encouraging theological debate, an Archbishop refusing to accept some decision, the Church at the time of Cromwell, an over-confident description of the disagreeable character of a man dead for 1,000 years—entirely local and English, omitting greater events in the outside world. In particular, he says nothing about Jewish ideas or Jewish finance; his implicit view is that they don't exist—though possibly he may have suppressed them.
      In this way, the motive impulses and complicated origins are omitted, giving, to me at least, an impression of an organic subject truncated, like cut flowers, with its evidence of old growths deleted.

[3] Digression on A & C Black, originally of Edinburgh. I thought, wrongly, that these publishers specialised in ecclesiastical works of respectability but not of popularity. My copy has fairly bright blue covers, stamped in gold. First printed 1953; then, after some amended reprints, a 1967 second edition. At these times, there were vast changes in the world, but not in Moorman's world; one can almost smell the cloisters and his copies of the Daily Telegraph.
      1807 seems to be the founding date, splendidly 19th century. I suspect their policy was to cut costs; they obtained rights to some of Walter Scott's novels, and the Encyclopædia Britannica at least in the UK, and Who's Who.
      They moved to Soho Square in London; there are accounts online. And a Dean Street address.
      In 1913 there was a cryptic shake-up in the world of money: Jewish bankers got together and arranged the Federal Reserve in the USA, which has had a little-recognised but important interest, permitting wars and propaganda to grow to a so-far unlimited extent.
      In 2000 they seem to have been taken over by Bloomsbury, after Harry Potter had started its printing runs. Maybe Black and Black could handle huge print runs.

[4] At last—my review of Moorman!

Since we are where we are now, let's look backwards in time and summarise the Church. But note of course that much of its activities have been as secret as the Federal Reserve. Moorman is a naïve believer; even if the evidence were there, his book shows he has little interest in such hard work.

Looking back, Moorman divides the Church's time into epochs, each of which is regarded as more-or-less inevitable, intervals to be accepted by the Church, provided at least that the income flows. I may as well quote his chapter titles, with some supporting detail:–

PART I: ROMAN AND ANGLO-SAXON
I. THE CHURCH IN BRITAIN BEFORE 597
II. THE CONVERSION OF ENGLAND (597-664)
III. CONSOLIDATION AND ADVANCE (664-793)
IV. CHAOS AND RECONSTRUCTION (793-988)
V. THE EVE OF THE CONQUEST (988-1066)
PART II: THE MIDDLE AGES
VI. ENGLAND UNDER THE NORMANS (1066-1109)
VII. THE STRUGGLE FOR POWER (1109-1216)
VIII. THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY (1216-1307)
IX. THE AGE OF WYCLIF (1307-1400)
X. THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES (1400-1509)
PART III: THE REFORMATION AND AFTER
XI. HENRY VIII (1509-1547)
XII. ACTION AND REACTION (1547-1558)
XIII. QUEEN ELIZABETH I (1558-1603)
XIV. THE EARLY STUARTS (1603-1649)
XV. COMMONWEALTH, RESTORATION AND REVOLUTION (1649-1702)
XVI. THE EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY (1702-1738)
PART IV: THE INDUSTRIAL AGE
XVII. THE AGE OF WESLEY (1738-1791)
XVIII. FROM WESLEY TO KEBLE (1791-1833)
XIX. THE OXFORD MOVEMENT AND AFTER (1833-1854)
XX. THE MID-VICTORIANS (1854-1882)
XXI. THE TURN OF THE CENTURY (1882-1914)
XXII. THE MODERN CHURCH (1914-1966)

This format has slowly taken shape, and must have seemed unavoidable to Moorman. Each chapter has five sections, or six in a few cases, or three or four in remote times. Moorman gives endnotes on books after each chapter. An ideal exam style, in fact. One of the sad absurdities of his book is the fact that many of the things he highlights were not part of the Church at all, such as Methodism.

He says or implies:
(1) Nothing much occurred before 0 AD, the supposed birth of Christ; thousands of years are ignored. And lands outside England are ignored, which on a narrow view is defensible.
(2) The increase of knowledge, which so far seems fairly constant apart from a few steps back, is assumed in the background but uncommented.
(3) By far the most important omission is the influence of so-called Jews, throughout the entire period. (They affected Rome they affected the Conquest; they affected the Reformation; and they affected the modern period, notably after 1913).
(4) Moorman omits everything outside England, including all the influences which made England important. Since 1492, Jews wanted influence over the vast New World, and England and Scotland and their huge rivers and ports, and wood for ships, were obvious starting-points. And Moorman had no idea of the outcomes of Jewish-organised conquests and the rewards—probably temporary—to their collaborators. Thus the 13th century following the 11th century 'Conquest' was a temporary time for religious growth and the flowerings of oddities, many of them 'underpaid'. And the 18th century, following the invention of the 'Bank of England' in the 17th, allowed a mushroom growth of quasi-aristocratic family houses; many of these must have had makeshift pretences at non-Jewish families.
      This was the era of England's Trust and Other Poems, published in 1841, by Lord John Manners: containing the lines (into which 'Aristocracy' couldn't be fitted?):

Let wealth and commerce, laws and learning die,
But leave us still our old Nobility!

However, Moorman has some percipience of such things, mostly in recent centuries where the mechanisms are clearer. Thus, his 13th century chapter is full of oddities, Abbeys, foundations, types of monasteries, financial arrangements of various types, but without much insight into what was happening.
      But at the start of his section on THE INDUSTRIAL AGE (Moorman has little technical grasp. He has no idea that sailing ships moved immense masses of goods and people. He assumes there have to be back-to-back houses and grimy coal-burning chimneys; he couldn't anticipate the possibilities of electricity. And he thinks the start of the period may become labelled as the end of the Middle Ages by future writers) we find this sort of thing:–
      'But the Church in England was in no way prepared to meet these changes [Industrial Revolution, 'French' Revolution, European Empires]. ... For the most part they [bishops] were busy trying to build up family fortunes by the most flagrant place-hunting and nepotism ... The death, or even expected death, of a prelate sent a sheaf of letters to the Prime Minister from men hoping for preferment. ... every ambitious clergyman of his [Dr Thomas Newton's] generation thought the most natural thing in the world. Preferment meant wealth and position and the entry into smart society ...' And one feels that only Moorman's relatively low grade allowed him to comment. Moorman, writing after the Second World War, shows not the slightest awareness of worldwide Jewry and its röle in the world.

Moorman elides away many things discrediting to the Church (and religion generally). An interesting example is belief in witchcraft, which James I of England wrote on. Lecky, on morality in Europe wrote about James and others: It was natural, however, that amid the conflicts of the Reformation, some of the darker superstitions should arise; and we accordingly find Cranmer, in one of his articles of visitation, directing his clergy to seek for 'any that use charms, sorcery, enchantments, witchcraft, soothsaying, or any like craft invented by the Devil.' We find also a very few executions under Henry VIII. But in the following reign the law on the subject was repealed, and was not renewed till the accession of Elizabeth I. New laws were then made, which were executed with severity; and Jewell, when preaching before the queen, adverting to the increase of witches, expressed a hope that the penalties might be still more rigidly enforced. Miles Mathis is interesting on the Salem Witch Craze as a faked event.
      Moorman discusses slavery and Wilberforce, but as is usual omits the subsequent Act of Parliament that reimbursed slave-owners with a huge long-term loan to be repaid by the taxpayers. See Miles Mathis on the faked slavery abolition.
      But not everything went to the credit of the modern schools: Bertrand Russell thinks as a reflex that some churchmen were wrong to oppose smallpox vaccination.
      Another issue is the question of the monarchy, ever since one monarch was considered to be responsible for the entire country. This was itself probably the result of a political campaign, putting the spotlight, in principle, on king-makers. A little-known fact is the non-nativeness of the Royals; in other words, they weren't even British. Thus the various Anglo-Saxon monarchies (and occasional Danes) were headed by invaders. The Norman conquest was from France... The Plantagenets derived largely from Anjou. The Tudors were Welsh, James was Scottish, (but originating in France) and Germans predominated later—in the Houses of Brunswick and Hanover, for example. All this is outside Moorman's range
      Another question is preferments for old-established families. Aristocrats, nobles, and families aren't even indexed. Nor are the grades and hierarchies—Moorman doesn't even attempt to list them, and as they recede into the past it's ever more difficult to make sense of Canons, Vicars, Incumbents, Livings, and the rest of it. The effect is to suppress the sense of family interests, which of course were considerable. The whole schemata of status amongst Churchmen remains in the remote background of Moorman, though it must have been important. One thinks of the modern USA, with absurdly inadequate people in their fretwork churches.

Moorman's chapters on Henry VIII, Mary, Elizabeth I, and James I of England are standard accounts—necessarily, as there was simply too much happening which was suspicious in its origins. Cecil/ Lord Burghley seems to have been a Jew; subsequent history naturally overlooked this sinister feature of Elizabeth's reign.. I suspect the 'Divine Right of Kings' was propaganda to make the kings feel rather absurdly confident; a similar trick was tried when the Papacy was supposedly 'infallible'. And absurdly spendthrift, though figures are hard to come by. The Restoration is presented by Moorman as something most people regarded as a sensible compromise. One must suspect the alternation between Protestants and Rome (not to mention Arminianism, Presbyterianism and the rest), and parish church treasures being seized and looted as official church services and books were changed, may have been designed, along with Henry VIII's introduction of interest. Even the deaths of his children may have been Jewish apothecaries' little tricks. But Moorman is only interested in the Church as a viable money-maker. It's saddening.
      (P 178) 1545 ... [Henry VIII] had done so well out of the monasteries that he decided now to attack the chantries and hospitals. A bill was prepared and passed ... but no vesting date was agreed upon, and the matter was in fact left over to the next reign. There is also some evidence that Henry had plans for the dissolution of the two universities... Moorman doesn't look into questions of propaganda, Regius Professorships, and so on.

Just after this upload, I noticed Miles Mathis has updated his piece mileswmathis.com/luther.pdf on the Reformation. Luther was jewish and very well-embedded in German Jewry, at a time when Roman Catholicism had a Jewish Pope. Well worth reading. Here's my security copy of Luther.pdf.

On what might be called democratic interests, Moorman quotes from his reference book: Kett's rebellion was crushed, crowds lining the route to coronations threw their caps in the air for joy, the public mood was unenthusiastic, the ignorance of the masses etc. From 1913 and beyond, Moorman has no awareness of Jewish issues, or, if he has, he is completely silent and part of the Jewish invasion. It's painful to see his acceptance of Victorian timewasting as Jews assemble in secret. He says things like: The 'drift from the churches' which began earlier in the twentieth century and has continued almost up to the present day [1952] has made a great difference to parochial life. But what has been lost in quality has, to some extent, been made up in quality. {Sic). I suppose nobody could be bothered to proofread. This was after a war in which something like 60 million people died!

Now let me try to predict the likely trajectory of the Church, and see what can be said about its future. The increase in knowledge has removed all the defences of the Church, apart from sentimental ones. It's well-known that the arguments for the existence of God(s) have been disproved, the last being the Darwinian attack against the Argument from Design. Newtonian dynamics made the solar system largely predictable: tide-tables exist, eclipses are precisely tabled. Such things as 'harvest festival' or 'harvest home' must seem absurd: thanking God for crops, or for allowing mines to give up coal, or for victory in war, seem as outmoded as thanking God for preventing lightning or earthquakes.
      Sentiments, such as admiring cathedral buildings and country churches and the beauty of centuries-old translations into English, have some sway. Kevin MacDonald thinks the Catholic Church worked well enough in its day; but he's not much of a historian. Great oratory has been weakened by recording media: re-listening to speeches allows people to identify weak points and mistakes. Some people are moved by staged events, such as 'Trooping the Colours' or watching the coronation of Elizabeth, despite her obvious weaknesses. Births, marriages, and deaths still have some appeal to many, but are nothing like as important as they were.
      I can't see that the Church is likely to recover. Or that it deserves to. I can't think of any important recent-centuries issue in which it played a part. It looks like a 1,500 year parasitic irrelevance. A glance at the C of E website now shows they seem to be aiming for uneducated immigrants, who of course aren't English, though they may want to pretend to be.

Let me try to outline possible changes that might help the Church.
(1) Intellectual revival seems possible. At present, vicars and bishops are condemned to follow a set of Articles. It is just about possible that they could be selected by some form of exam or oratorical test, political or scientific or technical or artistic, or perhaps local history. If this happened, the Church of England might gain from people who resemble the interesting characters of times past. Perhaps European Churches might collaborate in some sort of mutual pact; in the same way that European short stories might be shared cheaply amongst Europeans, something analogous might happen in Europe.
(2) Because of the domination of crypto-Jews, some way might be devised to introduce serious criticisms of Jews into a Church. There is certainly immense scope for historical attacks spanning the whole traditional edifice of Church Christianity. Deep revisionism of this sort could turn the Church, and other Churches, into something more genuine than has ever been the case. The entire absurd mythology about Jesus would have to go, or be exposed. Secret organisations—Freemasons, Common Purpose, funded fake religions—need investigation. Collaborations of the sort during the Second World War, when the 'British' government requested the clergy to lie about the USSR and similar issues, ought to be faced.
(3) The land ownership patterns which financed the Church might be reconsidered. This would have to include the law and policing aspects. Such other things as buildings ought to be examined.
(4) The Church might discreetly take a leaf from Jewish parasitism. If it could succeed in easing assets out of the hands of Jews, it might recover some of the unearned wealth of the past.

 


RW   2021-May-09


Top of Page
Parkinson East West cover design   Review of   East and West (1963)   C NORTHCOTE PARKINSON

Parkinson (1909-1993) had some experience of British life before the 'Great War', and had family connections to several eminent Britons of the past; he was conscious of the motivations of Britons living overseas but retiring to Britain, propelled by hardships (or lack of inheritance) at home. He spent three years at Liverpool University (and wrote on the development of the port, and on the British sea empire), and was invited to the then-new University of Singapore, as Raffles Professor of History, in 1950. He concerned himself largely with military history, but from (in my opinion) the traditional British naive public school view, ignoring finance and costs—he was very largely Jew-naive, probably because the documents, if any, were extremely secret, and the influence was invisible, and had to be inferred. He was anti-Communist, but I can see no evidence he knew of its Jewishness. East and West was published during the Cold War, which Parkinson ignored, though whether from inside knowledge or dislike is not known to me.
      The resulting book is therefore free of Jewish-promoted frantic propaganda, and reads clearly and well, but omits all the issues of finance, debt, and the diversion of wealth by taxation on a national scale. It also implicitly assumes racial equality.
      This is not a detailed review, but, rather, notes to indicate the book, though incomplete, was significant.
– 'Rerevisionist' March 26 2018

Herodotus 'recognised that the struggle between the Greeks and the Persians, between Europe and Asia, between West and East.. was a mortal [sic] contest.. between wholly incompatible ways of life' says Hearnshaw, in 1930s An Outline of Modern Knowledge; Parkinson perhaps just follows him! Rather inconsistently Parkinson ends with a Greek passage suggesting the foolishness of the 'twain' fighting. NOTE: Can interpret the whole book as viewing the world through the eyes, and with the vocabulary, of an antique Greek scrap.

Idea of 'east' and 'west'; eg east to include India, China, Islamic world, Eastern Mediterranean. West: Russia, US, Europe. This is surely an exercise in imposing ideological categories. Phoenicians, Hellenes, Romans, Carthage. Note his tendency as described by Wells on distinction of 'scholars' into Hellenes vs Romans—and amplification into mythology e.g. by Gibbon of 'manliness', 'individuality', and other stuff, very probably claptrap.

Iran, Pelican book published 1954, on Iran pre-Islam, has stuff on west and east which perhaps influenced Parkinson

Parkinson believes in military history: partly because he was in Malaya; partly perhaps a military family or some similar reason, for example maybe he enjoyed national service and/or feeling of superiority over the natives; of course his idea of 'war' tends to be British biased: natives armed with dried grasses are his proving ground for inferiority, rather than full scale modern conflicts; he says in many struggles the atomic bomb 'wouldn't have been the slightest use'; partly on theoretical grounds, perhaps based on Hegel, that conflict produces progress, though naturally his reasons, if there are any, aren't spelt out. For example, you might expect him to welcome German aggression on the grounds that this would improve things, but he's very anti-appeasement etc. Or he might welcome east-west conflict, but seems to end that book on a query as to whether the whole thing was necessary. No doubt there's an element of social Darwinism; the general syndrome is clear and I expect comes from Herbert Spencer, whom Parkinson quotes near the start of his book Left Luggage. Hegel incidentally isn't mentioned in the bibliography of over 100 titles.

Joseph Needham, Barbara Ward, H G Wells and others like Gandhi and T.E. Lawrence and Freya Stark are some of the more interesting quotees. Toynbee is not there.

In addition to innocence of fiat money and debt, he has some not very obvious 'contradictions' which occur to one after some thought; his main one I think is the fact he believes taxation should be kept down—i.e. he believes in social darwinism, competition, as applied to business. He doesn't seem able to realise that to support the armies and navies he likes, taxes are likely to be high. He simply has no theory to cover these things, particularly, as he's aware that being anything like 'communist' is a bad thing—maybe he'd lose his professorship?—prevents him from even attempting to assess the money value of imperialism. In practice, the main leakages of his attitudes occur in such aspects as his dislike for bureaucracies, which he always seems to associate with inefficiency, sloth, and so on; and his comments on old age pensions as produced in social legislation in Britain—'inconceivable in a dynamic community.. might have had some value if applied to the future, in medical care for the young or education.' His attitude to religion has analogous difficulties: its cost is something he doesn't allow himself to look into; he simply treats religion as a marketed product—there's a very good description of why Christianity may have won out over competing products—and has something of a British administrator's attitude to the odd beliefs of the natives

PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY: Parkinson explicitly states it's given in his introduction. Starts with landmasses, ignoring Africa and counting the Americas as 'Western'. Then we have the Urals etc dividing lands into west and east, which he compares, finding similarities [peninsulas at bottom, tundra at top], but also differences [size, inland water vs deserts and mountains]. He doesn't explain why the amazing qualities of Europe should have stopped at Africa. Seesaw idea of 'orient' versus 'the west', powered by weakness of one or the other, a 'vacuum'. He seems to think this process is inevitable and also desirable, at least in a controlled form—his idea is in effect to scientifically study the phenomenon so it can be understood; he gives a seaside parallel with 'waves of history'. His vacuum idea gives him a piston metaphor, derived from steam engines, no doubt. He tries to explain why Islam, India, China can be considered as having something in common, though he's not very convincing; similar problem of course in considering Europe, with its warring tribes, as basically a unity. I think he has to suppress a lot of stuff, e.g. Huns, Moguls, Tibet, Khazars, Vikings, and generally empires which are taught if at all in an obscure way.

He surveys all history, as known to 1900 or so schools of British history; i.e. starts with Troy and Macedonia etc after nods towards Egypt, Babylon; and he later looks at Islam and China and the rest. His description of Greece, and of Alexander's achievements, are very lyrical; IMPORTANT NOTE: I believe this is because he attributes qualities which he thinks British to them, e.g. athletics, nakedness, small groups of independent men with good leaders, sense of humour, liable to be good-humoured when drunk. Naturally civilisation is assumed to start in the west with India and China following; and Africa has never produced a civilisation but may be a reservoir of energetic primitive people. He thinks jazz is African, for example.
      Sees the 'seesaw' militarily; rather unfairly it seems to me since China and India haven't been noted for world empires. For that matter, Parkinson understates other aspects of empire, notably Spanish and Portuguese influences in South America (and Portuguese in India and Africa). Significant point of course which he skates over is the failure of Britain and US in these parts of America.
      Blurb says: 'He gives his views on communism, democracy, Western decadence, technology, the United Nations, one world, & why 'Russia is destined to align herself with the Western powers'. He has a few pages on race and racial purity. Like Wells he has a section on Utopias, apparently based on Lewis Mumford (and incidentally including Spence). I wonder whether Wells isn't an inspiration here; there's a Short History flavour & material on communications and writing and even the maps slightly suggest Wells; and some influence of Russell perhaps here and there.
      Nothing unfortunately, relatively at least, about other empires: France, which had a large empire, is more or less ignored; all aspects of US policy, like the Monroe doctrine and their attitudes to the Pacific, aren't included. There are nods to Portugal, the Dutch etc but Parkinson's enthusiasm seems to be reserved for British public schools, British nostalgic education, British India, British missionaries, British pyjamas etc, British administrators returning to Britain and living in big houses on the hill, Harrison's chronometer, Kipling's poems, attitudes of Chinese to Britain, Sam Browne belt and cross-strap, pith helmets, lightweight tropical suits, POSH liners, etc etc.


PREFACE/ INTRODUCTION

1 THE ANCIENT EAST

2 DARIUS THE KING

3 THE TALE OF TROY

4 THE PHOENICIANS

5 THE HELLENES

6 TALK OF ALEXANDER

7 CARTHAGE AND ROME

8 ROME OF THE EMPERORS
96: [Imports and Introductions to Italy from Persia]

9 THE ORIENTAL WORLD

10 THE EAST TRIUMPHANT
119,120: [Influences on Christianity and attractions of it: Parkinson treats it as a marketing thing]
129 'The acquisition of horses by the Arabs in the centuries immediately preceding the birth of Muhammad was one of the most momentous events in the history of the world. ..' [from a 1905 book on thoroughbreds]—[material on stirrups, built up saddle, chain mail, then crossbow.. Byzantine defences, Greek fire, and parallel naval achievement including navigation techniques, and ships in China]

11 THE WEST AT BAY
134: EUROPEAN DREAD OF THE EAST— '... Sinister and inscrutable Chinese... hypnotic Hindus... death comes to the man who has rifled the Egyptian tomb. A book remains to be written about European dread of the East, with analysis of all the superstitions which have clouded reality. .. For the moment, however, the fact to note is that the mental attitude involved is a relic of a period when Asian civilization was incontestably superior. Orientals never had the occult powers for which they were given credit. All they had was a scientific knowledge which surpassed all mental comprehension.'

136: CHINESE TECHNOLOGY: [taken from Joseph Needham on China]— '.. here are a few of the things which may be said about the transmission of mechanical and other techniques. A few fundamental ones diffused in all directions from ancient Mesopotamia, e.g. the wheeled vehicle, the windlass and the pulley... the only Persian invention of the first rank was the windmill.. But China produced a profusion of developments which reached Europe and other regions at times varying between the 1st and the 18th centuries:
      (a) the square pallet chainpump | (b) the edge runner mill and the application of water power to it | (c) metallurgical blowing machines operated by water power | (d) the rotary fan and winnowing machine | (e) the piston bellows | (f) the horizontal warp-loom (possibly also Indian) and the draw-loom | (g) silk reeling, twisting and doubling machinery | (h) the wheelbarrow | (i) the sailing carriage | (j) the wagon-mill | (k) the two efficient harnesses for draught animals, i.e. the breast strap or postilion harness, and the collar harness | (l) the crossbow | (m) the kite | (n) the helicopter top and the zoetrope | (o) the technique of deep drilling | (p) the mastery of cast iron | (q) the 'Cardan' suspension bridge | (r) the segmental arch bridge | (s) the iron-chain suspension bridge | (t) canal lock-gates | (u) numerous inventions in nautical construction, including water-tight compartments, aerodynamically efficient sails, the fore-and-aft rig | (v) the stern-post rudder | (w) gunpowder and some of its associated techniques | (x) the magnetic compass, used first for geomancy and then, also by the Chinese, for navigation | (y) paper, printing, and moveable-type printing | (z) porcelain
      .. many more instances, even important ones, could be given.. common to all examples is that firm evidence for their use in China antedates, and sometimes long antedates, the best evidence for their appearance in any other part of the world.'

'Between China and Islam there was a closer connection than many people realise. "Seek for learning," said the Prophet...' in 8th century 'their ships were a familiar sight in the southern Chinese harbors, ...'

Note on ARABS: Parkinson never makes it quite clear what 'Arabs' are; Arabia is the size of half a dozen European states—why should it be homogeneous?— He lists such inventions as India (maths)/ Persia (chess and polo)/ Byzantium (fortification). And horsemanship and poetry—chivalry. And religion and war. Parkinson has little idea of the bloodiest aggressions and thefts of Moslems or their Jewish origin.
      Jarvis 1936 'Cases of interference with women are extremely rare.. women kept within the home and protected when young.' Reputation of showing their enemies remarkable clemency after a fight.
      Jarvis: nomad not cultivator: Jarvis (1936) '..The Arab is sometimes called the Son of the Desert, but.. in most cases he is the Father of the Desert, having created it himself....'. Ibn Khaldun of Tunis (1332-1406) Prolegomena: '.. all the countries of the world ... conquered and dominated by the Arabs have had their civilisation ruined, their populations dispersed, and even the soil itself... transformed. Thus Yemen is in ruins... Iraq, which was so flourishing under the Persians, is devastated; so, too, Syria.. In North Africa and the Maghreb.. ruin and devastation.. prevail. Yet ... all the country lying between the Sudan and the Mediterranean was the centre of a flourishing civilisation..' —'In the ninth century, the merits of Islam were much in evidence, and the longterm devastation had still, perhaps, to be realized. ..'
      Richard Coke in 1929 sounds like Rudolph Valentino in Blood and Sand: '.. a new and fine religious conception; a then quite novel idea of ..individual behaviour, of personal cleanliness, of good manners and an idealistic treatment of women... art.. decorative work.. unity of God; propriety and necessity of self-indulgence within certain clearly defined limits; the essential brotherhood of man'

Parkinson on p144 says Muslims were thought of as almost more than human when Europe was at its lowest
      But he has nothing on the conquest of Aghanistan, and what is now called 'Pakistan' [Punjab, A for Afghans (Pathans), K Kashmir, S for Sind, stan = country] by Islam—very bloody according to Will Durant—'probably the bloodiest story in history', or on the Black Death, very possibly a Jewish infliction.

12 THE CRUSADES
148: [Origin of national flags during the Crusades]
148,149: [Christianity's borrowings from the east]
149,150: [Parkinson on Crusades and West learning military techniques from Arabs]
-155: Turks driven from Turkistan west into Turkey by the Mongols. [Hence St George, a Christian in Turkey]

13 RENASCENT EUROPE

14 THE WEST GOES EAST
171-183: [Detailed chapter, plenty of maps, many dates: suggests that this is a topic close to Parkinson's heart. Most of the expansion, within USA and Russia, and European by sea, is English-speaking, though he pretends or asserts that it isn't. Some of this perhaps from H J MacKinder?]

178-9: 'What distinguished the British from previous movements of expansion, whether eastward or westward, was the fact that the whole of the trade route was brought under one system of control. The Arabs had come near to the ideal when their empire extended momentarily from Spain to India, their trade from Cadiz to Canton. But the British authority was more firmly established and stretched further in either direction. In its earlier form, the route went via Capetown, Bombay, Madras, Calcutta and Penang. To these possessions were added, for greater security, the bases of Ceylon, Malacca, Mauritius, and Singapore; with Hong Kong, Labuan and North Borneo as well. The route round the Cape was in general use until 1869, .. Suez Canal was opened to a traffic which was no longer under sail. This necessitated the strengthening of the other route by the development of other bases at Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Alexandria, and Aden. It involved controlling Egypt and the Sudan. It also meant a tightening of imperial discipline by telegraph and fast ships, with colonial authorities kept more strictly on the leash. India had already been placed directly under the crown, and Queen Victoria proclaimed its empress. After 1870, the tentacles of Empire reached out to Malaya, to Japan, and even into the heart of China, with the white ensign regularly seen at Hankow and Weihaiwei. [Note: myth of ubiquitous British sea power? Cp what he says on 220:] By 1900 the British seemed to be everywhere, their power firmly based upon India and upon their naval superiority in the Indian Ocean.

It is important to remember.. that the expansion of Europe was not a purely British phenomenon. The French.. lines of enterprise.. North Africa.. Madagascar.. Indochina. The Dutch.. East Indies, and the latecomers, Italy and Germany, were quick to seize any chance that offered. Even the United States.. began to make its influence felt in the Far East by the mid-nineteenth century. [NOTE: Russian Land Empire:] Quite as important, and little noticed, was the expansion of Russia. The vacuum caused by the weakness of Asia, which drew the British by sea, was as effective in drawing the Russians by land. The Mongol collapse and the empty spaces of Siberia led the Russians towards the Pacific. What is still more significant is that their advance exactly paralleled that of Britain, beginning at the same time and ending literally in the same year. The year when Gregory Stroganoff entered Asia (1558), with encouragement from Ivan the Terrible, was the year in which Elizabeth I came to the throne. Tobolsk was founded just before the defeat of the Armada, Tomsk just after the accession of James I. The annexation of western and central Siberia accompanied the development of New England, as also the foundation, in 1640, of Madras. The date of the first Navigation Act (1651) is also the date of the first Russian clash with the Manchus. The fateful year 1707, when the Act of Union coincided with the death of Aurangzeb, was equally marked by the annexation of Kamchatka. The Russians reached the Amur in the year (1847) that James Brooke was appointed to public office in Borneo. The whole of Siberia was conceded to Russia in the year (1858) that the East India Company was replaced by the India Office, and Vladivostok was founded in the year after that. Like the British, the Russians were moving astride the trade route, which they began to transform in 1891, just after Cecil Rhodes had become Prime Minister at the Cape. But the 4000 miles of the Trans-Siberian railway were not finished until 1905, a year which marked the limit of British and Russian expansion alike.

From 1472, when Ivan III, Grand Duke of Moscow, married the niece of the last emperor of Constantinople—from about the time, in fact, when Columbus first went to sea—the Russians had been pursuing their imperial destiny as the "third Rome." "The importance of the move is in direct proportion to the neglect it has received in Western studies." [Endnote gives Michael Edwardes Asia in the European Age: 1498-1955 (1961) as source; the Cossacks quotation is from Lancelot Lawton, Empires of the Far East (1912).] But another and earlier author wrote on the subject that "The Cossacks have achieved for Russia what the sea-rovers have done for England." That is perfectly true, and the story of their move eastward by land, coincident with the British move by sea, should convince us, were we in doubt, that Russia is essentially a western power. .. It was Disraeli who pointed out, in 1866, that Britain "interferes in Asia because she is really more of an Asiatic than a European power." It is in this sense that the Russians can be regarded as Orientals. Their civilization is Western, however, in character and origin. Whether they like it or not, their fortunes are inextricably bound up with the rise and fall of the West.'

219: [Japan's industrialisation at astonishing rate noted, but Parkinson doesn't know of Rothschild finance]
219-220: [1905 and Japan gets Port Arthur by not declaring war, says Parkinson; and Admiral Togo destroys Russian Baltic fleet at the Battle of Tsushima.]
Maurice Paléologue, 1935, The Turning Point.. 1904-1906 .. shows that the First World War had become a certainty by .. 1905.. [This may well have been a Jewish claim, of course Britain had entered into an alliance with Japan in January, 1902 ... Britain needed two fleets, one to face Germany in the North Sea, the other to defend British interests in the Far East. But these two fleets did not exist, both political and technical considerations preventing their ever being built..'
220: '.. 1894.. Curzon.. foretold the increase of British influence in the Far East, provided only that British sea power were maintained. .. .. the Naval strength.. between Singapore and Vladivostok, when compared with the combined fleets of France and Russia can scarcely be said to possess that incontestable predominance.. If not incontestably superior.. nine ironclads and cruisers against a Franco-Russian equivalent of four. Their force was one, in short, of a respectable size. By 1905 the position has entirely altered, with the Russians replaced by the victorious Japanese and the high seas fleet constituting a new threat in home waters. In that year the British Far East fleet was withdrawn, leaving British interests to be protected by the Japanese. The fleet was never replaced, and into the vacuum its departure created were drawn the competing influencers of Japan and the U.S.A.
In theory there was nothing to stop the British from building another Far East fleet, but the Conservatives, who might just possibly have done so, were defeated in the general election of 1905. ..'

221: '.. rising taxes would have been enough.. to bring the British Empire to a standstill. The comforts.. would discourage ordinary people from going overseas. The dwindling reward for outstanding effort would discourage the enterprise of the empire builder and capitalist. But a high taxation, although lethal.. (as.. in Mogul India, and Imperial Rome), is almost certainly the symptom, not the cause, of a more basic failure. .. The trend towards socialism.. France.. socialist prime minister in 1906. The German socialists... movement in the U.S.A...'

221-222: [Quite a long account of Malaya, 'the last [territories] to be acquired. Northernmost point the 'isthmus of Kra' which Parkinson compares to Romans picking on Hadrian's Wall as a compromise, not too far north, or south. Frank Swettenham was 'the current genius', says Parkinson; he suddenly resigned in 1903, 'leaving his work unfinished.' He says the frontier was a 'perpetual liability during the [Malaya] emergency which began in 1948.'
224: [Note: Parkinson attributes wily Oriental cunning:] '.. China itself.. meritocracy.. complete separation of the governing and the governed. .. the people at large become expert in the interpretation of evidence.. They automatically reject the press release, while studying carefully what the officials actually do. Nor have they become less cynical under British colonial influence or rule. They ignore the speeches, and count the warships.. Among people with this keen sense for realities, the disappearance of the British Far East fleet could not pass unnoticed; nor..could they fail to remark the resignation of a Curzon or a Swettenham. ..'
225: [Interesting account of 1953 study of attitudes among Straits Chinese: 1900 'made a voluntary contribution' supporting Britain against the Boers, Association, Coronation, Singapore Volunteers, YMCA, Chinese defeat in 1895 [I think to Japanese aggression, 1894-5], perhaps Boxer Rebellion though Parkinson omits it here/ Sun Yat-sen 1906 tipped balance, 1908 visit, Manchu dynasty overturned 1911, Chinese renascence had begun.]

15 THE EAST AT BAY

16 VICTORIAN VIRTUES
GUNPOWDER AND FIREARMS; AND LATER SUPERIORITY OF THE WEST:&nmdash; 200ff: .. gunpowder was possibly a Chinese invention and one first heard of in 1260. The earliest Chinese cannon date from 1356. Whereas there were guns used at the Siege of Metz in 1324 and by the English at Crecy in 1346. They are described in documents dating from 1326.. while firearms are mentioned from 131.. Both were used by the English at sea from the Battle of Sluys in 1340. Henry V used cannon against Harfleur (1415.. The Turks used cannon against Constantinople in 1453, and the Earl of Warwick was as successful against Bamborough castle in 1464. The Persians were asking the Venetians for gunpowder and artillery in 1471, and a Shah of Gujerat was making a similar application to Egypt in 1511-12. By 1512 the Venetian Ambassador reported to the Doge that Henry VIII "has enough cannon to conquer hell." In 1523, Philip of Hesse flattened Landstuhl Castle in a single day. The Mughal Emperor Babur had cannon in 1526, with Hindu artillerymen. .. one might conclude that guns were never a monopoly of either East or West. Credit for their first effective use may have to be shared between the Turks and the English; the Turkish artillery being the best in 1550, and the English known to be superior by 1580 or thereabouts, at which period the best firearms came from the Netherlands and Spain. So far as mere invention goes, the story is one that ranges from Woolwich to Peking, with no one country standing supreme.

[Note: Parkinson says nothing about the raw materials for gunpowder] Why then was the position so different by 1700? For that matter why were the Portuguese able to obtain a naval superiority in the Indian Ocean by 1509? The answer is to be found surely in the evolution of the literate soldier.— .. the invention of a gun or firearm is less than half the battle. Cannon, to be effective, must be mounted, maintained, cleaned, and polished. Solid shot must be scraped and repainted. Gunpowder must be kept dry and the kegs regularly turned end for end. Breechings and tackles, ramrods and wedges must be checked and inspected. The gun crew must be taught an elaborate and exact drill, every man learning his own task and the task of every other man... One mistake in the rigid sequence of events, one failure to ram home the rod, may wreck the gun with the crew under it. Nor is there any less need for precision with small arms. Infantry drill was invented by Maurice of Nassau, the first manual—by Jacob de Gheyn - being published in 1608. Loading and firing a musket might involve a sequence of thirty seven actions and as many commands.. [extract, 2 part paragraphs, from it follows]

17 THE MARCH OF PROGRESS

18 THE TURNING POINT

19 THE RENASCENCE OF ASIA

20 THE DEFENSE OF THE WEST

BIBLIOGRAPHY [6 pages, mostly parts of the world, [Japan, Persia/ Iran, India, China, Islam, Greece, Arabs, Asia, Russia, Egypt; and a few titles of east meets west type; no book about Jews, though]/ plus accounts of cities, firearms, fortifications, Greek fire & gunpowder, horses, radio?, science, ships, technologies, war, water transport. Parkinson doesn't always give original publication dates]

INDEX [22 pages, double columns; a bit sketchy, but interesting variety: includes: Academe; Adams, Henry; Afghanistan; Agamemnon; attitude to old age; Ahura-Mazda; Albigenses; Alexander, Alexandria; Alexander VI Pope; Algeria; Alternation of ascendancy; Amenhotep; Amorites; Ancestor worship; Anchita = Artemis; Ancient Royal Road; Andromache; Anti-American propaganda; Anti-Christian Association; Antigonus Gonatus; Antilochus; Antioch; Anti-Semitism; Antony, Mark; "Arabic" numerals; Arabs; Arae Philenorum; Aristocracy, Arab; Aristophanes; Armenia; Armor; Art & architecture; Artaxerxes; Asia; Asia Minor; Asoka; Astrolabe; Athens; Aurangzeb; Austria; Auvergne; Ayub Khan; Babur; Babylon; Bactria; Baluchistan; Bamborough; Barbarossa; Barbary Coast; Baths; Beaumaris; Bengal OMITTED; Bentham OMITTED; Berenice; Black Sea = Euxine; Boarding schools; Bordeaux; Bretons; Bristol; Bronze Age; Brotherhood among Arabs; Bulwer-Lytton; bureaucracy; Burma; Byzantium; Cabot; Caesar, Julius; Cairo University; Calcutta; Calicut; California; Cambodia; Cambyses; Campbell Bannerman; Candia; Cannon; Canton; Carrhae; Carthage; Cartography; Caspian Sea; caste systems; Castiglione; Catalan portolano; Catalonia; Catholicism; Cavalry; Cervantes; Ceylon; chain mail; Chandragupta; chariot races; Charlemagne; Charles V; Chaucer; Childe, Gordon V.; China; Ch'ing dynasty; Chios; Chippendale; chivalry; chosen people; Christianity; chronometer; Cinque ports; City; Civil Service in India; civilization meaning; classes in Europe; cleanliness; Clive OMITTED except for one reference; clothing, men's; Cochin; Colombo; Color bar; Columbus; communications Persian, by river → language, literature, writing; compass; Confucius; Congress movement; Constantine; Constantinople; Coomaraswamy; Corinth; Coromandel; Corsica; Cossacks; council house; Crécy; Crete; Croesus; crusades; Ctesiphon; cultural inundation, Roman; Cunaxa; cuneiform; currency & banking; Curzon; Cynosarges (gymnasium); Cyprus; Cyrenaica; Cyrus brother of Artaxerxes; Cyrus of Persia; Dacia; Danube River; Darius; Darius II; dark ages; Delcassé; democracy; Descartes; desert, law of, and warfare in; Deuteronomy; Dharmaraksa; dialectical materialism; Diocletian; Diomedes; Dioscurias; discovery and social organization; Disraeli; Dolon; Don River; Dubrovnik; Dundas; Dutch; duty, sense of; East Africa; East India Company; East Indies; eastern Roman Empire; Ecbatana; Edessa; education in China, Hindu, Muslim; Edward I, VII, VIII of England; Egypt; Elizabeth I; England, character of, behaviour, decline, expansion; Epaminondas; Ephesus; equality, attitudes to; Erasmus; Eratosthenes; Eritrea; Essenes; Ethiopia; Etruscans; Euclid; Euphrates; Euripides; Europe, ascendency of, decline of, loss of confidence of; Europos; evangelism; excellence, passion for; exposure of infants; Fahien; family, decline, wider association; Fatehpur Sikri; Federated Malay States; Ferdinand of Spain; Fibonacci; "Fifth column"; filial piety; flags; Flemish trade; Fletcher, John; Florence; Formosa; Fort William; fortification; forum; Fourier, France, Frederic II, freedom, Fukien, funeral customs, Gades = Cadiz, Gaius, Galata, Gama, Vasco da, gamesmanship, Gian Yen-shun, Gandhi, Ganges, Ganymede, Gascony, Gaul, Gautama Buddha, Gelon, General Service Establishment Act, Genoa, Germany, Gibbon, Gibraltar, Gods, Bedouin, Carthaginian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman → religion; golden age; Good Hope, Cape of; Gordon, "Chinese", gothic architecture; government: complexity, dominance, self-training for; Granada, grassroots influence, Roman; Greeks, long list inc. abandoned by British, art, birth control, defense against Asia, ?Golden age, horsemen, ideas absorbed by Rome, in India, wars; Gregory I Pope; Guadiana; Guam; gunpowder; "gymkhana"; Hadrian; the Hague; Haileybury; Halicarnassus; Halys river; Hammurabi; Han dynasty; Hangchow; Hankow; Hannibal; Hanno; Hanoi; Hansa towns; Harappa; harem system; Harfleur; Harrington, Sir John; Hastings; Havre; Hawaiian Islands; .. Indigo OMITTED; Khazars OMITTED; Mill J S OMITTED; Opium wars OMITTED; Slaves OMITTED except in antiquity; Turks largely OMITTED cp Wells; Ward Barbara OMITTED though in bibliography]


Notes, HTML Rae West

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a book, and Jacobs is an author, of considerable interest, but not for obvious reasons. By 1960, it was clear, or should have been to Jews, that all aspects of the USA were dominated by Jews. But this fact was kept very secret by the then-media, which of course was itself dominated by Jews. The attitude reminds me of The Catcher in the Rye of 1951, about ten years earlier, with not one of the unlikeable people in school or out of it showing the faintest awareness of great issues. Jacobs discusses US cities—New York, Chicago, Cincinnati, Houston, Baltimore, Los Angeles—and their problems, mostly of rather inhuman demolition schemes and rather arrogant planners, ignoring the realities of dangerous 'neighborhoods' without neighbors, and homeless vagrants, whom she regards as inevitable, as Indians regard beggars. She is unaware of the 'Fed', wars of the most vicious types, genetic differences between populations, and Jewish use of money. She is a critic of secondary effects, such as makework in bureaucracies, the demolition of thriving but old areas, and construction of featureless buildings without 19th-century detailing. The US war economy and its harm and waste was too much for her to tackle. She was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, and given hospitality by the 'New School for Social Research', and acknowledges 'many scores of persons', including Saul Alinsky. If Kevin MacDonald had founded a school, town planning is a subject which ought to have been included.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her books started with observations on American cities—New York, Boston, Pittsburgh... Then she broadened into Rome, Tokyo, Paris, St Petersburg, Manchester. There are many piquant examples—including settlements which became neglected and emptied—in this book, taken from rural France, Japan, Venice, Rome, Glasgow—and many more. The Economy of Cities was published in 1969, tens years or so after The Death and Life of Great American Cities, which suggests she may have visited other countries, or travelled around the world, or read human geographical books on cities. Her chatty style gives few clues to her methodology, or even if she had one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the Meyer Lansky effects are described on page 209 of the Pelican paperback. 'In American cities, new immigrant groups other than those coming from Protestant North Europe have always found it hard to get initial capital for enterprises of their own. ... capital has been derived from extortionate slum landlordism ... organized crimes, and ... political graft. ... This is one reason I think—perhaps even the principal reason—for the extraordinary toleration of organized crime and graft in American society.'
      It's worth noticing that, although the USA is a relatively young country, Jacobs has no theory of the way pioneering states are built. Possibly this reflects her Jewish outlook. But it's a big hole.

Seven years after writing this, and pondering the Jewish trait of deception, and wondering about the USSR and the Jewish century, I finally observed an unnoticed, untamed elephant in the room of discourse. In a time of huge wars, the equipment, machinery, delivery systems, record keeping, feeding, guarding etc of what is variously estimated—perhaps 25% of GNP—occurred to me as an object to be noticed, then studied, in its own right. I'm assuming Jews in the USA shipped factories, equipment, rifles, motor vehicles, buildings, and what-have-you to ports, probably in the Baltic Sea, with port handling equipment and river, rail, road and communication links to unpublicised forts and small cities: not cities in Jacob's usage, but bases, dumps, munitions stores, air support - not cities at all. All omitted from Jane Jacobs.

What is perhaps more obvious is Jacobs' failure to consider money, and its control. The Death and Life of Great [North] American Cities, written a generation after WW2, should obviously include the Fed.


Top of Page

CHARLES REITH: THE BLIND EYE OF HISTORY
[1952. Faber and Faber, London]


Charles Reith (1886-1957. NOT the BBC man who built up the propagandist organisation) wrote on police. I haven't checked his biography. This book was published when he was about 65. Faber & Faber seems an odd choice of publisher: they specialised in poets, writers needing Jewish-style puffs such as Harold Pinter and Samuel Beckett, and authors who became well-known and sold over long periods, such as T S Eliot.
      Reith's book is unattractively produced, with little signposting, and in three disconnected parts. The general idea is interesting and unusual: Reith thought policing was an essential part of governing, and he thought the rôle was neglected by historians. Or perhaps 'ignored' is a more accurate word. His book is in three parts: a shortish introduction, part two described as the origin and evolution of English and American policing, and part three on 'ruler-appointed police' from ancient history, Greece, Rome, Byzantium and Islam, Feudalism and Totalitarian police. His anthropology seems to be on the simple side, though this doesn't affect his thesis; he had to work with what history was available.
      Part two includes chapters on Jonathan Wild, John Wilkes, Samuel Adams, and the War of Independence, and these chapters are interesting on the historical importance of mobs before policing. His bibliography consists mostly of popular histories and what are considered serious histories.
      Wild, Wilkes, Adams, Fielding were four examples (of a few more) of people who dealt with mobs. Reith is not so good on groups of people such as Jews and Freemasons and gipsies and marauders and thugs (in he Indian sense).
      Reith regards failure to police efficiently as a mark of collapsing civilisation.
      Reith is not a 'revisionist' and has no idea that mobs can and have been hired and controlled. Perhaps more so than ever in human history, since mobility is greater, communications are greater, and money is more fluid than ever. Reith is unaware of the possibilities of fake history and psyops. His book has been reprinted; but as far as I can tell he hasn't had intellectual successor(s). I haven't checked his other books. They seem not to be online anywhere.
I think I'm right in this summary:
Reith says police are necessary for a stable society. He makes many claims: Egypt fell to the Hyksos, but, later, had policing and recovered. A few millennia later, the British tried to deal with the American colonies in the way it had tried to deal with riots in England, namely by armed troops. These were likely to pour inflammable oil on the rioters, and failed. Reith says that as states amalgamated, kings were produced (it's true Italy and Germany only unified in the 1800s, and Britain's 'Union' was 1800).
      I think Reith said in effect: it took imaginative effort to think of the idea of police; and these took two forms, the Anglo style kin and parish constable, and the rest-of-the-world 'ruler appointed police', which includes gendarmes and descendants of Tsarist secret police. Mussolini had the idea of totalitarian power, and Hitler copied him. Reith appears to accept the Jewish-promoted Hitler and nuclear legends. But he accepts the killings and slavery in the USSR. Readers will note the complete absence of knowledge of Jewish power by Reith. In fact, it occurs to me that Faber's publishing decision may have been influenced by this. He mentions Japan and the Kempi, and the idea of 'plain clothes police'. Generally he views foreigners darkly. As I say, he had no idea of the influence of Jews and their collaborators.
      Much of Reith's work is based around 'riots', though he does not include actions of Jews, in for example Cyprus, as described for example by Belloc and Arthur Butz, and omits the Blues and Greens of Constantinople. It does however include the part played by Henry Fielding (also a novelist!), the Gordon riots, the 'Peterloo massacre'. There are many interesting comparisons which suggest themselves: Highwaymen were unopposed and apparently expected to collect payments, at a similar era to the sinful city of Port Royal. Smuggling in the English south coast flourished, apparently later. Reith very properly assumes the police should enforce whatever laws they are told to, and doesn't concern himself with details, such as Jews imposing death duties to make money from old families.
      When applying himself to history, Reith makes far-reaching deductions; I don't know if these were refuted, accepted and absorbed, or ignored. But for example he thinks ancient Greece was chaotic because of its lack of stable policing; Rome fell ditto; that Byzantium lasted 1100 years because it did have stable policing; that Islam succeeded because it 'unwittingly instituted extremely effective enforcement'. He looks at the contempt for law in the USA.
      Reith does not isolate the really enormous agents of change: Jewish finance, firearms, easier travel, easier communication especially downward, electronic technology. But his (in effect) complaint '... miles of [shelves of] books [on] laws and law-making ... one can search in vain for a single volume [on] even an outline of the history of securing law-observance'. — Rae West 19 June 2020


    FULL INDEX scanned 25 September, 95 in the hope it may prove useful
    A STUDY OF THE ORIGINS OF THE PRESENT POLICE ERA
    NOTE: POWER: Could be quite important in analysing power; explicitly critical of historians' neglect of the role of what are now called 'police'
    Note: Power: asymmetry: it strikes me that, just as sociologists ignore things in proportion to their importance (viz. monarchy; then law, military; then press, big business etc remain uninvestigated by sociology, whereas criminology, lunacy etc thoroughly 'studied'), historians do the opposite, ignoring e.g. sewage, disease, agriculture, police, labour and concentrating on kings, despots, military success stories etc.
    Blurb: 'Mr Reith's title deliberately challenges our wits. The blind eye of history - what can that be?'
    It is neglect of the methods by which governments have secured, or have failed to secure, observance of law. The blind eye of history is the eye which is blind to the part played, through the whole recorded experience of the human race, by the 'police'. Laws fail, if they cannot be enforced. ..
    .. Mr Reith's answer is to the effect that two quite different solutions have been found. His names.. are 'kin police' and 'ruler-appointed police', both of which types can be traced back to early clan and tribal history. ..'
    [Index includes 'Blacks and Tans', gangsters, Gestapo, Gilds, G-men, Knights of the Shire, Ku Klux Klan, mobs, O G P U, Royal Irish Constabulary, Vigiles/ NOT mafia, witch hunting]
    Reith authored four other books [all published by OUP; this one is faber] on policing and on the British police. At the time of writing I haven't read this; I've just noted the contents and blurb and a few other points. Perhaps Reith is just a patriotic and authoritarian type? Influenced by Fascism and the Cold War? And the British Empire? On the other hand, this may be a serious analysis
    NOTE: HISTORIANS: Despite Reith's explicit attack on historians, there seems little in the way of evidence: Fisher, Flaminius, Tacitus in the index; but not (e.g.) Caesar, Gibbon, Macaulay, Machiavelli, Orwell, Rowse, Suetonius, Thucydides, Trevelyan, Wells
    The index has twelve references to 'History, erroneously regarded as record of what has happened', and 'historians' neglect of police history'

            - CONTENTS:

    PREFACE

        PART ONE: INTRODUCTION: The overlooked dependence of authority, in history, on means of securing observance of laws

        PART TWO: ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF THE KIN POLICE, ANGLO-SAXON OR DEMOCRATIC, POLICE SYSTEM OF ENFORCING LAWS
    1 Tribal Kin Police. Saxon, Danish and Norman.. The English parish-constable Police System in England and her American Colonies. Its Failure in England
    2 The Story of Jonathan Wild [Note: written about by Fielding, in 'Jonathan Wild the Great'. A 2-hour 1968 film, 'Where's Jack?', with Tommy Steele as highwayman Jack Sheppard was directed by James Clavell of 'Shogun', and had Stanley Baker as the infamous Jonathan Wild, with Alan Badel as 'Lord Chancellor'.] cp. e.g. Rockefeller; and Russell on merchants being important when both buyers and sellers weren't organised: apparently took crime in ?18th C. and organised it; negotiated both with thieves and with people whose property had been stolen, opening an office and functioning almost like an official police system.]
    3 The Story of John Wilkes
    4 The Story of Samuel Adams
    5 The American War of Independence
    6 United States History. ..
    7 United States Police To-day
    8 Criminal Reform and Other Consequences of Police Weakness in the United States
    9 England's Remedy for the Failure of the Parish-constable Police System
    10 British Police To-day

        PART THREE: ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF RULER-APPOINTED POLICE, AND THE 'GENDARMERIE' OR TOTALITARIAN POLICE SYSTEM OF ENFORCING LAWS
    11 Ruler-appointed Police in Tribal and Ancient History. Sumer, Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Persia
    12 Ruler-appointed Police in the History of the Greeks. Greek tribes and City-states. Athens. The Tyrants. Sparta. Macedon [sic]. Alexander. The Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires
    13 Republican Rome. Absence of Police, and its Consequences
    14 Ruler-appointed Police in the Roman, Byzantine and Islamic Empires
    15 Feudalism, and The National Era in Europe. Gendarmerie Police and Totalitarian Police. The Police Era. Democratic Civilization and the Menace of Totalitarian Police.

    BIBLIOGRAPHY [Many books on 18th Century biographies, not very important; plus some of ancient history, including Hammurabi's Code and Jews. Also a few on police history]

    INDEX

-9-10: [Etymology: great recency of the present meaning of 'police'. As recently as 1840s it meant something like 'of civilised living' or 'of the town'. Reith says modern historians 'now use it glibly, and sometimes very confusingly, in place of such names as 'the young men', 'the officers', 'the officials', 'the guards', and others, by which the existence of policemen has been obscured by earlier writers throughout the ages, and as far back as the second millennium B.C.']

FULL INDEX

Abbasid Dynasty, 235, 236, 237
Abu Bekr, 235
Abu'l.Abbas, 235
Abolitionists, 93
Adams, John Truslove, 59, 73
Adams, Samuel, 49, 54.68, 69, 71, 72, 81
Aetolia, 213
Africa, 21
Ahmose, 182
Al Capone, 40
Alfred the Great, 26
Alexander the Great, 201.5
Alexandria, 185, 226
All Nations Club of Los Angeles, 128
Amenemhet, 18
Amenemhet, III, 18
Amenhoteb II, 183
Amenhoteb III, 183
Amenhoteb IV, 184
America, see United States
American Colonies, 29, 32, 41, 47, 50, 52, 54.8, 61, 69, 81, 82
American History and Historians, 71, 92, 104, 109, 111
American Revolution, mystery of England's handling of, 73
American War of Independence, 53, 69.81, 85
Amraphel, 180
Anglo.Saxon Police System, 20, 163, 177, see also Kin-police
Anthropologists, 2
Antigonus, 205
Antiochus, 205, 213
Antronius, see Cataline Conspiracy
Arkansas, 125
Assyrians and Empire, 185, 186, 235
Astor, John J., 91
Athenians, see Greeks
Athens, 190
Augustus, 179, 185, 206, 210; introduces police in Rome, 216, 223-6

Babylon and Empire, 178, 180, 235
Baghdad, 237
Bedford, Duke of, 50
Bentham, Jeremy, 146
Berkeley, Cal., 112, 115, 116
Bernard, Sir Francis, 59, 60
Bibulus, 221
'Black and Tans', 147
Bohr, 25.8
Bolshevik Revolution, 245
Bonner, Robert J., 196 n., 197 n.
Boston, 49, 54.7, 59; Tea-party, 62.4, 65, 66, 73, 81, 104, 120
Bow Street Runners and Patrols, 135, 141
Brandywine, 79
Breasted, J. H., 182 n.
Breed's Hill, 75
Britain, 19, 29, 42, 254
British Commonwealth and Empire, 19, 81, 83, 147, 169
Brown, Ivor, 41 n.
Brown, John, 94
Brooklyn Heights, 79
Brutus, 223, 224
Budge, E. A. Wallis, 179 n.
Bull, Frederick, 51
Bunker's Hill, 75-7
Bureau of Special Service, Jersey
City, 127
Bury, J. B., 204n.
Bute, Lord, 47
Byzantine Army, 232, 233
Byzantine Empire, 231.5
Byzantine Priests as Police, 233

Canada, 56, 69, 77
Canute, 26
Capital Punishments in England in early nineteenth century, 145
Carbo, 219
Caroline, Queen, 143
Carthage, 195, 204, 211, 212
Cary, M., 187 n.
Cassius, 223, 224
Castlereagh, Lord, 142
Castle William, 59
Catalina, L. Sergius, see Cataline Conspiracy
Cataline Conspiracy, 220, 221
Catholic Emancipation, 149
Charlemagne, 20, 239, 240
Charles II, 31
Charles VII, 242
Charles River, 76
'Charlies', 31
Charleston Peninsula, 75
Charter of Human Rights, 251, 253
Cheka, 245
Chicago, 32, 96, 105, 112, 114, 118
Chief Pledge, 27
China, 19
Christian Church of Rome, 239
Christian Religion, 115
Cicero, 221.4
Cinna, 218, 219
City Marshals, 31, 36, 46
City of London, opposition to police, 140, 141, 143
City States, 14, 21, 178
City merchants, 47.51, 56
Civil War in England, 29, 30
Clans, 14, 18
Claudius, 222
Cleopatra, 224
Cleveland Association of Criminal Justice, 121
Cockrell, Ewing, 104, 112
Coggens, James Gould, novelist, 109 n.
Colombus, Indiana, 127
Colquhoun, Patrick, 136.9, 141, 146.9, 155
Communism, 32, 252, 253
Communities, development of, 14; inescapable processes of formation, 14, 15, 88; independent and dependent, 15.17; of U.S. western expansion, 86.7; early, 185, 189, 209; community unanimity destroyed by prosperity and differences in wealth, 210
Constable, origin of word, 28
Constantine, 230
Constantinople, see Byzantine Empire
Continental Congress, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85; members carrying arms, 91; 92, 103
Cook, S. A., 181 n.
Council of Europe, 251
Court Leet, 28, 29
Crassus, 220.2
Crime, 33, 36, 39, 41.5; prevention of crime as origin of British modern police, 135; see also British Police Principles under Police
Criminal Law Reform and Reformers in England, 132, 145.7
Crixus, 220
Croesus, 195
Cromwell, 30
Culture, birth and growth of, 17
Custodes pacis, 28
Custom, 18
Cyrus, 186, 187


Dalrymple, Colonel, 59
Danes, 29
Darius, 186, 187
Dark Ages, 20
Dartmouth, tea ship, 63, 64
Delian League, 198
Detroit, 114, 125
Diocletian, 230
Dionysius of Syracuse, 195
Disraeli, 9
Dorchester Heights, 77
Draco, 191

East India Company, 62.4
Edgar, 26
Edwards, Chilperic, 179.180n.
Egypt, 181.5, 205, 207, 208, 222, 235
Eldon, Lord, 142
Enna, 195
Erie Railroad strike, 1877, 95
Ethelred, 26

Family, 14, 18
Fascists, Fascism, 32, 42, 246
Federal Authority of U.S., 82, 84, 86, 94, 95, 103
Federal Bureau of Information, 102, 109, 110; National Police Academy 116
Feudalism, Norman, 19; Feudal System, 240.2; post Feudal era of Western Europe, 194, 241, 242
Fielding, Henry, 34, 45, 131.8, 140, 6, 147, 149, 155; Sir John, 131, 135
Fisher, H. A. L., 228
Fisk, Jim, 95
Flamininus, 213
Fleet Prison, 35, 36
Flushing, 40
Force, basis of law-enforcement machinery, 15, 17; exercised from above downwards and from below upwards, 21
Ford Republic, Detroit, 125
Fort Sumpter, 94
Fosdick, Raymond, 104
Fouché, Joseph, 144, 245
Fox, CharlesJames, 75
France, 48, 56, 71; joins in War of Independence, 80; 81, 144, 242, 244
Franklin, Benjamin, 65-8
Frankpledge, 25-8
Franks, 238, 239
French Revolution, 146, 243

Gage, General, 60, 65.8, 72, 73, 75
Galloway, Joseph, 69
Gangsters and gangsterdom, 41, 42, 54, 96, 110, 121, 124, 239, 247
Gegildan, 25-9
Gendarmerie, see Police
Gendarmes, origin of, 242.5
George III, 47, 48, 75
George IV, 152
George Junior Republic, New York, 126
Germanic Tribes, 19
Germany, 42; see Nazis
Gestapo, 42
Gilds, 26
Gin, 44.5
Glasgow, 136
'G'-men, 102, 103, l16
Gnaeus Octavius, 219
Gordon, Lord George, 49, 50
Gordon Riots, 50, 51, 13r, 140, 143
Gracchus, Tiberias, 215; Gaius, 215
Gray, G. B., 187 n.
Greece, 178, 188.208; conquest by Rome, 212.13
Greek City-states, 177, 188.90, 211.13
Greeks, failure to secure law-observance, 178, 196; 184, 190, 201
Green, John Richard, 141
Green Riot, 49
Grenville, George, 47
Grey, Earl, 150

Hagar, 180
Halifax, Nova Scotia, 77
Halliday, W. R., 195 n.
Hallward, B. L., 213 n.
Hamilton, Alexander, 84, 85
Hammurabi, 178, 179, 180, 185
Hancock, John, 68, 72
Harnab, 184
Harriott, Captain John, 138
Herodatus, 187, 19l
Hiero, of Syracuse, 195
Highwaymen, tyranny of, 31, 36, 138
Himmler, 246
Hippias, 197
History, erroneously regarded as record of what has mattered, 13; 18, 29, 33, 41, 47, 96, 133, 177; historians' neglect of police history, 161, 170, 193
Hitler, Adolf, 246, 247, 250
Home Office officials, 173
Hoover,J. Edgar, 102, 104, 109
Howe, General Sir William, 73-7, at New York, 78; Philadelphia, 79; Brandywine, 79; Valley Forge, 80
Hundred, 26.8
Hunt, William, 142
Hutchinson, Thomas, 63, 64, 65
Hyskos, invasion of Egypt, 182

Iknaten, see Amenhoteb III
Indeterminate Sentence Laws, U.S., 121
India, 19
Industrial Revolution, 29, 243
Indus Valley, 178
Ine, 26
Ireland, 147, 151, 169
Islam and Empire, 233-7
Italy, 42, 246, 250, 251

Jails in United States, 122, 123
Japan, 42, 247, 250
Jenghis Khan, 237
Jersey City, 115, 127
Jerusalem, 220
Jones, B. M., 132 n
Josephus, 228 n.
Judges Powers in United States, 118-21
'Judges Rules' in England, 165
Julia, wife of Pompey, 222
Julius Caesar, 221.3
Justices of the Peace, 28, 30

Kempie, 247
Kin-police, 18.21, 25.8, 83, 113, 157, 163, 164, 177, 185, 188-90, 209, 253
Knights of the Shire, 28
Ku-Klux-Klan, 94

Latronculatores, 229, 243
Law, contempt for, in U.S., 90
Law-enforcement, effective keystone of community existence, 15, 18; means of in early communities, 18.21
Law-enforcement machinery, 16, 17, 33, 37, 39, 42, 46, 47, 52, 82, 84; in U.S. communities, 87.89; 96, 97, 102-4, 113, 129, 130, 144, 146, 155, 178, 181, 183, 188, 19l, 199, 209, 211, 229, 243; for supranational authority, 252
Law-observance, necessity for all laws, rulers and governments, 13, 92, 177, 183
League of Nations, 250
Lee, W. Melville, 154 n.
Lenin, 245
Leontine, 195, 211
Lexington, 72
Liberalism, 46
Lie Detector, 109
Lincoln, Abraham, 94, 95
Liverpool Ministry, 142
London, 26; criminal confusion of, 31-2; 34, 35, 39-42, 44-56
Los Angeles, 128
Lyons, Fred J., 35 n
Lyttleton, George, 132
Lysander, 200

MacCormick, Austin H., 124
Macdonald, Duncan Black, 235 n.
Macedon, Macedonians, 191, 201, 204, 208, 212, 213
Mackintosh, James, 146
Magister officiorum, 230
Malinowski, Bronislaw, 21 n.
Marcus Livius Drusus, 217
Maréchaussée, 242, 243
Marius, 217.19
Mark Antony, 223, 224
Massachusetts, 59, 65, 66; Provincial Congress, 67; 119
Matteotti murder, 246
Mayne, Richard, 149-54, 156-8, 160, 165, 166
Mecca, 233, 234
Medes, 186
Medina, 234
Melbourne, Lord, 150
Men of Moscow, 247-50, 252
Merovingian Kings, 239
Mesopotamia, 235
M.G.B., 247
Michigan, 105, 112
Middlesex Justices' Bill, 1792, 136
Military Force, 10, 16; failure of, 18.21; 30, 31, 33, 46, 49, 52, 57, 59, 66, 71, 83, 95, 144, 145, 155, 162, 168, 177, 178, 182, 184, 186, 192, 201, 210, 211; failure in Roman Republic, 212, 214, 217; Roman Empire, 224, 225, 227; Byzantine Empire, 231, 239, 247, 251, 252
Milwaukee, 112, 116
Minnesota, 125
Missi dominici of Charlemagne, 240
Mithridates VI, 218, 220
Mobs, 48, 49; methods of authority in England, 52-3; Boston, 58, 66, 67, 80
Mohammed, 233, 234
Mongols, 237
Moore, Sir John, 151
Moral Force, 10, 189, 199, 201, 210, 212, 214, 231
Moylan, Sir John, 154 n.
Mussolini, 246, 247, 250
M.V.D., 247

Napoleon I, 144, 245; Napoleon III, 245
National Era of Western Europe, 194, 241, 242, 249, 250
Nations, 14; as Independent Communities, 16
Nazis and Nazi Germany, 32, 42, 247, 250, 251
New York, 32, 60, 65, 78; attempts to adopt London police, 83, 118
Nicholas I, 244
N.K.V.D., 247
Norman Conquest, 27.9
North Briton, 48
North, Lord, 75

Ochrana, 245
Octavian, see Augustus
O.G.P.U., 247
Omar, 235
Ostia, 226
O.V.R.A., 246

Pacific Islands, 21
Palestine, 235
Paris, 244, 245
Parish Authorities, 31, 36
Parish Constable, see Police
Parole, in U.S., 119-21
Patria potestas, 209
Patriotism, 18
Peace of Paris, 47
Peel, Robert, 139-43, 147-9, 150, 152
Peet, T. E., 184 n.
Peisistratus, 191-3, 195, 197
Pericles, 197
Persians and Persian Empire, 186, 194, 198, 204, 205, 208, 234
'Peterloo' 1818, 142, 155
Phalaris of Agrigentum, 194
Philadelphia, 79
Philip V, of Macedon, 212
Philippi, battle of, 224
Physical Force, 10, 16-18, 85, 112, 161
Pitt, William, the Elder, 47, 75
Pitt, William, the Younger, 138, 140, 141, 143
Place, Francis, 168, 169
Plato, 191 n.
Police, origin of name, 9-10; 'Police Manure', 9; dependence of communities on police, 16, 17; as necessary medium for military force, 10, 71, 184; Bodyguard police, 20, 177, 178, 192, 193, 195, 238; of Babylon, 179; Institutional police, Athens, 193, in Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, 207.8; parish-constable police system, 19, 29.32; parish deputies, 31; breakdown of parish-constable system, 31, 35, 47, 52, 130.53; spreads to provinces, 31; 44, 46, 54, 57, 70, 81, 83; parish-constable system in U.S., 97; gendarmerie police, 20, 42, 177, 183, 194, 208, 224, 229, 237, 242.4, 246, 247, 250; Totalitarian police, 20, 177, 254; Ruler-appointed police, 177, 180, 184, 185, 194, 240, 242, 247, 253; 'New Police', see Metropolitan Police; only two kinds of police, 20; Kin-police, 18.21, 25.8, 83, 113, 157, 163, 164, 177, 185, 188.90, 209, 253; Petty Constable, 28, 29; Police Committees, 1818, 144, 155, 1822, 147, 1828, 148, 1834, 153; Cromwell's military police failure 30, 31; Metropolitan Police of London, 138, 143, 15O, 155, 169, 225; Paris police of 18th century, 244, 245, police as servants of public, 83; police forces in United States, 83, 97; United States police today, 97-112, 173; police weakness in United States, 113; New York City Police, 108, 110, 112, 114; Police Athletic League, 'P.A.L.', New York, 114; New York City Police Academy, 116; policemen in United States as basis of criminal reform, 113; Women Police in United States, 115; Junior Police in United States, 115, National Police Academy of Federal Bureau of Information, U.S., 116; need of securing public respect for police in United States to end problem of crime and corruption, 129; Police Principles, 110, 113, 115, 137, 154-73; Authorized Strength of police in Britain, 166, 167; police reform in England, 130.53; British Police Today, 154.73, 253, 254, Boroughs and Counties, 169; Thames River Police, 138; motorists abusing police, 161, baton charges by policc, 163; need of educational presentation of police values in Britain, 161; Scottish Police, 165n.; Railway Police, 167 n.; Democratic Police system, 253; Police Era 250, 254; Soviet Security Police, M.G.B., 247, 248; Home Secretary, police duties of, 169; British Police achievements and success, 170.3; danger to British Police from blindness of authority and other causes, 172, 173; British Police a necessity for True Democracy, 173; Police Bills, 1785, 143, 148, 1829, 148, 149; Police in Ancient History, 177.87; blue-cloaked police of Agrigentum, 194; Secret Police System of Sparta, 199, 200; Byzantine priests as police, 233; Islamic police, 234.6; police in London and in Rome of Augustus compared, 226; use of word police by archaeologists and others, 179, 183, 187
Polycrates of Samos, 194
Pompeius Rufus, 218
Pompey, 220, 221
Praetorian Guard, 224-7, 229
Press, freedom of, 46
Prisons in United States, 122, 123
Probation in United States, 119-21
Prohibition in United States, 96
Prosecutors, powers of, in United States, 115, 120
Punic Wars, 211
Pyrrhus of Epirus, 210

Quebec, Heights of Abraham, 74
Questores paricidii, 209, 210

Races, 14
Radicals, 168
Reformation, 29
Reform Bills, 1832, 168
Restoration, 29.31
Revere, Paul, 61, 72
Reynolds, P. K. Baillie, 226 n.
Rhode Island, 120
Riots, 31, 33, 45, 49, 50-3, 54; Boston, 60.4, 66, 134, 142, 144, 145, 150, 168
Roche, Captain, of Dartmouth, 63
Roman Empire, 19, 187, 2O6, 223-230; problem of law-enforcement solved by police, 224-5; break-down of police, 227; 235, 238, 243
Roman Republic, 209.24; problem of enforcing laws always unsolved, 210, 216; repression in Spain, 214; Slave Rebellions, 215, 219; bodyguard fights in Senate, 216, 218
Romilly, Samuel, 146
Roosevelt, Franklin D., 124
Rowan, Charles, 149.53, 154, 156, 157, 158, 160, 166
Royal Commission, 1838, 170
Royal Irish Constabulary, 147
Russia, 244-7; see also Soviet Russia

St. Louis Boys' Club, 128
Sassinid Empire, 235
Saxon Communities in England, 19, 154, 163, 164
Scirgefra, 27
Scotland, 165 n.
Scotland Yard, 169
Scythian Police of Athens, 192, 193, 197
Selucids and Empire, 205, 207, 208, 220
Seven Years War, 56, 74
Sheriff, 27, 28
Shire-moots, 27
Sicily, 195, 211, 212
Sidmouth, Lord, 142
Sing Sing Prison, New York, 125
Slavery, Negro, 92, 93
Smith, Bruce, 104 n.
Smith, Gertrude, 196 n., 197 n.
Smuggling in England, 14
Snefru, 18
Solon, 191
Soviet Russia, 43, 247, 248, 249, 252, 253
Spain, Roman repression, 214
Sparta, 199, 200
Spartacus, 220
Spitalfields, 50
Stalin, 247, 25O
Stamp Act, 1765, 57
Standard, newspaper, 156
Sugar Act, 1764, 57
Sulla, 217-l9
Sulpicius, 218
Sumer, 178, 181
Syria, 213, 220, 235

Tacitus, 26
Tammany Hall, 96
Tarring and Feathering, 67
Tel Harmel, 178n.
Tertullian, 229
Texas Rangers, 100
Theagenes of Megara, 194
Theban Dynasty, 182, 184
Thebes, 183, 184
Thicknesse, Philip, 245 n.
Third Degree, 108, 109, 110
Thomson, R. Campbell, 179 n.
Thutmose III, 183
Tories, 47
Totalitarian Ideology, 30
Totalitarian Police, see Police
Totalitarian State, 242
Town Marshals, 54, 57, 71
Townshend Acts, 1765, 57
Trade Union and Labour Movements, 172
Tradition, 18
Tribal Arbitrator, 18
Tribal Community, 18
Tribes, 14
Tucker Farms Prison, 125
Turks, 231, 237
Tutenkhamen, 184
Tyburn, 40, 41, 133
Tyrants, 20, 178, 190, 193.6
Tything, 25.8, 131

Umayyids, 235
United Nations Organization, 251, 252
United States, 19; police organization, 29, 32, 42; history, 82-96, 104; war with England, 1812, 90; Civil War, 92.5; United States Police, 97.112; juvenile crime, 110, 111; deaths from motor accidents, 111; 177, 244
Urban Cohorts of Rome, 224.7
U.S.S.R., see Soviet Russia

Valentine, Lewis J., 114
Van Tyne, Claude H., 70 n.
Vergennes, 8
Vicecomes, 28
Vigiles of Constantinople, 231
Vigiles of Rome, 185, 224, 226, 227

Walpole, Horace, 132
War, First World War, 147, 249, 250; Second World, 249; Third World, 249, 252
Wars of the Roses, 29
Washington, George, early attitude to Independence proposals, 70, 71; sufferings from Congress, 77; at New York, Brooklyn Heights, 78; Brandywine, 79; Valley Forge, 79; sufferings of his troops and treatment by Congress, 80, 84
Watch, 29
Waterloo, 151
Welfare Island Prison, New York, 124
Wellington, Duke of, 143, 168, 169
Wernicke, K., 197 n.
Westchester County Farm Jail, 122
Whigs, 47, 75
Wichita, 112
Wild, Jonathan, 32, 34-43, 49, 54
Wilkes, John, 32, 44-51, 54, 57, 139
Wollmer, August, 104 n.
World Powers, 14

Yeomanry, 142

Zimmern, Alfred E., 193 n., 200 n.


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

More on the growth and decline of settlements

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

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

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

Top of Page

Dr Henrik van Loon: The Home of Mankind (1933,1948)

Most of what follows outside this box was written 25 years ago, before Internet existed.
van Loon (pronounced "Lone") wrote this literally globalist work both sides of the Second World War. Some books seem to cry out for an update; this is one, in my view.
      Hendrik van Loon gives an overview of the earth, its seasons, the sun, moon, mountains, and seas. He describes many countries and their sizes, shapes, and links. He seems to prefer geography to history and politics, but anyway explains why countries are where they are, and what happened to them—often a matter of geography, and the biology of food, and matters of transport.
      Surely some enterprising type(s) could update this, including the primacy of the Mediterranean as the hugest inland sheltered sea, trade routes, land ownership, aggressive groups, language groups, and plate tectonics (what was 'continental drift') and volcanic, unstable, sea bottom, and earthquake zones.
      Come on! Americans in particular are ignorant of other parts of the world. Let's have a sound, friendly, sensible guide to our world!

      It took me some time to realise this is essentially a geography book: it has an introduction, then sections on all major countries; and a good many minor ones. Emphasis on topography; approved of by H G Wells as a supplement (or different approach) to his history. Rather infantile style, perhaps as a result of translation, which is tiresome; but the general idea is good. It needs updating with modern information (as in some Penguins, in which the earth is seen in a familiar way as having plates, being subject to slips here are there, and external impacts, periodic climate changes and so on) and with imagination. A little too geopolitical, with approval for too many butchers; has phrases like 'little yellow men'. Dislikes the Soviet Union. Goblet, Mackinder and general geopolitics is not in here.
      van Loon gave no sources, except acknowledging the help of a 10-cent globe pencil sharpener from which he seems to have scribbled his drawings, and a brief nod to reference books at the end and note on figures: van Loon jokes over spelling inconsistencies, differences in reported heights of mountains, sizes of river basins etc.

CONTENTS:
    1 .. PEOPLE..
    2 .. 'GEOGRAPHY'..
    3 .. PLANET..
    4 MAPS..
    5 .. SEASONS..
    6 .. DRY LAND.. CONTINENTS..
    7 .. EUROPE..
      INTERLUDE
    8 GREECE.. LINK BETWEEN THE OLD ASIA AND THE NEW EUROPE
    9 ITALY.. SEA-POWER OR LAND-POWER..
    10 SPAIN.. AFRICA AND EUROPE CLASHED
    11 FRANCE.. EVERYTHING SHE WANTS
    12 BELGIUM.. CREATED BY SCRAPS OF PAPER
    13 LUXEMBURG, HISTORICAL CURIOSITY
    14 SWITZERLAND..
    15 GERMANY.. FOUNDED TOO LATE
    16 AUSTRIA, THE COUNTRY THAT WAS AN EMPIRE
    17 DENMARK.. SMALL COUNTRY MAY ENJOY ADVANTAGES..
    18 ICELAND.. POLITICAL LABORATORY..
    19 SCANDINAVIAN PENINSULA.. SWEDEN.. NORWAY
    20 NETHERLANDS.. SWAMP THAT BECAME AN EMPIRE
    21 GREAT BRITAIN.. ISLAND OFF THE DUTCH COAST.. 1/4 OF HUMAN RACE..
    22 RUSSIA.. [NEVER FOUND OUT] WHETHER SHE WAS PART OF EUROPE OR ASIA
    23 POLAND.. SUFFERED FROM BEING A CORRIDOR.. NOW HAS A CORRIDOR..
    24 CZECHOSLOVAKIA, PRODUCT OF TREATY OF VERSAILLES
    25 YUGOSLAVIA, ANOTHER..
    26 BULGARIA, THE SOUNDEST.. WHOSE KING BET ON THE WRONG HORSE..
    27 RUMANIA.. HAS OIL AND A ROYAL FAMILY
    28 HUNGARY, OR WHAT REMAINS OF HER
    29 FINLAND.. HARD WORK AND INTELLIGENCE..
    30 DISCOVERY OF ASIA
    31 WHAT ASIA HAS MEANT
    32 CENTRAL ASIATIC HIGHLANDS
    33 GREAT WESTERN PLATEAU OF ASIA
    34 ARABIA - WHEN IS A PART OF ASIA NOT A PART OF ASIA?
    35 INDIA.. NATURE AND MAN .. IN MASS-PRODUCTION
    36 BURMA, SIAM, ANNAM, MALACCA..
    37 REPUBLIC OF CHINA, THE GREAT PENINSULA..
    38 KOREA, MONGOLIA, MANCHUKUO.. MANY WILL CONTINUE TO CALL 'MANCHURIA'
    39 JAPANESE EMPIRE
    40 PHILIPPINES, AN OLD ADMINISTRATIVE PART OF MEXICO
    41 DUTCH EAST INDIES, TAIL THAT WAGS THE DOG
    42 AUSTRALIA
    43 NEW ZEALAND
    44 PACIFIC ISLANDS, WHERE PEOPLE NEITHER TOIL NOR SPIN..
    45 AFRICA.. CONTRADICTIONS AND CONTRASTS
    46 AMERICA, THE MOST FORTUNATE OF ALL
    47 A NEW WORLD
A FEW FACTS [One page summary of areas, size of earth, populations, longest rivers]
INDEX [About 17 pages double columns - roughly 1,700 place-names]

• Van Loon's main things are: 'What if the [body of water] would run dry' with his own sketch e.g. of hilly Atlantic, to absurd scale; I think this must reflect then-recent advances in charting the seas but looks wrong - for instance the English channel is surely part of a continental shelf, and nowhere near as chasmic as he's drawn it (though I haven't checked this).
    And migrations of peoples (including explorers), and trade routes. I think it's fair to say his social dynamics of history relies just on these two things, plus of course the killings going along with them; he takes essentially an economic view of history.
    It's all of course pre-plate tectonics. [Though p 83 with sketch of possibility of floating islands is a bit like it, presumably copied from 'continental drift'].
    He knows about mountains and rain; therefore land surrounded by mountains [African continent; Australia] gets his thumbs-down. And he knows about rivers flowing downhill. He also knows mountains can be obstructive; stuff new to me on mountainousness of Spain and the effects of this on the Spaniards; the Alps; the relative lack of mountain ranges in Russia despite appearances.
    He seems not good on winds - e.g. what makes them blow; one gathers elsewhere that trade winds, for example, are extremely important. I think he's not good on ocean currents, which need a similar grasp of physics. He knows poles are cold; I think he has little grasp of ice ages.
    He's not much good on geology, treating minerals as random occurrences; similarly he's uncertain on crops and biology generally. [At one point he states Danes eat lots of butter because of their moist climate]. His astronomy has weak points; e.g. a diagram is labelled 'only round objects give round shadows'. He knows scarps are steep.
    I don't think he knows much about vegetation, except that trees take quite a long time to grow; for instance I think the stuff in Macfarlane distinguishing grassland from forest, and characteristics of soils, are out of his range.

• On a more macro scale, he discusses England ['centre of all the world's land masses' he says]; Spain ['part of Africa and part of Europe.. inevitable fight..']; why Sweden and Norway are essentially different; the Japanese empire; China is in three parts; and many other parts of the world.

• 'America' i.e. both north and south, and Russia, get longest chapters.

DETAILED CONTENTS:
    CHAPTER 1 .. PEOPLE..
    CHAPTER 2 .. 'GEOGRAPHY'..
    CHAPTER 3 OUR PLANET, HABITS AND MANNERS - 34: 'The layers of the atmosphere.. keep us warm like so many blankets' - 35: 'The three factors which make our climate what it is.. are the temperature of the soil, the prevailing wind, and the amount of moisture .. in the air. [Note: etymology:] Originally 'climate' meant the 'slope of the earth.' For the Greeks had noticed that as the surface of the earth 'sloped' further and further towards the poles, both the temperature and the humidity.. changed..' -49: '.. the Romans.. practical men.. in less than five generations completely changed the climate of their own peninsula by the senseless destruction of everything that had thus far helped to make Italy a country of well-balanced and even temperature. And what the Spaniards did to the mountains of South America, when they allowed the fertile terraces, built by countless generations of patient little Indians, to go to ruin, is a fact of so recent occurrence as to need no further elucidation.
    Of course that was the easiest way to deprive the natives of their livelihood.. by way of starvation - just as the extinction of the buffaloes by the United States Government was the most practical method of turning fierce warriors into dirty, slovenly reservation-parishioners. But these cruel and senseless measures carried their own punishment with them, as anyone familiar with the North American plains or the Andes will tell you. [Sic; not clear to me what this means, until:] .. No Government today would tolerate such scandalous interference with the soil upon which we all depend.. ' [Note: US usage is 'dirt' for soil; does this convey anything?] - 53: '.. it is.. doubtful whether we could exist if it were not for this vast reservoir of heat.. the sea. The geological remnants.. show.. there have been times when there was more land and less water.. but.. these were periods of intense cold..
    This vast ocean.. is in constant motion. ..
    A map of these ocean rivers .. Gulf Stream.. Japan Current or Kuro Siwo.. means Blue Salt Current..'
      55: [Gulf Stream, 'fifty miles wide and 1500 feet deep..' And Sargasso Sea about which medieval myths accumulated, we're told. It's a 'dullish stretch of water'. Is it possible 'eutrophication' or something of the sort wasn't known when Van Loon wrote? And the 'Cold Wall']
    CHAPTER 4 MAPS..
      Van Loon nods towards medieval and Roman maps and things like 'Polynesian woven maps'. Notes tendency to put Jerusalem in the middle replaced by tendency to put London, Paris or Berlin in the middle. However, he retains e.g. north at the top, rather than (say) direction you're facing. He has one or two special purpose maps, e.g. 413 of Africa as seen in early times, as fragments arranged Portolano-map style around a presumed mass; and there's another of America like that. Generally he seems to have a naive attitude; e.g. stating that Greenland looks as large as South America, implying this is true on any projection. Nothing on Chinese maps.
    [Note: Joke: it would be amusing to construct a sketch map of 'the world' as held by ancients, with 'middle of the world' sea and others, Asia as in Matthew Arnold, ?place of reeds, ?Ethiopians as having 'burnt faces', etc]
    - Also has stuff on compass and on chronometers and latitude and longitude, all unacknowledged. He didn't anticipate satellites or their use in position-fixing
    - 63: [Sketch of 'a Roman map', the so-called Peutinger map. Medieval maps something of a joke.
    63-4 Polynesian woven maps 'exceedingly handy and very accurate']
    - 65: 'If they [medieval merchants on Med] found themselves.. in the open.. they knew that pigeons would take the shortest route to the nearest bit of dry land.'
    - 66: [(Note: secret which might have been kept?) Account of compass and possible story of its spread and manufacture:] '.. funny little needle.. bewitched by Satan.. bring them one too the next time he came from the East. .. Merchants in Damascus and Smyrna.. within a few years the little glass-covered metal box had become such a common-place sight that no one thought it worth while to write about [it]..'
    CHAPTER 5 .. SEASONS..
    CHAPTER 6 CONCERNING THE LITTLE SPOTS OF DRY LAND.. WHY SOME OF THEM ARE CALLED CONTINENTS AND SOME NOT..
      81: [Certain localism, of course]
      82: [Note: legend of Atlantis? Sketch of rock in sea captioned 'Rockall - the top of a submerged continent in the North Atlantic']
      83: [Continental drift put forward tentatively as a possibility]
    CHAPTER 7 .. EUROPE..
      Van Loon's description of the special features of Europe which made it so wonderful: convoluted coastline, many isolating mountain ranges, inland seas stabilising temperature; furthest south part not too near equator; furthest north part warmed by Gulf Stream [cp Labrador]; almost all major rivers 'from Madrid to Moscow' go north-south allowing access to sea or Mediterranean INTERLUDE
    CHAPTER 8 GREECE.. LINK BETWEEN THE OLD ASIA AND THE NEW EUROPE
      97: 'The Venetians who conquered Greece during the Middle Ages were prosaic merchants..'/ 101-102: Attica and Thermopylae and Leonidas vs Xerxes in 480 BC, Gauls c 300 BC, 1821-2 important against the Turks/ 103: '... both Athens and Rome (like modern London or Amsterdam), the most important settlements of ancient Europe, were situated not immediately on the sea but several miles away from it. [Note: was this true of Carthage?] The example of Cnossus.. may have acted as a warning of that dreadful thing that may happen if one is for ever exposed to a surprise attack by pirates. ..
    .. these inhabitants of the 'top most city' (Etym: for that is what acro-polis meant), moved to the plain, built houses etc etc..'/ 104: '.. idyllic land of Arcadia.. they did not steal, but there was nothing worth the taking in a country of dates and goats. They did not lie, but their hamlets were so small that everybody knew everything about everybody anyway. .. Pan.. easily outdistanced the other Olympians when it came to coarse jokes and the low wit of country yokels. ..' - 97: BALKANS: 'there are two mountain-ranges.. In the north.. the Balkans which have given their name to an entire peninsula. The Balkans are merely the southern end of a half circle of hills of which the northern part is known as the Carpathians. They are cut off from the rest of the Carpathians by the so-called 'Iron gate' - the narrow ravine through which the Danube has cut itself a path .. to the sea; ..'
      106: '.. three half-submerged ridges of the great Balkan hand.. from Europe to Asia. .. islands.. nowadays belong to Greece except for a few in the eastern Aegean which Italy has occupied.. we divide these islands into two groups, the Cyclades near the Grecian coast, and the Sporades near.. Asia Minor. Those islands, as St Paul knew, are within short sailing distance of each other. And they formed the bridge across which the civilization of Egypt and Babylonia and Assyria moved westward until it reached the shores of Europe. ..'
      107: '.. a nation overrun .. by Macedonians, by Romans, by Goths and Vandals and Slavs, conquered and turned into a colony by Normans, Byzantines, Venetians, and the unspeakable riff-raff of the Crusades, then almost completely depopulated and repopulated by the Albanians, forced to live under Turkish domination for almost four entire centuries, and used as a base of supply and a battlefield by the forces of the Allies in the Great War - such a nation has suffered certain hardships from which it will find it extremely difficult to recuperate. ..'
    CHAPTER 9 ITALY.. SEA-POWER OR LAND-POWER..
    CHAPTER 10 SPAIN.. AFRICA AND EUROPE CLASHED
    CHAPTER 11 FRANCE.. EVERYTHING SHE WANTS
      French stated to be self-sufficient and complacent because of it [I noted this elsewhere and contrasted with Belloc's view]
      Paris positioned in saucer-like structures, he says, with a sketch; perhaps this is the 'logical reason for Paris being where it is' that Gerald Levy's wife Margot struggled to remember, before coming up with bridgeable-width-of-river (Belloc had a theory of distance to which water is still fresh and/or not tidal).
      155: '.. peasant.. as a rule his own proprietor. .. In England and in east Prussia.. where there is a great deal of agriculture, the farms often belong to some vague and distant landlord. But the French Revolution did away with the landlord, whether noble or cleric, and divided his property among the small peasantry. That was often very hard on the former proprietors. But their ancestors had acquired those possessions by right of eminent plunder, so what was the difference? .. it gives more than half the people a direct interest in the welfare of the whole nation. .. may explain the provincialism which makes every Frenchman stick to people of his own village.. so that Paris is full of little hotels catering for certain groups of regional travellers. ..'
    CHAPTER 12 BELGIUM.. CREATED BY SCRAPS OF PAPER
      [Rather long history including Reformation, Dutch closing off Antwerp, coal deposits in the Meuse, French-speaking minority becoming richest]
      162: '.. the Congress of Vienna of 1815.. a sort of Versailles.. had seen fit to make Belgium and Holland into a single kingdom, so as to have a powerful northern balance against the French.
    .. in 1830.. the Belgians rose against the Dutch, and the French (as was to be expected) rushed to their assistance. The Great Nations interfered. A prince of the house of Coburg, uncle of Queen Victoria. Leopold.. was made King of the Belgians. .. Henry Stanley.. heart of Africa.. Leopold prevailed upon him to come to Brussels..' [NB: atrocities are mentioned in another chapter at the very end; I suspect this addendum illustrates that Van Loon compiled his book from standard clichéd sources.)
    CHAPTER 13 LUXEMBURG, HISTORICAL CURIOSITY
    CHAPTER 14 SWITZERLAND..
    CHAPTER 15 GERMANY.. FOUNDED TOO LATE
    CHAPTER 16 AUSTRIA, THE COUNTRY THAT WAS AN EMPIRE
      Austria [meaning Austria-Hungary]: survival depended on geography
    CHAPTER 17 DENMARK.. SMALL COUNTRY MAY ENJOY ADVANTAGES..
    CHAPTER 18 ICELAND.. POLITICAL LABORATORY..
    CHAPTER 19 SCANDINAVIAN PENINSULA.. SWEDEN.. NORWAY
    CHAPTER 20 NETHERLANDS.. SWAMP THAT BECAME AN EMPIRE
      Change in the habits of herrings, attributed by Russell to Trevelyan, and (I think) in my book 'The Geography Behind History' in here; he says it had beneficial effects on Holland, disbeneficial effects on the Baltic.
      [Note: could this be a myth? Could they really know that much about herrings? Isn't it possible just that the Dutch improved their fishing technique, or that the Baltic people overfished?]
    CHAPTER 21 GREAT BRITAIN.. ISLAND OFF THE DUTCH COAST.. 1/4 OF HUMAN RACE..
    CHAPTER 22 RUSSIA.. [NEVER FOUND OUT] WHETHER SHE WAS PART OF EUROPE OR ASIA
      Russia and geographical aspect: 'not just a result of Peter the Great' ... 'country whose geographical position prevented her from finding out whether she was part of Europe or Asia.' 238: [on warm water ports:] '.. not unlike a structure consisting of eighty floors and eight thousand rooms, but with no other means of entrance and exit than two little windows connecting with the fire-escape of the third floor rear.'
    CHAPTER 23 POLAND.. SUFFERED FROM BEING A CORRIDOR.. NOW HAS A CORRIDOR..
    CHAPTER 24 CZECHOSLOVAKIA, PRODUCT OF TREATY OF VERSAILLES
    CHAPTER 25 YUGOSLAVIA, ANOTHER..
    CHAPTER 26 BULGARIA, THE SOUNDEST.. WHOSE KING BET ON THE WRONG HORSE..
    CHAPTER 27 RUMANIA.. HAS OIL AND A ROYAL FAMILY
    CHAPTER 28 HUNGARY, OR WHAT REMAINS OF HER
    CHAPTER 29 FINLAND.. HARD WORK AND INTELLIGENCE..
    CHAPTER 30 THE DISCOVERY OF ASIA
      277: Some unsourced etymological stuff; here he discusses the original meaning of the word 'Asia'. Elsewhere is e.g. Summer is Sanskrit word meaning the whole year; equator is line at equal distances - though he doesn't say what the 'tor' bit means. His explanation of the element of convention in distinguishing 'islands' from 'continents' has some etymological input.
    CHAPTER 31 WHAT ASIA HAS MEANT TO THE REST OF THE WORLD
      282: [Asia gave 'us' dog, cat, cow, horse, sheep, hog, 'practically all of our fruits and vegetables, most of our flowers, and practically all of our poultry'. And the three greatest monotheistic religions. And the spadework of Greek science. Isn't this overstating it? And of course, he says, the Huns, Tartars, and Turks.]
    CHAPTER 32 CENTRAL ASIATIC HIGHLANDS
    CHAPTER 33 GREAT WESTERN PLATEAU OF ASIA
    CHAPTER 34 ARABIA - WHEN IS A PART OF ASIA NOT A PART OF ASIA?
    CHAPTER 35 INDIA.. NATURE AND MAN .. IN MASS-PRODUCTION
    CHAPTER 36 BURMA, SIAM, ANNAM, MALACCA..
    CHAPTER 37 REPUBLIC OF CHINA, THE GREAT PENINSULA..
      'Great Wall of China only thing visible from the moon' is in here, but it's not clear to me whether he pinched it. His unconvincing sketch makes me suspect he did, and that this is a common idea at the time; I don't know who could have started it - perhaps related to canals on Mars idea and debunking of that..
    CHAPTER 38 KOREA, MONGOLIA, MANCHUKUO.. MANY WILL CONTINUE TO CALL 'MANCHURIA'
    CHAPTER 39 JAPANESE EMPIRE
      356: '.. oldest Japanese chronicle about AD 400..' [Van Loon talks about Shinto, but has no conception that it is new - if Russell is right; you could read this passage and never suspect such a thing. Therefore Van Loon must be regarded as suspect in other matters]
    CHAPTER 40 PHILIPPINES, AN OLD ADMINISTRATIVE PART OF MEXICO
    CHAPTER 41 DUTCH EAST INDIES, TAIL THAT WAGS THE DOG
    CHAPTER 42 AUSTRALIA
      Rabbits in Australia
    CHAPTER 43 NEW ZEALAND
      390: [Note: historical chance:] If a French squadron had arrived three days earlier, it would now be a French colony, he says
    CHAPTER 44 PACIFIC ISLANDS, WHERE PEOPLE NEITHER TOIL NOR SPIN..
    CHAPTER 45 AFRICA.. CONTRADICTIONS AND CONTRASTS
      Malaria and sleeping sickness in Africa; and remark on two men, Ross being one, who found the cause [Van Loon seems to ignore the problem of cure]
      417: Suez canal and opposition from Britain, disbelieving it would only be commercial/ Verdi's Aida/ Khedive/ Disraeli
    CHAPTER 46 AMERICA, [i.e. both north & south] THE MOST FORTUNATE OF ALL - 473: 'Bolivia.. land-locked.. once upon a time had direct access to the sea. But during the famous saltpetre war of 1879-1882, when Peru and Chile fought for the Arica district, Bolivia was foolish enough [sic] to side against Chile. [and] Chile lost her coastal region. Bolivia was a very rich country. [sic] .. the third tin-producing country of the world.. but a density of population of less than five per square mile..'
    CHAPTER 47 A NEW WORLD [Partly about spelling and transcription inconsistencies and also inconsistencies in reference books e.g. as to heights of mountains. But mostly on the world being now more unified etc etc & it makes sense to plan ahead as we now know we've been on earth rather a long time..]
    A FEW FACTS [One page summary of areas, size of earth, populations, longest rivers]
    INDEX [About 17 pages double columns - roughly 1,700 place-names, with things like Anatolian plateau, and few names like Commodore Perry and Columbus.]


Hendrik Willem van Loon: The Story of Mankind (1921,1926,1951,1967,1972,1984)

    This is essentially a history book, an idea perhaps borrowed from Wells.
    The dates I give are copied from an American updated version; publishing dates in my 1944 British copy are different.
    Note: BBC, WW2: Back flap has a message 'addressed to readers outside Great Britain' about 'The General Overseas Service' designed for British forces etc.
    His illustrations are really fantastically amateurish; he has however some interest in art, having written, as the back of this jacket shows, 'The Arts of Mankind' and having written on Rembrandt (and J S Bach).
First uploaded Jan 28 2020. All these notes and HTML by Rae West. I haven't added emphases; a bit lazy, I know


Top of Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
Bernard Lovell - Jodrell Bank radio telescope Bernard Lovell and Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope

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

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

The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth ... Schoolboys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
The Hobbit movie   Review of Lord of the Rings

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Case Against the BBC - Part 1. Reith

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

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

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


Top of Page

The Enchanted Glass: Britain and its Monarchy. Tom Nairn. 1988

Some notes I made years ago. Nairn is or was ‘left-wing’. At the time I must have assumed he had some basis for a rational system in society. I didn't know about the deceptive nature of Jews, with their Chosen People ideology and wish to rule the world.

However, I hope these notes on monarchies and historians and common people and sociologists may prove of some help, 26 years later.
RW 10 May 2021


    - Curious book, in a way; it doesn't in fact give evidence as to how much power (or money) the monarchy has - not perhaps easy to estimate; nor does it situate it historically, but describes in a piecemeal way things like gawping uncritical public [cp Wells], royal speech habits, clothing and travel habits; there's nothing about the Japanese monarchy and its myths, for instance, or how the Italians, Swedes and others got rid of/ tamed their monarchies. Nothing on Thai monarchy. Nevertheless despite the analytical lack it seems to suggest that Britain is controlled by a clique, from the south east, ruling the provinces and the plebs, as they always have, so that party politics seem almost of no account. Tacked on and mixed in is the suggestion that 'nationalism' isn't a bad thing after all, and other historical fragments, some very interesting, but all overlong and as vague and tiresome to read as many lefty speakers are to listen to. Nairn accepts several facts or myths, e.g. working class poverty and essential goodness, the anti-industrial culture of Britain, which he seems to date from about the start of the 'industrial revolution', and some analogous ideas about British failure - somewhat like the sort of thing E D Morel attacked in his book on myths of the 'Great War'.
    - It started or (as he puts it) had a pre-history as the section called 'The Glamour of Backwardness'. [Nairn accepts the idea that things in Britain are 'really bad'.] I think it's fair to say he never properly considered what he would put in his book; see my comments on Ms Colley and others whose work he heavily draws on sequentially throughout most of his book. There's a rather long list of people he credits for various services, including reading it, making suggestions, and putting up with him; this gives a pseudo-appearance of a democratically-arrived at consensus in the finished product which I can't believe is authentic..
    - Referred to by Chomsky in an endnote to 'Deterring Democracy'
    - Unindexed unfortunately, though it does have endnotes. It's practically impossible to unearth a remembered tantalising quote or image buried in the text somewhere. No summaries, tables or date information.

- King of Belgians
    - R P English
    - working class unemployment [note: his omission of the black side of working class is characteristic of left wing and right wing]
    - 161-2: advanced passenger train
    - Scruton and phone boxes
    - Oddity of expression 'Her Majesty's Stationery Office' occurs to me

- 10-11: '.. There have of course been plenty of 'Them' over the last century. .. courtiers and stage-managers.. media devotees like Lord Reith.. or the Fleet Street proprietors.. that adroit 'shop steward of Royalty' Lord Mountbatten.. an 'Establishment' always conscious of how the Crown's contribution to 'stability' supported its own values and interests.
      Yet.. Such efforts from above would have amounted to little had society not wished to be beguiled, and found some genuine comfort in what was offered. .. Manipulation from above has mattered far less than the lack of opposition from below. It is the absence of Republicanism,.. which counts most. .. the Royal passion-play must be an expression of some underlying structures of Britain's national existence - not just a conspiracy of the rulers..
      'Britons' - a title whose oddity itself expresses the eccentricity of Royal nationalism - have learnt to take and enjoy the glory of Royalty in a curiously personal sense. The view taken below is that the phenomenon implies not mass idiocy but (again) a functional requirement of this solution to national identity. A personalized and totemic symbolism was needed to maintain the a-national nationalism of a multi-national (and for long imperial) entity; and 'the Crown' could effectively translate identity on to that 'higher plane' required by a country (heartland England) which has since the 17th C existed out of itself as much as in. Though profoundly averse to democracy, this version of nationality has of course had to adapt to the popular times: and one mode of such adaptation has been precisely that rapprochement of Royal and 'ordinary' we find so prominent in the daily dosage of British monarchism, where a nationalist emotivity informs the concrete individuality of the Sovereign, and her family has become so all-important.' [Last sentence sic; I checked it carefully; good example of Nairn's inability to avoid once-trendy phrases and words. NB: 17th C an important time for Nairn, because he considers the Restoration blighted, more or less permanently, the ideas of republicanism, which he traces as a 'great tradition' through Plato and Machiavelli. He doesn't seem to have Russell's idea anywhere that democracy was invented by Cromwell's soldiers. NB also: structuralism and functionalism implicitly inserted in his remarks; these terms aren't defined, as far as I know, and I suppose assume his readers share a background in which sociology terms are used, but not defined. This of course rules out most people.]
    - 11: [There's a certain amount of psychological stuff; Nairn assumes a model based on 'psychoanalytical' 'therapy':] 'This sort of thing is often described as a national 'obsession'. So it is, but the metaphor can be taken seriously too. Decipherment of a patient's obsessions would normally be expected to show central aspects of his or her personality-structure - for which, in our case, read the real structure of the nation, as manifested through the ideology of Royalism. Doesn't the latter's increasingly weird combination of worship and lunatic concern with 'what they're really like',.. indicate something important about the society it inhabits? To deny this would be the equivalent of dismissing severe obsessional neurosis as merely a bad habit the patient ought to snap out of. And of course, judgements of this order are constantly made about the Monarchy in Britain (there are plenty of terrifying examples below). ..'
      [Nairn says elsewhere in an endnote: The classical source.. is Ernest Jones's essay 'The Psychology of Constitutional Monarchy', in Essays in Applied Psycho-Analysis (1951). This complacent study depicted constitutional monarchy as 'an index of a highly civilized relation.. between rulers and ruled', unobtainable save in 'a state that has attained the highest level of civilization']
    - 12: '.. Ernest Gellner has written about his own work on the general theory of nationalism (much cited below), that nothing can be said 'by simply drawing on the cards already available in the language pack that is in use':
      The pack has been dealt too often, and all simple statements in it have been made many times before. Hence a new contribution.. is possible only be redesigning a pack so as to make a new statement possible in it. To do this very visibly is intolerably pedantic and tedious. The overt erection of a new scaffolding is tolerable in mathematics, but not in ordinary prose..
      There is no easy way round the problem.. it involves a kind of sideways or crab-like insinuation - 'fairly unobtrusively loosening the habitual associations' is Gellner's description..'
      [Endnote gives Gellner, 'Nations and Nationalism' 1983]
    - 13: 'Republicanism has been exorcised from the arena of 'responsible public opinion' for over a century, and it's time it was back. .. the taboo.. did not originate by chance, but because it was always far more of a threat than the Royal-distributive Socialism which the British trade unions pressed for and received in the shape of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Lifting the taboo so that it re-entered the public domain and ceased being a form of nuttery or a closet-conviction ('Personally speaking, I've no time for it..' etc) would alter the climate, and before long more than just the climate of United kingdom politics. These are all solemn issues. But one can hardly stay clear of them once a decision is taken to pay the Windsor monarchy the (rare) tribute of regarding it seriously. It is also a farce, of course. .. Since the 1960s we have learned to titter more openly.. But a Republican.. also has to say: if they are absurd, we are the more so, for their glamour is no more than our collective image in the mirror of the State. .'
    - 28: '.. libel laws.. one time [in 20th C] in 1911, when action was taken against a Republican journalist who claimed that George V was a secret bigamist. Although the action was won, it was realized that this kind of publicity is deeply counter-productive: .. The myth of Equality before the Law may be at the heart of free-born England; but in this particular case, best not insisted upon [sic]. After all, the British sovereign is not even the first among equals: '.. No one in the entire realm is legally her equal. Because legally the Queen is the fountain of all justice ... she cannot be prosecuted or sued.' ..'
    - 28: [Note: Cp trinity idea:] 'Quite unwittingly, the most vulgar joke may connect in this sphere with antique mysteries. [what?] In his exhaustive study of the symbolism of mediaeval Kingship, Ernst Kantorowicz concluded that England's peculiarity had always been recognition of 'the King's two bodies' - that is, a relationship between the corporeal frailty of the man or woman and the undying mystique of the Crown. In this 'Royal Christology' there were always 'two bodies but only one person'; the transient, often absurd earthly creature translated a 'body politic' ('the Dignity which does not die') into visible terms. Thus, 'Charles's secret' is both the bald patch and the fact that here is the personage who will be reborn as King the very second Queen Elizabeth draws her last breath, forty-sixth in line since William of Normandy's conquest;..' ['The King's Two Bodies' 1957]
    - 35: 'Daniel Boorstin gave a famous definition of celebrity in his chapter on 'Human Pseudo-Events' in The Image (1961). .. Associated exclusively with the rise of contemporary media from the mid-19th C onwards, the celebrity 'could not have existed in any earlier age': he or she is 'a person who is known for his well-knownness'. .. This is why (for example) President Roosevelt ... was careful to space out his fireside chats so the citizenry would not tire of him. ..'
      [Thus Boorstin seems to be the source of Warhol's comment about everyone being famous for five minutes. Nairn doesn't seem to know that the use of 'image' in his sense was invented by Graham Wallas (at least according to Wallas)]
    - 37: [In 1985, National Library catalogues showed 137 titles devoted to the Queen's family alone (not counting Dukes etc). Nairn says villains are needed: Margaret, The Tragic Princess (J Brough, 1978); Margaret: Princess Without a Cause (W Fischauer, 1978); Princess Margaret: A Life Unfulfilled (Nigel Dempster, 1981). Nairn says these 'do little more than elaborate one primal image: that provided by the timeless nursery tales of Marion Crawford's The Little Princesses (1950), and .. the even soapier Princess Margaret (1952).. These compilations of mawkish tit-bits made 'Crawfie' into an international legend.' [Sic; this legendary quality certainly seems to have infected Nairn, who seems to assume his readers are familiar with this woman, 'governess to the Royal sisters for seventeen years'; he does however quote one short passage, about Elizabeth worrying about Margaret's antics. 41: For all its artful awfulness, The Little Princesses did say something. [Nairn in a longish passage outlines the traps faced by royal biographers.] This is why it aroused so much distress and remained so influential. Marion Crawford was the Peter Wright of the 1950s Court -.. Its coy cosiness and naiveté [sic] were too perfectly in tune with one aspect of Monarchical relations to be refutable..'
      [Also mentions 'A N Wilson's kitsch epic, Lilibet (1984)' apparently a verse effort based on Crawford. Nairn adds '.. imprint.. of Lord Weidenfeld, Britain's quasi-official Royal publication house..']
    - 39: [Edward VII: (NB: I have a biography by Maurois on this man)] '.. one of Edward's many disagreeable characteristics was gluttony. .. writes historian David Cannadine.. .. he ate anything and everything; and he ate it very quickly. All day, every day, day after day, he ate ... it was altogether appropriate that the man known as "Tum-tum" should have to postpone his coronation because he was suffering from appendicitis. [From 'New Society', 20-27 Dec 1984]
      Sir Sidney Lee's single-phrase rendition .. deeply impressed Harold Nicolson [who 'was to end up as official biographer of George V']. The King-Emperor, he wrote, 'never toyed with his food'.
    - 41: 'Isn't it possible to be both appreciative and 'interesting'? The history of the craft shows it to be, at least, extraordinarily difficult. Edward VIII was an exception.. because the system rejected him like a dud coin.. though.. the practical problems [for less inhibited investigators] proved enormous: half a century after the abdication it is by no means concluded.. a century of padded eulogies has so far produced extremely few volumes approaching the norms of ordinary biography. .. Kenneth Rose's King George V (1983).. [Rose] cannot help noticing the absurdities of both the man and the father-figure role into which he was type-cast more effectively than anyone since.. George III. Yet.. 1936 funeral rites.. 'an order of precedence .. that the reforming zeal of the Prince Consort had failed to sweep away almost a century before.' One may indeed suppose this. Prince Albert was both the first and the last genuine modernizer in British Royal history. But the impulses represented by the Crystal Palace and the Great Exhibition were exactly what Great Britain was destined not to turn into .. what it refused and down-graded .. to sweep back a world of hierarchy and title, the Crowned subordination of the modern to the traditional.
      .. [Rose says] 'the England which George V bequeathed to his son was indeed a demi-paradise' by comparison with the rest of Europe. .. Thus, a moment of British history now most often classed as politically and socially shameful even by conservative historians, [Note: myths: cp my comments on his treatment of working class Scots; support e.g. for US cruelty not in Nairn's awareness.] is given a retrospective glow by the rosy illumination of George V's passing.. That somebody so grotesque and limited could mean so much simply renders the Royal demi-paradise even more miraculous.'
    - 42: [Smallness fixation? Cp Koestler on the Japanese:] '.. Queen Mary's famous doll's house.. Queen was (Rose notes) 'captivated by the diminutive, a taste shared by most of the crowned heads of Europe'. Her passion for the little was comparable to her husband's absorption with the British Empire postage-stamps bearing his own portrait. Princess Marie Louise (1872-1956..) had the idea of flattering her childhood friend's obsession.. She asked.. Sir Edwin Lutyens to design a doll's house.. At first 'rather taken aback' (he was building New Delhi just then) the great man came round to the notion..
      The result was the celebrated miniature Palladian mansion now shown to the public at Windsor Castle: the country house, anti-Crystal Palace England of 1923..' [Nairn gives examples of the mini-furnishings and bits and pieces of this 'house', e.g. tiny shotguns, bottles of wine, stamp albums, gramophone; he evidently considers it a fixation, and expects readers to share this attitude, though it's not exactly clear why].
    - 60: '.. Laurie Taylor.. [actual book or whatever not given] .. criminals.. regard [Monarchy] as the supreme rip-off artists.. '.. It's marvellous the way they kid people. Honestly, it's incredible. I watched the Duke of Edinburgh the other night talking about the Royal Yacht. Fucking yacht. .. It's an ocean-going liner..'
    - 67: '.. other tongues too have standardized forms.. as a rule.. from one or another [sic] dominant region (e.g. the standard form in Italy is known as 'Tuscan' Italian'
    - 71: 'In the mediaeval times which have not quite vanished.. Monarchs claimed and kept possession of their realms like the most powerful of the beasts, This was the reality of the lion or the eagle who now glare and spit only as heraldic symbols. The King or Queen took possession of the territory through the prostration of all its inhabitants, at the Coronation. Then, armed with the thunderbolts of life and death, he or she constantly reaffirmed Royal authority: 'Making appearances, conferring honours, exchanging gifts or defying rivals, they marked the countryside like some wolf or tiger spreading its scent though his territory, as almost physically part of them..' [From Clifford Geertz, 'Centers, Kings and Charisma' in 'Culture and its Creators' 1977]
      These Royal Progresses were accompanied by much popular fun and ingenious displays and contrivances, as well as by obeisances and the savage punishment of transgressors. [NB: Following long passage has no sources credited to it, rather oddly] The 1559 Coronation Procession of Queen Elizabeth I, for example, as well as the later ones to Coventry, Oxford, and Bristol, all were marked by tableaux and festivities putting the pallid ceremonials of her Windsor successors to shame.
      After passing through Cheapside and the painted likenesses of all her Royal predecessors arranged in chronological order, and receiving two thousand gold marks from the City dignitaries, the Virgin Queen discovered in Little Conduit two artificial mountains, one cragged, barren and stony representing 'a decayed commonweal', and the other fair, fresh and green standing for 'a flourishing commonweal'. On the former stood a dead tree with a tramp slumping disconsolately beneath it; on the latter 'a well-appointed man standing happily', while between the hills was a small cave, out of which a man representing Father Time, complete with scythe, emerged (accompanied by his daughter Truth) to present to the new Queen an English Bible. Elizabeth took the Bible,. kissed it and 'raising it first above her head, pressed it dramatically to her breast...'
      At Bristol some years later, the Royal coming was signalled by a three-day mock siege on Avonside, where the armies of Dissension stormed a specially constructed fort called 'Feeble Policy'. The fort was saved by Royal intervention at the last minute, when all seemed lost. One of the players swam the river bearing 'a book covered with green velvet' to plead for the Sovereign's aid (and to explain to her exactly what was going on). Clowns, allegories, mock battles, gilt dragons, prancing nymphs and (in the background) executioners all underlined the willing servitude of province or town, and deepened the claw-marks of the Crown.
      Executions in the name of the Crown have been suspended for some time now in Britain, .. modern public Progresses .. overall organization and.. diffusion to crowds far greater.. Since this sort of Royal ceremonial came of age with Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee in 1887, it has underdone a century of regular development. The sense of reverential continuity has been part-revived and part-created since the 1870s. Timeless spectacles do require some real traditions of course and nobody will deny that post-1688 British history has these to offer. .. the pageantry version.. elevate[s] them into the throat-catching 'Thousand Years' of Orb and Sceptre..
      [Then he discusses the 'Royal Touch', 'the last Monarch who attempted the Royal Touch being Queen Anne (who touched among others the youthful Samuel Johnson). No source for this statement, either; evidently it's standard - Russell says the same thing in 'Power'.] .. the last great crescendo of Monarchic therapy had been.. staged by Charles II .. after his Restoration [sic; surely 'the'?] in 1660.. Like William Shakespeare's History Plays.. meant to shore up smashed traditions and a communal sensibility fractured by civil warfare and religious strife. ..'
    - 79: [Etymology of glamour, apparently Scottish:] 'When Devils, Wizards, or Juglers deceive the Sight, they are said to cast Glamour o'er the Eyes of the Spectator', wrote Allan Ramsay in his Poems (1721). The glamour was thought of as residing in the eyes, and the Scottish National Dictionary reports an associated verb, 'to glamour': Salome 'glamour'd Herod', or cast her spell into his eyes. But.. the eyes have to be susceptible: they have lent themselves to enchantment, but may also throw it off. While the spell endures, there is absolute resistance to interruption: the dreamer resents and fears recall to reality. ..'
    - 84: [Nairn quotes a dream of a builder's merchant, from 'Dreams about H.M. the Queen, and other members of the Royal Family' by Brian Masters (1972); Masters says 'Up to one third of the country' has dreamt.. usually coming for a cup of tea and becoming miraculously ordinary or 'hopeless with money' or having to be saved from snarling assassins./ 87: then he quotes, not from real dreams but from a novel by Emma Tennant, 'Hotel de Dream' (1976): 'Miss Briggs dreamed she was at the Royal Garden Party. As always the Queen was quick to notice her in the crowd and, pushing past through the officious and over-protective equerries, made her way through the throng of eagerly waiting subjects to reach Miss Briggs's side..' She is the Queen's 'adviser from the common people', secretly helping her to restore a sense of meaning to life..' The dream mingles with those of other decaying gentlefolk in the Hotel as.. they await the rapidly-approaching end of their existence.']
    - 84-85: '.. Absolute Monarchs.. As long as their immediate vassals (the high nobility and clergy) were kept happy, or cowed, it was of small account what the mass of lower orders thought. Most of them.. almost certainly thought little.. [Note: conflict between monarch and aristocracy, which Nairn is inclined to ignore almost all of the time:] Apart from occasional Royal Progresses like those mentioned above (designed to shatter the finances of the regional aristocracy as much as to display the Royal Person to crowds) the Crown was a remote and God-like notion. Under Louis XIV, the historic epitome of Absolute Rule, most French men and women were in the fortunate position of rarely having to spare a thought for the antics of Versailles.
      Extremely few Great Britons are in that position today. ..' [Nairn seems to think all daily papers bombard the casual observer with news of 'Regal migrations, openings, hand-wavings, speeches, banquets, romances..']
    - 85: [Interesting thing about death; cp some pop singers?] '.. interesting precedent.. The very beginning of the modern elevation of the Monarchy was signalled by a riveting illness. In October 1871 the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) was stricken by typhoid fever emanating from the drains of a Yorkshire country mansion. So dire was his condition that .. 'the bulletins.. caused the nation and empire almost to abandon hope'. Some lines were composed..
      Flash'd from his bed, the electric tidings came,
      He is not better; he is much the same. .. Alfred Austin went on to edit the National Review and.. Poet Laureate (1896-1913), assumed the burden of what Ted Hughes .. called 'the spiritual unity of the tribe'. .. popular reaction.. elemental upsurge of loyal emotion destroyed republicanism overnight as a significant factor in British radical politics'. ..'
    - 87: 'I noticed above the pathological side so often visible in anti-monarchical attitudes. (In effect, people frothing at the mouth at absurdity etc.) It should also be said that no less peculiar behaviour features in a lot of pro-monarchical situations. .. moments where, in the physical proximity of a Royal person, dream and reality dissolve in a hopeless mix-up. .. [extracts follow about the Englishmen's redness increasing, and eyes gleaming with unusual brilliance at the contact or sight of an English Peer, in a book by Gustave Le Bon, 'The Crowd', trans. 1986/ and from a book by Ziegler on 'an eminent man of letters in the 1950s.. '.. Queen's informal lunches. He accepted in a spirit of.. curiosity and ribaldry. .. the Queen appeared and her guests were presented. "Suddenly I felt physically ill.. My legs felt weak, my head swam and my mind went totally blank". "So you're writing about such-and-such, Mr -", said the Queen. "I had no idea what I was writing about, or even if I was writing a book at all. All that I could think of to say was, "What a pretty brooch you're wearing, ma'am!". So far as I can recall she was not wearing a brooch at all. Presumably she was used to such imbecility; anyway she paid no attention to my babbling and in a minute or two I found I was talking sense again.."'
    - 89-90: [Mostly from R W Johnson, 'The Politics of Recession' (1985): '.. 'the peculiar British culture, characterised on the one hand by the imprint of a uniquely powerful and successful state and, on the other, but its non-inclusive conception of the popular interest.. The latter phrase.. derives from the oddest feature of that culture - its lack of any notion of popular sovereignty. The People are 'represented' at the Seat of Majesty but never in actual occupation there:
      It is unthinkable that a state like the British one can be "possessed" by its people. The very institution of the monarchy makes this plain.. (and) the fact of the monarchy is gain critical to this strand of culture.
      .. The history of the British state is like no other, for it has succeeded in a way no other state in the world has done. For nearly a thousand years it has successfully protected the nation against invasion. It created not one but two vast colonial empires, each in their time the biggest humankind has ever seen. It has since 1066 been successful in all wars where its national sovereignty was at stake and has won almost all of its lesser wars too. Other states have Established Churches, but these have resulted either from the church taking over the state, or from a concordat between equals; only in England did the state simply take over the church, prescribing it new doctrines in the interest of the state. The state fathered the world's first industrial revolution. Despite its small size it became the greatest power in the world, both economically and militarily, for a century... At home this state was immune to revolution, even while all others succumbed... For it knew it was not just "the authorities, but Authority itself. It even refused, uniquely, to subject its absolute sovereignty to a constitution. It developed an immense conception of its own dignity and solemnity. And, of course, so majestic a state requires nothing less than a monarchy at its head, even in an age of republics..'
      There is another significant dimension to this quasi-religious nationhood.. a sense of 'State' grandeur and continuity.. has never been the abstract or impersonal apparatus which post-Absolutist Republicanism fostered in Europe (and subsequently in other continents). .. the salience of Monarchy indicates exactly the low profile and prestige of all those aspects of state-life. And this is why *(as Johnson admits) 'the state, its Establishment and its institution have come to be regarded as synonymous with the nation itself. Without its Monarchy, peerage, Houses of Parliament, Britain would literally not be Britain at all for many of its people.' Its awesomeness and 'near-hypnotic impact' depend upon this ostensible identification of State with society: what one could call.. the metaphorical family unity of a Shakespearian (or pre-modern) nationalism.'
    - 91: [What does the following mean?] ''Class', in the oneiric British sense, is both family nickname and curse - a feature of the commanding metaphorical unity inherently open to Royal sublation. The point of its sedulously maintained wounds is revealed by orgasmic moments of communion, the Great Days of the Royal Institution - Remembrances, Thanksgivings, Funerals, Weddings, Visits, and so on - when barriers dissolve into 'the Country' and Who We Really Are. a past-oriented, decorous, semi-divine unison takes over, and the rough of outrageous caste-marks is made smooth.'
    - 92: '.. unease that still clings to any use of the term 'intellectual' in Queen's English: the word jars because it doesn't fit. Ukania-Britain aims (and still largely succeeds) in having what Samuel Taylor Coleridge called a 'clerisy' - a Royal (but not bureaucratic) thought-élite devoted to the brass-rubbing or coining of 'traditions' upholding organic community, rather than an 'intelligentsia' gnawing at its vitals.'
      [Endnote says: see P Gowan, 'The Origins of the Administrative Elite', New Left Review No 162 (March-April 1987). The article deals with Coleridge's influence on political and administrative reform in the 19th C, as the main theorist of non-democratic consent (or 'consensus').]
    - 93: [Passage like Orwell, though Nairn doesn't credit or remember him:] '.. U.K. (or 'Yookay', as Raymond Williams relabelled it), Great Britain (imperial robes), Britain (boring lounge-suit), England (poetic but troublesome), the British Isles (too geographical), 'This Country' (all-purpose within-the-family), or 'This Small Country of Ours' (defensive-Shakespearian). 'Ukania' also has the great merit of recalling 'Kakania', Robert Musil's famous alternative name for the Habsburg Empire in The Man Without Qualities. [No date given for this; only information is it has a volume 1, and one guesses is therefore long.] The königlich und kaiserlich domains of the Habsburg dynasty suffered from a comparable plethora of names, for comparable historical reasons: Austria-Hungary, Austria, the Habsburg Empire, 'the Empire', or even 'Danubia'.
      [A J P Taylor's 'The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918' [1948] is referred to once]
    - 97: [Endnote 51 refers to P Kellner & Crowther-Hunt, 'The Civil Servants' 1980; Pimlott made use of this too.]
    - 108ff: [Nigel Dennis, Cards of Identity (1955) 'a surrealist demolition of British delusions':] '.. Royal Co-Warden of the Badgeries.. the great stuffed Badger from the long-vanished Forest of Hertford.. built around the depiction of an estate called Hyde's Mortimer, and cleverly exploits the dual sense of 'estate' in Ukanian mentality. [I.e. it has two meanings.] The 'estates' of mediaeval times were the fixed hierarchy of social divisions which preceded the social classes of contemporary .. society. .. But there is also the sense of traditional landed property or domain, with its accompanying fabric of lordship, deference and 'station' in life. ..'
    - 110: ['stately homes' may have been coined by Dennis, though Nairn doesn't quite say so. However, he does quote Neal Ascherson [in Games With Shadows, 1988, discussing recent re-interpretations of British archaeology, e.g. of Stonehenge:] '.. we have adopted the idiotic term "stately home" for huge buildings which have been centres of power affecting the lives of hundreds or thousands of people, whose function as a "home" has been in comparison trivial.'
    - 111: '.. the great 'Why Not' theory.. Why not keep it forever since people love it and it doesn't really matter? ..
      This is an attitude unerringly identified by Theodor Adorno in Minima Moralia:
      The sense of proportion entails a total obligation to think in terms of the established measures and values. One need only once to have heard a diehard representative of the ruling clique say: "That is of no consequence", or note at what times the bourgeois talk of exaggeration, hysteria, folly, to know that the appeal to reason invariably occurs most promptly in apologies for unreason.'
    - 111ff: [Chapter subdivision called 'Disavowal':] '.. two contradictory views about the real significance of Monarchy coexisting.. it is all-important, and of no real importance whatever. The absurdity is rendered invisible by our British sense of proportion. One finds the two notions (for instance) .. in that article of Henry Fairlie's.. After underlining the sense of insecure personal outrage felt by 'millions of humdrum people' whenever Monarchy is denounced, he goes straight on to say:
      For the life of me, I cannot understand why people should not be allowed to enjoy a prettily-staged wedding, or even a pompously-staged funeral, without someone breathing fire and brimstone down their necks. .. .. Hence, something capable of provoking a nation-wide taboo, frothing hysteria and death-threats is also an innocent, prettily-staged ceremonial no serious British intellect need worry about. The danger of the Crown becoming 'the sole cohesive force in society' is, at the same time, 'just a piece of acceptable nonsense'. It is 'the cherished symbol by which most of us live'. .. Grotesque self-contradiction of this order is so common in both popular and official native commentary that one has to put it down as systematic. ..
      The only plausible explanation is that a defensive machinery is at work, whose very success simultaneously suppresses awareness of the contradiction. The magic emblem is displaced by an accompanying taboo from the sphere of the criticizable, and the act of displacement itself paralyses any critical sense of what has been done. Then, thoroughly protected by redefinition as 'acceptable nonsense', its actual importance can go on being accepted and enjoyed.
      This phoney dismissal of Royalty appears quite close to Sigmund Freud's definition of Verleugnung - 'disavowal' in a psychiatric sense. This is a procedure for retaining belief by appearing to give it up, and he found it to be most marked in the psychology of fetishism .. in situations governed by the fear of male castration. .. The fetishist's 'fixation' on his object keeps him apparently normal. 'It remains a token of triumph over the threat of castration' (Freud goes on) 'and a protection against it. It also saves the fetishist from becoming a homosexual, be endowing women with the characteristic which makes them tolerable as sexual objects'.
      .. One aspect of disavowal is not much stressed in the famous 1927 analysis of Fetischismus - the sufferer's pretence of ultra-normality. The neurotic rigidity re-echoes into the machinery of concealment, producing (in effect) a caricature of sober, non-perverse deportment. ...
      114: 'What corresponds to 'normality' in our metaphor of Royal-British nationality? The 'whole' for which the Monarchical fragment is a surrogate can only be normal nation-state existence: the 'boring' standard of contemporary disenchantment upheld by the United Nations: written constitutions supposedly embodying popular sovereignty, Presidents, civil rights rather than the traditional Liberties of Subjects, administrative law as opposed to the supremacy of Parliament - that sort of thing. Fearing the castration of modernity, an 'infantile' (or early-modern) polity has constructed a fetish of its own retarded essence ('our way of doing things') and imposed an instinctive taboo around it. It's bad form, or in bad taste, to question this projection; while more resolute attacks on it can be headed off by disavowal. ...'
    - 115: [Part of chapter; called 'Sociology of Grovelling, Part I' which is an account of a 1956 account of the Coronation by American Edward Shils and Michael Young, and in Part II a reply by Prof Norman Birnbaum, 'a New Left influenced sociologist'; Nairn maintains they both tacitly miss out something important. These sections start:]
      All that remains of the criticism of bourgeois consciousness is the shrug with which doctors have always signalled their complicity with death. Theodor Adorno, 'Minima Moralis' (1951) 'Ego is Id' p 64 '.. we now have a perspective for understanding the absence of intellectual concern about Monarchy. Middle-brow Guardian reflection functions to preserve the national totem-system; the sense of proportion thus expressed is then refracted upwards to the high-brow or academic sphere as simple avoidance - an integrated intellectual elite's chosen form of allegiance. Hence the remarkable result: the British Monarchy, one of the sociological wonders of the contemporary world, Europe's greatest living fossil, the enchanted glass of an early modernity which has otherwise vanished from the globe, has received next to no attention from British social theory. .. such attention as it has got consists mainly in acts of worship rather than examination. [NB: Nairn seems naively to assume this is unique; but what has 'British social theory' to say on public school education, or world empires and arms, or the Church of England, or law, or the military etc?]

- 119: [Edward Shils, in 'The Intellectuals and the Powers' 1972, 'British Intellectuals in the Mid-Twentieth Century' quoted and commented on:]
      'In another study Shils himself has commented on the drastic change of climate which war, victory and the Labour government had brought about:
      Deeply critical voices became rare. In 1953, I heard an eminent man of the left say, in utter seriousness, at a university dinner, that the British constitution was "as nearly perfect as any human institution could be", an noone even thought it amusing... Great Britain on the whole, and especially in comparison with other countries, seemed to the British intellectual of the early 1950s to be fundamentally all right and even much more than that. Never had an intellectual class found its society and its culture so much to its satisfaction....The British intellectual came to feel proud of the moral stature of a country with so much solidarity and so little acrimony between classes.
      Hence, the generally semi-religious quality of a Monarchic constitution was reconsecrated by these special circumstances: traditional authority and the basic moral cement of social order were strengthened together, made as one by popular participation in a key ritual celebration. If there was an archaic side to the latter, concluded the authors, we should remember it is not sociologically significant. ..'

- 120: [Sociology of Grovelling, Part 2:] 'In the end, glorification of splendid underdogs is nothing other than glorification of the splendid system that makes them so.' Theodor Adorno, 'Minima Moralis', 'They, the People' p 28
      'The perils of even this modest piece of theory were soon revealed. For all their adulation Shils and Young had been unable to avoid excess: the extrusion of a recognizable and hence attackable idea from the solid corpus of faith and everyday 'good English'. Since 1979 this kind of thing has grown familiar, but in the old times it was unknown. Reaction to such a suspiciously egg-head Loyalism duly came in the shape of 'Monarchs and Sociologists', a reply by Professor Norman Birnbaum. [In 'Towards a Critical Sociology', 1971]
      '.. A socialist linked to the New left movement of the later 1950s, Birnbaum maintained that Shils and Young were poisoned 'by their own strong feeling of adherence to the official morality of Great Britain - and their preference for conformity to such moralities wherever they appear'. ..
      .. Underlying the Shils-Young smugness, Birnbaum claims, is really their conviction that 'The assimilation of the working class into the moral consensus of British society....has gone further in Britain than anywhere else, and its transformation from one of the most unruly and violent into one of the most orderly and law-abiding (of classes) is one of the great collective achievements of modern times'. Society viewed through the royal-left eyeglass always means 'class', in that ambiguous Ukanian sense noted earlier; and Shils and Young were asserting that 'class' was secondary, and of decreasing significance.
      Not so, he continues: visitors to Great Britain are invariably struck by the 'now traditionalized and self-conscious class consciousness' of workers - by their degree of separateness and exclusion, by the glaring proliferation of caste-marks.. Furthermore, it has been their separate struggles (and victories) which have forged the very situation so misunderstood by Shils and Young. Monarchy arrived where it is today via 'a successive series of capitulations to republican demands'; such 'integration' as we see today came about only through a century of Labour's own class battles to 'bring the propertied into the national moral life for the first time'. Civilization has really been made from below, not from above. As for the Royals, .. they 'had to choose between accepting socialism or unemployment'. Hence (he concluded) an alternative explanation might just as well run like this:
      The very absence of shared values in Great Britain accounts for some of the attention paid to the Coronation... (which) provided a measure of surcease from that condition of conflict which is more of less permanent for complex societies of an industrial type... ... the personality of the Queen and her family functioned as the object of various fantasies and identifications in a way not much more "sacred" than the cult of adulation built up around certain film stars.
      Birnbaum's riposte was one of the most concise and magisterial expressions of Left-Ukanian mythology in the post-war era. The tapestry of Whig-Labour belief is all here in miniature: moral/class community, uplift from below, and achievement yet to come. Though couched in the over-respectful tones of the Sociological Review [Note: Nairn has the nerve to make fun of Sociologists' use of English: where Professors accuse one another of 'not entirely escaping ambiguity' and failing to 'present events in scientific terms'] there was real rage in it. ..'
      [Nairn quotes 'tinsel revels' as cp. 'deeply moving' or 'thousand-year history']

- 124ff: [Chapter called 'Enchantment in retrospect']
      'We shall treat the Whig interpretation of history... not as a thing invented by some particularly wilful historian, but as part of the landscape of English life, like our country lanes or our November mists or our historic inns... It is itself a product of history, part of the inescapable inheritance of Englishmen...'
      Herbert Butterfield, 'The Englishman and his History' 1944 'Sociological and empirical theories like these [i.e. presumably Shils & Young, and Birnbaum] do little but rehearse certain underlying Ukanian assumptions. They resemble the gladiatorial rhetoric of the Mother of Parliaments, where all rows really exist to fortify the Crown and not to undermine it. Monarchy and 'society' are counterposed in a phoney and utterly philistine manner as show and reality - a contrast from which all the factors permitting one to make sense of either are wilfully occluded. What are these? In still cryptic form which I will try to decode: pastness and national identity, History and the Nation.
      .. The Coronation.. projected history as the great prop of the performance: a legendary 'thousand years' all somehow alive and watching from the shadows of Westminster Abbey.
      Richard Dimbleby's famed B.B.C. commentary on the Crowning packed the past-is-with-us sentiment into every throbbing syllable: what the hearers were invited to revere was not their collectivity as of that moment in time, but that moment itself as the culmination of a communal collectivity which had endured since....well, the paterfamilias of British cliches, 'time immemorial'. In the cinema film which followed, after a decontaminatory blast from Shakespeare, Sir Laurence Olivier's script.. went on to describe the moment of anointing - 'the hallowing, the sacring' - as so old that 'history is scarce deep enough to contain it'.
      In my own modest collection of Regal memorabilia.. booklet produced by the City of Oxford Secondary Teachers' Association to mark Coronation Year. 'The idea of monarchy is as old as history, and indeed older...' began Mr R S Stanier of Magdalen College School in similar vein. Given by Divine Providence along with upright posture and the faculty of speech, the true function of Kings has always been to speak symbolically 'to the fundamental instincts of the human heart'. There was some trouble when Monarchs went beyond this and dabbled in politics: a King who does this and claims superhuman authority 'will be as unpopular as the man who wants to join in a game of football with special permission to break all the rules'. But when this was put right the Crown carried forward the essential spirituality of our history. All the other booklet items - Music, Heraldry, the Order of Service, - are firmly encased in this historical involucrum where all Britain's post-Neanderthal generations crowd in and explain why 'Today we all, as loyal subjects, feel our welfare, the welfare of the country, curiously bound up with that of the Queen...'
      [125-6 looks at Shakespeare, Tudors, Burke:]
      '.. in Britain solemn moments are nearly always given Shakespearian vestment as their badge of national continuity. Shakespeare's pre-modern attitudes can all too easily be misinterpreted as sage and profoundly-rooted national resistance to the doctrinaire: what is to much democracy but the sort of mob rule which his Monarchs enjoy putting to rights? Against that there stands an apparently more human, concrete perspective. Though in fact it looked back to the middle ages and underwrote Tudor Absolutism, post-1800 apologists have made this retrospect into a 'timeless' (hence forward-looking) view. In the 'Royal Throne of Kings' [1958 book] Wilson Knight observes that-
      There is properly no contradiction between royalty and democracy; rather they supplement and complete each other...Royalty at its best has always functioned in unison with a willing allegiance, and has been to that extent dependent on freedom. Real democracy will exist only when 'every man is, in his own proper self, a king' - when the ordinary has become extraordinary, the humdrum been dissolved in glamour: .. as we've seen, this is the whole content of today's night and daydreams about royalty. Aren't these impossible? Well, that's human nature for you: 'here we are brought up against the tragic inadequacies of mankind...' Shakespeare is all too often credited with the last word on such tragic inadequacies. Best stay with what we've got in the demi-paradise, since a republican democracy would only succumb to these pitfalls of fate.
      That English culture boasted this emblem was a great piece of good fortune. The poet of its early-modern era concocted a fake medieval past for his own Sovereigns; later, when the impact of democracy and industrialization inspired another bout of tradition-inventing, ideologists could evoke this great precedent - romantic pastness and anti-modernism now had their own history to go on, a real continuity of the ersatz solidly implanted in mass consciousness. By the time Edmund Burke and Pitt had finished in the early 1800s, synthetic pastness had turned into a version of national identity. And, as we will go on to see, Monarchy played a vital part in this consolidation. It allowed the formation of a traditionalism quite distinct from mere feudal or folk tradition: an 'ism' in which the past was re-synthesized as contemporary identity. ...
      Theoretical indifference to Monarchy, in other words, is a manifestation of blindness to nationalism. Both the prominence of the Royal in Ukanian life and the virtual absence of explanations for such prominence derive from incuriosity about 'the national' as a specific problematic - a set of questions or dilemmas demanding investigation. No point in that, old chap: we know who we are. It's only foreigners who have to work themselves up over that sort of thing, regularly abandoning all sense of proportion as they do so.'

- 127: [Chapter called 'Monarchy and Nationalism' which begins:]
      'Genuine charismatic domination knows of no abstract legal codes and statutes and of no "formal" way of adjudication. Its "objective" law emanates concretely from the highly personal experience of heavenly grace..."It is written, but I way unto you." Max Weber, Essays in Sociology The Ukanian Monarchy is in essence a heteronomous form of nationalism: that is, a variety 'subject to different laws' from the standard forms of that ideology, and with 'different modes of growth' (O.E.D.) One important aspect of that difference is - as we shall see - that the Monarchy doesn't appear to be nationalist. It defines itself, necessarily, as being precisely above or beyond 'that sort of thing' - a stance which, in the world of nation-states, has comported both weaknesses and remarkable (and frequently under-estimated) strengths. ..'

- 128: 'The crucial point here is that we [sic. Joke: he uses royal 'we'] admit the inevitability of nation-state development as a vehicle of modernity. ..
      .. nationalism is the standard politico-cultural component of the modern order of nation states. That political order itself has been mainly produced and systematized since the 18th C., and can most reliably be dated by reference to the American and French Revolutions (1776 and 1789). What it expresses is the mainstream-process of social and economic development towards today's society: 'industrialization'. As Ernest Gellner puts it in Nations and Nationalism - [1983]
      Patriotism is a perennial part of human life...(while) nationalism is a very distinctive species of patriotism, and one which become pervasive and dominant only under certain social conditions, which in fact prevail in the modern world, and nowhere else.. In other words nationalism, in the systemic sense denoted by the word's ending, only arose through the middle-class revolutions of the 18th C. and later - an accompaniment of 'progress' and continuous economic growth. It was a part of the constellation of new attitudes and ideas which fought or undermined the European Ancien Regimes from 1688 onwards, broke through in the American and French revolutions, and led to their ultimate collapse in 1917-18. By that time the nation-state was established as the 'natural;' model of political development and lodged as such in the ideology of both the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations.
      There were two main causes for this. The first was external: 'Industrialization inevitably comes to different places and groups at different times' (Gellner points out) so that the pioneers can't help gaining an enormous advantage over societies still cast in a feudal or agrarian mould. The advantage leads them into an 'imperial' position.. But the under-developed must attempt to catch up, or fight back.
      As the tidal wave of modernization sweeps the world, it makes sure that almost everyone...has cause to feel unjustly treated, and that he can identify the culprits as being of another "nation". If he can identify enough of the victims as being of the same |"nation" as himself, a nationalism is born..
      ..'

- 144: '.. January morning of 1649. The second Stuart Monarch of Great Britain was led out on to a specially built scaffold in Whitehall, and beheaded. 'The saddest sight that England ever saw', related Thomas Herbert, a member of the disconsolate royal party whose Memoirs were to become the main eye-witness source for Charles's last days. Nothing could have been more appropriate than that the self-serving recollections of this stupendous mountebank and liar should become national moral law on the subject.' [Endnote: See N Mackenzie, 'Sir Thomas Herbert of Tintern: a Parliamentary "Royalist"', Bulletin of the Institute for Historical Research (London), vol. XXIX (1956). The author points out that the Herbert Memoirs are essentially 'a skilful re-shaping of facts' to ingratiate Herbert with Charles II.]

- 163ff: [Chapter called 'the Modernization of George III':]
      'You may have seen Gilroy's [sic; Gilray presumably in Thackeray] famous print of him - in the old wig, in the stout old hideous Windsor uniform - as the King of Brobdignag, peering at a little Gulliver, whom he holds up in his hand, whilst in the other he has an opera-glass, through which he surveys the pygmy? Our fathers chose to set up George III as the type of a great king; and the little Gulliver was the great Napoleon...There was no lie we would not believe; no charge of crime which our furious prejudice would not credit.
      W M Thackeray, 'The Four Georges' (1869) 'the Scottish and English Revolutions impacted on a world not yet ready, either theoretically or materially, for the lasting successor to Absolutism; popular sovereignty, with its implications of lower-order power and ethnicity, democracy and nationalism. .. The old British Monarchy was decapitated too soon. ..
      Parliamentary victory therefore was that of one absolutism over another. The constitution of its power was 'the outcome of a competition for sovereignty. In spite of the failure of the royalist quest for sovereignty the absolute stage emerged, the privileges of Parliament came to be substituted for the prerogatives of the King as James I had conceived them...' [Figgis, 'The Divine Right of Kings', 1914] The Parliamentary class seized sovereignty, and legitimized the transfer with a myth of the Crown-in-Parliament. This is what was finally established by the decisive second Revolution in 1688 - a permanent power structure where, .. 'Legally we have no fundamental rights in Great Britain; we trust for their protection to the ordinary constitutional machinery of the state...' [Harold Laski; no reference] Trust, in other words, to the reasonableness of those running the machine, and to their willingness to 'compromise' and heed representations from below. ..
      The Hanoverians were a constitutional necessity but a popular liability. Their establishment and survival could only have happened in a world where popularity was still fairly unimportant. By 1800.. that world was showing the first signs of general crisis and dissolution. Britain had already been shaken by the American Revolution of the 1770s. Soon every part of the older Europe would be convulsed by the French Revolution and the generation of warfare up to 1815. Through the Revolution, a potentially effective political form was given to equality, literacy and industry. While in the wars, Clausewitz pointed out that 'no one would have believed possible what all have now lived to see realized': through these revolutionary and counter-revolutionary wars the 'absolute character' of warfare (previously associated with religious fanaticism or primitive tribal hatred) had re-emerged. While in the old pre-1789 days 'War was still a mere Cabinet affair, in which the people only too part as a blind instrument; at the beginning of the 19th C. the people on each side weighed in the scale..' [My Penguin edition]
      It was this weight which transformed the context of both nationality and Monarchy. The older insular State now countered the genesis of a new political world. It had done more than any other society to bring that world into the light; yet very quickly it perceived the birth as monstrous, and set out to strangle it. In this gargantuan effort Britain's quasi-modern national identity was first forged, and the function of Monarchy as a popular element within that idea-system, first made clear. As England became the leader of opposition to the revolutionary cause it too had to arouse more widespread popular support. While Upper England found its new anti-revolutionary visage in the discourses of Edmund Burke, the middle and lower ranks were ideologically conscripted by more vulgar means. the Gallic stereotype was concocted, a 'distorted image of revolutionary France' whose chief intellectual components were -
      the ideas of destruction, license, abstract political thought, atheism, and impious mockery. "Philosophy" was perhaps its familiar name. Its face, or faces, were the wizened and triumphantly grimacing countenance of Voltaire, mocker of Christianity and diabolical mastermind of the Revolution, or the face of an ape, which similarly represented destruction and absolute irresponsibility. In either case, a horrible grin appears to have bean central to the image... [Victorian Studies, vol. XVIII (1974-5), section 1, 'Anti-French Propaganda and British Liberal Nationalism in the Early 19th C.'] What in Burke appears as 'quadrimanous' (four-handed or monkey-like [quadrimanous is Nairn's wrong spelling; word is sim. to quadruped]) meddling with tradition turns into the frank racism of caricature and broadsheet: a 'nation of baboons' against which Humanity itself now had to be defended.
      For the first time, incipient Anglo-British nationalism was both defined and hardened by an external threat. It is quite true that in both previous centuries the English State and people had also at times been threatened by invaders (most famously in Elizabeth I's reign, by Philip II's Spain). But these occasions were before the people 'weighed in the scale' of state affairs... it was only the more modern circumstances of post-1789 that would cast them into the mould of a nationalism and (after that) of an enduring popular national identity.
      ...
      Since its 17th C. agonies, the Anglo-British dominant class had ceased to be a closed nobility of the mainland kind. It had turned into a mercantile oligarchy, where landownership was linked to commerce rather than to the exclusive feudal professions of warfare. In his study of Edmund Burke, C B Macpherson ['Burke' 1980] has accurately delineated the features of this patriciate. Burke's impassioned defence of English traditions against French Jacobinism was not really a plea for the immemorial or for 'feudal' honour: that was only rhetorical and emotive colour (of the sort which would eventually become apart [sic] of the reanimated Crown mystique). A wider reading of him shows how the great counter-revolutionary prophet knew perfectly well that by the 1790s 'the capitalist order had in fact been the traditional order in England for a whole century.':
      His [Burke's] genius was in seeing that the capitalist society of the late 18th C. was still heavily dependent on the acceptance of status. Contract had not replaced status: it was dependent on status...Burke saw that, down to his own time, such movement as there had been was not from status to contract but from status to status, that is, from a feudal status differentiation, which rested on military capacity, to what we should now call an internalised status differentiation, which rested on nothing more than habit and tradition, that is, on the subordinate class continuing to accept its traditional station in life.
      In short, a largely synthetic 'traditional' social order had already been built up in Whig Britain. It associated aristocracy with an early-modern form of capitalism, commercial rather than industrial in orientation; and far from demanding a farther rush forward into modernity - a 'bourgeois revolution' - this system was, at least in Britain's favourable conditions, both stable and (within limits) adaptable.
      Until 1745 it had been successfully defended against the past - the return of a Stuart Ancien Régime; now it had to be defended against the future - against the precipitate advance of democracy, egalite and an individualism hostile to all habit and subordination. Later on I will return to the vital status-contract transition, which can be viewed in other and equally telling perspectives. For the moment what matters is the possibility of (in Jeffrey Lant's phrase) the Crown's 'mystically embodying the will' of the entire nation - something that previously would have been mocked out of existence. Yet in Prince Albert's period it was quite conceivable, and by the time of the late-Victorian Jubilee it was almost taken for granted. The key to this mysterious reincarnation lay in 'the nation' itself: in the evolution around 1800 of a popular national identity more compatible with Edmund Burke's traditionalism.
      The British Monarchy seems to have first acquired a distinctly.. 'modern' appearance during the reign of George III. His reign (1760-1820) was the longest of any British Monarch, and its last twenty years are normally skipped over quickly by his many biographers. This was the period of madness.. during the second half of his reign it forced him progressively out of the kind of active meddling in party politics which he had formerly indulged in. The first serious bout occurred in 1788-9 at the very moment of the revolution's outbreak. Thereafter, increasing withdrawal turned him into more and more of an effigy, a remote figure upon whom symbolic meanings could be imposed with little risk that the real, pathetic man might reappear and undermine them.
      In a recent important study of the layer George III Linda Colley [Articles in 'Past & Present' No. 102 (1984) & 113 (1985)] points out how the French Revolution's impact stimulated a reactive nationalism everywhere else in Europe - either liberal (following the trend established in Paris) or 'conservative, state-sponsored nationalism' defying the revolutionaries and trying to arouse popular support for a safe variety of patriotism. In Britain, after some initial uncertainty, it was the second movement that prevailed. The Revolution's effects, explained Sir Samuel Romilly in his Memoirs, 'gave almost every description of persons who have any influence on public opinion an interest to adhere to, and maintaining inviolably, our established Constitution and, above all, the Monarchy, as inseparably connected with, and maintaining everything valuable in the State...' [This quotation also taken from Colley. It seems that Nairn, in doing a period, picks one person he likes, then another, then another, to quote from; no wonder there's an unsynthesised, and indeed unanalysed, patchwork. It's not very clear though how much of Nairn's text is taken from Colley, and how much, if any, is his own; there are certainly several pages from her, credited only vaguely, with Nairn as it were showing off his knowledge of her: 'Later this is developed into a general comment of great interest' he says at one point, meaning by her.]
      The French Revolutionary principles.. would have impelled the established British compromise forward. They promised or threatened another phase of the true 'bourgeois revolution' the Levellers had agitated for the previous century. Faced with the menace of extinction Britain's unique oligarchic polity had to go forward, or back. Nationalism comes most into its own in the shadow of annihilation. The reply could only be quick mobilization of a 'national identity' either ahead of that proclaimed by the Jacobin Montagne, or deliberately behind and against it..
      Only a strong ideological counter-offensive was any use. And in trying to make the Parliamentary oligarchy more popular, grand and immemorial, the Crown was an inevitable instrument. 'The chief beneficiary of this process of state-nationalization of nationalism in Britain was the King', observes Colley. That was why George III's reign brought a sudden invention of traditions - the first [sic; he seems to think monarchic impressiveness is completely new] premonitory ripple of what, at the end of the 19th C., would turn into a great tide of synthesized nostalgia tingeing every aspect of the British Way with Regal inviolability. In 1789, a frantic search of record shad to be conducted in order to establish just how the Nation ought properly to celebrate King George's apparent recovery from illness. Nobody living could recall popular desire to mark such an occasion, and it was feared that the appropriate ritual might have vanished with the Stuarts (eventually some rather meagre clues wee unearthed from Queen Anne's thanksgiving for marlborough's victory at Blenheim in 1704). By 1797 however - when Britain's sea triumphs over the Revolution were celebrated- courtiers and ministers now knew approximately what to do, and thanks could be offered up in time-honour'd style.
      As well as State occasions the same decades witnessed mammoth growth in popular tokens of loyalty: commemorative pottery, cheap prints and obsequious ballads. .. illuminated 'transparent prints'.. [Colley quoted: '.. with embroidering standards for volunteer regiments, making the transparencies became one of the most widely practised patriotic accomplishments of women of Jane Austen's social status and those who aspired to it.']
      .. Even prior to the anti-revolutionary build-up George's domestic propriety had appealed to ladies of aspiring status: 'The royal family .. acquitted increasing.. popularity' .. The 'middle classes' .. saw something admirable in.. that life-style which later aroused the derision of aristocrats and intellectual cynics; .. middling women, with their responsibility for hearth and children, saw a special tribute to themselves in the model household of 'Farmer George'. .. 'remarkable female investment in royal celebration' of George's later reign.. Wives and mothers and .. (nearly all women) found the investment attractive because the restricted (or 'nuclear') family was far more important to the bourgeoisie than to the reigning aristocracy. That the elite and the intellectuals disdained poor, boring old George was another sound reason for the new passion. .. we are already in the 20th C. .. These attitudes were unknown to earlier reigns: in the world of Absolute Monarchy mistresses and bastards aroused little real censure and were not the business of the lower orders. But in the new conditions.. they had turned into 'the business' of subjects: ..
      ...
      After 1790, George's inability to interfere with Parliament (as he had done so notably in 1783-4 and during the American revolution) was turned to something extremely useful. Just .. when the State.. needed validation as such, in the new, urgently nationalistic sense above party bickering, it became safe to worship the Crown. .. the King's .. madness.. was one of Monarchy's outstanding gifts to England. It occurred in the .. circumstances that demanded.. separation of Crown and State from mere politics; and the result - the rapid compilation of a more conscious, apparently non-controversial national identity - was equally decisive. Now that the Throne was harmless it could be made the focus for a 'pure' patriotism perceiving the existing State as an apolitical foundation for 'everything worth defending' about Britain. .. note Colley..
      ...As some radical journals recognized, this growing distinction in the public mind was potentially an enormous asset to the existing order. For of course the belief that the monarch was in some way politically neutral was profoundly deceptive. The monarchy was the apex of the existing social hierarchy and the formal head of the existing constitution: attachment to it willy-nilly dictated limits to anyone's social or political disaffection...
      it was these 'limits' that counted. Negatively, they drew marks against 'unreasonable', 'impractical' opposition to the régime; positively, they were the lineaments of more consciously affirmed nationality - the image of Great Britain's riposte to arid philosophes and Napoleon Bonaparte. Earlier, patriotism had been something associated with (in our terms) the 'Left' rather than the Establishment. That is why it had been denounced (in one of the most misquoted remarks in British history) as 'the last refuge of a scoundrel' by the Tory Samuel Johnson. [Endnote gives April 7 1775 and a page number in the Everyman Edition, with no further explanation.] But by around 1810 the scoundrels had been chased out of their refuge for good: it was being made into a Royal Palace.
      In reaction against this appropriation of national robes by Throne and Altar, British democrats found themselves automatically threatened with extrusion into a stance of 'internationalism'. It could be claimed, of course, that the Royal, conservative-national identity was fraudulent, that a real Britain was betrayed and disguised by it; but the claim became weaker and more strident as an ever-larger popular majority did show signs of accepting the imposition. The huge crowds and 'spontaneous' enthusiasm for the celebrations for George's 50th Jubilee in 1809, and then for the Centenary of the Hanoverian accession to the British Throne in 1814, showed.. that this could not all be conspiracy and drunkenness.
      By talking of 'the foolish multitude' or asserting that 'the people have no will in the matter... (it) is an act of the government', the radicals Leigh Hunt and William Cobbett were implicitly confessing the victory of the very strategy they deplored. And 'victory' consisted partly in the fact that it was not (or not only) a strategy of 'government' in the limited party sense: the point was that Government as such had been stamped with a new identity, at once more national and more deeply-rooted. ...
      Some still [sic] find it surprising that in the last years of the great battle against the Revolution there were British subjects who had doubts about the patriotic cause, and quite a few who longed for French triumph. Even in the distorted, imperialist form of Napoleonism that seemed preferable to vindication of Hanover and Old Corruption (the 'unacceptable face' of Burke's Constitution of Liberty). Years after Waterloo (which had reduced him to prolonged drunken stupor at the time) William Hazlitt described how Napoleon's defeat had 'thrown him into the pit': [Extract quoted; but no source; perhaps therefore from Colley. NB: Occurs to me that Scotland had a tradition of link with France; perhaps Hazlitt was Scotch?]
      Had Britain not won then (they felt) democracy and equality might eventually have had the chance to find new native expression. As it was, victory was carrying the Old Régime to the centre of the world stage and renewing its soul. .. Thus the reinvented Royal identity inevitably bred a parochial British dialectic of the Left: a special kind of anti-nationalism 'remote from the people', pursued by a determined assertion of democracy's right to at least a share in the national-popular heritage - to resonant and unquenchable traditions of its own (which then had also to be discovered-invented and immemmorialized [sic]).
      [Follows cp with a man he met in 1982 who hoped the Argentinians would do better; he felt had they won Old Corruption might have been wounded enough to retire, 'Old Corruption;' being Thatcher]
      .. Colley's concluding words:
      The accelerating process whereby political and social radicals in Britain vacated the realm of conventional, xenophobic and complacent patriotism, and left it for the state authorities and, crucially, for the monarchy, to occupy. The libertarian, anti-imperialist mode of patriotism was very far from dead in Britain by 1820 - it was voiced, for example, by the Chartists in the 1830s and 1840s... But the second half of George III's reign forced this type of patriotism on the defensive and helped to ensure that, increasingly, the nation would be celebrated in a very different way.'

- 174: 'The discovery was made that England was, after all, an old country with a precious heritage in danger of obliteration...An élite separating itself from the sources of dynamism in existing society and striving to attach itself to another way of life promoted a change in collective self-image from that of a still-young and innovative nation to one ancient and peculiarly stable.' Martin Wiener, 'The "English Way of Life"?' in English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit 1850-1980' (1981) 175: '.. The Anglo-Scottish 1707 State - which already incorporated the Welsh and the Irish in different ways - was constituted before the general formulation of modern national consciousness.
      This state of affairs is revealed in the small change of Ukanian conversation... A similar neurosis afflicted Habsburg salons.. Man Without Qualities:
      On paper it called itself the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy; in speaking, however, one referred to it as Austria, .. A name that it had, as a state, solemnly renounced by oath, ...
      ...
      'In other countries dynasties are episodes in the history of the people', wrote A J P Taylor, 'in the Habsburg Empire people are a complication in the history of the dynasty'. [Taylor's 1948 book.] Within the British Empire too, both 'people' in the radical, trouble-making sense and 'peoples' in the plural or ethnic sense have figured as adjuncts of the Crown: colourful and loyal complements to the Supremacy of Parliament with an unfortunate tendency to get out of hand. .. 'Great Britain' was a bit of pompous myth-geography foisted upon the English by the Scots at the time of the 1707 Union: belief that the 'Great' part signifies grandeur is confined to political cretins.
      [176-7 talks of Britons etc, quoting Fowler's Modern English Usage and something called English Today ('The International Review of the English Language')]


Notes from about 1995. No special claim made for them. I hope there may be something useful in them. Scotland and England have a mutual history of Jew-unawareness on most people's part; combined with some intense awareness. This includes the monarchies, the legal and education system, and religions. Nairn may be Jewish (I haven't attempted to check); he certainly refers to Jewish authors such as Adorno in fair numbers; and shows the typical Jewish playing-with-the-goyim mentality
- RW 10 May 2021

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

Top of Page
bbc-history-magazine   Review of   Typical (((British))) Broadcasting Print Attempt     BBC History Magazine
This review is banned by Amazon!
Litest Historical Propaganda
Jan 3 2018
My sample copy, September 2017, and on poking around online, says this stuff was started in 2000. Its contacts are in Northampton; the editorial seems based at the 'Immediate Media Company' in Bristol. No advertising contact appears, presumably pretending to have no ads, or having its own internal list. It has a website, historyextra.com. The cover price is £4.99.

Long-term critics of the BBC will, unfortunately, know what to expect: wall to wall propaganda (with tie-ins to BBC television productions and co-productions).

I've just noticed the BBC is doing its Jane Austen stuff, a few years after her authorship issue has been punctured. It's a clue of course as to the target audience: silly romantic women. Probably this is aimed at A-level classes, of the Lucy Worsley fan type. It's ironic that the author probably would never have written novels had she not been part of her natural society. Probably the same group who'd watch 'Victoria' and assume it's largely true. Judging by its claimed 'circulation' figures, I'd guess this is about one per history department plus one per dentists' waiting room.

I see also that another dead horse from the BBC stable advertises its next 'World Histories' title, number 5, a 'new bimonthly global history magazine', with the headline 'Has terrorism ever achieved its aims?—no doubt a series of good jokes.

The editor is, or is stated to be, Rob Attar, presumably just another 'Jew', I'd guess a reject from Spain, following his genetic inclinations. His cheery introduction mentions the tragic death of Diana, and JFK's murder. Without commenting on these, it's clear there's no place for new interpretations. Another piece, probably aimed at non-homosexual males, if any, in these classes, is 'The amazing life of a WWII Nazi hunter', who 'embarked on a campaign of violence'. Mysteriously, there is no reference to mass murder by Jews in the USSR, for example, an 'exciting story', surely, and nothing on war crimes against Germany. But there are some black and white photos of the 'Great War' with discreet silences about its financing. There's a piece, possibly interesting, on 'Medieval Europe's unholiest holy man', with of course no sign of legal, landowning, suppression of unbelievers, and other aspects of churches—a potentially fascinating and interwoven set of power structures, not of course detailed here. There's a 'cover feature' on 'five forgotten' Viking battles which 'sealed the fate of the Anglo-Saxons'. I'd have thought their fate was sealed by William the Conqueror (and his Jews). But no need to trouble with that. I see a piece by 'Clair Wills [who] teaches at Princeton University' advertising her book: '... as displaced European refugees and economic migrants arrived to fill in the gaps in the workforce'. Well, that's one way to put it, handily omitting facts about poor exhausted Britain. Flicking through more, we find poor old Nick Hewer, exhausted from watching young people try to sell ice-creams etc, a 'TV Presenter', presenting nonsense about Primo Levi. I don't think there's a single page presenting any issue accurately. Imagine the shiksas (Jew word, meaning whore, for white women) having to work to apply their history 'degrees' or journalism 'degrees'.

This is trash, of course, wearisome rubbish. Let's hope the BBC is displaced by honest people, or eradicated. If you must buy it, and I hope you don't, at least get a 100% discount.

A later edition: 'exciting' piece by third-rate 'academic' on messages between Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin. As is invariable with Jews, it is assumed that war against Germany was desirable—the facts about Jewish mass murders in the USSR (and Ukraine and China and other places to be revealed) are of course ignored. The more plausible explanation, that Jews worldwide, including the 'German' NSDAP, were in the business of maximising non-Jew deaths, is of course not part of Attar's disgusting routinised lies.

Another irritating piece was by someone called Max Hastings, of minimal integrity and intellect, mentioning in passing that (((American))) genocide in Vietnam may have been a bit difficult for the Vietnamese. Readers might look at Bertrand Russell on Vietnam including my comments on the fifty years that have elapsed, Russell unfortunately being Jew-naive, plus a link to his book—suppressed by his post-decease publishers.

Good history teachers, if there are any, might consider the claim that the (((USA))) lost the war—frequently made by simple Americans. And the meaning of 'winning' and 'losing'. In fact more bombs, or a greater tonnage, or something, than the entire Second World War were 'expended' on the Vietnamese, making a fortune for 'Jews' under the grisly ghoul Kissinger, who will soon be dead. There were experiments with chemical/biological warfare. Much of the countryside was destroyed. Simple American thugs raped the women. The outcome, as far as is known, was the installation of the Rothschild system of theft. So, an (((American))) victory, if not American. Vacant scum like Hastings, presented by vacant scum like Attar.

Top of Page

History of England
G M Trevelyan

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

Mimicry   by Rerevisionist, 1 September 2016
Multiple ghost authors of hundreds of fraudulent books.

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

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

 


Top of Page

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
Robert Harris Andrew Crofts
  Review of Robert Harris   Fatherland (Book followed by Jewish-American-British TV film

Note that 'Robert Harris' may be a ghostwriter, Andrew Crofts

Jewish-Anglo-American TV/film Propaganda Hybrid 29 Dec 2015


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

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

Top of Page

Top of Page

H T Buckle: History of Civilization

The first parts were written in the 1850s, and intended as a science-based, and superstition-free, investigation into the history of the world. He wrote before Darwin, before biochemistry, and before investigation into Jews. It's a sad commentary on historians that nobody has bothered, or had the skill, to summarise Buckle's lines of thought.

The only comment I'll make here is that Chapter 6, on the state of history in the Middle Ages and earlier, was censored from a copy of part of the work published in Britain by The Thinkers Library, a Jewish-controlled propagandist outfit. It's here, with notes. Chapter 6

Since then, I added an extract from Chapter 2, including Buckle's footnotes on his sources, showing considerable grasp of weather geography, and plant and animal distribution. The extract is on the Americas. I think it shows Kevin MacDonald's evolutionary work on Jews, and white individualism, is very shallow.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
Review of Jewish Psychiatry   Eric Berne: Games People Play
USA 1964; UK 1966, Andre Deutsch: UK Penguin outside UK, 1967; Penguin, inside UK, 1968 - This review 23 Dec 2017
Individuals-only 'transactions'. Nothing to do with groups.
Berne was an MD, who graduated from McGill University, Montreal. (I'm taking this from the 1968 Penguin edition). He 'later' moved to the USA, interning in psychiatry—not psychology, which is for non-medicos. He studied 'at the New York and San Francisco Psychoanalytic Institutes'. He 'served in the U.S. Army Medical Corps' during WW2. And various similar things. His first book was The Mind in Action (1948). His second book (as far as I can tell) was Games People Play. I'm uncertain if it was intended to be popular; most of the book is in note form, appropriate to a consultant or journal. And mostly he deals with mid-20th century concerns, such as salesmen, mortgages, marriages.

His games are given short handy titles: Let's You and Him Fight, Cops and Robbers, Greenhouse, Busman's Holiday, each with its thesis, and usually an analysis. There is 'structural analysis, showing each person with his/her own Parent/ Adult/ Child, obviously a psychoanalytical schema. All this is worked out reasonably enough: some games are good, some are three-handed where an onlooker or participant is needed, all have some sort of self-justification, some are dangerous. Quite a few are medically based. Incidentally, 'Let's You and Him Fight' is treated as a woman with two men (with the option of a third), not as the traditional Jewish activity.

This is all rather specimen-like, and a bit unrealistic: do many women really play 'The Stocking Game', provocatively showing their leg and a laddered stocking? Or 'Schlemiel', spilling things, breaking things, and making messes? Berne introduces variants, not part of the scheme, for example the game of 'Stupid'. And 'Man Talk', 'Lady Talk', 'Ever Been There', 'How Much', 'Morning After', 'PTA', and so on. Any psychiatrist must have classificatory systems, and most of Berne's are everyday material—really serious cases must be too complex and often unpleasant for such a treatment.

However, I was more interested in the possibility Berne might have evidence of specifically Jewish games. How about 'Schul' for example, or 'How stupid are Goyim'? But there's nothing of that. Incidentally I could find nothing related to his WW2 experiences, which surely must have meant something to him. And nothing drawn from professional battles, except such material as a state-funded woman who actively assisted a few people to get work, to everyone else's annoyance. So it's very much a top-down book, including patients, victims, unreasonable people, and so on. Tasks such as opposing corruption in high places, and trying to get people to co-operate, and delicately exposing fraud, and the Jewish speciality of group lies and complaints, are not here. (Berne has a short section on 'Underworld Games'—the thrill of outwitting the police being more important than gains—though he doesn't even begin to approach such realities as Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin and 9/11).

All this is part of the Jewish victory in the world wars: the pathologisation of whites and their lives, and the mushrooming of pseudo-professions, under the strait-jacket of Jewish money and fanatical control of opinions by the media. All this is tricky, and of course usually inserted in passing; for example, 'foreigners moving into white neighbourhoods' is put into the mouth of 'certain types of middle-aged women with small independent incomes'. The first in his 'Thesaurus of games' has 5 games, portentously called 'Life Games'. These are 1 Alcoholic, 2 Debtor, 3 Kick Me, 4 Now I've Got You, You Son of a Bitch, and 5 See What You Made Me Do. Apart from 'Debtor', dealing partly with mortgages—people in their own country being forced into long-term debt—and enforcing payments—there's a sense of bitterness in Berne, suggesting he may have had trouble collecting.

Berne has nothing on careers, on lifes' work, on extended families, on communities, on art, or even on religion. I wonder if the US slang 'shrink' refers to the constricted Jewish worldview, and not the so-called 'shrunken heads'. What was often noticed, without understanding—Mrs A N Whitehead said American women's homes made her want to scream; they were all the same, the women had no self-confidence—little boxes, made of ticky-tacky—was post-1945 conventionality, the result, in my view, of awareness of control, without knowing its roots, mostly in Jews and their puppets. It's actually worse not to know, since many Americans must have felt it dangerous to step outside the official bonds of thought, without knowing why—awareness of Jews is at least more of a 'game'.
Another view: 'James Allen' of pieceofmindful.com tries his best:
“Eric Berne was born on May 10, 1910 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, as Eric Leonard [or Lennard] Bernstein. He was the son of David Hillel Bernstein, MD, … “. “In 1939, Berne became an American citizen and shortened his name from Eric Lennard Bernstein to Eric Berne…”.

Eric Berne served in the military and the Veteran’s Administration as a psychologist. So, according to Basic MM101, once in the military intelligence, always in military intelligence.

What is one difference between the Military Culture and the Civilian World? It’s always easier to see the command structure in the military. [sic—except Jews?]

When giving a presentation to a committee the first task for the speaker is to recognize who is the person that will make the final decision if your project goes or not. You need to recognize and address the Top Dog, not the quislings [sic] around that person.

So, Berne’s book is a manual for behavioral top-down control applied to Corporation Culture distilled from his military experience. Before Berne’s book there was the book “The Organization Man” by William H. Whyte (1956) describing the growing “collectivist ethic”. Note, the military has a series of manuals titled “Leadership for 3 & 2” or similar. They can turn a nobody into someone who can lead a group of people by game playing.

One of the first Military games learned is in Boot Camp, “How Not to Be the Sacrificial Lamb”. How do you control a company of ninety pissed off draftees when there is only one of you? Designate someone to be the “F*ck Up”, the person who didn’t fold their underwear properly causing the company to fail their inspection, pre-arranged result of course. Punishment for the company is two thousand jumping jacks with or without rifle. Now, all the anger and frustration of being drafted is not directed at the Company Commander but at the “shitbird” who caused the punishment. A blanket party follows. O.k., the C.C. lost one person to the hospital but still has control of the company. The shitbird will be recycled to another company later. If boot camp is twelve weeks then you lost twelve recruits but have eighty-eight turts [sic] to ship off to country. Not bad.

Side bar: The sixties were the backdrop for “Games People Play”. The Vietnam ‘Conflict’ was taking off and there was a demand for “grunts” to be broken down in Camp Moloch. What is the fastest way to shit these civilians out, break down and reprogram?

Question: What is the difference between the Military and an Occult group?— The Military is bigger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Top of Page
Alfred Wainwright: ExFellWanderer - A Thanksgiving (1987). Printed & Published by Westmorland Gazette, Kendal, England. Review by Rae West
Alfred Wainwright (1907-1991) wrote seven guides to walking in the Lake District in England. Think of Wordsworth and the Lake poets, and ???????????. The first, The Eastern Fells, was published in 1955; the last, The Western Fells, in 1966. My bookshop-browsed volume celebrated Wainwright's 80th birthday; it is 3½ by 6½ inches, in landscape format, appropriately enough. The pages are unnumbered; there's no index, and no table of contents, but what might be a chapter heading is INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL TREASURER AND ACCOUNTANTS followed by details of his studies (his drunken father being noisy), and his exams, and letters after his name; he ended up as Borough Treasurer.
      He was proud of his schooling, and reproduces part of a school report in March 1920—position in form: 1. Some caricatures are reproduced. He liked balancing books and keeping records in immaculate copperplate handwriting. He could understand nothing mechanical, and never learned to drive a car. He discovered after marriage that women 'may all seem alike with a blanket over their heads, but they are not.' He had very red hair and wore spectacles. He did not have a posh voice. He was sceptical of religion, though he went to church to please his mother. He was addicted to the cinema, and remembered the introduction of talking pictures, dated by him to 1929. In 1930, aged 23, he went on his first-ever holiday to the Lake District, with a cousin, a map, and an itinerary. That 'settled my destiny.'

Some people take an interest in wider issues, probably as they accumulate learning and find out about the world. Wainwright seems not to have been this type. He knew there'd been a war, and 1939 gives him more than half a page, but he obviously understood nothing of it. In fact he 'founded with a friend the Blackburn Rovers Supporters Club'.
      Wainwright must have been something of a lost cause among local politicians.

Wainwright gives disappointingly little evidence of his drawing techniques. There are just three small photographs of Wainwright, wearing jacket and trousers and smoking a pipe. Only on photo shows him drawing or writing in a small notebook. He states that he had a small folding camera, given to him in 19141—a Kodak, no doubt—which he took to Scotland in 1946. I think he must have worked from photographs, at least partially. His drawings that I've seen are all in pen and ink, with spindly non-italic pens in his penholders. I think it's unlikely he would have drawn outdoors; but I may be wrong. I'd guess he liked drawings for his guidebooks, for similar reasons that books on plants, animals, and birds prefer drawings to photographs, perhaps unexpectedly, as unimportant details can be suppressed. He followed contours with his pen strokes, modifying his lines to follow slopes and verticals. Occasionally he'd cross-hatch, but not often, so his drawings often tend to be greyish. He's precisian nature would (I expect) lead him to work from photos, or perhaps detailed sketches: his drawing of The Moot Hall, Keswick, has detailing which I can't believe he'd allow himself to draw inaccurately. I'm less certain with scattered rocks, but feel it would be a point of pride to mimic accurately.
      Photoreproduced drawings may be made from a wide range of original sizes; it's impossible to know ffrom from this book how large they were. I remember being irritated by an exhibition of drawings by Gerald Scarfe, which seemed unfairly large to me.

Rae West 22 Dec 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
Colin Wilson - The Mind Parasites
1967 first published in Great Britain/ 1969 Panther/Granada
I remembered the paperback title from my collection; it struck me that perhaps the book had some insights into intra-human parasitism. I had to find the author, Colin Wilson (of 'The Outsider' and books typically on crimes, but without serious research) and audible here in a 1996 book promo tour at Canterbury.

Some hours later, here I am. The blurb mentions H P Lovecraft, though there's - no doubt fortunately - not much of him in it. Maybe distracting from the real world of Jewish-run US genocide.

Reminds me slightly of The Exorcist, starting with archaeology in the east. The 'Black Mountain of the Hittites' in this book has a two mile deep artificial structure, however. It's set in the remote future—well, 2014. Wilson, I'd guess, spent much of his life leafing through stuff promoted to get money for NASA, illustrated with carefully-absurd drawings. He has helicopter taxis, rocket transporters; huge ethereal solar unfolding engines, if that's the word; communication with visuals, 'TV' of course, not just voices; but records with needles and flats with keys. He has a male's attitude to clothes, hair styles, fashions, of unawareness.

There's American technology, assumed to be in America, with bases and so on. Probably most language is American English, with 'lift off' and universities staffed with people something like Aldous Huxley (of mescalin) or J B Rhine (of 'PK', 'psychokinesis', which Wilson extends to huge extents), largely with Russian or Germanic names, who think Husserl and phenomenology are techniques.

This novel may have been written in parts; there's an introductory third with strange dark archaeology; a middle section with something like small scale mental war in which the author 'Professor Gilbert Austin' and a few others probably in a tradition on megalomania takes control; and the last bit with human mental powers 'equivalent to hydrogen bombs' moving the moon round, at least of the smallish number of people who were 'awakened', the remainder being 'zombis'. They manage to assemble about half a million other awakened people, and further 'human evolution' begins, as in Shaw's Back to Methuselah, as the book ends.

I wondered whether Wilson had found some equivalent to Jews and their 'parasitism'. The answer is: no, unless you count the uncertainty as to their intents. Wilson's 'mind parasites' sound like some of the things described in Martin Gardner: 'menorgs' and 'disorgs'. There seem to be lots of them, and they have to be tiny, or in fact not physical, and connected in space with their mates in other brains. They cause panic, terror, and disconnection from stable memory roots. However, Wilson has some small historical context, for example 18th century poets compared with 19th century poets. And the earth's remote past, thousands and millions of years, but inevitably with the feeling there must have been origins in eastern Europe.
      Wilson has vague statistics on suicide, probably picked up from the BBC or Jewish press. He thinks there six times as much as there was - but why? Wilson like Fred Hoyle thinks in terms of big corporations, supplying food and cars and so on almost subliminally, plus comfort and facilities for people like his professors.

I don't think a novel like this one could have been written by any educated person without a lot of stress and strain. It's part of the post-1945 US/Jewish world of pulp crap. I expect some people liked it for its suggestion of power over the mere material world, and hints that ordinary people conceal astonishing qualities. Now, in the Internet era, I ought to do a Miles Mathis and trace Wilson's background, but perhaps someone else might do it for me. Thanks.

RW 3 July 2019


Top of Page

Colin Wilson: The Outsider. (Victor Gollancz, 1956)

A Completely New View of The Outsider.  With a little help from Miles Mathis
June 1931 - Dec 2013.   The Outsider was published in 1956, by Victor Gollancz, when (as everyone says) Wilson was aged 24. I made a few notes, many years ago. But–

–What's missing from these notes?

Booker's Neophiliacs discusses 'The Outsider'.
      Wilson as a symbol, the scruffy son [Wilson wore turtleneck pullovers and horn-rimmed glasses] of a Leicester shoe factory worker, sleeping rough on Hampstead Heath, working in coffee bars.
      'Rambling survey of conspicuously neurotic misfits, such as Van Gogh, Nijinsky, and T.E. Lawrence.'
      Like [writers of the time] Bishop of Woolwich, McLuhan and Marcuse, 'so clumsily written that the message emerges only in fitful Delphic gleams.'
      'Wilson was willing to co-operate to the full with the machinery of publicity.'

A very long, and odd, and apparently favourable review is extant, by Oswald Mosley, once of the British Union of Fascists. He includes a German, Werner Jaeger, author of Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture in English translation.

But lots of people found this book 'consoling' (listen to Wilson in 1996 in Canterbury, promoting from Atlantis to the Sphinx. He said that every day he got letters beginning "I am an outsider".
And many critics were very enthusiastic, partly I imagine because the endnotes included T E Hulme, William James, G K Chesterton, Henri Barbusse, Wells and his Mind at the End of its Tether, Camus, Sartre, Hemingway, Harley Granville-Barker, James Joyce, Novalis, Hermann Hesse, Thompson, Kafka, D Halévy on Nietzsche, Blake, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Mann, George Fox, Ernest Dowson, Edmund Wilson, T S Eliot, Søren Kierkegaard, and Indian writers. Much of his reading took place at the British Museum (the British Library had not yet been separated from it).
Wilson has interesting rule-of-three stuff, possibly just to generate discussion. For example, emotional misfit (i.e. with emotions out of control), the intellectual misfit, and another type; the physical misfit?

I haven't tried to check; Wilson seems to have lived most of his life in Cornwall, turning out books, for example A Criminal History of Mankind, including Stalin (but not American mass killers of course). Wilson may have made a lot of money from The Outsider, but on the other hand income tax rates were high at the time, except, no doubt for Jews.

I didn't at that time notice what now seems obvious, in common with huge numbers of Jew-naive people.

The copy in front of me is a paperback; publishing information is 'First Published in great Britain, 1956, by Victor Gollancz Ltd.' In those days print-on-demand publishing did not exist, and few people risked the vanity publication route, in all probability with zero chance of reviews, however good a book might be.
      My copy includes a 1967 Postscript ('... eleven years ago...'), a 1978 Introduction ('Twenty Years On'), and a 1990 note to 'A Gollancz Paperback'. Between them, Wilson's two notes gave his point of view very clearly, including his recollection of publication and rather frantic publicity, and his family background ('... English working class families—particularly factory workers—live in a curious state of apathy...')

In 1956, French and Algerian existentialist writers were popular, or at least talked about in the mainstream media, including the newish TV. I presume Wilson had read up on them in the British Museum. Sartre's The Diary of Antoine Roquentin (1949ish)—understandably retitled Nausea—and Albert Camus' The Outsider or The Stranger (1946ish; before the Algerian war with France) illustrate the sort of thing. Jean Genet, a sort of homosexual down-and-out in Europe, illustrates as well, but hardly figures in Wilson.

Wilson's detail doesn't particularly interest me. The point to understand is that the Jewish hold on publication and 'mainstream' ideas was intense, just as now, and they must have had their usual interests. It's significant that Wilson contacted Victor Gollancz, perhaps with Angus Wilson's advice. Gollancz's Jewish 'Left Book Club', which was cancelled in 1948, after Jews collectively won the Second World War. So, whither propaganda? Jews of course wanted no intelligent investigation into wars. The books they wanted were distractions, away from the reality of the Jewish-crushed regions of eastern Europe, and Germany. The 'Holocaust' fraud was in the future, awaiting its time. Immigration of inassimilable aliens was planned, but its time was to come. North Africa was planned for Jewish takeover; so was Palestine. The fraud of the 'Cold War' was in process, and nuclear fake research was colossal. By publication of The Outsider; H Bombs supposedly existed, though Wilson would have believed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been atom bombed. Probably Gollancz discreetly advised Wilson against inclusion of some material of this sort.

Anyway; books were wanted which said nothing about Jews, which was easy enough. Wilson lists gossip column types, and a bunch of writers more or less at the same time as Wilson—Kingsley Amis, John Wain, Iris Murdoch, Brendan Behan, François Sagan... and Presley, Marilyn Monroe, Brigitte Bardot...
      And the existentialist movement was talked about in France—not US bombing of France, not Freemasons controlling France, not Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Their USP was despair, ennui, existentialism ('based emotionally on exasperation, and intellectually on errors of syntax', said Bertrand Russell). Sartre was a Jew, part of this 'movement'. Many authors listed in Wilson's endnotes were , or thought they were, Jews, though I doubt he had any clue about this. Arthur Koestler was one. Kafka was a central European Jew. George Fox, the Quaker in Chapter VIII The Outsider as Visionary appears to have been a Jew: see Miles Mathis on this. Herman Hesse may well have been. Henri Barbusse edited a 'Communist' (read: Jewish) newspaper, and presumably was a Jew. Halévy, biographer of Nietzsche, must have been a Jew, and poor Nietzsche seems to have been warned off any criticism of Jews—hence his unreadable work. Nijinsky seems to have been a Jew from Russia. Thomas Mann (a writer in Germany) was a homosexual Jew.
      There were of course non-Jewish authors: H G Wells, Hemingway presumably, William Blake, Dostoievsky. Wells, in his Mind at the End of its Tether, was in despair after 1945; he just couldn't work out what was happening—for reasons which I trust the reader will grasp. Hemingway doesn't really fit; Blake was arguably a Swedenborgian, who appears in Wilson's next book, a failure. Dostoievsky in beloved of existentialists because his stories are grittily unpleasant, yet count as 'culture' for Jews up to the present such as Jordan Peterson. Two of Wilson's Chapters (VI The Question of Identity, and VII The Great Synthesis) are laced with Dostoievsky. There's more sex than I'd remembered, for example Barbusse on women with skirts blown about. Of course a Jewish theme, which Wilson mentions but keeps under control for his readership.

I could say more; but this will do.

RW © 5 July 2019


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
  Notes by Revisionist on   Sun Tzu   On the Art of War


Speculation on links between 'Jews' and China; which, if either, influenced the other?
Jews in China
These notes were suggested by a video by 'Hoaxashian', on Bitchute in early December 2019. (Youtube's Jewish owners had closed his account there some time earlier). His video was DECEPTION IN THE (((ART))) OF WAR and he quoted a few extracts from the Thomas Cleary translation into English, apparently dated 1988. Hoaxashian is not concerned with the fine points of identifying and translating very old manuscripts. He quoted from a chapter translated (he said) as 'Strategic Assessments': ‘Cause division among them. Send interlopers to cause rifts among them. Break up their accords, cause division between the leadership and their ministers - and then attack. This means that if there are good relations between the enemy leadership and its followers then you should use bribes to cause division. You may cause rifts between their leadership and their followers, or between them and their allies. Cause division and then take aim at them.’

[The first English translation, by Lionel Giles, was published in 1910 by Luzac and Co. in London. It's here, and no doubt in other places: https://ia802304.us.archive.org/25/items/artofwaroldestmi00suntuoft/artofwaroldestmi00suntuoft.pdf and certainly appears more professional, with alternative readings and general detail, including Chinese characters and comments on Germany.]

Hoaxashian, having been mimicked on line, was and is very conscious of Jewish lies. He gave a list of online examples: Sargon of Akkad / Tommy Robinson/ Rebel Media / Stefan Molyneux / Pat Condell / Infowars/ Paul Joseph Watson/ styxhexenhammr/ Tim Poole/ Computing Forever. As he correctly states “They're anti-Muslim but not anti those who bring Muslims in - they never call out these faked events, like London Bridge.”


There are many rather absurd plaudits for this book which in my opinion don't begin to hold water. My best guess is that it looks philosophical, rather than giving hard information on killings, weapons, starvations and so on. Nothing in it about raping women, burning people to death, bombing, starving, and enslaving populations. Wikipedia for example says Admiral Heihachiro of Japan, and who won the Russo-Japanese War, was 'an avid reader of Sun Tzu'. I'm inclined to think Rothschild funding did the trick. Giap was supposed to have been an avid practitioner, but the fact that the USA, USSR and others were run by Jews might have had something to do with it. I was amused to read in Wiki that 'The Department of the Army in the United States, through its Command and General Staff College, has directed all units to maintain libraries within their respective headquarters for the continuing education of personnel in the art of war.' Gum-chewers and medal staplers as literate? Come on!
Given the claimed age for versions of the book, it's of course no surprise to find even the name of the author or authors is in doubt. In 1972, a discovery was made of 'exceptionally well-preserved' bamboo scripts (calligraphic; well before printing) in Shandong, which seem to have helped lead to Shandong Museum. As far as I can tell, this is blessedly free from disfigurement by 'Holohoax' junk in the West.

It's clearer than it was—the Jewish media have concealed it completely—that Jews or some varieties of Semites had settlements in China. It's possible that they copied from Chinese writings, perhaps adding their own psychopathy. Luzac and Co in 1910, and Lionel Giles, may have been Jew-related. Or maybe vice-versa: perhaps Confucius was a promoted by Jews, after assessing the outlook of the Chinese. And the extracts from Hoaxashian suggest that Chinese generals were advised to bribe, divide, cause divisions—and at a high level. I doubt if much evidence survives about the warring states'; were the states sufficiently similar that enemies could penetrate them and plot, even with senior officials? If not, the advice would appear to be inapplicable.
      Art of War has material on money and silver, food and work and the Chinese masses, appropriate to an emperor, but less so to a caste of warriors ordered what to do by their superiors. This suggests links with Jews, linked with invisible ties to other parts of the world. FirstClassSkeptic suggested seven years ago that paper money may have had its root in China and been advertised in Europe by Marco Polo.

© Rae West 7 Dec 2019


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

Serious subject; very feeble book.   August 22, 2012

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

Spinoza is being reupholstered as a pioneering thinker by Jews. One of the contributing threads is his alleged contributions to the ideas of 'democracy'. If you're interested in the history of Jewish ideas, watch for Spinoza being less 'democratic' than might be thought.

Rousseau is another contributor to 'democracy'.

Bertrand Russell in his book Power considered that democracy was an essential part in the taming of power. He didn't notice that it can be faked. Good, short debunkings of 'democracy', as it has been shaped since the 19th century, are by William Luther Pierce.

Click for the audio Democracy and Propaganda of 4 May 2002.

Pierce finds the roots of the supposed liking of Jews for democracy in their control of mass media. He doesn't (when discussing democracy as an aim) look at control of money, or of aristocracies, or religions. His theory is simple and elegant: human populations have high proportions of people unable to judge for themselves. The more cretins, Alzheimers sufferers, ball game addicts, people on the streets (his examples) the more Jews like it, if they control the mass media.

Cheap books and newspapers without taxes started in the 19th century, at the same time that the Greek were newly supposed to have believed in 'democracy'. As Jews increased their hold over money, notably in 1913, and as corporations gave power to possessors of money, the pressures for democracy increased. State education had parts of its roots in Jewish attitudes.

Pierce didn't I think predict that Jews would allow illegal immigrants to vote, and allow votes to dead people, and allow miscounts and frauds, but he might well have predicted these things.

Pierce had a radio piece Jewish Democracy in the list of transcriptions of American Dissident Voices. That's a big pdf file, with Jewish Democracy starting on page 836. Pierce says: The controlled media are not interested in presenting facts; they are interested in shaping public opinion, so they present the facts which serve their purpose, but not those facts which don't.
      I don't think Pierce says that 'democracy', all along, was a sort of fraud imposed by Jews; possibly not, since he thinks the Founding Fathers were honest-to-goodness whites. But Pierce was early, one of the first modern revisionists. I rechecked for the phrase 'Jewish democracy' in Eustace Mullins, but couldn't find it. Probably the same thought occurred to a few people in the 19th century, in the same way that 'Jewish Labour', 'Jewish Conservatives', 'Jewish Democrats', and 'Jewish Republicans' must have occurred to some voters in the Anglospeaking world.

RW - 28 December 2021

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

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

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

A good book summarising democracy in what may turn out to be a post-democratic era, would be valuable: the original ideologues, the way it was tried, the ways in which it was deformed, the theories of why it should work, or, if you're e.g. a monarchist, as Hoppe seems to be, why it shouldn't, voting systems and their characteristics, education, etc etc, are not dealt with here, in any way at all. This book is badly-written and of no interest except as a specimen of what happens when donors don't donate wisely.
‘ ... Symbolic functions aside, the practical advantage of having a monarchy is that the head of state is chosen by the accident of birth and not by some corrupted system of election; and that the head of state is likely to show a longer term, more proprietorial interest in the country than someone who has lied his way to one or two terms of office. (This is the essential argument of the German libertarian Hans-Herman Hoppe's book Democracy: The God that Failed.) We got Elizabeth II by a most unhappy accident of birth. ... ’

Sean Gabb included that in a 2011 article, Monarchy, Nation-States, And The Failed Reign of "Elizabeth The Useless".

So Hoppe has at least one supporter! In his article, Gabb says very good things on Elizabeth's possible, but unused, powers.

Added 20 Sept 2022


Top of Page
  Review of Film/DVD historical   Mel Gibson's Apocalypto

Imaginative reconstruction, February 23, 2012

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

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

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

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

Top of Page


image   Review of DVD/film thriller   The Fourth Protocol

Crap, February 10, 2012

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

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

Includes Federal Reserve References, Jan 10, 2014

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
Raymond Challinor Heart and Minds Second World War
fighting scot Review of Second World War essays: views from the would-be British worker representatives.

Raymond Challinor: The Struggle for Hearts and Minds: Essays on the Second World War

Self-published collection of 11 essays on hidden aspects of the Second World War, published together in 1995.
Published originally in Critique, ILP [Independent Labour Party] News, International Socialist, Workers' Liberty, and Workers' Press. Review by 'Rerevisionist' February 8, 2012; more added Feb 5, 2014

Note: Click here for my online tape of a talk by Challinor in 1998 on the Second World War. The audience reactions are typical of people who have never heard evidence against the integrity of WW2.

Note added June 24 2021: My scanned-in and optical character recognised version of Chapter 3: THE JOURNEY TO WAR is here in Word format: https://big-lies.org/reviews/challinor-raymond-essays-on-the-second-world-war-3-the-journey-to-war-notes-rae-west.pdf . It's in two halves; second half is identical, except that I've added (in red) some comments on Jews (and perhaps Freemasons) which should display the way misleading statements are assembled by Jews. It's in .pdf format to evade the endless hassles in 'Word'.

I changed my mind about Challinor; there's simply too much evidence of bias and suppression of Jewish issues, such as banking.



Smallish book, 1995, 100+ pages, paperback, unindexed; self-published by Raymond Challinor's own Bewick Press, in Whitley Bay. Printed in Lime Street, Nwcastle-upon-Tyne. Bright red cover. Challinor was a socialist in the British sense—Challinor was in the ILP (Independent Labour Party) which to some extent escaped the Labour Party's Jewish infiltration. Or at least it seemed to; I'm not certain he didn't think himself a Jew—his mother was 'of German origin', he mixed with Jews, and his attitude was anti-Nazi. He may have been just another Jew propagandist. Challinor is more or less Marxist, with e.g. emphasis on the working class vs bosses and shareholders; but he has no secret Jewish agenda and has no idea of the Jewish agenda, which are only now becoming clearer; Challinor even likes Trotsky, and quotes the mass murderer with respect. His analyses show a protesting decent-minded indignation, as far as he goes, and is unconscious of the obfuscatory tripe of the Jewish fake left.
      This book's eleven chapters look at messy aspects of the war in Britain: Workers' protests and strikes; low British soldiers' pay; low seamen's pay: '.. Atlantic convoys, where ordinary seamen were ... In any naval engagement, sitting on top of their own crematorium. One torpedo, shell, or even tracer bullet could blow them to smithereens. ...'; hushed-up executions; low morale; badly built shelters; tube stations taken over as shelters against official wishes; a once-famous incident of many deaths in a steep stairway at Bethnal Green tube station (173 deaths p 60); housing damage, and squatters and rents increasing even for bombed buildings; German patent rights being respected, resulting in British tanks being inferior; children of the Rothschilds and many others shipped out,evacuees while evacuee children were seen as nuisances; shareholders' dividends from arms and motor companies clearing through Switzerland; peace movement candidates; shipping cartels reducing production, causing Jarrow to become impoverished; bombing of colonies; British agents helping Franco start the Spanish Civil War; strict media censorship; the Black Game—black propaganda; the 'Blitz' and the effects of bombs (including London's East End and Hamburg); British behaviour in the Far East; Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill on how many million more German deaths...
    (On Jarrow, I've adopted a revisionist view; after talking with people who lived there after the war: Jarrow is a small town between Newcastle and South Shields, of no great importance; the 'Jarrow march' was more or less a fantasy. But the Jew liars couldn't pretend there was a 'Newcastle march'. Note that there was a protest organised, or at least publicised, by a woman against deaths of children—naturally of no interest to Jewish propagandists.)
    Challinor has interesting material on war events; such as French support for Russia when some Germans refused to accept the Jewish peace offer, and continued into Russia. Some of the French obstructed the Germans. Of course, Germany had supported sending Lenin into Russia in the 'sealed train', though Challinor draws a veil over what the trainload of Jews did when they arrived. Naturally, because of the overlapping multiple lies during and after the war, the stories become confusing and inconsistent, particularly when (e.g.) the opinions of Hitler are described, Hitler being of course the centre of a vortex of lies.
    The seedy parts of the war—an island hospital for homosexual officers—at home, looting, prostitution and shortages, doorway sex, respectable wives and infidelity, sexual blackmail (as in Evelyn Waugh), the rage of men on returning to find what some wives had been up to, go almost unmentioned by Challinor. Alex Comfort wrote somewhere that prostitution was a 'reserved occupation' but I haven't seen this claim elsewhere. Corruption in the food rationing system—Jews were the principal 'spivs' ('Spiv is backslang for VIPs, Very Important Persons) helped to institutionalise corruption.

Arthur Greenwood, Amery &c were all crypto-Jews, wanting wars for Jewish gain. Challinor had no real understanding of that—or perhaps he kept it secret
    The 'Black Game'—this is the title of a book by Ellic Howe, a Jew—fake radio broadcasts, sabotage, murder— and shootings of some trade unionists and soldiers; and the Labour Party's banning of the 'Socialist League' and opposition to Hitler are looked at. Chapter 4 'Betrayal on the Left' is a good account of Labour between the wars; Challinor was entirely ignorant of the Jewish money connection (the 'Labour Party' was set up in the full knowledge that workers were not equipped to deal with politics, and Jews funded the synthetic movement. To this day many voters have no idea of this, even as their rights vanish). On the Jewish propaganda connection, we are in a better position to decode references to (e.g.) the publishers Lawrence & Wishart, Victor Gollancz and the Left Book Club, Jewish propagandists such as Bieligk, Laski, and Spaight, Leo Amery calling out "Speak for England, Arthur" to Arthur Greenwood, and the Labour leaders of 1939 as Jews in Britain's most outspoken warmongers.

WW2 Bengal famine
Challinor believes capitalism causes great evils, but I think this is a bit of an escape clause. Maybe serious analysis—notably with Jewish finance—is just too complicated. Challinor makes frequent comments on fears of 'the ruling classes'—in fact there are several ruling groups, but the point is to conceal Jews   Review of   Owen Wister   A Straight Deal or The Ancient Grudge (1920. Macmillan; USA publication.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Updated Sept 27, 2013]

Top of Page
Review of History written by the premier 18th-century rationalist   Voltaire: The Age of Louis XIV (trans Martyn P Pollack)
Raeto West/ Rerevisionist 23 June 2019
Voltaire had no conception of the growing tentacles of Jewish money power as techniques multiplied and deepened to extend across the world. Either that, or he kept quiet about it.
(I've used the 'Everyman' English translation, J M Dent 1926, reprinted 1961). It's difficult to find any modern equivalent of Voltaire (1694-1778), who composed tragedies, epic poems, and satires, plus writings against the Roman Catholic church, and histories which presumably were popular; it's hard to weigh up our age of mass production with an age of elegant leather-bound volumes. Voltaire's father was 'family lawyer to some of the noblest houses in France'; Voltaire must have felt at ease with a world of cultivated women with salons, and gentlemen with long and complicated pedigrees. His auto-nickname may be derived from 'Arovet', the Latinised version of his family name. But not from Volta, who was born years later than François-Marie, or perhaps Jean.
      A modern equivalent might be a screenwriter, and poet, who wrote vigorous satires against Jews, and had a new and attractive style in presenting political philosophies and narrative histories. An even more modern equivalent might be the head of some Jewish propagandist unit, tirelessly organising propaganda.

Voltaire's Age of Louis XIV (first published 1751 I think, before his 60th birthday) suggests the Sun King as the centre of a French world, not unreasonably; Louis XIV reigned longer than Victoria. Voltaire hints somewhere he would have preferred a title that expresses the idea of near-perfection, as in three earlier ages of Greece, Rome, Italy and the Medici. Perhaps he couldn't find a witty phrase. Anyway, he settled for an interval embracing Louis's reign of 1643 to 1715 plus some extra time on each end. But not too much at the far end: the Thirty Years' War from 1618-1638 was not a good advertisement for progress.
      Voltaire (in his sections near the end of his book) praises England, which after Newton had its unchallenged Maître. Voltaire includes Milton, and even includes Rochester, but was puzzled by 'Shakespeare', who for centuries was difficult.

Voltaire isn't very clear on his sources (and of course had himself been around the world of Europe). Learning was in the air, but the first volume of the French Encyclopédie was published in the same year as Voltaire on the Age of Louis. And Voltaire helped edit it. (It took 20 more years to complete the full set, which came under attack. Or so the story goes; I suspect this may not be the full truth. How much was jew influenced I can't say).

He was of course pre-Napoleon, and free of Hitler, Stalin, and other ornaments. He was pre-rail travel, steam ships, automobiles, and air travel. No bombs, though we have artillery. And he was pre-electricity: no electric light, cables, radio. He was pre-photography; silhouettes were the limit of mechanical representation. It's quite easy, faced with faded black-and-white photographs of people in Victorian clothing walking by stone buildings on cobbled roads, to forget how recent these sentiment-inducing images are. He was of course pre-Wallace/Darwin.
      Voltaire pre-dated the 1776 American 'Revolution' which of course is now known to be a Freemasonry/Jewish event, with 'free speech' a controlled event to allow criticisms of things they didn't like, and to be opposed when convenient. Now (2019) it's perfectly obvious that Jews never wanted free speech. Revisionist attention to the US Constitution is necessary to understand how the US was to be controlled. 'The right of the people peaceably to assemble' may have been intended to make secret assemblies defensible legally; something Jews traditionally used and would want to carry over into Freemasonry., which was established well before 1776. I suspect the 'right to bear arms' had Jews in mind; firearms were presumably expensive, and the more modern relatively cheap firearms may not have been anticipated. And certainly there are constant frauds around the world to try to disarm whites.

Voltaire is best-known I think for his anti-clericalism, his dislike of the Roman Catholic Church. The problem I think is that Catholic corruption was rather obvious to everyone, unlike the subtle form of corruption of Jews. It is significant that Voltaire's attacks ended without any discussion of what should happen to land ownership by the Church, and its subletting and parcelling out. My guess is that Jews wanted to get their hands on it, but of course couldn't say that out loud. I don't know anyone who suggested vicars and bishops and the rest should be varied intellectuals with many ideas which they wanted to follow. And finally erase the absurd superstitions of sand dwelling fantasists.

More than half of this book describes wars. About twenty chapters on conquests, campaigns, ambitious failures. Generally, Voltaire has no overview of the results; were assets taken over? Were populations displaced? Were new aristocracies temporary, or more permanent? He describes what was fairly obvious to people who were there, and generally selects whatever most of them agree on. But wartime stuff which is secret or invisible or needed planning tends to be omitted. No doubt this is the way in which Jewish corruption introduced itself and grew like dry rot or big parasitic plants. There must be information about Jews waiting within the information on wars—which Voltaire generally describes with relish, suggesting a hidden purpose—and one hopes something like a complete story can be assembled, probably by an 'alternative' historian.
      Probably his list of wars, viewed through a Jewish-selecting filter, would reveal a build-up to the 'French' Revolution, starting with the preceding Thirty Years' War and its financial effects (before this book by Voltaire, but tremendous in its effects).
      It is highly significant that Voltaire treats Cromwell, the English 'Civil War', and William of Orange as a sullen contest to the death, contrasting with French humour and waywardness. Voltaire says nothing about the Bank of England, and in fact these events suggest to me that Voltaire was a crypto-Jew, spending his life as a propagandist, probably in a network of Jews. He may have been simply the name behind a group of writers, on a similar principle to the septuagint, the group behind the 'King James Bible'.
      It's fascinating to see the attention devoted to Voltaire, with 'Complete Editions' published at intervals. The most recent seems to be published by the 'Voltaire Foundation' at Oxford University, with 220 projected volumes. Interestingly, there is an online searchable database, which may allow honest enquirers into Jewry a great deal of scope. Much of this is consistent with Oxford University's centuries-long crypto-Jewish activity.
      About a fifth of the book is anecdotes, in several chapters. Similar material to soap operas—wives, sisters, daughters—insults, slighting—wealth, poverty—births, deaths, noble and ignoble ends.
      And we have chapter on finance, but typically not loans and borrowing and debt. Then science, the 'useful arts', treated with great sympathy—nothing on dynamite of course or other rather sad modernities. And ecclesiastical matters, and Jansenism and Calvinism. (Voltaire's education included exposure to Jesuits, I think at Port-Royal in Paris. He was not impressed. Many schoolmasters are told what to teach, but don't have the interest or intellect to do it properly. Aristocratic rich youths may well madden them).

The final chapter looks at China, and the ineptness of Europeans in dealing with the Chinese. The depredations of Jews, the sackings of celestial buildings, the opium wars, were in the future, as were Jew/US wars in the far east.

Contrary to what might be inferred from Internet postings, I could find no evidence that Voltaire was what's now called Jew-aware. Nothing in the index—admittedly, not his work—on francmaçonnerie, or Jews, or Versailles, if indeed that was Jewish-owned; nothing on Jewish collaboration with Roman Catholicism; nothing on Jewish sea traffic in the Caribbean.

The condition of Europe before Louis XIV, say mid-17th century, is attractively described in chapter 2, state by state, starting with Germany, then Spain, Portugal, the United Provinces (Netherlands, Belgium Flanders—or something like that), England, Rome (big section), the rest of Italy, northern states (Poland, Sweden [which included Norway then], Denmark, Russia), the Turks, then the biggest section on France, are rather charming. Voltaire has numerous details, such as Spanish armies attacking after playing violins, and war being declared by a herald (presumably with a loud voice). Whites and others irritated by deluges of Jew lies might find such material useful.
RW 23 June 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
Review of Bertrand Russell   The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism

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

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

Top of Page
image   Review of Bertrand Russell   Prospects of Industrial Civilization

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

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

Top of Page
image   Review of Film/DVD   The Intruder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So—detailed, with many presumably accurate quotations. And full of raw meat, notably on the Socialist movement in Britain, but all somewhat uncooked and indigestible. (There is no real examination of the way Socialist ideals became influenced, corrupted, degraded in their passage to official 'Labour Party' dogma). I don't think I'm alone in thinking this; the laudatory paragraphs in the blurbs don't entirely carry conviction; and my copies ('used', once owned by a school) look unopened. Amazon has virtually no reviews.
Shaw (1856-1950) and 'Jews'. Internet search with Jewish search engines says Shaw wrote &lasquo;... the invader from the East, the Druze, the ruffian, the oriental parasite; in a word, the Jew." in the London Morning Post, December 3, 1925’. Shaw may have been a Jew from Ireland; if anyone is still interested in his work, the Jewish links ought to be investigated. But he died before the big days of Jewish TV and colour films.
      Pygmalion was staged in 1913 (I haven't attempted to find when it was written). It was made into a film in 1938; Shaw by then was over 80, and presumably the film was made with his approval. It's available (in rather quivery black-and-white). Students of the JQ might like to watch it.
      ‘My Fair Lady is a musical based on George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion, with book and lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner and music by Frederick Loewe. The story concerns Eliza Doolittle, a Cockney flower girl [and daughter of a 'common dustman'] who takes speech lessons from professor Henry Higgins, a phoneticist, so that she may pass as a lady.’ (Wikipedia). First performance: 15 March 1956. First showing of the film: 1964. References to aristocracies include Hungarians and Ruritanians; but the American Jews include nothing on Jews.

Top of Page
  Review of British Education establishment   John Mabbott: Oxford Memories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goodbye, Mr Chips indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Top of Page
image   Review of International Nuclear   Hans Blix: Disarming Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
Andreski
  Review of   Rare genre—Critical Attack on 'Social Sciences'   Stanislav Andreski: Social Sciences as Sorcery

Andreski Sorcery
Andreski (or Andrzejewski), born 1919, fought in the Second World War, or allegedly fought, presumably with Britons, against the Germans; he wrote on military organisation, and seems to have switched to sociology. He 'founded' a sociology department, in Reading University, in southern England, in 1964 or 1965, though I haven't attempted to probe the details. Reading (I believe) had the first Town Planning University Department in Britain, at its campus at Whiteknights Park; presumably Reading was aiming for practicality: Andreski wrote on Latin America (1966) and Africa (1968). I doubt if he mentioned Marrano Jews, Castro as a film star, the fake Cuba Crisis, Idi Amin's dislike of Jews etc etc.
    I suspect Andreski was not a Pole, but a Jew. Either way, as far as I know he wrote nothing on Jews, and therefore must be regarded as partly phoney. He must have been persuasive and convincing; he had for example an entry in A Dictionary of the Social Sciences of 1964: Totalitarianism is the extension of permanent governmental control over the totality of social life. A movement or an ideology may be called totalitarian if it advocates such an extension.

Andreski's book Social Sciences as Sorcery has publication dates quoted as 1971 to 1974. According to my 1973 Pelican paperback, Social Sciences and Sorcery was published first by Andre Deutsch, a Jewish publisher of general titles. St Martins Press—the publisher that in the 1990s withdrew its offer to publish Irving on Goebbels—was Andreski's US publisher. My copy is a blue-backed Pelican paperback with a silly wizard-style hat cover picture. I think Andreski may have been treated in similar vein to the 'existentialist psychiatrist' R D Laing, but never achieved widespread fame, no doubt because there were and are huge Jewish controlling forces in the academic world, which have had catastrophically disastrous effects. I head about Andreski from Harold Hillman, who was about the same age, and who tried to collect examples of critical thinkers in the academic world, in the hope they might collaborate.

He wrote in a more literary way than is usual in sociology—probably his book was sparked by Talcott Parsons, an absurd figure, possibly a non-Jew front-man puppet, of the Margaret Mead type, it occurs to me. Andreski's book unfortunately doesn't approach being exhaustive, which might have removed the feeling that after all there may be useful stuff lurking in sociology. The book is unindexed, a piece of very unfortunate laziness.
    Here's a small sample of his style: ... do not be impressed unduly by titles or positions. Top universities can usually get the best people in the fields where there are firm criteria of achievement; but at the present stage of development of the social sciences the process of selection resembles, as often as not, a singing competition before a deaf jury who can judge the competitors only by how wide they open their mouths. This is amusing, but his book is weakened by poor typesetting: there's little signposting, so that good passages are hard to relocate; and he switches between general comment, specific topic material, and authors, in a tiring way. It's the the type of book in recommended reading lists, and tucked away in bibliographies, but not referred to in detail.

There are reviews online, which, as might be expected in the early 1970s when Jewish policy was devoted to making money from the Vietnam War, are worthless. www.scholar.google.com gives some hint at the small scale micro-turmoil he caused. I'm unsure if the book can be downloaded; the unpleasant US habit of concealing contractual details until the last minute comes into play at present.

The chapter headings (I've labelled the three longest, possibly most detailed, and may write about them) are:-
1 Why Foul One's Nest? / 2 The Witch Doctor's Dilemma / 3 Manipulation Through Description / 4 Censorship Through Mass Production / 5 In the Footsteps of Monsieur Pangloss and Dr. Bowdler / 6 The Smoke Screen of Jargon [LONG] / 7 The Uses of Absurdity / 8 Evasion in the Guise of Objectivity / 9 Hiding Behind Methodology / 10 Quantification as Camouflage [LONG] / 11 Promiscuous Crypto-Conservatism / 12 Ideology Underneath Terminology [LONG] / 13 Techno-Totemism and Creeping Crypto-Totalitarianism / 14 The Law of Lighter Weights Rising to the Top [in US funding] / 15 Gresham's and Parkinson's Laws Combined / 16 Ivory Towers or Bureaucratic Treadmills /17 The Barbarian Assault on the Corrupted Citadels of Learning / 18 Conclusion: Ethics and the Advancement of Knowledge

From which his literary leanings (both old and new) are obvious enough. There are a few problems:
[1] As I've described, his book is rather pathless and homogenous, where homogeneity is not helpful.
[2] Andreski puzzles over determinism, and has passages where claims about predictions aren't reliable.
[3] What's worst is his failure to discuss Jews, which is inexcusable in a Pole, and inexcusable in a Jew living in Poland. Somewhere, Andreski says any intelligent black-coated worker (i.e. a 'suit') knows enough about his society that sociologists can say noting much new to him; and he defends anthropologists on the grounds that they should say something new about e.g. north Africans.
[4] There are mistakes which should have been caught, for example his Hume 'quotation' ‘Reason is, and must always remain, the slave of the passions’ appears to be wrong. My notes say there are some misspellings, e.g. J R Robertson. Andreski of course accepts the Holohoax, despite being well-travelled, and familiar with Poland. He mentions, though, Americans burning villages in Vietnam. (This latter may be the reason that stupid critics of Andreski call him 'Marxist'.)

Andreski makes numerous interesting comments: Evidence that psychology and sociology don't work (p 27 Pelican edn), 'theory of games and US foreign policy'—naturally a waste of time, p.126, 'cybernetic' models (pp 185 ff), p 108 the meaning of the word "fascist", much the same in 2017 as 1974, easily explained now as a result of Jewish lies. Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss but also Jewish sociologists like Durkheim. And Comte, Herbert Spencer.

Some people will find this book interesting. Perhaps some revisionist type will rearrange it to take account of Jews, add some updates, improve the layout, or incorporate parts of it into a better attack on money-making timid Jew puppets. I hope so, anyway.

RW 3 Dec 2017

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest   H J Eysenck: The Battle for the Mind. The author is credited as Leon Kamin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
David Frederick Horrobin ‘Science is God’ (1969)   Review by Rerevisionist' 21 Apr 2019
Horrobin 1939-2003; died young, unfortunately. He was a rarity: sceptical (in his field) and prepared to act on this, well-travelled, and able to make money out of ethical medications.

He knew Harold Hillman; their lives intertwined to some extent; for example, both had connections with the Schizophrenia Society in Britain, Hillman wrote Certainty and Uncertainty in Biochemical Techniques (1972), and the physiology of nerves and brains interested both of them. Here's my tape recording of David Horrobin on 28 Sept 1995, talking on eczema and fatty acids. I haven't checked at what stage his Efamol business interests had reached.

I have a proof copy of this book (with no publishing date; net price 30s, also priced at £1.5. Unindexed though there are ten references at the end of the book. Couldn't MTP of Aylesbury afford an indexer?). My interest is its snapshot of social views at the time, in which Horrobin was entirely conventional and unquestioning. It's best viewed as Jew-naive, and has that measure of interest: read it and marvel at its absence of critical appraisal. It's possible he thought he was a Jew, though I hope not; on the evidence of this book it seems unlikely. Incidentally I asked him if he was related to Horrabin, H G Wells' mapmaker, but he said not.

I'll just list evidences of naivety; not many people will ever see this book, after all.

Race: In his African travels (Nairobi, then I think northern Rhodesia) he noted his students memorising word-for-word definitions, rather than understanding them. I can't find him understanding race.
Hypotheses: Horrobin, probably influenced by Popper, puts his emphasis in science on hypotheses. He seems to rule out anything else as not science. Understandable for an experimenter, but it seems restrictive.
Control Experiments: Horrobin quotes from a then-very-recent BMJ article Inhibition of lactation by Oestrogens. Briefly, women who didn't want to breastfeed were given stilboestrol, for logical reasons, and it worked. But then doubts arose; it was found that a placebo worked just as well.
Ivan Illich Medical Nemesis (1976) was reviewed by Horrobin in his book Medical Hubris (1977). I could only find a review online, suggesting Horrobin's book is still read.
Selective Education: Horrobin went to Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Blackburn, Kin's College School, Wimbledon, and a series of Oxford colleges. At the time he wrote, education was being comprehensivized—apart of course from paying public schools, and such things as Jewish schools—something he protested against on empirical grounds. He had no idea it was part of an anti-white scheme.
Sociology, History, Social Science, Economic Science etc: Horrobin considered that such subjects were not scientific. Part of his reasoning was that causation is immensely complicated, and conditions not reproducible. But of course he had no idea of the efficacy of large number of people in combination; Jews, Freemasons, Christians, and Common Purpose, backed up by Jewish paper money from the 'Federal Reserve', have proven very effective.
Aims of Education: Horrobin wanted people to analyse things, learn to check detail, and conclude for themselves. More easily said than done, but in any case Horrobin was not aware of hostilities to education, and greater hostilities to free thought.
Religion: Horrobin admired people who boldly say: There is no God. I think he may have been brought up as a Roman Catholic, something quite common in the North of England. However, the Jewish element in the world and in Christianity was kept hidden from him. His attitude was something like Richard Dawkins', more or less his contemporary, though Dawkins sided with US 'freethinkers' who were mostly Jewish.
Money: Horrobin recognised that most scientists were careerists, aiming at money and advancement and security. He was unaware I think of gross science fraud, such as NASA's then-recent moon hoax. The worst he quotes is science papers published under multiple names under the 'publish or perish' outlook.
    And he was unaware of Jewish money frauds, as far as I can see. Or the associated problem of intellectual property being hoovered up by Jews.
War: As a supposed victor in WW2, and not being interested in earlier history, he took weapons research rather lightly. He had no idea (like Dawkins) of war crimes, or the money- and power-making reasons for war.
Politicians: ‘Only when we have as many scientists as lawyers in public life is there any hope of a sane scientific policy.’
Medical Hypotheses was a journal he founded specifically to examine hypotheses, without too much concern for experiments. Naturally this led to opposition, and in any case it was taken out of his hands, most recently I think by Elsevier, a huge money-making Euro publisher. There were murmurs of such things as 'AIDS denialism'.
Oxford education: ‘a College Fellow is responsible for organising the tuition which an undergraduate receives throughout his course. ... ultimately their success or failure is his responsibility. ... This is a real check [i.e. genuine measurement] on the effectiveness of teaching and is a real stimulus to the teacher. ... It is something which is completely lacking in mos other universities where the dons have power without responsibility. ... student agitators should be warned that any such proposal might be fiercely resisted by the staff. ..’
    It's obvious that Horrobin had no grasp of the serious issues of Jewish-promoted anti-intellectual and pro-Jewish manoeuvres.
Examinations: ‘... the academic community as a whole perhaps contains a higher proportion of apparently eccentric, unreliable, volatile and vindictive individuals than does any other profession. ... At least, when the examinees are identified only by number and not by name, the personality, status, rank, and family ... does not influence the examiners' decision. ...&srquo;
    Horrobin was blissfully unaware that plans for artificially handicapping some students and artificially boosting others were in the pipeline. He seems to have ignored such problems as cheating, substitute candidates, favouritism, and so on.
IQ: Horrobin quotes a study—or perhaps just a rumour or media-spread belief—to the effect that officer assessments, which used a battery of tasks, including an 'IQ' test, found that IQ proved a better predictor than all the other tests combined. Note that Horrobin had no doubts about the objects of wars etc; which seems to throw doubt on the 'intelligence' aspect.
Scientists' Motivations: p 26: three types... love of the chase, intellectual excitement ... [same plus] international recognition ... [same plus] financial reward. ... it is the science that matters... The difficulty for their families and friends is to stop them driving themselves in the ground. ... perhaps best summed up by a Christmas card ... "From the people with whom you eat Sunday lunch".'
Great Minds: Fascinating to see opinions from fifty years back. Horrobin lists Einstein and Bertrand Russell as 'some of the greatest minds'. He likes Darwin, but suggests the brain evolved for survival; not for finding food, like the snout of a pig as per Balfour, but in effects—he hypothesises about two tribes, short of food, one of which secretly raids and kills the other. As with vast numbers of people discussing evolution, Horrobin doesn't look at the very long term. I won't attempt to list everyone here; Barnes Wallis, Faraday, Helmholtz, Huxley, Marconi, Schrodinger are examples—all recent. 1968 was the publication date of James Watson's The Double Helix.
Science Education: Horrobin, I expect thinking of his own upbringing, feared for a shortage of science teachers. He isn't very good on facts and figures; there was and is a campaign to import third-rate third worlders. The present-day PR stuff on STEM (science, technology, electronics?, mathematics) is similar on the face of it, but attacked by absurd PR campaigns and in my view by Jew control of education and for example the BBC.

Note: The title is terrible and misleading!


Info, HTML © Rae West 2019-04-21


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

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

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

Parkinson's accounts of Britain before about 1900 are good in summoning up images of private ownership: Parkinson's family had been distinguished—in government and administration—so his descriptions of families with long traditions being wiped out by taxation, on the theory that government owns everything, are heartfelt, though he has no feeling for Jewish parasitism, and no feeling for the manipulations that Jews use in creating wars and ersatz patriotism. He of course has no idea about mediating Jews—such things as Freemasonry.

Parkinson's attitude to nations, states, borders, and so on, is expressed here (note that his view is something like the opposite of the Jewish view):
‘That the citizen should contribute toward the common defense, toward the dignity of the state, toward the maintenance of justice and order is not seriously open to dispute. He owes a debt to the state as well as to his ancestors and descendants. He was brought up under its protection, induced to obey its laws, taught to rely on its justice and endowed with a share of its fame. Only the stateless know what it is to have no national legend, pride, or flag. ...’

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

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

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

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

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

Although this book has great omissions, notably the Fed and paper money, it's thought-provoking and does its best to provide a useful overview of the world and economics and the place of government after 1945. If only Parkinson had been more knowledgeable.
Added 25 Oct 2015: On the subject of the First World War, I mooched around an archaeological dig of Hart Hill House, in Buile Hill Park, Salford, near Manchester. This was built in about 1859; and by the 1920s became derelict and was demolished, part of the financial disaster of the 'Great War'. There is only grass on the site, and seems to be not one photograph of the building—a candidate proved to depict somewhere else; the archaeological website fails to convey anything of the site or the majesty of the building.
Added 26 Mar 2018: The theme of too high tax levels, and their long-term psychological effects; and 'waste' does not take account of transfers of money and/or wealth. Just as Parkinson never criticises war, assuming that generals etc are following some rational plan in a 'national interest', he never follows the money, and has no idea that a rise in income tax or death 'duties' diverts money—in particular for Jewish schemes. For example, the giant murder machine of the USSR, as it was called, was mostly funded by US and UK taxpayers, both yearly and from future taxation.
      Parkinson puts some emphasis on the confusion between capital and income, though he doesn't think it's intentional. The point he's making is that (for example) a family might take several generations to build a business and its country house; all that effort is in effect wasted if there are huge death duties. But clearly from a parasitic point of view it doesn't matter; he's saying that a whole nation can be ruined by the confusion of capital with income.
      As for tax, Parkinson looks at income tax, and regards its inexorable rise as a working of his Law; he has no idea of the Jewish interpretation, where (say) a 1% rise in income tax gathers a staggering 1% of the entire purchasing GNP—something tax-farming Jews would have gasped at; if only (say) half the increase goes to Jews, vast unearned amounts go to them. Any fake project will serve.
      Here's Parkinson on income tax in the USA:
‘ ... on the eve of World War II [US income tax] was paid by ... four or five million taxpayers... None was paid in 1932-1939 by those with an income of under $2500. .. the level was steadily lowered, to $2000 in 1940, to $1500 in 1941, to $1200 in 1942, and to $642 in 1942. ... these exactions were cleverly concealed ... [by adopting] the device of making the employer do the tax collection at his own expense..
      By about 1950 .. [US] income tax extended to some fifty million people, increasing tenfold the number. ... In 1951 it was discovered by Miss Vivien Kellems that President Truman had, in a little over six years, taxed the country $12 billion more than all the previous Presidents combined... Truman demanded $260 billion... all incomes [above £2000] ... were paying 20% and incomes of $50,000 no less than 75%, with 87% as the maximum...’

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

Once-fashionable biased trash, August 20, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keywords: Eatherly, Eathely, Eatherley, Etherly

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

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

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

Top of Page
image   Review of Biography   Jad Adams: Gandhi

Warmed up scraps—nothing important, April 15, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Morton as the first anaesthetist, March 9, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

About forty apparently first-person chapters or stories—collected by Ralph Leighton (who played the piano, and also drummed, with Feynman). The chapters seem, to me, tape recorded, but the method isn't stated). Edited by Edward Hutchins, introduced by Albert R Hibbs of the Jet Propulsion Lab. {Note: 27 Oct 2019 - on JPL see mileswmathis.com/parsons.pdf] First published 1985; Feynman died in 1988 'after a long illness'—presumably they were published with Feynman's permission, though I'm uncertain as the chapters are all undated. The book is faintly reminiscent of a book on A N Whitehead by Lucien Price—though the contrast between modes of expression could hardly be more extreme.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My conclusion:

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

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

Not for everyone, but a 5 star performance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Profoundly disappointing, December 25, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top of Page
home page

Most Reviews   More reviews, by subject:- Film, TV, DVDs, CDs, media critics | 'Holocaust' | Jews, Christians, Moslems | Race | Revisionism | Women | Bertrand Russell | Richard Dawkins | Martin Gardner

Margaret Mead. Yet another Jewish Fraud and Hireling

Mead, Margaret (1901-78), American anthropologist, widely known for her studies of primitive societies and her contributions to social anthropology.
    Mead was born in Philadelphia on December 16, 1901, and was educated at Barnard College and at Columbia University. In 1926 she became assistant curator of ethnology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, and she subsequently served as associate curator (1942 64) and as curator (1964 69). She was director of research in contemporary cultures at Columbia University from 1948 to 1950 and adjunct professor of anthropology there after 1954.
    In September 1969 she was appointed full professor and head of the social science department in the Liberal Arts College of Fordham University at Lincoln Center in New York. She also served on various government and international commissions and was a controversial speaker on modern social issues.
    Participating in several field expeditions, Mead conducted notable research in New Guinea, Samoa, and Bali. Much of her work was devoted to a study of patterns of child rearing in various cultures. She also analyzed many problems in contemporary American society, particularly those affecting young people. Her interests were varied, including child care, adolescence, sexual behavior, and American character and culture.
    Mead died in New York City on November 15, 1978. Her writings include Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), Growing Up in New Guinea (1930), Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935), Male and Female (1949), Soviet Attitudes Toward Authority (1951), New Lives for Old (1956), Culture and Commitment: A Study of the Generation Gap (1970), and her memoirs, Blackberry Winter (1972).

26 July, 1995. Encarta95 entry from Microsoft

- NB: I have a wartime Penguin book advertised (with Coming of Age in Samoa) under the title The American Character
. A Jewish propaganda publisher. - March 1976, BBC2 interview by Adam Kuper. Mead about 75. On popularisation: "A physicist is a layman to a botanist... if we don't have an overall view of the sciences including the human sciences, there's not much chance." On science: "I'm a scientist. I write technical monographs too, which a lot of my colleagues don't understand." Her influence? "We had the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti. Twenty women testified that they bought eels from Sacco, but the judge said "people don't eat eels" and he was convicted. He wouldn't make that mistake today." Mead was very assertive, reminiscent of Joan Robinson. General impression that plain decency etc. with regard to other peoples' lives has to be dressed up as 'science' in the USA.

- To the memory of my grandmother MARTHA RAMSAY MEAD 1845-1927 and the Future of my Daughter MARY CATHERINE BATESON 1939-. [It certainly seems that Gregory Bateson, or another relative, married her daughter; see e.g. references to The Chip on the Shoulder]
- 'This book is presented as one part of the program of the Council of Intercultural Relations which is attempting to develop a series of systematic understandings of the great contemporary cultures..'
- Lots of essays; average about 5000 words each–
    - CONTENTS
    Preface 1965/ Preface from England 1943/ Introduction 1965
    1 INTRODUCTION - 1942
    2 CLEARING THE AIR
    3 WE ARE ALL THIRD GENERATION
    4 THE CLASS HANDICAP
    5 THE EUROPEAN IN OUR MIDST
    6 PARENTS, CHILDREN, AND ACHIEVEMENT
    7 BROTHERS AND SISTERS AND SUCCESS
    8 ARE TODAY'S YOUTH DIFFERENT?
    9 THE CHIP ON THE SHOULDER
    10 FIGHTING THE WAR AMERICAN STYLE
    11 ARE DEMOCRACY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPATIBLE EACH WITH EACH?
    12 IF WE ARE TO GO ON
    13 BUILDING THE WORLD ANEW
    14 THESE THINGS WE CAN DO
    15 THE YEARS BETWEEN: 1943-1965
    Bibliographical notes 1942/ 1942 revised/ 1965/ and rather comic account of impossibility of recording all her sources, including books 'the very title of which has been forgotten', and 'sharp arguments over coffee at midnight.'

I've listed the chapter title, but not the contents, to save time. All the 1943-published essays were in support of the (((US))) war effort. Incidentally, the title is phoney—the truth was it was more a matter of manufacturing vast amounts of 'powder', and using it, not keeping it dry. The 'anthropology' is cartoonish and naive, making of course no mention of Jews, and pretending that the States were uniform, with all the same interests. Mead was just another rented puppet of Jews.


My file Teaching about Jews has this: ‘Margaret Mead, a once-famous 'anthropologist', author of Coming of Age in Samoa, is one of the few American Jewish-promoted frauds who has been exposed as fake. If the reader hasn't heard the details, the topic is included here and I leave you to further online searches; but the bottom line is that Mead was found to have had no knowledge of the relevant languages, and made up her south sea islands stuff, no doubt on salacious grounds. Let's hope she's just the first of many to be discredited.’ [Note added 3 Jan 2014: I've just read that Mead was firmly convinced that UFOs exist. I've made no attempt to check this].

See one of my books on scientific fraud, accusing Mead; I have a copy of the edition from which a passage on Mead was subsequently withdrawn. This may have been Alexander Kohn's False Prophets... but I have no faith in Jewish books and expect all of it is unreliable. The wake from Freeman continued for many years; the usual Jewish response was to ignore Mead, or to simply elide away the serious portions. Fairly typical was Hiram Caton in Australia.

Here's a bit of online reporting (this caused some online noise):–

It was in 1983 that a New Zealand anthropologist, Derek Freeman first denounced Mead's idyllic picture of sexually liberated yet disease-free Samoa (in her Coming of Age in Samoa) as having been based on little more than her own left-liberated-lesbian enthusiasm for fantasies with which the islanders had teased her (Margaret Mead and Samoa, Harvard University Press). Now Freeman has put together a more detailed account of how Mead's besotted adoption of Boasian social-environmentalist principles led to her naïve interviewing of Samoans. But Konner cannot be bothered with what Freeman's book is about. Instead his concern is to defend the indefensible as best he can even at this far-too-late stage. This can no longer involve disputing Freeman's main argument as to what really happened on Samoa -- an argument that Konner admits is "well developed." Rather, the defence has to shift to a higher plane.
      So other researchers differ from Mead and "report new observations and different theories"? "So?" says Konner -- as if the latest approximation to truth can be of no interest to an anthropologist.

Instauration, August 1983 Part 1, Margaret Mead with James Baldwin, and Instauration, Sept 1983 Part 2, The(((Tribal))) Force behind Margaret Mead, on Franz Boas and Margaret Mead, with people like Ashley Montagu (real name: Israel Ehrenberg). The articles were sparked by Derek Freeman's Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making and Unmaking of an Anthropological Myth, 55 years after Coming of Age in Samoa, which deceived a generation or two. Robertson correctly identifies the Jew Emile Durkheim as the 'godfather of "social anthropology."' By 1926, '... one of Judaism's great "secular rabbis" [Boas] had gotten his prize pupils, mostly Jews, into all the key anthropological positions! ... [and they] took control of several of the leading anthropological journals and associations and used them to drive the Nordic eugenicists who had dominated the field only a decade earlier into the outer darkness of moral vilification.' Robertson goes on to a critique of Derek Freeman, 'half-informed, or biding his time?' all reading very much like Kevin MacDonald.

Rae West 2020-1-20


Top of Page
William Andrews (Editor) - Legal Lore: Curiosities of Law and Lawyers.
(Preface 1896; published 1897 by William Andrews F.R.H.S. & Co, 5 Farringdon Avenue, London E.C.)

In my view the title is slightly misleading; all the practices in the 21 chapters were, in their time, genuinely believed in, and carried out, assuming the authors were reliable. Traces remain to this day. I recommend the book for its fairly brief overviews of long stretches of time. Dictionaries/ encyclopaedias probably better but may be impractical.


Online image in archive.org is https://archive.org/details/legallorecuriosi00andr/page/n5 (Aug 2019)
William Andrews's earlier volume The Lawyer in History, Literature, and Humour (1896?) was (he says in his preface) received favourably, and led to this book.
      Andrews liked Church History, and wrote and edited his Bygone series, mostly of English counties. He edited Antiquities and Curiosities of the Church (1897? But with early similar titles). My impression is that he started his own publishing imprint in his 40s, and lived to about 60.

      The Contents are listed below; I've left the page numbers as in indication of chapter lengths. No indications are given of the legal qualifications of the 10 or so contributors; there must be reservations as to accuracy. I'm surprised there's nothing on such topics as slavery, food, and money. Perhaps they worry antiquarians. The book's date is prior to the immense growth of Jewish influence at the expense of Europeans. My comments in green.

CONTENTS BIBLE LAW. By S. Burgess, M.A. - 1 [Rational examination including Babylonian predecessors. Divine and human law. Laws in for example Leviticus, including Sin of ignorance, laws of defilement, breaches of oaths, slaves, extraordinary powers of a father, usury, debt release, tithe, no poor laws, no legal protection to strangers, accidental homicide and 'blood angers' and refuge or sanctuary ...]
SANCTUARIES. By William E A Axon, F.R.S.L. - 13 [Asylum and Sanctuary and their causes and effects. Interesting to see how it is abused by modern 'Jews']
TRIALS IN SUPERSTITIOUS AGES. By Ernest H. Rann - 23 [Includes ordeals. Boiling water, red hot steel, dangerous creatures. And ways they were circumvented]
ON SYMBOLS. By George Neilson - 13 [Heraldic and governmental. No secret symbols of modern theories]
LAW UNDER THE FEUDAL SYSTEM. By Cuming Walters - 58 [Mostly England and Germany; Anglo-Saxons and Normans.]
THE MANOR AND MANOR LAW. By England Howlett - 83 [.. baron.. with his little territory.. in which he was practically a king'. Copyholders, freeholders, villeins, manors, fee simple, heriots..]
ANCIENT TENURES. By England Howlett - 95 [Sovereign down. ... Includes gavelkind]
LAWS OF THE FOREST. By Edward Peacock, F.S.A. - 109 [Animals (and plants) for food and for hunting. Both for general people and monarchs, and for ruffian foresters]
TRIAL BY JURY IN OLD TIMES. By Thomas Frost - 122
BARBAROUS PUNISHMENTS. By Sidney W. Clarke - 132
TRIALS OF ANIMALS. By Thomas Frost - 149
DEVICES OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY DEBTORS. By James C. Macdonald, F.S.A., Scot. - 197
LAWS RELATING TO THE GIPSIES. By William E. A. Axon, F.R.S.L. - 165 [Interestingly claims they appeared early 15th century. My reading suggests they were Jews, perhaps low status, expulsion from Spain 1492, absurd claims to Egyptian titles, horse thefts and fortune telling, gaújos sounding like Goyim in Spanish. 'Gypsion'. Notorious case of Elizabeth Canning]
COMMONWEALTH LAW AND LAWYERS. By Edward Peacock F.S.A. - 165 [This is Cromwell's Commonwealth, and the Civil War and Restoration times. There is not the slightest awareness of Jews and Amsterdam]
COCK-FIGHTING IN SCOTLAND. By William Adrews F.R.H.S. - 197 [Traced from Themistocles]
COCKIELEERIE LAW. By Robert Bird - 200 [A poem only]
FATAL LINKS. By Ernest H. Rann - 205 [Possibly suggested by Conan Doyle, some examples of murders solved with a chance piece of evidence]
POST-MORTEM TRIALS. By George Neilson - 224 [Corpse sometimes needed. I could find nothing on fakes deaths]
ISLAND LAWS. By Cuming Walters - 237
THE LITTLE INNS OF COURT. [?] - 258 [History of buildings near the Inns of Court: some residents, disused lectures. I'd guess demolished now]
OBITER. By George Neilson - 267 [Obiter dictum: a judge's remark in passing. A collection of these.]
INDEX - 277

©Rae West   6 Aug 2019

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

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

Top of Page
Edmund Connelly: Jew-aware film critic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One star. But only because I'm in a good mood.
Since writing this, I've noticed that Gladwell is part of the project to keep people away from genuine revisionism. I noticed this in Yandex, a search engine in Russian, though of course in effect Jewish. I'd guess gullible Russians are supposed to identify with blacks in America, not whites. Gladwell has several books attributed to him, and also podcasts, all dealing with minor topics, in which of course the standard Jew memes are assumed. And a standard Wordpress website revisionisthistory dot com Malcolm Gladwell has done a few TED talks; same stuff. There's one on Norden bombsights, quite funny—for US bombing, see e.g. nukelies.org ... I'm adding this to show I've seen this parrot

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

A review from England!, December 8, 2010

This is presumably aimed at black(ish) women. And the idea is to think how wonderful.

This was co-written by Hettie Jones, who apparently lives in Manhattan and seems to be a sort of professional black. It's impossible to tell how much of it is Rita Marley's own words.

The blurb says she was 'the mother of Bob's children'—a b/w photo shows eight of them, many by other women. This was after Marley's death in 1981 apparently by cancer after a toe injury—I have to say this sounds odd to me. His first recording 'One Cup of Coffee' was 1973; his total musical career was thus about eight years, much of it on the road. They started off selling and distributing their own records. I don't think they had much studio equipment. Thus for example Boney M's versions of No Woman No Cry are infinitely technically superior.

I *think* though this is hard to check that Marley appealed to the Jewish promotion industry—as with the NAACP (run by Jews) much of the promotion/ ad/ press. 'Four Hundred Years' fitted this. The actualities of deals and record promotion are missing from this book, as are the details about the 'Bob Marley Foundation' which she 'helps run' but the plain fact is advertising and legal stuff and collecting royalties and the rest is expensive. My guess is if he'd written songs on (say) Che Guevara and revolution he'd never have become famous.

Much of the book is about Jamaica of course but I found it rather hard to make sense of. One moment the place seems full of gunslinging political killers murdering each other, with starving prostitutes and drug addicts dotted about; then there are respectable homes, built admittedly in a shack style, with tasty market food and happy people. ('.. one of the best houses around.. 18A Greenwich Park Road, Kingston').

Marley kept an open house—though this may not have been by choice, as various more or less shady types tended to turn up looking for shelter or help or money.

Let's hope Rita wasn't ripped off too much—Marley died intestate and there were internal dislikes in the Wailers. Because of the wonders of recording, there are endless possibilities for exploitation: think of Jim Reeves—whose voice was recorded without backing, so he could be reissued endlessly after death; Elvis Presley and his film entanglements. Marley probably makes more money dead than alive now but the whole of this sort of thing is left rather mysterious.

She apparently lives in Ghana in a house she bought, driving a BMW I think.
Comment from 'Cowan Bellarmino' Aug 31, 2011

Interesting review. Your thought on his promoters is probably correct. He was signed with Island records, run by Chris Blackwell (dubbed "Whiteworst" by Peter Tosh) of sephardic jewish heritage, and the heir of the Appleton Rum estate. I find that interesting because of the obvious connections with the slave trade that rum and sugar production entail, and the prevailing message of much of reggae music. Blackwell did promote Bob to become a solo act, steering him to cast off Bunny and Peter, although incremental fame probably had a lot to do with that separation as well. Subsequently, he formed Mango records which released much of Bunny's first solo productions—more slices of the pie. My own sense is that Bob was exploited, perhaps in some degree willingly, by this promotional network that was very adept at molding his earnest message of black redemption to fit its own global strategy. Of note is that toward the end of his life, he was finally able, after many attempts, to become baptized into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. His earlier attempts at this were blocked by certain "Rastafarian" interests, who promised to cut his life short if he did that. A famous, international star becoming an Orthodox Christian would not only harm the promotion of Rasta (controlled by masonic and/or kabbalistic interests), it would also turn many of his fans onto something that was outside of the control system. This fact remains hidden to this day, and when the eventual Marley biopic is released, I'm sure it will be completely omitted.

While "One Cup of Coffee" was actually recorded in 1962, it's a modified cover of Dylan's tune "One More Cup of Coffee." The song was produced by a Chinese-Jamaican named Leslie Kong, who was a business partner of Chris Blackwell. A closer look at the promotional network that advanced folks like Dylan and Marley indeed yields some interesting results.

Top of Page
Review of   Robin Ramsay: Who Shot JFK?   (2007)
Robin Ramsay ran or edited a 'hardcopy' 'lefty rag' (his phrase), called Lobster. The link is to open copies of a Lobster website; I don't know if it still exists, or if Ramsay continued it, or even if he's alive. To my intense chagrin, much of this doesn't display; and in addition I wasn't able to install a site searcher to look only at Lobster's pages, which might have been useful in investigating 1983-2009 in Britain's shady corners. As far as I know, Ramsay thinks he's a Jew and lives in the ghetto parts of Leeds, no doubt keeping within his coterie real plots and crimes and lies, as people 'chosen by G-d' usually do.

This book—I have a pristine hardback plus dust-jacket—is nicely-produced and attractive; the only unattractive thing is the contents. Such books and newspapers are very hard to review. Imagine trying to review a collection of gossips, some of whom are secretly hired to tell lies.

Ramsay was perhaps unlucky: when his book was published, Miles Mathis was starting work on JFK, resulting in his paper barindex2.pdf (I have no idea why he called it that, or picked its odd title). His thesis is that JFK was not, in fact, killed; the whole thing was a hoax, along with plenty of others, such as the Tate and Manson stuff, and the secrecy over Lyndon Johnson being a Jew from Texas.

Ramsay wrote a few other books in the same series. Maybe they were Jewish-funded, as of course pretty much all public things are. I looked through this book, with a lacklustre eye: meagre index—nothing on Searchlight for example and nothing on Mossad, nothing on Jews, no reasons given for his selection of books, which have accumulated since 1963.
      One of his books (published in 2000) is Conspiracy Theories, still available in Amazon (it survived Amazon's purge of intelligent books—a bit of a red flag!) and I'd guess from the cover omitting Jewish things such as the Holohoax, science frauds, war frauds, money frauds. I could find no evidence that it had been updated to include 9/11.

The following is from my Lobster site; again I apologise the search engine isn't very good. (I wish techies could write...)
      Spycatcher (my review, which seems very good to me, is here) was published four years later than the start of Lobster, but the tenor of Lobster is somewhat similar: expose incompetence and crime, but do not mention the Jewish component. Another important technique is simply to print suggestive and inconclusive stuff, particularly on foreigners and on any shady enterprise where Jewish participation is hidden. 9/11 of course is a perfect example. I doubt whether any of the material in Lobster is of any value. Probably it was aimed at the conspiratorial types who used to read Private Eye, but who became aware that official views were not credible. Whether the principals and writers were aware of being controlled opposition is not known to me. Either way, it's a sad commentary on the ease with which more-or-less educated whites can be subverted.
      I contacted Robin Ramsay by email; he said he wanted nothing to do with this site. ...

I should add that some information, usually I think personal habits, organisations such as bookshops, people's colleagues, occasional leaks, money scandals, lifestyle glimpses, can have some fascination.

RW 12 April 2020

image   Review of Jewish science fraud   David Mairowitz: [Wilhelm] Reich for Beginners

Freudian Marxism—but—most important info about Reich is missing, December 8, 2010

Reich is little-known, not surprisingly as he achieved nothing much. His book 'Listen, Little Man' however was liked by some people whose views deserve respect. As far as I could find, it's not mentioned in Mairowitz and Gonzales' comic illustrations book.

The format is unusual and there's no reason for it not to work. I don't think it does here because, with tedious inevitability, this is just another Jewish/USA book. Throughout there's the usual stuff about Nazis, Hitler starting the war (in fact, Britain declared war on Hitler), omission of the effects of the First World War. In the USA, the Rosenbergs are referred to as 'so-called 'Atom-Spies'', Joe McCarthy is a baddy, and all the rest.

Reich was Austrian and resembled Freud in some of his ideas, notably the sex bits—'sexual revolution' I suppose being based on the 'Russian Revolution'. Reich seems to have made money as a therapist and author; all this is not very clear (and may not be known for certain, of course). Later in life Reich became a pseudo-scientist, in both biology and physics: for example he thought up an 'orgone accumulator'—like many people, he constructed beliefs around the word 'energy'. He devised what he apparently believed to be a rain making machine—this cartoon book implies that it worked, which cannot be correct. By this time he was in the USA, and there was FDA action against him; he felt and perhaps was a victim—it's hard to judge and the effort of ploughing through court transcripts is off-putting.

E Michael Jones states (Sept 2019) that Wilhelm Reich's ideas were aimed by that Jew, to damage the Catholic church in Austria. Roman Catholics were encouraged to engage in sexual activities; males and females as a result left the church, leaving a homosexual mafia.

Reich deserves a small book, but it would need a sympathetic understanding of Jews, wars, mass propaganda, science, and the psychology of getting science wrong. This book isn't it.

Top of Page
image   Review of Crowd psychology   W Trotter: Instincts of the herd in peace and war

Smug and agonisingly badly-written—evolution of groups—Germany and England, December 7, 2010

Wilfred Trotter was a surgeon (born in the same year as Bertrand Russell) who, coming up to 40, wrote about the 'herd instinct'. A few years later, these essays were incorporated into this book, published in 1916, before the USA came into the war. The title of course reflects the war. There was a second edition in 1919.

His essays may have been suggested by Gustave le Bon; but le Bon was enormously influenced by the French Revolution as it appears in conventional history, and usually regarded crowds as irrational and easily swayed, So this book is not just a nationalistic version in the way Sargant (British) ripped off an American author on 'brainwashing' and Korea. Trotter mentions Freud, then rather new, possibly because Freud was medically qualified too, distinguishing him (and other psychoanalysts) from ordinary medically-untrained psychologists. Trotter's writing style is agonisingly plodding, I'd guess as a gentlemanly badge—I'm sure he could easily have written in a more sprightly manner. He reminds me a bit of 'Theodore Dalrymple', a Jew, writing today, real name Anthony Daniels, a supposed expert wanting to step into a more general field.

Important note: Crowds play an important part in Jewish anti-goyim tactics. This is because Jews act as crowds, but in secret. So it's important to them to claim irrationality and violence to visible crowds, i.e. of goyim.

Trotter thinks 'herds' should be expected to have 'instincts' for evolutionary reasons. 'Herd' is perhaps an attempt to translate the Latin grex, from which 'gregarious' was coined—it's not meant in a pejorative sense. Trotter thinks one-celled creatures were limited evolutionarily; evolution into multicellular creatures allows evolution fresh scope. (He doesn't attempt to explain how organs developed, though). Trotter then extends this into herds, which have further scope—though it's not exactly evolution, since a herd doesn't reproduce itself. Some of his evidence comes from animals—not the vast range as deployed by Dawkins, but more domestic dogs, cats, bees, sheep, horses—and also, especially, wolves. (E.g. solitary herbivores could not exist, if they spent most of their time watching for predators). Some evidence is from human beings—mostly English and Germans. He does NOT discuss bringing up children, which surely is a good reason to develop groups—maybe he thought it's unmanly? Much of this is derived from Karl Pearson (who for decades has provoked shrieks of 'eugenics'). Trotter is unobservantly nationalistic: 'The nation, if the term be used to describe every organization under a completely independent, supreme government, must be regarded as the smallest unit on which natural selection now unrestrictedly acts'.

Interesting idea, but hard to develop. As regards people, Trotter regards self-preservation, nutrition, and sex as 'obvious instincts' but then adds gregariousness. There's obviously a problem with ingrained, but wrong, beliefs, so he includes 'suggestibility' as a factor. And he distinguishes 'stable minded' or 'socialized' people, typically military or religious types, who believe and do what they've been told, from the 'feeling' type who because of what they've experienced may not to.

Trotter, following Freud, regards the unconscious as a squalid, animal-like thing, which seems a bit unfair; if someone e.g. works hard through cold weather, and then makes him/herself comfortable in an animal way by warming up before a fire and eating—why should that be 'primitive'?

Trotter also doesn't seem to realise (this is from Leibnitz) that an unconscious is necessary, just as memory is, or you'd spend all your time just thinking the same thoughts over again.

He's also irrationally fierce on 'irrationality': 'He will have strong views upon military and naval strategy, the principles of taxation, the use of alcohol and vaccination, the treatment of influenza, the prevention of hydrophobia, upon municipal trading, the teaching of Greek, upon what is permissible in print, satisfactory in literature, and hopeful in science. The bulk of such opinions must necessarily be without rational basis, since many of them are concerned with problems admitted by the expert to be still unsolved, while as to the rest it is clear that the training and experience of no average man can qualify him to have any opinion upon them at all. The rational method adequately used would have told him that on the great majority of these questions there could be for him but one attitude—that of suspended judgment.'

He has a solution to irrationality: 'The solution would seem rather to lie in seeing to it that suggestion always acts on the side of reason; if rationality were once to become really respectable, if we feared the entertaining of an unverifiable opinion with the warmth with which we fear using the wrong implement at the dinner table, if the thought of holding a prejudice disgusted us as does a foul disease, then the dangers of man's suggestibility would be turned into advantages.'

---
ENGLISH VS GERMANS. Much of this book is on the difference between Germans and English (not British—the word barely appears). No doubt the readers liked it... England tends to be taken off guard by foreigners. Trotter regards wolves as highly organised, and thinks they take mad vicious risks when they're in pack mode—he doesn't see them as animals needing to eat. So the Germans are 'lupine'—and the fall of the Roman Empire, as taught in England, illustrates this. He says Germans (or Prussians) are nasty and punishing to their underlings; he doesn't seem to factor in such facts as English trenches being far worse than Germans—trench foot was commonplace; deserters were shot, and so on. He doesn't consider the geography of Germany as a relatively exposed vaguely-defined land area. He mentions Germany as having brilliantly won a series of small wars, without mentioning that Britain had done more of the same. He doesn't even mention, in the second edition (1919), that Britain didn't win on its own.

So all this is conventional and disappointing. And by Trotter's own criteria, Trotter had no right to any of these views!

---
There are a couple of famous bits -

MEETING SOMEONE NEW: 'When, therefore, we find ourselves entertaining an opinion about the basis of which there is a quality of feeling which tells us that to inquire into it would be absurd, obviously unnecessary, unprofitable, undesirable, bad form, or wicked, we may know that that opinion is a non-rational one, and probably, therefore, founded upon inadequate evidence'

THE DOG SNIFF TEST, quoted somewhere in Aldous Huxley: 'When one hears or takes part in these elaborate evolutions, gingerly proffering one after another of one's marks of identity, one's views on the weather, on fresh air and draughts, on the Government and on uric acid, watching intently for the first low hint of a growl, which will show one belongs to the wrong pack and must withdraw, it is impossible not to be reminded of the similar manoeuvres of the dog, and to be thankful that Nature has provided us with a less direct, though perhaps a more tedious, code.'

----
I'd intended to quote some more examples of Trotter's writing style, but on second thoughts they're simply too long. But take it from me—it's an endurance test. Scriptwriters who wanting a boring post-Edwardian interminable sermon-like speech, while the hero and heroine plan something exciting, might copy chunks of it.

This is a smug non-urgent book, by an author with no idea of the destructiveness and harm likely to result from war. It's quite sickening in that sense, in fact. However it is not aggressively nationalistic or warlike. I doubt if it sold more than a few tens of thousands.

Top of Page
image   Review of Junk political biography   Anthony Seldon: Blair Unbound

Fascinating to see lightweight journalistic trash, December 3, 2010

Fascinating to see what in effect is an official account of Blair. The sources are largely anonymous interviews and it's amusing to think of the rubbish deposited at the Bodleian. There are three authors listed overtly, and a dozen or more in the acknowledgements.

The author is a headmaster and 25 titles are listed since 1981, many jointly authored or edited books. In effect these books are ghosted by teams, and most input seems to be from journalists. The acknowledgements state that 'any profits will go to charity' and one suspects the whole thing was a funded job by pressure groups, probably NWO/ Bilderberg/ Labour Party/ Jewish groups.

The style was I think established by books on J F Kennedy: lots on clothes, food, arguments, interior decor, meeting places. Lots on personalities insofar as permitted. Nothing whatever on underlying military/ financial structure, establishment officials, banks and money, weapons.... Imagine a book on schoolboys educated in nothing much squabbling while the real actors make decisions elsewhere. That's this book.

What does it miss out? Well—it kicks off with 9/11 2001. The description says nothing of radar defences of the USA, airport manipulations, Silverstein. Rather amusingly shows the 'intelligence heads' and Blair watching TV. Nothing about WTC7 and the BBC. The implication is that Blair and the rest are innocent bewildered people overtaken by events, naturally enough the official version.

Without going into immense detail, the same sort of thing is true throughout the book. Kosovo for example has no mention anywhere of Muslims; probably Seldon knows nothing about them in any case. Iraq is represented as it might be by CNN or the BBC. David Kelly, probably murdered, isn't even in the index! Such things as the PFI scandals and for example 'academies'—an excuse for 'sponsors' to take public money—barely get a mention.

Throughout the time supposedly covered by this book, Britain and Europe were subject to what must be deliberate flooding by immigrants, an EU policy. The Human Rights Act was used as a pretext to allow this. Again, it isn't even indexed. There is establishment stuff on the EU—constitution, referendum etc—with no indication that any of the authors have a clue as to its likely impact—for example the closing down of Parliament and rule by unelected bureaucrats.

I bought this out of curiosity, remaindered for £4.99 about 18 months after it was published. It is utter trash. Britain has caught up with the plaster monument era of J F Kennedy.

Top of Page
Whos Who
Review (mostly) of Alex Comfort's Authority and Delinquency. A study in the Psychology of Power.
(1950 Routledge & Kegan Paul; paperback 1970, edited in unspecified ways, Sphere Paperback)
Could be a Jew in Crypsis. And/Or a Thoroughly Bamboozled Concerned Citizen.
The Writers Directory 2000
I've owned this book for years, but found it puzzling, and intend to review it here.

Comfort was born in 1920; and so aged about 19 when Churchill declared war with his French colleague. Who's Who says he 'Refused military service', but I have no other information on that. As his Who's Who entry (for 1948) shows, he seems to have regarded himself as a poet and novelist. He went to Highgate School, north London, and in my informed opinion probably thought of himself as a Jew. He had an unusually mixed education, in Classics and Sciences, then Pathology and Surgery—I haven't attempted to decipher his memberships or evaluate his results. His PhD was in mollusc shell pigments (no detail), and a D.Sc. in gerontology; he is supposed (Pelican book blurb) to have written a standard work in gerontology, but if so the title has evaded me. As he was medically qualified, he might have become a psychiatrist, and seemed to have implied he was; certainly psychoanalytical expressions pop up in his work. His first book on sex, Sex in Society, seems to have been published in 1963.

He is best known ("is remembered by" is a journalistic staple) for The Joy of Sex of 1972 or 1973 in hardback and paperback—depending on the country. Since then, production details have emerged—including the couple, the photographer, I presume the artist who converted photos to drawings, and information on Comfort, such as his nose-picking habit. He seems to have changed his image from prim and scholarly to hairy and Jimmy-Savile-like. He divorced in 1973.

Comfort wrote a large number of poems, plays, novels, screenplays (see the Writers Directory 2000 extract), but, judging by his style in Authority and Delinquency, these must have been heavy going.
      Comfort is sometimes described it terms such as 'a leading expert on the natural history of ageing and human sexuality'. I doubt if there's much truth in this. It's true he 'directed' some research groups. His underlying attitude seems to have been (from Nature and Human Nature 1966) '.. with six hundred teams clocking on daily in the USA alone to work on problems connected with ageing ... results should soon appear. ... [In] 1958, 1959 and 1960 the US Department of Health spent ... $4.5 M, $7.7 M, and $12.4 M on research projects in the field of age studies..' His books as far as I know quote from other authors, with nothing much in the way of critical enquiry. Medical training is mostly by rote. 'Gerontology' is something of a made-up neo-pseudo-specialisation, a composite of materials on people who have got old, rather than a study like embryology.

Comfort claimed variously to have been a pacifist and an anarchist, the latter being a common enough Jewish fake—as in Chomsky. This was a Spanish Civil War movement, supposedly successful; but if Chomsky supported it, clearly it was just another Jewish system for the credulous. Comfort's book on Authority is (see the exhaustive list) almost his only attempt at serious study of society. As a plausible guess, I'd expect Orwell's 1984 (of 1948) and Russell's first BBC Reith Lectures (delivered 1948, printed 1949) were significant seeds. And of course there was the end, or claimed end, of the Second World War, and the supposed invention of nuclear weapons, plus material on the 'Nazis' as the Jewish media always called them, the supposed horrors of concentration camps, the behaviour of Stalin (still alive), the 1948 war in Palestine. The UN, basically a Jewish-arranged outfit, was embarking on political activity.

I'd guess Authority and Delinquency was a flop—I can find little evidence of its making any impression, apart from in some feeble 'anarchist' apologetics. Archive.org has no downloadable version. Comfort himself could not have taken it very seriously—by 1970, he might have commented on both the Korean War and Vietnam War, and the supposed H-bomb, and the 1956 Hungarian revolution, but Comfort added nothing about them. A 1988 reprint has a short introduction, adding not much. Very little seems changed in the 1970 edition: the end-of-chapter bibliographies remain pre-1950 books; it was only by careful reading I could find anything suggesting updates. However, Comfort says he took out 'those passages which I now think were wrong'—and there may be many significant errors elided away. His successful sex book was a few years in the future; probably Authority and Delinquency was a pot-boiler aimed at a circle of his fans and promoted by the usual Jewish publicists.

The paperback blurb, I presume in the hardback version's jacket design too, sets the tone:
The government of a modern industrial state, backed by the police, the army, the media of communication, wields powers undreamed of one-hundred years ago.
The abuse of these powers by political opportunists, gangsters, psychopaths and authoritarian cliques pose a far more serious threat to society than the ordinary criminal.
This book is a pioneering attempt to apply the methods of criminology to the 'criminals in office'. It raises and answers a number of vitally important questions...
A few questions suggest themselves: even when these powers didn't exist, governments and other groups had powers, including making wars, famines, slavery, misery; is it in fact worse now, all in all? And: why did Comfort confine himself to governments?—what about organisations which span across many states? And: is there evidence that gangsters and psychopaths are worse than the common run of political schemers? And: did Alex Comfort in fact not only raise, but answer questions?

The book has only two parts: I DELINQUENCY and II THE STATE, with part I about twice the length of II. Comfort's approach is unusual, in looking at psychiatry rather than (say) law, or education, or control of money. Comfort seems undeterred by the fact that psychologists can't even get satisfactory definitions of mental states and their pathologies. However, it does allow a lot of sinister-sounding descriptions to be deployed—'aggressive egocentrics', 'fantasy delinquents', 'paranoid psychotics', 'aberrant personalities', trail through Comfort's chapters—but 'criminals' or 'prostitutes' or 'bombers' or 'offenders' may sound worse than the actual people.

The United Nations as a new religion. This idea only occurred to me as I wrote this review, influenced by the idea that Jews invented both Christianity and Islam for their own purposes. After winning the Second World War, Jews had endless money to fund both a new religion, and large numbers of believers, housed luxuriously in their new buildings in New York. Compared with Rome's miserable defeat, and the desert Arabs, this was unbelievable opulence.
      Comfort's introduction begins: In 1948 the Beirut conference of UNESCO initiated a large-scale international research team ... on the causes of international and intranational hatreds and tensions. ... [including] a study of the methods by which Fascism was established, and ... the presence of psychopathic or criminal elements in the government of states. ... followed by the inevitable unfocussed discursive comments on research, psychiatry, criminology, and the 'Unesco Tensions Project'.
      Note Comfort's assumption that 'Fascism' involved psychopaths or criminals, the omission of Jews, and the conference site, in Lebanon in 1948, where Jews were starting wars—as usual. The UN deserves study; and of course has an intimate connection with Jews—Ashley Montagu, real name Israel Ehrenberg, in effect a founder of 'anti-racialism', being a typical specimen. 'Anti-racialism', obviously something Jews never believed in, was a plank of the UN, in effect part of its new religion, intended to appeal to all races, except perhaps whites and Asians. My reviews include Gunnar Dahlberg and Martin Gardner as just two writers of the 'anti-racialist' dogma; Gunnar Myrdal was another.
      But as with other religions, Jewish control was never complete, and the equivalents of heretics and reformations and national orthodox variations would be expected. This 2011 forum exchange Understand UN and Israel looks at some few of the issues.

Comfort is very careful to distinguish 'delinquency' from 'crime'. I have to point out this is a typically Jewish trick, on the same lines as the Frankfurt School/New School of Social Research, 'Critical Theory', and all the rest of it. It's not defined well; Comfort's main example seems to be laws against homosexuality, and perhaps the death penalty—he seems unperturbed by huge wars, famines, mass thuggery, as his book title might suggest.
Alex Comfort on Crime:
Crime is the deliberate violation of a provision which the law upholds by threat of punishment. ... ‘The great leading rule of criminal law is that nothing is a crime unless it is plainly forbidden by law.’ [And much more].
Alex Comfort on Delinquency:
Delinquency ... is a name given by psychopathologists to those forms of behaviour disorder which manifest themselves in injury to others, or to society. [And much more]
There are difficulties here (why 'deliberate' violation? What about other types of legal structure? What about torts? What about conflicts of laws? ...). However, since Comfort's whole book is supposed to be about 'delinquency', the most important issue is deciding 'injury to others, or to society': who knows e.g. whether a murder might not benefit society? What if parts of 'society' are harmed, but others benefited? What about dead people; should they be considered? Comfort thinks crime is 'arbitrary' in its definition—rather in the way some student radicals described exams as 'random tests'.

As an example of mass delinquency, here is Alex Comfort on British governments:
[p 29] 'One very characteristic—indeed, defining—character of persistent criminals is their baffling ineducability by experience... their behaviour is compulsive. There is an analogous ineducability in government, among the advocates of 'strong' policies. ... successive British 'strong' men (not all of one party) ... [repeated] in Palestine, Cyprus, India and Suez the identical attitudes and errors which lost them Ireland, nor Marxists from repeating the aberrations of the Czars. ... these are examples of stereotyped behavior ... performed for ... immediate emotional satisfaction ... [with] unjustified self-confidence, total disregard for others and the substitution of vague objectives such as prestige or revenge for concrete gain...'
All this is transparent Jewish bullshit. Note for example that the entirety of the Second World War is omitted—Jews and their collaborators won it, so why discuss it? Comfort says nothing on eastern Europe, Eisenhower, Stalin and mass murder in the Jewish USSR, nothing on the 'Great War' for that matter. It's comical that he accuses others of 'ineducability'.

Comfort on 'Types of Leadership' and 'Aberrant Personalities':
[p 39] '... The idea of the 'collaborator' as a wartime phenomenon has no basis in fact—collaboration, in the derogatory sense, may originate in a masochistic delight in defeat, but a large part of it is the wartime counterpart of the normal executive status'
[p 42] '... the issues of foreign policy are increasingly imaginary—issues created so that they may be dramatised, crises requiring sensational acts of personal statesmanship, threats of an emotionally-satisfying kind to liberty or existence, the matter, in other words, of the film and comic book. ...'
[p 52] 'women prison offices—The terminal phase ... may perhaps be found in the records of the Belsen trial'
[p 54] 'A number of the fantasies of the first World War, such as the 'corpse factory' were actually realized by the combatants of the Second World War.'
[p 55] '... elderly company promoter ... suborned two thugs to decoy and murder a young man of whom he was jealous..' (No names or information; one of the very few presumably true stories)
[p 57] 'In extreme cases (Stalin and Beria's Russia and the CIA come to mind) one may end with a paranoid hard core, quite beyond policy control, flanked by a large force of borderline delinquents, informers, and double, treble or quadruple agents who may dismay their superiors by private enterprise spying or assassination. ...'
Comfort says odd things about what look like the Vichy area in France, and Quisling in Norway; but he may mean Jews in Poland—it's hard to know. His view of war declarations as dramas is true, though Comfort avoids comment on Jewish media control and its drumbeat of lies. He takes without the slightest effort of checking the propagandist versions of Germany. And Comfort seems to be taking the line, beloved of Jew apologists, that the USSR and CIA were out of control; it's a perfect cover for Jews in the USSR to pretend Stalin was untouchable, just as it's perfect cover for Kissinger and that type to pretend unawareness. His 'criminological investigation' is pure fantasy.
Comfort on War and the Corps d'Élite
[Pp 63-68] '... Operatic attitudes such as 'unconditional surrender' or 'massive retaliations', derived from exhibitionist leaders, supersede intelligent thought. ... Problems can be shelved and replaced by action or by appropriate gestures. ... The genuine fear and hatred of war under these conditions cannot hide its satisfactions. ... This ambivalence makes the threat of war and the promise of war two of the most important political forces of our time. ... It is essentially the socially maladjusted civilian who is happiest in wartime—his problems are shelved... the criminal can redeem himself ... the paranoiac is at grips with an enemy whom others beside himself recognize and revile. The adjusted individual finds his entire life disorganized ... Neither the German exterminations of Jews, nor the Allied massacre of enemy civilian populations, ... the two most ... serious group-delinquent manifestations of the second World War, were spontaneous. .. Public sentiment against war is and was traditionally strong in Britain and America, and was by no means absent in Germany. Elaborate trickery was ... required to reconcile public opinion ... the Pearl Harbor incident was manipulated ... and the change in American public opinion between 1939 and 1941 was unquestionably due in part to ... government pressure. A marked exception was the forcing of war upon the British Government in 1939 by a spontaneous public reaction, [after] widespread suspicion of complicity between British right wing thought and Nazi ideology. ... The replacement of Hitler by another less paranoid leader ... might have produced a marked change in the pattern of history. ... There is documentary evidence relating most of the calculated and indiscriminate war crimes to the invention and planning of individual psychopaths in office. ... Etc etc.'
Again, Comfort exudes an inconsistent and unevidenced news-gawper view of what was, after all, a hugely serious issue. He has no interest in detail. The desperate sadness of a population, often not well-off, in rented housing, coming from an economic depression, forced onto rations and living in tents, buffetted by unending official propaganda, urged on by Jew puppets of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, is not part of Comfort's outlook—they are mere goyim, who should sacrifice their lives and possessions to the master race.

Comfort's 'Remedies' at the end of part II includes a few pages on 'Revolution' and on 'World Government'. The first is a trot through conventional histories of the last few centuries plus some 'anarchist' sidelights. It is descriptive, but of course excluding Jews, money, and secret fomentations of revolutions, and invasion and control of weak countries. (Surprisingly, 1956 Hungary gets a sentence or two). But his chapter is no help to anyone. Somewhat to my surprise, Comfort comes out against World Government, on the grounds that four powers of so-and-so's can't be expected to be helpful. He favours enlightened public opinion which is willing to stand firm.

How much did Comfort know about Jews? Possibly the 1950 first edition had information cut out by 1970, including anything unfavourable to Jews. But it's not credible he could have been completely ignorant. If books were plants and animals, Comfort's would be a weed which flourishes by blotting out other plants while dying itself; or an underwater creature squirting opaque clouds to obscure the view of others; or a frantic embedded parasite desperate not to be exposed to public view. No wonder his work is largely forgotten, with the exception of his books on sex. I wonder if he was tempted to include arty sketches of a rabbi having sex with a three-year old girl.

Top of Page
Obituary   Denis Healey CH, MBE, PC (1917-2015) Review: Dec 4 2015
"Life is not a rehearsal" — luckily for Healey

As the Second World War (Winston Churchill's nomenclature) recedes into the past, the survivors can hardly help reassess its events as the assumptions and propaganda of the time fade from memory. If we take a British perspective, we might examine the people aged about 25 in 1945: one such is Denis Healey, a politician notable for coiffed eyebrows, an education mainly in the Greek and Roman classics, and a reputation for great intelligence despite his lack of knowledge of everything important to the modern world. He was somewhat in the mould of Tony Benn.

Healey's official posts were in 'Defence' (1964-1970), under Harold Wilson, just after the Cuba and J F Kennedy Jewish coups in the USA, and during the peak of bombing and genocide in Vietnam. And, again under Wilson, as 'Chancellor of the Exchequer', a picturesque title hiding the Jewish foundations of this role. Healey must have been groomed for such roles; he was ideally unqualified. He held no further cabinet posts: Thatcher shifted the Jewish focus to taking over British assets, as the Common Market morphed into the European Union and began imposing its entirely undemocratic Jewish worldview. I doubt if at any time Healey understood the world: in his youth he was in, or effectively in, the Communist Party: in other words, happy to be either a supporter of Stalinist mass murder, or a hater of Russia, or a subordinate of Jews. Whether he knew this, or preferred not to have doubts, must be in doubt. He never understood doubts about nukes or the 'Cold War'. As far as I know, he never understood or opposed the monstrous fraud of six million Jewish deaths: He was not exactly thuggish, but impervious to new views. I remember a TV appearance (probably BBC) in which a German WW2 army group was praised by a chap with an unfortunately high voice as excellent or first-class 'fighting men': Healey replied their record was 'well-known and excoriated'.

As the post-1945 world developed according to Jewish financial plans, Healey, like everyone, faced novelties: BBC television emerged from the chrysalis of BBC radio, with the oleaginous Richard Dimbleby exemplifying the covert Jews—funded with paper money, genetically programmed to lie, passing his poisoned chalice to his repulsive sons David and Jonathan. Myths such as the 'Labour Landslide', the honourable victory against evil Germans, and accurate reporting on budgets, were ideal for the new medium. The BBC was resolutely anti-intellectual: all reports are fronted by vacuous actors, reading their lines. Never by experts. My piece on the 'satirical' Private Eye tries to sum up post-1945 Britain.

Nick Griffin on the way the BBC mispresents serious news.
Jews won their Second World War. They got into their stride with a vengeance—a vengeance against any possible enemy. Eastern Europe and Russia were occupied or wastelands. The Holocaust fraud, as yet unnamed, was born. So was the fraud of 'atom bombs' over Japan. Both these things were hugely lucrative, paving the way to NASA and medical frauds, up to 9/11, which fifteen years later remains officially uninvestigated—unless you count a 'commission' under Kissiger— unpunished (plus of course many false flags, such as Tonkin, and many assassinations, the most notable being J F Kennedy). H G Wells's 'World Brain' did not appear for at least 50 years. Within a few years Elizabeth, a negligible intellect, was crowned. And 'Stalin', the masqued disguise of Jews, died, probably poisoned. American-ZOG bases spread around the world; so did Rothschild central banks; so did violence in Palestine; so did undeclared wars. And the start of Jewish transports of blacks into Britain, starting with the Jewish-owned MV Empire Windrush to London's port area.

There seems little point in tracing Healey's career from one low point to the next, up to his trips to the House of Lords to collect his attendance money and his 1989 (according to Wiki—I haven't checked) autobiography, The Time of My Life—hefty, thick, and I imagine (I haven't read much of my 'used' copy) laughably naïve. He seems to have managed just one mot juste, or whatever the phrase equivalent is: "Life is not a rehearsal." (I've just remembered another oratorical triumph: he described an attack by Geoffrey Howe as like being "savaged by a dead sheep").


Wikipedia says Healey 'was succeeded by Roy Hattersley' (b 1932, not quite the next generation), giving his full title as: the Right Honourable the Lord Hattersley, Baron Hattersley FRSL, PC. As with Healey, an alphabet soup of state-bestowed distinctions accumulated, as worthless as African PhDs and Nobel 'Peace Prizes' and TV appearances with David Dimbleby. Hattersley divorced after 57 years of marriage to marry his Jewish literary agent in 2013, though one wonders whether Internet writings have displaced his 'golden mediocrity'. (I quote the Occidental Observer on Hattersley, and Healey - https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/12/let-them-eat-cake-the-army-of-fanatics-at-the-heart-of-europ - which prompted this review as thoroughgoing and complete un-democrats. The author is the first person I've seen to describe the 'Labour Party' as a criminal conspiracy in disregarding the voters' views and disregarding crimes such as rape of whites, in a similar way to the 'Bolsheviks' whom I doubt many people would regard as a 'political party').


Healey probably never had any sort of genuine socialist feeling. From his early years, Jewish propaganda in the UK had been overwhelming. Healey did not begin to have the independence of mind needed for intellectual appreciation of the world. Ben Pimlott's 1992 book Harold Wilson said (I quote from Lobster, a supposed inside mag on spies and politicians, which is either Jew-unaware or a front for Jews: '... Labour politicians after the Second World War, for whom Oxford was an entry-ticket into the governing class, if they were not members of it already. Hugh Gaitskell, Douglas Jay, Richard Crossman (all New College), Frank Pakenham [later Lord Longford], Patrick Gordon Walker, Christopher Mayhew (at Christ Church), Denis Healey and Roy Jenkins (at Balliol [College in Cambridge]) shared staircases and ate dinners from their very first term with well-connected, well-off young men who already had a confident view of their own place in the world. ... ' The Labour Party was supposed to have been funded mostly by Trade Unions, though I suspect this was a misdirection; certainly, now, the 'Labour Friends of Israel' must loom large. (I'd guess confidently Corbyn now is just fake opposition, a double-act with fellow Jew Cameron). Later in Healey's life, here's another extract from a Lobster book review, revealing Lobster and of course most commentators' utter failure to understand Jewish money and frauds:– 'Before his well known roles as Minister of Defence and Chancellor of the Exchequer (during the Tory-induced inflation of the late 1970s), Healey was a central figure in the Anglo-American defence establishment, an intellectual who knew enough to talk and write about NATO policy and nuclear strategic theory, not just deliver briefings.' Lobster's 'Tory-induced' comment is part of the mythology of politics then: Healey's role probably was to support genocide in Vietnam (with Jewish-provided reasons to hide their money-making) and to support capital flows in a Jewish direction. Probably post-war 'Labour' had some sort of secret agreement not to mention Jews; there was no publicity for repayments of war loans to Jews, or Jewish control of marketing boards and trade, or Jews and the IMF and World Bank, or of course paper money.

What part Healey played in MI5's claimed attacks on Wilson are not yet known; I would guess there were a few honest Brits, perhaps (who knows) influenced by the King David Hotel, or by 1956 Hungary, or the subjection to the Fed. Healey (according to Jon Ronson, quoting Healey) 'created' the Bilderbergers in 1954 (the same year as Dien Bien Phu), with Joseph Retinger, David Rockefeller, and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Healey wrote in praise of Bilderberg, but with a complete absence of any traditional socialist feeling. Obviously enough, Jews after the Second World War's official endings must have fished about for collaborators, and people in the 'Labour Party' with their internalised feeling of being on the indubitably correct side, plus their officially-sanctioned 'good' education and social-climbing ambitions, and the endless paper money in the background made available as a series of pleasant surprises, plus the free availability of BBC publicity, must have made a 'no-brainer', in the silly slang of more recent years. And in addition, the exciting goad of being in on a criminal conspiracy. An unexamined aspect of all this is the Civil Service: the 'servants' in effect have life tenure; at the time there were few careers—perhaps teaching— offering such security. There have been very few exposures of their mistakes and incompetence. But the battles and manipulations with Healey must have been profound, though perhaps like the blind leading the deaf. The Bilderbergers must have marvelled at the gullibility of the parade of goys. And their purchasability. Anyway; let's stop there. Healey is as dead as a napalm victim.

Top of Page
image   Review of Biography of war leader   David Irving: Churchill's War part 2

Essential—one of the three (or I hope four) books needed to comprehend World War 2, December 3, 2010

Second part of a trilogy—part three despite being promised for 2007 seems not to exist yet; Irving has been hounded out of house and home, partly as a result of his disastrous libel lawsuit, partly as a result of further state and personal actions against him.

This huge volume deals with, roughly, 1941 to 1943, the period when the war existed between Britain and Germany, but, as with the First World War, the USA stayed out at first. Consequently there's not much on the Battle of Britain, or on the Allies invading Europe, but a great deal on Roosevelt and war by Japan in China, as well as North Africa and Rommel, France and de Gaulle (including information on torture), and of course Stalin. The book is well-indexed, and also of course has detailed notes, one of the trademarks of Irving. There's a colour plate section of posters, portraits, documents, and black and white photographs of generals and airmen and personal material, including Churchill's family, and a British crowd applauding him. A double-page photo shows Churchill in 1943, with a general, in north Africa, with a sea of troops in shorts—not unlike trusting sheep...

Irving pays a lot of attention to the physical appearance of his books—sections marked off by colophons, small caps at the start of subsections, quite elaborate typography. The jacket and notes include comments on attempts to silence him, and the generally shabby piracy of his earlier volumes by inferior researchers. Personally I'd prefer the chapter names to have been less pun-filled—just my taste though.

The mass of detail allows material to be extracted on, for example, restricted information. Here's an incomplete list:-

'... Dr Hans Lammers, chief of the Reich chancellery, had phoned to inform him that the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, had *repeatedly* ordered the solution of the Jewish problem 'postponed until after the war was over.' This did not suit Kempner at all, and when the file was returned to the document centre this particular photostat was missing...'

'... the 1,600 glass plates, on which Goebbels had had the diaries filmed for safety, were discovered by the Goebbels Diaries expert Dr Elke Froehlich in March 1992. ... The conditions in these archives in Moscow's Viborg street were, it must be said, challenging: Soviet archives were designed for keeping things secret, and the very notion of a public research room was alien to them. ...'

' ... On the instructions of the minister of the interior, on July 1, 1993 the archives [i.e. Bundesarchiv's federal archives] banished me forever from their halls, without notice, two hours before the conclusion of my seven years of research on this subject. ... As one consequence, evidently unforeseen by the German government, the Bundesarchiv has had to return to England its 'Irving Collection,' half a ton of records which I had deposited in its vaults for researchers over the last thirty years. These include originals of Adolf Eichmann's papers, copies of two missing years of Heinrich Himmler's diary, the diaries of Erwin Rommel, Alfred Jodl, Wilhelm Canaris, Walther Hewel, and a host of other papers not available elsewhere. ...'

'... The files on Anglo-Japanese relations for September and October 1941 are still closed. The prime minister's 'Japan' files for December 1941, and for January and February 1942, are missing, as is the entire 'Japan' file from Eden's papers. ...'

'... for many years the prime minister's November 1941 file of cables and messages to President Roosevelt was also closed. Even now there are gaps: There are indications that Churchill sent one or even two as yet unreleased messages to Washington after one that we shall meet later as his 'thin diet' telegram of November 26. That date was unquestionably a turning point in the crisis. ..'

' .. That diplomatic historians never once bothered in thirty years to visit the widow of Joachim von Ribbentrop's state-secretary Ernst von Weizsaecker, father of the subsequent West German president, was a baffling mystery to me. Had they looked for the widow of Walther Hewel, Ribbentrop's liaison officer to Hitler, they would have learned about his diaries too. And who are these over-emotional historians of the Jewish tragedy who, until I did so, never troubled themselves even to open a readily available file of the SS chief Heinrich Himmler's own handwritten telephone notes, or to read his memoranda for his secret meetings with Adolf Hitler? ...'

'... Hess was forbidden to speak about the past. His letters were censored, his daily diary regularly destroyed. Aged ninety-four, he outlived Churchill and his entire cabinet, as well as all the Nuremberg judges and defendants. ...'

' ... the contemporary R.A.F. court of inquiry [into Sikorski of Poland's death] contains some weaknesses which, if it were published, could be embarrassingly exploited. ...'

' ... Churchill masterminded a slew of 'dirty tricks' designed to help Roosevelt to stir up public feeling. Most of the British files on these are still sealed, but some episodes are known ...'

' ... It seems that there are items of Churchill-Roosevelt correspondence which, if not lost or destroyed, are still awaiting release. These were just some of the two or three hundred signals which Sir William Stephenson's organisation in the U.S.A. passed each week via the radio station of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) to the Secret Intelligence Service (S.I.S.) in England, using a code readable only by the British. (Stephenson was director of 'British Security Co-ordination,' with headquarters in New York.) Some items have now reappeared, having been removed from the three depositories of Churchill papers ...'

' ... the key Japanese intercept which we shall meet on the way, known to historians as the 'winds-execute' signal, has disappeared from all wartime American files, thereby relieving certain generals (including George C. Marshall, Leonard T. Gerow, and Walter Bedell Smith) of the need to explain why nobody at the highest levels had paid heed to it. ...'

' ... Suffice it to remark that American historians have signally failed to spot the evidence of high-level falsification in their own archives. ...'

A lot of Vichy material is closed: '... One aspect of [operation] Torch worried Eisenhower. His country was about to launch an unprovoked attack on Vichy France, which was technically a neutral and a country with which they maintained friendly diplomatic relations. As General Eisenhower would later write, it met every criterion of a crime against international law, unless some way could be found of persuading the French to invite the Americans to invade ...'

' ... Even now, parts of the F.O. [British Foreign Office] file are closed until the year 2016 and all the papers relating to Rougier and the Churchill-Petain deal have been physically removed by the British government from the late Lord Halifax's papers. ...'

' ... For a historian born that very day, when the British empire was at its greatest influence and extent, it is truly baffling to review the archives and compare the specious estimates of Hitler's aims and capabilities in the British records with what is revealed by the German archives. The former are strewn with the distortions of Britain's foreign-policy-making elite, inspired by hatred of Germany imbibed with their mother's milk decades before the Nazis and their atrocities. These men have created legends of magisterial permanence. The legends pollute the history books and have a charm and existence of their own, devoid of any foundation in the archives. ...'

To understand the Second World War, Irving on Hitler, and his two Churchill volumes, plus, if/when it is published, the third on Churchill, probably render other books redundant, except perhaps to dip in and marvel at the sheer magnitude and perseverance of liars and lies, their deceit and self-deception, and the cowardice and corruption and violence of the 20th century.

Top of Page
image   Review of Spy thriller   Stella Rimington: At Risk

It's terrifyingly possible that 'intelligence' people really are like this..., December 1, 2010

The basic outline is: 34 year old woman graduate (subject unspecified) settled for a career in 'intelligence'. As with (say) a vicar's wife, she permits herself no troubling questions on her career choice. This story essentially has a male Afghan, family wiped out by US war criminals—not the author's phrase—who seeks revenge by trying to bomb a US baddie. To do this, he passes 36 hours crossing the North Sea from Germany, teaming up with a woman. Together, they make a bomb with ingredients easily bought in any high street. Their bomb isn't powerful enough to cause enough damage though, and by then they're both dead.

We're asked to believe in intelligence people without satnavs, communicating by roadside phones. And a service station deeply worried about thefts, installing CCTV which isn't good enough to record number plates. And an entire turnout—helicopters, police, armed police, army personnel—a whole galaxy of economically unproductive people in fact. Just to detect two people.

The plot reminds me slightly of Lord of the Rings from the opposite perspective: why not just send an eagle or two and drop the ring down the crack? In the case of this book, why not get some local person—the woman on her own would do—to do a bit of shopping and also do some work on where to plant the bomb?

There are a few human touches in the book—notably an account of the hero's family getting wiped out. Another human touch—not perhaps the author's intention—was Anthony Blair, quoted as saying he didn't want rivalry between the various Services: '.. in her ten years, Liz could not remember such unflinching unanimity'—contrasting ludicrously with the described events. It's entirely plausible that Blair was ignored. Another thing is the indirect portrayal of various well-heeled types. Those of us with genuine interests will I expect find these characters' vacuous lives jaw-droppingly antihuman.

Something I found absurd was the female baddy saying "the British will never give up" if someone is murdered. Tell that to Kriss Donald's family! Incidentally the baddy white woman is subject to attempted psychoanalysis: her family split up; she took magic mushrooms; she is 'maladjusted'. Anything except legitimate revenge.

Years ago I read that girls in school always describe clothes; boys never do. Or never did, in those days. It's striking how much detail of clothes, and things like perfume, there is. Also there's a sort of 'appearanceism'—most of the criminals and baddies look nasty. Most of the male intelligence persons look distinguished and personable. Like many women Rimington hasn't decided on her heroine's attitude to sex; most of the males are presented as more or less lecherous or flirty, but this wouldn't do for her, would it?

By the way, the ITS = 'Islamic terror Syndicate 'Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the myriad others..' I do hope this novel isn't representative of 'intelligence' services, though I fear it is.

The overwhelming impression is the sheer irresponsibility of these self-contained, self-perpetuating, organisations. On the plus side, I found only one typo.

Top of Page
Review of Klaus Schwabe & Thierry Malleret: COVID-19 and the Great Reset (1920)
I downloaded this free PDF document about a year ago, but then found it had disappeared. I suspect the two names are aimed at Swiss-German and Swiss-French readers.
      Uncertainty over the COVID fraud, which may still be limping on, I thought I'd reconstitute it here, plus a description from Miles Mathis site, which in fact has an account of Schwabe's ancestry&mdas;including his family's 400-year occupation of a chunk of Swiss land, dating from before the founding of the USA, and apparently paid for by the European disaster of the Thirty Years' War. Plus an anonymous review, which says much the same as I would have said. (Both these files open in new tabs).

For my taste, the use of the word 'fascism', as something like a synonym for something nasty, isn't quite right: 'fascism' was founded by the Romans on the idea that bundles of sticks are collectively strong, which is true enough—given some conditions.
      It's uncertain to me what the 'World Economic Forum'—founded by Schwab—believes; Schwab apparently has degrees in engineering, and in economics, but not history or biology or language(s). Could it be that Schwab is feeling his age, and wishes to make an impression, as perhaps Charles is? And how much belief do they have in the reality of Global thermal runaway and 'the pandemic'? It's uncertain to me what the 'World Economic Forum' believes (though they like drawing lessons from the 'Black Death'); could it be that Schwab is feeling his age, and would like to make an impression, as perhaps Charles is? Is he being lied to by money-makers spinning him stories? And how much belief do these people really have in the reality of Global thermal runaway and 'the pandemic'? Do they worry that the 'Golden Age of Jews' looks shaky?

RW   5 Nov 2022


Top of Page

image   Review of Economics BBC lies   Robert Peston: Who Runs Britain? And Who's to Blame for the Economic Mess We're in?

Worthless unintelligent innumerate BBC-style flannel from a hack, November 30, 2010
**LONG REVIEW WARNING!**


This book was published in Feb 2008, written, according to the flyleaf, by the BBC's 'award-winning' Business Editor. Among other things, he had the 'Scoop of the Year on Northern Rock seeking emergency help from the Bank of England' which must mean only that they told him first; I wonder why...

It has ten chapters with childish titles (e.g. 'The King of Jackpot Capitalism')—a mixture of human interest drivel—either to hide Peston's ignorance, or to give the audience something easy, or to simply evade the truth.

1 Starts with his autobiography—an ordinary Jewish boy (he notes without comment his ex-school is now largely immigrant|). There's scattered information—his parents, the post-WW2 world, non-dom and wealthy entrepreneurs, tax havens, capital movements, Indian steel, China, executives' pay. Almost all is unsourced, though sometimes the Financial Times or Times or some magazine ('an analysis in Prospect magazine'). He claims to believe the usual conventions on entrepreneurs and performance-related pay (except one must assume for BBC hacks, of course). Obviously there are thousands of relevant people; the choice no doubt is made for him by editors and scribblers and publicity-seekers.

2 Borrowing: goes through the general idea of company takeovers using borrowed money, by comparison with house prices bought on mortgages, in a time of rising prices—he gives no explanation of why these should be rising. He comments (p56) that Gordon Brown confused US 'venture capital' (putting money into promising typically high tech start-ups) with a British sense (putting money into asset-strippers etc).

3 and 4 deal mostly with Philip Green who bought a chain of clothes shops and made money by improving them; or something like that. (He was knighted 'for services to the retail industry'). His strength seems to be that he knew the business thoroughly—letters of credit, warehousing buying from China, cancelled orders etc—if only civil servants were knowledgeable. Chapter 4 looks at an attempted takeover of Marks and Spencer. I have to assume Peston's book came out in a hurry as all this material is anecdotal and essentially of its time.

5 'Poison Manufacturers'—a chapter of random bits and pieces about Robert Shiller's book 'The New Financial Order' on e.g. unlikely schemes such as insuring against house price falls, and more significantly reducing the gap between wealthy and 'developing' nations [except in Palestine?] China, Japan, oil and gas are listed as great exports though none are quantified. One figure quoted is $600bn of sub-prime mortgages as 'toxic debt'; however even if people borrow too much, after throwing them out some value is recoverable—typically, Peston makes no attempt to quantify this.

6 is largely on Goldman Sachs (almost as an anthropology subject—omitting one fact), and JP Morgan. The City of London—330,000 people—is said to be 'astonishingly productive' although of course what it actually does is unstated. Peston quotes a few facts, or perhaps factoids: (p204) ten hedge-fund managers in 2006 earned more than $500M says 'Alpha', presumably a magazine. A German paper, Bild, (p210) says they are 'like a plague of locusts .. devour everything, then fly on..'. P 215 has a conflict of interest—the holding funds don't want the companies they own to outperform themselves.

7 Pensions: long chapter bemoaning the way Britain's pensions have been under long-term attack. The long account is unsourced, and its impossible to know how reliable it is. Just as the Tories changed the definition of 'unemployed' to suit themselves—20 times? 30 times?—the laws on pensions and things like tax relief, % limits on contributions, inflation linking or not, tax credit, ACT, valuing of the liabilities have been changed so often by Lawson and Brown and others—quite apart from the ONS getting things wrong—that the subject is highly confusing; very probably intentionally.

8 'Democracy for Sale' is mostly about Levy, fundraiser for the 'Labour' Party—as it's still called—but also the Conservatives. Including not declaring loans—if they expect their money back, it's not really a gift, is it? It's impossible to know how reliable this material is. Tagged on is material on cash for honours. As an example, Gulam Noon is quoted, supplying 120,000 packaged meals a day to Sainsburys [a supermarket chain]. These are designed say Peston for immigrants—for some reason Peston fails to mention that taxpayer's' money for housing, expenses, health, and benefits and presumably barbaric slaughter methods, with standard industrial equipment did all this; Peston typically regards this as wonderful.

9 Royal Mail (the Post Office—renamed Consignia for a bit) was reorganised by Allan Leighton. Peston duly notes that he swore sometimes and gets up at 5 a.m.

10 Who runs Britain?—Well—whoever it is hasn't told Peston!

It's hard to criticise unresisting imbecility, but let me list a few things:---

** Naturally as with all subjects trying to evade scrutiny inspection Peston uses the elaborate junk vocabulary—'tax efficient', 'wealth creator', 'stakeholder'—you can imagine.

** (p171) 'financial products whose dangers were misunderstood'—175 'hard for regulators to work out which hedge funds, or pension funds, or insurers, or banks are actually holding the instruments'. Peston does NOT address the issue of why banks charge low rates of interest on risky matters. Reorganisation mightn't work; bag of miscellaneous loans might fail. It seems likely that there must have been collusion. 'Private Eye' ran a piece in about 1975 called 'Pension Fun' on tricks used by pension funds holders to get money on the side. Another likely issue is the Rothschild money printing aspect of things and the Bank of England/ Fed. (Peston makes no mention of 'Quantitative easing'). There's amusing material on Standard and Poors, to the effect they pleaded in court they were only giving a journalistic opinion on AAA style judgements. Substandard and Poor, indeed.

** Like all hacks, Peston has no imaginative comparisons. Consider for example average North American/ European people. They don't (or didn't) pay much attention to things like drink and cigarettes and junk/spree spending; say £100/year isn't really noticeable. If you put the adult population at say 800M, this amounts to £80 billion a year. The 'entrepreneurs' might be regarded as hoovering up spare change in obsessive mode; this sort of approximation is important to avoid silly panics.

** As an example, chapter 9 on the Royal Mail reorganisation states it was losing about £1M each day. Say, in a year, getting on for half a billion. Is that a lot? Well, that's about what is 'paid' in 'free' legal advice to 'asylum seekers', all of whom have broken the law about travelling to the 'next safe' country. Peston thinks in his simple-minded way that 30,000 'redundancies' (i.e. firings) and 3,000 or so Post Offices closed was worth that. Recently, some energy company (i.e. holding company that had been sold some of Britain's utilities) made £8bn reported profit—enough to keep post office open 25 years. It's also about a third of the value of homes given to immigrants in one year—not counting the free services

** Peston says nothing about contributions to the EU—with its accounts not signed off; I've seen a figure of net $6bn, but wouldn't swear to it. The cost of wars, de-industrialisation, financing Indian steel and space and airports (Britain gave a steelworks to India; and also paid for an entire supermodern airport). The cost of the 'global warming' fraud—supported by the BBC, incidentally—the cost of selling off utilities, the astronomical costs of immigration are all ignored by Peston.

** It's perhaps worth making a wry note on 'charitable' giving. For example on 'academies'—where a huge building is given in exchange for a fraction of its value. 'AIDS' work is another notorious fraud. I noticed (p202) £1M for a 'Lib Dem think tank' run by 'Jennifer Moses, a retired Goldman Sachs banker'.

Peston appears to still 'work' for the BBC. He should be out of a job and his 'pension' removed surgically.

Top of Page
image   Review of Evolutionary biology   Richard Dawkins: Ancestor's Tale

'Meme pool' collected from Darwinian biologists and others (but pre-Darwinian social awareness), November 26, 2010

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

Top of Page
image   Review of Evolutionary biology   Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition--with a new Introduction by the Author

Muddled morass with trademark PC plagiarism, November 25, 2010

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

Top of Page
image   Review of Century-old socionomy futurology   Bertrand Russell: The Impact of Science on Society

Future of Mankind as affected by Science. Very wide (but flawed) survey, October 25, 2010

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

Top of Page
Review of Bertrand Russell   Human Society in Ethics and Politics (published in 1954)

Collection of Essays on the Theory and Practical Application of Ethics. BUT freighted with Ethics from Christianity, and Cold War and Other Wrong 'Useful Idiot' Assumptions.
All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)

Top of Page


Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare stored elsewhere


Dear Bertrand Russell Searle cartoon   Review of Bertrand Russell   Bertrand Russell: Dear Bertrand Russell: Selection of His Correspondence with the General Public, 1950-68


Barry Feinberg - Bertrand Russell was a dupeRonald Kasrils, fake Jew, pretending to be South African Bertrand Russell's post-WW2 postbag, through Jewish filter, October 24, 2010/ Jan 21, 2014

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

Top of Page
image   Review of Bertrand Russell   Bertrand Russell: War Crimes in Vietnam

Vietnam—some of the (very repellent) truth by a very skilful writer, October 18, 2010

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

Top of Page
  Review of Science, Technology and China   Joseph Needham: China: The Grand Titration: Science and Society in East and West

Disappointing—disjointed lectures & articles, often not to the point, October 15, 2010

I have a copy (sold to me fifteen years ago by a public library) of Needham's 'Science and Civilization in China'—5 volumes of 27 sections. Sections 1-7 are all in volume 1, and give an overview of the history and geography of China, the travel of ideas to Europe, pseudo-science (including Feng Shui), and so on. Needham began in 1938, and grew more ambitious, or perhaps gained Chinese collaborators; at any rate my edition has five separate books, but two of these, including the fattest, are volume 4. The final section, 27 at that time, dealt with mechanical engineering. The book is well illustrated both with line drawings and monochrome plates on art paper. I believe more sections have been added subsequently.

'The Grand Titration' is a tremendous disappointment. I'll explain why in bullet-point style:-

** The title is misleading. Titration—Needham states in his footnote that everyone does chemistry these days—is a precise process, involving a drop-by-drop check on a chemical reaction. The title suggests the book is a detailed comparison of China with the rest of the world. But it's not so; this book has eight chapters, each of which is a lecture, paper, or contribution to a collective book. Written between 1946 and 1964, they simply don't belong together. 'On Science and Social Change' and 'Science and Society in Ancient China', 'Time and Eastern Man', 'Human Law and the Laws of Nature' illustrate the type of thing.

** Rather few examples recur throughout the book, no doubt because they struck Needham as important. These include: efficient horse harness, iron and steel, mechanical clock, 'the standard method of converting rotary to rectilinear motion', segmental arch bridges, and the Cardan suspension—yes, I had to check what that was. Also the equatorial sky co-ordinate system. And the three Baconian things—paper, magnetism, and gunpowder.

** The latter three in particular need more treatment, which Needham does not give. Paper—but what about Egypt? Magnetism: Needham pays great attention to the angle of dip of magnets—but, if you're trying to navigate, who cares? As for gunpowder, it's a complicated thing, involving extracting nitrates from urine (not that they knew that) and discovering carbon and sulphur burnt fast with it, and give off what we'd call gases; it's really several inventions, plus empiricism.

** Another Chinese claim is the seismograph; they made them first. And yet why would Europeans want seismographs? Europe is fairly stable geologically—but when it isn't it's been catastrophic, so careful measurements seem a bit pointless.

** Needham has a persistent tendency to be hyper-theoretical. His account of scientific method virtually ignores empiricism, and yet for most of human history people very much depended on straight observation: why do people eat? What is disease? Why does brown ore with coal give iron?—these are some of countless questions which have only been answered for a couple of hundred years, if that.

** Needham seems unable to simply describe things; he follows the wretched Marxist-type tradition of arms-length dislike plus silly criticism. He doesn't make it clear if 'alchemy' in China means the same as 'alchemy' anywhere else. 'Feudalism' of course ditto, and the 'oriental mode of production'. There's a lot of material on Confucius, Taoism, Mohism, plus sundry ancient Greek philosophers, and more recent Europeans; but there are no very helpful comparisons. Despite the fact that China never had a full money system, he uses the idea of 'capitalism' without analysis of finance—a 20th century tradition of course—don't mention the Jews. There are other influences—'bureaucracy' for instance which surely couldn't be the same as the European version. There's also a great deal of material on science (Needham, and his brother, started as biochemists), but this is contaminated with then-contemporary material which may or may not turn out to be science—particles vs waves, for example, and Einstein worship.

** Needham introduces irrelevancies at great length; he's a generous-minded internationalist and anti-'racialist', very like Russell in his appreciation of the Chinese. He says 'each people enters the modern world with its own offering of thought..' which even if untrue is a nice thought—but it's irrelevant to the main issues.

** Needham does not discuss important issues sufficiently! On time, Needham says almost in passing, that Chinese artefacts were meticulously dated, and there are 25 dynastic histories written from about 90 BC through 1736. I believe there are very many older writings, too—which sounds far more impressive than Europe with the Doomsday Book and Rolls etc. Similarly: Needham mentions in one essay that the idea of a civil service goes (or went) deeper in China than anywhere else—even fairy stories ended with the heroin marrying a mandarin or 'bureaucrat'. He comments somewhere that stories about heroic water engineers are peculiar to China (heavy rain needed contours, canals, flood controls—in fact China was hard to invade because of canals). And that the only investment was land purchase, so bureaucrats did that until the proportion of tenant farmers was dangerously high.

Some of these comments may appear a bit philistine. All I can say is—you'd have to read it to see. A great opportunity wasted. I'm tempted to give 2 stars, or even 1, but defer to the sheer erudition quotient.

NB I'm assuming the reprint is unchanged!

Top of Page
Against the Crime of Silence is NOT the book I've scanned in. The 1968 book, published by OHare Books, with a brown cloth cover, is difficult to obtain, and I haven't found the full contents. No doubt this is typical Jewish memory-holing. However archive.org included an apparently un-downloadable version, which can be 'borrowed' for a limited time, but at least I can post the contents list here:

ix, 662 pages 21 cm

"Proceedings of the Russell International War Crimes Tribunal, Stockholm, Copenhagen."

Includes bibliographical references

Introduction / Bertrand Russell
  -- Foreword / Ralph Schoenman -- Editor's Preface / John Duffett -- To The Reader -- Aims and Objectives of the Tribunal -- Personnel of the Tribunal -- Exchanges of Correspondence with Heads of State -- Message from Bertrand Russell to the Tribunal -- Jean Paul Sartre's Inaugural Statement -- Opening Statement to the First Tribunal Session / Bertrand Russell -- Statement of the President of Sessions -- Trial of Japanese War Criminals -- Tokyo 1946-1948 / Jean Chesneaux -- Summary of Historical Report / Professor Gabriel Kolko -- American Intervention in Vietnam -- 1945 to 1964 / Jean Chesneaux -- Historical Report on U.S. Aggression in Vietnam -1964 to 1967 / Charles Fourniau -- International Law and the Military Draft, testimony / Stanley Faulkner -- Summary of a Juridical Report / Samuel Rosenwein -- Juridical Report on Aggression in Vietnam / Japanese Legal Committee -- Report from Cambodia / Bernard Couret -- Report from Cambodia and North Vietnam testimony / Tariq Ali -- On Cambodia / Mme. Rena Kahn -- Testimony on Cambodia / Wilfred Burchett -- Questioning of a Khmer Mercenary -- Extracts from a Summary Report on the Bombing of the Civil Population in the North / Abraham Behar -- Non-Military Targets and Methods of Attack / Y. Ishijima -- Bombardment of Civilians in North Vietnam / John Takman, Axel Hojer -- American Bombing in North Vietnam / Jean Michel Krivine -- On the Destruction of the Leprosarium of Quinh Lap / M. Francis Kahn -- Report on Civilian Bombardment / Professor S. Kugai -- Report from North and South Vietnam / Marta Rojas -- Extracts from the Testimony of Alejo Carpentier -- Investigations of U.S. War Crimes in Vietnam / Lawrence Daly -- Report on American Bombing of North Vietnam / Ralph Schoenman -- Report on Bombing of North Vietnam /Charles Cobb and Julius Lester -- Effects of the Aggression Against the DRV on Public Health / Roberto Guerra -- Testimony and Medical Report of Vietnamese Victims Examinations of Wounded from U.S. Bombing / Henrik Forss -- Report on the Destruction of Dikes: Holland 1944-1945 and Korea 1953 / Professor Gabriel Kolko -- Significance of the Destruction of Dikes in North Vietnam / Professor Fujio Yamazaki -- Some Facts on Bombing of Dikes / Professor Makato Kandachi -- Bombing of Dikes and Irrigation Systems in the DRV / Tsetsure Tsurushima -- On the Law of Land Warfare / Frank Pestana -- Extracts from Fundamentals of Aerospace Weapons Systems' / Manual of the U.S. Air Force ROTC, Air University -- Technical Aspects of Fragmentation Bombs / Jean Pierre Vigier -- Combined Report on Anti-Personnel Bombs / Members of the Japanese Scientific Committee -- Effects of Anti-Personnel Bombs on the Human Body / F. Mazas and J. Zucman -- Statement on the rentagon's Denial of the Use of CBUs / Vladimir Dedijer -- Report from North Vietnam on Civil Bombardment / J.B. Neilands -- The Bombing of Dai Lai / Gerard Chaliand -- Summary of the First Two Charges / Lelio Basso -- Verdict of the Stockholm Session -- Closing Address to the Stockholm Session / Bertrand Russell -- Appendix A -- Appendix B -- Opening Statement to the Second Tribunal Session / Bertrand Russell -- Opening Address to the Second Session / Jean Paul Sartre -- Greetings to the Tribunal from American Supporters / Carl Oglesby -- Report on the Law of War / Yves Jouffa -- Incendiary Weapons, Poison Gas, Defoliants Used in Vietnam / Abraham Behar -- On Chemical and Biological Warfare in Vietnam / Alexandre Minkowski -- Report of the Sub-Committee on Chemical Warfare in Vietnam -- Extracts from a Report on Agricultural Chemicals Used in Vietnam / Japanese Scientific Committee -- Napalm and its Effects on Human Beings / Gilbert Dreyfus -- Patterns of Bombing of Civilians in the North / Wilfred Burchett -- Escalating Bombardment of North Vietnamese Cities / Antonello Trombadori -- Juridical Report on the Treatment of War Prisoners and Civilians / Solange Bouvier Ajam -- Testimony and Questioning of David Kenneth Tuck: Former Specialist Fourth Class with the U.S. 25th Infantry Division in Vietnam -- Testimony and Questioning of Peter Martinsen: Former Prisoner of War Interrogator with the 541st Military Intelligence Detachment in Vietnam -- Testimony and Questioning of Donald Duncan: Former Special Forces 'Green Beret' in Vietnam -- Report of the Commission of Inquiry to the United States / Gisele Halimi --Study on the Erosion of Moral Constraint in the Vietnam War: testimony Compiled by Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam -- A Doctor Reports from South Vietnam / Erich Wullf -- Report on American Conduct of the War in the South / Jean Bertolino -- On Treatment of Civilians / Joris Ivens and Marceline Loridon -- On The Treatment of Women and Children in the South / Madelaine Riffaud -- Imprisonment and Torture of Political Prisoners / Mrs. Pham Thi Yen -- Depositions. Taken Concerning South Vietnam / Hugh Manes -- Report of the Seventh Inquiry Commission Concerning the Zones in the South Under NLF Control / Roger Pie -- Summary Report on Complicity of Thailand and the Philippines / Charles Fourniau -- Commission Combined Report on the Complicity of Japan in the Vietnam War / Japanese Committee -- The United States and Laos / Wilfred Burchett -- U.S. Actions Against Laos / Lt. Guillermo Frank Llanes -- On Genocide / Jean Paul --Sartre Summation on Genocide / Lelio Basso -- Summary and Verdict of the Second Session -- Appeal to American and World Opinion read by Dave Dellinger -- Bertrand Russell's Final Address to the Tribunal, Copenhagen, December, 1967 -- Illustrations

Access-restricted-item: true

Added date: 2019-08-14 08:26:58

Associated-names: Duffett, John, editor; Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation


The names include Isaac Deutscher, an extremist Jew and defender of Stalin. I'm inclined to wonder whether he had some specifically Jewish motive for participation. I'm inclined to think the war may have been to distract from Jewish-American activities in China, which of course were kept even more secret than in Russia. In the same way that the bombiing of Dresden may have been a distraction from Eisenhower's Rhine meadows. It is of course difficult to know; maybe evidence will eventually be discovered.

  Review of Vietnam War   Edited by John Duffet: Against the Crime of Silence: Proceedings of the Russell International War Crimes Tribunal (Stockholm, Copenhagen) (Foreword by Ralph Schoenman)

Ed Ken Coates, Limqueco, and Weiss: Prevent the Crime of Silence: Reports from the Sessions of the International War Crimes Tribunal Censored facts about the Vietnam War—a Nuremberg style inquiry, October 6, 2010

Rather little-known report. Organised by Bertrand Russell (and others) in 1967—when Russell was 95. There are two different hardback versions, published one year later, and some reprints. Based on, and edited down from, a large amount of witness testimony, some American, some (with translators) Vietnamese. Well worth reading to get the Vietnamese perspective on American war crimes and the racist anti-'gook' mentality. I suspect in retrospect the whole thing was Jewish-driven, with Kissinger as front of a policy to make money from war, and collect a percentage from currency from south-east Asia.

The idea was to mimic the Nuremberg Trials, though obviously without official support; in fact the Harold Wilson 'Labour' regime in the UK banned at least one Vietnamese witness. It's now known of course that the Nuremberg Trials were a fake, purely concerned to set up post-war mythologies.

Includes Chomsky and Ralph Schoenman among many others.

WARNING—much very unpleasant material. Note that the material is available online as internet documents, though this is not in book form. (In fact, I put the HTML there myself with permission in late 1997 to early 1998).

Top of Page
Peter Wright Spycatcher   Review of Peter Wright with Paul Greengrass   Spycatcher
The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer.   March 6th, 2014
Spycatcher: Peter Wright with Paul Greengrass (1987). I bought this book in 1989, but have only recently read it and made some notes. There was in effect a lot of publicity over the book; whether this was from genuine government concern is impossible to say.

This review is based only on the (detailed and interesting) book. I haven't made any attempt to check the supposed facts behind hostile comments elsewhere; nor have I attempted to find out who Paul Greengrass is. This book is indexed, but weak on signposting: it has 23 numbered, but otherwise untitled, chapters without section divisions, plus a short glossary (which doesn't include MOSSAD). The few photos are all portraits (including J Edgar Hoover). Page numbers refer to my paperback edition, (Heinemann Australia).

Peter Wright was born near the end of the First World War; his father was at one time head of research for Marconi and (for example) helped install ships' radios. He knew Sarnoff, of that American outfit - Radio City? His son must have picked up technical information from him; however, his father was sacked, following some company rearrangement, when Peter Wright was 15. One of the undercurrents of this book is sudden unexpected sackings: e.g. Arthur Martin, after 20 years (p 233). Later, Peter Wright developed new audio and radio spy techniques, though the detail is a bit vague; it's not clear how many people worked in labs, and there must have been some changes when transistors were invented, infra-red isn't really mentioned, satellite transmission is barely mentioned. And so on. Much of Wright's action was wartime Admiralty research, and Leconfield Road and Gower Street buildings in London, from 1939 to 1975.

Wright's views on power politics were disappointingly conventional: the First and Second World Wars 'broke out'; there's not the slightest awareness of Bolsheviks as Jews; there are hostile references to Germans, and I doubt he knew the implications of 'Nazism'. There's nothing whatever on deaths in eastern Europe both pre-and post-WW2, nothing on the Anglo-Israel War, nothing on Korea and Vietnam and genocide. There is no reference to 'the Holocaust'. There is nothing on Hiroshima as deserving of scepticism, the developing European Union, nothing on the murder of Kennedy as Jewish coup d'état, nothing on racial politics.

Wright comes across as painfully naive, outside his specialist field, in which (for example p 362) he suspected that Gaitskell had been murdered. Wright had been told by the media that the 'Soviet Union' was the enemy, now, as he was told Germany was 'the enemy' previously. It seems almost certain that MI5 and MI6 helped the USSR: all the secrets (such as the 'Berlin Tunnel', dug at great expense into east Germany) were handed over; before the tunnel was even dug, in that specific case. Wright's account of Hollis summoning him to his office and laughing at Wright's claims (pp 289ff) before retiring to his country cottage, and Hollis a bit later (p. 336 ff) on the point of retirement, 'interrogated' over two days by a gentlemanly chap, Hollis sidestepping and blurring any tricky question, suggest there was never any real security. Wright says (p 125) the Foreign Office tended to support the USSR.

Probably the whole policy was misconceived, because the people who were Jew-aware were on the side of the Jews, or at least liked their paper money. To take a few examples: there is no suggestion at all that I could find that international banks, the IMF and so on were spied on. There must have been some commercial espionage, but it barely figures; vast capital transfers and payments go unmentioned. Thus Wright says (p 158) 'Lenin understood better than anyone how to gain control of a country... the political class had to control the men with the guns, and the intelligence service, and ... neither the Army nor the political class could challenge..' Note the failure to mention Jewish money! On military matters, and fake military matters, Wright confines himself to copies of things like ICBM plans. He didn't even realise that 'American' 'atom spies' were Jews, with reasons, important to them, for lying. There's some material on Victor Rothschild who (my guess) was worried he might have been exposed as pro-USSR: '[Blunt] admitted being recruited in 1937, a year or two after Philby, Burgess and Maclean... Tess [Rothschild] ... went terribly pale ... "All those years," she whispered, "and I never suspected a thing." (p 216); Rothschild interfered in the process of appointing a new head (p 370) though he ended 'as head of the Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS). Never was a man more perfectly suited to a job. ...' (p 347); Rothschild asked PW to make a list of possible damage that Blunt's will might cause. Wright admired Victor Rothschild; it never seems to have occurred to him that Rothschild had his own motives. In retrospect, the whole nuclear fraud was being rigged up; but e.g. in the investigation of Fuchs the Jewish issue is not mentioned; nor is it in the Rosenbergs and Cohens and others (p 139).

Page 139 shows Wright's patient analytical methods: starting with files on Soviet espionage cases, arranging by KGB and GRU categories, then by singletons, sleepers, illegal spies with runners, illegal residents running illegals 'and so on', patterns took shape... Except for Lonsdale... Wright's book is approximately chronological, though of course the accounts of investigations span many years: much of Wright's later working life was spent sifting through files and testing codes and talking with witnesses from the past. Each investigation was given a code word; each agent had a code (Hollis was 'drat'); there are plenty of acronyms. Wright's vocabulary includes 'indoctrinate' (meaning tell someone about something), exfiltrate (persuade someone to leave a group).

Let's fast forward through some of the chronological material.
• By 1914, Wright claims, intelligence systems had been established in expectation of war. He doesn't take a long-term view.
• 'Communism' (p 253) as a religion or catechism or list of articles of belief doesn't seem to have been taken very seriously by Wright. The fact it covers up the Jewishness of the protagonists seems to have been unknown to Wright.
• The 'vast KGB machine' (p 187) was built. Including (p 206) Dzerzhinsky's death-trap organisation of fake white Russians.
• 1928 ARCOS intelligence case was well-known at the time.
• (p 246 & others) 'Cambridge University, and the Oxford Ring', and the 'Shadow of War'. Wright lived through this period and found it fascinating. There is no mention of such people as Victor Gollancz.
• 1938 'Maxwell Knight smashed the Woolwich Arsenal Ring'
• Churchill ordered all anti-Soviet intelligence work to cease during the wartime alliance (p 182)
• The Berlin Airlift (1948-9) may have been generated to cover atrocities in Palestine by Jews. If so, Wright had nothing to say about that aspect.
• (p 184) Wright notes in 1954 some change in the USSR, when duplicate one-time pads were discontinued
• McCarthyism (e.g. p 330) is referred to with distaste; just one example of Wright's failure to understand the connections between so-called Jews and so-called communism
• Suez (1956) must I think have been more or less specifically Jewish: if you don't believe me, see if you can find a good account, anywhere, of what it was about. Vague evasiveness and unhelpful material are often found in Jewish topics. Wright has an interesting account of the Egyptian Embassy in London: 'Soviet' operatives arrived to sweep it, but in fact left a bug in a phone, possibly to allow the British to see the 'Soviets' were serious.
• 1961 Cuba 'Bay of Pigs'. Castro may have been a Marrano Jew. If so, Wright shows no awareness; he assumes Castro has magical powers, like Lenin.
• Penkofsky appears from nowhere as an agent (e.g. 204). His expertises were supposed to include Cuba, Kennedy and nuclear weapons (though my guess is he was a Jewish-promoted spy whose rôle was to keep up the myths of nukes and Cuban independence)
• Nossenko appears from nowhere as an agent (e.g. 305 ICBMs, Israel).
• 1962 Cuba 'Missile Crisis'. The USA bombed Vietnam for more than a decade; it seems only to be Jewish media control that made Cuba seem self-directed and independent. Jews used Cubans in future, notably in Africa.
1963 Harold Wilson elected Labor [sic] Party Leader; (363). Prime Minister in 1964. For many years, rumours said Wilson was a 'Communist'. Wright has little on the Labour Party and Jews in it. But quite a bit on groups opposed to Wilson, one of which invited him to join. '.. political climax in early 1974, with the election of the minority Labour Government. MI5 was sitting on information which, if leaked, would undoubtedly have caused a political scandal of incalculable consequences. ..' Wright compared the possibilities to Watergate, but gives little information about the leakable material.

Let me return to more Jewish material, which flickers throughout the book, and the lack of action on it. James Jesus Angleton wanted the MI5 file on Armand Hammer. But Wright didn't give it to him; Angleton seems to have been annoyed by this. P 145 states two NSA cryptanalysts 'defected to the Soviet Union, betraying vital secrets'. It's a plausible guess they were Jewish! '.. The Russians had a train of agents inside the American atomic weapons program ... some of these cases were solved..' It is unlikely any of these people were properly debriefed, if that's the word! On p 317 we find: '[The files] belonged to Victor and Tess Rothschild. "Victor is one of the best friends this Service has ever had. ..." "They are Jewish. David and Rosa are Jewish names ..." It sounded like KGB anti-Semitism to me...' Of course; nobody could possibly object to Jews, could they! P 345 states Kissinger opposed the expulsion of Soviet spies from Britain; this was some sort of toughening up process, perhaps. P 347 says 'Angleton always jealously protected his relations with the Israeli secret service, Mossad' which I think is the only mention of Mossad in the book, incredibly.

A significant part of the book, which I'd guess appeals to more readers than anything else, is the descriptive material about the intelligence men and the various associated women (Evelyn McBarnet, Anne Boyd-Orr..). The 'top men' seem to have been rather lonely, their whole lives revolving around their work and sometimes their hobbies. There were plenty of personality clashes; and it's surprising how much leeway they were given to arrange or rearrange their methods. But, considering the vast issues supposedly in the air - Nuclear war? Other wars? Vast expenses? - one has to wonder whether the whole spy issue was misdirection away from the deep events, a pretence it was Russians vs the West rather than Jews carrying out divide, rule, and lie. Peter Wright in my view comes out very well from this book: agonising over the right thing, doing his best to present useful evidence - such as names - to politicians and civil servants, serious and competent, unhappy with secrecy and cover-ups, exasperated with Hollis' destruction of some records. But unless he was an agent himself I think he missed the multiple elephant lurking in the rooms of the nations. Five stars; but one less for his gullibility.

Top of Page
Peter Wright Espionage Encyclopedia   Review of The Spycatcher's Encyclopedia of Espionage   Peter Wright (Published 1991, Australia)
Alphabetic List of Topics of Peter Wright's. Of Variable Quality.   Review: 6 Apr 2018
Published 4 years after Spycatcher. This is not indexed—judging by blank pages at the end, to save time or money—and has no table of contents. For example, I could find nothing on the Kent & Wolkoff affair, though it could be in there. If Amazon can be regarded as reliable, very few copies of this book are in circulation; perhaps it was not 'noticed' by the Jewish media, though, if not, it's difficult to see why, as it is entirely un-Jew-wise, and provides no guidance to the question of rooting out hostile Jews.

There are about six categories I could identify. Personal work by Wright himself; including radio and telegraph work, inserting bugs and cables into buildings, and detecting bugs and cables in embassies, and such places as Claridges hotel rooms. And cipher material. And technical issues. And organisations: MI5, MI6, GCHQ, US spy agencies, and 'Russian' (=Soviet Jew), with smaller agencies, usually in Europe. And political and historical and social information. And on famous cases and individual spies, notably Blunt and others.

The publisher, William Heinemann Australia, I'd guess was/is Jewish. Wright's book is almost laughably naive, in fact. Here's part of what he writes on Public Schools: ‘... When I joined MI5, the whole atmosphere was just like a minor Public School. There was the same hero worship and bullying and sucking up to the masters and the prefects. They didn't want MI5 to do anything. They just liked the easy life - the big salaries and no questions asked. People who had some sort of conscience, who felt that we had a job to do for the country, were looked on as trouble-makers.
      But it was the treachery that really got me down. I could never really understand it. Here were these people who always had the best of everything - money, social position, the best schools, and then all the plum jobs - and they were selling the country down the drain, while the ordinary people of Britain, who were treated with total contempt, were as patriotic as they come.’ See Class,

Famous Names Wright doesn't think much of Mata Hari; probably she was space-filling, and of course WW1 deceived readers on a massive scale. I could find nothing n Rasputin Reilly, or Kent and Wolkoff. The 'Cambridge traitors' in the 1930s have their own list, of nearly 20 names, probably incomplete, as Blunt confirmed only names who were dead or known already. Looking at Wright's list, many were obvious Jews, and some no doubt we British, but paid. Some (e.g. Gordon Lonsdale) are stated to be Russian, but Wright was not Jew-aware. The section on Graham Mitchell claims that a Research Officer, Anne Last, made a long list of things going wrong—Wright's account suggests that whenever microphones were installed, they were discovered and removed with almost indecent haste. Hollis seems to have controlled all this. See ASIO on operations blown from the start. Harry Gibson was the most promising mole in the Russian service. Maybe. Maxwell Knight was a successful agent runner (probable meaning: knew a lot of Jews) who grew ever-richer. Dossier, The says that, when Thatcher was new, there were over 200 moles and agents in high places in Britain...

The KGB entry treats it as an historical body; Wright seems to have had no idea about mass murders, Ukraine, etc. 'Churchill ordered all anti-Soviet intelligence work to cease during the wartime alliance (p 182)'. The CIA entry includes various activities forbidden by its Charter. (Wright doesn't know the inside story of Pearl Harbor. Nor for that matter Cuba). Archbishops is interesting on the Greek Orthodox Church, and Makarios, and Wright as a 'bugger's mate'. Ireland is a shortish entry, on what he sees as long memories. Wright had no idea that Jews had used Ireland and the Irish. Moscow is I think the longest section, and includes sexual blackmail (see Semstresses). Mossad has a longish entry; clearly Wright believed the Jewish hoax of the 'Holocaust'. He also notes that the 'moderate view' of getting a Jewish state was by mass immigration, rather than blowing things up. He counterpoints Balfour (of the promise) against T E Lawrence, promising support of Arabs against Turks. He sees the whole thing as local to the Middle East.

Wright makes sidenotes on the Schieffen Plan, Agents co-operation and the ancient Oracle of Dephi, Walsingham (with Spanish Armada plans; but dying in poverty; was the Armada a bit of scaremongering?, and, under Eye, the stability of ancient China and Persia and Rome, through spies and horse messengers. And on his own Spycatcher trial.

Wright has a section on Lying to Parliament. And the JIO, 'Joint Intelligence Organisation'. 'It is an absolute rule of organisations that if you have two of them, you have to have a third to co-ordinate their activities and adjudicate on demarcation disputes.' Hm. Wright says F Branch of MI5 organised domestic surveillance. Mainly the Communist Party. (there's an account in Claud Cockburn, saying he felt the CPGB was almost entirely futile). No wonder Jews must have laughed at them. D Branch supposedly handled counter-espionage, but seems to have been ruined in 1964 by Malcolm Cumming. In 1968, it was reorganised as K-Branch; Duncum Wagh [sic] had the jonb of investigating allegations of penetration...

Other sections include Dew Worm (bugging the Russian embassy in Ottawa), Otto John 'who had a very good record as a leading member of the resistance to the Nazis', Watchers who include people who watch visitors to embassies, Arthur Martin, 'the best counter espionage officer in the world', Money which suggests the AWRE invented spying techniques, rather than pretend to develop nuclear weapons. NIS was a 1978 replacement of BOSS in South Africa. It was 'very successful in promoting civial war and economic collapse, notably in Mozambique and Angola' and other things. Wright seems to have no way of tracing money payments and arms movements; or perhaps he kept quiet. Disinformation is another interesting section; in Wright's few examples it worked,

Technical discussions include sellotape, radar, microwaves, millimetric radar, magnetic mines, thermal conductivity, and modifying one's own signature to foil forgers.

This is a difficult book to review; obviously some must be outdated, but some may be current. But a lot must have been secret, notably, as I said, payments, arms movements, assassinations, political corruption. But it seems interesting, and the blurb implies it tells the rest of Spycatcher.

Top of Page
image   Review of Cold War etc   Richard J. Aldrich: GCHQ: The Uncensored Story of Britain's Most Secret Intelligence Agency

Unintelligent, Unresearched, Unhelpful. Official Only—Boys' Adventure Stories, October 6, 2010

[A 2009 book, attributed to 'Christopher Andrew', The Defence of the Realm - the Authorized History of MI5, was reviewed in TheOccidentalObserver in August, 2017, by Francis Carr Begbie, in a nuclear-naive and Jew-naive review, mostly of the Second World War. Here's a serious revisionist review— ]
Aldrich doesn't describe his methodology: the sources he gives are British National Archives, plus some unpublished archives, e.g. British Telecom's, and about 50 sets of British and American 'Private Papers'—including Churchill, Lyndon Johnson, various Admirals, Air Commodores, Generals and the like. It's not clear how much of each, if any, was consulted. The notes begin with an (incomplete) list of abbreviations. The bibliography includes about 450 books—a couple of Billy bookcases full—largely on warfare, and biographies of politicians, spies and 'spymasters'. Technology, cryptography, and finance seem to be not Aldrich's strong suits. The book has a flavour of thrilling boys' action adventures; I don't think there's one single lesson drawn by Aldrich. Is 'intelligence' worth the money? Maybe worth more? Is it true that not one single difficult cypher has been cracked? Are these people perhaps careerists? What's the balance sheet between historical success and failure? What of events that might have taken place, but didn't? What general laws seem to apply to secrecy? Is it better to have many small intelligence groups—Norway, Holland, and other small countries are praised. Could negotiation be improved to bypass some of this?—Aldrich gives no answers.

Judging by the endnotes, we can reconstruct Aldrich's writing technique: I'd guess Aldrich made a list of topics that were published in the general press—'burst onto the front pages'; then opened some popular books by (for example) Tony Benn, P Calvocoressi, Montgomery Hyde, H Sebag-Montefiore, Duncan Campbell; on such topics as the Cold War, nuclear weapons, Iraq, jungle warfare, Suez, Turkey, spy satellites, U2 and Gary Powers, 'the war on terror'. And then looked up private papers or biographies illustrating some picturesque act of derring-do, or, perhaps, heavy bombing against soft targets—for example, what he still calls 'communists' in Malaya.

The approach is 'open source research'—pioneered perhaps by James Bamford (American), and possibly Duncan Campbell (British). The idea is to fish through published material and look for disregarded but important bits, supplemented by Freedom of Information requests. It's similar in approach to Arthur Butz on the so-called 'Holocaust'; and Frederick Forsyth, who used published sources on the entire layout of 10 Downing Street for a novel.

Aldrich has the curious moral imbecility which comes with accepting all conventional views. Aldrich talks of the 'notorious South African secret service (BOSS)' but thinks nothing of the millions of deaths of Vietnamese, for example, and the forcible movement of populations there—some of the biggest ever in human history. His book gives the general impression that powerful countries can afford expensive intelligence, which helps them do what their steering elites think they want—the quality of the intelligence being more-or-less irrelevant.

The later chapters naturally can't use old documents—because these are still secret (or non-existent). So we have scattered topics—Diana and 'Squidgygate', drug crooks in south America using a computer, banks not wanting to reveal online frauds. And of course the fall of the Soviet Union—my guess is because the Jewish mafiosi no longer thought it worth keeping on—Aldrich prefers to think it was magic. And 9/11—Aldrich, comically, repeats all the Al Quaeda stuff; this alone shows his book is official and worthless. Many generally-censored topics don't make it into the book: there's just a little bit about massacres in Indonesia—compare Pilger on this. The genocide in Clinton's time in Africa doesn't get in. Nor do many of the wars in Africa—Biafra was one—although intelligence must have been involved. No comment even on Pakistan/India war in 1948.

Other omissions include: Caversham Park listening station, part of the 'independent' BBC; weather forecasting as part of the MoD. Aldrich doesn't seem to know that physical examples of the Enigma machine were needed—there's an account somewhere of a U-boat tricked into surfacing. Nor does Aldrich mention the Berlin microphone, listening for settings of the wheels. There's little detail of cryptography; Littlewood pointed out that 'every cipher is breakable' is a legend (1953) and it follows inevitably that indirect methods—stealing coding pads, tapping phones, interceptions, bribing 'assets', have to be used. The only convincing thing I found is an account of 'public key cryptography' described as two padlocks (a technique relevant only to computers). There's not much on Hong Kong and China or Japan.

Some omissions probably exist for ideological reasons. Hungary 1956 is omitted. Vanunu is omitted. A Rothschild made money after the defeat of Napoleon, by reliance on a private signalling system—and no doubt the lesson has been retained, though of course Aldrich wouldn't mention that (though there was a Director of Economic Intelligence—Michael Kaiser—in the MoD who intercepted 'a large number of commercial telegrams'). Given that Soros and others speculate, presumably with more or less indefinite backing, against other currencies, this is of some public interest. Not just currency, but also raw materials are omitted, as is customary with hack historians: no mention of oil stealing by Kuwait. There's nothing on military actions around uranium ores. Tony Collins' '25 Mysterious Deaths in the Defence Industry' (1990) isn't even in the bibliography. A practical example of the downside of spying—the Tupolev TU-144 built from smuggled Concorde plans of a rejected design—is omitted.

Technology: Aldrich appears to have no serious grasp of technology, and accepts what must be a great deal of mythology—suitcase nuclear bombs, for example. He has no inkling that there's something odd about the entire nuclear issue. Microwave controlled microphones sound like someone's little joke. NASA- why didn't intelligence listen in to the 'moon' stuff? With their unmatched radio technology! Aldrich's accounts of old computers read like PR ads of the time, designed to promise the earth and hide unreliability. Aldrich discusses the rise of satellite transmission, though I don't think he has any idea how they work or what they do.

He dodges technology, but, possibly because it's easy to grasp, or is human interest as recommended to scriptwriters, gives descriptions—though not analyses—of numerous rivalries: RAF vs NSA, GCHQ vs SIS, secrecy vs exposure by legal systems, police vs GCHQ (amusing account of Prime), CIA vs NSA, NATO vs MI5, 'tradecraft' vs buggings. And US manufacturers of cypher machines vs European manufacturers—notably Swedish; US army vs US navy vs US airforce; Chile vs Argentina; land based spying vs spy ships vs satellites; competing unions (once) in GCHQ; KGB interdepartmental jealousies. Aldrich likes to use what presumably is still the language of military intelligence—'assets', 'acquire their targets with their radar', 'assisting SIS on the ground', 'degrade Argentine intelligence systems'. He also likes to judge people, in a way which rationally is hardly possible: '.. distinguished security intelligence operator .. most skilled interrogator' [How can he be sure?]. One thing that amused me was '.. Denis Healey, one of the most intelligent people ever to hold ministerial office..'

Finance: It seems odd, in a world where 'foreign aid' from Britain is tens of billions per annum, and the costs of immigration fraud are probably greater, that Aldrich should have no idea of the relative costs of intelligence. Throughout his book there's a sense of "just look at this great big number!" I think this is a by-product of secrecy; I suppose hacks like to pretend they know these things. A typical example is the Manhattan Project, which allegedly produced the atom bomb. More money was spent on radar (according to Chrysler).

Bias: the bias most obvious to me is the complete omission of Jewish influence, notably over the USA, but also of course in Europe. The post-war money-making fraud of 'the Holocaust', and control over countless pressure groups, trusts, quangoes, unions, media and what have you goes unmentioned. The spies for the USSR, and indeed USSR as Jewish, is unmentioned; so is the secret export of western technology to the USSR. The Anglo-Israel War gets virtually no mention. The 'Liberty'—an intelligence gathering ship—is 'controversial'. Kissinger seems to have almost monopolised US foreign policy under Nixon—in fact the Vietnam War may well have been an attempt to get overall Jewish control of money in parts of south-east Asia. Many publicity outfits in the UK—the Rowntree foundation, the Scott trust of the 'Guardian', the New Statesmen, many unions, the violent 'Searchlight' organisation, are Jewish-funded. And so on up to 9/11. At any rate, here there are innumerable intelligence links which are completely unexplored by Aldrich.

Readers might be amused at this mistake—someone 'was born in the Soviet Union in 1908' (page 80). Something similar applies re Islam: Gaddafi and Libya, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Muslims in the heart of Serbia have some cursory account, but the full complications with oil and gas are omitted. And of course the third world inevitably get the sticky end; for example after World War 2 they were sold Enigma machines by the British, deliberately, as they were known to be crackable. Aldrich seems not to know about innumerable interventions in the third world, many of course very bloody.

Failures of intelligence are listed very rarely, in little paragraphs. They include: Pearl Harbor in 1941—unbelievably, Aldrich professes to think this came figuratively out of the blue. We also have: Hitler's attack on the USSR, the 'outbreak' of the Korean War 1950, 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, 1967 'Six Day War', 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, 1973 'Yom Kippur/Ramadan War' by Egypt and Syria, 'failed to predict the end of the Cold War' 1989, 1990 Iraq against Kuwait. Aldrich draws no useful lessons from all this. Needless to say, the third world gets little mention. However, there's Ireland. The bombings suggest this was an intelligence failure—it looks like a failure to me!—but Aldrich doesn't draw this rather obvious conclusion. (Nor does he have anything useful to say on legalities—is the legal system up to the job?)

So—what is the point of this book? So far from being uncensored, it clearly follows the official establishment line at every step. It's possible it was commissioned by the 'Labour' regime disaster—it was recommended by the BBC, a sure sign of official approval. The idea may be to show the government is in control and despite a few understandable small mistakes, knows what it's doing for our benefit. Scarlett—appointed by Tony Blair—is virtually omitted, though there's a 2003 photo giving evidence into David Kelly's death. And yet he seems to have been complicit in public lies on Weapons of Mass Destruction. Presumably the entire organisation is under the control of people who will lie if their promoter pulls their strings. This must surely have some effect on morale at 'the doughnut'. Typically there are accounts of bodged reforms—'[Roger] Hurn's review team .. included Alice Perkins (a.k.a. Mrs Jack Straw) and David Omand...' It's almost incredible that Strawinski, who undemocratically decided to open the UK to mass immigration—no public consultation—let's not mince words; he's scum—should have a wife who is officially permitted to tamper with arrangements that might have a permanent damaging effect. There isn't much consideration of the mass of employees at GCHQ; they seem mainly interested in money and one gathers quite a few computer experts leave—politicians may reward bureaucrats, PFI schemers, lawyers, and company board member shareholders, but people who actually do useful work get left out in the cold.

If you're looking for a compendium of official views on GCHQ, in a form mimicking genuine research, this book might do. If you think the control of information is an important and difficult issue, you might decide to cross off Warwick University from future consideration.
Private intelligence?

In the same way that oil companies have their own systems of diplomacy, and given the huge increase in electronic communications, it seems likely that the wealthiest groups would have their own systems. Judging (e.g.) from Hungary after 1956, and US and Mossad activities overseas, GCHQ may come to be regarded as an amateur state outfit. Individual secure communications, secret archives, worldwide secure locations, murder/ interrogation/ torture and body disposal are the sorts of things likely to be found.

Top of Page
image   Review of Germany and Britain   Richard Milton: Britain and Germany: 100 Years of Truth and Lies

'Political Correctness' and 'Holocaustianity' as official ideology, October 1, 2010

This book exemplifies how an ideology, made up from a combination of censorship and propaganda, can outlive what usefulness it ever had. Milton's book assumes a number of things without evidence—that both the First and Second World Wars had objects; that the phrase 'master race' was in wide use; that there's a connection between people who died of starvation and disease and eugenics. And many other things—his book is highly superficial. Let me try to describe it:-

Firstly, the title ('Best of Enemies—Britain and Germany: 100 years of Truth and Lies') is misleading. The book has 23 chapters, each referenced in scanty endnotes. It's clear that most chapters are book reviews and with little connection to the supposed subject.

Chapter 1, the only one specifically about interrelationships of Brits and Germans, from about 1850, is not very satisfactory: Albert and Christmas trees, monocles, German industry (Milton doesn't mention the Trade Marks Act which helped inflame British workers against German imports), and holidays in the Alps, plus upper class shooting, and the Kaiser wanting his own fleet, are about it. German scholarship (much of it plagiarised by Britons), education, German Unification and undemocratic structure, are barely mentioned. There are no quotations that I recall from pro-German Britons.

Milton is influenced by A J P Taylor (who was broadcast on TV when Milton was in his 40s): Taylor made the railway timetable claim, and also explicitly stated that most ideas attributed to Germany were taken from Britain. His examples—geopolitics, race issues, population issues, boy scouts, Boer War and concentration camps—were pretty much the same as Milton uses, though Taylor also thought Marx was a British thinker!—Taylor was always careful not to mention Jews, and Milton follows this convention; Milton, like Taylor, doesn't even mention the Jewish roots of the USSR and indeed always refers to 'Russia'.

Milton also has debts to a book by John Carey, on population growth and the 'masses' and the effects of new huge cities. Anyone who disliked that (presumably including Coleridge, William Morris, Dickens) is called a 'fascist'—Milton doesn't analyse 'fascism' and his use of the word is virtually the junk media/ school level.

There's a chapter on 'Mass Observation', the archives of which are available. Milton's emphasis is on the understandable general ignorance of policy of these 'masses', most of whose information came from the press. Or so Milton states: there's almost no mention of BBC radio, despite its crucial importance in getting the state's views across, possibly because most of the broadcasts were not easily recordable at the time. Oddly, the name 'Harrisson' is misspelt throughout as 'Harrison'.

Edward Bernays gets a full chapter—Noam Chomsky promotes him, too. It's hard to see why: Bernays' secret methods were entirely standard, typical of Jews working secretly on shady projects.

Because of Milton's methodology, oddly conflicting accounts occur in different parts of the book—for example, of the British Empire. Several chapters say (in effect) that a quarter of the world was under the violent, iron heel of Britain—the Amritsar Massacre gets a description. But in the chapter based on Ponting, the Empire appears as a ramshackle collection of near-bankrupt territories, overstretched, difficult to defend, and a net loss to Britain. (Milton doesn't consider oil as a special case).

There's a chapter on 'British Way and Purpose', a red hardcover army propaganda book of which Milton seems to have a copy from a second-hand bookshop (as I do). The whole issue of what the Second World War was about is not discussed in any detail—just as in the First World War. One of the elephants in the room that Milton doesn't talk about is the competition between military types, both between countries and as against their own people. (Referring to the Kitchener poster, Milton states that recruitment in 1915 was insufficient so the government 'was obliged to introduce conscription'—the aims of the war, and possibility of British neutrality, are unmentioned).

There's a chapter on Sefton Delmer, typical of the Jewish type of anti-German propagandist. And a chapter on Goebbels though of course the source material here is of dubious accuracy. And on 'Mein Kampf', including authorship questions.

Of the serious weaknesses of this volume, let me mention the Jewish-related ones first. Milton simply has no idea of the pivotal influence of Jews in this period. He doesn't seem to realise there was a decision in 1916 linking the Balfour Declaration with the entry of the USA into the war. If the US had stayed out, there must have had to be some sort of earlier Armistice. As it was, Russia was subject to a coup by Jews, basically with money from overseas. This of course was the basis for most Germans' dislike of Jews, and their desire to do something about the USSR. The other issue is propagandist—Milton has no doubts about 'the Holocaust', though he's a bit puzzled over Nuremberg. From the modern point of view, all this has morphed very oddly: there were emaciated bodies as a result of bombing, starvation and disease; Milton thinks this means nobody should worry about such issues as the increase of diabetes after insulin, or cousin marriages and birth defects.

Another serious weakness is failure to examine the way large-scale arms affect societies. The 'military-industrial complex.' Once wars start, powerful forces want them to continue. Some of these forces are psychological: in 1916 the Times was full of letters from octogenarians, all wanting the slaughter to continue. Milton dodges this issue simply by assuming the wars had to be fought. He doesn't consider that, as the war clearly was ending, various groups started to manoeuvre for post-war power. He does however include a book review of Charles Higham, 1983, 'Trading With The Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949' on the Bank for International Settlements and US investments in Germany.

Other omissions include matters tacitly censored from the PC 'consensus'. The Belgian Congo mass murders, and those of the USSR (and the Indian famine) appear not to be known by Milton. The post-war treatment of Germans (cf. Bacque) is unmentioned. Race is dealt with by Milton in a naive way, quoting dubious DNA research. This is a bit odd, as one of his books was critical of Darwin and evolutionary theory, using the 'fly paper method'—evolution-related arguments and puzzles and disputes assembled together. In fact of course there's abundant evidence of racial differences.

In fact, so 'correct' is this book I can't help wondering if it was specifically funded. The best I can say about 'Best of Enemies' is that people who've been so naive as to accept the official views, might go on to consider far less palatable truths.

Top of Page
image   Review of Maths history   G. H. Hardy: An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers

There is no such thing as 'number theory'!, August 8, 2010

I'm not as impressed as the other reviewers here with this book, despite it's being in some sense a 'classic'.

I take it some people—I have no idea what proportion of the population—now and then are struck by properties of numbers. For example, if a number AB is added to BA, the result always divides by 11. If the difference is worked out, this is always a multiple of 9. (E.g. 75 minus 57 is 18, a multiple of 9). Or (e.g.) Any number cubed, less the number, will always divide by 6 and is also the product of three consecutive numbers. (e.g. 5 cubed is 125; less 5 gives 120, which is 4x5x6). This sort of thing is the basis of 'number theory'.

There are at least two problems with this book. Firstly, there is in fact not yet such a thing as 'number theory'. This book is a ragbag of techniques and things which have been identified and passed down by lecturers. But it is NOT a coherent 'theory' in any sense. Perhaps I might compare it with a book on 'chess theory'. Chess books have accounts of such things as opening gambits, sacrifices, end games—including some with extremely precise techniques needed for victory. And there are things like 'zwischenzug' and assorted events which are rare, but have some interest. But does this make up a body of 'theory'? I'd say not. Anyone looking to this book for insight into the Pythagorean mystery of number will in my view be more or less disappointed.

Now, what follows from this is my second point, which perhaps is to do with human psychology, or the capacity of the human brain. What is it that makes some people fix on a certain type of problem? For example, this book, like most or maybe all on number theory, starts with prime numbers—probably discovered as a result of packaging and division of actual objects. This of course had practical applications, such as the Babylonian 360 degrees, and our 12 inches, 14 pounds, 1760 yards, and so on. A collection of techniques (e.g. Eratosthenes' sieve), formulas, limits and other results has accumulated. Looking at Euclid's proof of the infinity of primes, his method was to multiply all the primes, and add 1. This function in effect is designed to use the properties of primes to generate a new prime. However Hardy and Wright don't attempt to generalise this process. Maybe Fermat's Last Theorem could be proved elegantly by inventing some ingenious function which combines the properties of addition, multiplication, and powers—repeated multiplication by the same number? What is it that makes some problems (so far) insoluble—and many of them are very trivial to state?

So we have here a collection of results, embodied in symbolism which is far enough from the actualities to (perhaps) look more impressive than it really is. Integration, for example, is basically simple enough, but the long s and the notation removes the reader from the real world...

And there's a related problem, which is that the connective material, explaining why the next bit is there and what it is supposed to illustrate, is completely missing. The result is like a tour of museum exhibits, where the tourist is expected to infer the significance of all the specimens. Or like a concert, where one sample piece of music is played after another, from which the auditor is presumably left to infer a theory of music. In fact, I've just decided to demote the book to two stars!

Top of Page
Hooper Moths Evolution ** THIS REVIEW WAS NOT ALLOWED BY AMAZON! Tue 17 Nov 2015 **

Review of   Judith Hooper   Of Moths and Men (First published 2002)

Review by Rerevisionist     17 Nov 2015
Largely a Study in Irrelevance
In Britain, this was first published in 2002 by 4th estate 'A Division of HarperCollinsPublishers'). Judging from Amazon it has had several subtitles: Intrigue, Tragedy & the Peppered Moth. And 'An Evolutionary Tale. And The Untold Story of the Peppered Moth. The book may have been triggered by Ted Sargent, one of three authors of a 1998 chapter from vol 30 of Evolutionary Biology.

Let me announce from the start that the whole topic is somewhat of a waste of time. It is just a picturesque illustration, or, if you prefer, a faked example, of a change in population. It has nothing to do with genuine deep evolutionary theory, and does nothing to prove or disprove evolution. All it shows is that many living things eat many other living things, probably the food nearest to hand.

H G Wells and Julian Huxley's book The Outline of Life helped popularise the story, with photos of normal and dark forms of the moth biston betularia, dead and pinned to tree bark, some dark in industrial areas, others light with lichen. An early case of misleading/faked photos, to be followed by film.

H G Wells was familiar with the world of observers and collectors of specimens; his father was something of an observer. Wells's short story, The Moth, has a hero driven mad by the desire to have a moth named after him. Some of the names have English echoes: for example, the Observers Book of Larger British Moths by Richard L E Ford—though I don't know if he was related to the E B Ford (1901-1988) in Judith Hooper's book, known jokingly as 'Henry', a raconteur type, who owned but had stolen two Ruskins, a Constable, and a Gainsborough, who was the Oxford University part of this story.

Bernard Kettlewell (1907-1979), big, energetic, loud, was the moth collector, breeder, experimenter, copulator, and even lepidopterophage. He lived a half-life, overlapping with Oxford FRSes. He married a Birmingham society hostess. His daughter Dawn was a nymphomaniac, who died young, possibly a caricature of both her parents.

When Hooper's cast of early characters were young, the world was less built-up; birds' eggs and beetles and butterflies and moths and newts were more obvious and more easily collected. Victorian collectors' cabinets had caterpillars the size of small fingers. And many, many species of speckly moths very similar to the peppered moth, though only biston betularia seems to have had the possibility to darken genetically. The outdoor world was more living than today; Hooper quotes Ted Sargent (in the USA) on this theme.

R A Fisher (1890-1962) invented or polished-up or practised much of statistics; a pioneer deserving a serious biography—though the biographer would need to understand the maths, understand the hidden assumptions, have some idea where it might lead, and understand what is needed to develop it further. Not for the lightweight. Hooper says he had thick specs, supported eugenics, and had lots of kids.

Other parts are played by 'Niko' Tinbergen, and then Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, each with their post-1945 intentional lying and evasion on human races, in absurd contrast with their fanatical 'Jewish' racial beliefs. Armand and Michaela Dennis, prominent in early television, are in there. Plenty of other characters appear: Sparrow of All Souls, sitting on a huge pot of treasure, apparently a victim of the Franks Commission, which sounds like a post-1945 'Jewish' investigation. Hooper misquotes Medawar's Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?. Hooper includes Wenner, a critic of von Frisch's bee dance. We have gossip from secretaries and wives—Hooper is amused by male inability to cope while doing complicated work.

It has to be said that Judith Hooper is somewhat naive, as is necessary for widely-published American writers, of course. She is shocked by 'appeasement', thinks darky moths mean 'racism', quotes one of the moth men as shouting 'Kraut!' to a German in a hotel for keeping him awake 'from 1941-1945'. It's difficult to tell where her researches (books, science papers, the Bodleian Library, private papers) take over from received views: for example she doesn't know much about Alfred Russel Wallace, almost certainly the genuine originator of the theory of evolution; she quotes the first edition of The Origin of Species 'selling out in one day'; and quotes the Soapy Sam Wilberforce story with no signs of doubt.
      On A Russel (one l!) Wallace, The Wonderful Century (1898, 1899 in USA) has a magnificent section on vaccination as a delusion. It's about a quarter of the entire book; Chapter XVIII (18 for non-Latinates).

A lot of the book is taken up with melanic variation (from the Greek; 'Melanie' means black) and opinions about trees, lichen, and birds. Rather silly experiments are described with mercury vapour lamps, muslin sleeves, enamel paint dots on the wings of captured moths. But there are endless complications, as critics pointed out in ever-increasing numbers: bird eyesight (how did the moths appear to them?), bird feeding (did they in fact eat moths at rest?), bats and other less visible causes of insect mortality (weather, food shortages, viruses, fungi, parasitic insects, spiders, small mammals, insecticides ...), other causes of melanism such as 'pollution' in food, diurnal resting habits of moths, difficulties with releasing and recapturing moths. (Hooper omits Wallace's observation that the lightest moths, at night, presumably are most visible: is this a night-time form of warning colouration?).

Paradoxically, Oxford itself shows intense Darwinian competition: similar creatures compete for territory in a rather narrow habitat. Hence the perpetual bitterness and testing criticism—except of anything important—which Hooper notices. I'm reminded of Patrick Prunty or Brontë, jumping through verbal hoops to get his curacy. It's curious how remote this process is from natural selection, or survival of the fittest: trashy modern historians, biologists terrified of having no usable techniques, trash economics avoiding all realism about money. Though they do share the isolation from the great world, as they pursue their myopic self-interest.

Top of Page
Review of Architects of Ideas   Ernest R. Trattner   by 'Rerevisionist' 25 November 2017
Part of the disastrous Jewish incursion into 20th century science.
Ernest Robert Trattner (1898-1963), Architects of Ideas: The Story of the Great Theories of Mankind, published in 1938 by Carrick & Evans (New York), and George G. Harrap (London, Sydney, Bombay, Toronto).
    Seems to have been reprinted as The Story of the World's Great Thinkers in 1942.

I have a copy of this book, published in 1938, and was surprised to find the author lived in the USA. I was unsurprised to see him described as a 'Rabbi'; his other books were on the Bible and related subjects. My interest in this book was to check how much of it was intended to stake the claim of Jews in having developed 'ideas', in this case mostly the technological side of science, without much philosophy, pure science, or social science.
    Trattner seems to have published Understanding the Talmud in 1955, and this may be available online. It is of course unlikely to be honest.

By 1938 it was obvious the Jewish Occupation in the USA, Europe, and of course USSR ('Russia') and probably China, was aiming for a follow-up war, after the success of the takeover of USA's money by the 'Fed', and the almost immediately successful 'Great War', in killing whites and taking over Russia. Jews had been quietly occupying the English-speaking countries, including Canada, South Africa, Australia and smaller countries. Their aim presumably was to claim invention of ideas and institutions which were generally agreed to be civilised, apart from aesthetic production. Trattner's ideas is at least partly in this mould, and hunters of Jewish invasions will probably find this book worthwhile reading.

The bibliography is mostly of books from 1900-1936, though there are many 19th century books; I say books, because there no papers (I think), though there are a few individual book chapters. I was amused to see Sidney Hook and Harold Laski in the chapter on Marx. The index is of names only, which saves enormous effort in trying to categorise theories.

The 15 principal chapters (plus my abbreviations) are:
1 COPERNICUS Solar System
2 HUTTON Earth
3 DALTON Structure of Matter
4 LAVOISIER Fire
5 RUMFORD Heat
6 HUYGENS Light
7 MATHUS Population
8 SCHWANN Cells
9 DARWIN Evolution
10 MARX Economic Interpretation of History
11 PASTEUR Disease
12 FREUD Mind
13 CHAMBERLIN Earth's Origin
14 BOAS Man (not 'Race!)
15 EINSTEIN Relativity

These are not in temporal sequence; Dalton and Lavoisier are reversed, and too early—but probably the sequence is Talmudic in some sense. Chamberlin (who was he?) may have been put in to reduce the appearance of a near-monopoly of Jews approaching 1938. I'm not (as I type) in the mood to investigate, but at least Trattner makes efforts to present views he presumably dislikes, mentioning Gobineau and Chamberlain, for example, in his Boas chapter. His chapter on Marx makes no attempt to explain what ideas, if any, Marx genuinely held; it's entirely conventional and unhelpful, glossing over Marx's actual reactionary deeds. And 'In recent years, a worldwide tidal wave of race consciousness, ill-founded and preposterous, has engulfed humanity ... weird and vulgar prejudices ... ardent nationalism and self-importance ... vast mystification.. etc' refers to Germany and Italy, and no doubt other countries, though Trattner doesn't mention either them or his own race feelings. Trattner on relativity is the usual pitiful melange of light, railway train motions, space and time, curved surfaces. I couldn't find any presaging of 'nuclear weapons'; perhaps the world was not deemed ready for such a fraud.

Anyway—some readers might find the book useful in exploring the roots of Jewish deception in the first half of the 20th century.
Top of Page

Humphrey Pledge Science Since 1500   Review of Science history   Humphrey T Pledge: Science Since 1500

Brilliant Overview of How All Sciences Developed, August 8, 2010

This latest reprint appears to be the 1966 edition, which is a reprint of the original 1939 best-selling first edition. It was published as a 'Harper Torchbook' in the USA.

Pledge worked in the (London) Science Museum Library from about his mid-20s. His Cambridge degree was in the 'Natural Sciences'—a B.A. in those days. The title is slightly misleading—there are four chapters up to about 1600, after which the story deals with individual centuries. Pledge's sources were mostly books—I don't think he did original research—including G Sarton at Harvard, and both specific and general histories. He seems to have read German. He included the social background in his book, and makes many shrewd comments. There's an index of proper names—I estimate about 1,200 men along with place names and institutions. And an index of topics—about 1,500 starting with abacus, ending with zoology. There are three interesting charts of great scientist-teachers, family-tree style outlines of who learned what from whom. And maps of scientists' birthplaces, plus of course some plates on art paper.

Possibly for space reasons, technology is a bit under-represented—there's nothing on radio, despite this being an important force at the time he wrote. Nothing on weapons.

The value of this book is that it is entirely free of the modern 'politically correct' Frankfurt/neo-Marxist style rubbish. There are no claims that the USSR invented everything, or blacks. Moreover wideawake people are aware that science has been corrupted, partly in fact as a result of US/Jewish frauds and money—it has to be said. So a lot of biology research, much of NASA, much medical research including AIDS, climate science etc is so inaccurate that it is best omitted. So this book is not really out of date, except of course for not including lasers, computers, jet engines, plastics—most of which are technology, in any case. If you'd like a short accurate account of the discoveries of what makes food; what thermodynamics is about; how nuclear physics developed; the origins of geology; the structure of matter... this book is a very valuable one-volume summary. I do have a slight reservation—Pledge is slightly conventional—Semmelweis, for example, seems to have been driven mad by the medics of his time refusing to wash their hands, and thus refusing to spare women from death, and though Pledge hints at this, he's not condemnatory. Similarly with the inaction over scurvy in sailors, when it was known how to prevent it.

I said above, 'he makes many shrewd comments'. Here are some examples:-

BOTANY AND FAUNA: 'Natural history.. took its rise in regions of varied.. or remarkable flora, fauna, or rocks.. the Alpine mountain system, [with] forms appropriate to very different climates in close contrast; islands with their long-isolated life; Scandinavia, where the operation of cold and other .. limiting factors is evident'

GENETIC RESEARCH: 'Cistercians by greatly improving the wool-bearing quality of English sheep, laid one foundation of this country's economic supremacy... Mendel's was no new activity within monastic gardens.. the forbidding lengths of time needed on present methods [ie pre-D.N.A.] for acquiring genetic knowledge. No way of life is more fitted than the monastic to afford the necessary continuity...' Gregor Mendel's eventual 1866 publication (which was more or less ignored) showed that genetics was what would now be called digital—though not at that time, since digital electronics hadn't yet been invented. Two parents produced new generations, and it seemed clear that both contributed to the next generation, and that in cases where genes differed, one or other 'dominated', not perhaps surprisingly.
      Mendel's work was ignored perhaps because breeders of animals and plants for food weren't generally interested in exceptions; they wanted uniformity. Decorative plants and animals (garden flowers and shrubs, birds, dogs, cats...) were worked with (I think) for genetic discoveries, as were abnormal human beings.

ORIGIN OF ZOOS: 'It is easy to preserve dead plants by drying them, but .. [not] dead animals... The collection of live animals .. by the end of the 15th century had become a choice form of ostentation for princes with venturesome mariners and curious minds. Lisbon, the capital city of the earliest explorers, had one of the earliest zoological gardens. ...'

MEDICINE: 'Military medicine often led to improvements: 'rulers indifferent to the fate of their civilian subjects were very much alive to that of their soldiers, and we shall note many decisive biological advances made by military surgeons'.

Pledge is detailed, but compressed, on the history of ideas; interesting to (for example) see how Galen was transmitted, both through Avicenna and Gerard of Cremona.

Plenty more—mathematics, attitudes to the universe, Harvey on the heart as a pump at a time when pumps were introduced to drain British wetlands, evolution, the importance of glass....

Highly recommended to anyone wanting a shrewd one-volume account of people, ideas, inventions, and discoveries. This book is downloadable free.
Pledge unfortunately died relatively young (1903-1960); he might have established a faculty somewhere on the history of science. His papers (donated by his wife) are held in 'The Keep', which is connected in some way with Sussex University. Most '... are related to Pledge's projected synthesis of knowledge.' These boxes may well be interesting; but I don't know whether anyone has taken them very seriously.

Top of Page
  Review of Jews, science, weapons, frauds   Baron Solly Zuckerman: Nuclear Illusion & Reality

Inchoate and not even unconvincing, August 3, 2010

For some reason—perhaps Churchill's influence—Britain's nominal military advisers have often been rather odd alien types. This book (1982) is I think absolutely typical of the genre. (I) There's no consistent argument in it—Zuckerman seems to be making a case, or cases, but the writing switches between politics and personalities, to supposed history and the supposed then-current reality, so there's no discernible thread. (II) Zuckerman seems to be saying there was no point in further testing, since there was already overkill, though he seemed unable to prove the point. (III) Zuckerman seemed weak on the actual science—for example there was a lot of dispute over fallout; dangerous or not? Which he does not resolve. (IV) Another unresolved issue is the matter of vested interests. He seems to suggest no testers wanted a ban, purely because they'd be out of a job. He comments on Carter's and Reagan's 'defense' budgets in the couple of hundred billion range (in 1981, 1982) and seems to imply a lot is wasted or useless or harmful. But, again, the message is vague.

Top of Page
John Tyme and motorway inquiry objections     Review of Protest and Motorways   John Tyme: Motorways versus Democracy

Doesn't give the case against motorways, February 26, 2013

25 year old book. Disappointing; it gives information on public inquiries, from June 1973 through to November 1977, into motorways, bypasses and Archway Rd in London. Tyme regarded motorways largely as swindles imposed by 'faceless bureaucrats' and government officials. He states '.. it is my belief ... that the motorway/trunk road programme with all its ramifications poses a consummate evil, and constitutes the greatest threat to the interests of this nation in all its history.' This appears to be based on a similar train of thought to that of Fred Hoyle, who said that roads are a positive feedback phenomenon: the more roads you build, the more cars you get. Neither seem to have thought that there must be an upper limit on cars; would every single person want to spend their whole lives acquiring the maximum possible number of cars? It seems unlikely. Tyme states he'll produce 'a forthcoming book' on the case against motorways, but seems to have never done this. Interesting paperback and with many detailed accounts of fury against planners etc, probably usually stoked by personal housing issues, such as house prices. (Something similar happened when railways were new; as in, for example, Dickens). An opportunity missed.

This (pages 1-2) outlines his objections, in one long paragraph:-
As is made clear in a forthcoming book, it is my belief, and one shared by increasing numbers of people, that the motorway/trunk road programme with all its ramifications poses a consummate evil, and constitutes the greatest threat to the interests of this nation in all its history. None of our national enemies have so mutilated our cities, undermined the long-term economic movement of people and goods, destroyed our industrial base, diminished our ability to plan our community life, and reduced our capacity to feed ourselves. The more highways we build, the more we generate traffic to fill them, the greater the congestion and snarl-ups, and thus the more highways we require to build. The more we build, the more we confirm and perpetuate the horrendous accident level (approaching a million people a century killed, to say nothing of the mutilated and injured) as motorway-generated traffic makes its way onto crowded city and suburban streets. The more roads and motorways built, the more inevitable is the decline of alternative transport modes. The more roads, the greater the housing loss and destruction of community and the less house-building and resources for hospitals, schools and other social services. The more highways, the more we are committed to the disaster known as 'dispersal planning' based upon the notion that distance between residence and work, shops and schools, recreation and medical services is no object; and the more dispersal planning, the greater the loss of land and agricultural production (now estimated at an average county area every ten years). The more resources we commit to road transport, the more we create social inequity (with all its imponderable political dangers), as the well over 40 per cent of households who do not own cars and are now never likely to, are left unable to pay the rising cost of public transport, simply watching the cars and juggernauts go by. The more we construct highways, the more we fuel the inflationary spiral as people are compelled to buy and maintain cars they cannot afford simply in order to get to work or get their children to school, to the dentist, the doctor or the hospital. The more motorways, the greater is our national dependence on the car industry, the one industry that, for reasons of energy and materials costs, can have no medium- let alone long-term future; the more roads, the greater the threat of unemployment of nightmare proportions as that industry and all its associated industries collapse before a vanishing world market. The more roads planned, the greater the industrial as well as housing blight, as blue, orange, green and red routes lie across our city maps for decades. The more the concrete miles proliferate, particularly in development areas, the more economic decline proceeds as direct investment declines in industry and in housing and those social services which together stimulate economic activity and create a contented work force. The more freight and personal movement we commit to roads, so the self-proliferating highway programme can only lead to a transportation catastrophe for this country as rail, waterway and public transport levels decline in real terms to the point where, when the great energy spree finally comes to an end, we are left in this country without any viable transport system whatever. And finally, the more roads and motorways we build, the more we commit this country to the desperate international struggle for increasingly scarce resources (including energy) to maintain the profligate and wasteful society that they so create and so exemplify - and that way is a short cut to world nuclear conflict.

Top of Page
image   Review of Social re-engineering of buildings for manipulated populations   Oscar Newman: Defensible Space - People and Design in the Violent City

Part of the Jewish takeover of the USA

1972 book (1973 in UK). Many black and white photos, with maps and diagrams in the then-current architectural style, with a certain amount of freehand line drawing and what look like felt pens for bigger detail.

This is a study of 'housing projects' in the USA, roughly in the 25 years post-1945. Kennedy's [supposed - RW 2022] murder was somewhat past the half-way point of this interval, and Lyndon B Johnson the most serious ingress of Jews to date then in the USA. This of course was when US genocide in Vietnam peaked; as for that matter did NASA's fraud. Newman's book should be considered in the light of mass fraud at home and mass killings outside. There is of course no trace of this in this book.

Domestically there was anti-white pressure: immigration had been intentionally made simple by Jews, and correlative pressure was applied in 'busing' etc to damage areas and neighborhoods. Look at Arthur Cohen's Attitude Change (1964) on experiments like the Asch 'conformity experiment', where people tell obvious lies when under some pressure. The film with William Shatner The Intruder from the same era has the same message.

Newman assumes that large manipulable populations will live (and pay rent) in these structures; his book entirely concerns how muggings etc can be reduced by redesigning smallish details of such buildings. There's no discussion of why people should be expected to be at risk, or why people should be given no voice in their housing, in what is or was their own country. Newman represents the Jewish viewpoint - no discussion on choice, take what you're given, pay rent, be a pawn. The financing is of course not mentioned: who profits from these dull buildings, why not build proper towns and neighborhoods?

Note on 'Asch Conformity Experiment' (Oct 2022): [source: just a youtube; investigators are recommended to look at information less controlled by Jews:]   This might more accurately be called 'Asch Conformity Experiments', as there were variations on the basic idea of one genuine subject amid all other confederates, typically 5, acting under instructions. Variations included one of the confederates acting the role of sympathetic collaborator: this sort of thing: [Card with line length matching no. 1: replies 2,2,1,2,1 where the collaborator is the first respondent saying 1.]   The effects of secrecy were tested when the subject was told to write down his/her answer.

General conclusions were that accurate perceptions were encouraged by lack of unanimity in the group under examination, and accurate perceptions were encouraged by secrecy.

Probably Jews are encouraged to be unanimous in e.g. discussions on nuclear weapons and power, the so-called 'holocaust', promotion of homosexxuality and 'anti-racism', and (c 2019-2021) the 'pandemic' of COVID and other inventions.

Top of Page
alice-coleman-utopia-on-trial   Review of Social engineering of housing in Britain   Alice Coleman: Utopia on Trial - Vision and Reality in Planned Housing (1985)

Omits several elephants in the tower block, Mar 3, 2013

1985 book published by Hilary Shipman, presumably a small specialist publisher. The work was carried out over five years by a team directed by Professor Alice Coleman, of the geography department at King's College, London. There were five main members of the team, all women.

The title is supposed to include the idea of a trial: the defendants being the vision of planners - not the planners themselves (including architects, council 'officers' and so on), but rather the vision, a compound of the Garden City idea and Le Corbusier's still-futuristic visions as processed by post-1945 'socialists'. Fixed-size gardens, Radiant City, and roads in the sky as interpreted by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Her alternative, or at least contrast, seems to be a more-or-less free market model, with builders building what they find people want: 1930s semis emerge well from this, partly because the population had been thinned out by WW1 slaughter so houses were cheapish. (£500 for a semi, £550 for a detached, I remember being told). Coleman likes Jane Jacobs ('Death and Life of Great American Cities') and Oscar Newman's 'Defensible Space' (1972; her book resembles this but with fewer illustrations). There's a sex divide here: male architects discuss design and people as fitting in (or not) with their pet structures; women tend to be more aware of things like crowds as crime reducers, and town centres with a variety of shops and businesses. Coleman quotes approvingly from an author on shanty towns.

I'm not certain Coleman knew the meaning of 'utopia' when she wrote this.

In fact the book was a bit late - page 7 has a photo of a controlled demolition of a 10-storey Birkenhead block!

Coleman set out to find weak design points - 'design disadvantagement' features - and listed 15 of these, all architectural and, specifically, spatial - tower and slab blocks, blocks per site, entrance types, corridor positions and whether they were observed, vertical routes such as lifts (elevators), interconnecting exits, and confused as opposed to clearly-delineated outside spaces.

Buildings were assessed by several criteria - litter, faeces ('usually dog'), children taken into care, and others. (Table page 205 lists these, and correlation coefficients). There were interviews, though such issues as feelings of fear, feelings of loneliness, and actual violence weren't factored into the calculations. Blocks in Hackney and Southwark, and, for comparison, Blackbird Leys in Oxford were looked at; 4,099 of these blocks, plus 4,172 houses. And a dozen other parts of Britain, plus Toronto, Puerto Rico and Hong Kong. Thirty or so woman-years in total.

There's a fair amount of statistical work. I have to say I found the 'threshold level' calculations incomprehensible.

The basic idea seems to be pretty simple, in fact: if you have a place to live in, normally there are few ways to get to it, and out of it: a main road, a side road, a front door, maybe several floors; and maybe a back door or fire escape. The number of neighbours is not very great. BUT if there are several big blocks scattered around, and linked by walkways, there may be many ways of getting to several entrances, and many ways of getting to the apartment or maisonette. Corridors may be menacing or unobserved or isolated. So what? Well, IF there are burglars or other criminals or thugs, the living space is threatening and worrying. (This is quite apart from the issue of looking out of windows with precipitous huge drops down). In some societies, this may not matter: '... Japan had a high crime rate ... which fell after the American occupation force departed, and they now assume virtually all crime is due to foreigners. ... the Japanese people are reacting rather like the British but at a much later date, so they have reached only a mild stage as yet' wrote Prof Coleman to me. This sounds to me like a low crime population. She wrote: 'The architects who designed the inferior estates genuinely believed they were superior dwellings, and they certainly cost more than houses would have done.'

The solutions - removing walkways, having external balconies rather than interior corridors, blocking off vertical shafts, would make journeys home longer, of course, but perhaps that couldn't be helped. Houses were to have improved visibility by giving them bay windows, and doors with glass facing out, and fenced gardens.

There are several issues not faced by Coleman, possibly because the project was 'funded' by the Rowntree Foundation, basically a Jewish-controlled quasi-think-tank which had the pro-Jewish policy of damaging British society. There's no mention of such phenomena as Rachmanism. Another plausible Jewish-related possibility is that housing desiogned to put the goyim in their inferior place, while also benefitting Jews through subsidies, was deliberate but hidden policy. Ernö Goldfinger (1902-1987), a Jew from Hungary, illustrates. [Goldfinger note added 2013-10-06]

In the first place, there's the issue of criminality: if nobody ever attacked or robbed anyone, a completely open-plan architecture would be fine. In fact, crime was rising all the time, and this of course was disproportionately due to immigrants. Possibly the architects preferred not to face such facts.

There's no consideration of the part that could be played by concierges. (The 'caretaker' is the nearest approach).

Another point is that mansion blocks can work perfectly well: the Barbican, Brunwick Centre, and other high-density architectural constructions work well enough. And certainly many blocks now have railings, all round, not too obtrusive, with railed gates opened electrically by buttons out of reach of the other side of the fence. Probably the lessons were learned.

Another very serious missing consideration is the Freemasonry/ Common Purpose effect: if big companies can get big contracts on big sites which use relatively deskilled labour, they're onto a winner, from their point of view. Coleman makes the mistake of viewing demolition as 'financially disastrous'. This is true of income taxpayers and property tax payers, but not of the beneficiaries, who in fact can make much more money from bad schemes than good. Councils were actually offered a cash bonus - the taller the block, the more money. And the density was deliberately kept low.

Note that Alice Coleman teamed up with Mona McNee, and between them they wrote on another money-making disaster, low quality teaching of children to read and write. But again they omitted important parts of the dynamics.

Top of Page
image   Review of Social engineering of education, dumbing down   Mona McNee & Alice Coleman: The Great Reading Disaster: Reclaiming Our Educational Birthright

Important issue treated with passion, but ..., Sept 3, 2008

NOTE: If you have a 'dyslexic' child, or child discouraged from reading, or know an adult who has been damaged by crap teaching of reading, try www.phonics4free.org -- Mona McNee's website.

Alice Coleman wrote on the architectural disasters of British tower blocks, and how to cure them, and deserves very considerable respect for this. Mona McNee was/is a teacher. (Google and search for videos of her; she by the way is promoted by the BNP).

The claim made (2007, by a small Exeter press—www.imprint-academic.com) iis very very important, namely that children weren't taught to read properly, which means by identifying letters as the—so to speak—atoms of words. When this was done most kids could read by, say, 7. (I'm talking of the English or 'Roman' alphabet). The authors maintain the 'look say' method was introduced by 'progressives', starting with Fred Schonell whose views ruled from 1945-1975, in which children were shown the shapes of whole words. Unsurprisingly they failed to learn and the result was decades—from say 1970—of near illiterates. Fascinating idea. In addition there's a lot on the official experts of what they call 'progressivism' and indeed one could guess what happened purely from analogous cases. E.g. not answering, legal threats, sackings and non-promotions, not reviewing books, pretending the issues were debated in the past, etc.

The question of whether this was deliberate isn't really gone into—but after all it's entirely possible that social engineers wanted other people's kids' education held back.

BUT
[1] This book is a perfect example of how not to write a revisionist-type text. There is no summary anywhere of what claims they are making, or what evidence they have. It's a long long book and the reader has the burden imposed of trying to extract the message. They know what they're claiming—they should say what it is clearly!
[2] Some of the material seems simply incredible, such as trying to teach the outline shapes of words. For one thing, there are numerous typefaces, so the shape of words isn't fixed. The authors don't consider this. *** What I meant is, if there's such a naff system, why didn't people react? ***
[3] Not much international comparison. The one striking example is a page of Arabic script, with the comment that English looks like this to a child. It's clearly absurd to memorise words.
[4] Lots of deeply-felt criticism of opponents. This is understandable, and important, but should be kept in subservience to the aim of the book.

The book deals with a hugely important scandal in Britain, and perhaps elsewhere, and its thesis ought to be discussed and hard decisions taken about what to do. (Gordon Brown's appalling bunch of nonentities, including Balls, will of course prove useless). **BUT** in my view the failure to get to the point is a huge drawback of this volume. The authors should ask intelligent people, many from outside the education industry, to read it as consumer research. With luck it could be reshaped to make unanswerable and essential reading. It's unlikely they'd get any government funding for this, however, since the official experts will no doubt strongly advise against.

Incidentally the Daily Mail a British newspaper of typical UK quality has helped promote this cause, as has Civitas, a think-tank which unlike most seems not to be funded by Gordon Brown's unelected clique.

NOTE 1: There is an outline of Mona McNee's teaching method; anyone with a child with reading difficulties might do well to buy this book for that, and the background information.
NOTE 2: The authors believe that dyslexia is a genuine condition. But they say children taught by the sensible alphabetical method, even if liable to be dyslexic, should not ever manifest dyslexia. In other words, the huge epidemic of dyslexia was caused by 'look say'. This of course allows the teaching 'profession' to absorb more money correcting their own errors. At the cost of unruly and bored classes, frightened of never getting a grip on literacy.
NOTE 3: It follows there's a class issue here—in the societal sense! Obviously households of a middle-class type have books and magazines as a matter of course, and in any case the parents are familiar with reading and can teach it themselves. In effect the losers are the lower echelons. And these are the least likely to get any sympathy.
NOTE 4: P. 266 goes some way to quantifying the waste: school education cost £36 billion in 2005, some time before this book was published. Shockingly wasteful for a substandard product. The authors seem slightly naive in not perceiving that the people getting all that money may see it differently...
Are would-be reformers serious? October 2012

Deliberately-planned but secret damage to education is an off-topic thread on 'nukelies' (clearly a dumbed-down unscientific population is not much of a threat; on the other hand it will not create much).

Two topics are the 'look say' method for not teaching you children to read and write - part of the critics being by (ex?) BNP member Mona McNee, along with Alice Coleman (who is or was famous for her excellent work opposing some tower block design errors). These two don't see anyone behind systematic attacks on traditional education (though they are aware of paedophile rings).

I'm asking the question: Were Jews - as education ministers, 'gurus', promoters, publishers of articles, publishers of books, promoters of think tanks, funders of this or that, supporters of damaging teaching union leaders etc the moving force behind 'look say'?

As an example, here's a BBC blurb for a radio programme (22nd October 2012): Michael Gove [Jewish Minister of Education, under Jewish Prime Minister Cameron plus Jewish Clegg] is a fan of E.D. Hirsch, the American educational thinker. Fran Abrams explores Hirsch's radical ideas and how they could transform schooling in England. A similar issue is: were the post-1945 attacks on grammar schools (but not public schools, as expensive schools are called in Britain, and not Jewish schools) orchestrated by Jews? Or (if you dislike grammar schools) were comprehensives designed to produce bad results?

There are many other issues - dumbing-down of universities, failure of universities to back free speech, altering of syllabuses - and I'm just interested in raw evidence. Were they or weren't they, or to what extent were they, Jewish designed?

  Review of America's Secret Establishment - Skull and Bones Society   Anthony C. Sutton

Page 62 and on has an account of 'look say' in the USA. Originally it was a method of teaching deaf-mutes.
Downloadable as a free PDF file. sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119639.pdf


Iserbyt on US education   Review of Jews and Educational Dumbing-Down   Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt: The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

Lots of frantic rhetoric about commies and mind control, but no analysis of Jews
Jan 2013

Kevin MacDonald's evolutionary 'social identity theory' predicts (I take it) that Jews in the USA would have intentionally damaged the education of 'Gentiles'. In view of their 'intellectual' predominance, based in my opinion on Jewish control of paper money, Iserbyt if serious would investigate their effects. She doesn't; there is no mention of Jewish influences anywhere in this book.


Miseducation blamed on Germans and US industrialists   Review of Miseducation, but blamed on Germans and US industrialists   Paolo Lionni: The Leipzig Connection (1980)

Short book mostly based around 1900 putting the blame for 'dumbed-down' education onto Germans.

Some material on much higher standards in 19th century USA, though the evidence is sparse. A scientology book; the same material on e.g. suspicion of Wundt (and other psychologists) and Rockefeller, but with a Jewish pro-immigration slant, and a fundamentalist dislike of evolution is widespread on Internet. But there's nothing about Jewish influences on ideas and education. Such issues as race integration, anti-Christian views, sex education, American and world history (to name just a few) cannot be understood without understanding Jews.
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jan 7, 2013 6:52:14 AM PST Rerevisionist says:
I'm inclined to think this reviewer is right. Someone sent me a copy of this book in the post; it's striking that the cover design doesn't say what it's about; the review extracts give no clue; the cover photo conveys nothing; there's no index; the chapter headings convey little. My personal view is that the US (and European) education systems have been deliberately damaged, notably at the level of ordinary people as opposed to 'elites', and I'm inclined to think this must be the work of Jews, acting as per immigration, deliberately intended to damage host countries. Many supposed psychologists were Jews, of course. This is an hypothesis that ought to be considered. But this book isn't much help; it's mostly based on the 1920s epoch in any case.


Gatto on Miseducation   Review of Miseducation   John Taylor Gatto: Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling

Someone please write about Jews and education..., January 7, 2013
I haven't read Gatto's book; judging by the reviews it's not worth reading.


It's well established (see e.g. MacDonald's The Culture of Critique) that Jews in the USA have been in the forefront of promoting immigration, concealing the truth about Jews in the USSR, concealing the fact that Jews have huge influence because of the paper money fraud, and that this money filters down, so Jews own all the media, and control most assets.

Therefore it makes sense to assume Jews have had a huge impact on education, since naturally they want their rivals to be as dim as possible. Mixing in blacks, promoting useless schemes like 'look say', all forms of dumbing-down, writing junk textbooks, starving serious universities and colleges of funds, discouraging languages, encouraging truancy etc etc are the sorts of things to be expected from Jews.

Someone (or some group) ought to write a well-researched book on this topic.


To: Campaign for Real Education (October 2012)

Dear Chris McGovern---
I found your website (while searching on 'Campaign for Racial Equality' I think) and would like to pose a question. (If your organisation is no longer functioning, apologies).

In view of the fact that Jews have had a systematic long-term campaign to damage Britain through immigration and increased crime and (for want of a better word) perversions of various types, has the 'Campaign for Real Education' made any attempt to check for Jewish influences in movements which damage education?

For example, the 'look say' method may have been promoted by Jewish 'gurus'; the downgrading of standards by e.g. Jewish 'experts' in education, publishing houses, and what have you; the faking of history by disallowing history teachers to teach wars etc except in ways approved by Jews; economics weakened by insistence on Jewish influences studiedly being ignored. (These examples are not of course intended to be exhaustive).

Since you're presumably serious about the need for real education, obviously you must have considered this issue.

Regards

Top of Page
  Review of autobiography   Michael Caine: What's It All About

Interesting though not perfect, August 3, 2010

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

Top of Page
image   Review of U.S. post-1945 psychology   David C. McClelland: The Achieving Society

Post-WW2 statistical sausage machine and applied naivete, August 3, 2010

Not 1967; in fact 1961. My attention was drawn to this by 'The Great Reading Disaster'. It seems to have been well-known, and quite influential amongst some social science types, when new.

It really is quite an odd book, but deserves to be commended for its boldness. However, I think it fails completely. In a way, it's an example of applied maths—throughout there are tables of analysis of variance, chi-squared, and so on. However, the it's not clear that underlying theory of these tests (for example, normal distributions of pencil and paper tests), could be expected to operate, or even that the theory is understood. They appear to be sausage-machine applications.

I don't think I'm being far-fetched in being able to identify this as a pre-word processor book. The first parts seem to aim at one, modest, proven claim; then this is expanded; and again—the 'goal' of the book turns out to be a series of 'goals'.

The bibliography lists ten books from the 1950s jointly-written by McClelland, or books to which he contributed a chapter. Some are on children and parents; most are on motivation, achievement, talent, success. This book therefore is McClelland's attempt at a significant work of synthesis. It tries too be something like a look at the rise, decline and fall of societies.

What's striking is the way immediate post-war US attitudes are taken for granted. There's something to be said for ignoring the past; to look at (say) Ireland, or the USA, or Japan without taking their histories into account, to step away from the past and take a fresh look. However, this is easier said than done, and McClelland settles for attitudes of the New York Times of the era. Adorno's book on authoritarianism was new. McClelland seems to have no doubts that the USA is democratic, although he must have heard comments to the effect that it was run by a few dozen (or hundred, or whatever) men. Germany and Japan are of course judged. There's vagueness over Spain and Portugal. 'Russia' is talked of, not the USSR, a clear ideological point—he compares 1929 with 1950! Israel has no mention of subsidies. Vietnam is not known of. McClelland throughout assumes 'entrepreneurs' are responsible for 'achievement'. He doesn't seem to have noticed the statism introduced by the Second World War. He's perfectly aware that (e.g.) Mexico's electrification was being carried out almost entirely by American bosses—hardly 'entrepreneurs' in any traditional sense. He's aware Kuwait and Arabia were wealthy, but without any noticeable prior 'achievement'. Moreover he says nothing about the vast expansion of the military. All this is entirely conventional, part of the post-war censorship tradition. Because of all this, 'entrepreneurs' tend to morph into 'managers'.

The book tries to correlate three things with rise, stasis, and fall of civilisations. These are 'n Achievement' (lower case n, upper case A), 'n Affiliation', and 'n Power'. These aren't described or defined, or even listed in the index. They're supposed to be something like raw achievement, presumably of many people—hence the 'n'—is some way contributing jointly to their 'society'. 'n Affiliation' is something like friendship or kinship or tendency to associate together. And finally 'n Power' is something like the impulse to selfish power, rather than societal cohesion and advance. Although it's supposed to apply to civilizations, this morphs into 'the economic development process'. McClelland doesn't seem to know about raw materials, so the idea of locally appropriate technology is entirely missing. Roads, gasoline cars, airplanes, suburbs are the unquestioned measures of progress, whether in Africa, Asia, or presumably Greenland. He even uses electrical power output as a measure of 'achievement' despite the fact that it was introduced by a few experts. Moreover his idea of history is taken from the traditional easy 19th century outlook—Greece and Rome; then the Middle Ages; then modern times, including the Reformation and a few other advances. South America, Africa, China and central Asia, and the Indian peninsula aren't part of history, though he does consider them as modern states.

Part of what attractiveness the book has, is its odd choice of ways try to measure things which are rather hard-to-measure. This is where his previous academic contacts come in. We have doodles, children's stories—usually mass published ones, though he also uses ancient Greek literature, colour preferences. However most of the research was carried out on children, who were administered pencil and paper questionnaires—typically in rather tiny numbers. Why children—who after all can't have much idea of progress, technology, careers, or work—should be considered suitable targets, rather than adults, isn't clear to me; probably it reflects his earlier writings. How can a schoolboy be expected to know how risky stockbroking is?

A couple of chapters which may have been based on stand-alone chapters, don't fit this scheme: there's one on Hermes, which must be influenced by a classicist trying to keeep up to date; there's another on race and climate, which as per fashion, McClelland doesn't think much of as explanatory factors.

Conclusion: of great interest if you want to examine the shallow post-WW2 optimism of academics who do the safe thing and publish rather than perish. I don't think it's of much help in charting the course today.

Top of Page
image   Review of technology history   Christopher Riche Evans: The Mighty Micro: Impact of the Computer Revolution

Attempt at futurology with some successes, 15 July 2010

This was essentially futurology—written in 1979 so it's the 30th anniversary. Mildly interesting to see how well Evans did.

The book is not very satisfactory, though it's not easy to state quite why. I *think* it's because Evans has no real methodology or approach; he just chucks in a collection of items which don't have any logical coherence.

He gives a history, such as it is, with the usual suspects, including Turing. (I've been told that none of the pioneering computer engineer types had even heard of Turing). He has short term 1980-82, middle term 83-90, and long term (-2000) in three chapters.

Remember at the time he wrote, pocket calculators had only just ousted slide rules; and quartz watches were new. Displays were those glowing red things. Liquid crystals weren't invented. Microsoft isn't mentioned—their software in the Apple II (and III) was high tech. Electronic mail existed, but not Internet- though he got keyboard and TV. Evans thought this could be used for voting—as it can, but not for elections.

Evans considered the Soviet Union (ceased 1991) might be unstable. (When 20% of a population have phones, they can't be kept down, he quotes—he doesn't consider they might assist civil war or invasion). He assumed the US had immense wealth; also that US technology was far ahead—after all, they got to the moon!

I was slightly impressed that he predicted emotional attachment to computers though of programmers—a relatively rare breed. He didn't predict chatrooms, but, influenced by Eliza, thought therapy by program might work.

Some of his guesses seem based on other popular books: he thought 'ultra intelligent machines could prolong life to age 1000'—ie things which might measure blood or neoplasms, and even repair them. I just spent about half an hour trying to connect my PC—the idea of Ultra Intelligent Machines can seem a joke.

He thought self-diagnosis by machine would be easy; I suspect he underestimated the cavernous ignorance of most people. He thought legal decisions might be computerisable and, though Chomsky isn't mentioned, 'natural language' is. Of course, he had no way of estimating 'complexity' or 'interconnectedness'—if he, or anyone else, had, they might guess quite accurately whether such things could happen, and guess when.

Evans thought the working week would reduce, further education would go further, to, say, 25, and retirement ages drop. This seems a middle class view unmediated by awareness of jobs which are not easily mechanisable. (Quite apart from oil shortages etc). He thinks the third world needs education—'affluence has only sprung up when ignorance has been conquered'—though he only seems to come up with tourism and 'exchange of information' to help them. Education, agriculture, economic planning, and 'climate control' should all help the third world.

So—a mixed bag. Not very impressive! Recommended to anyone trying to predict—this book will give you a feel of where you may well go wrong though conscious or unconscious bias—or simple ignorance.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest music   Bob Dylan: Dylan on Dylan

Promo material with minimal info, July 15, 2010

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

Top of Page
image   Review of BBC media   Robin Aitken: Can We Trust the BBC?

A little boy tries to criticise the big boys..., July 15, 2010

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

Top of Page
Review of John Cole's As it Seemed To Me moved here together (to save space)


image   Review of media shit   Greg Dyke: Inside Story

Horrifyingly Shallow. Two stars because there is at least some content.

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

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish state secrecy and Churchill's real role in WW2   Bryan Clough: State Secrets: The Kent-Wolkoff Affair

Bafflingly presented—needs complete overhaul, July 15, 2010

Exposing Winston Churchill
David Irving Youtube.
Private channel between Churchill and Roosevelt.
About 25 mins
This book is badly presented—it's only by reading these comments in Amazon that I could work out what it's about! At the time (Second World War) the outline of the story must have been well-known, but the author seems to assume any reader would know that. It's therefore difficult to piece together the point of this book. It has no reproductions of e.g news items at the time; and the quotations from other books (typically, this 'affair' was one chapter in ten or so spy stories, published after WW2 to make money) aren't distinguished by typeface, or by facsimile reproduction. The chapter titles are silly and unhelpful ('Second Spin Cycle', 'Kent Speaks'). Moreover the author is an unreconstructed believer in all WW2 mythology and cliché, with for example no grasp of the 'Holocaust' and Pearl Harbor as frauds, or the truth about the treatment of Germans. Capt Ramsay MP gets some mentions; so does William Joyce, 'Lord Haw Haw'. And a rather large cast of judges, officials, MI5 and MI6 men, spies, Ambassadors, military people, Joseph P. Kennedy etc. Needs reformatting, re-editing, illustrating, and critical reshaping.
Extracted from 'Heritage and Destiny' Nov-Dec 2012–
    ...During the phony war period [Capt. A H M] Ramsay [MP] distributed the verses of a poem he had written entitled "Land of Dope and Jewry", a parody on "Land of Hope and Glory", As well as stickers with slogans such as "War Destroys Workers" and "This is a Jews' War".
  By January 1940 Ramsay had collected details of nearly thirty subversive societies engaged in various stages of revolutionary activity. The principal names were: Prof. H. Laski, Israel Moses Sieff, Prof. Herman Levy [?possibly Hyman - RW], Victor Gollancz, D. N. Pritt MP, and G.G. Strauss, MP.
    In May 1940 Tyler Kent, a cypher clerk at the U.S. Embassy showed Ramsay a collection of cables containing conversations between Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in which the former among other dubious things was trying to inveigle the United States to fight on England's behalf. Release of this information could have affected Churchill adversely, but would undoubtedly have scuppered Roosevelt's re-election hopes in November, 1940. Captain Ramsay planned to divulge the contents of these cables in the House of Commons, but he was arrested on May 23, 1940, three days after Kent had been arrested, US Ambassador Joseph Kennedy having waived Kent's diplomatic immunity.
    Ramsay was then confined to Brixton prison under Defence Regulation 18B, where he would remain until September 26, 1944. On his release he returned to parliament, but did not seek re-election in 1945. ...

Top of Page
image   Review of Science history. Chemistry after 1945.   Linus Pauling: General Chemistry

Similar effect to Lavoisier only more so ... abstractifying the subject, July 13, 2010

First published 1947. This Dover reprint is the 1970 edition. About 950 pages. Naturally has excursions into physics, including the structure of the nucleus and electrons, and things like electron shells. Also of course gas material from Avogadro onwards, and the relation with atomic and molecular weights, vapour pressures etc. And states of matter, such as ice, and water including deuterium and tritium; and crystallography. He doesn't clearly distinguish theories from empirically established material—but this is very common and part of the legacy of overblown mathematical treatments. Naturally enough, it has to deal with chromatography, and mass chromatography—i.e. separation by weight. This book predates most colour chemistry. Pauling made a mistake over 'high energy bonds'; he has quite a bit of material on biochemistry, perhaps foreshadowing Pauling's later vitamin C obsession, including hormones, vitamins, amino acids, and enzymes. There's some metallurgy. There's also an account of Ektachrome colour photography—state of the art then. Much of the book is organised on periodic table lines, for example by metals with similar characteristics, and inert gases etc—and of course the full table had only recently been elucidated when Pauling wrote first, as not just transuranics but a few other gaps had been filled only in living memory. Other periodicities of course are discussed. And there's the maths of thermodynamics (includes in effect thermite—as in 9/11), heats and rates of reaction, and 3-D geometry and some other things. He gets supercooled things wrong, and I think the kinetic theory of gases.

Errors in Pauling's book: there are three things mentioned in my review: high-energy bonds, so-called, in biochemistry. There was a debate, which never really concluded, with Barbara Banks. The superfluid comment is a reference to superfluid helium, which is misunderstood still. There are issues in thermodynamics which are complicated, and also with the kinetic theory of gases, which can't be right as the little cannonball effect doesn't model gases accurately. There are also in fact issues to do with nuclear theories, which I'd say he got wrong, but he wouldn't have been allowed access to the material anyway. (His later vitamin C theory is is not of course in this textbook)
If you like to know how things are made, and what from, and have a sense of historical continuity, this is a very good one volume reference. Pauling was not one to admit he was uncertain, so this book is more hard edged than it ought to be—I suspect in lectures and teaching Pauling would have been less dogmatic. The emphasis on overviews, and mathematical models, does however remove some of the picturesqueness of earlier chemistry texts, with accounts of mercury mines in Spain, or German minerals and Paracelsus, or wallpapers and 'poison green', so it's relatively austere. Highly recommended for people with science interests, and some maths, who like to ponder the slow processes of unravelling truths.

Top of Page
image   Review of Education frauds   John Caldwell Holt: How Children Fail

Poignant descriptions of young children struggling to learn, July 11, 2010

First published 1964 from notes made in what in England are called primary schools round about 1960. Four categories: Strategy (tricks children use to get answers), Fear and Failure, Real Learning, How Schools Fail.

Let me give extracts to give the feel of this book:-
'The teacher ... told these children that a verb is a word of action—which is not always true. ... She said '.. a verb has to have action; can you give me a sentence, using "dream", that has action?' The child thought a bit, and said, 'I had a dream about the Trojan War.' Now it's pretty hard to get more action than that. But the teacher told him he was wrong, and he sat silent, with an utterly baffled and frightened expression on his face. ...'

'When Nancy and Sheila worked the balance beam last year, they were often close to the truth, but they could never hang on to it because they could never express their ideas in a form they could test... Once one of them said, 'Things weigh more further out.' This was a big step; but they couldn't think of a way to check or refine this insight..'

'.. I had what seemed .. a bright idea. I thought if I could get her to think about what she had written, she would see that some of her answers were more reasonable than others, and thus ... an error-noticing, nonsense-eliminating device might take root ... I ... asked her ... to compare her answers, check with a tick those she felt sure were right, with an X those she felt sure were wrong ... A moment later I got one of the most unpleasant surprises of my teaching career. She handed me her ... paper, with 7 x 1 = marked right, and *all other answers* marked wrong. This poor child had been defeated and destroyed by school. Years of drill, practice, explanation, and testing ... have done nothing for her except knock her loose from whatever common sense she might have had to begin with. ...'

'We had been doing maths, and I was pleased with myself because ... I was 'making her think' by asking her questions. It was slow work. .. we inched our way along until suddenly, looking at her as I waited for an answer to a question, I saw with a start that she was not at all puzzled by what I had asked her. In fact, she was not even thinking about it. She was coolly appraising me, weighing my patience, waiting for that next, sure-to-be-easier, question. ... The girl had learned how to make all her previous teachers do the same thing. ...'

'What is most surprising of all is how much fear there is in school. Why is so little said about it? Perhaps most people do not recognise fear in children when they see it. ... the subtler signs of fear escape them. It is these signs, in children's faces, voices, and gestures, in their movements and ways of working, that tell me plainly that most children in school are scared most of the time, many of them very scared. ...'

John Holt is (was?) American. The special feature of this book is the observation of evanescent and transient states of mind, most which take far longer to record than they do to actually happen in life. The impact of this book is its rather depressing nature; and this includes the behaviour of teachers. Fortunately Holt wrote 'How Children Succeed' a few years later.

Top of Page

Top of Page

Tom Kawczynski   Someone Has to Say It - The Hidden History of How America Was Lost (2018)
Someone has to say it.   But it's not Kawczynski     Yawn: banned by Amazon  
Review by Rerevisionist

The Occidental Observer put up an online review of this book on 1 August 2018 by Russell James, who also wrote an interview with Kawczynski on 2nd February, after Kawczynski 'made it into the news', as media hacks put it—obviously, it was decided to push him. Russell James seems to be a gullible American, who believes e.g. that the USA was 'a prosperous land in the 1950s — a land whose cities were the jewels of the world.' There was a media campaign of a sort that skeptics will suspect of being a systematic typically Jewish teaser campaign, including violence. ('The attack was swift, coordinated, deliberate, and deceitful...') Kawczynski is described as a 'town manager' of Jackman, Maine, population about 1000. (See Google Street View; for no reason, I was amused to see the Jackman Motel is/was next to a taxidermist). My best guess is that this is a psyop of some sort. Red Ice has an interview with him. There was some connection with gab.ai, some sort of Jewish video site. The number of variously 'outed' people - Richard Spencer, 'Tommy Robinson', 'Alex Jones', Ilana Mercer ad infinitum and nauseam gets ever-longer; and ditto with events. It genuinely has been a Jewish activity across millennia. Kawczynski seems to have a site asking for donations. All this is hard to assess; it would take a lot of effort to dig out the truth.

[Maybe it's worth nothing that 'Kakzynski' looks a similar name and has suspicions, such as the so-called 'Unabomber', around him]

This book has a couple of odd aspects. The title page says the contents are 'As Told by: Tom Kawczynski'. Does that mean he didn't write it? And there is no publisher: my copy was 'Printed in Great Britain by Amazon'. Amazon has a heavy policy of censorship; it's unlikely they would print serious political commentary. My best guess is that Kawczynski, whether aware or not, is just another Jew-operated puppet. I think it's likely the content of this book was supplied by one of the countless Jew 'experts' on propaganda. Unless you believe Kawczynski reads Hegel, knows about medical history, is familiar with wartime archives, etc. etc.

I'll review this book on the assumption that it follows a Jewish script, so that we can infer what lies Jews are currently trying out. Chapter 8 ('The Last Stand of Traditional America') has this (p 104): '.. I know many people exist within Jewry and every other group who are just as aware and troubled by what their compatriots have done. In truth. they're some of the biggest supporters of my effort to bring these arguments into the light...' What 'other groups' who are 'compatriots' of Jews are, is not stated. But it may be that since early 2018 Kawczynski has been selected to lead, or pretend to lead.

I won't list the Jewish slang/ sloganistic chapter titles. (There are 28). I'll try to summarise where Kawczynski is leading, or, probably being guided.

  • Kawczynski says he follows a Christian faith. ('Christian legacy of love and charity'). I'd guess Roman Catholic, judging by his Slavic surname; incidentally he may be just another descendant of central European Jews. The book is unindexed, and it's hard to work out what he knows about Christianity, if anything. Because it's so dependent on Judaism, I don't think Christianity is a way forward; Articles on Jews gives my reasons. But it looks as though the Jew 'elites' want simple Christians to do their usual stuff: war crimes, doing what they're told.
  • His first enemy is Moslems. He doesn't point out that Jews forced immigration of Moslems into white countries. This of course is a standard Jewish line, the other being that Moslems are hardworking, valuable citizens who deserve all the benefits they are given.
  • Jews and world events. There's much less of this than is needed. The Federal Reserve appears on p 28 but is soft-pedalled; the beneficiary of the scam is presented, wrongly, as 'the Government'. The cui bono idea appears on p 14, as 'who benefits?' BUT of course in many cases the holding companies, unaudited Fed, 'black' secret places, offshore secrecies make it impossible to find out who benefits. The 'Russian Revolution' is 'run by radicals who were predominantly Jews' elides over the vast USSR atrocities, and, if there is a connection with US Jew bankers, I couldn't find it. Probably this was permitted since there's an anti-Russian campaign at present.
  • Arms, weapons, money. No comment on this issue. It's said "The US practically doesn't make anything any more except weapons', but this aspect of Jewish activity is omitted.
  • In keeping with the Jewish pretence that individuals drive events, we have mentions of Presidents: 'At least F D Roosevelt created jobs', LBJ did this and that, Nixon did this and that ('the media parlayed that deception [Tet?] into a grand maneuver designed to begin the long process of extracting America from Vietnam' - Kawczynski hasn't understood Jew won the Vietnam War, with mass casualties, weapons tests, huge profits, and control over money), Obama, the 'great white hope' wanted this and that. The unified groups such as AIPAC are omitted. The 1960s are a Jew-propaganda evil, since of course they want to not mention US war crimes in the Vietnam invasion. This is regarded as 'individualistic' in the rather sad US pretence system; in fact, hardly anyone dared strike out on their own. This was no doubt influenced by the 'nuke' scare about which Kawczynski says nothing useful. He even thinks (p 103) the Rosenbergs were spies, rather than just more Jew actors.
  • On the Holohoax, he says honest discussion is difficult—without saying why. (I was amazed to see Töben of the Adelaide Institute recommended this book as a gift, despite dodging his key issue).
  • On the 'Cold War', Stalin is described as 'hard left', in absurd Jewish slang. Kawczynski discusses the 'Bay of Pigs', clearly unaware of Castro's Jewish roots and US bases in Cuba.
  • There are endless messy discussions: stacking the Courts (78), the beliefs, supposedly held by bureaucrats, that they could create a utopia (p 102), the 'Korean War is still not resolved', etc. The role of Rothschild banking is not understood by Kawczynski; discussion on how pre-1945 banks worked is suppressed.
  • Several chapter look at golden ages material, mostly myth. p 218 says 'since the dawn of human history, man has lived in balance with the land', which I leave to my readers to crit. There's material on 'allopathy' and 'naturopathy', and on Prohibition, of alcohol, which may (or may not) have prevented alcohol's use as a fuel, and on 'junk food'. I couldn't find DuPont vs hemp, to my surprise.

There's a lot more—'No one wanted the bailout of Wall Street in 2008', for example. No one?

This is awful stuff; I doubt its usefulness even to the most naïve American, since it has no thread running through it, doesn't face serious truths against and for whites, and replaces the Jew-enforced mass media rubbish with a marginally different version of the same.


'His' book mentions a few websites. gab.ai has been outed as a Jewish video site. (It is listed by alexa.com as #3000 in the USA; bitchute is listed higher, at #2400).

A site attributed to 'John Young' is europeanamericansunited.com 'created' in 2007, updated on 2017-12-31, though it is below alexa's radar. It says nothing about Karl Marx as rich, a relative of the Rothschilds and promoter of a ridiculous 'proletariat' mythology. It says nothing on the fact that Jews have promoted race invasion into white countries, for many years. It has silly Christmas stories, aimed, presumably, at simple Americans who don't know 'Jews' invented organised Christianity. It seems to have a 'support US troops' policy without mentioning Jewish control of policy. It comments on US 'education': most US 'students' think America invented slavery, for example! It is, in short, very sad stuff. I think a related site claims the Holohoax is the worst extermination ever. To anyone concerned with the world and its future, this material is terrifyingly deathly.

Kawczynski (Kawzinsky? Kawzinski? Cawzhinsky? Cawzinski?) has a new project, 'created' 3 March 2018, built with 'storefront - the best ecommerce platform for wordpress'. There are some astonishingly long-winded scripts, which must have been assembled by some 'Jewish' 'brains'. Some of them are quite amusing, e.g. material on unemployment at an all-time low in the US, which he couldn't possibly have researched himself. Of course there's nothing on Jew finances, Fed, etc.


Incidentally, Britain has an MP [member of Parliament] for an area where Muslim rape gangs have been ignored by politicians. Daniel Kawczynski was elected in 2017 for the 'Conservative Party'; I'd guess a relative. His 'Labour Party' opponent was Laura Davies, a 'former major in the Royal Army Medical Corps'. If I'm reading them right, the unfortunate electors had a choice between two Jews—it's impossible that a patriotic Pole could become a candidate.
I started this review with a link from The Occidental Observer which is showing strong signs of losing its way. The simple formula of honest individualistic European hunter-gatherers living by military reputation needs an overhaul. (Consider Evelyn Whitehead: "... [American] women are timid. ... It shows in their houses. Every house is furnished alike. No one dares be different. The monotony is so deadly that every time I go into one more such, I could scream". She was not the only person to make such an observation.)   Personally, I hope revisionism will extend and deepen.

RW 22/23 Aug 2018

But Jan 20 2019's The Occidental Observer has a good article by Kawczynski on censors and self-censorship: The Censor's Handbook

Weale Science and the Swastika Channel 4   Review of Anti-German and anti-science Propaganda
Adrian Weale/ Channel 4 books—Darlow Smithson film and TV production: Science in the Third Reich

Completely worthless propaganda by moronic non-scientists
7 Mar 2013
Book 2001 published by Channel 4 books - Darlow Smithson film and television production. The book is based on four episodes and look liked padded-out scripts for the voiceover types, actors etc.

Unconsciously funny book made by the morons who seem accepted by the TV industry. I don't know how long this situation will last.

It's a shame, because there was a divide between German science and the rest of the world, one of the few times two fairly competent groups evolved with some independence. For example, Germany introduced electron microscopy, improvements in metallurgy, public health improvements (things like effect of sun and exercise and nutrition vs hospitals), town planning improvements including water supply and autobahnen, etc. So comparisons could have been interesting. There is nothing intelligent in this book, which is pure Anglo-Jewish propaganda - some of my readers will know the type.

There's a small bibliography of about twenty books, an odd collection including three volumes of Kershaw, and Deborah Lipstadt, and even Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk, as though these were serious books. However, it hardly matters.

There are three themes: 'eugenics' and 'the holocaust' - the author(s) simply have no idea about genetics, and no idea about winnowing out the truth from propaganda. Another topic is physics and the 'atom bomb' - again, they simply have no idea. (On this topic, Google nukelies). Not worth reading, unless you want specimens of every possible variety of deception, as some sort of exercise.

Comment made by me (Occidental Observer, November 15, 2017

You [Andrea Letania, attributing bad science to post-1970 era] need to update your views to take into account science fraud. Banning of Jews in Germany in fact INCREASED the quality of their science.

. . . In the several decades following the end of World War II, the impact of ideological taboos had a minimal negative impact. This is so wrong it’s painful. Under the protection of Jewish lies, processes of institutionalised lying about history, science, law, media, economics, militarism – every subject – and ever-increasing insertion of Jew incompetents, damaged every facet of societies under Jew control, i.e. virtually all countries.

Top of Page
Colin Firth A Single Man Colin Firth   A Single Man
    Review 17 June 2015
Low-Budget Film with Multiple Jewish Frauds

Colin Firth as something like a British Tom Hanks. Curious Zombie Film. Most of my media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)

Top of Page
  Review of Lying Jews-in-Finance Film   The Big Short

Deliberate Lies
Reviewed by guest reviewer
  Review of Sadistic Lies about War   Inglorious Basterds

Deliberate Lies By Jewish Prostitute
  Reviewed by guest reviewer
Media reviews have been moved here together (to save space)

Top of Page
Review of Child's View of the 'Hitler War'   Pink Floyd: The Wall


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

Top of Page
image   Review of Britons as subservient trash   Richard Grant: Withnail and I

Backhandedly realistic.

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

Top of Page
image   Review of American economics   Thorstein Veblen: The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions

Pedestrian gawping of little value, I'm afraid..., July 11, 2010

I'd been to led to expect this book was an account of rather silly snobberies by the rich. And that it was exquisite in scholarship, writing style, and detail. Wrong.

Thorstein Veblen—1857-1929—and I only checked these details after reading this book—was one of many children of Norwegian immigrants into the USA. They were, or may have been, ripped off, though his father seems to have made money afterwards—I'd guess via a gift of land from the US government, though if so he seems to have been ungrateful. 'The Theory of the Leisure Class', published in 1899 when he was about 42, caused a stir—or at least that's the story. It precedes Ida Tarbell on Standard Oil by a couple of years.

Veblen's writing style is agonisingly plodding, repetitive and dull. He includes a few Latin and other tags. This must have been a deliberate attempt to project an educated image. He took time to explain his use of some English terms (e.g. 'invidious'). Part of his effect is achieved by using words in slightly the wrong sense. He used 'evolution' rather than 'change'—it sounded more up to date. His typescript (or MS) must have been the sort publishers' readers dreaded. I can't quote a sample here for space reasons.
----
His model of human history is very simple indeed. There *WERE* at one time two types of people and societies:

[1] The sedentary village, low on force and fraud. He calls this 'quasi-peaceful'. There's a law of status. (pp 215 & 236). 'Savages' (undefined) have this sort of lifestyle.

[2] Barbarians, who hate manual work, and prefer 'exploits'. They are ferocious, self-seeking, clannish, disingenuous. They like hunting. A predatory type. Veblen often calls them 'peace-disturbing dolicho-blonds'. (He himself had very dark hair—remember Norway and Sweden separated at about this time.)

---------
However, *NOW* (about 1900) there is industry.

[3] Veblen takes progress as given: 'as populations grow denser..', '.. stage of society..', '.. as the community advances in wealth and culture', are typical phrases. These days, the collective interests of modern industry work against the ferocious or selfish aristocrat type (p 227).

4] There is a 'hierarchical gradation of reputability. Ownership on a large scale [is]... the most reputable of economic interests. [then] banking .. law.. the lawyer is exclusively occupied with the details of predatory fraud..' (p.231).

-----------
Veblen means by the 'Leisure Class' property and company owners, financiers, bankers, lawyers. In other words, anyone not concerned with direct manufacturing. Much of his book is concerned with the way they spend or waste money, and the way other people attempt to follow or imitate their behaviour.

What is of value in Veblen?
I have to say I was struck by the small number of piquant examples of oddities in spending and consumption; I'd expected more. Dogs as useless deferential mouths to feed; clean clothes uncontaminated by evidence of work; William Morris's Kelmscott Press. Of men—walking stick, and powdered wig (from Alexander Pope?) On women, bodices, bound feet in China, and general feebleness, were signs of wealth in the husband. He has an odd passage about public parks—men keep the grass tidy, and this is an example of conspicuous consumption, because they are more expensive than cows.

He doesn't seem to know about Chinese mandarins' fingernails, British sumptuary laws, rose gardens and knot gardens and huge country houses as statements of things which are attractive, but unnecessary. He doesn't know about follies, or for example the Hell Fire Club and the Parthenon, both of which in their ways offered employment. Moreover he doesn't seem to understand the economics: a US department store would not stock very cheap items—there's not enough money in them and will reduce other sales. They will cater preferentially for richer customers—and offer, say, sherry, wine, champagne, brandy and other glasses, just to make more money. Veblen's examples are a mostly natural outcome of normal economics. As further evidence, consider that, if Veblen was right, any conspicuous waste might happen: burning of notes, buying of things just to destroy them.

As to the 'leisure class', Veblen, surprisingly, barely considers inherited wealth. New England had many sons and daughters waiting to inherit and the 'leisure class' would seem to fit them perfectly. But Veblen concentrates on other targets. Like Marx, he assumes factory owners just sit back and collect loot—he doesn't seem to realise such people *may* work extremely hard. Similarly, many younger sons of British wealthy families went off to die in various white man's grave parts of the world. For that matter, the 'wolfish earls' in 'Shakespeare' weren't exactly leisurely.

Veblen comes across as a man who moved directly from a peasant society into a much more technologically advanced one. (This must be common now, with uncontrolled mass third world immigration into some modern societies.) It's not surprising such people gawp, and feel fear, and boost their egos with cautious contempt. But I don't think ultimately this book delivers very much.

Top of Page
image   Review of Europe travel   Lisa St. Aubin De Teran: A Valley in Italy: Confessions of a House Addict

Multiple Refractions June 28 2010

Fascinating autobiographical book of the 'we are artistic, and stumbled on a lost treasure—at low price' type. Dated 1994—five years after Peter Mayle got to work advertising Provence so successfully.

The author's style is breathless and convoluted—'My childhood fantasy of musical bedrooms was coming true. Ever since reading Orlando one summer while a reluctant inmate of the children's ward at the South London Hospital for women and children, tied down by drips and tubes to a bed among many beds, I'd longed for a house where I could ramble from room to room, sleeping at random on unknown territory.'

She seems unreliable, omitting such details as money and the nitty gritty of building. This may be due to the genuinely enduring taboo against money, in polite conversation. I suspect in fact she's shrewd about purchasing, judging by occasional remarks—selling their apartment in Venice, for example.

On her name—she was educated in London, but this process was ended, or perhaps postponed, when she ran away at 16 with a Venezuelan described as a 'landowner'; I'd guess Italian links with South America influenced her. She remarried twice by 1994 and I assumed she'd retained the most exotic surname she could (in the manner of Doris Lessing)—it would be amusing if her maiden name was, say, Lisa Smithers. Her husband at the era of this book was a painter six years younger, Robbie with a double-barrelled surname. Fortified by this information I searched on Internet and found an art gallery site which says he's self-taught; his paintings include nudes in a shiny metal-finish effect, rather like that chap with green female torsoes popular in the 1970s, and character studies of moody Italian peasantry, and still lifes. One visualises him upstairs in the mansion, agonising over the high discounts that galleries ask, while his model gets either sunburnt, or chilly and damp, in the roofless studio.

The account is largely of falling in love with the remains of a palatial villa; as far as I've been able to decipher, they found out little about its past. Neither of them seemed to even know where Umbria was. Her description gives the illusion that Italy has no autostrade or agenti di proprieta or other modern conveniences, and that her building was like some South American lost monument amid jungle.

She talks about 'restoration'—taken seriously this may involve local-ish bricks, marble, terracotta, timber, glass, lime mortar and plaster—all of which sounds very difficult, now; however there is no detail, and though few people would want an itemised list, it would be nice to know what the 'workmen' got up to.

There are cameos, vignettes, aperçus, stories and digressions about her family (beautiful daughter, then 15, who modelled), Italian holidays, food—ham, salami, wine, tomatoes boiled into a paste with basil, panettone. And visits from the locals, banking and the mysteries of Italian employment, corruption and slow mail deliveries, the tobacco crop, etymological bits and pieces. There's disappointingly little about the Second World War (or the First), which events after all were partly responsible for the decay of parts of Italy and the rest of the world.

It's easy to see why some reviewers loved the book—and also why some threw it away in exasperation. There's a reliability issue—she says, as just one example, that sudden Autumn storms left deep pools of water inside the building; they developed a strategy of rolling up carpets and stashing possessions safely, and all would be dry by next day, which seems unlikely.

Her style has a parallel with her own romantic attitude—the reader has to fight through tangled allusions and byways to finally glimpse and explore the half-expected treasure.

Naturally, having been drawn in, many readers must feel triumph in merely having made the effort of the journey, a displacement which indirectly reinforces the power of the words in a way which a more straightforward account wouldn't. It's a matter of opinion whether the final book is as alluring as the ruined building that she found on the hills.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish science fraud   Robert Jungk: Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists

Belongs as a specimen of mid-rank Jewish propaganda with Kevin B MacDonald's collection of evidence, September 25, 2012

Originally published in German in 1956. Some English universities recommended this in the 1960s as general reading. First English translation 1958. It covers events up to the claimed Soviet nuclear H bomb, and the 'Lucky Dragon' incident of supposed irradiated Japanese fishermen. Jungk was apparently a Berlin Jew, born 1913, who studied European classics and got a PhD in 'modern European history'—presumably on Europe since the French Revolution.

I reread this to try to disentangle mythology from truth. Jungk, as might be guessed, says virtually nothing about the science or technology—or mistakes. There is (for example) no account of separation of U235; no account of why 'heavy water' might be important, or how it's isolated; no account even of where uranium was mined. Jungk says in effect that radioactive poison can now be made more or less indefinitely—but this seems not true since the supply of neutrons seemed/seems fixed by the amount of uranium mined. Jungk made little attempt to check anything, though there are a few letters to him from physicists.

Jungk's main attitude is rather awestruck reverence in quotation—for example, a Japanese physicist is quoted as saying only an atomic bomb could do this. (Wrong, in fact). All his judgments of the competence of physicists are second-hand. This approach tends not to work: for example, Jungk says hugely detailed calculations were needed. (He doesn't say what they were and in fact one has to wonder whether it's true—but I suppose if computers then resembled pocket calculators, well, they would be of some use). But if the need for elaborate calculations is true, how come the measured blast from explosions was supposed to be far greater than estimated?

Unfortunately Jungk is also uncritical as regards the political material: as an example there's a whole section on Oppenheimer's fall, but although the type of building, sofa, characters of the interviewee/interrogators, weather, tone of voice, taste in poetry, etc etc are detailed, it's not made clear what he was charged with—let alone of course how serious the charges were. Jungk accepts all World War 2 mythology—on for example Pearl Harbor. He does not take the cost of the operation very seriously.

Sometimes he gets things right—his account of Groves is convincing, for example. So is his belief that the US Navy wanted to get in on the act—hence Bikini. His accounts of security and control of information sound right. The preponderance of 'foreigners' was acknowledged at the time—this may be a codeword for Jews, though Jungk barely mentions this.

An appendix is the 'Franck Report' to I think Stimson. This is full of comment on dangers of nuclear weapons, proliferation, treaties, control, and so on. Astonishingly, this was dated a few months before the first test, at night, in a remote country area, ten miles from observers, with full military secrecy! They had a lot to lose if their huge funding was found not to work.

**There is a very good account of Göttingen University in its great days, mostly of course taken from other sources. Read it and weep over modern times.

9 years later: I wrote that review in Sept 2012, about 6 months after Jesse Waugh let the Nuke Lies forum disappear, without giving any notice. Probably Jungk was just another Jew scribbler, though of course he may have been hired as a systematic Jew publicist. He wrote some other books, which I remember as lachrymose and useless, in the fake futurology mode, probably intended to help Jews in their takeover schemes. I listed some: Die Zukunft hat schoen begonnen seems to be 1954. Brighter than a Thousand Suns was 1958, from the original 1956 German. 1979 was The Nuclear State, from the 1978 German. This may be the same 1979 book as The New Tyranny: How Nuclear Power Enslaves Us, perhaps the US edition.

There were of course references to Jungk in nukelies.org:

1945-groves-sachs-spaatz-oppenheimer-slotin.html which looks at the problem the mythmakers had with their 'new weapon'. Including adding layers of detail to make it 'unthinkable' and to put off experimenters. Robert Jungk is referred to, in stories of people nearly or actually killed; someone called Slotin being an example, as he fiddled about allegedly with uranium, and someone called Dagnian another.
      Some literary readers may like my one-act play, set in Los Alamos in 1945, with these distinguished gentlemen. I assumed Groves was a non-Jew hired thug type; but may be wrong, as the supposed US Army had a lot of Jews.

robert-jungk-brighter-thousand-suns.html is a longer version of the review above, including FirstClassSkeptic wondering if Sachs was related to Goldman-Sachs as of course he was.

tour-hiroshima-nagasaki-a-bomb-nuke-hoax-links.html is a very nice, detailed examination of nuclear frauds, one at a time, with about 24 bullet-pointed links. Jungk has one small link; he's described accurately as 'just another Jewish liar'.

Other mentions occur in
Bertrand Russell duped by Jewish physicists
Einstein's letter to Roosevelt
Hiroshima Radiation Lies
Introduction to nuke revisionism, a new subject
Nico Haupt on wartime exchanges of atomic and radar men
Richard Rhodes, hack author of supposed nuclear books
Sabrosky and Mossad claims
South Africa nuclear bombs fraud


Top of Page
John J. Davis: Biblical Numerology (1968)
An American book from 'Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana'. The publisher has or had a South African branch: 'Word of Life Wholesale, Johannesburg.' Davis is often a Jewish name: it's entirely possible this book is aimed against stupid white Americans, who really seem to believe that the rubbish in various books is the 'Word of God'. I suppose a few hundred years ago this may have seemed a new outlook. I've made no attempt to check for updates, or for career progressions.
      This is a fundamentalist book, as perhaps is necessary when pushed into an intellectual corner. For example, absurd lifespans apparently in the Bible are regarded by faith as true, and subsequent decline attributed to weakening in physique caused I think by the 'fall' or something like it! Page 60 has a fundamentalist thing on feeding huge numbers, which God did 'on a large scale'.

General outlook of the book suggests science misunderstood and perverted, by people who don't understand it. Probably modern 'Jews' with their mimicry of science by Einstein and NASA and nuclear fakes is a lesson for the future, just as their copying and forgeries and repetitions operated in past millennia.
      Astrology must be age old and must have predated astronomy, at least in the observational sense. Though presumably detailed maps with predictions must have post-dated some astronomy.

I'd suggest what's needed is a theory of imagination and novelty, vs a theory of continuism.
      On imagination: suppose you'd never seen a tree: could you deduce idea of vertical tough centre, branches, a hydraulic mechanism including roots, thousands of tiny leaves—some in linear designs, some palms, some serrated; some of which fall in winter; some grow flowers, fruits? Or consider say sheep: if you'd never seen one could you imagine baby sheep, wool, coat which comes off, males with curly horns, bleating sound?? It seems unlikely. And consider medieval presentation of cotton as sheep on bush, or rhino as in Durer, etc. Plenty of similar pointers, e.g. banality of much of science fiction, suggesting that originality is difficult.
      These suggest that e.g. idea of scribbling pentagrams must post-date geometrical figures; idea of numerology must postdate writing and arithmetic. So the 'lost wisdom' idea has some basis. (I have a note from an old New Scientist: someone called Butterfield mentioned '5 transistors' in some device just glued without any electrical connection, by analogy with a watch with '15 jewels').

Mysterious things include: astrology, sacrifice; Babylonian surveying and trigonometry, the use of twelve and sixty as number bases, zodiacs, and in geometry five and pentagrams. What became medicine started with all sorts of magical things:– animal breeding; surveying: leys, mark stones, navigation, magnetic lines. Dissection, food and medicine perhaps suggested reading entrails; iron smelting etc may have suggested beliefs in the beliefs in the efficacy of iron and other metals. 'Mysteries' of medieval guilds; ploughing land found to kill weeds (see A N Pirie).
      Errors: Cargo cults a good example, not of 'lost wisdom', but of imported incomprehensible partly-understood novelty. Vaccination led to idea of homeopathy, in effect with dilution of the wrong thing believed to be active. Electrical phenomena to 'Reich's discovery of orgone energy' and 'accumulators'. 'Qi' in China and fluorescent tubes. Misunderstanding of information theory by McLuhan: 'light bulb represents pure information'. Derived from people like Shannon: from engineering point of view 'information' is stream of traffic; can be gobbledegook, but the transmission is important from their point of view; so long as the gobbledygook gets through correctly, the system's working. And of course attempts to understand: (26 Jan 91) 'Japan's Quest for a Brainy Computer', written by 'a freelance journalist in Tokyo'.

Above are just some notes on things not yet understood; of course there are confusions. And number systems have to be discovered, and mathematical notations; and of course numbers can be used as codes, and to suggest inferences which may be wrong, and to waste time.

The Bible has had immense influence, not in a creative or helpful way, but generally as a source of silly stories, usually unhelpful both practically and theoretically (and aesthetically). The proportion of human brainpower taken up with Biblical phrases must count as a tragic displacement of other potentially valuable information. Consider the USA when this book was published.
      What follows are just some notes on this book.

‘I tried Zen and Ching, numerology, tarot cards and astrology. I tried to look back into the Bible and could not find anything. At this time I did not know anything about Islam, and then, what I regarded as a miracle occurred. My brother had visited the mosque in Jerusalem and was greatly impressed that while on the one hand it throbbed with life (unlike the churches and synagogues which were empty), on the other hand, an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity prevailed.’
... All three portions of the poem [The Divine Comedy] are built upon the number scheme of 3, 7, 9, 10.....

LIST OF TABLES [Hebrew; Greek; book of Numbers; interpretations of numbers 1-12, 40, 70 by Hartill, Terry, Lange, Gunner]
  1 INTRODUCTION
    PART I THE NATURE OF BIBLICAL NUMBERS
  2 THE STRUCTURE AND SYNTAX OF BIBLICAL NUMBERS
  3 THE CONVENTIONAL USE OF NUMBERS
  4 THE RHETORICAL USE OF NUMBERS
  5 THE SYMBOLIC USE OF NUMBERS
  6 THE MYSTICAL USE OF NUMBERS
  7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  8 BIBLIOGRAPHY
  SUBJECT INDEX [Inc. Apocrypha, Aramaic, Baal, Babylonia, Canaan, Dead Sea scrolls, Edomites, Egypt, Exodus, Gematria, Gilgamesh epic, Gnostics, Greek, Hebrew, Hittites, Lachish, Manna, Mernepta Stela, Minoan, Moabite stone, Nabatean, Omri, Philistines, Phoenicia, Pyramidology, Ramses, Samaria, Shalmanezer III, Siloam inscription, Sumerian, Ugaritic. OMITS pi]
  'SCRIPTURE INDEX' [i.e. Biblical chapters, verses]

- 14: [Transliteration. Shows Greek, and Hebrew consonants & vocalization (I presume latter is Hebrew; not clear) so words in the text with e.g. underlined p can be converted back into presumably original Hebrew.]
- 40: [Greek terms about number: Arithmeo, arithmos (a number), and Psephizo 'to count with pebbles, compute, reckon.']
- 49: [Note: influence of religion on technology? Cp iron?] '.. Hebrews.. not known for their aggressiveness in this area of technology [sic; arithmetic] and this is easily understood in the light of Mosaic legislation (Exodus 20:4). Mathematics, architecture and art were .. linked with the [Near East] religions.. Temples and monuments .. inscriptions.. actual representations of .. gods. In the light of these cultural patterns, it is easily understood why the Israelites were hesitant to engage in projects which could lead to violation of the law. (cf. Deut. 4:15ff.). ..'
- 51-54: [The number 40 & 'round' numbers generally]
- 55ff: 'The Problem of Large Numbers'; this seems to include 3 things, 'the size of the Exodus' and 'antediluvian ages', latter meaning of people, & textual problems. His one reason for rejecting the 'year' = month idea seems to be that Enoch then had a baby when aged about ten, though he also confusingly says 'year' is used differently.
      (I noticed the use on Rwanda as a 'biblical exodus of unprecedented size').
- 61: [Note: technology: Mentions then-recent art of constructing cisterns for water lined with waterproof lime plaster]
- 67-68: [Flinders Petrie re-interprets figures:] Note: immense confusions caused I'm pretty sure by using the same Hebrew symbols for numbers as for words.
72 has a similar analysis.]
- 82: [Herodotus on counting large numbers of men, by the 'myriad']
- 93: [Numbers in rhetoric: apparently a favoured Semitic oratorical device can be expressed as x then x+1: 'For God speaketh once, yea twice,..']
- 129: [Belief in six, e.g. 'days of creation', as 'perfect number'. I wonder whether a 'perfect number' can be found NOT including 1 as a divisor; if 1 divides it, why not the number itself, adding of course to twice the original number. Or perhaps 4, say, with factors 2 and 2?
- 129: [Footnote on 'triangular numbers' shows author doesn't know algebraic notation is recent]
- 131: 'Gematria' and Sefer Yezirah (9th century) on 32 mysterious ways, the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which represent 32 sounds.
- 131: [Collection of Hebrew words like soper and sapur (and presumably Sapir) represent scribe, script, scroll etc]
- 144: [Nero's name in Hebrew characters becomes 666; typical example of supposed numerological evidence]
- 145-146: [Reference to Ku Klux Klan! in a 1924 journal, presumably US.]




Top of Page
Bernard Spencer le Gette: Numera the Craft of Numerology. [Published in 1976]
Possibly a distraction and put-off, a 'blackwash' to deter people from investigating the use of code numbers in news sources
This book was taken seriously by Michael Deans (see big-lies.org/science-revisionism/ ), for some baffling reason. 'Numera' seems to be a sort of trade mark or identifying name.

The author apparently wrote another book on 'Tarot cards', suggesting he or she was trying to make money by cashing in on silly books. I know nothing about him/her, But it's possible the initials B S, and 'le Get' interpreted as 'the get', a Northern English insult, are signalling something.

What it operates on is first name and surname, which are converted into numbers by a table—loosely based on Hebrew cabbala, I think he claims—and then into digital roots by what he calls for some reason 'Fadic addition'. The consonants and vowels are separated out and treated in the same way; also the digital root is found for the entire name. This is arranged in cross form:

Root for consonants

Root for first name Root for whole name Root for second name

Root for vowels

and there's a sort of set of interpretive guidelines given, though, tiresomely, not a comprehensive one (presumably there are about 10^4 = 10,000 permutations).

His name gave:

  9

4 4 9

  4

which I suppose was interpreted in a flattering way.

Another reference I found is in Liberace's autobiography.

defence of: alchemy, phlogiston, auspices, numerology, alien abductions as in Rimmer, astrology as in West/ general comment on enforced credultiy - they want e.g. kids to kneel and mutter; it's legally permitted to make absurd films paranoraml numerology and mantras 'intense fiveness' The Numerology of Dr Fliess [Freud's friend - Teutonic crackpottery] and in astrology - 9 planets mercury - uranus plus sun, moon]/ and in the brain: look in Gray's Anatomy.. three sections of the brain, the forebrain, midbrain and hindbrain have 9 subdivisions each [i.e. on each side].. I used to think 8 was the magic number; then I added selenium to be my 9th. [*letter: I did not add Se to make 9 - I 'found' 9 (from Numera and Gray's Anatomy) which created a gap which Se filled. .. Orthogonality is very important, but begs a count of dimensions if it is to form part of a closed model. ..'proof' that 9, 18 or any other count of orthogonal axes/ independent variables embraces all phenomena is clearly difficult.' [NB: Pauling says 9 amino acids are necessary, to life or something - see note/ I also saw Mackean gives nine functions of the liver] DNA has strings of 9 beads. This implies 9 orthogonal sets of chemistries. .. Superconductivity.. paths straight through molecules.. The numerology of Dr Rashad Khalifa john michell [Largely: numerology from Bond and Lea 'the Cabala', the number 666, a few other numbers/ 'The number 1080, often quoted by early astronomers.'/ 1764 'the number of fusion, a grain of mustard seed'/ 'number of the beast'/ 'No number in itself is exclusively representative of a moral quality..'/ 137: Franz Potter in 1645 published 'a book entirely devoted to the subject of 666.'/ 353 'is hermetic number'=2^4+3^4+4^4/ 'Megalithic yard': 1110 and 370/ 141: distance between English churches [cp German ley document]/ 143: [Note: early 20 C fashion?:] Magic squares cp with Chladni figures/ Giorgi's church at Venice 1534 and Alberti: 'the numbers which.. affect our ears with delight, are the very same which please our eyes and our minds.'/ Note: myth?: 'certain singers can .. shiver.. glasses' No evidence]


Numerology, 30, 271-3, 279, 287-8, 297, 326, 484 sci civ in china
1962*] -[Note: defence in a sense of numerology:] 80: 'Fragment of a Babylonian tablet giving detailed information about the.. moon.. during the second century BC [sic; is this right?] .. This was just the one [sic] problem where a numerological approach gave better results than a geometrical approach.'

BURNET,JOHN: GREEK.PHILOSOPHY-THALES.TO.PLATO [1914*] -Reprinted at least till 1964 about every five years (roughly) - I bought this as Russell's HWP leans on it. NB date of first publication suggests it may have been one of the books on BR's shelf when the war 'broke out' and which, before this event, seemed so full of hope... -'I have not thought it well to present Greek names in a Latin dress. ..' So Sokrates, Herakleitos, Empedokles. - Includes music, numerals and numerology, history of Ionia, geometry and astronomy, (pseudo-?) biography of Socrates, and so on - perhaps more interesting than the title suggests; or perhaps, to fill the volume, Burnet had little option.

It's fairly clear that announcement in Jewish sources often include number signals—for one thing, every language now uses the same number form, which therefore works internationally. But any standard code has to be more or less secret. I think this book could be to misdirect; but who knows?

RW 19 July 2019


Top of Page
Review of Junk-style unoriginal history   John Kelly - The Great Mortality .. BLACK DEATH

Trivial book which is little more than a series of copied anecdotes 11 Sept 2013

16 May 2023: Article on non-existent stats is The Black Death ... killed 50% of the population (or perhaps none). Good run-through. To be compared with the next item, looking at actual words from the time ... or at least sources ...

26 August 2022: I noted Unwin Books no 21 is the title Johanned Nohl THE BLACK DEATH. I've never seen this book, but archive.org has a partial copy, which says its English translation is abridged. Unwin Books of course was a Jewish propaganda source, so it's very likely this book was listed as a counter to lingering doubts around Jews and the Black Death.
      Johannes Nohl appears to have lived 1882-1963, and survived WW2; my best guess is that he was a Jew who moved east into 'Communist' Germany.
      The Black Death. A chronicle of the plague from 1348 to 1720. Using contemporary sources. Kiepenheuer, Potsdam 1924.
      Translated from Nohl's own introduction, according to Unwin Books:
      Of more modern authors I have referred particularly to the following: J. F. E. Hecker ('The Black Death in the Fourteenth Century', Berlin, 1832), Georg Sticker ('The Plague', Giessen, 1908-1910), Wilhelm Sahm ('History of the Plague in East Prussia', Leipzig, 1905), Hermann Schoeppler ('History of the Plague at Regensburg', 1914), Heino Pfannenschmidt ('Contribution to the History of the German and Dutch Flagellants', Leipzig, 1900), Paul Runge ('Songs of the Flagellants', 1900), Paul Gaffarel et Marquis de Durant ('La Peste de 1720 a Marseille', Paris, 1911).

21 June 2020: Andrew Joyce piece, below.

27 Oct 2018: I found the site of Jorma Jormakka, which includes a good piece on the plague. It's backed up here (in case it vanishes or moves). I recommend the original be consulted in case it's amended.

2005 book which has almost nothing to recommend it. There are trots through accounts of various towns and cities and people, but of course records are sparse and there's no evidence Kelly made any attempt to identify sources or point out where information comes from, or how detail might be filled in deductively. I don't think he even refers to the problems of the calendar.

The medical stuff is inconsistent: sometimes victims have 'buboes' in glands in their neck, groin, whatever; sometimes they're covered with infections. Sometimes they die, sometimes they (for example, people digging graves and hefting corpses around) unaccountably live. Ships full of dead sailors manage to sail into ports. There seem to be no accounts of people bitten by fleas, despite this being the supposed transmission method. Some apparently serious research which puts the death rate much lower than (perhaps) alarmist accounts is simply swept aside.

DNA analysis in late 2020 of remains of slaves suggests some showed sign of Yaws, which seems to be a disease of tropical (i.e. hot) parts of the world. This seems to be similar to syphilis. Possibly the Jew owners of slave ships had a policy of including sick slaves, presumably not to sell, but as biological warfare agents. - RW

Picturesque or sensational detail rules, with no attempt at assessment. How important, for example, were 'the flagellants'? It's a sort of National Enquirer view of history. Conversely, the possibilities of food contamination, or some novel poison conveyed deliberately or otherwise along trade routes, or what have you, are underplayed—surely a bit unreasonably in a book of its title.

It's typical of the oddity and/or overwhelming Jewish propaganda of our times that Jews are focussed on: maybe half Europe died, but Kelly comments on Jews. Interestingly, it seems highly possible that Jews were responsible perhaps for poisoning people, or poisoning wells, or otherwise spreading disease; Kelly's map at the beginning shows almost no deaths in the eastern European area, for example. And it's well known now, when Jewish junk US academics state openly how desirable white extermination would be, that Jews largely have that outlook, and in the superstitious days of the Middle Ages would presumably have held it more strongly.

I'd like to suggest a project: look at the evidence for outbreaks; correlate them with other historical events, for example in Rome when Jewish writings were being forced into Rome; or about 1666, when Jews were forcing Cromwell and the (((Bank of England))) into London. If plague, or plagues, was something to do with the lymphatic system, some method(s) for spreading plague might be identifiable. As a relatively easy introduction, I'd suggest Encyclopaedia Britannica volumes, which were first published in 1768-1771, and European medical publications, and (if you read German) Eisenmenger. These perhaps may have been free from Jewish editorial control. Articles in any case list books in Italian, German, Greek and so on, many of which are claimed to be detailed surveys and/or eye-witness summaries. In view of 20th century Jewish viciousness I'd expect serious evidence to be discoverable or rediscoverable. [Note added 1 March 2018]

Amusingly, Kelly takes 'the AIDS virus' seriously, and also amusingly, compares the deaths with the 'flu epidemic' after the First World War (when huge numbers of deaths due to weakness, starvation, lack of care, lack of medical materials and cleanliness, were routinely ascribed to influenza). Connoisseurs of crap will be amused also that he compares parts of Black Death Europe to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Kelly has endnotes, but no bibliography, and judging by the acknowledgements, must have been pretty much instructed what to read, or more likely what passages to quote from. He seems to have had no special methodology, to e.g. trace the way the accounts of the 'Black Death' (and its relatively late name). I doubt if the books listed (incidentally one is by Norman Cohn) form a useful guide.

I would guess this book was an attempt at a routine update, maybe of once-famous books, popular in their time; perhaps Zinsser's Rats, Lice and History (1935) and maybe Ziegler's Black Death (first published 1969, I think). The time separation seems about right. It occurs to me that Zinnser and Ziegler may have intentionally distracted from biological warfare implications in Europe in the past.


This is from Andrew Joyce in the Occidental Observer June 21 2020-
Most interesting among the self-sacrificial acts of the past are, in my opinion, that of the flagellants of the Black Death, derisively and scathingly labelled “the gashers” by the Jewish historian Ben-Zion Dinur. The masochistic flagellants, officially known as “Brethren of the Cross,” or “Brotherhood of the Flagellants,” were radical lay Catholics of both sexes (segregated in processions) who first made a major impact in thirteenth-century Germany during the Black Death. Travelling from town to town, they would hold prayers meetings and processions that would culminate in a massive spectacle where they would whip their flesh until the blood flowed, seeking, through this form of self-sacrifice, to avert a broader national calamity.

Although initially supported by the Church, it soon became clear the flagellants were anti-establishment dissidents in every respect. They rejected the authority of priests and clerics, who were regarded by the flagellants as sunk in sin and therefore intrinsic to the problem. The flagellants rejected the Eucharist, asserting that their blood sacrifice was a more authentic communion with Christ. Finally, they revealed their role as populist social revolutionaries by turning against all established elites, including the very wealthy, the nobility, the city leaders and, most interesting of all, the Jews. In fact, everywhere the flagellants went a violent reaction against the Jews followed. In Frankfurt, in July 1349, the flagellants stormed the Jewish neighborhood themselves, and set it on fire. Occasionally, such as in Mainz, when the Jews heard the flagellants were nearing a town or city, the Jews would launch a pre-emptive assault on Christians, with one chronicler reporting the Jews of Mainz slaughtered 200 Christians before the flagellants finally entered and eliminated the Jewish population. Unsurprisingly, the flagellants were quickly denounced as heretics by the existing elite power structure, and were ruthlessly suppressed to extinction throughout Europe.

Note: 'Andrew Joyce' doesn't seem to consider that the flagellants may have been a psy-op, funded by Jews, to blackwash the belief that Jews took part in spreading disease. Set them up, then abandon the once they'd been useful.


Top of Page
  Review of Hiroshima fraud   Ed Dr Arat Osada: Children of the A Bomb (1959, Eng. trans. 1963)

Does not support the idea of an atom bomb on Hiroshima, July 1, 2010

A collection of essays, apparently written in 1951, by school and college kids, six years after Hiroshima was bombed. They are arranged roughly in age order, from about 5 years to about '12th grade' when the town was bombed; and of course six years older when they wrote. There are 67 accounts, 'out of more than 2,000'. It's impossible to tell how close the English translations are to the original, or how typical they are. The English version was first published in 1959 (i.e. fifteen years after). Assuming the accounts are fairly reliable, they don't support the idea of an atom bomb. The book has a fold-out map at the end, so the locations these children were in 1945 can be found when they give that detail. There is (or was in the early editions) a preface by Bertrand Russell.

Here's a thread from the Nuke Lies forum on Osada's Children of the A Bomb.

Top of Page
image   Review of US PC   Thomas E. Woods: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

3 way war—Protestants vs Catholics vs ZOG, June 29, 2010

I.m.h.o. the way to view this book is part of a Catholic fightback, where the author is being careful not to tangle with the Jewish 'ZOG' which of course is much of established 'PCness'.

To see the idea—in Europe, the Jewish/Marxian types—the descendants of the USSR mass murderers—promote immigration, much of it Muslim, presumably to damage the host countries. It's a three way war of white Europeans vs invaders vs Jews. So far, there's been an alliance, not necessarily even recognised, of invaders and Jews. Whether this will continue, I have no idea, though I hope not.

Now. In the USA, illegals etc are usually Mexican, not Muslims. So possibly there's a three way war of White American Protestants vs Catholic invaders vs Jews. (There are blacks too). Again, so far there's been an alliance of Mexicans and Jews. I don't know whether it will continue—again, I hope not.

Woods's book I think must be predicated on that. He reconsiders WW2 as far as he dares—probably because the USSR more or less extinguished the Russian Orthodox church. He thinks the pilgrim fathers were all the same—as far as he's concerned, they're all Protestants. The official Catholic view on 'capitalism' is to frown on it, but support private property [I think—no doubt there are numerous encyclicals]. The Spanish Civil War was essentially Russian Jews vs Catholics, just as countries like Poland were the same—'communists' vs Catholics. I think if you read between the lines, this is what Woods is hinting at, though there are of course other issues. Catholics like to think democracy developed through them. They are only just starting to fight back against the WW2 consensus. I think this explains the rather odd nature of Woods's book and I'd expect there to be further detail which confirms this.

(Why not comment with your thoughts?)

Top of Page
image   Review of US education   Robert W. Whitaker: Why Johnny Can't Think

Subtitled 'America's Professor-Priesthood', June 28, 2010

The title is based on 'Why Johnny Can't Read', an American plea for phonics (I think)—the same battle is still being played out in the UK—see Alice Coleman and Mona McNee. The subtitle however more accurately describes the book's central idea. It's simple enough—the professoriat has its own vested interests, and does what it can to reinforce itself as yet another interest group. They appoint successors, use examinations to ensure orthodoxy, ensure they get public money, censor and suppress opposing views—including by inciting violence, and do not examine their own possible limitations and mistakes. Whitaker's book is shortish and not very precise—but teasing out all the intricacies would be difficult. For example, he assumes bureaucrats and the professoriat (my word) are the same people—he doesn't analyse the vast number of low-level foot-soldiers—the teachers, employees of government, the hacks who mislead. This is all intertwined with 'communism'. Whitaker favours something like economic democracy—he says actors tend to be 'left wing' because they'd rather do undemanding work, that people won't pay for, than conform to public requirements. Whitaker assumes government control (a) is 'socialist' and (b) must be inefficient, neither of which is quite true. All this naturally overlaps with Jewish material—the USSR being a Jewish invention. Whitaker in effect describes the religion of Political Correctness, which is more or less the same as 'Holocaustianity', though Whitaker cautiously avoids saying anything like that. Whitaker assumes 'communism' is a homogeneous movement, something open to doubt; I know no evidence that Mao was a pawn of Jews—but then again I have no evidence he wasn't. Whitaker is a bit conventional here—he thinks the 'Viet Cong' existed, although in fact there was never any such group. This in my view muddies the water. Whitaker also, correctly, identifies a main strand in political correctness as anti-white racism; he quotes at least one person favouring extermination of whites. And others wanting third world immigration—but only into white countries.

Whitaker has quite a high opinion of science and uses it to counterpoint the fragile absurdities and wishful thinking of 'social science'. He knows about Semmelweiss, and Galen, and is fully aware that modern medicine took about 1500 years to develop, in the teeth of opposition from entrenched hacks. It doesn't logically follow that social science is in the same position, but clearly it could be. And religions, of course.

This book is available (quickly) as a secured PDF download from Whitaker's own site—the pages are a scanned image. A paper version may be easier to deal with.

Here's a very small sample of his prose style:----
Students hear their professors say, "Follow the money" when it comes to how greedy businessmen are. Students hear media commentators say "Follow the money" when it comes to how greedy oilmen or defense contractors are. So why do professors ignore the fact that black Africans were as guilty of selling black slaves as white slave-traders were of buying them? Could it be that they are just following the money? ... A college graduate who never outgrew his diploma cannot imagine that professors might have a bias. He cannot imagine that professors follow the money...

In an ideal world, this book would be seen as a rather lightweight expose of rather obvious possibilities of corruption. But in today's world, it's quite a punchy revelation of a group foisting its own image onto the rest of society and causing untold harm as a result.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest   Noam-Chomsky-Media-Control-Spectacular-Achievements-of-Propaganda

Not at all plausible or accurate, June 28, 2010

I suspect this book might appeal more to Europeans than Americans—Chomsky has many European supporters, including, up to a point, me.

Try to see propaganda from the US perspective. What is the single most spectacular achievement of propaganda? I'll avoid here the obvious censorship of the 'ZOG' groups in the USA, despite their importance. I'd fix it at 1916, when the intention was to get the USA into the European War. Up to 1916 there was isolationism; after, given a huge wave of atrocity stories and anti-German propaganda of every sort, the USA was at least apparently keen to get involved. Chomsky does NOT mention this at all. Instead this small book is mostly devoted to the lightweight marketing tricks of PR people, notably that chap related to Freud—I almost forgot his name—Bernays. Thus the single most decisive war in the last hundred years which started huge devastation isn't even examined by Chomsky.

Another chapter deals with 'communism'. Chomsky says such things as in India, there is a lot of starvation and poverty. Chinese 'communism' was no worse. Or something along those lines; it's not really important. What Chomsky does NOT consider is 'Communism' in the USSR, which because of its industrial nature was possibly the most ruthless and cruel regime in History. And of course run and financed by Chomsky's fellow cultists. Now that also is a remarkable propaganda 'achievement'. Moreover he assumes Chinese 'communism' was the same sort of thing as Soviet communism. But was it? I don't profess to know—and the evidence in any case would obviously be secret. Most Americans of course fall for this—they think, falsely, there was something called the 'Viet Cong' and they were 'communist', as though rural peasants in a rice based Buddhist economy were interested in class war and Manchester cotton.

Just a few examples! This book is tenth-rate but might have the virtue of inducing people to step back, and consider abstractly what they've been told, and how much was propaganda.

Top of Page
image   Review of Art Critic   Giles Auty: The Art of Self Deception - An intelligible guide (1977)

Inferior to Miles Mathis. November 2023

The review is here.

Top of Page
image   Review of Actor's autobiography   Dirk Bogarde: A Postillion Struck by Lightning/For the Time Being

Luvvies like bubbles on a river, June 28, 2010

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

Top of Page
  Review of Psychology   Paul Kline: Psychology Exposed or the Emperor's New Clothes

Unique and intelligent examination of psychology as a funded closed circle, June 28, 2010

Fairly short book and well-written—the author is sensitive to nuances and appears serious in what he says. The final chapter, Eight, 'The Way Ahead' has a handy summary of the rest of his book, followed by research suggestions. His summary claims that experimental psychology studies trivia, largely because of funding issues, of adherence to a form of scientific method, and personality quirks. It looks worthless, and when stripped-down, is. He can't quite mean this, since one of his objections to some standard psychology is that it redescribes everyday behaviour in ways which are designed to sound technically impressive. This means it's tautologous rather than worthless. I won't consider his suggested ways forward, as they are tentative and in any case not part of the main thrust of his book.

His chapter-headings dealing with psychology are on memory, psychometrics (Kline wrote a hefty volume of this, and his then-university Exeter appears to specialise in it), attitudes and group processes, cognition, and animal psychology. Many of his crits are sceptical and literary. 'Cognitive dissonance' for example may be something everyone knows about, dressed up. Animal psychology may have no relevance to people.

When this book was written, sociobiology was about 13 years old (Wilson, 1975; and also The Selfish Gene 1976); attacks on Freud were well-established, including by Kline himself 16 years earlier; Cattell was going strong on personality (e.g. 1981); Jensen on race and intelligence was published (e.g. 1981), Kamin on IQ had been published twenty years earlier. R D Laing was near retirement age (and death). 1988 was the date of approval of an 'SSRI' anti-depressant. All this—and a great deal of media and cult promotion—was part of the mental atmosphere of psychologists at the time.

This book is the only one known to me that makes a serious attempt at the equivalent of psychological analysis of the whole subject. Such books are rare—I know of one in sociology, and a few sceptical surveys of the academic world. **It's worth a careful read.**

Two cautious notes: Kline sounds very humanistic, but it's fairly well-known that torture has been and is used often enough; there's no mention of this underside which must have some psychological connections. For example, Israel regularly tortures. The other note is a bit more difficult to pin down. Kline adopts much of the conventional spirit of the time. Leafing through, we find assertions made about 'Mother' Teresa, Hitler, the social system of Germany, religious beliefs (in which all manner of systems are lumped together), animal behaviour, primitive peoples, Mao Te-Sung, Von Neumann, nuclear weapons, computer hardware and programs, parental feelings, schizophrenia, and Margaret Thatcher's effects. Inferior writers—I've noticed this in USA women's light fiction—rely on American product brand names as their background and scenesetting: Kleenex, coca-cola, Texaco, and what have you. Kline reminds me of this, though his units and atoms are more subtle. But they are just as much products of campaigning and advertising.

Top of Page
  Review of history education   Richard Mansfield Haywood: The Myth of Rome's Fall

The Myth of Education..., June 28, 2010

'The Myth of Rome's Fall'. Interesting title. What could it mean? Perhaps [1] the church took over from the Empire, and, if assessed properly, had total power about the same as the empire? Hence, no net fall! Or maybe [2] the 'barbarians', properly viewed, melded into the Empire and produced something equally huge? Or why not [3] The Roman empire was on the road to recovery, but Islam killed it? I'd hoped the thesis might have been something unexpected like that. Unfortunately, not so. 'The purpose of this book is to tell in a straightforward and non-technical way what contemporary working scholars think happened to the Romans.' 'Contemporary' means of course the 1950s; 'scholars' presumably are no doubt mostly American. This is The Reduced Gibbon Company's product, in miniature competition with Spengler and Toynbee. The title is misleading.

The chapters are divided by centuries from the birth of Christ—a scheme which of course didn't exist for much of the interval under consideration. I winced at a description of Christians not wanting 'to turn the clock back' to Paganism. I suppose Shakespeare had an alarm clock in Julius Caesar; but the anachronism is painful—as is a reference to Christians being sent to the lions. This is not anything like my field—however I recall a guidebook to the Colosseum stating clearly that Christians were never thrown to lions—the Colosseum had been disused for years before any such possibility existed. Haywood accepts what may well be a real myth—the Pax Romana: Gaul and Dacia receive only a few lines. Haywood's style is US-centric: I was struck by a comment on a 'government contract'. This was at a time when the expectation of life of an emperor was a few years. The book thins out and pretty much ends with Islam.

Probably, to interpret this book, after World War II, the USA expanded education—clearly a 'good thing'. It was made into a career. There's a brilliant account by John Holt of the Irish in Boston public schools—education was a chore to be carried out in a monotonous rote way, the syllabus set out, the half-truths set in stone, the check collected, the kids uninspired.

'But can we not learn something of the future by our study of the Roman Empire? Will that study not yield some great secret of civilization? The answer is "No." There is no one great and portentous lesson.. although there are innumerable minor ones, nor can it offer us a prophecy of the fate of our own times.'

Top of Page
image   Review of H G Wells   H.G. Wells: The Complete Short Story Collection

First-class humanistic stories redolent of Victorian and Edwardian life, June 26, 2010

Wells (according to his Experiment in Autobiography) kept a card index of ideas for short stories. He'd pick a card and work up the idea into a story. He wrote at a time when magazines and journals were multiplying—they therefore needed material. I'll look at just a few of the sixty-three stories here:-

The Time Machine—this made Wells's name, in 1895. Incidentally the equipment is Victorian glass and brass, with bicycle power, and the whole indoor scene lit by candlelight. Perhaps worth noting: this was published just a year or two after Jews were experimenting on a large scale with control over paper money. Probably he was promoted because his works were remote from that world.

The Stolen Bacillus is included here for several reasons. It pre-dates The Time Machine, published in the Pall Mall Budget on 21 June 1894. The story has an 'anarchist' collecting information on the (supposed) dangers of contaminating water supplies, and causing deaths—two names given are Ravachol and Vaillant. The second name is not known to me, except as a manufacturer's name for gas boilers. The plot goes wrong, when the anarchist drops and breaks his stolen tube. The general idea is of course part of the Jewish build-up to war between whites; obvious, now. It's related to the 'votes for women' movement. And hired thugs supporting the wars against Boers.
      Elsewhere, Wells refers to 'Nerchists', i.e. anarchists badly pronounced.

The Sad Story of a Dramatic Critic—about the 'phenomenal unnaturalness of acting'. Very amusing story about a critic who ultimately can't help expressing himself in the emotional symbolism of theatrical conventions, such as "be kaynd to her."

A Slip Under the Microscope is about cheating in examinations, and also about rivalry between social classes of students.

Little Mother up the Morderburg is one of Wells's only two attempts as far as I know at a Munchhausen style of tale.

The Story of the Last Trump—variation on a Biblical idea. The last trump carelessly falls to earth and is found by a Wells hero in a junk shop. He promptly blows it, and the 'Last Judgment' begins. Another very attractive story.

The Grisly Folk is an attempt to write up the clash between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens—assuming this ever happened.

The Star (1910) is Wells's fictional account of a comet approaching dangerously near the earth.

The Truth About Pyecraft is an extraordinarily skilful story about a fat club bore who wants to lose weight. In true Wells's style, there is genuine science fiction here, based on the confusion between 'mass' and 'weight'. Wells's SF is usually based on genuine scientific principles teased out or modified by a master storyteller.

Miss Winchelsea's Heart is a comedy of manners—the defeat of love by snobbery. Magnificent story incorporating an Italian holiday of about 1900, and the fading away of the obligatory Baedeker references which seemed appealing at the time.

In the Modern Vein: An Unsympathetic Love Story is an account of a rather hypocritical man of letters, dabbling with the possibility of an affair with a suitably exotic young woman. Very amusing conflict with domesticity and wifedom. I would not be at all surprised if this was based on Wells's own experiences! In fact I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

There are many more, of course. Note that more Wells stories were published later, as The Man with a Nose and other Uncollected Stories of H. G. Wells, I think found by the H G Wells Society in Britain, which appears to have Jewish links with South Place Ethical Society. They had been rejected for various reasons, though I'm not sure they were inferior—The Man With a Nose was a monologue on Primrose Hill by a man attributing his bad luck to his large nose. The Loyalty of Esau Common is a 1901 fragment on the British Army, the officer class, and the 'jimmies'; and probably Germany or Austria. Wayde's Essence is a placebo—not Wells's term—'Water of Success', in which an unusually successful politician is told after seventeen years by his medical friend that his supposed magical elixir was only coloured distilled water. Whereupon Wayde reverted to his previous uncertain and indecisive self, full of 'funk'. As with Wells's New Machiavelli actual ideas are replaced by factional struggles and 'smashing' oratorical triumphs. This of course is the way Jew-free politics is presented.
      The Queer Story of Brownlow's Newspaper involves time machination—a newspaper 40 years in the future delivered to a London address. Written as from 1931, 1971 is now further into the past, without much in the way of future mystery. Poor Wells writes ‘I have always believed that the world was destined to unify—“Parliament of Mankind and Confederation of the World” as Tennyson put it—but I have always supposed that the process would take centuries. ... I wrote in 1900 that there would be aeroplanes "in fifty years' time." And the confounded things were buzzing about everywhere and carrying passengers before 1920.’ Brownlow discusses crimes and stories: ‘... they seemed to be... more concerned with the motives and less with just finding someone out. What you might call psychological..’ Wells knew nothing of Jewish networking aiming at the next world war. And the hypothesis of genetic causation of aggression is absent. No wonder he despaired in Mind at the End of its Tether.
      Conceivably this is a material interpretation of a new mental shock.

      Note: Topics Wells Did Not Use in Short Stories: a good example is the type of the Webbs. In some editions of The Open Conspiracy we find: There is a detestable sort of energetic human being which preys upon human societies, delighting in procedure, by-laws, voting, stereotyping and embarrassing "resolutions", the "capture" of committees and organisations, the delegation of powers and suchlike politicians' mischief. It is a blighting and accursed type, living and multiplying in rules and precedence, as bugs gnaw at wallpaper. Unless the Open Conspiracy devotes itself to such elaborations in its gatherings, the better for its spirit, always it will be well to keep its comprehensive organisation easy and simple.

      I see a new volume is to be published soon; I don't know if it includes his unpublished stories, but I'd hope so. And I hope that material he included about Jews will not be removed.

It's important to note that Wells was often regarded primarily as a novelist, or comic novelist. I remember the suggestion that Wells was an historian being laughed off, without supporting detail, by a Jew, in South Place. Wells's Outline of History was of course—it's obvious, now—Jew-naive.

Top of Page
image   Review of Victorian biog   Frank Harris: My Life and Loves

Harris was a very intelligent man—excellent material on 1880-1930, June 26, 2010

Harris was born 1855; died 1931. He was famous as an editor (and helped publish H G Wells)—as famous as Whistler, said Wells. He wrote about twenty books.

This large book was published in five volumes originally, starting in 1925—with censorship difficulties as with Lady Chatterley's Lover. I suspect this was to try to make money: like Wilde he was somewhat isolated in Europe. It's much more interesting and varied than most people would guess from the reputation: it includes much material on middlebrow people like Maeterlinck, Kipling; and political stuff on Bismarck, Russo-Turkish War, Rhodes, Jameson Raid, Boer War, Congo atrocities etc, Boer War, First World War, and people like Meredith and Wilde and Wells and Shaw; plenty on Shakespeare and Jesus; and accounts of visits to America, Greece, Germany, Africa, Japan, China and other places.

Erotic encounters are interlarded here and there and include a negress called Sophy and Indian, Japanese, Chinese, and young, women. He states [as an introduction, just before printing a letter from a lesbian] that he has no experience in perversions, being wholly taken up with normal desires. The whole writing style is different, mainly because there's no established vocabulary—'my powerful instrument' type of thing.

Most of his life was pre-'Great War': his outlook is Victorian and Edwardian and includes comments which must have been commonplaces at the time, but have been progressively eroded away by Jewish lies, to put it simply. Expenditures of about a billion pounds on South African wars against the Boers would have been better spent on settling a white country in Africa, he thought. He noted the immense profitability of diamonds in Kimberley, prospectors being offered a tenth of the value since proper appraisal could supposedly only be done in Europe. He commented on people like Wernher and Beit and 'Barney Barnatto'. Incidentally, it's possible gold was used by Jews in a similar way to paper currency notes and the Federal Reserve: I'd suggest the net cost of gold was not high; and in view of fractional reserves the value would in any case be amplified. He appears not be be Jewish: as far as I recall, his interest in the press was in making copy that sold; large-scale systematic propaganda was not his interest. It's hard to tell how much is actually true. I haven't attempted to check on Harris beyond the usual anecdotes; there seems little chance the book was reviewed at the time, in view of its being banned in 1922. I found an online review by Alfred Armstrong, who sounds sensible, but whose sources seem only to be prefatorial notes: note that volume 5 was unfinished at Harris's death and the first publication seems to have been anti-bowdlerised, i.e. the sex expanded and the rest reduced. Some editions have footnotes of instances when Harris' meetings or exchanges with anyone of significance have been challenged. Some incidents are known to me to appear elsewhere, and could have been copied, as in e.g. Whistler's comment on looking at Beardsley's drawings, or an apparently face to face statement by Wilde on how he learnt drama technique by studying French plays. Did Harris really talk to Bismarck? Karl Marx? Herbert Spencer? The Duke of Marlborough? On the other hand, when Harris gives supposedly verbatim conversations with Carlyle and Dowden and Mallock, or recounts his experiences with Alfred Russel Wallace or Bret Harte or Bunsen, one feels these people aren't from the common point of view stellar enough to warrant invention. And similarly the accounts of houses, hotels, towns, travel, and manners—although of course feeling very different from today—less mechanical, more biological, more rural—are convincing enough.

Much on Christ, Shakespeare. Also on literary influences post-Dickens and pre-say 1900; his modern style makes it easy to miss the fact that the authors he talks of, e.g. Carlyle, Browning, were living to him. Harris is unusually cosmopolitan—he lists John Hay, an American of Pike County Ballads, Whitman, Emerson, Fiske and Gould of the Erie Railway, and others; and also Henry George and radical journalists, like Harden in Germany whom I've not heard of before.

He actually knew and met Alfred Russel Wallace of evolution theory, and comments on 'Forty-five Years of Registration Statistics.' 'proving vaccination.. useless and dangerous'. He met Ehrlich, of STD (VD then) fame. Harris complimented a German scientist for not patenting his inventions, unlike Alfred Nobel.

He said, of the Belgian Congo atrocities, Britain 'could have stopped it with a word'. The First World War & war against Russia was 'for money'.. 'series of diabolical crimes.. committed during the last half-century almost without protest..' A very interesting and lively book, full of independent judgments.

Top of Page
image   Review of fakes   Mark Jones: Fake? The Art of Deception

Attractive museworthy well-informed and well-illustrated catalogue, June 26, 2010

1990 large-format paperback, published by the British Museum. I bought a copy when it was sold off as a remainder; the prices quoted here seem very high. Lavishly illustrated in b/w and colour. Over 330 numbered entries, some multiple. Most of the things discussed are illustrated in this book. They seem clearly happiest with the 19th century, many of their exhibits being from their own collections; very few 20 century forgers are represented (for example Eric Hebburn wasn't known of, then, though his work is here). (Since writing this, I found Thomas James Wise (1859-1937) mentioned in passing in Ellic Howe's The Black Game (pubd 1982), but I haven't checked if either is in Jones). About 100 people contributed.

It's written in direct British English and clearly aimed at the public. The contents page doesn't include all the detail; on leafing through, the top right corner has handy running titles on monkish forgeries, political forgeries, science, and the more predictable artworks—faked etchings, paintings, sculptures, ceramics, jewellery, coins, watches, furniture, carpets, antiquities from the remote past.

We soon find Beringer's fossils baked by his students, Dawson and Piltdown, the Zinoviev letter, replicas, passports, stamps, African masks, fairies at the bottom of a garden. John Logie Baird's televisual apparatus was a reconstruction and in any case not important. We have literary forgeries including of course Ossian.

Here's a bare listing; introductory essays -- WHY FAKES? Mark Jones / FORGING THE PAST David Lowenthal / TEXTUAL FORGERY Nicolas Barker
Then the catalogue...
1 WHAT IS A FAKE?
2 REWRITING HISTORY
3 THE LIMITS OF BELIEF: RELIGION, MAGIC, MYTH AND SCIENCE
4 FAKING IN THE EAST
5 FAKING IN EUROPE FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE 18TH CENTURY
6 THE 19TH CENTURY: THE GREAT AGE OF FAKING
7 FAKING IN THE 20TH CENTURY
8 THE ART AND CRAFT OF FAKING: COPYING, EMBELLISHING AND TRANSFORMING
9 THE SCIENTIFIC DETECTION OF FAKES AND FORGERIES
10 THE LIMITS OF EXPERTISE

Much material on the motives of forgers—to make money (often, or perhaps usually, to feed a demand—modern Chinese fossil fakes illustrate this), to gain fame, to push some obsession or aim. The authors estimate 5% of the current art/ artefact sales to be faked. They don't generally consider the deeper issues—forgeries at the basis of Christianity, forgeries in effect of the word of Allah, forgeries of medical notes to avoid legal action, forged TV information, faked information to start wars.

Top of Page
image   Review of Nuclear frauds   DVD: Atomic Testing (3pc)

Good value for studying supposed tests and related social films, June 26, 2010

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

Top of Page
image   Review of Popular evasionist science   Daniel C. Dennett: Essays on Designing Minds

Evolutionary strategies to get funding..., June 26, 2010

I leafed through this now 12-year old book, withdrawn from stock and sold by a public library. There's no biographical info in my copy—a page has been torn out possibly by some reader irritated by such trivia—but MIT clearly plays some part. The evolutionary strategy needed to produce such books seems to need [insert elaborate qualifying sentences here]: (1) Amiable relationships with a list of people; some mature in the field, e.g. Putnam; some famous for other reasons, e.g. Chomsky; some conceded to be exciting, e.g. Hofstader. (2) Writing style has to be adapted to a paper—an issue must be raised, thoughtful comments made at the appropriate level, which are then unanswered—definite answers are to be deplored, for one obvious reason. (3) Technical stuff must be referred to only in an overview sense. There is for example almost nothing about actual computers or hardware in this book, which seems odd. Nor is there awareness of the real structure of the brain. (4) The outside world must be referred to occasionally, and always in a way suggesting no criticism of authorities. (5) A certain palette of references from the past is needed, such as Turing, and the 'Cartesian Theater'. (6) It's permissible to puzzle over animal behaviour, but not to suggest animals have much the same abilities as people, but can't easily put the into action. (7) Padding can be provided by games, models, toys, and puzzles—the 'game' of Life is an example, though for some reason nobody ever speculates how changing the rules would change the game.

I don't think computer-generated papers are quite possible yet, but they're working on it. Whether any form of civilisation will survive to provide readership is another matter.

Top of Page
Hillman's Living Cell cover   Review of genuine science   Harold Hillman: The Living Cell: Re-examination of Its Fine Structure

Very important book—explains why fundamental medical science has stalled, June 26, 2010

100-page but fact-packed book on how cells have been misunderstood, because of flaws in techniques. Something like half of research into biology is wasted as a result. This has been the case for thirty years, and shows no sign of reversing. People trying to draw lessons from such events as 9/11, NASA, and even Pearl Harbor and other exercises in misinformation will be pleased to know there is also a theoretical basis for their suspicions over the failure of medical science to progress much, apart from technological matters. The theoretical basis is that structures believed to be part of cells, and around which a lot of research effort is made, such as the endoplasmic reticulum, simply don't exist—they are an artefact caused by misinterpretation of electron micrographs. Careless work, and absence of control experiments, have led to a NASA-like situation of entrenched errors.

One of the authors, Peter Sartory, an optical microscopist—and also expert with telescopes—died, I think of emphysema. Harold Hillman is alive, but not very well. This book was intended (thirty years ago) for doctors, researchers, O and A level biology students, nurses, physiologists and so on, though it fell rather flat due to entrenched opposition. His latest and probably last book, Evidence-Based Cell Biology took him eight years to write and is in a sense a much amplified version of all of his books.

I've scanned this book in full as a .pdf file - Click here to download or read it.


Top of Page
Review of   Wendy Moore   The Knife Man—Blood, Body-Snatching and the Birth of Modern Surgery by Rerevisionist   25th June 2016
mid 18th century London
1746 London. 'Leicester Fields' came to be named 'Leicester Square'.   Note Castle Street to its east.   Golden Square was one of John Hunter's residences; the other was in Earl's Court (off the map, to the west).   A few churchyards are included in the map.
1714 - Fahrenheit's mercury thermometer invented
1728 - John Hunter born 13/14 February at Long Calderwood, East Kilbride
1748 - Joins his brother William at his anatomy school in London
1754 - Becomes a pupil at St George's Hospital; discovers placental circulation
1756 - Spends five months as a house surgeon at St George's
1759 - British Museum opened
1760 - Enlists as a surgeon in the army
1762 - Hunter's first research paper, on the descent of the testes and congenital hernias, published in William's Medical Commentaries
1763 - Leaves army and sets up practice in London
1764 - Becomes engaged to Anne Home
1766 - First paper, on the Siren Lacertina, an 'eel-like amphibian', published by Royal Society
1767 - Elected Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS). Begins experiment on venereal diseases, perhaps on himself
1768 - Appointed surgeon at St George's. (Unpaid - p 307)
1770 - Edward Jenner, a 'kindred spirit', becomes Hunter's house pupil
1771 - Publishes first major work, The Natural History of the Human Teeth; marries Anne Home
1775 - Offers private lectures on surgery
1776 - Appointed Surgeon Extraordinary to George III; treats David Hume
1777 - Attempts to revive Revd William Dodd after hanging
1778 - Publishes A Practical Treatise on the Diseases of the Teeth
1779 - Publishes 'An account of the free-martin' in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
1780 - Accuses brother of stealing his discovery of placental circulation
1783 - Moves to Leicester Square; steals body of Charles Byrne, the Irish Giant
1785 - Consulted by Benjamin Franklin; performs popliteal aneurysm operation
1786 - Treats William Pitt; awarded Copley Medal by RS; publishes A Treatise on the Venereal Disease
1787 - Treats Adam Smith
1788 - 28 Leicester Square Museum opens twice a year; treats Thomas Gainsborough and young Byron
1790 - Appointed surgeon-general of the army
1792 - Begins writing Observations and Reflections on Geology
1793 - John Hunter died 16 October at St George's
1809 - Birth of Darwin
1823 - Birth of Alfred Russel Wallace
1850 - Gray's Anatomy 1st edition
2005; paperback 2006. Published by Bantam/ Transworld/ Random House, Broadway/ Crown/ Archetype. Or something like that. The title, and cover design, obviously gave problems: not many people had heard of John Hunter, at least before this book. The title must have been chosen to titillate, and isn't quite accurate, as modern surgery wasn't really born, but slowly emerged against serious frictional human opposition. And 'physiology' no doubt was too difficult a word for a book title. John Hunter (1728-1793) is hard to categorise: he loved nature, had the good fortune to live at a time of explorations and world adventures, and was curious about all aspects of the living world.
    Hunter amassed a vast collection of specimens and 'preparations', which in effect seem to have been of three types:
  1. Spectacular objects—for example a stuffed giraffe, the first ever seen in Britain;
  2. Ordered and sorted specimens, showing similar structures in different species (e.g. skeletal structures, tendrils...), or similar processes in different species (circulation, digestion, breathing...), or developments in the same species (e.g. eggs developing up to the point of hatching). And
  3. Unusual or pathological specimens. He wasn't the same type as typical Victorian collectors, with birds' eggs in mahogany cases.
John Hunter's most recent biography (1969) was by Jessie Dobson, in the Association of Chartered Secretaries, a curator of the Hunterian Museum: an online pdf is purchasable from John Wiley. An account just after Hunter's death is a 'short account' by Everard Home, included within 'A Treatise on the Blood, Inflammation and Gun-shot Wounds' (1794). Most of Wendy Moore's information comes from books and other publications in which Hunter is mentioned in passing, plus notes by pupils, and Hunter's own works, plus 4 volumes of 'Case Books' (1993) which survived the depredations of Everard Home, Hunter's brother-in-law, who burnt large quantities of Hunter's papers and notes, and plagiarised the contents. William Clift, a Cornish impoverished clever young man, perhaps selected by Hunter as an apprentice after the fashion of Faraday by Humphrey Davy, guessed this might happen; 'The loss was incalculable; Clift broke down in tears'.

There's a handy chronology by 'big Al' on Moore's website, which I hope they won't mind me repeating here (with a few changes).

John Hunter did not have a conventional career. He came to London, following his brother, with a background in investigating the life all around him in Scotland. He may have been 'dyslexic'; he was reluctant to use neologisms, though he needed them—'embryology' would have been useful—perhaps he felt the lack of Greek and Latin; he disliked medical books, which of course were based on traditional errors; he disliked lecturing, perhaps conscious of a heavy accent; he was amiable though laconic—the testimonies are somewhat varied and inconsistent. But they all insist he worked, possibly to the limits of human ability, and largely on dissections and examinations of all the life forms then known. He was unequalled in this.
    His income came from private practice and students' fees [p. 409] but he spent heavily. His museum was opened in 1788, in (I think) his Leicester Square house. The map section (right) shows Leicester Fields, a name that seems to have been interchangeable with Leicester Square, judging by 18th century maps. Note Castle Street to its east: the back of the Leicester Square house had less elegant housing to its rear, where deliveries could be made by 'resurrection men' and other more respectable types. His death was only about five years later; he bequeathed debts. And the Leicester Square house had only a short remaining lease. Anne, his wife, 'Leaving her elegant home and servants and abandoning her circle of literary and musical friends ... was forced at fifty-one to take a job as a ladies' chaperone...' Perhaps Everard Home considered himself justified in collecting honours and money; perhaps he helped his sister, though one suspects not.
    The Hunterian Museum now, at the Royal College of Surgeons, is illustrated by a reproduction of an 1840 watercolour in Moore's book. It shows what looks like a caissoned ceiling, with curved side windows and upper and lower book- or specimen-lined galleries, with colonnades of pillars and huge display cases at floor level.

Hunter dissected a few thousand human corpses. And made 'preparations'—for example of the unfortunate Irish giant, Charles Byrne, victim of a pituitary tumour, though nobody knew that at the time. After death, the body, in a lead coffin to be buried at sea, was intercepted, removed, and taken back to Hunter, who cut off the flesh and boiled the body, then assembled the bones with, presumably, thread or wire. Total cost believed to be £500. Moore discusses 'resurrection men' in some detail. The procedure was something like the Thuggees in reverse, digging at the head end of a fresh grave, smashing the coffin, tugging up the corpse. They seem to have avoided murder, perhaps on legal advice, or because of the fear of the Tyburn tree. The trade seems to have received its death knell (so to speak) when murders became noticed. Wendy Moore has not looked in detail into the legal system of the time; how did they get away with stealing bodies? How did anatomists get away with frequent human dissections? There are modern equivalents, of course, to legal blind eye turning.
    Hunter regarded human beings as 'the most perfect animal' [p 498] but classified monkeys and inferior races (I'm not sure if that's his expression) on a continuum. He came within a whisker of inventing evolutionary theory, and indeed it's an astonishing fact that Wallace was so late relatively: surely Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, or British seamen might have constructed such a theory? All that's needed is a feeling for long stretches of time and space, feeling for inheritance, and some conception of needs of food and shelter and reproduction. And some freedom of thought and action.
    But human specimens were a tiny proportion of his collection: '.. eventually it would encompass more than 1,400 animal and human parts preserved in spirits [i.e. alcohol]; over 1,200 dried bones, skulls, and skeletons; more than 6,000 pathological specimens ...; and more than 800 dried plants and invertebrates, as well as ... stuffed animals, corals, minerals and shells. ... more than 500 different species ... nearly 3,000 fossils ..' [p 468].

Hunter taught surgeons-to-be; a total of about 1,000. Some went to the USA, others to hospitals in Britain. Despite his supposed dislike of lecturing, he was popular, far more than rivals, if others can be even considered rivals. Three names—Caesar Hawkins, William Bromfield, and John Gunning [p 305], (and later Thomas Keate, and William Walker)—represented the old guard, bloodletting, cupping, and killing. [p 55 has incredulous accounts of traditional techniques]. Or, more precisely, instructing others to do the dirty work.
    The medical 'professoriat' disliked Hunter. They seem to have commissioned a hostile book by Jessé Foot for £400 after Hunter's death. [p 527] The grounds seem to have been that he was an unqualified showman and mountebank. It's interesting to contemplate how single-minded Hunter had to be. If he'd never lived, perhaps phlebotomy and anal bellows would be current practices. There are many analogies at the present day: just two of them are fluoride, a poison put into otherwise clean water; and 'AIDS', so far a thirty-year fraud. Psychology is at present at something like the level of surgery in the 18th century; empiricism seems unavoidable. Maybe in future years there will be exhibits of the brains and biochemical systems of Henry Kissinger and George Soros in some museum of monstrosities.
    The process of 'professionalisation' had barely started: the Royal Society (c 1660), and for example the British Museum (c 1753) and Royal Academy (c 1768) had been founded in Hunter's time, and the Royal Institution (c 1799) after Hunter's death, but specialised learned societies with acceptable qualifications were in the future. The everyday system then was more like apprenticeship, not surprising where there was little general education.

Empirically, though, Hunter's grasp of anatomy made him indispensable. Moore gives an account of a caesarian section, at that time a rarity. In principle, it looks fairly simple: a bulging abdomen, and some sort of knife. But of course the ethical surgeon would not wish to cut off or damage bits. P 309 gives an account—the operation, as the old joke goes, was successful, but both patients, mother and child, died fairly soon. But it was obvious Hunter was competent. This sort of thing produced a change in the social atmosphere: after a few decades, post mortems became accepted, we're told.

The sciences generally were making progress: a good example is Scheele, (1742-1786) who was said to have discovered more new chemical substances than anyone else. Priestley (1733-1804) is generally credited with discovering oxygen in 1774 (his birthplace was Birstall, scene of likely false flag killing of Jo Cox MP), though as far as I know Hunter did not incorporate oxygen in his biology. Lavoisier (1743-1794) invented, or perhaps just arranged, modern chemistry before Dalton (1766-1844).
    In Hunter's world, hydrochloric acid was known, and had been for centuries, but of course its composition wasn't known, and the name was in the future. Oxygen, hydrogen, proteins and their properties were mostly in the future. Opium and alcohol were the only anaesthetics. The electric eel was not understood, since electricity itself was not understood. Microscopes had been publicised about a century before Hunter started his work in London [Robert Hooke's Micrographia was 1665] but microscopes have only two mentions in Moore's book. It seems fair to regard Hunter as mostly a naked eye worker, not unreasonably, since the fine detail must have been almost impossible to decode. To this day, microscopic structures cause problems, notably artefact of electron microscopy. Hunter did however make use of instrument makers, for example for specialised thermometers, I'd guess working in the Clerkenwell area.

Portrait of John Hunter hanging at the Royal Society. The artist, Robert Home, was his wife's brother, and brother of Everard Home. The dog may be Lion, his wolf-dog hybrid.
    Exotic animals are described by Moore [e.g. p 287] with their temporary English habitats: examples include 16 big cats at the Tower of London's menagerie, 'wild beast' Brookes of New Road, and a local fishmonger. Hunter had a house and garden in Earl's Court, where Hunter kept his exotics, such as zebus (Asian buffaloes), had an underground dissection room (cooler; no fridges), and carried out botanical investigations in 'orchards, hothouses, and conservatory'. Hunter had a lifelong interest in bees. Moore carelessly describes his activity as 'pottering', which must surely be unfair.
    And Captain Cook's return to England in 1771 after a few years sailing the south Pacific in the Endeavour with Joseph Banks and others [p 284, departure from Plymouth; p 317, return to Deal, in Kent] 'brought back ... 1,400 new plant species, more than a thousand new species of animals ..., more than a hundred birds, over 240 fish, and ... molluscs, insects, and marine creatures'. These were (I think) all preserved in some way: they may have liked a live kangaroo, for example, but the tiny ship could not accommodate one.

An interesting aspect of John Hunter's life work was his experiments with what are now called genetics. He successfully tried artificial insemination of silkworm eggs [p 280] which Moore thinks was pioneering, though surely livestock breeders must have used such methods long before. Interbreeding between species, or claimed species, was important, to try to fix boundaries, if any, between species. Hunter tried interbreeding domestic dogs (themselves of course of many varieties), and jackals, wolves, and foxes. [Published in 1878 by the Royal Society: p 491]. Jenner wrote to Hunter: 'The little jackal-bitch you gave me is grown a fine handsome animal; but she certainly does not possess the understanding of common dogs. She is easily lost when I take her out, and is quite inattentive to a whistle.' Thus, part of the effect of increased transport around the world was the possibility of reuniting long-separated animal groups, which evolved separately for many generations. This presumably is relevant to human races, about which Hunter probably wrote, though, if so, Wendy Moore is a bit evasive.

Moore is good on the social side of 18th century London, and I'd guess she may have been trained in Eng lit. She talks of Dr Johnson and his biographer Boswell (Sam Johnson 1709-1784; James Boswell 1740-1795). And of Smollett and Laurence Sterne. And Byron (Hunter recommended treatment for his foot, which Byron appears to have been too impoverished to carry out at the time. William Blake lived within sight of Castle Street, and probably referred to Hunter as 'Jack Tearguts'. Robert Louis Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde may have been suggested the contrast between by Hunter's opulent Leicester Square façade and the unattractive resurrection men back entrance.
    David Hume (philosopher), Adam Smith (economist), Benjamin Franklin, George III, Prime Ministers, and other aristocrats and well-known persons flicker through Moore's book, usually when near death. She's also good on artists: with no photography, drawings were necessary. Joshua Reynolds painted a couple of portraits of Hunter, one, which his wife disliked, with a fuzzy beard. Joseph Wright of Derby painted scenes of experiments, though I'm not certain these bear the usual modern interpretation. But the most important artist for Hunter was Jan van Rymsdyk (1730-1790) who drew quickly and slickly; I presume his works were engraved for reproduction on paper; they seem free of the fuzziness of etchings. His drawing of a foetus is far more impressive than Leonardo da Vinci's sketch.

Moore is not good on the power politics of the time. It's clear enough now that, after about a century, the Jews in the Bank of England were extending tentacles everywhere, not unlike on of Hunter's expanding growths. Culloden in 1746 was a last gasp of non-Jewish monarchy. The newly United States of America had an issue with the East India Company in 1775. France in 1789 had an issue with Jewish anti-Catholic Church activity. The results of these and many other events were far-reaching. It's likely enough that George III was poisoned, a favourite activity of Jews. However, Hunter probably had no inkling of any of this, beyond perhaps wondering about rents and leases, lack of public money for science, and what things like 'the Spanish Succession' had implied. There was, at the time, little overt Jewish control over opinions, freedom of enquiry, and research, in dramatic contrast with the present day.


Top of Page
image   Review of pop sociology   Richard G. Wilkinson: The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger

Interesting hypothesis. Terrible investigation, though..., June 26, 2010

Is there some optimum level of 'equality' that makes a society good, or stable, in some sense(s)? Interesting question. But this book is a very good example of how *not* to rush into a topic without working out a methodology first.

Rather than criticise in an overview sense, I'll just list some bullet points:

[1] The authors use difference in income between the average of the top 20% and bottom 20% of various countries. (Usually perhaps to fit the results onto graphs these are just 50 'rich' countries). The ratios of this 'income gap' go from 3 to almost 10: see page 17. Note that capital wealth is not included; if it was, these ratios would be hugely increased. Thus, the authors omit wealth and presumably use official inland revenue style figures for 'income'. Needless to say, distribution of capital could produce very different results.

[2] The authors don't seem to realise large countries might be expected to have larger 'income gaps'. Imagine a small village: the 'income gap' is naturally not that large. Imagine a vast country: even if it's egalitarian, its 'income gap' might legitimately be very much larger. Six tiny countries occur at the low end. The USA is at the high end. (Brazil, India, China etc are omitted).

[3] Their measures often rely on life expectancies. However, these are calculated only historically—it's hard to see how else they could be. Life expectation at birth is assumed to be the same as that of the entire cohort of ancestors now dead in that country. There is of course no particular reason to expect conditions to stay the same. A war might wipe them out, for example.

[4] The biggest threat they can see is global warming—clearly they are naive children of the media! Overpopulation, nuclear weapons, oil supply crashes go unmentioned. There is quite a bit on CO2, nothing on oil, weapons, and so on.

[5] Page 260 says: '.. it is easy to forget that a longer view reveals an almost unstoppable historical trend towards greater equality.' This seems extraordinarily optimistic. For one thing, almost nothing is known about the very long term—there must be tens or hundreds of thousands of years more or less lost historically. It's perfectly possible that technological needs will enforce inequality. One of the authors studied economic history—I'm amazed at such an obviously ideological claim has been made.

[6] They assume that peoples, races, and so on are more or less homogeneous. Thus 'poor' people are assumed to have less good health because .. well, I suppose because they can't afford good healthcare. In fact many people eat bad diets, smoke and drink, catch STDs, don't exercise, can't understand cookery, are accident prone, and so on—and there may well be some genetic intelligence link. Violence is well known to be far greater among blacks but this fact (which they note on page 78 as might be expected correlates with lower life expectation!) is glossed over.

[7] They accept unthinkingly the idea that money can be a solution. They seem not to realise that many people given money would no doubt spend it on drink, gambling, guns, and prostitutes; generally they have no idea of the way prices can reflect structural things within society. They are of course personally funded—assorted university posts are quoted—and I expect unconsciously assume that money is paper stuff which is handed out.

[8] With incredible naivety, they quote the sorts of figures charities use to extract funds: 'A million British children are estimated to be mentally ill' for example. 'The use of illegal drugs is more common in unequal societies.' An example that struck me was a graph on page 52, of 'most people can be trusted' % agreeing, against income inequality. Sweden has about 2/3 of people agreeing with the statement. Yet Sweden now has for 7 million Swedes, 2 million Muslims. The authors probably are unaware of anything non-'politically correct'.

Plenty more in this vein. Their conclusion 'More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better'—MAY be true. But this book does not clarify the issues.

Top of Page
image   Review of US PC 'history'   Thomas E. Woods: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask

Partial American revisionism with the usual failures of courage, June 26, 2010

The author is a free market type (funded by the Ludwig von Mises Institute—like many proponents of 'libertarian' ideas he prefers to be financially supported). He's also a Catholic and has written on the Church as the founder of civilization in Europe. Both these ideas sound more than a little outdated; moreover I think there's nothing original in these books—his sources are mostly recent books. However there is a coherent overview which makes his book interesting.

I think every topic here is designed to oppose US political correctness, sometimes providing historical evidence, sometimes based on von Mises-type theory.

The historical material is often US constitutional history, but from a non-PC viewpoint. Thus he looks at States Rights (three chapters if you count 'general welfare' chapter); Presidential power (and its assessment by historians, generally using interventionist criteria); Juries, and whether they are entitled to reject laws; the Constitution—living and breathing? Elastic?

Some of the material is Constitution-related without being within the document—e.g. the founding fathers' views on immigration, Presidential powers.

Some is general US history: were the 'Indians' in fact ecology minded? Did they supply valuable agricultural hints to the colonists? There's revisionist material on the 'wild west' which wasn't very wild and in fact was largely planned and charted—just as immigration into white countries is (secretly) arranged. Was M L King very wonderful? Why was the black G W Carver hyped, whereas another and much more successful black, S B Fuller, pretty much ignored?

Some is economic and statistical: interesting chapters on what caused the 'Great Depression' (it wasn't a depression for everyone, though). Was the supposed boom during the Second World War an artefact of statistics? What is the legal basis for Social Security—is it in fact insurance, or a tax?

And these chapters shade into economic theory—for example, American Unions are described as, in effect, outside the law, and a factor in wrecking US industry.

In my view, Woods' economics ignores the mass production evidence, which Carnegie and Rockefeller forced on the world's attention. He doesn't seem to recognise the malignities of huge corporations. And things like dumping. Quite apart from resource depletion. However, there is clearly *some* truth in what he says.

There's another set of chapters on race—affirmative action, educational achievement etc where Woods like most Americans is afraid to point out the truth. But the most important chapters don't exist: What about huge frauds—Pearl Harbor? Gulf of Tonkin? 9/11? Weapons expenditure? War crimes? The Fed and the paper money scam? Control of information? Tax exempt trusts?

The book is a mixed bag and the author clearly stretched himself to get 33 pieces—there are two similar ones on Clinton encouraging Islam in Kosovo, for example. It could have been a far more powerful book—though it would also have been far more difficult to publish.

Top of Page
image   Review of law discussion   Richard A. Posner: The Economics of Justice

Indirectly casts light on US law and lawyers, June 26, 2010

1981 Harvard University Press book which I found while bookshop browsing. It has discussions on Homeric society, and such phenomena as honor killings—they can work, because relatives of a killer may well hand the killer over rather than risk endless attacks. I thought it might be interesting. On examination, this book is part of the dominant strand in US law, which unfortunately is dominated by Jews. It may be worth reading on that account, though some effort is needed to tease out all the strands.

There are four very unequally sized parts, nominally on 1 Justice and Efficiency (largely a thumb-through of old disputes about utilitarianism and Bentham); 2 The Origins of Justice; 3 Privacy and related Interests; 4 The Supreme Court and discrimination (automatically assumed against blacks).

Just a few notes. Posner is absurdly naive about prices: if someone pays for anything, it must be worth the money paid—he has examples mostly to do with oranges and tomatoes, possibly to hide his assumptions. He naturally assumes justice many millennia ago must be 'primitive'. In fact, it's perfectly *possible* that in such societies 'justice' was in fact better than now—but he's a circuit judge, so he's not going there. Posner gives no consideration whatever to problems such as possible damaging effects when (e.g.) lawyers collude. On 'privacy', most people know roughly what they mean; but Posner instantly morphs into secrecy. 'Privacy' is not the same as keeping secrets, though it is for crooks. This of course is an aspect of the bogus 'human rights' legislation, from which lawyers have profited so abundantly. On discrimination, he assumes, with no evidence pro or con, that blacks (who are always assumed to be 'minorities'—he doesn't consider black countries with white elites, or black elites for that matter) are discriminated against, and moreover are otherwise indistinguishable from whites.

I won't say more, though there's enough. The book is badly written, despite having several pages' worth of help from 'more people than I can hope to mention'. Some readers might dig up a copy and muse on it, and on the state of law in the USA.
10 August 2022: Kevin MacDonald's failed Occidental Observer, has a piece dated August 9 2022 titled 'racial narratolorgy..' by V.S. Solovyev, described as 'a graduate of the University of Chicago'. (Wow!) MacDonald has long ago abandoned serious comment on any subject, unfortunately. It even includes people like unz in its 'blogroll'.
      CALLED THE MOST CITED LEGAL SCHOLAR OF ALL TIME, former federal appellate judge Richard A. Posner... starts this piece, presumably trying to crank up belief in yet another low-grade Jewish 'scholar'. It looks to me that the frequent citations are not of tricky legal points, but for mock-legal piffle.
      The piece tries to tackle race, but of course can't, and e.g. pretends to take the 'Holocaust' seriously. Mentioned here because I recognised than name of Posner and its red flags.
I've added the year 1881 to my jews file, the year Egypt was occupied by the English, whose Constitution was principally authored by Sheldon Amos, 'a theoretical lawyer of some eminence' according to Bertrand Russell.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish propaganda theory   Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

This is not the book you think it is, June 26, 2010

I've made a repeat attempt to tackle this book, which I've always had reservations about.

[1] The main theory—'propaganda model'—is only 35 pages, less than a tenth of the book—it looks like the initial seed which has been padded out.
[2] The 'model' is: five 'filters', though another is sneaked in. These are (1) Ownership of media [this is pre-Internet, and mostly refers to print]. (2) Advertising and its withdrawal, direction etc. (3) 'Sourcing'. This is almost entirely state sources, including academics and 'think tanks'. (4) Flak and enforcers. (5) 'Anticommunism as a control mechanism'. Then (6) in effect biasing the report, clearly shown when switching sides.

The rest of the book is examples: (i) bogus elections, in El Salvador, Guatemaa and Nicaragua. (ii) 'The KGB-Bulgarian Plot to Kill the Pope'. (iii) Indo-China wars—this section is about half the whole book.

So what's the problem? I'll be brief and schematic:
** Although Chomsky emphasises the money-making press, the fact is (pp 19-23) that for example the Pentagon's publishing was 'sixteen times larger than the nation's biggest publisher'. The USAF, US Chamber of Commerce etc etc and 150,000 'professional' PR people would appear to dwarf the press, if I'm reading this book correctly. In other words, in the unlikely event that the publishing combines tried to become open and honest, their output would still be a tiny fraction of the total 'source'.
** Chomsky has a persistent tendency to assume organisations have a genuine purpose. He (as many have noted) has no truck with 9/11, NASA moon frauds, and so on, which are of course hugely expensive frauds. And yet, if you consider the huge military spending, why should it happen to be needed year on year? It's perfectly possible they bombed and burned Vietnamese just as a time-filling and money-making makework exercise.
** The whole idea of 'manufacturing consent' seems wrong—the slogan is out of kilter with the facts. What 'consent' have you, reader, given for mass immigration, for example? Or bombing Kosovo? Or invading Iraq? Absolutely none. 'Manufacturing stupidity' or 'manufacturing indifference' may be nearer the mark; but nothing really is 'manufactured'.
** There's a whole section on bogus elections, but Chomsky doesn't seem to compare this with the USA's first-past-the-post system, which has naturally morphed into two big parties. Democracy is a remote ideal, indeed, in the USA too.
** On 'communism', Chomsky never mentions the Jewish funding or personnel, which marks it out as entirely distinct from genuine humanitarian movements. Nor does he mention Mossad plots.
** Chomsky gives figures e.g. (p. 50) 10,000 deaths in El Salvador in 1980, 'disappearances' in Guatemala estimated at 40,000. Out of very roughly 5M and 8M populations at that time. It's an unpleasant thing to say, but knife, gun, and drug crime, infant mortality and so on are rife too.
** The final half of the book, on the Vietnam War, is important as of course it's largely censored. However, again,. what consent did ordinary Americans give to it? And what effect has Chomsky actually had in practice, for example, prosecuting Kissinger, or getting reparations?

I don't think the 'propaganda model' even begins to describe the reality. However the book may be valuable in opening people's eyes to military mass murders. Hence 3 stars.

Top of Page
image   Review of maths history   Siobhan Roberts: King of Infinite Space: Donald Coxeter, the Man Who Saved Geometry

Difficult topic handled womanfully, June 26, 2010

Biog of Coxeter, a Canadian professor who flourished in the 1960s and was famous for having 'saved geometry'. Famous amongst mathematicians, at least. His books were and I expect still are on university maths reading lists. The authoress is Canadian, and it's her first book. It has to be said she hasn't been bold in her comments. For example it's not entirely clear what Coxeter's life work really amounted to. Nor does she try to tackle the highly disputable elements which seem taken for granted by these people, on such things as multiple dimensions and groups (defined in ways not in conformity with the usual meanings, I'd guess deliberately), geometry of curved surfaces—which has been given a sort of fantasy ethereal feel, and the extremely simple and therefore implausible derivation of e=mc squared.

Coxeter seems to have been happiest with extensions of the Platonic solids (in 'Regular Polytopes'), and related activities, such as the standard system for describing crystals (by their nodes etc), geodesic domes, possible implications for molecular structure, and so on. There's quite a bit on domes (which he didn't invent) and buckminsterfullerene, a form of carbon generated by evaporating carbon in a vacuum whereupon the atoms because of carbon's valency of 4 tend to like as sheets, but by default curl round. Whether anyone's found a use for this, seems not to be known by Roberts. Another thing Coxeter didn't find was Penrose's simple-seeming slightly asymmetrical tiles.

Coxeter used algebra rather heavily and extended into regions where he then tailed off and others' expertise ruled. His book of 'twelve essays' hardly sold any copies. There are quite striking accounts, if you read between the lines, of inter-departmental and inter-university rivalries.

Coxeter was a pacifist and appears to have had little to do with WW2; and was also a vegetarian. Although highly praised (e.g. there's an intro by Douglas Hofstadter) his own university (Toronto) seems to have eased him out—though this may have simply been standard practice.

Various other figures—Newton, Kepler, G H Hardy, Escher, Martin Gardner, Buckminster Fuller, Polya, Einstein, several Penroses etc naturally enough appear.

Recommended as a general biography though it's light on both explanations and sceptical analyses.

Top of Page
Review of Propaganda Novel   Christopher Isherwood: Mr Norris Changes Trains

A curiosity of propaganda by a sad little poof (who may not have been English)
25 Sept 2013
** This review was removed by Amazon in the USA! **
First published February 1935
Second Impression March 1935
New edition June 1937

It's quite interesting to read this curiosity, clearly written as a propagandist 1930s thing, and published by Hogarth Press, of Bloomsbury.

One of the reviews or blurbs here (on Amazon) described this as about 'pre-war Berlin' - probably whoever scribbled that hadn't heard of the 'Great War' or 'First World War' as it would soon be renamed.

The whole thing is not credible, and I have to wonder whether Isherwood spent any time in Germany at all; the descriptions are so utterly devoid of anything characteristic of Germany that one has to wonder if in fact the whole thing was made up, with a bit of guidebook backing. I can't remember, for example, a single street or building being named; and the German language extracts are exiguous and barely exist.

And it's amusing to see from these Amazon reviews how Americans in particular, doped by their Jewish controllers, think in terms of films rather than facts.

Thus Isherwood presumably liked anal sex (there's a school reference suggesting this). And, therefore, Germans were decadent! Mr Norris is shown as a violence fetishist; this of course means that Germans are fetishists! Isherwood's narrator presents himself as a neutral observer; in fact, after naval blockades during which many Germans starved, it's unlikely they would be as well-disposed to him as this novel suggests. (He's put forward as a teacher of English, with German pupils, but with nothing to suggest this was in any way genuine).

For some reason many reviewers think the descriptive writing is excellent; in fact it's rather laughable, and mainly concerned with people's faces; Norris is described in rather painful detail, mostly in conflicting ways as the book drags on. However he does just manage to emerge from one dimension into one and a bit. He has zero plausibility: a man with an inheritance, which he squandered, and which Isherwood is careful not to trace to any roots, with obvious character and money problems, completely ignorant of any ideology, is not credible as a spy; the plot in fact can only be held together by withholding essential evidence.

Isherwood's grasp of the politics (this was a time when Stalin's murder machine, funded and run by Jews, was building arms factories, tanks, and so on, preparing to invade Europe) is infantile. It's conceivable that Jews might have decided to change sides; if, for example, Germany in the First World War had offered to guarantee Palestine. But of course there's nothing in this book of possible twists of history.


Top of Page


Rutherfurd Sarum   Review of   Sarum by Edward Rutherfurd   (First published 1987, by Century in London, Melbourne, Auckland, Johannesburg. Unindexed)
Heavily-Promoted Lightweight Jewish Pseudo-History   Rerevisionist's Review 27 July 2016

The author's real name is stated to be Francis Edward Wintle (date of birth 1948). His pseudonym may have been suggested by a name from the Battle of Trafalgar: in Admiral Collingwood's column, the new British ship Swiftsure under Captain William Rutherfurd fought opposite an earlier captured British ship, the Swiftsure, the novel claims. The novel has a short chapter, The Spire, subtitled April 1985, an account of money-raising for the spire. Possibly this suggested the project. Or perhaps a book, Endless Street, published in 1983, by Dr John Chandler, which Wintle says was his 'constant companion'. Incidentally, Wintle is listed in an online Jewish surname index.

Sarum has about 20 chapters; an average of about two weeks per chapter, if the author's claim to have spent over three years on writing it is true. All the acknowledgements are to museum curators and other specialists in English and ecclesiastical history. There are no historical, aristocratic, or military sources credited. The history in fact is entirely official history, and therefore of course biased by Jewish outlooks. I only became aware of this on plodding through the book, picking up clues for example when reading about Edward's expulsion of Jews, and Cromwell's payment to infiltrate them back. Sarum was a New York Times fast seller, and certainly it passes the Jew filter tests. The acknowledgements include an agent, and two editors ('Rosie Cheetham of Century Hutchinson and Betty Praksher of Crown Publishers').

The entire novel is embedded in world affairs, generally Europe, but only in a shallow manner, as in a newspaper aimed at simpletons, or a light history book, with events strung out like beads along time's string—Roman province; Alfred in a walk-on part; war between Britain and the the USA after its declaration, then the Reform Bills. Most chapters are structured around a principal event, fleshed out with generally accepted backdrops, such as new printed books. This often leads to odd disproportions: the Black Death (half the population dead?) followed by excitement over for cloth output. (I suspect Wintle/Rutherfurd may have studied the wool industry—fruit and veg, salt, horses and transport, buildings and water, inventions and science, are samples of very much under-represented activities). The chapters have a feel resembling the BBC series Blackadder, with a set of similar characters reappearing in different times: maybe it reflects a Jewish attitude to 'goyim'—Curtis, Robinson, Fry, Elton and no doubt others thinking they are Jews. Each chapter may have been assembled in isolation. Or for that matter by a set of authors working to instruction, just as soap operas are assembled from a plot-line issued by a producer or writer, then fleshed out as from card index notes by a number of hacks. This is a convincing idea, but there is evidence against this: Rutherfurd is dealing with the 'English Civil War' more than three-quarters through the book, suggesting an enthusiast who was reined in—the final chapters being skeletal with almost nothing on both the First and Second World Wars. My copy appears to be a first edition; subsequent versions may have incorporated more material.
      The repetitive simple descriptions in each of the chapters certainly feel like production-line jobs. Characters with blue eyes, red hair, and a fiery disposition repeatedly pop up. Others with deformities, prehensile toes, a creepy and secretive types, recur, as do characters with a large round head, pointed nose, craft skills, a small body, and stubby fingers. Mostly it's written in standardised interchangeable simple English, plus some technical terms. There is some concession to eras, but not much; I'm tempted to compare it with Star Wars simple dialogue. So I seriously suspect this is a group writing effort, written to order. Each chapter perhaps following period feature insertions (clothes, famous writers, new inventions, changes in religion, alleged Jewish misfortunes) and passage-of-time landmarks, such as weathered buildings, disused sites, evidence of buried ruins such as a Roman road or remains of a villa. Scene-setting includes topographical descriptions, all of which seem to be taken from maps. Even from high British hilltops it is difficult to identify remote features with any reliability, such is the foreshortening. The 'five rivers' meme seems inaccurate to me.

The jacket blurb provides an authoritative summary of the 'families': Tep is the prehistoric outcast, with prehensile toes, and narrow face 'like a rat' who becomes the Wilsons. (This seems to be an often-adopted surname by Jews). Nooma, the architect of stonehenge (the format dictates single experts, not groups of them) later emerges as Osmund, sculptor of much of the Cathedral interior, with a large round head, stumpy fingers, and inelegant small body. Porteus is a 'Roman in exile': the emphasis on the Sarum area inevitably forces a theme of failed ambition and life in a backwater. The Shockleys descend from Saxon thanes (or thegns): red hair, gold hair, carroty hair, blond and blonde hair, plus blue or violet eyes, and an unruly temperament, are the handy markers. And we have Godfreys, who came with with William the Conqueror from Normandy. The latter three don't seem to need a prehistoric background.

Declines and falls are not described in detail: the chapters have something like the equivalent form to Victorian histories: Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Middle Ages, fast forwarding between. The first two chapters are separated by 3,500 years. Another convention is the stasis which perhaps the form of such books leans towards, as in Tolkien: there has to be continuity simply to provide threads and paths to be followed. Each chapter has descriptions of habits of the time, always described in flat prose, and often not credible, at least to me: stonehenge goes up in what seems a very short time, as does Salisbury Cathedral. The Reformation doesn't take long. Trial by ordeal, the stocks, sheep breeding for wool, illuminated books, clothing and costumes, the South Sea Bubble, south coast smuggling, and what have you are introduced in passing. The basic framework always assumes paid workers: British peasantry are more or less elided out, as are Caesar's communal groups. Naturally therefore money is involved: some people are 'rich', some have 'huge sums', but there's not much sense of proportion: wars for example may be 'profitable', or 'expensive', but detail stays at the family level. There's little feeling for changes in knowledge and skill and communications: the permutations of groups of people who combine in new ways against other groups remains unexplored. The suggestion is that what seem large changes are dwarfed by the changes over vast stretches of time: an excuse for simplified vision and cut-down descriptions and absence of insight.

All the plots are between families, usually just one member being infuriated with a rival family, and plotting revenge; the pattern recurs and in each case is distressingly similar, relying on a single establishing event, often slights over business and property and status, followed by more or less cunning subsequent plotting. The location conveniently rules out huge issues: there are no Rothschilds or City events here. The nearest are such things as the young man whose parents borrowed to buy his commission, being casually insulted by the aristocratic types chatting about Napoleon. And the plots are often sexual: accounts of young women, typically 13 years old, usually with similar descriptions of firm bodies and breasts, are common; so are unhappily married women. Now I think of it, there may have been a distribution of stresses by chapter: attempted rape in the first chapter, wartime adultery in the last chapter; a homosexual encounter here, a staid woman seducing the cat-like wiry athletic moody impoverished farmer there; a red-haired harlot and a loud Flemish trader, another chapter being allotted unrequited love, and yet another the guilty Jewish slavegirl from Palestine.

A single page, with a 1915 date, deals with the sale of stonehenge to a local man. A short chapter 'The Encampment' May 1944 is laughably lightweight: a wartime affair between an American air person and a female FANY driver—both with surnames based on the family trees in the book, which are not so much trees as single names: possibly this is a Jewish maternal descent idea; it's difficult to imagine that mental picture in anyone with a feel for populations and their expansions, growths and changes. The sale of British assets, the mass murders of the USSR, the groundwork for final control of the world, all slip over Rutherfurd. I searched for mention of modern synthetic Jewish horrors: 6 million dead? Nuclear weapons?—but all there is is tea and quaint Britain. The final sentences describe a 13 year old thief with a narrow face stealing from a locked car.

On the positive site, the book gives a potted history of a part of England. The negative side is all the misleading material: Charles Kingsley, on Cardinal Newman, inclined to suspect Newman of inserting one single passing hint ... one little barbed arrow which, as he swept magnificently past on the stream of his calm eloquence, seemingly unconscious of all presences, save those unseen, he delivered unheeded, as with his finger-tip, to the very heart of an initiated hearer, never to be withdrawn again. Rutherfurd's Sarum delivers quivers of such arrows. The view of Englishmen, saturated with Jewish corruption, a view held by many Europeans and white south Africans, is completely absent here.
I haven't read and doubt I could recommend Rutherfurd's other books. His own 'official site' describes his 1991 book Russka like this: Warriors and hermits, boyars and serfs, romantic heroines and rich old ladies, fortune-builders and exiles—the characters in RUSSKA inhabit the rich, astonishing, evocative and contradictory world of forest and steppe, icon and axe, Orthodox faith and Jewish persecution, of gorgeous churches, magnificent palaces, and squalid villages; of Russian folk art and sumptuous opera, of Tolstoy and Lenin, Tchaikovsky and Rasputin. Connoisseurs of this sort of thing will understand what 'Jewish persecution' means, and will note the absence of the Jewish USSR.

London (1997) and New York (2009) no doubt follow the Jewish line. His most recent book is or was Paris (2013). His official website gives this blurb about Paris: From the days of Notre Dame and the mighty Knights Templar to the expulsion of the Jews; from the age of heroic Joan of Arc, to cunning Cardinal Richelieu and the bloody conflict between Catholics and Huguenots; from the glittering court of Versailles to the Terror of the French Revolution; from the heyday of the Impressionists to the shame of the Dreyfus Affair, and the tragic mutiny of the First World War; from the 1920s when the writers of the Lost Generation could be found drinking at Les Deux Magots, to the Nazi occupation, and the heroism of the French Resistance. All this is clearly largely Jewish propaganda—no mention of Jews and the 'French' Revolution, for example, or the 1913 Fed, the funding of both sides in 1914, the reality of the 'French Resistance'.

The series of books is worth reading only by people trying to unpick Jewish infiltration, and looking for a comprehensive series of Jewish-assembled views of the world.

Top of Page


image   Review of British WW2 history and nukes   C P Snow: Corridors of Power

Snow as an outsider, describing times before and after World War 2, June 26, 2010

Corridors of Power is probably the best-known—mainly because of the title—of a series of novels by Snow, which he wrote almost after the manner of Dickens, about one every couple of years, starting in 1940 aged about 35 with 'Strangers and Brothers'. He gave the same name to his series of I believe eleven titles. Snow got off to a false start with a detective novel; then a story about science fraud, The Crystal, which H G Wells liked—Snow had a science background, but couldn't or wouldn't make a career of it. In his day, scientific brilliance was believed to be rare and hard to find; the triumph of Jews in the USA has led to an opposite view, in which any institution and any person is a serious scientist, provided money is there for publicity and salaries. After the 'Great War', Einstein had just such a promotional machine; Snow must have assumed there was something in it. His novels all have a similar feel: a series of short chapters with simple titles, and decisions being made on the basis of simple opinions and personal foibles. Rather like a classroom of children raising their hands to answer a question, but changing sides as signals are picked up. The sources of the signals are, however, not known to Snow. His novels are low in evidence, but high in guesswork, status, and low-level oratorical flourishes. (All his characters have verbal mannerisms, repeated each time they appear). Harold Hillman, the biologist whose life was made miserable by incompetents in official scientific positions, told me of a man whose name I forget, unwilling to discuss scientific theories, but fully informed on which team is working on what, and who thinks this, and who else thinks that, and where money is likely to go. A type Harold hated.

Snow was, I think, something of a poor boy made good, as Malcolm Muggeridge claimed in Oh no, Lord Snow probably a similar type to Melyvn Bragg and Clive James in the BBC later. (Biographical claims of youthful poverty are often fake). Another critic was the once-famous F R Leavis, of the magazine Scrutiny. It's only as I type this that it occurs to me that Leavis—look at the name—might have been Jewish, with his own agenda, perhaps including anti-Britishness. (Neither Snow's Two Cultures nor Leavis's replying comments are available freely online. Both are utterly outdated by revisionist work on Jews).
      Anyway, Snow was ambitious, and certainly not willing to rock the boat. In my view, his novels give a highly realistic picture of conventional life in Britain both before and after the Second World War. I'm tempted to call the view 'Middle Class', but that's not quite accurate, as it requires the assumption of attitudes which can't quite have been felt, for example people taken into the military and having a good war, or the omission of food and clothes coupons, or the omission of radio headlines.
      Snow called the Second World War the 'Hitler War', not, understandably, seeing through the propaganda; I can find no evidence he had a clue about Jews and 'Communism', or Jews and science frauds, or Jews and wars, or Jews' other aspects of power. His novel The Affair (published in 1960) combined a science fraud accusation with the Dreyfus Affair, which of course Snow interpreted in the usual oh-so-innocent-Jew sense. The title of the novel may have had sex appeal, but Snow says in the introductory material that the name came from the L'Affaire Dreyfus. The scientific fraud drew on 'the picturesque case of Rupp'—Emil Rupp having worked with Einstein on 'particle-wave duality'; I'd guess both in real life will turn out to be Jewish fraudstera.
      Even if Snow ever harboured dangerous thoughts, he would not have put them into his novels, except in the actions of flawed characters, which of course his novels have. (E.g. a convinced technical Communist; an unsatisfactory wife; a scheming head of a Cambridge college).
      All this is not quite fair on Snow; he wrote on 'Allied' atrocities against Germany, and perhaps Japan—Einstein on hearing the 'news' of Hiroshima said "Oy vey".
      I found by chance a few passages in A Coat of Varnish (1979; published a bit before his death)
      'It had always been a singularly anonymous life ... War had saved him from the frustrated marriage. He had soldiered in a good regiment, into which, as he predictably pointed out, he wouldn't have entered except through his connections. He wasn't a good officer ... nor a specially bad one. Then he had been seconded to military intelligence, where his [sketchy] languages came in useful. ...
      That job led to another. When the war ended, he wanted to marry again. His vestigial income [this upper-class character was from a once-rich English family] had been lost. He had to earn some money. He was sent for, in circumstances of farcical mystery, and asked if he would like to join the security service. ... he hadn't dithered long before taking the offer. ... for nearly thirty years, that is what he had been doing...' [So much for the heroic glories of the 'Hitler War']

'Corridors of Power' fits into all this... as a shrewd reviewer here noted, there is in fact very little about actual 'corridors of power'—Prime Ministers, Civil Servants, Cabinet Ministers, military heads, nuclear physicists, directors of research establishments, and so on. The action is outsider stuff looking in—candidates for Parliament, backbenchers, people in country houses, acquaintances. Snow is incurious about the 'Hitler War' as he calls it, the 'Cold War', Churchill—he accepts all the usual attitudes. He accepts the oddities of the Oxbridge system, has no criticism of the legal system (his protagonist is a lawyer), believes in removing capital punishment because progressives did. If you're looking for something of this sort—an evocation of England in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s—I think Snow's series must be high on a list of consistent portrayals of the period as perceived by middle class people in Britain who hadn't learned to look below the surface.

I wrote this in 2010, just before I was aware of the Jewish fraud of 'nuclear weapons'. I was aware of the Jewish 'holocaust' fraud, and of the way the Jewish media had centralised systems of lying. - RW 2020


Top of Page
image   Review of Good wide view of, mostly, traditional philosophy. Not Jew-aware   Bertrand Russell: History of Western Philosophy

Best single volume on philosophy, June 26, 2010

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

Top of Page
image   Review of   Bertrand Russell   Power: A New Social Analysis   published October 1938

Bertrand Russell wanted to invent a new science of human power, June 26, 2010/ 4 Sept 2013/ 4 Sept 2014/ 18 March 2015/ 4 July 2015/ 18 Sept 2015
All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)

Top of Page
  Review of science fraud   Ralph René: NASA mooned America

More difficult to assess than NASA!, June 26, 2010

I genuinely don't know whether to recommend this book. It hinges mostly on photo and physics evidence, as inferred from NASA and TV etc, and from a stream of books which Rene has combed through in search of inconsistencies. There isn't much on biology, although requirements for food, water, heating/cooling, air, excretion and so on offer fertile grounds for a crit. Also there is no summary of what the missions supposedly involved—several stages of rocket, various orbits, various landings and departures.

My copy is dated 1992; it's been edited twice, apparently after two publishers broke promises to publish. The book is a bit shorter than A4—must be some specifically American format. It's stapled and has black tape down the spine—not quite perfect binding. It appears to have been produced on a proportional spaced IBM carbon film typewriter, a type no longer made. There are photos supplied by NASA; 14 in total. Plus charts. Getting on for 200 pages.

The evidence is partly photographic, which isn't quite convincing as some of the shadows *might* be distorted by uneven ground. There's a mass of material on heat dissipation, water coolant requirements, air pressure, radiation of heat, effects of vacuums and low pressures, physical size of hatches, solar flares and radiation, rocket fuels and weights, position of the earth in the moon's sky....

Rene mixes in sociology and economics of grandiose frauds. By now he may have produced an updated version; I hope so. I don't doubt he's right, but even if you're right, thoughts need marshalling and ordering.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest   Geoffrey Best: War and Law since 1945

Terrible rubbish, June 26, 2010

Printed and reprinted 1994-1997 and maybe beyond. The author was a professor of history in Britain at several places. This book was partly funded by the Rowntree Foundation, one of these quasi-trust/think-tanks with a covert agenda. The book takes the form largely of discussions on documents from about 1948 (considerably hypocritical declaration of Human Rights) through the 1950s and 1960s.

The problem is, the chap is a completely conventional news-headline style historian, fully believing in mantras—'Cold War', 'Communists', 'Viet Cong', Pearl Harbor, Nuremberg, 'Pinkville' and Calley. There's a curious disconnection with people who carry out atrocities; I've noticed this before—for example I once chatted with the founder of the 'Peace Studies' department in Bradford, who refused to discuss e.g. rape victims or chemical warfare victims in Vietnam. Things like declarations of war aren't even indexed; nor of course are fake justifications—are there legal penalties here? Africa isn't indexed despite the innumerable bloody conflicts and genocides, though there are bits on Nigeria and Algeria and Angola. Arms control has a few mentions—but again shouldn't arms sales be under some legal control?

Just another book concealing realities.

Top of Page
image   Review of forensics   Zakaria Erzinçlioglu: The Illustrated Guide to Forensics: True Crime Scene Investigations

Fascinating sidelight on theories of knowledge and truth, June 26, 2010

Interesting material on (e.g.) -- abrasions, Bertillon, bite marks, cadaveric spasms, Chechen hostages, chloroform, Arthur Conan Doyle, drowning, Dunblane, ethnic groups, fingerprints, genetics, ground-penetrating radar, haemoglobin, Hitler diaries, Identikit, J F Kennedy, Libyan Embassy, maggots, Georgi Markov, mass graves, narcotics, 9/11 [five pages], nitrogen, Occam, polygraphs, quicklime, radiocarbon dating, Rasputin, ricin, Rwanda, security in bomb blast areas, sexual differences, Shipman, steganography (hiding messages in long computer files), taphonomy, teeth, vitreous humor, Waco (edited down from a long list).

What interested me also was the philosophical aspects here. We all know philosophers never say anything useful on knowledge—they are paid to be evasive. But in forensic investigation, theories and observations and witness statements all contribute to the final result. There are two pages on 'expecting the unexpected', trying not to be biased by preconceptions. Interesting comparison of crossword clues with real life—all the bits have to fall into place, and it may be as unexpected and yet as satisfactory as the solution to a 'cryptic' crossword. This of course is somewhat idealised—in practice there are investigations as with Dr Kelly, or JFK, or Diana Spencer where truth takes second (or third..) place.

 

Peter Ustinov in Fiji, Hawaii, ANZ, India, South Africa   Peter Ustinov 4-part TV 1998   Planet Ustinov (4:3 aspect ratio; c. 200 mins)
    Review by 'Rerevisionist' 25 June 2015
Reborn Coudenhove-Kalergi With Tangled Family Roots Tries His Best.

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

Top of Page
  War and Peace   Weinstein, BBC etc Review by 'Rerevisionist' 14 Jan 2016
Moved here together (to save space)

Top of Page
image   Review of British social history and songs   CD: Flanders & Swann complete

End of the 1950s.... conventional sophisticated humour, June 26, 2010

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

Top of Page
misleading modern cover design   Review of   Tressell/ Noonan   The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists
1900-ish working class Britain novel; with several twists in the tale     Review 3 June 2015
This novel has something of a back-story. It's attributed to 'Robert Tressell', and is sometimes described as the only English novel written by a genuinely working-class person. It appears to have existed as a manuscript, in which the final version was never set down. This may explain the repetitiveness and length of the book. In fact the author was Robert Noonan, with a background from Ireland and South Africa. The original subtitle, Twelve months in hell, suggests to me the author was someone who felt he had descended in the world. Another oddity (my prompt for this review) was a claim by George Galloway in Hastings, in 2015, that the book included a defence of Jewish immigrants, including arguments of the "they are different" type, (Galloway didn't mention other facts, such as the joint refusal of Jews to co-operate when white girls were butchered by Jews, or their manufacture of fake atrocity stories). This suggests Noonan may have been, or thought of himself as, Jewish.

The book was unpublished until 1914, and even then in bowdlerised form. Noonan as far as I know had no biography published until after the Second World War. In its way, his novel was too late to be of much use. It has many plaintively touching scenes, for example children gazing at a shop-window of a Christmas display, aware that those things were not for them. And of the uncomfortable chilly clothes of house painters. And the honest hero going to his public library to look up details of ancient Egyptian buildings and stylistic details, to decorate (I think) a town hall.

The principal parts of the theory are the 'money trick', in which a piece of bread from their meagre daily fare is divided up, and the workers' share being shown to be less than the total. I was told a curious twist on this: someone's dad had realised, from this, that he too could become an employer, and make money from it—probably not Noonan's intention. It's possible local politicians drew similar lessons, now I think of it. But this 'money trick' does not of course include the more advanced money trick, as exemplified in the Federal Reserve.

Does Noonan in fact suggest any way out of the Hell he placed in Mugsborough (probably Hastings?) I don't think so.


Top of Page
image   Review of US power discussion. Either not Jew-aware, or intentionally Jew-suppressant   Noam Chomsky: Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance

Not good enough—superficial with inherent bias, June 26, 2010

I've owned this book for years & thought I'd try to review it. There are several points that ought to be made:--

[1] The 'white guilt' aspect. Chomsky talks of the USA (and, earlier, Europe) as though decisions made by 'elites' are group decisions. ('Manufacturing consent'—doesn't that imply that *you* consented to e.g. bombing Vietnam, or supplying Turkey with weapons?) I'm not saying this is a dominant thread, but it lurks in there.

[2] He loves quotations—there are 8 to 10 on almost every page, probably 2000 or so total. However, the people quoted are mostly journalists from the USA or state (or tax exempt) 'think tanks'. One has to wonder whether such people are simply paid hacks; they are trained to pick out misleading statistics, to disguise what they say, to use emotive language, and all the rest, including of course supporting decisions already secretly made. As a check, I looked up the extended passages on Nicaragua, and virtually all the notes were were US sources, apart from eg a Nicaraguan Society of Doctors. Much of this book reads like patients' testimonials in regard to an illness; it is evidence, but not of the most serious type.

[3] Chomsky systematically and, it must be deliberately, ignores the Jewish element in the world. For example, he says Russia was invaded after WW1, which is true. What he omit is the Jewish coup and subsequent mass-murders, supported, not by 'you', or even in a sense the US 'elite', but by the specifically Jewish component which had links with eastern Europe. It's inconceivable he doesn't know about this. It must be deliberate suppression. Having granted that, it must be deliberate that he refuses to consider the truth about e.g. Pearl Harbor, Kennedy's murder, 9/11. He describes Israel as a 'client state' of the USA—an alternative view is that the USA is a client state of Israel. Certainly if someone donated billions to me, I'm not sure I'd count as a 'client'!

[4] Chomsky seems to insist there must be purpose behind killings, but I'm not sure that's true. If a corporation makes money from supplying weapons, it doesn't matter to them what if anything they're used for. If another corporation simply dismantled them again, that would be as profitable as bombing people—more so, if it's the same corporation! This is related to other issues, e.g. the question of NASA's fraudulence, and issues related to whether weaponry, particularly the really costly sort, in fact works, or whether it's partly a way to mop up tax dollars. My personal belief is that nuclear weapons may be of this sort—there's clear evidence the early film of tests is faked. There's plenty of evidence that money is wasted on spurious weapons projects—the secrecy of course helps keep it covered up.

[5] His writing style resembles that of the 'screamers' who turn up to scream slogans to disrupt meetings of e.g. revisionists. Time and again in this book Chomsky turns from what may be a serious topic (e.g. the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' clock), to another topic—in this case, the Cuba crisis (if it was a crisis!) He switches constantly to discussions on Italy and Germany in the 1920s, and so on—Manchuria, Ethiopia. He never mentions the fact that national socialism, fascism, and whatever Japan and Spain had, POSTDATED so-called 'communism'. He is of course convinced that Germany was the worst nation that has ever existed. And yet, again, he MUST know about revisionist work—he even wrote a pro-free speech preface for a book by Faurisson which, I'm sure, he never read.

[6] Some of his historical generalisations are wrong, I think mainly because of an innumerate approach—some massacres, after all, are bigger and presumably worse than others. Here and there Chomsky seems to be saying that all massacres are equally bad—but, he also maintains the 'Holocaust' was the worst thing ever, which is a complete counter-argument, unless you assume Jews are different.

Another problem is changes in the meaning of the word 'war'. He says for example that Europeans spent much of their time slaughtering each other. There are of course some examples of that, notably post-Reformation, just as the US had a bloody civil war. However many 'wars' in Europe were so localised and small most people had no idea they were even happening. He seems to have little idea of the dynamics of countries which so far aren't very industrialised; Islam being the now-obvious example.

[7] As to 'hegemony', what niggles with me is the fact that it seems untrue. Of course, now, with Obama, the true state of the US economy is being revealed. But even when Chomsky wrote, it was obvious that there wasn't much in the way of 'hegemony' over the world's oil—notably in Saudi Arabia, who have received absolutely astronomical amounts of money for a resource which they knew nothing about, and did nothing to use or develop. Chomsky takes a traditional view, which is that countries exist, and should own their territorial resources. However, like it or not, the fact is things are distributed unevenly.

[8] Chomsky entirely ignores the criticisms of the 'Fed' and these other organisations designed to secretly take a percentage of everything. His anti-capitalist stuff seems very outdated—though this must be deliberate, I think. He also accepts the material on global warming, on the say-so of various people—though he has no methodology that I can see for deciding which group's views are more likely to be true than some other group.

Hence I think 'superficial' is a correct remark; so is 'inherent bias' in the sense of ignoring Jewish influence. My best guess is that he's a splinter group of Jewish intellectuals: mostly they agree (e.g. they want third world immigration; they are undemocratic almost by instinct; the Germans were the worst people ever etc). BUT there are other issues—not all Jews favour mass immigration now. Possibly Chomsky represents a humanitarian movement within Judaism?

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest   Rudy Rucker: Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite

Is this statement true: 'this book is a collection of mistakes'?, June 26, 2010

The modern theories of the infinite were invented by Georg Cantor, though there's no notable starting date, as they emerged in a series of papers. They were anticipated by (for example) Zeno, and Euclid, or whoever it was who proved there's no largest prime number—you can always find a bigger one. Pascal pondered such questions as the value of the St Petersburg game—a coin is tossed, and if it's (say) heads the first time, you get 1; if heads second time, 2; if heads the third time, 4; then 8, 16... so it appears the game is worth an infinite amount. Anyway, Cantor invented a notation; he influenced Bertrand Russell, Gödel, and others. Rucker's book has collected together most of this material, added stuff on relativity, the mind, the big bang, and other rather dubious ideas, notably problems with self-referential language, to make this book. Some of it's been reworked to make it look original to him, e.g. a Mount Om, I think it was, much the same as the frog hopping half the distance to the end of a round pond, and never quite getting there.

My opinion is that all the material on the infinite is fallacious, because it assumed there's a continuity between colossally huge numbers and 'the infinite'. The starting point is 'one-to-one correspondence' where for example 1, 2, 3, 4,... are matched with 1, 4, 9, 16,... and the conclusion is made that if you continue forever, there is the same number (aleph subscript zero) of each of them. Then we have an aleph 1, and so on. I don't think there's any useful application or deduction that's ever been made from this construct. This isn't quite the same as infinite series, many of which have a limit, the bits left over becoming vanishingly small, so the problem of similar size bits left over doesn't arise.

The verbal problem is a similar construction and maybe appeals to similar minds. "I am a liar" illustrates the principle: there's some reference to the same sentence. Now, obviously, languages evolve and change and develop to provide useful information, maybe factual, maybe persuasive, or whatever. It's not surprising problematical marginal cases where language doesn't work can be made up. -- "Some adjectives describe themselves. Most don't—fat, red, smelly, for example. But some may do—adjectival, elongated. Let's call an adjective that does not describe itself 'heterological'. Is 'heterological' itself heterological?" It obviously is, yet it can't be.

Russell thought questions of this sort were the logician's equivalent of experiments.

Rucker includes quite a bit of related material—he must have combed through a university library—plus, as I've said, things like the highly suspect 'big bang' and the highly suspect relativity. And the inevitable material on religion, three-in-one, God, and so on. He includes some problems, and even gives his answers.

Top of Page
image   Review of NASA fraud   Andrew Chaikin: Full Moon

May be worth owning a copy if you're interested in the truth about 'moon landings', June 26, 2010

Hefty hardback volume, about one foot square, published 1999, with photos on art paper, mostly with black backgrounds. They must have been selected with as many as possible of the suspect photos removed—there are a number of totally black pages suggesting some last-minute editing out! It's likely some have been rephotographed, maybe in their original, terrestrial, locations. It's a small number, considering how many photographs were supposedly taken, and how many missions were involved—they numbering goes up to 128 and quite a few are non-informational blurs of e.g. red flames from rocket engines or photos of the moon or earth. A lot of effort's gone into making the lunar ones sharp and convincing. Note that the National Geographic in the late 1960s and 1970s had well-reproduced sharp photos too, so cynics might like to do comparison jobs. The end of the book has thumbnails of each picture, plus written material. Includes #90, full 360-degree panorama where they forgot to include the module, and 106 with reflections (in space) of TV monitors, and quite a few fish-eye lens photos of reflections in visors.

Worth getting a second-hand (or 'used') copy cheaply IF you're interested in all this. However the total material is smaller than appears at first sight. I have no idea how many stars to give—I'll pick two, to be at the low end of the approvals rating.

Top of Page
  Review of science of diet and its revisionism   D. Bryce-Smith: The Zinc Solution

Zinc is an essential trace element, June 26, 2010

Zinc is an essential trace element in human nutrition—you don't need huge amounts, but you need some. This is a fairly recent discovery—I've seen a British WW2 manual for housewives telling them that galvanised iron vessels (galvanised = covered with a coating of zinc, to prevent rust) could lead to 'zinc poisoning' which is true but off-putting. It seems rather odd that a book on this subject should have been published by a publisher specialising in alternative, new age-style books. Prof Bryce-Smith was/is a chemist best known for opposing lead tetraethyl in petrol, though he's not a biochemist. He ought to be known for getting the subject of trace element nutrition taught to medical students—when he started, they had just one hour on the subject in their seven-year course! This book must have helped push interests in nutrition into the middle-class mainstream, though of course many supposed experts were antagonistic, considering that ordinary food contains sufficient micro-nutrients. It has a test for zinc deficiency (can you taste zinc sulphate in water?), and says deficiency is linked with anorexia, schizophrenia, wound-healing, vision problems, infertility, and other hard-to-treat conditions. Much of this material seems to be mainstream now. One of the interests of this book is the resistance of psychologists to the idea that a simple cure can be had with a simple supplement. They'd prefer to get paid for something that goes on indefinitely.

Top of Page
  Review of Science frauds involving nukes   Peter Pringle & James Spigelman: The Nuclear Barons The chilling story of how a small band of scientists, generals, politicians, and businessmen created....

World farce—interesting for what's hinted at and omitted, June 26, 2010

30-year old book pre-Chernobyl. (Dhirendra Sharma, a critic of the India nuclear industry, recommended this book in the 1990s). Interesting as it reveals indirectly how difficult it is for the public to get information on topics where powerful interests want it hidden.

**Most sources are such things as the New York Times, and popular books which are all treated as though there's no question of subsidies, sponsorship, censorship etc
**Much emphasis on politicians even though most had no idea what they were dealing with
**Almost no background detail on important things possibly because the authors followed the crowd, or were too lazy—e.g. how much uranium is there in the world? What did tests actually test? How much radiation is/was in fact emitted—and are measuring techniques reliable? What costs are involved in all these things? What are the organisational structures—how much vested interest do they have? Is 'nuclear power' in fact cheap? What evidence is there that e.g. India actually did have nuclear weapons?

I read this book specifically to check on nuclear weapon doubts, which of course the book doesn't have. But there are numerous curious sidelights: Wall St banker appointed to head a nuclear organisation; Argentina deceived by a nuclear fraud; Oppenheimer being removed, and code words of UnAmerican Committee; Indian peasants contrasted to vastly expensive Indian establishments; accounts of Japan, China, Germany, France; Westinghouse reneging on contracts; coal supertankers quashed; huge hidden subsidies; no radiation effects in Hiroshima. It'll be many years before the truth emerges—if it ever does—and meanwhile massive harm is probably being done.

Top of Page
image   Review of Not very successful look at failed African aspects   Michael Palin: Sahara

Doesn't even manage to be superficial, June 26, 2010

I have to say I dislike Palin—part of Monty Python, and therefore recipient of public money at a time when the BBC was a quarter of a monopoly of British TV. Priceless publicity. The BBC has a contemptible history, as anyone who's looked below the surface is aware. I view most BBC-ers in the way a convinced Jew might regard German TV. Just so you know.

'Sahara' is an extraordinarily dispiriting book. The photos (and about a third have the aged Palin in) are rather ordinary; possibly north Africa is in fact like that. The landscapes are generally desolate with scrub, or simply endless Saharan sand—the French intended to test nuclear weapons there, but apparently never did. The houses aren't very impressive and one fears European-based anyway. Most of the text deals with European stuff—motor traffic, tanks, hotels, post offices, hospitals, camps, oil, aircraft, steamers, tins of food, coca cola, missionaries and writers and chroniclers, teachers, French influences, explorers, light bulbs. I presume even the colourful cloth is not indigenous. Even bread is not natural to the area. The main non-European influence is Islam; some handwritten books there may be a thousand years old. Gosh. One gathers the EU wants to import fifty million of these Africans into Europe, though Palin seems to have no idea about this. The overwhelming feeling is of a book produced for contractual reasons, and one imagines a crew of typical BBCers in the background, smug overpaid third-rate middle class chatterers. Unindexed; perhaps just as well—there's a section on Timbuktu of painful dullness. The irony is that of course Palin has a lot in common with these people with whom he at least pretends to be friendly—he understands nothing of the modern world (except money) just like them. I don't think he has the understanding even to be superficial, since he's not aware of anything deep.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jews and house radicals   John Pilger: Distant Voices

There are problems, as with Chomsky..., June 26, 2010

It's almost this book's 20th anniversary. Let's check it out. These are reprinted journalistic articles, typically four or five pages long. They're grouped in 9 chapters: roughly, UK, Gulf, Cambodia, Russia, small countries (Nicaragua, Israel), Australia, and tributes to, among others, Chomsky and Oliver Stone. They're published by Vintage, at a time when they'd started publishing Chomsky as mainstream. I'll try to summarise his stance and also, in my opinion, the vital material omitted.

[1] This is all PC material, at least as regards USA/Canada, Europe, ANZ. It's worth recalling the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, virtually a show trial of the British police, was a little later than these pieces. It would be ten years before Labour in UK would secretly decide to flood immigrants into Britain. The European Union still appears in the index as 'EC', European Community—the secret Soviet-style arrangements were unknown outside a few alarmist circles.

[2] John Pilger had a standard quasi-left stance on, I think, every single issue which was permitted to be aired. For example: he states the 'rich countries' received enormous sums from the poor countries. In fact, of course, it was bankers; it was hardly democratic in any sense. He describes Filipino poverty—Indian slum style poverty of labourers, while Imelda Marcos and her mates lived in enclaves with golf courses. What he doesn't say is what could be done—a handful of houses wouldn't go far divided among millions of people. There's an analogous passage about a coal mine in Britain: a long way underground, and with a small coal seam—but what else could they do? That was where the coal was. He mentions south Africa hardly at all but when he does he disapproves.

[3] His material has endnotes listing sources; mostly these are newspapers, and these are mostly British, though there also books, and journalistic sources such as summary of BBC shortwave transmissions. He also quotes organisations like the 'Runnymede Trust'—part of the huge mass of quangoes and think-tanks with their own agenda. One of the odd aspects of John Pilger's work is that, although he's perfectly aware of censorship and institutional lies, he treats such sources as though they are largely above reproach. As examples, Whittam-Smith who founded the Independent, worked for the Guardian, which in its entire history published nothing honest about the Vietnam War. And yet both these 'newspapers' are quoted with apparent approval by Pilger. One of the noteworthy things about British journalists is their general ignorance—they know nothing of any technical subject. I don't know of a single issue (AIDS? OPs? Lead in petrol? Weapons that don't work? International law? Kennedy murder? EU? Lawyers directing money to each other? War crimes? etc etc) in which journalists and broadcasters have any sort of creditable record.

[4] Pilger misunderstands the entire period since 1914. Under Stalin, tens of millions were murdered; and he was an ally! The systematic bombing of towns in Germany and Japan was deliberate policy; in point of fact, carpet bombing in Korea and Vietnam was the same policy. The most powerful parts of Pilger's writing are to do with genocide in Vietnam, which he partly witnessed; he seems to have little idea about the Second World War. He continues in a similar vein on Iraq and Kuwait and Saddam Hussein, which war was in full swing at the time he wrote these essays. Incidentally he mentions Ramsey Clark's War Crimes Commission, which I think must have been based on Bertrand Russell's. Pilger has no idea about 'Zionists' in the US government; he claims to regard Israel as an apartheid-type state, so this may be a genuine stance. He realises there are at least two types of Muslims, but his tribalist knowledge seems almost non-existent—for instance in Indonesia. I think this helps explain the problematical quality of his writing. Cambodia for instance was bombed by Americans and subsequently largely wiped out, but the underlying uncaring tribal racism of the US controllers is simply not part of Pilger's worldview.

Stylistic note: he seems to have learnt (from some journalism school?) to put in impressionist exaggerations. A coal miner reaches with a 'claw'—the impression given is many miners had lost fingers. There's an account—and I remember a speech by him on this—of a house with Asians in it being attacked by whites. I believe this account is a lie, or at least misleading.

Conclusion: Pilger is an almost perfect example of the house radical, tolerated provided of course the unspoken limits are accepted. He would certainly never have been published or broadcast otherwise. Unfortunately, I don't think his work is any help whatever in deciding what ought to be done.

Top of Page
image   Review of WW2 revisionism of Stalin's plans for conquest and mass murder   Joachim Hoffmann: Stalin's War of Extermination, 1941-1945: Planning, Realization and Documentation

Valuable counter to the jejune pro-war silliness of official historians, June 26, 2010

Not a very lavishly produced volume: there are some documents reproduced in the back, but no photographs. The index incidentally is names only, possibly all men: Berlin, Moscow, Stalingrad aren't indexed.

Deals solely with the war between Germany and the USSR, of course including Poland and Ukraine among other territories. It's essentially descriptive, largely drawn from Bundesarchiv-Militaerarchiv documentation in Freiburg. Russian books are credited, though they are not listed in Cyrillic text; possibly they were translated into German. Most of the book deals with atrocities of this 'most cruel war in history': Stalin's teatment of his own officers, Stalin's henchmen's treatment of their own soldiers, Russian soldiers' behaviour, German reprisals, Ukrainian loss of life, various irregulars and partisans... In the book they're arranged chronologically and by location—victims in for example Kiev. Some of the book deals with propaganda and mythology; for example, Babi Yar was more or less made up in 1970. Ilya Ehrenberg figures a great deal.

There are enormous informational gaps, notably on the military strength of the Soviet Union, which of course was kept very secret indeed, as was all the financing and building of factories by various large combines from the west. Another gap is a full consideration of deaths: Hoffmann states that all serious researchers put the USSR deaths at about 40 million; if so, Stalingrad's deaths were small beer.

The main argument of the book is simply that war was inevitable, and Stalin's plans included conquering Europe, though I'm uncertain whether Hoffmann strictly speaking means this—for one thing, it's unlikely that Stalin's intentions were known by anyone. Hitler's attack is treated as unavoidable, and indeed justified, and only just in time. One aspect of the war is the huge number of Russians—about 5 million—who surrendered to the Germans, despite the certainty of being killed if released back to Russia. Very likely if Hitler had e.g. allied with Ukrainians, as well as some Russians, the thing could have been less disastrous.

This book is a valuable counter to the infantile pro-war juvenilia of official historians in the west. There's a special note to the effect that the book passed official German censorship requirements. This book is a valuable counter to the infantile pro-war juvenilia of official historians in the west. There's a special note to the effect that the book passed official German censorship requirements.
Nine year later:
Years later, I finally understood what was missing from this book!   And what's missing is the international behavior of jews during this time. In particular, the jewish idea of killing whites is omitted, as is the possibility of Stalin's huge jew army in finance and communications and the same thing in Germany co-operating for jewish interests. Obviously Germany has a vast burden of jewish spies and liars; evidence for jews in the 1940s German military machine, and the Führer Prinzip as a technique for suppressing comment on Germany, may mesh with the USSR, and 'American' supplies taken from Americans.
      So the whole aspect of deaths, and the joy of jews over them, is muted. Russians are targeted with Russian deaths, up to a point&mddash;a dead Russian girl's diary, who lived in 'Stalingrad'—I forget her name, of course—is not pushed. And here we have a German book, or possibly in fact jewish, on deaths of Germans. But the mutual hostility of Jews is unmentioned.

Top of Page
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo   Review of   Girl with the Dragon Tattoo   2011/2012 film set in very grey Sweden and Swedish islands
Specimen typical in many ways of Jewish lies smuggled into detective entertainment

Most media reviews have been moved here together (to save space).

Top of Page
Image   Review of Jewish interest   Peter Hain: Political trials in Britain

Part of the anti-white racist movement with the intention of destroying Britain, June 28, 2010

Subtitled 'From the Past to the Present Day'—but this isn't true. If you're expecting a wide survey of state power, this isn't it. And probably Hain didn't write this book: there's a statement 'research assistance by Phil Kelly' who appears to be in the NUJ. There's a Times Lit Supp blurb: 'A well-documented argument that discretionary power is exercised by the police, prosecuting authorities, magistrates and judges as weapons to intimidate ... those who "threaten the social and political status quo"'. It's virtually all concerned with post-war material.

-Hain supposedly had South African parents who were anti-Apartheid activists. They were made 'banned persons' in 1966 'fled' to London. Probably they were the familiar pattern of Jews, though this is unstated. He was 'President of young liberals' one imagines with family money. In 1977 he was in Labour and founded the 'anti-Nazi League' possibly an MI5 thing. He won a by-election victory in 1991 in Neath, in Wales, presumably, as with most of Wales then, a solid 'Labour' seat. This of course post-dates this book, as does New Labour (1997-2010). He fell into some disgrace over secret funding for his failed campaign to lead 'Labour'. A South African multi-millionaire and another diamond millionaire—both Jews—were involved. Hain has never criticised South African violence under its real or puppet black leaders.

-The book's bibliography is almost exclusively rather crank 'left wing' stuff, including phoney quangoes—'Runnymede Trust', 'Institute of Race Relations'; and the Guardian, Pluto Press, E P Thompson, Ralph Miliband, Patricia Hewitt. The 'Society of Black Lawyers' gets a mention.

A typical passage on Northern Ireland assumes habeas corpus etc should apply even in near-war situations. He talks of 'torture' in a deliberately misleading way. There's no consideration of danger to witnesses. It seems a truly extraordinary failure to face the situation. In fact, it isn't—there's a deliberate agenda—Hain is just another type misleading called 'communist'. As might be expected he frequently uses 'racist' and 'fascist'.

There's quite a bit of material—civil servants, police organisations like ACPO, what was then the Director of Public Prosecutions, Attorney General, Judges, Magistrates, Jury Vetting, Conspiracy law, Unions, Official Secrets, and a whole chapter on 'racism', a black 'underclass', and so on. And Chapter 13 nominally on political trials.

This book is interesting as representing documentation of part of the entire process of subversion which includes anti-white racist laws, the establishment of vast phoney think-tanks, the EU-related communist-style practices. Remember the 'Soviet Union' still had nine year to run when this book was published.

Top of Page
Review of Private Eye 1961- Long, detailed criticism—hostile review of this poor quality magazine. Click Private Eye exposed

Top of Page
Review of Wilmot Robertson's Instauration (published from 1975-2000) Fairly long and detailed survey of this pro-white, mailorder, US monthly publication, in PDF format. Click Instauration 1975-2000

Top of Page
Review of Mankind Quarterly Nov 2020 criticism of this disappointing academic publication. Click Mankind Quarterly

Top of Page
Mensa review. Updated version moved here which incorporates my jaundiced view of what might have been a useful organisation.

Top of Page

Charlie Hebdo hired sandwich board types   Review of 'CHARLIE-HEBDO'   French weekly; supposedly satirical

Just more Jewish garbage, aimed at French people in France

Review: 10th Jan 2015
This is a review of CHARLIE-HEBDO written a few days after a supposed attack by Muslims. Just another false flag, but perhaps intended to have huge repercussions. At the time of writing the Wednesday 14th January 2015 issue, which promises to be in a print-run of a million, is not yet available.

(Separate files because the review is heavy on graphics—many CHARLIE-HEBDO cover designs are reproduced, showing familiar Jewish propaganda memes).

Top of Page
A K Chesterton Candour   Review of   'Candour' - magazine descended from 'The League of Empire Loyalists'   'British Right Wing'

Mixed, Dusty, Unsorted Luggage from the Past 3 Sept 2014
G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) and C.E. Chesterton (Cecil, 1879-1918) - were brothers, more or less in sympathy with Hilaire Belloc and 'distributism'. G. K. Chesterton was described as a genius by many people; he is the only Chesterton in standard reference works. Cecil died in 1918, fighting the Hun—rather amazingly, Candour's Youtube site mostly has recordings of 'Great War' songs. G.K. died before the Second World War, the Chesterton literary name passing to the next generation, A. K. Chesterton (1899-1973), the (or a) son of A G Chesterton, a gold mine manager in South Africa, who may have been another Chesterton brother; I'm not sure. He supported the blackshirts; he fought in Africa during the Second World War. After the Second World War, in 1948, he jointly-authored, with Joseph Leftwich, The Tragedy of Anti-Semitism, which is downloadable. Chesterton must have been gullible; this is proto-'Holocaust' and proto-'Cold War' propaganda, and it's clear that if G. K. was a genius, A. K. wasn't. Candour was first published in 1953.
    I haven't seen early issues, only very recent ones. As far as I can tell, they were what might have been expected from intensively-propagandised Britons who had liked the empire. Including: a liking for fighting, at least if they were on the heavily-armed side; few doubts about the War; support for the BBC; support for the monarchy; support for the Empire in Africa. Looking back, it's clear they did a hopelessly bad job. The 'Holocaust' myth was taking shape under the Jewish media umbrella. And at the time the BBC was run by a Jew, Jacobs, who successfully covered up innumerable atrocities: Stalin and the USSR, Indian famine, Red Army in eastern Europe, fire-bombings, attacks on France, bankruptcy, and, as is becoming clear, the nuclear bomb fraud.
    Candour's website appears to be almost vanishingly unvisited; my own humble websites must get about 200 times more visitors. Possibly it's not up-to-date: looking at one of their reprints, 4: The Menace of Money Power, first printed 1946, reprinted 2012. It has a handy list of book titles, all undated, and all without information on their contents: A N Field, Arthur Kitson, Jeffrey Mark, Father Denis Fahey, Irving Fisher, Christopher Hollis, Gustav Cassel, Ludwell Denny, Major Douglas, W Collin Brooks, and Hansard on 'the debate on the Loan Agreement'.
    A K Chesterton wrote a booklet, published in 1972 (after Vietnam atrocities by Americans had been publicised after a fashion, and suppressed by the BBC) entitled B.B.C. - A National Menace. This appears to fit into 12 pages and deal only with a series on the 'British' Empire. Irritatingly, this is on sale, and not available online—much more important to sell a few copies a year, than to allow free distribution of Chesterton's words.
    What caught my eye was this:
"... in The U.S.A. Bankers' Magazine on August 26th, 1934:
"Bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When through a process of the law the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under the control of leading financiers. The truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capital to govern the world. By dividing voters by the political party system we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned."
There's an endnote to that quotation. 'Doubt has since been cast on the authenticity...' So for nearly 70 years none of these useless c*nts bothered to verify a quotation. Money power is important and should be understood much better. The passages here on the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, 1893 panic, building up of debt, Hitler, Bretton Woods Agreement are scattered and isolated and no doubt taken without credit from books (is this a form of theft?) Reprint 3: What You Should Know About The United Nations is even more fragmented and bitty.
    Another thing that caught my eye was a list of website links. One was to Louis Beam, who I'd never heard of; a site with gung-ho descriptions of vicious attacks—guns, bullets, napalm, helicopters—on defenceless Vietnamese peasants. Maybe the readership like killing people, without doing the weapons design, accounting, manufacturing, or assessment of hostility?
    The problems are important. Whether Candour can even begin to deal with them seems unlikely. They just seem dim.

Top of Page
Freedom Association magazine Winter 2012   Review of 'Freedom Today' - magazine of the 'Freedom Association'   'Freedom Today' magazine

Missing the Point
17 Jan 2013
By chance, I have a copy of 'Freedom Today', 'The Journal of the Freedom Association', Winter 2012 edition.

28 pages; glossy paper; colour pages; reqests for money. Is it of any interest? My working hypothesis is that it's a document of alliance between Jews plus money, and a motley collection of persons who for different reasons believe in 'freedom'. I'll try to review it fairly without checking any names, though many of course are well-known.

They have seven principles, clearly stated, which I'll compress together: Freedom and responsibility/ Rule of law under parliamentary democracy, but with 'limited government'/ Free market economy/ Strong national defences.

Inside the front cover is a list of about 50 people in the 'council' and 'management committee'. Plus a director, Office manager, and campaign manager. There's a list of supporters and friends; about 40 of these. About two dozen friends have donated '£500 or more'. The main theoretician appears to be Professor Tim Congdon, CBE. There's a sprinkling of lords, baronets, earls; and Professors; and persons with establishment initials - MP, LVO, OBE, DL, CBE, and even a PC. I only recognised one military honour, a VC.

A few names: founded 1975 by Viscount De L'Isle. Two McWhirters. Vladminir Bukovsky. Rhodes Boyson, Baroness [Caroline] Cox, Ralph Fiennes, 'The Lord Pearson of Rannoch'.

The editor, John Petley, kicks off with a piece saying Cameron pretended to get tough on the EU a few weeks back. It's too much to hope for any overview in these episodic publications; the assumption is that all readers will be interested in twists and turns, but not the path itself. Petley also refers to a sample of 1976 letters (35 years ago; but Jesus they look like yesterday): of nine, one is on the NCCL and the age of consent; one on foreign aid being ring-fenced; one praising Mr Moss for tackling the Guardian on a Radio 4 talk; one pointing out that the government inflation-proofs pensions for MPs and its employees; one saying that in 1945 'Britain had the respect and admiration of every nation in the world', apart, presumably from all eastern Europe, a few million Indian famine victims, and much of western Europe.

There are two financial articles: a City of London man's 'We should stop bashing the city' (that word 'bash'...) because the export surplus was 2.6% of GDP, maybe £40 Bn. Wow; with a deficit of more than 100% GNP, and £18 billion a year the estimated cost just of Muslim immigrants, that must make a huge difference. And another page on Guernsey, by the Chief Executive of Guernsey Finance: 'It is all too easy to scapegoat 'tax havens' or 'offshore' centres. ...' Both these pieces are bitty and of course deliberately give no overview of the parts played in the wide scheme of things. I can't imagine many people trawl through the stuff.

Now we have some articles on the EU. Tim Congdon writes on Europe; all economics; nothing on possible civil wars, or ethnic riots, or for example oil and other fuel. He quotes Churchill as preferring the "open sea" to "Europe" as though that's a serious argument. There's a bit about Greece. There's a half-page about UKIP by their 'Student Development Manager'. And a full page on withdrawal by Ruth Lea. I'd love to know whether these pieces are assembled from press-cuttings, or perhaps from think-tank info. I suppose it hardly needs saying that a European Union might be good and useful, but there are no suggestions for reform.

Rather oddly, there are two and a half pages on Rev Dr Peter Mullen, of St Michaels, Cornhill - I assume in the city of London. (See the cover design). Why someone whose working life was spent cushioned by the C of E should recommend freedom seems mysterious; he doesn't like Darwin, or Dawkins, and dislikes the 'Occupy' protestors at St Pauls. He likes Goldman Sachs and others who 'contributed £40 million to the restoration of the cathedral stonework'.

We have a one-page review of a book (mentioned scathingly by Peter Rushton in a video) by five 'Tory' MPs - Kwasi Kwarteng, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Chris Skidmore, Liz Truss. And a report on the first McWhirter lecture, by Caroline Cox, on Muslims and a 'rich tradition of toleration'. Islam and Judaism are eerily similar (apart form conversion) but she doesn't know that, as I pointed out in a witty review of a crummy book by Caroline Cox and John Marks.

There's a full page by a woman writer on 'same sex marriage' from christianconcern.com. Does it really need a full page? A smallish sidebar quotes MigrationWatch, one of the few honest campaigners. There's a double page on Scotland and the SNP, totalling omitting the immigration issue. There's a Tory MP rehashing stuff on Iran and nukes—what fools these people are! There's a double page on Obama, rehashing all the US-style irreleventsia; nothing on ZOG, interest on debt, massive illegal immigration crippling the country, Obama's disqualifications, or war crimes by America. I expected something by one of the titled or pseudo-titled persons listed, but probably they're too busy counting their free money from wind-farms, or the subsidies given to large landowners.

Let me repeat their principles: Freedom and responsibility/ Rule of law under parliamentary democracy, but with 'limited government'/ Free market economy/ Strong national defences. What does this mean? Is there a Jewish link? There's absolutely no mention of Jews and the paper money scandal; no doubt there's an alliance with financial product peddlers - state-backed unassailable money plus juniors plying their business must be the 'free market'. There's no mention of funding political parties, or indeed what 'democracy' means. Nor is it clear how 'strong defences' are compatible with freedom; after all Jews through money controlled the weapons industries, and in fact many of these has been sold off, and much has been involved with massive frauds. Their misconceived admiration for Churchill/ World War 2 is hard to square with 'strong defences'. There's virtually no mention of immigration (at a time when the media admit London is about half foreign) which of course is part of secret Jewish policy.

An aspect of any news source is what's missing. This outfit is based in Cheltenham, home of GCHQ. This suggests they might mention the world of secret surveillance: how much information, including commercial secrets, is identified by GCHQ? There's no sign of interest in this topic. Another unmentioned issue is the Monarchy; is this, or isn't it, compatible with 'freedom'? Yet another is the 'Friends of Israel', with 80% of Tory MPs members. Aren't they friends with anyone else?

As in other fields there's a delicate ambiguity over the carefully-chosen and fine-sounding phrases. one interest is how the word 'freedom' is deformed by Jews. 'Free enquiry' and 'free expression' of course are absolute anathema to them. 'Free enterprise' is OK for Jews controlling money, because they can buy out anything promising that emerges. 'Freedom' in any abstract sense means nothing to them; they want their little race-based tribe. I think that magazine illustrates all these points, including the 'useful idiot' aspect.

I do wonder whether the murdered McWhirter was on to them, with the IRA murderers as 'useful idiots', just as ETA in Spain seems to have been a cover for murdering tradition-minded Generals etc in Spain. Without over-stressing the issue, I conclude this organisation is a purely phoney, only held together by the dimness or sneakiness of its members.

Top of Page

Gadgets Annual

1950. Published (apparently) 1952 as a bound volume, containing 11 monthly editions of 'Gadgets Annual', Kingsbury, NW9 starting February. Original pagination (and adverts) retained. Rather odd thing; part of the move to Do-It-Yourself and mail order and chemistry sets. Reminds me of Mr Fowler, designer of Leyland double-decker bus. Males just post war seemed to spend endless time making rather useless DIY objects, as the bosses paid them so little. Rather strange contrast of 'in these days of high costs' with the assumption that tools and odd bits of metal, mercury, glass and what have you are dotted about. (2007 notes).

-Has a mention of a 'flying saucer'. Things like leather washers - though nylon and plastic evidently were in 'large and varied supply'. The mixture of items reads a little like Private Eye's annual Christmas joke mail order section.

The Secret of the Non-Stop Water Tap Revealed!   Look After Your Nylons!   The Indian Cylinder ... A Simple Puzzle!. Fit this device to improve your Smoothing Plane/ Hoops and Tarpaulins/ An Amusing Description of Popular Fallacies/ An Attractive and Novel Electric Table Lamp/ Gripfast Serviette Rings/ A Simple Soldering Gadget/ How to build a transparent wall/ A Solid Wood Cigarette Case/ AS Compact Folding Plate-Rack/ A Jelly Freezing Mixture/ To clean a teapot spout/ Take Care of your Piano/ A Coal Economy Hint [mix with sawdust, sand, clay, water and mould]/ A Novel Home Made Barometer/ A Bunkum Art Exhibition/ A Novel Bird-Feeder/ Gauze strip patches etc etc etc. August 1950 page 18 explains paper marbling

Page 28 'How fast can you count?' based on someone called Dase, who developed his ability just by practice; he could instantly count to 30. Similar trick to the illusionist Derren Brown - perhaps Brown split his coins or whatever into three groups, and added these?

I think people in Queen experimented with electrical circuits, amplifiers, home-made instruments...


Top of Page

Heritage and Destiny  

Review of Small, possibly, nationalist journal   Heritage and Destiny

Small nationalist journal which doesn't cut the mustard

'Heritage and Destiny' is a small-circulation publication (A4, black-and-white, 24 pages; 4 times yearly; £3 cover price; Anglo-American contributions; edited by Mark Cotterill; based in Lancashire).

I bought three 2012 sample copies of this publication at the John Tyndall Memorial meeting, in October 2012, in Preston. It's published on a commercial basis - subscriptions, advertising ratecards, no payment to contributors, encouragements to give out or sell copies. Much of the content is by associates and friends, most of whom were at the Tyndall meeting. Its current Jan 2013 issue is (presumably) number 52, suggesting it's been printed since about 2000.

[Andrew Brons (who told me he hadn't ever heard the idea of 'two tier finance'), Richard Edmonds (who gave a good speech on violence and Islam), Michèle Renouf, and Peter Rushton were there, with many others. I was told Tony Hancock, the publisher of Did Six Million Really Die? (1974) and many other books, had recently died; there are bankruptcy proceedings, no doubt with Jews trying to get control of their stock.].

Very likely this is typical of small publishers' material.

Much of the content looks at 'Movement News'; Peter Rushton seems to keep detailed information on such things as local council voting results, BNP scandals, and all the small parties. There's plenty of detail, but there's nothing special here; all parties have people going through their election results and membership changes. There is some doubt as to whether Rushton is an agent of some sort: "Our real enemy was and remains Conservatism" Rushton stated at the July 2017 John Tyndall memorial meeting.

Related to this are book reviews of 'nationalism' and its reverse, either by the lowest tier of academics, or by people who pose as or were thugs. Matthew Goodwin on 'New British Fascism' illustrates the 'academic' type - these people must be grouped with theology, and feminism, departments as the least impressive of all academics. The other type is exemplified by 'Beating the Fascists' by Sean Birchall, which appears to be an account of thugs, other thugs, drug dealers, and Irish groups, possibly a similar type to Kevin Carroll who inarticulately boasted of visiting people with West Indians.
    BUT there's a serious problem with all this material: the police view, and the view of the funders and handlers, is entirely missing. It's impossible to know how much state control there was, and how much the media, police and legal systems were skewed. Consequently nothing substantial emerges from these detailed but lightweight book reviews.
    Another type of book reviewed is the obscure nationalist; Julius Evola, so far as I know pretty much unreadable, typifies this.

As might be expected, there are many references to the Second World War, which of course is an inexhaustible mine: Mosley, 'British Aristocrats Who Sought Peace', Vichy France... BUT nothing on Bomber Harris, Churchill the monster, Stalin the Monster... [Added later: or Jewish power, able to manipulate the USA and UK and France with contemptible ease; could it have controlled Germany too? - RW]

And there are white racial commentators. A piece on 'Scott of the Antarctic' supposedly shows British grit and determination, even though his scheme was hare-brained. There's a piece on Ron Paul, with the US financial system treated exactly as in the ordinary press.

We also have pieces on Islam: the Bulgarian atrocities (1876) with Disraeli doing nothing; the 'Islamic Republic of Dewsbury'.

Is it worthwhile? After a careful read, I'm afraid I can't give a very favourable review. I'll bullet-point my remarks----

[1] Jewish issues are understated to the point of non-existence. There is no research whatever into Jewish influences into immigration, law, the EU, education, media. (I'm not saying this is easy to do; I made an attempt to prod people into looking at mal-teaching of reading to small children, and nobody will lift a finger to test the hypothesis that it was largely instigated by Jews). However, Kevin MacDonald (virtually unmentioned in Heritage and Destiny) showed it is possible.
[2] Related to this is 'the Holocaust'; there is nothing whatever on this huge fraud.
[3] The Second World War material does not report anything of the devastation in most of Europe and the USSR. It's British- and American-centred.
[4] There's almost nothing on European culture. I noticed one small item on a Breton nationalist, and that was about it. After decades of lies, there's huge scope for revisionism; of Spain for example, under 'Moors' and Jews. There's little feeling for white achievements. There's little of the Darwinian or Malthusian aspects of mass immigration.
[5] As I pointed out, scuffles and occasional bodily harm may make exciting reading, but don't help piece together what really happened; to what extent was the IRA a Jewish/intelligence operation, for example? They obviously had covert help; and now follow a policy of forcing immigration into Eire. There must be something behind the scenes.
There are plenty more points of criticism, including the nuclear sceptics issue which they clearly know nothing about. (There's a review of 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' showing zero insight into the Cold War and the Jewish connections there).
It's more than half a century since the end of the Second World War. Is it acceptable that a serious publication says nothing about Jewish paper money, Jewish frauds including the easily-understood Holohoax and 9/11, the causes and money in wars? Media dishonesty about crime, and the junk legal system? Media control, with the intrusion of anti-white material? I don't think this publication is anywhere near good enough.
[Added Jan 2022]   I've just noticed Peter Rushton 'opens the files' on covert actions against David Irving. This of course is post-war material; Rushton of course says nothing about Jews in both world wars. Just more space-filling stuff. And nothing serious on civil servants in Britain and Jews.


[Heritage and Destiny has come into contact with Alison Chabloz on the subject of legal action by Jews against her songs. Smears, ad hominem and accusatory inversion is all they have, she says, and a lawyer called Mark Lewis was found guilty of bringing his profession into disrepute—quite an achievement. Alison has been legally attacked, and counter-attacked spiritedly, by (for example) identifying agents. RW 30 Nov 2018]

Top of Page
Docherty Macgregor HIDDEN HISTORY The Secret Origins of the First World War Review of   Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor   Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War
Published 2013 by 'Mainstream Publishing Company', Edinburgh
WW1
Partial Revisionist Work (presumably for 1914's Anniversary). Fails Some Important Tests.   Review by 'Rerevisionist' 29 May 2016

Try searching for 'first world war anniversary books 2013' or '2014'. Or—for Americans—2017 though as I write this is in the future. There have been, and will be, large numbers of these: probably thousands. Amidst the 'part played by women' books, 'great battles' books and local battles, views of tanks and planes, are some attempts at general histories, though most of them essentially narrow and apparently nationalistic, giving official views in assorted languages. An exception is Docherty and Macgregor's book. 'Revisionism' in official (read: Jewish) publications permits just a few permutations: it was England's fault, after all. No, it was Russia! No; it was Germany. It was the fault of Belgium, perhaps? The Jewish angle—profiting from war from sales of materiel; making huge secret loans to governments, and to puppets, usually blackmailable; encouragement of goyim deaths—remains largely unexplored. Barnes (of the Barnes Review, in the USA) and Belloc (in the UK) went some way into serious revisionism in the 1920s.

Docherty ('former head teacher and author of several historical plays') and Macgregor ('former GP ... with a lifelong interest in the origins of war') do not penetrate this Jewish forest, beyond naming a few of the trees. And they confine themselves to the period from about 1900 to 1914: the Boer Wars, the Russo-Japanese War, numerous 'incidents'—Russians assassinated by Jews, jabs against Germany in Agadir, Japan in Korea, Ireland, a passing mention of the 'Federal Reserve' in 1913—all providing evidence of the desire for wars. But on whose part? D &l M select 'the Secret Elite', and this phrase is repeated throughout their book. They appear to have been heavily influenced by Carroll Quigley, and to have expanded the trail left by Quigley, to build up names of members, and such evidence as has survived pruning. The result blames the English— D & M don't separate the Jewish component, in the now-traditional convention in which (say) the USA's Jews or French Jews are not considered as an interest group of their own. It's entirely possible the book was seen by the publishers as just another part of anti-white propaganda in Britain.

Conceptual Problems
Let me try to explain some of my reasons for finding this book unsatisfactory.
Consider 'slavery'. This is a vague concept, not surprisingly, as human history has spanned a vast range of organisations. 'Slavery' might be keeping people imprisoned for life; or forcing work, or sex, out of them for life; right the way across to a legal document of indenture, with fairly precisely defined activities. It's not a surprise that definitions are vague and evasive, since Jews control most publication and broadcast use. You will never see a Jew admit that Jews ran the sailing ships slave trade, or that whites were enslaved, or that slavery may have been the only way to get work done before machinery. This is all fairly obvious. Now consider
'War'. Again, this is an elastic idea: it may mean a few gentlemanly skirmishes; or a permanent state of uncertainty, where attacks might happen any time across a vast territory; right the way up to mechanised machine deaths, including killing by chemical, biological, food destructive and other technologies. Again, Jewish control over publicity has ensured there's not much debate on these issues. In my opinion, this is simply to prevent the fact that Jews want to profit from wars at others' expense (read: you) becoming too obvious.
War Aims. These have been kept vague and elusive; it's been proven easy to get people to kill without any firm idea what they're fighting for. In very many wars of aggression, the soldiery have no idea what they're fighting for, unless you count 'pay'. D & M don't address this point at all. The traditional view of the last few centuries has been that if A wins, then B is defeated; that's about it. But it's clear, now, that Jews operate as a multi-state group, exchanging information on the host countries. They are perfectly happy to inflict damage on both A and B, if they benefit. Thus for example in the Boer Wars, some British troops were harmed, and a lot of British money used; and many Boers were harmed. The net effect was gold and diamond and other mines were owned by Jews. Even then, these things were only of much value in countries in Europe and the USA etc, with a sophisticated distribution system. But, in principle, almost anything could be a cause for war: some territorial advantage, access to water or fish, access to land, access to rented lands and housing and infrastructure, access to livestock or live people. D & M don't have an analysis of raw materials, wealth, etc. Bearing in mind the domination by Jews of media, this situation is probably deliberate. D & M see war in the traditional way, as group A fighting group B, with machinery, heroism, what have you. They don't even consider Jews, much less their effects on population pyramids, the lost opportunities of non-war work, the long-term plans within which one mere war is embedded, or even why peace was not negotiated. Of course, D & M are not alone; apart from a few mavericks such as Smedley of 'War is a Racket', hardly anyone considers possible benefits by possible groupings of people as one of the bricks contributing to the wall of war.
Secrecy. It is unnecessary to discuss 'secrecy' as speculative, problematic, doubtful. It's entirely clear, now, that secrecy has been in force certainly since 1900.
Lies. Equally, it's clear from (for example) the repeated lies about extermination of Jews—for at least seventy years—that any analysis must assume lies and secrecy. The question is one of detail.

Here are some examples of the difficulty of dropping these multiply-repeated, narrow formulations:
Lloyd George ('.. young Welsh firebrand ... as parliamentarian of considerable potential') and Churchill ('who had crossed from the Liberal Party etc'): were they, in fact, as described? Remembering modern media inventions such as Obama, and much older ones such as Britons enthusiastic for war in 1914, can these things be checked?
• D & M assume that the pursuit of war by the 'Secret Elite' was rational and carefully-worked out, or at least estimated. At one point, they say the aim of the 'Secret Elite' was to keep the British Empire! But since the outcome of the two World Wars was 'the doleful news' that Britain is bankrupt, it seems someone was miscalculating. I'd suggest the 'Secret Elite' were Jews and their subordinates, and the entire point was to empower Jews more and empower Britons less. Which, after all, was the result.
• D & M seem to think the 'Secret Elite' were on some equal basis. I'd suggest Jewish money was by far the most important part—like a large magnet, to which filings attached themselves. Lloyd George (there's a good chapter on his appetites for wealth and sex), Cecil Rhodes, Milner, people like Wells, all came from nowhere. As with Reagan, Clinton, Thatcher, Blair, Obama they simply were checked on, then accepted, but with an unspoken contract to eject them, as with much of the English aristocracy, when no longer useful.
Russia as an imperialist power. Bear in mind that the reading public had been fed material on Russia, mainly from Jewish news agencies. In fact, Russia already had a land empire (started at much the same time as Elizabethan England's Irish and other territories). It had difficulties with Muslims in the south China to the east, Poland to the west. But the main Jewish concern was controlling Russian money—denied to them by the Tsar in the negotiations after Napoleon's time.
    Russia reminds me of the USA, also a land empire, and also so big that most of the population could be kept in the dark about the rest of the world.
Media control, in those days newspapers, and since about the 1890s, cheap mass popular presses in most industrialised countries. Hate was easy to fan in any nation; languages insulated the readerships from each other. Germany could hate England and France, England could hate Germany and Russia, Poland could hate, Serbs could hate, and so on. It was fairly subtle: English people congratulated themselves on seeing through German intransigence and brutality, and English superiority to the appalling undemocratic Russians, for example. Almost all Britons were infused with anti-German feelings, which overruled most other emotions. A good example is Bertrand Russell, who was fluent in German, and widely-read, and visited and lived in Germany, but who never, in the whole of his life, made any attempt to investigate the case for Germans against Jews. Unfortunately, human psychology is not well-adapted to defence against repetition.
• Here's a new piece on 'pogroms':
The Myth of the Pogroms: How the Press Covered Up the Massacre of Christians
By Matthew R. Johnson, Ph.D. May/June 2016
From 1905 onward, the revolutionary movement [in Russia] was killing between 10 and 20 people a day. Some were innocent; others were government employees at some level. Not only did the Duma (or parliament) think this was acceptable, they both praised it and protested against any attempt to punish these terrorists. All told, some 10,000 Russians were killed by revolutionary violence throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, before the Reds took over. Rather than being victims of pogroms, Russia's Jews were some of the best armed human beings on the planet. They demanded total freedom from all taxation and military service and, in exchange, would not only finance the Red revolt domestically, but act as its primary infantry in the cities of western Russia such as Kiev, Mogilev or Odessa

The book's structure is chronological, building up to 1914, which has four chapters. Each chapter has bullet-pointed summaries, but these are at the ends. The final chapter Lies, Myths, and Stolen History discusses the removal of archives from Europe, after the 'Great War': vast numbers of volumes were moved to Stanford University ('a private research university') on the USA west coast, presumably as far as possible from Europe, and kept padlocked from the world. And it discusses gaps in archives, and such activities as 'weeding'.
    An irritant about this book is that all their work is presented as though completely new; and yet much of this must have been known, and the progress of awareness might have been reviewed briefly. So might their procedures.

Appendix 1 is a diagram, too small to be read comfortably. Appendix 2, 'Key Players', isn't adequate: Leo Amery for example is not identified as a Jew. Then we have endnotes: I wish these were reproduced on the pages too; it might add 30 pages, but would help smooth reading. Then we have references, which are personal papers, Public Record Office, Hansard's Parliamentary Records, world newspapers and magazines, and articles and pamphlets. Finally a 'select' bibliography', mostly popular books including 'histories' including A J P Taylor. And the index.

Their case seems to rest on Russia mobilising first, and Germany mobilising last. And the 'Secret Elite' having a Plan B, involving Ireland. D & M have marshalled a very powerful case.
    An alternative case is that the submerged Jewish plan was to attack both Germany and Russia, which were the two major countries opposed to Jewish money power: the Germans had united, and were technically highly competent; the Russian Tsars (I am agnostic about the Godunovs) rejected it. The Anglophonic world (after the assassination of Spencer Perceval and the 1812 war) and the French were both subservient to Jews. D & M's primacy of the German war may submerge this possibility, which of course would need long-term planning, and careful selection of stooges, but fits the facts after the event better, in my view.
    D & M make a terrific case for the war against Germany being planned: the 'Relugas Three' of Asquith, Grey and Haldane [p 104; the name is of a Scottish village], with Grey lying for years barefacedly to Parliament, are central figures; so are Africa and Boer War imperialists—Cecil Rhodes and Milner and Beit; so is Lord Frederick Sleigh Roberts, who built up the military system with militarists after his own heart, promoted more or less from obscurity. Other participants included the King, Edward VII, who succeeded Queen Victoria: he spent much of his time in brothels, though the Court Circulars presumably avoided issuing this information. However, he died in 1910. Oxford University in blamed for promoting false history; something of course it does to this day. D & M are very good on all this. However, they don't perceive Jews as (in effect) a nation, unique in its geographical distribution around the parts of the world which were able to be parasitised and subjected to wars. Rothschilds, Warburgs, Schiffs et al are of course mentioned, but not emphasised. The 'Secret Elite' objection to Germany was based on commercial conflict, according to D & M. but they don't provide estimates for costs: was it worth wasting fortunes to wreck German industry? Recent experience of Jewish lies ('immigrants will pay our pensions!' - 'local people won't work!' - 'immigrants boost the GNP!' - 'immigrants are highly skilled!' etc) suggest it was a carefully-fostered myth.


D & M's weakness of course is the omission of the tightly-knit Jewish power influences. There are endless complications, such as how Japan paid for British battleships—if it did. Balfour's Declaration isn't much mentioned, though it was to become an important aspect of the 'Great War'. I've seen the ingenious suggestion that there may have been secret agreements to dismember Russia under Jews, naturally unpublicised. Jewish thuggery is not really mentioned: probably such thugs in Britain fanned war fever by pretending to be Suffragettes, leaving 'votes for women' messages after dynamite outrages against some once-wonderful building, for example. There's no foreshadowing of Coudenhove-Kalergi. The anguish of disabled soldiers on being ignored and finding men in suits talking money isn't hinted at. The disposability of entire countries is understated: the Belgian Congo exploitation, Belgium's use for atrocity lies, perhaps its uranium reserves as expensive junk, and its possible extermination under waves of nonwhites (followed by a Jewish exodus?); Japan's firebombing; France being bombed; and so on, surely pointers to the genuine desires of the 'Secret Elite', might have been factored in.
    At the lighter level, I've read 'Tsaritsa' is the correct title for the Tsar's wife. 'Straightjacket' should be 'straitjacket'. Infer and imply are mixed up. 'Frederick' becomes 'Fredrick', Middleton becomes 'Midleton'.

Very interesting, but only half-way to full revisionism. But 5 stars.

https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com is their website on volume 2.

Top of Page
  Review of Jewish interest   A J P Taylor: The Origins of the Second World War

Vanity publication by partly-awakened fellow-travelling Fellow and propagandist, 23 Oct 2010

*VERY LONG REVIEW—APOLOGIES!*

Taylor was born in 1906, in odd circumstances, in Lancashire. Online biographies state 'His wealthy parents held strongly left-wing views, which he inherited. His parents were both pacifists who vocally opposed the First World War, and sent their son to Quaker schools as a way of protesting against the war.' His mother had at least one lover, Henry Sara 'a founding member of the Communist Party of Great Britain'. Nothing much is said about Taylor's (putative?) father. All this is consistent with his parents, or real parents, being Jewish—note for example the code words 'pacifist', 'left-wing', 'Communist', and the non-Christian school; and his accent wasn't Lancashire or Yorkshire. Family money seems to have allowed Taylor to hang around Oxford without a position. Later, Pribram and Namier, both Jewish historians, 'mentored' him. Even his biography is by a Jew (Sisman; there's another by K Burk who may or may not be). Without putting huge emphasis on all this, it is entirely consistent with Taylor's fierce anti-Germanism, and support for 'Russia', the Jewish-controlled USSR. Late in life he published a rather omissive introduction to an English translation of the Communist Manifesto—his introduction says nothing about divisions within states such as Jews exemplify; only class is considered. He was never as far as I can tell a technical Marxist—nobody intelligent can believe in the 'labour theory of value' or that 'all history is class war'. Taylor was a 'fellow traveller'—the 20th century fashion was to hush up such things.

Part of the key to Taylor is simply his personal news background. Let's review events:--

The coup in Russia ('Revolution') occurred when Taylor was 9 years old. By 16, Taylor had lived through the period of the greatest growth in Labour votes. When he was 17, the BBC radio monopoly was granted. When 18 (1924), the first Labour Government was formed, though a minority one. Taylor must have been aware of the Jewish/ Communist connection, and may well have known Labour was compromised from the start. (Taylor never cleared up the confusion between 'socialism' and 'communism', the latter being the Jewish fake version. This suited Conservatives—Thatcher for example—who could pretend that socialism was identical to rule by a small racist cult. Obviously too Taylor ignored the socialist component of the NSDAP).

Taylor went 'up' to Oxford in 1924 to study history. A year later he visited the Soviet Union, presumably as a CPGB hanger-on. He graduated aged 21, but had no academic position. When he was 23 Labour formed a majority in the general election. At the same time the 'great crash' took place, until say 1933. Taylor must have been impressed by Keynes, as the 'spending out of depression' idea occurs often in his books. The BBC started its 'empire service' about this time. A typical event (Taylor now 28) was the Daily Mail NOT running the headline 'Jews threaten the press'. When Taylor was 30, the 'Scott Trust' was set up, relative to the Manchester Guardian, essentially a profit-making fund to promote Jewish attitudes.

The point here is that Taylor's general information on world affairs came through radio and newspaper presentations of the time, but supplemented by Jewish connections. Clearly much material was unknown or omitted by these state, cult and commercial pressure groups. Possibly Taylor or his family kept newspaper cuttings; there's a Manchester Guardian headline-esque quality to all of Taylor's writings on events he'd lived through. Taylor comments on the 'universal belief' that Germans started the bombing. But why was it universal? Obviously, because newspapers, radio, cinema newsreels, magazines, and books said so. How did Taylor know Pearl Harbour (his spelling) had been bombed?—because it was in the news when he was about 35—old enough to follow, perhaps too young to be sceptical. How did he know Hitler and Mussolini were more or less mad, yet Trotsky should be praised highly, as Taylor did? From the media, but partly from his contacts. Why did he believe Hacha was summoned by Hitler? How did he know opinion in the USSR could be moulded at a nod? How could he believe the US and USSR 'asked only to be left alone'? (Naivete was common—Keynes was bemused at the screaming anti-Germanism in the US press AFTER 1916, imagining it was natural to all Americans).

Taylor was 33 when he (no doubt) heard Chamberlain on the radio in the morning: [Sept 1939] '.. no such undertaking has been received..'. From 1939-1945: Taylor was some sort of writer/propagandist. He was always very anti-German—they were wicked, arrogant; Germany was 'too large' etc; he'd written WW1 was worth it to drive the Germans out of conquered territory—though like many other fierce scribblers he preferred to leave others to die, for example on the barbed wire.

It's unclear how fluent Taylor was in German; some of his translations are odd; and there are virtually no quotations from Hitler, or any other German, in his works—yet surely if he had been fluent, he could have noted supporting detail from speeches and German newspapers. His 'Habsburg Monarchy' was published in 1948; it seems hardly credible Taylor could have investigated Hungarian and other archives. I assume this book is simply taken from other sources, no doubt mainly historians. Up to the age of 50 Taylor taught unfortunate undergraduates, and turned out book reviews on German-related issues. He said (in 'Second Thoughts') it was in this stage of his life that he developed doubts as to whether Hitler had been a diabolic genius planning war. (Taylor doesn't say whether his diabolic genius included final defeat). Rather oddly, Taylor had a belief that a 'trained historian' could see below the everyday crust of life. He seemed to think it a technical skill—like a structural engineer, or chemical analyst. It's tempting to think he imagined himself a Sherlock Holmes, or just possibly a Trotsky, at least when 'Trotsky' was in writing mode. Taylor claimed historians 'want a high standard of proof'—understandably he gives no evidence. In fact Taylor's scholarship was feeble: he says for example 'Mein Kampf' was mostly about 'anti-Semitism', when in fact it largely looks at the innumerable border disputes around Germany—the sea shore was almost the only uncontested zone. Taylor, as was the fashion, doesn't mention the Jewish role in the defeat of Germany in 1919, nor the blockade and starvation—enough to make anti-Jewish feeling entirely reasonable. Many Taylor pages go by without footnotes to indicate the source. He says of historians 'none escaped its influence' of Die Grosse Politik [documents on WW1 origin]. His essay on the rise and fall of diplomatic history (1950s) comments on absence of military service records; and he seems just about aware of the absence of military-industrial and financial material. Most of his sources are edited selections of papers, presumably typeset—giving plenty to scope to remove embarrassing material. He said of Nuremberg, 'of course the documents are genuine', which says something about his standards of scholarship.

Anyway, aged about 50, in 1957 Taylor became famous. The Regius Professorship of 'Modern History' at Oxford became vacant when someone called Vivian Galbraith retired. Several people were suggested as candidates—including someone called Lucy Sutherland, Hugh Trevor-Roper who'd written a short work on Hitler's death, and Taylor. At the time professors were few in number; these days they are ten a penny. Taylor seems to have considered himself a worthy candidate. For some reason, probably a Jewish connection, this was made a newspaper headline issue. Possibly the chosen wanted a sleeper. Bear in mind Regius Professors are of virtually no public interest—their complete list of names has an effect reminiscent of names of, for instance, past Archbishops of Canterbury.

(Trevor-Roper was elected and spent his life writing on post-medieval church figures, English gentry, Philby—his book says nothing about the actual secrets involved—until, like Bullock, he was added to the House of Lords as Lord Dacre. Dacre seriously believed Greek and Latin was the ideal training for Britain's 19th century public school empire builders. The low point of his career was his failure to detect the elementary forgeries of the 'Hitler Diaries'. Dacre believed the fraud of what became named 'the Holocaust' for the whole of his life).
--------------------
In 1961 (Taylor aged 56) 'The Origins of the Second World War' was published. Much of the bibliography was 1940s volumes, mostly printed edited selections from diplomatic archives (so handwritten additions etc could be concealed) plus a few memoirs and general books. Bear in mind the Second World War started, and remained for a long time, a war only involving Germany, France, and Britain. There was some media excitement, but as always it's hard to tell how synthetic it was. In 1963 Taylor added a new preface, 'Second Thoughts', which he never updated; this included material on the meaning of the word 'plan', and on Trevor-Roper.

Why did Taylor write this book? Taylor was the author of some dull books on German history, and many reviews of mostly dull books on history; and he taught the period to students who hadn't been born when it started. He didn't like Germany—he was like a man who hates snakes but has ended up a herpetologist. Is it possible that he might have tired of being a rent boy, and decided to strike out into controversy? Maybe he read Gibbon's autobiography; who knows. Maybe someone he respected caused him to reconsider, up to a point; Bertrand Russell's 'Which Way to Peace' (1936) as an 'appeaser', for example. Anyway, here are some notes on 'The Origins...':-

FIRST CHAPTER—The 'forgotten problem' was how WW2 started. He says historians of WW1 only examined the lead-up to the war; while WW2 historians only examined the battles. What Taylor omits is what may be the genuine reason, the cowardliness of 'scholars'. Avoiding 1914 to 1939 means inter alia—Nothing on the Balfour Declaration; nothing on the Lusitania trick to get the US into war; nothing on blockade and starvation; nothing on Jewish funding of the new Soviet Union; nothing on famine in the USSR; nothing on hyperinflation in Europe; nothing on Hitler's monetary policy; nothing on secret industrialisaiton of the USSR by European and American companies, with Jewish money and Russian slave labour.

THE HALF-ARMED PEACE—An astonishing bit of nonsense from Taylor is this: '...the British.. bombing of Germany.. did more harm themselves than to the Germans—.. it used up more British men and materials than it destroyed German.'

THE WAR OF NERVES: '..Soviet Russia was truly cut off from Europe so long as the cordon sanitaire existed.'
'without doubt' they regarded all foreign powers with intense suspicion, and Soviet policy's prime motive was 'the desire to be left alone.' Astonishing really; Taylor had actually met the Soviet Trade Minister!

LAST CHAPTER—DANZIG: frenetic account of pre-Poland; the book stops with Hitler invading Poland. This is assumed as per Chamberlain to be the start of the war. But all the other treaties had been discarded or ignored—why not that as well?

Taylor's book's most obvious omission is his treatment of the USSR—the necessity for Germany to do something isn't mentioned by Taylor, undoubtedly because of the Jewish connection. Then there's the Versailles Treaty; Taylor mentions German objections but without taking them seriously. Another problem of course is Taylor's ignorance or suppression of specifically Jewish issues, such as their influence in the USA, the currency issue, the post-war Anglo-Jewish war, and what was not then called 'the Holocaust' about which Taylor seems a bit ambivalent. The German/Polish border disputes which played a key part are missed out; Taylor seems to have consulted no Polish archives. It's now known that Churchill, bankrupted by the Crash, kept Chartwell by being paid to be anti-German, and he started the bombing of civilians against Germany to force Hitler into war with Britain, something he didn't want. Taylor must have been aware of speculation about all this, but had no technical apparatus to allow for fuzzy information. Incidentally Taylor has no idea about intelligence; nor does he have any feeling for the desire of military people for empire building, even with no purpose. There's much more—Lindemann giving high estimates of German arms, questions over reparations, Poland and Russia in WW1, numbers of fighters and bombers but unawareness of what these could do, 'gas chambers', the Hossbach Memorandum: A J P Taylor was proud of noting the nothingness of this memorandum, but has no methodology to assess many other documents which were touted (or unmentioned).
--------------
Taylor's often-praised writing style is worth a mention. I think the praise is unjustified; his joky asides are rather like cartoons in the middle of dull propagandist tracts. His writings typically consist of a mixture of [1] Anti-German comments; though sometimes these are varied by comments anti-other powers. [2] Ridiculous claims that he is free of value-judgments or that historians have mysterious gifts. [3] Fast-moving passages, like action thrillers, but in a diplomatic sense; much of the last chapter, leading up to the German invasion of Poland, is in this mode. It's not unlike the chase scenes and cliff-hangers in films, and has the same effect in suspending thought. [4] Personification of states, and also casual lack of interest in alliances—if A decides to ally with B, there must presumably be endless small print about obligations and duties and risks, but Taylor only takes the most superficial view. His book ends with Poland's invasion, and yet Taylor doesn't consider why Britain should have declared war—he's perfectly aware the 'guarantee' with Poland was unworkable, and anyway all the other alliances had been ignored. [5] Philosophical and historical generalisations—these are the supposed gems in his works. These are always after-the-event; the fact appears to be that Taylor had no predictive skill whatever. [6] Assumptions on military and other power which seem to have no sound basis. The German who remarked that the Second World War was like Germany playing chess with odds of a rook down illustrates what Taylor lacks. Taylor assumes, for example, that the Russian steppes etc would be an asset; but he also states Hitler made no survey of resources of eastern Europe. So how can Taylor be sure it would have been a net asset for Germany? Maybe they only had disposable labour as exploited by Americanised Jews.

Anyway, it worked for Taylor—he had TV exposure, fame, and a house in Highgate which he said was 'nearly perfect'. But his last books illustrate his limitations: 'How Wars Begin' and 'How Wars End' are the same old same old—European wars in the last few centuries, nothing about the rest of the world. Anyone wanting general observations on wars, from a 'trained historian', will look in vain. And it worked for his handlers—his book helped head off serious researchers. For example, in the same year as 'The Origins..', Hoggan's 'The Forced War' gave far more detail on Poland, and Irving's '.. Dresden ..' forced some reality into considerations of bomb damage. But Taylor could be pointed out as the only official 'revisionist'—he was the tolerated house radical.

Three stars because this book carries some lessons, though they are tiresome to unearth. A lesson external to the book is of course the utterly pitiful standard of historical research in Britain in the 20th century. Three stars also because very many other books were much worse.

Top of Page
  Review of Science fraud   Heather Couper & Nigel Henbest: The Planets



Attractive pictures—but beware of fakes!

This is a Pan book published in 1985, related to a Channel 4 TV series. My copy has a section of an image of Jupiter on the cover. This image in fact on examination is a painting—probably gouache or coloured chalks. The book also contains many standard 'moon landing' photos known to be fakes. Ditto with Mars. This is basically a picture book of phoniness, intended, no doubt, to keep funding directed to these people. Worth buying if you want evidence of the corruption of modern science. Also must be an artefact for students of image processing: black and white photography, cine film, digital capture, image processing all have their little tricks and styles of retouching.
Note added 23 Aug 2019: I noticed that Heather Couper, who has quite a list of, I fear, vanity qualifications, now aged 70, was a postgraduate student at Linacre College, Oxford. I'm not sure I'd ever heard of Linacre College. The website www.linacretruth.com suggests it has problems.

Top of Page
  Review of 501 Must Visit Cities   Bounty Books
Very attractive - a sort of global guidebook
14 June 2009
My copy (bought, more expensively, in a motorway service station) is published by Bounty Books, a part of Octopus. The publisher is stated to be Polly Manguel - perhaps this book was her idea. If so, it was a good one. All full-colour. Printed in China.

Five sections: - first is Europe and the Middle East (I presume the last bit is to include Israel and perhaps pretend Turkey is in the EU). Then Asia, Africa, Australia/NZ, and Americas & Caribbean last. The sections are roughly in descending size order, and the edge of the book in effect is colour-coded by continent. There are two indexes - countries, and towns.

There's on average about one page per town, so of course there had to be serious pruning. I'd assumed at first that there must be some internal logic to the selections - maybe someone had planned a cheap world-wide schedule, picking out convenient towns to be photographed. Closer examination suggests the whole thing is a desk-job, using library pictures.

If you want a quick official-tourist overview (including 'don't miss' sections) of Lhasa, Timbuktu, Tokyo, Samarkand, Kingston, Lahore, Valparaiso, Arles, Hanoi, Nazareth, Minsk, Irkutsk, Honolulu, Belize... or even Leeds, England or Cardiff, Wales... and 495 others, this is a terrific at-a-glance hardback. The colourful cover is repeated on the hardback jacket, so it won't get lost as yet another dull blackish hardback with hard-to-read spine.

Top of Page
Martin Gardner Skeptic   Review of   Martin Gardner's Life Work
    uploaded 18 Nov 2015

Martin Gardner: Populariser of Mathematics
Who Established the Outlines of the USA 'Skeptics', Including all their Attitudes and Mistakes

My overview of Martin Gardner's career is here

Top of Page
  Review of Annoyingingly plagiaristic to anyone familiar with the sources   Ian Stewart: Professor Stewart's Cabinet of Mathematical Curiosities

Loathesome plagiarism and mess and unwisdom, 10 Oct 2010

I'm not sure whether all, or only 99%, of the entries in this book are plagiarised. Probably all. My reasons for dislike are:
** Utterly scrambled nature of the entries—a miscellany is all very well, but this book is like a miscellany on English with crossword clues, brief biographies, poor puns, anecdotes, all of them on different emotional and logical footings...
** Complete failure to situate techniques. For example the long 's' symbol of integration could perhaps be explained, but isn't
** Utterly uncritical commentary and examples: relativity, 'chaos' (in fact perfectly determined stuff), the 19th century 'infinite' stuff, Goedel, Goldbach, expanding universe etc etc all appear as though there are no possible doubts
** Plagiarism: Dudeney is of course one plagiaree, but Hubert Phillips—who composed innumerable puzzles of the Alf, Bert and Charlie being liars (or not) type is another. Martin Gardner's material has something of a look-in—Gardner was infinitely more interesting. There are wearing accounts of things like the 4 colour theorem, Fermat etc etc, none as far as I can see with anything new to say, no doubt taken from standard histories and probably modern popular accounts
** Worth noting there's no international feel: on the continent, for example, spherical geometry was a major topic—probably for some geography-related reason. France has a different maths feel than in Britain—popular maths there is rather different in several ways
** There's no feeling whatever for the way mathematics has (or hasn't) progressed; what did calculus actually achieve? Are new developments likely, perhaps more sociological rather than physics-based?

Top of Page
image   Review of Evasionist batch-written crime material   Nigel Cawthorne: Spree Killers: Devastating Massacres by Unpredictable Gunmen

Not helpful, 15 Jan 2012

The cover of this 2009 book mentions Wade Frankum, a mass killer in Australia, who may have been used to permit the banning of guns in Australia—a similar claim, with added paedophilia, is made about Michael Ryan in Hungerford; it's the reason I bought it, at remaindered price. This book is one of many presumably mass-produced by its author. There are no sources for the evidence—presumably it's taken from newspaper clippings and changed to avoid copyright claims. And there's no indication of which killings weren't included—the media are notoriously deliberately biased, omitting black killers in the USA, for example. There's a brief attempt at a historical overview, and a series of chapters mostly with rather aimless titles and with tabloid-style descriptions. The object seems to be to suggest there are more multiple killings than there were. There's no attempt to weigh evidence pro and con guns, or legal penalties, or to correlate early life with violence, or for that matter compare with military deaths and killings—or even road accidents.

Top of Page
  Review of Psychology   Derren Brown: Confessions of a Conjuror

'The Waves' + John Cleese on embarrassing incidents + Mr Mullica's card effect, 10 Jan 2012

... plus consideration of Brown's own past. Very unusual style of book, which in some ways reflects a magical 'effect'—not just the mechanics of a trick, and not just the mechanics plus 'patter', but the full choreography. There's one trick, punctuated by reflections on the past, reflections on psychology, and reflections on the sorts of things people do. Brown comes across as a man of calculating shyness, as he decides how to approach some group of people who may, or may not, be receptive to his trick with 'Bicycle Brand' red-backed cards. His disquisitions include theatrical conventions (this reminded me of an H G Wells story, about a drama critic), the box style of After Eight mint chocolates, the realisation that his parents were once as young as he is now—and perhaps equally competent at dealing with children—climbing stairs and other gait-related movements, homosexuality, and party events with famous people. A note at the beginning states this is a work of non-fiction, but adds that some details have been changed 'solely to protect the privacy of others', though I haven't been able to deconstruct the meaning here: at one point he describes a faux pas with Hugh Grant at a party—I simply can't work out which, if any, parts of this anecdote may have been changed 'solely' to protect privacy. Brown is good on introspection of everyday events, such as descending in a lift—possibly the need to design 'effects' needs great attention to small details. He's not quite so good on philosophy and personal ethics (the bit that reminded me of John Cleese). No doubt it's better to be nice, but would this work in our world of large-scale deception and considerable callous cruelty?

An unusual book which may well not appeal to certain, perfectly legitimate, character types. I was left with the feeling that Brown's insights and methods might be employed with great advantage to the human race when people like Tony Blair, Murdoch etc are being quizzed on their wars, lies, assassinations, and so on. Worth a try, anyway?

Top of Page
Jackie Clune   Review of What women want   Jackie Clune: Man of the Month Club

Weird chaos of nothingness, 10 Jan 2012

This review is from: Man of the Month Club (Paperback)

General idea is highly successful single woman of 39 is coaxed by events into wanting a baby of her own. She decides to try to get one, using the standard method. It doesn't work—amusing interludes here—and—spoiler—she ends up in love with a vasectomised widower with two daughters. The final sentence is 'It was so much better having a life than creating one.'

Two stars because it's malice free: in a world with planned wars, with organised gangs preying on girls, with vast poverty, the characters here are innocent—including, unfortunately, of intelligence. The story is chaotically unconvincing: the central woman character is presented as a mature designer of children's stuff with a chain of shops, in her docklands apartment—and yet she's presented as something like a shop assistant, rather than arranging supplies and shipping of her wallpaper or clothes—incidentally with no apparent concerns over copyright of things like Enid Blyton drawings. Her friends and others all, unconvincingly, without exception, live in tiny apartments in grotty parts of London—there's a pseudo-political theme, obviously copied from the media, that activism means things like 'equality' charities and wearing lesbian-style clothes and supporting homosexuals, rather than getting British people housed properly. The descriptions of, and obsessions around, babies—songs including 'baby', for example—are quite well done, and yet obviously insincere, as the conventional Mills and Boon ending shows. The inconsistencies in the supposedly-trying-to-get-pregnant accounts are a bit ludicrous, as the main character in effect makes up reasons for not going through with the deed. There are some accounts of meetings—Mensa people, speed dating, a group of women wanting babies but not men—and parties, which are probably more or less from the heart, including weird reasons why men may not feel like sex. And so on.

It might have worked as a film; possibly that was the idea.

Interesting to speculate on Jewish anti-white pressure for white women not to have children. There's an 'anti-natalist 'movement' no doubt funded by Jews. Andrew Joyce in the Occidental Observer (late 2021) describes conversations with such a person, whom Joyce for some reason described as 'intelligent'. The controlled media never describe selective funding of aliens as a factor—many white girls must have been trapped by not being told that Jews give more money to blacks than to poor whites. The point for me is Mel Gibson, whose What Women Want I haven't reviewed. It struck me that Jews are, genetically or otherwise, extremely secretive with 'goyim'. What Women Want is full of New York Jews, doing what New York Jews do. The storyline of the film involves Mel Gibson's character electrically being given the gift of mind-reading. Think what anti-white plots and attitudes would result! And how white women would be shocked. Maybe sometime in the future it'll happen.


Top of Page
image   Review of Hack BBC 'science'   Simon Singh: The Code Book: The Secret History of Codes and Code-breaking

Naive trot-through by a BBC Hack, 17 Nov 2011

2000 book based around a Channel 4 series (the British Company) the author having worked at the BBC.

Interesting topic, but the whole presentation is naive and official.

* There's no mention at all that I could find of unbreakable ciphers with one-off coding of messages. These can only be solved by getting hold of the key—traditionally a book with tear-off pages. Singh largely ignores this aspect of code-breaking. Thus the Enigma machine was (it's claimed) broken, partly by taking a machine from a submarine which was tricked into surfacing; partly by a hidden microphone signalling what the morning settings were for the machines; partly by exploiting knowledge of the German messages. Singh simply repeats the traditional stories of e.g. Turing's great brilliance.

* He seems to minimise linguistic tricks; e.g. the USA used 'red Indian' languages now and then.

* He tends to dwell lovingly on very simple matters, such as simple transcriptions. There's an agonisingly long section on this simple technique. I seem to remember Edgar Allan Poe wrote a story based on this.

* He tends to dwell at even more agonising length on computerised encryption, notably the public key/ private key stuff. This appears to rely entirely on the difficulty of factorising large numbers which are the product of exactly two primes. Whether this is in fact a problem is not known to me. There are plenty of ingenious theorems about prime numbers, though there's no overarching theory. It wouldn't surprise me if these codes are crackable, but in view of their importance this would be kept secret.

* There's some rather sad material on British secrecy and the accompanying lack of commercial exploitation. But this is a matter of such things as patent law, which Singh doesn't deal with, though he has many other digressions. There's little on commercial espionage, for example GCHQ's listening to commercial messages. (I reviewed Aldrich's feeble book on GCHQ, but Amazon removed my reviews!)

* There's a somewhat irrelevant chapter on reading ancient languages, notably of course Egyptian hieroglyphics, and Linear B. Much is taken from British Library publications.

* Singh has the usual moral imbecility demanded by the BBC avoiding any criticisms of the two world wars, and avoiding any mention of genocides in e.g. the USSR, Vietnam, Africa. He is amusingly unrevisionist without a clue on such subjects as the Lusitania, oil and raw materials. There's nothing on the extent to which Germans, Stalin's USSR etc were reading American or British messages; the impression given is that it was all one-way. (Note that Singh fails to mention, when he states that pretty much all the German messages were being read—in fact only those caught by radio were—that there was no evidence of a 'holocaust').

I thought maybe I'd give this two stars, as some of the material is more or less right, but there's so much omitted and wrong that, after all, I'll give it 1 star. He doesn't help if you want to encode messages. He leaves the security issue uncertain—are these methods in fact secure, and what if they aren't? He doesn't discuss in any evidenced way what the results have been on crime and so on. He doesn't discuss rogue and corrupt governments, and secret interest groups within governments. He doesn't discuss codes within industries—oil for example is reputed to have its own diplomatic systems.

The Internet and computer material is probably of most interest to most people, but in my opinion this book isn't helpful—Singh doesn't really explain how computers made these techniques possible. He talks as though bits are actually 0s and 1s, often a sign of confusion. He doesn't mention scams and phishing, which are a form of codebreaking. In fact this book helped me decide his book on Fermat's Theorem is unlikely to be sound.

Top of Page
Barrow Universe   Review of 'Science' as rote learning   John D. Barrow: The Origin Of The Universe

Makes astrology look scientific, 13 Nov 2011

This book is now about fifteen years old. I'd like to caution readers against books of this type. There's something like a century now of accumulated material from which mistakes have yet to be removed. Material on 'space time', the supposed speed of light as a limit, the 'expanding universe', the 'Big Bang'—itself probably depended on a wartime hoax, the unsatisfactory mathematical models with 'singularities' and 'waves', the problematic material on the distribution of isotopes, the uncritical assumption that particle accelerators have given reliable results, the reliance on light unconsciously taken from human senses ... The material resembles a religious credo, a set of things to be orated, not understood.

Top of Page
Bennett UntoldAlan Bennett   Untold Stories 2005, Paperback 2006.   Review by Rerevisionist: 28 April 2016
The Curse of Eternal Youth

Bennett was born in 1934, thus missing the Second World War's swathes of death. He took a First in what s called History, at Oxford in 1957, the extra five years from 18 partly taken up at the Joint Services School for Linguistics, where Bennett seems to have dabbled in Russian as part of what was called 'National Service'. He failed the course, which included going about Hampshire trying to locate enemy persons, and this failure, the first official failure, he says, of his life, seems to have spurred on his exam technique. Oxford played a large part in Bennett's mental life: for example, in this book it has more index entries than anything else, followed by the National Gallery and Philip Larkin, and a grandmother who claimed descent from Robert Peel. His essay on his play The History Boys details his exam techniques, most of which were crammed into his final year, with meticulous memories of university examinations and his trip (first) to Cambridge. Bennett lectured, or taught, not very successfully, and then acted, and 'appeared on the stage in 1960 as one of the authors and performers [and piano player] of the 'revue' Beyond the Fringe. (This can be now viewed on Youtube).

Looking back at the cynical long-term planning of the so-called 'post-War' period, one has to wonder about Oxbridge entrance. Bennett gives an unattractive group portrait of public school entrants, as loud thugs throwing bread rolls around; most must have had career-paths. Perhaps there was a check-list, kindly provided by Lord Rothschild: Any widely-travelled family member killed during WW2? Any family members in Germany, who might have witnessed mass starvation and rapes? Any science background? (The big frauds were beginning, after all). Any intelligence contacts in the family (who might know a few things...)? Any business contacts clued up on supplying Stalin with weapons? Any Orientalist background? Any idea about Suez? And in extremis blackmailable? Bennett ticked, or left unticked, all these boxes. Just right.
      (Something similar, but on a much larger scale, happened in the USA, as a result of the G.I. Bill and the huge expansion in what were called universities, after the US had helped weaken all other white countries, and money-controlling Jews in the US and USSR dominated the world. The 'New School for Social Research' gave out fake credentials to Jews from Europe, creating professors from nowhere, who of course set out to impose their fanatical world-view).

Bennett's writing style is skilful: I suspect he must have used dictionaries, thesauruses, and official grammars as part of his self-betterment, rather than the more natural process of oral and written imitation. And it's impossible to guess the influences of editors, sub-editors, readers. Bennett is very careful with shades of emotional meaning and social implication, but his factual material often seems more careless, plumbed from booklets and ordinary, unsubtle reference sources. His 'Monologues' illustrate all this. Entertaining, but at the end readers must (I expect) feel they haven't learnt much.

As with many trained historians, Bennett seems to regard history as something like anthropology, collections of selected events with artificial titles, to be treated as accounts in the written version of locked glass cases. For example, the 'Gimmer' (dialect for a ewe with no lambs) who married his father's father on his wife's death, may have been unmarried because of male deaths in the Great War, but is simply described as a vicious stepmother. He notes Auntie Myra's regarding herself as unmarried and adventurous: looking forward to India. Her tiny part in the "half-breed adventurer" Churchill's bankrupting of Britain in its moral duty to save the world for Jewish money is noted by Bennett, but without the contemporary MP's comment I've just provided. And of course, for once in their lives, many impecunious people were given adventure, backed up by a law on insurance and another on payments if their husbands were proven killed. Bennett doesn't find a place for Douglas Bader, the RAF pilot whose legs were shot off, and was made a hero in Britain, and who was lampooned by Bennett. (Tobias Langdon, in The Occidental Observer, February 2015, wrote on Bennett genuflecting to Jewish power. I can't find evidence that Bennett ever identified Jewish power roots; but of course he may have done).

Untold Stories, the first part of this collection, deals almost entirely with Bennett's parents, relatives, illnesses (his mother became depressed and also paranoid, from 1966) and deaths: his father in 1974. There's almost nothing on Bennett, though by 1974 he'd found sex easy to come by. It's not even clear from Untold Stories whether or not he's homosexual, though he says somewhere that male prostitution 'had standards' in those days. However, later passages are clearer on this: one (A Common Assault) is on an attack on him with Rupert, apparently a 'partner'; I hadn't known Bennett wrote the screenplay for the film version of Prick Up Your Ears, which Americans may not realise contains an anagram for 'ass'. There are long sad descriptions of his mum and dad in almost wordless communion, and accounts of E.C.T. and R. D. Laing as literary purveyor of unhelpful advice. I've seen a person with worries about bugging machines; I wondered if it was a northern thing. Bennett comes up with no explanation. In fact he seems generally weak on psychology: his descriptions of Dudley Moore's charm, despite his being from Dagenham, and being at Oxford as an organ scholar—I suppose better than the U.S. sports 'scholarships'—leave no clue as to Moore's claimed last years of isolation.
    Probably the best thing Bennett's mother did for him was never to drink or (I think) smoke. Perhaps the second-best was not providing a sibling for Bennett: try to imagine the endless micro-dissection of irritations and foibles through the entire time of growing up and beyond.

Diaries 1996-2004 take up about a third of the entire collection. These are largely taken up with comments on the media, mostly I think TV. This of course offers a rich field—there's scope here for jokes about manure, which I'm too lazy to make. Bennett listens to the radio, reads the 'quality press', views theatre, goes to galleries. His comments fall far short of what they might be: he says Murdoch is a 'bully', his reason for despising the 'Rupert Murdoch Chair in Language and Communication' at Oxford. Murdoch and his hacks lie about genocides, wars, financial fraud—calling him a 'bully' is like disliking the table manners of Genrikh Yagoda. Like almost all media commentators, he says nothing about the process of constant 24/7 output. There isn't even a name for the process: conveyor belt? Hack bureaucracy? Studio system? I remember being shown around the BBC by one of its technical top people, Mike Todd, who like most techies had no idea about the software hosted by his hardware. The Radio Times was planned in outline a year ahead of time in general outline, the programme blanks, the seasons and episodes, and contractual details being handled by quite large numbers of hacks. It's the sort of thing Jews do, held together by race clannishness and propelled by hate of non-Jews, as for example in what is or was called 'Hollywood'. And it's the sort of thing Bennett is unaware of, or regards as not part of his life. And Bennett says nothing about money: how much did he make, for example, from Beyond the Fringe? It can hardly be an important secret, and anyway because of inflation may seem unimportant. What are actors paid? Were his 'monologues' popular?—amusing to see Bennett's adoption of the taboo on money. Anyway, here are some snippets from Bennett's diaries, or claimed diaries as they must almost certainly be retrospectively edited:–
    1997 29 March, Yorkshire ... Envy the nice life a Carthusian monk must have had in the early fifteenth century: meals brought to the door, sitting room, study and bedroom looking out on a little garden, with, at the end of the colonnade, a loo.
    1997 16 April Another day filming for the TV version of Anthony Powell's Dance to the Music of Time ... one problem ... is that the MPs are played by London extras, a notoriously difficult, uncooperative section of the [acting] profession and about as helpful as, I'm told, the chorus at Covent Garden. .. the extras are seldom given much encouragement by directors and often treated as not much more than movable scenery. ... I am left animatedly chatting to these four unresponsive young men...
    2001 11 September ... Tom M. rings to tell me to switch on the television as the Twin Towers have been attacked. Not long after I switch on one of the towers collapses, an unbearable sight, like a huge plumed beast plunging earthwards. I go to put the kettle on and in that moment the other tower collapses.' [No further entry until 15 September].
    2002 4 July The Home Secretary announces that because of 'public concern' ... he has decided to make it known that Dr Shipman will remain in prison for the rest of his life. ... All it [the announcement] does is satisfy the desire for revenge of the public... It seems sheer sadism... [Dr Shipman was a Jewish multiple killer, usually by injection into non-Jewish elderly people.]
    2003 5 December My fears as to my celebrity rating ... are happily allayed this morning by an invitation to appear on Through the Keyhole, Sir David Frost and Paradine Productions' series for BBC1. [Paradine was Frost's middle name]. ... Though previous guests have included Eartha Kitt, Gloria Gaynor and Neil Sedaka, I have to say no [because, in joke style, he was offered] some temping as a tripe dresser in Hull.
    2004 27 May ... Under its current administration I would not extradite a dog to the United States... In a country where the rule of law can be set aside by executive decree, prisoners kept outside the law and imprisoned without trial or legal representation, [Abu] Hamza [recipient of a fortune in housing and other UK benefits] is likely to disappear without trace. ... on BBC's Question Time [a long-running staged propaganda programme, run by the Jew David Dimbleby] ... the sleek and suited Peter Hain ... maintains that Hamza should be handed over to face justice (sic) in the United States, the same sort of justice as there used to be in South Africa at a time when Hain saw things rather differently. ... [Bennett is wrong here; in both cases, Jews controlled opinions]
    2004 27 July In good time, as I think, for Paul Foot's funeral, I get to Golders Green to find outside the station what looks like a political demonstration.. [Foot was connected to Private Eye. Bennett must have taken the tube from Camden Town to Golders Green, fairly close in north London, and a Jewish colonised area].

Pinter tape recorded conversations, but Bennett seems to rely on writing phrases: after all he's much practised in note-taking in what one assumes must be tiny handwriting. Probably Miss Shepherd, his van lady was invited into his back garden (if I've understood what happened); I hope she gets credit as joint scriptwriter. Those people who advise aspiring authors to write only about what they know have a perfect model in Bennett. As with a revenant John Lennon, his material and heart are very firmly past-regarding. And, with Bennett, rear-regarding. Perhaps people with unexpected great success in youth often revisit aspects of it. An account of Jonathan Miller chatting to Bennett over his garden wall presents Miller (who thinks he's a Jew) reading up on the 'Final Solution' in the 21st century: also living in the past.

Arise, Sir... is a chapter on honours, in Britain. Bennett is a lifelong 'left-winger' in the half-hearted post-1945 Kingsley Amis sense, entirely without any understanding of Jewish money, Jewish 'Communism', and their vast ballooning of lies, including fake sciences. Bennett (of course) has no explicit idea about Jewish media control, and related topics such as the expansion of so-called University education, with the associated long-term contracts for such people as G. R. Elton, and the general penetration of Jewish 'thinkers' after the war. Bennett doesn't attempt to tackle the American system—'award-winning', 'Academies', 'Prizes', 'Sponsors', 'Launches', 'Releases' and all the rest—I'd guess through distaste for clumsily-disguised advertising. He discusses class in Britain, Hobsbawm accepting some honour to please his Jewish mum—'after a life on the left' is Bennett's judgment. Anecdotes about Isaiah Berlin, Kingsley Amis, et al follow. I don't know what to make of Bennett being 'named Reader's Digest Author of the Year' in 2005; perhaps 'naming' makes this ludicrous 'award' impossible to turn down.

Bennett has a remarkable lack of intellectual muscularity, for want of a better expression. He had a selective memory for places and people, but not ideas. Or so it appears from his writings, which appear adapted to someone who remembers, and largely lives, in the past. His diary for 2002 records his reaction to a book on Wittgenstein and Popper who 'clashed' in the Moral Sciences Club in Cambridge, in 1946. Rich Jews at play, perhaps, but Bennett has nothing to say on philosophy or the politics of knowledge, preferring to mention tomato sandwiches and unrequited homosexual lust. Bennett mentions Bertrand Russell once, but only when discussing Berenson, who was—not exactly first with the news—somewhat corrupt. In the 1950s, 'linguistic philosophy' was in vogue at Oxford (Words and Things, by a Jewish anthropologist, was a later attack), but it seems unnoticed by Bennett, despite its absence of science. Bennett is more at home with people: he recalls being interviewed by David Thomson, author of Europe Since Napoleon, a standard low-quality history after Napoleon which ignores the entire issue of Jews and finance. He remembers A. J. P. Taylor from television. And more at home with figures from the past: he thinks Philip Larkin was a 'looming presence' 15 years after his death. He has a rather sad account of Lindsay Anderson, the, or a, film director, who did If, on English public schools, and his rather shabby flat. He gives an account of poor Paul Foot's funeral in north London, though of course he has no clue about the Jewish connections.
    On the other hand, Bennett has no mention of David Irving, a pioneering researcher, and genuine historian. Bennett has no idea about the truth of Shakespeare. And no idea of Muslim or Jewish 'holy books' and their vicious clannish views on race and violence.

Bennett also has a depressing lack of aesthetic judgment, as this book makes clear. Music, pictures (in the painterly sense), and films have no agreed high-status pub-quiz docketing system. No wonder he's happier in the Yorkshire world where education, cocktails, and envy of sophisticated parties were marks of cultivation. He flounders with jazz, correctly identifying it as a 1945-ish brand of informal music, and talks of Dudley Moore's liking for jazz piano. Orchestras and their 'good music' were a northern mark of culture and accordingly we have references to recordings of Brahms and others, but not Wagner—can't be too careful. Bennett expresses no opinions that I could find on, for example, Pink Floyd.
    A whole section, Going to the Pictures, looks at the National Gallery, where he was made a trustee in 1993, because he 'represented the man in the street'. [Page 594 says this]. Bennett seems to have been used to front various TV things and public talks on art; there are newer replacements, not necessarily satisfactory, as the messages, for example of saints, the Annunciation, and portraits, and their transmission and notorieties, need sympathetic interpretation. Bennett leans heavily on catalogues, rather than art history, and finds galleries wearying places, though he amuses himself trying to find Jesus figures (he expresses no doubts as to the genuineness of the historical Jesus) with erections. Bennett avoids modern art.
    On films, or 'film', in his 2004 diary he wrote 'The best films on TV are often in the middle of the day ... Today it's The Stars Look Down (1939) with Michael Redgrave, which I would have seen in 1940 in one of Armley's half a dozen picture houses. Like How Green Was My Valley (1941) and Emlyn Williams's The Corn is Green (1945), it's the story of a working-class boy bettering himself through education and outgrowing his roots. ...' Sentiment-laden Britain-centred films, at a time when millions a year were dying in Jewish wars, might not be everyone's idea of 'the best films', on TV or otherwise.
    I'm not sure Bennett even analysed 'fiction' as a genre, possibly somewhat crystallised by legal attacks—official secrets, libel, and so on. The indignant comment on Hardy ("Feller made the whole thing up??") can't surely just be dismissed.

Now I think of it, I doubt Bennett had any interest in evanescent aesthetics: I doubt he tried fancy waistcoats, or leathers and a Harley-Davidson, or experimented with onion ice-cream with samphire and stir-fried beef. And his ignorance of science and technology is a bit saddening. Couldn't he chat about memory foam, or jets, or nuclear myths? Or the northerners who designed Leyland buses, and electric kettles? Or just the absurdities of word processors and their tiring vocabulary? Clearly not. Meanwhile, half the inhabitants of India defecate in the open, Palestinians are routinely murdered, parts of the world are ruined amid expended ordnance, nonwhites are paid by Jews to ruin white countries, and Jews abscond with millions, billions, and trillions. There are traces in Bennett of nineteenth century socialism, but these appear to be bits of mossy tombstone, not green shoots.


Top of Page
image   Review of Quirky look at mild obsessional game   Mark Barrowcliffe: The Elfish Gene: Dungeons, Dragons and Growing Up Strange

Growing-up story involving Dungeons and Dragons

2007 book, now remaindered, but with an eye-catching title. The author seems to have been born about 1966—my best guess from this book.

This appeared to be an attempt to humanise 'Dungeons and Dragons'. It purports to be autobiographical, but my guess is that the detail is largely made up. The reason I say this is the lack of in-depth insight—his descriptions go no further than strangely-shaped dice and a cursory account of fantasy powers, though he seems to have looked at some of the packaging and documentation.

There are some books on games and sports—perhaps the first being Izaak Walton on fishing, then perhaps Surtees on horse racing—and more recently football, rugby, cricket, mountain walking, Monopoly for that matter—which manage to describe and enlarge on the activities in a style which is attractive, even for people who aren't at all interested in participating. (I think chess and bridge have never been successfully included in the genre). Barrowcliffe doesn't in my view manage this. He calls them 'war games' though of course they're not war in any modern sense. He seems to avoid the attempts at simulating the past, too—Greece, Rome, Norse Gods maybe. There is no description that I could find of what I presume is the attraction of the game—the hours and hours of total immersion, the precariousness of situations depending on one single throw of a die (yes! The real singular!), the exploitation of the rules to achieve victory in unexpected ways, the use—I'm guessing—of alliances, the sudden reversals of fortune, the other-worldly quirkiness of unreal 'powers'.

An aspect of dice war-gaming, which nobody seems to mention, is that it has strict adherence to rules. After a throw of the dice, everyone agrees on the result, and the pieces are re-arranged accordingly. Possibly this represents a psychological relief from the real world, where a crypto-Jew President and crypto-Jew political parties send out snowstorms of lies, and bearded freaks recommend rape and torture and the killing of the best of their enemies, and money power is used ruthlessly.

There are bits about premature sexual attempts in Coventry, visits to the Bullring in Birmingham—and it's amusing to see politically-correct bits shoehorned in unnaturally. After all, he's a writer and isn't going to say anything risky. He makes a claim to have studied chemistry, maths, and physics, but I couldn't believe in that, either. To be honest I couldn't make it to the end of the book, but, sneaking a look at other reviews here, a triumphalist note appears. Maybe he never learned the lessons of reversals of fortune.


Added 15 years later: In May 2022, on holiday in York, England, I noticed a smallish shop with a temporary sign GEEK RETREAT. Interested, I found this is a franchise, dedicated as far as I could check to playing geeky games. (I may be wrong about the detail). If so, this may be another try at marketing the gadgetry and outlook along the lines of The Elfish Gene. Just thought I'd mention it. The word geek, which the OCD says is 19th century, but I think was only found in the USA, seems to have changed its meaning. Probably there are simply too few individuals aiming for intellectuality.
      Slight suggestions of awkwardnesses hang over these shops. Some Youtube interviewees were obsese, and keen to assure potential customers that all the people were friendly. There was an offer of some sort to kids with autism. It may be that the whole thing is subsidised by a mental health charity. Left from the COVID fraud maybe?

Top of Page
  Review of Possible science conspiracy interest   DVD: Capricorn One (1979)

Part-conspiracy, part-escapism, part-journalistic hero, part action man..., 17 Nov 2011

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

Top of Page
W. David Wills   Homer Lane: A Biography (1964)
Review: 29 Oct 2015

Pioneering Educator of Similar Style to A S Neill

Homer Lane (1875-1925) was American (Homer as a name is almost unknown in Britain), and a pioneer educator. This makes him of some interest to the home schooler movement. He came to Britain and ran a school, his 'Little Commonwealth', but blundered into scandal (girl or girls bringing him tea in bed) and was deported as an 'undesirable alien'. He seems to have become entangled with Freudian ideas, which people naively thought new and exciting, rather than Jewish. Here's A S Neill (of 'Neill, Neill, Orange Peel!') to Bertrand Russell, after Russell wrote on education:
You will be interested to know Homer Lane's theory about time-table sucking. He used to advocate giving a child the breast whenever it demanded it. He held that in sucking there are two components ... pleasure and nutrition. The timetable child accumulates both components, and when the sucking begins the pleasure component goes away with a rush and is satisfied in a sort of orgasm. But the nutrition element is unsatisfied, and he held that many cases of mal-nutrition were due to this factor, that the child stopped sucking before the nutrition urge was satisfied.

Russell said Lane was 'both a saint and a sage', and 'the best man of his generation'. This biography, about forty years after Lane's death, is not a very good book—disjointed, out of proportion, and based apparently on rather few sources of information. But of course he is a difficult subject. I lost my copy of this book under difficult circumstances, which seems appropriate; I haven't bothered to check whether there have been newer biographies, or general books on the movements for freer education, entangled as they are with issues of money, issues of 'problem children', and problems of separating medical from educational difficulties.

Top of Page
image   Review of Unimpressive BBC promotee   Bryan Magee: Popper

Magee knows nothing about science, or about historical sociology..., 21 Aug 2011

This review is from: Fontana Modern Masters—Popper (Paperback). Magee was a sort of official philosopher—bland, regurgitating others' opinions, ignorant, complacent. It's only because his type is promulgated e.g. by the BBC that he could even be considered competent to assess Popper. Magee knows nothing of science, and is entirely unfitted to comment on Popper—his limit is the usual material on Hume, and on Newton/Einstein, neither of whom Magee understands. As regards Plato, and the 'Open Society', Magee's comments are entirely unhelpful. Ditto with Marx. My copy is unindexed, itself a mute statement on this little book. The whole book is a complete waste of time, unless you seek an insight into the incurious world of the official commentariat—this book was published in 1973, and the flavour changes, but the attitude remains to this day.

Top of Page
image   Review of Looks like a rewritten classic   W Warren Wagar: A Short History of the Future

Not worth reading, 16 Jun 2011

This book (which purports to be in the same vein as Wells and Stapledon) has nothing original—politics, sociology, science, historical views, jargon, were all yawn-inducingly dull when written (1992). Just a feeble attempt which involves projecting the author's false, wrong, ill-thought out, conventional, badly written 'ideas'—permute several from these—into the future. Attempts are made to humanise it with some letters and documents and sex etc from the future. No analytical process. Not worth reading.

(I don't want to give the wrong idea here. Swathes of the book are updated and probably copied or borrowed from Olaf Stapledon—who for example thought a sort of essence of humanity—DNA??—might be spread through the universe. Read Stapledon, not this.)

Top of Page
image   Review of Brave attempt at a difficult subject   Kingsley Amis: The Alteration (1976)

An interesting failure. Or possibly not interesting, come to think of it. 5 May 2011

Amis had the good fortune to become famous with his first novel, Lucky Jim, which was based loosely on immediately post-war Britain—Leicester University, he said, though David Lodge thought Amis might have been discreetly shifting attention from Swansea—and written in a Wodehouse style. Amis lectured in Wales on Eng Lit; he seems to have been unimpressed by the average student. He also—I believe—wanted to be part of serious literature. He had the sense to realise that science was important, and hence tended to include bits of it, despite the fact that the British public school ethos was anti-science. I suspect this accounts for his interest in science fiction, but the sort without much science.

This book seems to have been prompted by an imitative impulse—influenced by Keith Roberts' 'Pavane', and Philip K. Dick's 'The Man in the High Castle', and perhaps '1984'. The 'alternative reality' novel. Amis did not attempt the trick of inserting a second 'alternative reality', the present-day world or some other, within his book.

The obvious 'alternative reality' is a different Second World War, of course because of the immense weight of propaganda attached. Dicks tried this. The First World War was arguably more important, but fewer people would be interested. Amis however picks on the Reformation, as did Roberts.

I think it's fair to say his treatment is entirely conventional. The conventions being: Catholicism is rather cunning and brutal, recognises no animal rights, doesn't like contraception as embodied in Pope such-and-such's Encyclical, emphasises sin, penitence and the soul; that sort of thing, including a vocabulary—Devotional, Hail Mary, Prie Dieu, Observator Romanus—the newspaper, references such as the handkerchief of St Veronica, etc. However, the seamy side of entrenched Catholicism—sales of indulgences, support for some genocides, for example—isn't in here. Another significant fact is the supposed Catholic dislike of science—notably, in Amis, electricity, though this aspect isn't very well developed. Amis' north America is simply a version of New England, which seems big to Europeans, but small compared to the actual USA as it is now. There's an anglo-Dutch feel to names, apart from Indians, who for some reason have Spanish or Portuguese names and live under an apartheid-like system. No blacks or of course black slave-trade. Their religion is Presbyterian, led by ArchPresbyters. The Turks are next door. Black Africans are ignored. European countries and regions when described are somewhat archaic—Almaigne, for example, and Muscovy. All of this is simply ascribed to 1976.

Note that church-state separation is assumed almost unconsciously. The Muslim and Jewish and other tribal-related systems are not distinguished by Amis; he seems free of, or ignorant of, Jewish conspiracy ideas.

Part of Amis's technique is to refer to names which the readers can be expected to recognise. The proper names includes stars of art and architecture. There's a flavour of reference books here: Wagner's Kreutz, fair enough. Michelangelo a suicide when his ideas are rejected, fair enough. I'm not sure Turner decorating the Sistine Chapel is entirely plausible. There are Italian architectural technical terms. England's principal cathedral (with a Wren dome) is in Coverley, which I think must be Cowley, near Oxford. Shakespeare (he's not named, cautiously) was for some reason banned or deleted, but lives on in New England's Puritanical theatres.

There's a problem with popular culture; could there be an analogue of Music Hall stars, Chaplin, or the Beatles? Amis avoids this issue. However we do have Ayer (a friend of Amis) as Professor of Dogmatic Theology. And Himmler as a Cardinal, along with Beria (a Jewish Cardinal? From Moscovy??) both one assumes about 70. Foot and Redgrave are two officers responsible for checking on something like anti-Catholic thought crime. (I couldn't find any analogues to Churchill or Hitler or Stalin. Or for that matter to a novelist called Amis).

If the Reformation never happened, Rome would have a more-or-less continuous importance for 2000+ years—only I think Peking could compare. There are some good passages by Amis on this. Incidentally Amis has a Yorkshire Pope, who eats things like 'dropped scones, riddle bread, quince conserve, bloater-paste arundels' (surely griddle bread?), and drinks ale, though I'm bound to say I think Amis' main reason is to save the trouble of including chunks of Latin and descriptions of Italian manners and food. John XXIV isn't only interested in sin and redemption; he's concerned with population growth—80 million predicted for Britain in 2000!

The background to the altered world is a tricky thing to write, since of course it would be largely taken for granted by people living at the time. Obviously Amis wouldn't include made-up manuals or technical stuff. There's a crafts feel which would warm William Morris's heart: real fires; silks, velvets, etc, in purples and scarlets; and for the lesser types corduroy and fustian etc in black, grey, and white. We also seem to have diesel engines, and also clockwork engines. If I've read Amis correctly, the journey to Rome is essentially by viaduct, something of course the Romans mastered. Though we have some tunnels too. The ingenious Americans have a thousand foot long airship (filled with helium). There's an account of one leaving from Salisbury Plain (against the prevailing wind?) We have a vehicle with a 'windguard' and 'swabbers'. There are photograms and some sort of telegram. This is done unobtrusively and quite well, but doesn't, to be honest, sound technically workable.

Amis looks at wealthy-ish people, Abbots and so on; there's no description really of poverty, although there are hints—the equivalent of railway stations swarm with purveyors of food and drink, balladiers and ballads, touts offering 'full range of services'. There's a rather odd passage of a Jewish taxi (or rather 'public') driver kidnapping Hubert with the intention of ransoming him, as had clearly been done before. Since all publics were driven by people with the equivalent of 'the knowledge' it seems implausible he would still be in business. But it's only a story...

... And the story is an adventure story. Hubert is ten. However he has a spectacular singing voice. It's also made clear he has an astounding grasp of the techniques of music and is capable of holding simultaneous melodies in his head and processing them from a singing viewpoint (or soundpoint?) It is decided he is to be operated upon. Most of the story is Hubert trying to work out what 'f**king' means (rhymes with 'ducking'—sorry, Amazon) and feels like, and the reaction of his parents, and his escape and capture. The word 'c*stration', and even 'castrati', I think is never used. Some people consider that music is related to sex (Bertrand Russell thought this) and Amis duly incorporates the view that Hubert might lose his skills.

I have to say it is not very plausible. Amis presents Britain as full of resentful, thoughtful opponents and sceptics, when surely most people would have accepted the stuff, just as they accept the BBC now. If castration were a fairly routine thing, why should anyone make a fuss? As an analogy, most societies have accepted the death penalty; would they agonise over someone thought to deserve it? And there's a very implausible medical twist (literally) near the end. Another tiresome feature is that of course Hubert had to be well below adolescence. Would a boy so young have the presence of mind to whack a Jewish kidnapper, pour brandy on a fire for a surprise ignition, grab keys and escape from ... well, it doesn't matter. I can't help wondering if Amis patterned Hubert on his son Martin; it seems unlikely!

At the very end there's a fifteen-years-later envoi—a concert by Hubert. We learn there has been a great war of Christendom versus the Turks, with I think Bulgaria as the original point of dispute. The Turks got to Brussels, then rather mysteriously retreated. Thirty million Christian deaths. There's a hint it was arranged with the Sultan-Calif despite the policy of detensione.

Who knows how many stars to give..?

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest   James Bruges: The Biochar Debate

Truly odd book, outdated and with only a small percentage dealing with biochar, 28 April 2011

The Biochar Debate: charcoal's potential to reverse climate change and build soil fertility (Schumacher Briefings: No 16).

I give this two stars only because it at least mentions 'biochar' and gives some idea of its possibilities. But the book is odd—written by an architect who is clearly light on agriculture, science, and politics. Bruges practised architecture in Sudan and India—no details given—and this seems to have sparked an interest in pre-industrial life.

Much of the book simply quotes alleged experts. This was published in 2009, and yet the acceptance of the 'global warming' hypothesis is unsullied by any recognition that the science had been corroded by funding. The 'carbon credits' scam—it's an anti-Europe/USA measure; we are supposed to cut back output, while China—which now is said to make as much CO2—just sits there. Ditto with India.

There's a perfectly legitimate, but out-of-place, passage on paper money and banks which intrudes oddly. Bruges professes to think that democracy is some sort of guarantee that every person in the world has some sort of equality.

Anyway—what is 'biochar'? People who studied chemistry know about 'activated charcoal'—the microscopic holes allow it to adsorb large amounts of gases, so it can be used as a deodoriser and in gas masks and even to remove tiny traces of air to give a better vacuum. This physical property allows it to soak up liquids, too.

Charcoal can be made from plant matter by heating it in the absence of air; hydrocarbons and other materials (including water vapour) are given off, which are inflammable. (Wood gas and coal gas are or were made like this). With clever design the gases can be used to help the heating process. A fraction of the weight of the original vegetation ends as charcoal. Bruges says it should then be pulverised. This means what might have been burnt into carbon dioxide remains as carbon. Bruges states that 'carbon dioxide is sequestered', but he means 'carbon is sequestered'—i.e. storable and taken out of circulation.

So far, so good. He also states that such biochar—the name presumably is selected to sound 'greener' than charcoal—if put underground, enhances soil fertility. He's vague as to why: it absorbs water, and thus keeps soil damp—desirable in arid areas. It also soaks up fertiliser residue, which otherwise gets washed away. And it must contain residual elements from the plant, such as phosphorus. Unfortunately this isn't developed properly. Surely larger chunks would be OK? After all soil contains rocks and stones; it doesn't have to be homogeneous, and maybe it would be less prone to blowing away. As to practice—could the Sahara be greened by digging biochar in, starting at the edges or other wooded parts? Or Australia? What happens after many years—surely there must be a point where there's too much charcoal? Can it be made industrially, and if so, would that be more efficient than small farmers in India doing it themselves?

I'm afraid this book is suggestive rather than definitive.

Top of Page
Review of futurology attempt   Peter Large: The Micro Revolution

No wonder they invented Powerpoint, 23 April 2011

This (published 1980) was not an important book. I read this just to see how wrong a journalist's predictions turned out to be, about computing and related issues—mobile phones, for example. In fact, the principal lesson is something rather different.

As is perhaps to be expected, this book didn't predict sat navs, or Internet, or such activities as buying and selling on eBay and Amazon. It has material on credit cards, and the possible replacement of money (of course it's not a third world book!); on large computers and such things as bar codes and stock control of supermarkets, and booking systems for airlines; and library records; and medical records. These applications were of course widely trumpeted at the time. So were 'expert systems'—reading this thirty-year-old material, one has to wonder whether 'expert systems' were somewhat discouraged or sabotaged by lawyers, medicos, teachers, and so on.

Large did not predict small hard disks, huge RAM, USBs, CCD cameras, flat screens. Or perhaps he did—but the wording doesn't make this clear. He describes something like a mobile phone, very likely taking the idea from another source, but didn't predict a network—so the phone goes to a computer somewhere. He mentions print-on-demand, but clearly doesn't really quite believe it.

Here's a sentence from Large: 'Motorola, the American microelectronics company whose pocket phone had successful street trials in Washington and Baltimore in 1979, say that the problem is solvable; already, they point out, the size of radio channel has been reduced four times.'

The author was (is?) a Guardian journalist—the Guardian being a technology-free exponent of 'politically correct' ideology. Probably they didn't care about technical issues, and just shoved a few pages in to seem up to date. (NB there's nothing about the displacement of typesetters by computers—which resulted in those wooden 'formes' for type becoming used as decorative objects). Certainly the technology is treated in an almost childish way. For example, semiconductors, obtainable from silicon by adding other materials, clearly are an important part of the drama. So is the technology for transmitting digital data. So is the technology of rockets and satellites. So is the difference between a program and its data. So is standardisation. But such things are treated utterly superficially. So for that matter is the business side. There's an account of silicon and its use in chips—and they must have been made in quantities tiny by today's standards. Large says that a part of California ('Silicon Valley' or 'Gulch' of course) made a high percentage of chips—and yet the business was unstable. He produces no evidence. One is suddenly struck by the thought it may not have been true. There's some material on privacy. And some on absurd mistakes attributed to computers. And some on computer crime. There's also material on war, which of course from all Guardian readers' viewpoint is something that happens somewhere else.

Some of the material is agonisingly silly: for example a pattern recognition system is (supposedly) based on the way babies learn. A chess program had 'rules fed in' from an expert. I don't think Large had much of a clue how computers work. The 'knowledge economy' idea is wheeled out, and yet clearly goods and services are needed and likely to remain, however much communication there is by 'portable computers'.

What really stands out about this book is the sheer difficulty of explaining, in written language, things which are more easily grasped by seeing and handling. Especially if the author doesn't understand them. Although, obviously, if they don't yet exist, it would be difficult to produce a photo of a typical now-familiar work station, with hardware, screen, display, and various hardware things in a typically rather chaotic environment, with post-it notes and blank DVDs. Large's accounts, which often seem taken from publicity material and press releases, is full of rather indigestible accounts with information which may, or may not, be relevant. But surely drawings, comparisons with everyday things, sketchy descriptions, are better than prose stuffed with pointless detail. There was an updated, 1984 version—I'd guess the main difference is the IBM PC.

Top of Page
image   Review of Educational limitations   Brian Pullan: A History of the University of Manchester, 1973-90

The Irresponsible Cowardice of Being—Manchester University, 19 April ?

Moved Pullan on Manchester University history to save space!

Top of Page
  Review of Philosophy   Patrick Horace Nowell-Smith: Ethics

Batch-produced nothingness by a sexual predator, 11 April 2011

'Ethics' is a difficult subject, if it's taken seriously. But this book (1954) has always struck me as a routinised piece of hackwork, probably aimed at establishing a reputation. And it succeeded. The Second World War's effects included a vast expansion of 'education', along with struggles for new subjects and positions within them—in philosophy, the A J Ayer types. Nowell Smith (the hyphen was a bit of embellishment to impress people) became a professor at Leicester for a number of years. (That university formed the substrate of the comic novel 'Lucky Jim', which however predated Nowell Smith's professorship—what an addition he would have made!) Nowell Smith held parties, and in the phrase of the time 'got a girl into trouble every term'. He seems to have had a prematurely-white-haired charm. Perhaps there's a club of these women, now elderly, that has occasional meetings? Who knows....

Top of Page
image   Review of Monarchy   Edgar Wilson: Myth of the British Monarchy

A bright torch (or 'flashlight') in a dusty neglected room, 5 Mar 2011

Wilson was a Professor at Manchester Metropolitan University who died in the late 1990s. The book has a long bibliography and newspaper-article-ography of about 450 titles, many somewhat marginal, as is to be expected in a taboo topic. The index is reasonably good, though ideas and emotions suggested by the contents aren't easy to rediscover.

Reasonably enough, in view of the title there's not much on other countries (e.g. nothing on Italy's referendum which abolished their monarchy; nothing on the Japanese post-WW2 Royal Wedding; nothing on Arabian 'royal families'). We do have people like the Hanovers, Tom Paine, Thackeray, 19th century republicans; and generally a feeling that the monarchy is unique to Britain. As might be expected there's little factual stuff on such matters as the actual amounts of money and assets they have. There's not much on (as examples) the 1953 Coronation Coach (genuine?), or whether the crown actually belonged to Edward the Confessor, or how the Church of England connects with the 'Crown', or whether William of Orange was as wonderful as Macaulay thought.

Wilson's methodology is mostly sociological-style looks at attitudes, some of the material being related more to the bulk of the population (is there a caste system?; suppressed class health differences...) and their attitudes (e.g. does the Royal Family really work hard? Are they a tourist attraction? Do their visits increase overseas trade?). And he quotes from studies on social mobility, deciding it's more or less a myth, though there has been a 'need for low caste brain-labour' which gave that impression.

The upper classes and their various advisers and lackeys naturally enough appear in the book, often disconcertingly: Sir R C Petrie, 1933, said dictatorship is probably the only effective method of repairing the evil wrought by democratic administration. And Signor Mussolini is the greatest figure of the 20th century. The present 'self-imposed silence of the media about dubious royal affairs is encouraged by the knowledge that unwanted disclosures will be suppressed with all the resources at the disposal of the state.' Support for the monarchy is somewhat of a rich persons' thing: the monarchy is 'ultimately subservient to them'. Page 31 for example says there are 16,000 racehorse owners who spend £110 million per annum on training.

Some of the material is historical, though not much, and these are mostly British historians—no anti-monarchical Americans. Lord Blake is about the only pro-monarchy historian I could find here.

There are many picturesque asides such as: First World War changing of monarchical names from the German/ Diana Spencer descended from a 'whore'/ Hanovers a small group of German mercenaries, and not British/ Modern Greek monarchy mentioned mainly to counter the argument that Carlos of Spain saved democracy in Spain/ Loony members of Bowes-Lyons locked away and death certificates faked, something upper class families did on doctors' advice/ It 'became apparent that Princess Elizabeth would never progress beyond the simplest elements of mathematics'/ Edward VIII's flirtation with Hitler, but 'the first monarch.. to express sympathy..was forced to abdicate before he was crowned.'/ George V the Queen's father a notorious dunce, bottom of his class etc—Keir Hardie spoke out/ '.. there are far more direct descendants of James I than Elizabeth II. .. George I was 58th in line of succession..'/ Dilke's career was damaged or destroyed by Victoria, because Dilke said she 'defies an Act of Parliament, and robs the country of £100,000 a year'/ Polls on popularity are probably misleading/ 25: Duke of Westminster failed to pass map-reading test.

Wilson didn't really devise a satisfactory layout for his book. We have:
TEN PETTY MYTHS [Popularity/ Hard Work/ Business/ Tradition/ Morality/ Commonwealth/ Continuity/ Impartiality/ Powerlessness/ Liberty: the practice]

then PROFOUND MYTHS AND RATIONALITY [Non-rational views of Monarchy/ Irrationalism/ Materialism/ ..]

then THREE PROFOUND MYTHS [The Monarchy Myth/ Religion/ Psychology]

and there's also the monarchy regarded from the point of view of 'ten deadly sins'—sloth etc.

Here's a specimen of Wilson's thoroughness: 'After a state visit by the Queen to Brazil in 1968, exports to Brazil fell and imports increased in the months following the royal visit. ... Similar trends were recorded after tours by Prince Philip of New York in 1960, and again of the U.S.A. in 1966-7 ... a closer and more extensive examination of the effect of official royal visits overseas on Britain's trade shows that the picture is even worse than he supposed. The effects of royal visits should be assessed against a universal and general trend towards greater volume and dollar value of trade. ... a simple and unbiased look at official trade figures, together with a record of royal visits for the fourteen year period from 1971 to 1984, shows that royal visits are more likely than not to be counter-productive in one or more of four different ways. ....' [followed by an awful lot more info].

Although this book is now more than twenty years old (and has nothing much on e.g. secretly-enforced mass immigration, Islam, Zionists, the EU, the US, China...) it's very good as a look at the British Monarchy, having something of the effect of a bright torch showing up the contents of a dusty and neglected room.
CODA: Two Elizabeths

Reforming the Catholic Church was one of the many huge changes in Elizabeth I's time. A discredited organisation was fleeced—and the comparison with a parasitic group today is fairly obvious. I've never seen a good account of what really happened—historians are so useless—but I suspect it affected every aspect of British life; it's been heftily censored, like most serious events. Henry VIII introduced interest into the economic system, I believe without paper money—another thing nobody discusses—so it's possible the seeds of downfall were starting to sprout. There was also gunpowder and cannon; I suspect sources of both sulphur and potassium nitrate had been located. And the monarchy became unified for the first time, the Earls being progressively cut down from their Feudal significance—Edward de Vere being a perfect example. There was an incredible expansion, not just of overseas empires—Spain, Portugal, Britain, Holland—and Russia's land empire—but mentally, as the world was charted, China discovered through Marco Polo's faked book, ancient history rediscovered (or invented), Galileo doing his thing, and the Bible finally being translated—though as one of our contributors shows, this was used more for obfuscation by the new Church of England than for enlightenment.

The present Elizabeth ... one has to wonder if she had any idea what was happening. The paper money institutions were by now embedded into everything nominally British. She was a mouthpiece, a bit like a vicar, starting with her 14-year-old reading out of what's now seen to be rubbish relating to the destruction of Europe. Incidentally, perhaps it's worth pointing out how much the world owes to Germany. It's the only country which managed to respect skill, rather than just money, and keep its industrial productivity high—without it I'm not sure Russia could ever have recovered from the Jewish mass murders, and the whole of Europe might have declined far more than it did. Elizabeth was a traitor not just to us, but her whole family of royals—no comment on the Tsar's murder, or the devastation of such aristocratic Germans who couldn't get away. Everything important about royalty is now secret: at one time, on death, the monarch's will was published; now, the whole wretched business is more-or-less secret, as are all the assets supposedly held by her. Every now and then some money-grabbing scandal leaks out, such as the ridiculous 'windfarm' scam in Cameron's family. But because of the progress in electronic communications, everything is (very arguably) infinitely more opaque than in the Elizabethan era: then, anyone could see who owned a forest, or University land, or buildings, or church land; now, it's impossible to be sure of ownership. And media control does its worst to restrict information. No wonder the 2012 'Diamond Jewbilee' has been celebrated tepidly.
This book was published by Journeyman Press, with an organisation called 'Republic', based in Ferme Park Road, London N8. Journeyman appears to be related to Journeyman Pictures, which employs or employed John Pilger.

It's fascinating to speculate on the attitude of the Jews to the Royal Family. On the one hand, the Queen has behaved impeccably, never commenting on Jewish frauds and corruption, and displaying an almost imbecilic level of comment on her supposed realms. In that sense, Jews and Freemasons and what have you might be expected to pretend to worship the Monarchy. But they might want to take over, or at least be shown to have some adverse attitudes; after all, the closely-related Russian royal family might need to be kept down and out. - RW 2020-01-26



97 Ferme Park Road N8 has been sold several times since Wilson was published; I couldn't resist looking it up. At prices higher than must have seemed possible.
Eleven Years later: Sparked by the death of Prince Philip (husband of Elizabeth II) in April 2021.

My glossy paperback (cover design shows Fluck & Law puppets caricaturing the royal family still looks new; it's now almost 30 years old - copyright 1989 by Edgar Wilson, by Journeyman Press and Republic. First edition, published 1989. Journeyman Press is given the address of 97 Ferme Park Road in London. (See the photo; the house has been sold several times since).

Journeyman published or publishes John Pilger; in fact 'Journeyman' seems to be a specialised word applied to Australian labour. Journeyman presumably has more influence in its TV. Pilger lived or lives in north London; 'Republic' lists addresses in Eltham, Amersham, and Witham. It's a depressing thought that Jews and crypto-Jews are dotted about in London, rather like brothels in private houses as portrayed by Harold Pinter (Jewish playwright and script writer).

My copy has a clipping tucked inside it, advertising Monarchy: The Nation Decides, a 'massive debate' in Birmingham's NEC (National Exhibition Centre), something to do with Steve Clark, 'controller of factual programmes for Carlton Television.' Planned for 4-10 January, 1997. An audience of 3000, with politicians and celebrities, introduced by Roger Cook, to be followed by phone-ins from the public, would be summarised in a giant map with lights. 14,000 phone lines which can answer 1,000 calls a second were quoted. With 100 suppliers of 'drinks and sandwiches' and a production team of 50, and 12 cameras in the NEC, we have a sort of combination of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and Big Brother. I leave it to the curious to investigate.

Since my 2011 look at this book, along with many millions of people, I have more grasp of the underlying history and psychology of the forces at work, including the linguistics of vagueness and the manufacture of rules to fix status. The surname 'Wilson' is itself a red flag. The astonishing infiltration by Jews, and their possibly even greater influence on non-Jews in blanketing out virtually all understanding, is remarkable. The mental readjustment against the hail of presumptive assertions and long-term plots slowly ushers in new prospects as world wars, great movements of people, vast numbers of deaths, rearrange themselves into patterns, and we wonder at and mourn opportunities lost in the past by our ancestors and their misunderstandings.
      I've just watched some TV after the death of the Duke of Edinburgh—real name involving Saxe Coburg Gotha or Gluckstein Sonderberg or Battenberg or other Germanic-sounding names, mostly suppressed since 'we' had been fighting 'Germany', or more modernly, Jews in the shadows had commanded anti-white war. Amid the storyline—and there are several, deployed for different purposes, in prepared obituaries and the like; thus Philip's mother is said to have set up an order of some sort of Greek Orthodox nuns; but she was also stated to have been in an insane asylum—it was touching to see the obsequiousness of a black C of E intruder, a black race activist, a Jewish-descended Archbishop, various more-or-less unnecessary females, David Attenborough, private secretaries, saying that the Duke was his own man, a natural leader, very intelligent, must have had a very difficult time (waiting to be moved by the family), led the process of exposing the monarchy to outside observers more than had been the case in earlier times, invented carriage-driving as a sport (did he watch 'Stagecoach' at an impressionable time?) and so on.
      A conspicuously missing group of interviewees were the many eastern European, Russian, and others, related to Victoria, whose stories of Anarchists, Communists, Jews and cover stories dating back centuries would not be welcomed by media controllers. Fascinating to speculate on the Jewish international arrangement of its own nation, still almost completely obscure. If the monarchy goes, one has to wonder if Jews will be spotlit, as the shadowing multitude of royals and their hangers-on clears away. Circumcisions are an interesting possibility. So are synagogues: the Duke attended the 'Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue in the City of London in 1951, were told, quoting from a 1959 book by D Laird. (The chapter's notes refer quite well to the bibliography. With archive.org I expect many of these books are now online). So is their influence on education; nothing new in that, of course: the whole Christian tradition is Jewish, with a few twists. Incidentally, Philip expressed doubts about education, though of course without enquiring further.

Meanwhile, some observations which I was too lazy to include before.

Page 124 (chapter called RELIGION): when the Archbishop of Canterbury [Geoffrey Fisher] anointed [more or less secret ceremony, the Queen being bare breasted] the Queen, saying: 'and as Solomon was anointed King by Zadock the priest, and Nathan the prophet, so be though anointed, blessed, and consecrated over the peoples' ... She showed her submission before the archbishop as God's agent ... the constitution, by the Act of Settlement 1701, requires that 'whosoever shall hereafter come into the possession of the Crown shall joyn in communion with the Church of England as by law established.'

The connection between widespread belief in God and earthly power is illustrated by Charles in Papua New Guinea in 1975, addressing the inhabitants 'who had been in dispute with an American mining company': Everyone must obey the State authorities, for no authority exists without God's permission, and the existing authorities have been put there by God. Whoever opposes the existing authority, opposes what God has ordered, and everyone who does so brings judgment upon himself. (Quoted from the New Statesman, Jewish publication, in 1977. Not an argument likely to impress disbelievers in God, or sceptics of the possibility of 'opposing what God has ordered'. But essentially part of the invention of the C of E.

The chapter on Powerlessness says that, in emergency, the monarch has great power, which must mean the coterie of advisors. We do have examples, which of course are usually unmentioned, because such interventions are part of some Jewish plan. Harold Nicolson is quoted on South Africa, which was brought into WW2 under Smuts' leadership, when Herzog wanted a general election on entry to the war. But the Governor General of South Africa, the King's representative, refused a dissolution. Wilson gives a few more examples, but not in any clear sense, since, of course, he can't allow himself to talk of the supremacy of Jews.

The chapter Political Postscript is based around Conservatives vs the Labour Party, not perceiving that both are controlled opposition, which will never discuss the most serious issues, notably the private control of money by Jews, and the Jewish policy of trying to eliminate whites by race mixing. Wilson takes the usual line here: he thinks 'racism' is a bad thing, and wants 'race relations' to allow unlimited immigration, without ever noticing that the reason for race being a problem at all is the result of Jews.
      The newspaper and TV messages are still widely accepted in Britain, as far as it's possible to judge. Some towns consider they are naturally Labour, without perceiving that Labour is a Jewish-organised party. There's an eerie fascination in the pseudo-controversies provided by the media. Wilson says nothing systematic about nationalism—the word itself is not even indexed—but the interest in the BNP showed public interest, though in a naive form, supporting Churchill and WW2, and not mentioning Jews. Probably it was yet more controlled opposition.

Wilson's book is of some interest, putting itself out there as a full-blooded crit of Britain's monarchy, pulling no punches. But the idea of the monarchy as a sort of umbrella hiding Jews, a big absorbent cushion of nothingness, isn't present.

I'm struck by the slow updating of people's minds—as correctly assumed by Jewish planners and their collaborators. H. G. Wells is quoted, from Travels of a Republican... a Penguin book of 1939: Englishmen like myself, who follow the high republican and intensely English tradition of Cromwell, Milton, George Washington and so forth..., showing his acceptance of Jewish mythology, as, of course, most people did. By far the most important Jewish influences are in wars, with WW1 and WW2 as summits of achievements, with vast number of casualties and vast transfers of wealth ownership. I wonder if this will ever become widely known? It has to be doubted, in view of the longevity of false beliefs.

As regards Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh—'they' seem to have settled on 'Consort' of Queen Elizabeth—with fulsome praise of his real or supposed attributes. Was he really a 'war hero'? He wrote more than a dozen books; but these are surprisingly obscure, not having been given Jewish booming. I have no idea why this is; it's possible he may have spoken out on the way the world is run, perhaps even addressing Jewish issues, given inside information, but without the elaborate pseudo-academic padding needed to muffle facts. He may have spent his life surrounded by flunkeys and phonies who invent protocols to pretend to deal with unanticipated eventualities.
      Elizabeth in a sense never put a foot wrong: she did whatever was asked of her. She posed as a motor mechanic in WW2. She ignored massive atrocities in post-war Germany, in the USSR, in China. She knighted (i.e. gave the title 'Sir') to someone who arranged massive population movements in Vietnam. She knighted General Schwarzenegger (I think) for killing Iraqis. She knighted Robert Mugabe. She did nothing to stop immigration. She seems to have nothing useful about the entire 'Commonwealth', the name itself being an echo of earlier absurdities. She said and did nothing about 'COVID'.
      Probably the real powers regarded her as cheap at the price for wholesale truthbending. The collaborator types, such as high-level freemasons, must have accepted it as traditional, or for the more insightful as absurdity. The royal family now and in future is directionless and probably worthless; I doubt if it figures in future Jewish plans. I can't help wondering if Meghan and Harry-the-bastard are the advanced guard of subversion of the monarchy, more pretenders, a greatly-used Jewish technique.


'Prince Philip' - the following is extracted from the website Christians for Truth, which I hope is mostly correct, apart from the 'Holocaust' assumption. (from here. I hadn't realised what a fool Philip was. Or maybe he was just an uneducated simpleton reading out a script; who knows?

Buckingham Palace announced his death on Friday. Philip, who had been married to Queen Elizabeth II for 74 years, since five years before she ascended to the throne, had been in declining health for some time.

Also known as the Duke of Edinburgh, Philip’s support for Jewish and pro-Israel causes ran deep. His mother, Princess Alice of Greece, sheltered a Jewish family during the Holocaust and is recognized as one of fewer than 30,000 “righteous among the nations” by Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust museum.

Philip’s four sisters each married German nobles, at least three of whom became Nazis. But Philip, educated in Britain, joined the allied war effort. As an adult, he showed little patience for Nazi collaborators; he was instrumental in making a pariah of his wife’s uncle Edward, who after abdicating the throne dallied with Nazi Germany.

Philip over the years spoke multiple times at Jewish and pro-Israel events.

Philip, who had a passion for environmental preservation, spoke multiple times at Jewish National Fund events and lent his royal sponsorship to other Jewish events. He came under attack in the 1960s for speaking to pro-Israel groups, and, famously impervious to criticism, ignored the attacks.

In 1994, Philip was the first British royal to visit Israel, when he accepted Yad Vashem’s recognition of his mother and visited her burial site at the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.

At Yad Vashem, Philip planted a maple tree in memory of his mother, who was married to Prince Andrew of Greece and helped shelter three members of the family of a late Greek-Jewish politician in her palace in Athens. The Gestapo was suspicious of Alice, even questioning her, but the princess, who was deaf, pretended not to understand their questions. Alice later became a nun.

“The Holocaust was the most horrific event in all Jewish history, and it will remain in the memory of all future generations,” Philip said at the time. “It is, therefore, a very generous gesture that also remembered here are the many millions of non-Jews, like my mother, who shared in your pain and anguish and did what they could in small ways to alleviate the horror.” The 1994 visit broke with what was then an unofficial but nonetheless binding ban on royals traveling to Israel, which had been enforced following violence by Zionist fighters against British targets in the years that predated the establishment of the State of Israel in what had been before 1948 the British Mandate over Palestine.

For all its trappings, Philip’s 1994 visit was in a personal capacity. The Royal House ended its policy on official visits to Israel in 2018, when Prince William, Prince Philip’s grandson, visited Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan.

Philip’s retirement from public life in 2017 triggered an outpouring of plaudits for a life well-lived from Jewish groups and leaders.

Those groups expressed grief upon his death Friday. Philip’s life “was spent in public service, from his active duty in the Navy during World War II to the tens of thousands of engagements which he carried out over six and a half decades of royal duties,” the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Marie van der Zyl, wrote in a statement.

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin joined dozens of other heads of state who expressed their sympathies with the Royal House. Rivlin used the traditional Jewish phrase when speaking about a deceased person, ending his tweet about Philip with “May his memory be a blessing.”


The so-called World Wildlife Fund looks something like the 19th century highlands of Scotland, depopulated to allow shooting holidays, on a vast scale:

The founding networks of the Bilderberg Group in 1954 were the same founding networks of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961, six years later.

This WWF global managerial version of environmentalism is a territorial empire—of and by the multinational corporate managers, the bankers, the military elites, the global media, select imperialist Dutch/British royalty (both frustrated in a ‘post-colonial era’), and even Third World dictators getting a supporting role...

In 1961, the WWF was founded as the world’s first globally expansive private land trust. By 2012, it is now the world’s largest of such globally private land trusts. By 1995, it had some kind of jurisdiction over 10% of the land surface of the planet.

It employs its wealth and power with the strategy of “spatial depopulation” policies by pushing native peoples and others off the land “in the name of the environment.” Is that the “real reason”? The WWF is really not protecting the environment at all and only making money by two factors that the film discusses: by certification that encourages cash crop plantations that destroy the environment by clear-cutting (laundered as more palatable to global consumers if “the Panda” supports it), and the cash crop of eco-tourism in its “protection zones”. (A third source of money that the film fails to discuss is the massive wealth from well documented WWF carbon credits fraud in South America—though that is another story.)”.

RW 2021


Top of Page
image   Review of Green media   David Bellamy: Jolly Green Giant

Beware of TV Pop Celebrities!, 23 Feb 2011

Beware of TV Pop Celebrities!

I'm not very keen on Bellamy's book. It has a certain amount of personal history but not much on the media—which after all was his world for some time.

[1] This book is littered with typos, or at least has several dozen—suggesting he's something like near-illiterate—how can any self-respecting person publish an 'autobiography' containing belladona, troushea, Tolkein, Kund for Kundt, Scarfell, connurbations, Arduvedic, council for counsel, Kit Peddlar, the 'Quekett Microsope Club'. A paper in Nature supposedly on thermodynamics with 'infers' in place of 'implies'.

[2] He also seems to have little overall grasp of arithmetic. He lauds Italy for having, he says, largely adopted a one-child policy; in a world with populations exploding every year by (e.g.) 4 million just in Nigeria, Bellamy is clearly out of it in some sense.

[3] He has little grasp of technology and productivity in general. He is aware (for example) there may be an oil shortage, but doesn't seem able to factor that in or admit consequences.

[4] He also has little grasp of world events, at least outside bits of the academic world and bits of the official publicity world. (BBC and ITV credits in the book are roughly equal; first appearance dated 1970). Bellamy says (for example) says nothing on ecocide in Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia, which he certainly should have known about; or on mass killings in Indonesia. Chomsky's comment on 20 mile valleys in Korea being scooped out get no mention. Bellamy was therefore an establishment approved house radical. But ... see later.

[5] He's slightly reminiscent of Patrick Moore; the BBC love tame scientists who are naive politically—they fit in perfectly with the BBC world-view. In this book (2002) Bellamy is a fully paid-up CO2 and 'global warming' believer. However, for reasons obviously not revealed here, he seems to have dropped that position. It's important to realise he is almost unique in TV history—the BBC has lied in all its existence, on everything from the 'Holocaust' and Vietnam War to Iraq, 9/11, and Islamic sex habits. However, not one single person has ever resigned or been sacked—or at any rate not publically, or not yet. So Bellamy is almost alone in this.

[6] The 'green' movements he's been in are, of course, largely phoney. The 'carbon tax' fraud is one. Their silence on population is of course another. Rather oddly he attributes the 'population scare' to Ehrlich (1971), seeming not to have heard of Taylor's Biological Time Bomb or both Ehrlichses' Population Bomb. Or even Malthus. However (p 257—but this book is not indexed) in 1974 he joined 'Population Concern' which seems to have changed its name a few times. He is entirely unaware of the secret forces to promote huge immigration into Europe and the USA. The motive appears to be to replace whites—though Bellamy naturally has no idea about this. I expect he'd say it's ray-shist.

.... Anyway. Beware of TV names! Remember their programmes are commissioned, scripted, checked, edited—nothing unwanted will emerge.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest   Nick Griffin Questions Who the Mind-Benders are. The people who rule Britain through control of the mass media

Formidable list of names, though not so good on analysis, 4 Feb 2011

I hadn't known John Pilger is a Jew, assuming the research has been done properly. Nor Anita Roddick. Nigella Lawson. I was aware high ranking BBC people (for example Alan Yentob) believe they are Jews. This booklet is a long list of Jews in the media; largely in Britain, but also the USA. (There's little about the rest of the world, apart from Murdoch). The list is broken down by media type (TV, radio, film, newspaper, book publishing. It's detailed. There are some problems: [1] Obviously with takeovers etc such lists become outdated—the Telegraph for example is no longer run by Conrad Black (one is told!) [2] It's unclear to me how the BBC is so entirely controlled, and without the remotest indication of unbias. How is that possible? [3] There's no proportion—these industries or quasi-industries are large, and what's ideally needed is some estimate of power; but of course this isn't easy. [4] When this was written, Internet was just starting up as a mass influence, and it needs really more consideration.

However, a useful booklet. It is ONLINE HERE: MIND-BENDERS.PDF. IT'S ABOUT 40 PAGES; I THINK IT WAS ON CHRISTOGENEA.NET and/or on BALDER.ORG. Clink the link to load it (and save it).

“WRITTEN IN 1997, PARTIALLY UPDATED 2002, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE 9/11 AND JEWISH WARS, US POLITICS, THE 'BIG BROTHER' STYLE OF TV, REACTIONS TO INTERNET INCLUDING FREE REPORTING OF CENSORED TOPICS and the JEWISH COUNTER-ACTIONS.


Top of Page
image   Review of Media US entertainment   Gilbert Shelton: Freak Brothers Omnibus

Perverted, subverted, but not alerted: tragi-comic loss of USA, 28 Nov 2010

More than 600 pages, about a third of them in colour. The whole enterprise is a bit like a printed version of Frank Zappa, including the early struggles with equipment, and uneasy relation with officialdom. The book's end flaps (helpful as bookmarks) reveal material about Gilbert Shelton, who is shown in a photo aged, I assume, about 70. His career—the account includes a few obligatory hippie-esque misprints—includes the printing/publication aspect, people like R Crumb, and prosecutions, which had a long-term damaging effect including in England. The whole Furry Freaks thing was a group effort—contributors in addition to Shelton's storyboarding were Dave Sheridan (died 1982) who overlapped with the strangely-haired Paul Mavrides (joined 1978). But many others are credited with text and storylines.

Judging by a couple of drawings, Shelton worked at a sloping drawing board, the scale not being very far off 1:1, seated on a swivel high chair, with an angle variable lamp and lots of tins of beer. His caricatures are very skilful, not in the Gerald Scarfe style of extreme stretchings and deformations, but a realistic style which could be a living person (apart from noses). Thus the Colonel Cornbelt character looks extremely arrogant; and the woman librarian outraged by a 'f*ck books' enquiry is tweedily terrifying. All the druggie types look horrible, typically with long bent noses covered in pock marks, and sparse unkempt hair, and eyes pointing in different directions.

Shelton may have been trained as an architectural draughtsman; this is a guess of mine, based on several drawings of non-existent buildings, with loving detail suggesting many hours taking caffeine pills at his drawing-board. There are also what look like technical drawings; and mentions of Victorian houses—it's amazing how a long-lived widow gave her name worldwide. Shelton clearly has an interest in formal art—van Gogh, Leonardo, absurd modern art and absurd art gallery people, all put in appearances. He also has an interest in typefaces—everyone knows about 'fonts' now, but it's obvious Shelton studied and used them carefully, including marijuana-leaf lettering and computer-style mock metallic letters with reflections.

The comic cartoons (single page, and multiple pages, and a few strips at the bottom, usually of Fat Freddy's cat) make up the artist's life work. They're dated from about 1970 to about 2000—the latest I found was 2006. (Some have the date in tiny lettering; there's a slight suggestion they are slightly in sequence). With about forty years to choose from, we can see some social changes: suggestions of the 'Whole Earth Catalog' —Phineas in particular comes up with strange inventions; contraceptive pills; water beds; poppers—amyl nitrite as used widely by 'gays', though Shelton doesn't have much on this aspect of 'social history'; permaculture (the proposed Rip Off Press building is topped by an eco-garden); head shops; Ritalin (for schoolchildren) makes an entrance. Microwave ovens; 'Linda Lovejuice'; a mythical cartoon-drawing computer dated from early home PCs; right through to video cameras, hot air ballooning, and even an IKEA catalogue.

Erich Fromm (I think) said in effect that Mickey Mouse cartoons always have the same plot—a little person outsmarts a big person. There's something of this in Shelton. The three heroes have a Peter Pan quality. Phineas Freakears (black curly hair), Fat Freddy Freekowtski (yellowish hair combined with moustache), and Freewheeling Franklin (Texan hat)—each with easily-identifiable nose—are obviously meant as varied stock figures, as in US TV.

The plots hinge somewhat on drugs—sometimes referred to by trade name, in my view a worrying sign. There are lots of puns on grass. Even heroin is in there. It's disappointing that the subject couldn't have been handled differently; but there it is. Not just drugs—unemployment lines, rent arrears, unpaid utility bills loom large enough as plot pivots. Women are mostly sex objects, or just objects—though depressingly this may just reflect real life. There's a bit on politics—politicians happy to pass laws for money, provided they're exempt. A Kissinger character complete wirh defective English and matching morality appears. Mostly it's evasionist—posters on draft dodging, for example.

There's a surprising lack of affection or interest in the USA. This is shown as urban, mostly traffic-choked and rundown. Plus the country, shown as remote and full of hicks. And also roads—the Freak Bros cars, and vehicles, are one of the stars of these comics—unlikely old vehicles, and newer ones which break down all the time. The officials and police are all of the Governor Richpigge type. Most of the Freak Bros major adventures are set overseas: in Mexico, Colombia, Holland, Arab countries.

Throughout this rather hefty volume there is, at least for my taste, a saturating feeling of sadness, for an entire generation of Americans deliberately misinformed and undereducated, subverted and diverted, but not alerted, as their birthright was secretly eroded by aliens. It's a tragi-comic work, the life's work of people who possibly weren't even aware of the subtext of their work. Read it, laugh, be amused at the marginal detail, and note the signs of decay.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest   Michael Holroyd: Bernard Shaw

Unexpected source re Stalin and 20th century fake socialism, 25 Nov 2010

I just wanted to mention this book as a perhaps unexpected source on the way 'socialism' became contaminated into a euphemism for totalitarianism. Holroyd takes himself seriously as a biographer; there's plenty of detail. There's abundant material on Beatrice Webb, and 'Sidney Webb'—I think I'm right in saying the real name is never given. There's material on trust money which 'Webb' used to help set up the LSE. It is a fact (see e.g. Belloc) that Britain's theatre land was dominated by Jews, and it seem likely that Shaw's success, when it finally came (he was about 40—according to Max Beerbohm!) was due to promotional activity. Certainly it's hard to judge his plays—plays are in any case hard to read, since the reader of course has to try to bear in mind all the multiple characters' beliefs and outlooks. The fact these plays are hardly ever presented now, and haven't been for decades, suggest that 'booming' was necessary for them. The filmed versions included the lightweight 'My Fair Lady'. Later in life, to quote Russell, Shaw was 'led into rather absurd adulation of Stalin'. (I think 'led to' was correct—in Russell's Autobiography).

Let me add here a remark from the very long Preface to Back to Methuselah, Shaw's play on (I think) Buffon, Darwin, and Bergson, and 'Circumstantial Evolution', that Flinders Petrie had explained why civilizations fall. Irritatingly, Shaw didn't explain what Petrie said. I include it here so it may be caught by a search engine. (This was the Preface that included 'The Diabolical Efficiency of Technical Education' which proved descriptive rather than analytic).

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest   Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

Media lapdog, not Darwin's Rottweiler. Unsatisfactory!, 16 Nov 2010

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

Top of Page

ROBERT M PIRSIG: ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE (1974?)

-I've queried the date because it may be UK only - it certainly sounds a bit late.
-Author presents himself as a technical writer; and sounds the part - perhaps an engineer of some sort. NB: near the start he comments on the terrible quality of technical documentation, written by disengaged people whom he compares with terribly incompetent mechanics who smash up much of the engine of his machine.

There's a mental illness angle, with his youngish son (or is it him?)
And an education angle with liberal ideas presented as though new
The philosophical stuff seems to be pinched from Plato and his characters
Descriptions of travels across US spaces are quite good (although he's not very good on food - he notices alien trees, types of land, types of weather, types of road, types of terrain; but food is standardised US stuff presented as something routinely got at roadhouses and always so much the same it needs no description.


I wrote that in 1995. The book was written post-Vietnam genocide, which of course Jews wanted to hide.

Top of Page
  Review of Archaeology, mythology, and sex   Fiona Pitt-Kethley: The Pan Principle

Mythology, marble, Middle East, middle-aged sex, 28 Oct 2010

Mixed travelogue and sex book, with a unifying thread of research into sites associated with Pan, the animalesque male god. Fiona Pitt-Kethley was about 40 when this book was published; old enough to be 'comfortable with her sexuality', and to give quite a number of presumably frank accounts of her encounters with possibly bemused but definitely excited Greek and other males. Four part book—Greece, Sicily, Turkey and Israel—with about 35 place-names listed in her quest for sites with some Pan reference, which seems to mean, mostly, caves or their remains. She travelled by train, bus, on foot, and in people's cars, apparently on a budget supplied by a somewhat obscure publisher. She must have had a notebook or tape recorder judging by the copious detail on landscapes, museums, neglect of heritage, mutual dislikes of sundry nationalities, travel detail etc. She took time off this book to interview prostitutes in Athens. There's a classical Greek and Roman (and e.g. Italian Renaissance) foundation to her investigations—she seems to have classical languages and indeed there's a bibliography, of ancient-world writings on Pan, and accounts of modern excavations. Plus a few guidebooks. An unusually multiply-faceted book. (To be honest, I'd have liked a map, too).

Top of Page
image   Review of Bertrand Russell   Katharine Tait: My Father, Bertrand Russell

Revealing book by Russell's daughter; but doesn't reveal attractive things, 18 Oct 2010

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

Top of Page
Neville Hodgkinson on AIDS   Review of Neville Hodgkinson   AIDS: the Failure of Contemporary Science
Part of the long war for AIDS truth. 1997 British book, May 24, 2014

Interview with Neville Hodgkinson.

Top of Page
  Review of Medical frauds   Bryan J. Ellison: Why We Will Never Win the War on AIDS

First-rate book: how money and careerist inertia damage medical science, 18 Oct 2010

Very hard-to-get book—not only were the authors (Duesberg the virologist and Ellison, the latter a PhD student) given trouble by publishers, but they also fell out with each other.

There's a whole historical perspective in this book, which is not just about so-called 'AIDS'. Subjects include deficiency diseases (and the way microbiologists believed microbes must cause them), and drug-induced diseases, such as SMON in Japan (found to have been caused by a dangerous drug). Also 'swine flu'—this of course was much before the recent similar phoney 'epidemic'. Plus looks at leprosy, polio, malaria.. And of course virologists, looking for money after the failed 'war on cancer' which Nixon started.

Includes the invention of 'AIDS' and all the curious side-issues: Centers for Disease Control; fake AZT trial, exposed by Lauritsen, a market researcher—the controlled experiments are better in new product trials; costs of blood tests; difficulties of identifying viruses; tests such as the 'Western blot'; alliance between drug companies and 'gays'; suppression of information about homosexual health risks; costs of benefits to 'AIDS' sufferers; odd changes in belief when deaths didn't materialise; researchers thrown out of South East Asia, moving to Africa; 'poppers'—amyl nitrite usually—used as an 'anal relaxant'

Looking back after about 25 years now, many speculations cross any active mind: for example, could this have been part of the anti-white movement by Jews in the USA? Were drugs and despair deliberately pushed to help damage America? Here's a typical list from the book, guaranteeing body chemistry would be abnormal—virtually all 'AIDS' sufferers used drugs: MDA, MDM, THC, PCP, STP, DMT, LDK, WDW, Coke, Window Pane, Blotter, Orange Sunshine, Sweet Pea Sky Blue, Christmas Tree, Mescalin, Dust, Benzedrine, Dexedrine, Dexamyl, Desoxyn, Strychnine, Ionamin, Ritalin, Desbutal, Opitol, Glue, Ethyl Chloride, Nitrous Oxide, Crystel, Methedrine, Clogidal, Nesperan, Tytch, Nestex, Black Beauty, Certyn, Preludin with B-12, Zayl, Quaalude, Tuinal, Nembutal, Seconal, Amytal, Phenobarb, Elavil, Valium, Librium, Darvon, Mandrax, Opium, Stidyl, Halidax, Calcifyn, Optimil, Drayl.

Another issue is Third World interest and intervention. Mbeki had the right idea about AIDS (in the same way Ahmadinejad has the right idea about the 'Holocaust' and 9/11). It's conceivable that the Third World, if it has some independence of western frauds, might pull ahead in some fields.

Valuable both as an exercise in trying to weigh up incomplete evidence, and if you want to understand current oddities of policy—e.g. in Britain, Africans who 'test HIV positive' are given free housing—they are fake asylum seekers but lawyers make money out of pretending they aren't. Probably the authorities are secretly assured there's little health risk, as long as the taxpayer keeps paying!
The big-lies.org AUDIO-VIDEO section has an American audiotape of a radio interview of Bryan Ellison by the book's publisher promoting this book, many years ago.

Top of Page
Keywords Raymond Williams: Keywords - A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (1976, 1983, and no doubt other editions).
    Review 30 Sept 2015
Interesting but not first class book on etymology & clusters of words with related meanings. And the media.

Raymond Henry Williams (1921-1988) slotted in exactly with the post-1945 expansion of universities. He never understood the modern world. Like many authors of the time, he occupied a sort of mental ecological niche.
    He wrote Britain in the Sixties—Communications which was published in 1962, despite the title's suggestion of a retrospective view of an era. This and/or his 1958 book Culture and Society may have been his bandwagon climbing onto The Uses of Literacy (1957) which made Richard Hoggart's reputation. Williams' book has a lot of pre-computer 'content analysis'—counting pages and their content, and putting into categories. Williams knew nothing of rate cards of newspapers; or about subsidies, for example to the 'Worker'; or about BBC bias; or about Jewish media control; or about 'intelligence' people leaking into the urinals of the press. His information on The Press Council is taken from the news industry and proprietors. He included a lot about teaching, and I think invented or helped the idea of 'media studies' as a subject.
    Williams' novel People of the Black Mountains (1989 - published after his death) seems to be a collection of linked stories on the Black Mountains region in the Welsh borders; a time travel theme back to 34,000 BC, starting with a car journey, responding to an emergency. I suspect this was work after retirement; he 'taught literature at Cambridge'. I have no idea how successful this novel was; certainly it was on sale in Welsh gift shops at the time, and of course Williams is or was a Welsh surname.

Here's a plaudit taken from Internet: [Raymond Williams] was one of the most significant thinkers of the second half of the twentieth century, and a major figure in a socialist tradition that he continued, questioned, and renewed.. This of course could mean genuine socialism, but could also mean Jewish money power. Here's Williams' review of Bertrand Russell's life The Intellectual in Politics which shows Williams' rather naive world view, blankly innocent of Jews, their frauds and genocides, media control, and the controls on academics.

Keywords avoids anything technical - e.g. 'organic' in the sense of dealing with carbon chemistry. Nothing therefore on say force, energy, gravitation, electricity, or even vitality, nerves, digestion, body. This ignorance extends pervasively; e.g. 'image' has nothing on the magic-lantern projection sense, or 'imago' in the insect study sense. Legal words seem very under-represented. Of course the Jewish frauds surrounding the Second World War, including the nuclear frauds, are unknown to him.

His 1983 edition added twenty or so new words, to some extent of course coinings of the Jewish media. We have ANARCHISM/ ANTHROPOLOGY/ DEVELOPMENT/ DIALECT/ ECOLOGY/ ETHNIC/ EXPERIENCE/ EXPERT/ EXPLOITATION/ FOLK/ GENERATION/ GENIUS/ JARGON/ LIBERATION/ ORDINARY/ RACIAL/ REGIONAL/ SEX/ TECHNOLOGY/ UNDERPRIVILEGED/ WESTERN.

Rather absurdly he includes Marxist or near Marxist expressions as though they have a long pedigree (without delving into German and Hebrew). Also words like 'realism' and 'representative' - he seems to be forced to accept journalese and academic-journalese at their face values. He has nothing on religion. He has rather less than might be imagined on politics; e.g. 'party' is absent; so is 'conservative'. Americanisms are pretty much ignored ('liberal' gets a bit of a mention).

Also rather absurdly he accepts the convention of Latin as providing word origins; he doesn't seem to realise that Latin was once new and must itself have been derived; he has nothing on Indo-European or e.g. Hebrew and other Semitic languages.

His Introduction (rather long-drawn: Cambridge, the Kiel Canal, the Second World War etc) makes it clear that the Oxford English Dictionary was his inspiration - he records happening to look up 'culture' and finding this a meaningful experience. He describes being presented with the OED in its original 'paper parts' - 'Deject to Depravation, Heel to Hod, R to Reactive and so on..' And when trying to discuss the meaning of 'culture' at Cambridge tending to be frozen out as an obviously uneducated man. His reading of T S Eliot (whom he disagreed with) led to his own 1958 book Culture and Society, to which this in a twenty-year-younger form would have been the appendix had the publishers allowed. (Keywords was published by a small publisher).

He records a few foreign influences, perhaps to suggest wide reading; who on earth though are Bréal, Volôsinov, Stern, Ullmann, Spitzer and others? I haven't checked carefully, but I don't think he had any awareness of the Jewish Frankfurt School.

Here's a list of his A to C words: all Anglo-American-Jewish. Unfortunately, Williams was just another mediocre academic, a useful idiot, a saviour who was fast asleep. Just right for the post-1945 Jewish world. Or almost right: someone in Private Eye said that Williams was offended by posters in the London underground for films—perhaps '.. adventures of a young man whose principal interests are rape, Beethoven, and ultra-violence' - which obviously are approved by Jews.

AESTHETIC/ ALIENATION/ ART/ BEHAVIOUR/ BOURGEOIS/ BUREAUCRACY/ CAPITALISM/ CAREER/ CHARITY/ CITY/ CIVILIZATION/ CLASS/ COLLECTIVE/ COMMERCIALISM/ COMMON/ COMMUNICATION/ COMMUNISM/ COMMUNITY/ CONSENSUS/ CONSUMER/ CONVENTIONAL/ COUNTRY/ CREATIVE/ CRITICISM/ CULTURE

Top of Page
  Review of 1960s British thinkers as presented ZOG   Ved Mehta: Fly and the Fly-Bottle: Encounters with British Intellectuals

Indian writer talks with and quotes philosophers and historians in Europe 1961-1962, 12 Oct 2010

The 'New Yorker' employed Ved Mehta, aged about 26, and (presumably) funded him to visit Europe, including Britain and Holland, in 1961 and 1962. I hesitate to call him a 'New Yorker writer', since he was redespatched to the old world very soon after being taken on. He'd read history at Oxford, and I think because of that must have been sent to cover some coincidental events—disputes over A J P Taylor's 'Origins of the Second World War', and disputes over Ernest Gellner's 'Words and Things' in which Gellner was supported by Bertrand Russell against 'linguistic philosophers' mostly from 1950s Oxford. While there he called on Arnold J. Toynbee, who'd just finished his 'Study of History', and on E H Carr (who'd just written 'What is History?' and was a third through his history of Soviet Russia, proving that he didn't know), and Herbert Butterfield (best known for believing science depended on Christianity), and others.

The full line-up is: Gilbert Ryle, Ernest Gellner, Bertrand Russell, Richard Hare, A J Ayer, P F Strawson, Iris Murdoch, G J Warnock, Stuart Hampshire, Hugh Trevor-Roper [=Lord Dacre], A J P Taylor, Toynbee, Pieter Geyl, E H Carr, C V Wedgwood, Christopher Hill, John Brooke, Herbert Butterfield. There are recently dead men off-stage, such as Sir Lewis Namier, the allegedly brilliant Jew.

Wittgenstein is sometimes listed too, but he was dead at the time, though still discussed. Lewis Namier is also discussed in the book, but had just died. It's a pity C P Snow and F R Leavis weren't included as their 'Two Cultures' row was contemporary; Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper might have worked, too. (It's unlikely Sir Oswald Mosley would have been selected).

Quite attractive descriptions, including snippets on travel, living rooms, voices, menus, clothes and so on, as well as Mehta's interviews, which seem all to have been taped, plus a few extracts from printed material. However the intellectual material avoids anything controversial, in the normal sense. Note that Mehta is described as having been blind since the age of four—which sounds incredible to me.

Another collection of pieces by Mehta, published as 'The New Theologian', looked at British theologians of more or less the same period.

These brief pen-portraits are attractive, but may well leave you wanting more.

Top of Page
image   Review of Bertrand Russell NWO   Bertrand Russell: Authority and the Individual

Signpost en route to world government?, 10 Oct 2010

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

Top of Page
image   Review of Utopians   Bertrand Russell: Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism & Syndicalism

Interesting though inconclusive, 10 Oct 2010

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

Top of Page

Michael Foot:   H G History of Mr Wells

  Disappointing adulation from a politician beneficiary
Published by Doubleday (a division of Transworld) in USA. Transworld Publishers in UK, ANZ. In 1995.
Michael Foot, Leader of the 'Labour Party'; 1913-2010.
I gave this 2 stars to acknowledge the routine work of getting standard information on paper. But a lot is missing, notably Wells' journalism (there's far more than Foot implies; and much of it conflicts with his theoretical ideals.) And there's little on his books on biology and economics. Foot doesn't say much that's useful on his historical works, The Outline of History and the shorter, rewritten Short History of the World.
      The most significant omission, both in Wells and Foot, is knowledge of Jews, in religion (including Christianity and Islam) and in money power and aggression against non-Jews.

I met Michael Foot as South Place Ethical Society (abbreviates to 'hope' in Latin) in Red Lion Square. That organisation had an H G Wells society, which had speakers then, but perhaps not now; I spoke to some of the people there, but got nothing interesting from them, apart from a look at a drawer containing cassette tapes.
      I forget the event; Foot was with (I presume) his wife. We discussed Wells, who he considered a great man, though she did not agree. There was an issue with copyright at the time, which lapsed a number of years after death, the number having been increased. My hardback copy has the dates given above. Foot's image, as an untidy donkey-jacket wearer at a memorial service for dead soldiers, no doubt helped Thatcher remain in power.
      A problem with both Wells and Foot is the extent to which they were subservient to Jews, whether in fairly direct forms such as publishing contracts or party funds, or even less visible forms such as dealing with world Jewry. I don't know; but there must be people who do.
      Foot's book does not index Belloc, E D Butler, Celine, A H M Ramsay, and Nesta Webster. There's clearly no place for such dissenters in this work. Foot wrote a Penguin Special supporting the Second World War, opposing 'appeasement'.
      Wells supported the Great War, appointed to a propagandist post; Joad said some of the things Wells wrote about Germany made Joad blush. Wells was also visited by 'Colonel House', a handler of President Wilson. Wells visited Russia in 1920 ('meets Lenin, Trotsky and Moura Budberg'), and perhaps more famously Stalin and F D Roosevelt in 1934 ('The New Statesman published to whole interview'—the New Statesman was solid Jewish propaganda, as was Victor Gollancz of Penguin paperbacks.) In the very same year, 1934, Victor Gollancz published Wells' Experiment in Autobiography which Foot says was not tremendously successful, giving no figures. These fragments of evidence—there are many more—suggest Foot could never have become a supposedly major political figure without Jewish 'help'. I'm less sure about Wells, though he never applied much insight or analysis to Jews. He seems never to have talked to opponents of Jews, either in Britain or in the USSR. Budberg and Gorky and Gollancz look like some of the handlers of Wells. Wells had considerable hatred for the English social system, and may have been a cryto-Jew; on the other hand he may simply have been a victim of the practice of never discussing Jews or money.

Foot's enthusiasm for Wells is warming: Tono-Bungay was read by Foot, on his 21st birthday in Paris, with his brother, as an excitingly new vivid read for adventurous youth. But he can be a dull writer, inserting padding in place of analytical comment. And inserting sexual material, which had only recently been published.
      But he never comes to grips with Wells's 'socialism': what did it really mean? On his journalism, An Englishman Looks at the World (published in 1914; so secret was the preparation he had no idea) is available online, including for example the script of his talk on 'so-called sociology'. It's likely that, if the full truth on Wells is ever revealed, few people will be interested enough to read or watch it. The Jewish policy of never discussing the past honestly in very effective. Unfortunately.

RW   12 Feb 2023

Top of Page

image   Review of A new way to perceive the remote past   Alfred Watkins: The Old Straight Track

Pioneering book: rational theory of prehistoric mobility, misrepresented by both supporters and opponents, 7 Oct 2010

Fascinating if over-detailed book (Watkins' 'The Ley Hunter's Manual' is I think better). Poor Watkins is misrepresented by both friends and enemies—the latter mostly professional archaeologists.

Trying to summarise: Watkins realised (he was among other things a commercial traveller around Herefordshire, and was well aware of the problems of finding one's way round, and the importance of landmarks) that prehistoric man had a problem of transport. To take one example: salt. There are local deposits of this in Britain; but projecting time backwards, how could the stuff be moved around? There were no motorways, or even roads; no tarmac; no motor traffic; no bikes; no maps; not even weedkiller to keep paths clear... obvious points which many people seem unable to grasp.

Watkins' theory was simply that straight tracks were laid out by line-of-sight and marked by whatever method was feasible—dug-out notches on the skyline (early man could do earthmoving on quite a scale), upright stones arranged in pairs to point the way, perhaps church steeples (assuming site continuity), large stones by the pathside—of types not found locally, to remove doubt. Watkins thought some large flat stones marked with cup and ball marks might be in effect maps of local 'hill forts'. He thought Silbury Hill was built specifically as a landmark. Trees were another possibility, though obviously they would be visible now, if at all, only by traces.

Another of Watkins's examples was water: springs of clean water were presumably a useful asset (and some contained health assisting minerals, though obviously we're in eras predating chemical knowledge). Paths to them might be marked out.

And much more in this vein, including signalling by means of beacon fires.

His SUPPORTERS have often taken a description by Watkins of a sudden insight into this possibility ('wires.. across the countryside') in an electrical sense, adding a whole assemblage of material on sacred sites, lights, currents, electric charges and shocks, and what have you. And of course there was a temptation to rule lines on the then-new Ordnance Survey maps. They also renamed as 'ley lines' what Watkins christened 'leys'.

His OPPONENTS generally laid into the detail—place-names for example obviously are a high-risk source of evidence. So are buildings—many 19th century churches are built in mock-old styles, many manor houses aren't reliable indicators of archaeological precedents, etc.

I think there was also a class element here: archaeologists like, or liked, to look at palaces, military structures, cathedrals, massive megaliths, impressive graves, treasure hoards, and generally high status things. Watkins tried to redirect attention to humble practical tracks and paths.
Much more on Watkins and leys here.

Top of Page
  Review of Jewish interest   Noam Chomsky: Backroom Boys

Suggests a new theory of why 'America' was involved in Vietnam, 6 Oct 2010

I was a fan of Chomsky, who seemed at the time to be doing something about the Vietnam War. Chomsky was a participant in Bertrand Russell's War Crimes Tribunal, in 1967, an attempt to publicise facts about American atrocities in Vietnam.

'The Backroom Boys' is dated 1973—later than, but a commentary on, the Pentagon Papers (published 1971).

It's a typical Chomsky political book—no consistent thread of argument, no chronology, many jumps from one topic to another, no signposting in the form of headings, and atrocity stories which is fact are understated—as Chomsky must know from Russell's Tribunal. In my view Chomsky presents a solidly crypto-Jewish world view. For example, he opposes armies marching to war—except against Germany. He opposes autocracy, but says little about the 'Communist' USSR; he makes no attempt to distinguish socialism from its Jewish deformation; he never mentions Jewish invention of the USSR. He dislikes poverty in India, but says China is 'Communist' and supposedly has better figures for e.g. life expectation. He dislikes apartheid, but says nothing about Jewish control of minerals in South Africa. He criticises the New York Times, but says nothing about Jewish control.

What I'm suggesting is that Kissinger, who seems to have been in control of US foreign policy at that time, was of course a puppet; his aim was to extend Rothschild control over south east Asia's currencies, to parasitise a permanent percentage from them. This is exactly what happened to National Socialist Germany, in which Hitler had explicitly thrown off that style of finance.

This does not explain why the US armed forces went along with genocide; maybe they were stupid, or sadistic, or wanted money and status. But the motive force was Kissinger and money. This is the hypothesis I wanted to test.

Is this consistent with Chomsky's book? I think it is. Chomsky criticises corporations, but never (as far as I know) criticises finance/ the Fed. He criticises the Army, but says nothing about Kissinger. He says nothing about the racist basis of Judaism, and its influence. He says nothing about Jewish media lies—which of course helped keep people in the dark about the US since 1954, when Dien Bien Phu was lost by the French.

I think Chomsky's role was to muffle and hide the Jewish element in committing genocide in Vietnam. Read this book carefully and decide for yourself.

Top of Page
image   Review of deception tricks   Derren Brown: Harry Houdini on Deception

Very poor value—only a tiny subset of Houdini's work, 1 Oct 2010

I have to say this small book (the meat is fewer than 70 not very large pages) looks like something put together just to make a bit of cash. The introduction by Derren Brown is OK stuff, largely biographical material about Erik Weisz, Houdini's real name. But Brown doesn't refer to the book's actual contents—perhaps someone else selected the bits?—probably taken from Houdini's books. He wrote, for example, separate books on frauds, on handcuffs, and on 'spirits'. There's what seems now a quaint feel about those times—no mobile phones or computers or TV. We have the then-equivalent of Nigerian scams, the opportunist thieves, handcuffs and skeleton keys and jail-breakers, fake doctors, fire-eaters and persons able to survive snake bites. There isn't even an account of mediums and their tricks. There are no illustrations—maybe anything that needed a picture was edited out.

Entertaining and somewhat depressing, as far as it goes; but dismally poor value for money.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest   Ed. Robert Whelan: Corruption of the Curriculum

Completely worthless book and an insult to children, 16 Sep 2010

2007. For some unstated reason, the 'Institute of Ideas' (abbreviated amusingly to what looks like 'laughing out loud') gets a credit; I'd guess they gave taxpayers' money. IoI is a phoney 'Marxist' organisation which masquerades as pro-free speech. The editor claims, entirely wrongly, that the contributors (there are just six essays) pull in the same direction. Then there's a wandering and worthless introduction by Frank Furedi, apparently by origin a Hungarian Jew. I suppose I need hardly state every piece by him, or everything I've seen anyway, mentions the money-making fraud of the holocaust (not his phrase) and does not mention the equally money-making mass murders of the USSR.

One curious aspect of this volume is the absence of evidence: has 'the curriculum' in fact been 'corrupted'? There are difficulties here—the obvious approach of comparing exam questions over time isn't robust enough—it's the answers that matter. And publishing actual evidence of pupils' answers appears to be a taboo. Another odd aspect is the way critics become partly digested by the system: all of them inescapably use the most ridiculous terminology—'delivering goals' for example. Another oddity is a complete absence of realism as to what ten or so years of schooling can be expected to produce. The result is that the essays are largely unreadable—the effect is a bit like a discussion of town planning without any thought for what people need or how large they are. It's not helped by the terrible layout—some office junior seems to have put some bold text here, some italics there...

Let's look at the six essays, then consider what's missing:--

English: Almost entirely about set books (and poems), and about regional accents. (There has been a 'debate' on phonics—incredibly, this is only mentioned in the history essay). An amusing aspect of the 'set books' debate is the authors' failure to know about 'Shakespeare'; always good for a laugh when 'experts' don't know what they're talking about. For all anyone can tell from this chapter, modern pupils might have terrific fluency and skill in expression; or, of course, not. I know which I'd bank on, but only because I have other knowledge of the system than appears here.

Geography: The joint longest chapter, with science. It is badly written. The phrase 'citizenship education' I estimate appears, with variations, in about half of all the sentences in the essay, as though programmed into the author's word processor. The title is 'Geography Used To Be About Maps'—a bit of an insult to geologists, population geographers, climatologists, students of world food patterns, and so on. Astonishingly, climate change/ global warming is NOT mentioned.

History: The way this has been dumbed down is [1] to reduce knowledge of events/ processes/ themes—everything. [2] Then pretend to be teaching something else—skills. McGovern describes, I'm sure accurately, the way evidence is supplied to pupils, naturally to reinforce the desired world view. Thus 9/11 is, he states, taught with a mass of material on Bin Laden. The only aspects of history prescribed are 'two world wars and the holocaust'. Anyone who regards Lloyd George as a disaster, Churchill as a sort of rent boy, and the 'holocaust' as wartime propaganda—even if supported by a mountain of evidence—would of course face disapproval. The author presumably would agree—the only historical lesson his decades of teaching suggest to him is disapproval of 'appeasement'.

Foreign languages, teaching by numbers: I'll bypass these. There's no consideration of (e.g.) alphabets, or quick fire teaching by immersion; the maths essay is largely about the difficulties of teaching kids to add fractions.

What Is Science Education For: this chapter is largely about the conflict between publicist attitudes and genuine science. How much 'science' is fraudulent? Obviously, anyone promoting fraud will not relish critical kids making awkward points. I can't imagine any British school spending a term examining the 'moon landings' and showing that on physics grounds and biological grounds it couldn't be done! The net effect is that lessons are simply propagandist 'green' or whatever stuff. Perks claims—and must be correct—that pupils can't even know what 'nuclear power' is. Perks doesn't see clearly enough to propose any solutions. One very sad aspect of his chapter is that the slow progress of science (and I have fond memories of books by Holmyard, H G Wells, Pledge and so on) seems to be unknown to Perks.

Anyway... following this feeble stuff, gaps and omissions must occur to anyone intelligent. What about 'media studies': are children encouraged to speculate about newspapers not reporting rapes by blacks? Do they analyse sadism in the films of Tarantino? Do they discuss over-representation by non-whites in TV reports?—I can guess the answer, and indeed I have to, since the entire topic—and this is supposedly a very popular subject choice—isn't mentioned. What about religious studies? Are pupils taught about racist cults and being 'chosen by God'? What about economics—at one time, people made money by satisfying needs; now far more money is to be made by getting handouts from governments. Is that in the syllabus? For that matter, what about unions, such as the NUT, resolutely opposing free speech?

This book is trash and an insult to children and their future.

Top of Page
image   Review of science and technology   Dr John Bentley: Principles of Measurement Systems

Omits radiation, Geiger counters, X rays..., 14 Aug 2010

For some reason—possibly to keep awareness of methods down—there's no discussion at all on radiation measurements—either the techniques, or the different types of measurable radiations. It seems an odd omission. As far as I can tell, catastrophic things generally aren't covered—e.g. measuring explosions. My edition is 1983 though—it's possible newer editions rectify this.

Top of Page
  Review of British society   John K. Walton: Fish and Chips and the British Working Class, 1870-1940

One of the advantages of being an island race..., 6 Aug 2010

An attractive and nostalgia-tinted book. Britain, like Japan, has a high coastline-to-area ratio, and therefore it's not surprising both countries have fishy elements in their cultures. (Compare the US, with a more beefy culture!) This book stops in the Second World War, and the author is thus spared the details of the 'Common Market' and its deliberate killing off of the British fishing industry. Interesting bit of harmless cultural history. (Note for American readers: in Britain, 'chips' are what you call 'French fries')

There's a lot of introductory material on the low academic status of such things as food supplies to the workers.

Much of the material is based on the thoughts of the anonymous trade writer 'Chatchip', who was William Loftas, the first secretary of the NFFF. ('National Society of Fish Friers'). Fascinating to read of the controls on oils, the private enterprise of cooking ranges, the amalgamation of cooked potatoes (north) with fried fish (south), the wrangling over dietetic claims. Fascinating insight into behind the scenes disputes over vitally important issues, which however now seem remote. All our ancestors must have been something like this.

Note added later; interesting comment on potatoes:
' ... William McNeill credits the early-eighteenth-century rise of Prussia to the potato. Enemy armies might seize or destroy grain fields, livestock, and aboveground fodder crops, but they were powerless against the lowly potato, a cultivar which Frederick William and Frederick II after him had vigorously promoted. It was the potato that gave Prussia its unique invulnerability to foreign invasion. ...' I wonder if this was part of the motivation for Americans under the ZOG system to develop herbicides for their genocide in Vietnam. On the subject of root crops, the even humbler turnip played a part in cattle farming, allowing cattle to be fed over winter for the first time.

Top of Page
image   Review of science fraud   Richard Rhodes: The Making of the Atomic Bomb

Thirty year rule of plagiarism?, 19 July 2010

I haven't read this book but award it two stars on the following basis... ... As you get older you notice patterns which a more restricted time window tend to hide. One such is an approximate thirty years rule in publishing. The trick is to look back something like thirty years and see which books were then big sellers. With luck the same material can be recycled—with the bonus that 'research' need only be minimal. Copyright doesn't seem to apply to ideas—only to the actual form of words. Based on the reviews here (and the USA), I'm pretty confident this book is a rehash of Jungk's 1956 book 'Brighter than a Thousand Suns', probably supplemented by some new material from (e.g.) obituaries of scientists, bombers etc. There are numerous question marks over nuclear weapons, and immense secrecy—and a journalist is unfitted to tease them out.

Top of Page
image   Review of Media and bullshit   Francis Wheen: How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World: A Short History of Modern Delusions

Just more conventionalised attacks on supposedly evil opponents, 12 July 2010

Wheen wrote for Private Eye; he probably reads better when anonymous—this book isn't very impressive, starting with the title—he clearly doesn't even know who 'Mumbo Jumbo' was supposed to be. The whole thing is somewhat in the style of the Eye. He's a friend of Christopher Hitchens; one thing people of this sort have in common is no scientific knowledge of any sort—and I'd include statistical assessment. There are irritatingly stupid chapter headings, a strange mixture of important stuff and trivial, revealing nil judgement: 1 THE VOODOO REVOLUTION/ 2 OLD MATERIAL, NEW BOTTLES/ 3 IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT/ 4 THE DEMOLITION MERCHANTS OF REALITY/ 5 THE CATASTROPHISTS illustrate. Many reviewers here pointed out the over-emphasis on things like astrology and homeopathy and spiritualism, though I don't think any of them have pointed out that, in comparison with frauds, wars, financial extraction of money, and so on, their net economic effect is microscopic. They have the same problem as James Randi, who has no purchase at all on serious issues such as 9/11 and NASA. Come to think of it, Wheen never criticises Judaism, which has beliefs far more absurd than Christianity and Islam and probably Scientology.

There's a lot of play made about monopolistic publishing—if you add up the total number of tenth-rate books like this one, perhaps you'd have an accurate measure of the number of independent commissioning editors out there.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest   Baron Solly Zuckerman: Nuclear Illusion and Reality

Inchoate and not even unconvincing, 22 Jun 2010

For some reason—perhaps Churchill's influence—Britain's nominal military advisers have often been rather odd alien types. This book (1982) is I think absolutely typical of the genre. (I) There's no consistent argument in it—Zuckerman seems to be making a case, or cases, but the writing switches between politics and personalities, to supposed history and the supposed then-current reality, so there's no discernible thread. (II) Zuckerman seems to be saying there was no point in further testing, since there was already overkill, though he seemed unable to prove the point. (III) Zuckerman seemed weak on the actual science—for example there was a lot of dispute over fallout; dangerous or not? Which he does not resolve. (IV) Another unresolved issue is the matter of vested interests. He seems to suggest no testers wanted a ban, purely because they'd be out of a job. He comments on Carter's and Reagan's 'defense' budgets in the couple of hundred billion range (in 1981, 1982) and seems to imply a lot is wasted or useless or harmful. But, again, the message is vague.

Top of Page
image   Review of Hist of science technology   H. S. M. Coxeter: The Beauty of Geometry: Twelve Essays

Too technical for almost anyone, 17 Jun 2010

According to Siobhan Roberts' book, 'King of Infinite Space', Coxeter bemoaned the fact that his twelve essays book only sold about a dozen copies. The 'Beauty' of the title must have been added as a sales thing. These essays are highly technical and also somewhat deceptive as many of them are replies to, improvements on, or extensions of other people's papers, so their isolation is misleading. Coxeter's best-known book appears to be 'Introduction to Geometry' plus the jointly-authored 'Geometry Revisited'. They are deceptive in another sense too, viz. Coxeter liked diagrams and drawings and 3-D models, which most papers don't print.

Top of Page
  Review of Jewish interest   James H Meisel: The Myth of the Ruling Class-Gaetano Mosca and the Elite (1958)

Not worth reading, 15 Jun 2010

I bought this Univ of Michigan paperback (format is the same as Dover Books) to see if someone had proved that elites don't exist. That is the claim made on the blurb.

Meisel's book is in effect a review of Gaetano Mosca's life work—he lived from 1858-1941. Meisel's commentaries are arranged in three sections corresponding to Mosca's early life/ maturity/ old age. Mosca wrote (I presume) in Italian and had quite a range of historical and philosophical fountains to drink from—Rome and the Romans, Roman Catholicism, Dante, Vico, Guicciardini, Machiavelli, Pareto, Benedetto Croce, and also Mussolini. On of his titles was 'The Ruling Class', apparently in English. Meisel's book was clearly prompted by C Wright Mills's 'Power Elite'. Unfortunately Meisel is a typical 1960 academic, bandying around such words as 'feudal', 'capitalism', 'class', 'fascism', 'Absolute Monarchy' in an unanalytical way. Meisel mentions Marx and related writers. Probably this felt daring at the time, when there was de facto censorship of serious political discussion. But I don't think there's anything in this book that's of much value. Probably it was written to support some university course—'Mosca is read far too little in colleges and universities'—claims a blurb.

Just to give Meisel another chance, I looked up several indexed references to 'myth'—there are no references to 'myth of elitism' or 'myth of ruling class' in the index—but found nothing noteworthy.

8½ years later: maybe Mosca was discussing Jews. If there's a worldwide Jewish secret elite, then local 'ruling classes' depend on them to some extent. So, it's a myth that they are the Ruling Class, without mentioning the attached strings of their own rulers. And Italy had an influential 'Communist Party', of course suggesting covert Jewish power.
      [There's a fallacy here, which I first noticed in looking at wild life: "What is the most common British bird?" It turns out to be a trick question: the most common bird varies with the years, some getting into #1, then others, as far as estimates go. A similar fallacy, where Jews of course don't want to be mentioned as a separate part of the 'ruling class'.]

[This is a repeat of a review for an almost identical book, with a small chapter omitted]

Top of Page
image   Review of science fraud   Petr Skrabanek: Follies and Fallacies in Medicine

Mistakes in Medicine and in Alternatives, 13 Jun 2010

Two authors—Skrabanek & McCormick—between them skilled in toxicology, community health, epidemiology.. '.. aim is to reach inquisitive minds.' Published by a small press—typeset when computer typesetting was relatively new. Unindexed. Many examples collected by the 'flypaper' technique, but because of the lack of index, it's hard to relocate material that catches the eye.

1: PLACEBOS [Secrecy/ quantifying/ Clever Hans, the horse/ pain....]

2: A FISTFUL OF FALLACIES [26 by my count: weight-of-evidence, magic bullet, Beethoven, new syndrome, covert bias, 'Gold Effect....]

3: DIAGNOSIS AND LABELLING [Process/ error/ physical disease/ non-disease—obesity and hypertension may be this/ psychiatric/ labels...]

4: PREVENTION [includes limits by ignorance, heart disease, cancer screening, crusaders...]

5: ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE [Lashes out at homoeopathy, Bach's flowers, acupuncture, osteopathy ...]

6: MORALITY AND MEDICINE [Short chapter including morality and public health]

7: ENVOI

REFERENCES [Usually just title and author of book or article]

Let me give an example: 'pseudo-hypertension .. an artefact caused ... by hardening of the arterial wall. .. the difference between cuff pressure and true pressure (as measured by direct intra-arterial measurement), ranged from 10 to 54 mm mercury..' The reference is to a New England Journal of Medicine article of 1985.

Three stars is probably too high, as the book is short, and it must be somewhat outdated—AIDS, BSE, swine flu, anal sex, addictions and so on must have added more strata of errors. However, it's an unusual book in collecting in one volume a collection of high-octane crits, so I'll stick with three.

Top of Page
image   Review of science history   Lancelot Thomas Hogben: The Vocabulary of Science

Latin & Greek roots of terms in chemistry & biology, including changes over time, 13 Jun 2010

Hogben was a self-taught man. When he grew up, 'classics' were still firmly entrenched. This situation changed, and his 1969 work was aimed at science students who had not been through all that.

STRONG POINTS:
This is very good on explaining how languages themselves change—e.g. changes in Latin in the later western empire. And on how science changed—for example, leaps in chemistry in the late 18th century. And also how words change, so that often enough words spelt identically are derived from utterly different roots. ('Man' and 'woman' illustrates a similar point). And on the difference between alphabets—including sounds and letters which were dropped, such as 'digamma', chi in Greek etc etc. There's interesting material on grammatical differences between languages; thus German had a problem accommodating the new French constructions of sulphate, nitrate, bicarbonate etc and sulphite, nitrite.

The first third or so of the book is in effect an excellent extended essay on the relations between written languages and the way it tries to pin down newly discovered knowledge.

WEAK POINTS:
Manufactured words are fine where there are large, but not immense, numbers of objects to identify. Hence diseases, muscles, plants are just about OK, but modern chemistry relies more on constructions of the monomethyl paraminophenol... type. Geology is partly a place-name based thing. Possibly Hogben overstates the reliance on the past.

It would be nice, and useful, to have an easy key to scientific words: 'archaeology' for instance means something like—'first things—words about'. In medicine particularly, the vocabulary is manufactured—'diverticulitis' and 'gluteus maximus' illustrate the point. Probably Hogben would have said, well, a medical dictionary has them, and that's true enough, but it doesn't emphasise the roots. This book has Greek and Latin words which have been borrowed by science classified by topic, but they are hard to find as the layout in hot metal typesetting without much in the way of signposting.

There's no easy way to look up points of interest; e.g. I recall 'tares' in the Bible being mentioned, linked with two types of 'cockle' which have no common linguistic root, but I'd be hard put to find the passage again without a trawl-through.

Of course, dated 1969, there's nothing much on computing or modern biology—you won't find 'gigabyte', and the mythical 'endoplasmic reticulum' isn't here. This is a book which has value but I suppose needs to be updated. Maybe it has been; I don't know.

Top of Page
image   Review of hist of logic philosophy   Madsen Pirie: How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic

No doubt based on earlier books.., 9 Sep 2009

... I haven't even read this book; however I vaguely know Pirie, from Mensa, and have never been impressed by his smug superficiality. Between the wars (i.e. World Wars I and II) and influenced by the belief that clear thought might help prevent war quite a few books of this sort were published—the best known being Robert Thouless's 'Straight and Crooked Thinking' (1930—reprinted for many years). 'Thinking to Some Purpose' (L Susan Stebbing, 1939) is in the same genre. 'Clearer Thinking' (1936, A E Mander) is another example. Bertrand Russell had one published, but it was reprinted essays only.

These books all include stuff on syllogisms, various mediaeval things—'ad hominem' arguments for example—or perhaps Venn diagrams if more up to date. The big problem is that they all neglect factual information. For example, if you want to know if the world is overpopulated, detail is essential on human biological needs and psychology, raw materials, energy from the sun, fishing stocks and so on. In the absence of reliable information, no amount of logic will help. Such books have been around for years with no notable increase in the quality of debate. In the absence of serious evidence in favour, I wouldn't bother to even pick up this book.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish wars 20 century   Thomas Pakenham: The Boer War

This book is like trying to reconstruct an entire society from a phone book, 10 July 2009

First published 1979. Almost all the evidence was collected from English-speakers, though some Dutch-speaking people helped. There's no evidence Pakenham tried to collect evidence from blacks.

The Boer War had a number of aspects: the most obvious is imperialism, as it was (arguably) caused by diamonds and gold. There's of course also the nationalist spheres-of-interest element—English vs Dutch. And black Africa. And mercenaries vs official armies. And treasury money vs private money. These wars certainly helped set the stage for the First World War: Germany kept out and (I believe) assumed Britain would have the reciprocal attitude and keep out of their battles.

The problem with Pakenham's book is there's little sense of the importance of these wars in Africa. To take one instance, it's taken for granted that Rhodes, Beit, and others would have property rights and company rights as in Europe. But why should they have? To take another, although there's a short chapter—'Epilogue: Winners and Losers' at the end—taking up about 1% of the book—there's no real attempt at any sort of overview. In short, the results of these wars aren't presented at all well; it's not clear that anyone at all benefitted, for example. Even the money figures quoted are given no modern equivalents.

If you like novelist-style detail ('In the small hours, Sir Alfred Milner, High Commissioner for South Africa and Lieutenant-Governor of Cape Colony, was woken by a bright light in his eyes. He had a stateroom on the starboard side of the upper deck. It was 4.00 a.m., he noted in his diary (the small red diary which was the only companion and confidant of his travels. That must be the Ushant lighthouse...') you'll love this book.

If you want to understand what happened and why, I don't think this book is much help. As with a telephone directory, there is a list of events, all assigned more or less the same weighting. But: the people who designed the phone system, the ex-directory numbers, and information on who in practice phones whom, are of course not included. Pakenham's book in my view misses out much of the material of genuine history.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish interest   John Buchan: The 39 Steps

Anti-German paranoia and bluster with ridiculous plot, 5 July 2009

Most people like the things they were brought up with: jazz, swing, Sinatra, the Beatles, for example, affect people young at the time; but have less effect on others. The Thirty-Nine Steps is regarded by some as a 'classic'. Does it have an appeal other than sentiment?

THE BOOK
Buchan was a Scot who'd spent time in southern Africa. As far as I can find out, he wrote this short book after the First World War had been started in 1914. It's assumed that Britain and France are allies, and Germany and Russia possible victims. The USA was not part of the war, then. Remarkably, Buchan includes a conspiracy theory about international capital and Jews: a small portion of Buchan is sometimes quoted on this topic, misleadingly, because the speaker, Scutter (a 'fine linguist'), who buttonholed Hannay, reveals something different in his coded notes later. It's not clear what, but Buchan avoids this conspiracy issue.

The plot depends on several strands, in addition to Scutter's notebook fortuitously falling into the hero's hands. One is the German boat off the coast; the plot is based on a small English port and its tides. This seems outdated by aeroplanes, but never mind. Another element is the secret which has to be moved overseas. Here, it isn't a microfilm etc, but coded reports put together outlining a likely war plot. A third is baddies who have almost magical powers, something amplified later in Ian Fleming's stories. We have three Germans, one of them an actor (with a fingertip missing) so convincing he can impersonate a high-ranking government official known personally to the rest of a cabinet-level group. This is only even remotely credible given the lack of television and newspaper photographs at that time. A fourth is Hannay happening purely by chance on a house lived in by the aforesaid baddie in a remote part of Scotland! Obviously, any absurd plot needs supporting props—the police must be incompetent, for instance. So must the baddies—in the book, Hannay is locked up in a room where there are explosives, which enable him to blast his way out.

HITCHCOCK'S FILM, 'THE 39 STEPS'
Let's see if we can retrace what may have been Hitchcock's mental processes when given the contract for this film is 1934 or thereabouts.

** Much of the plot is unfilmable; the German acting material has to go. The Hannay as master of disguises, rather as described by Baden-Powell in Africa, has to go. The chance Scottish location has to go—Hannay must be told where it is. The outdoor location by the sea has to go, which means 39 Steps becomes a collection of people, and not a place.

** There are filmic requirements: this was all filmed on British Acoustic Film at Shepherd's Bush. Variety means slightly odd effects: close ups, strange angles, and a general collage of detail, intended to hide the lack of expansive, general overviews. The ceilings are non-existent—a lot of lighting was needed up there. There are quite a lot of notices, maybe a relic of the text boxes in silent films: THE FLYING SCOTSMAN and blocks of flats, place names, inns, things in lights.

** Must have music. A weird convention required strings where Madeleine Carroll realised Robert Donat had being telling the truth all along. And there are music halls and the Hippodrome. Even the political speech, from the book, has applause and a theatrical ambience.

** Now we need some sex. Hitchcock adds three main women: Scutter is replaced by a female 'agent' who invites herself back to stay with him. And there's a wife of a Scottish crofter, more appealing than the original single roadmender chap, who likes Hannay. There's Madeleine Carroll, in the romantic fiction role—dislikes him, then finds he's wonderful. She has a scene where she removes her stockings, which the censors must have reviewed a number of times. And, well, a few others.

** ... And we need subsidiary characters. Ian Hay wrote the script: pub quiz style questions and catcalls, men travelling in women's clothing, Scottish dialogue, middle classes and servants. None of this is in Buchan.

** Finally, the plot has to weave the loose ends into some material semblance. 'Mr Memory' thing works well enough—he could mention a secret and a foreign power, but be shot before it was named, and one hopes most of the audience wouldn't notice that Mr Memory's words could have been jotted down beforehand. The device provides an assembly point for the cast; and it gave plenty of scope for action with music, and the public and policemen rushing about.

I think, to be honest, it's just another type of propaganda.

Top of Page
image   Review of Catholic lies about H G Wells   A.B. McKillop: The Spinster and the Prophet: A Tale of H.G. Wells, Plagiarism and the History of the World

A tissue of nonsense possibly for Catholic reasons
10 Jun 2009
Note: Click here for my much more detailed account of McKillop on Wells (PDF format, in new window).

When I heard about this book, probably on internet, I was fascinated, since I recalled Wells in his Autobiography complaining about being sued by a woman 'who conceived the strange idea that she had a copyright on human history'. Florence Deeks was Canadian, as is McKillop. The case was finally thrown out, leaving Wells poorer by today's equivalent of £25,000 and Deeks ditto by $750,000 equivalent.

Much of McKillop's book is hypothetical, dealing in states of mind and social life in Toronto, and, later, strangers in London. Much of the rest is based on court transcripts. He seems to have paid little attention to Well's 'Outline of History'—there's no evidence he read any of it, or is/was aware of its different editions.

Deeks submitted a MS of 'The Web' to two publishers; they rejected it, and in 1918 it was under consideration by McMillan in Canada. Wells's Outline first appeared in partworks from November 1919. There's no definitive proof of the fate of the MS; it's possible Wells saw it, though he denied it. To keep this review short, I'll just make comments:---

[*1*] The only quotations from Deeks are indirect, and about women, either relatively famous ones (e.g. Renaissance women such as Lucrezie de Medici and Isabella of Aragon, Martin Luther's mother, Queen Elizabeth) or women considered as women, supposedly inventors of things like dyeing and building, medical science, poetry, and clothes. (P 271). 'The Web' sounds a romanticised pioneer view, naive sentimentalism.

[*2*] Not one single passage is quoted from Florence Deeks: '.. no longer a publishable work.' (Pp 409-410) It's not on Internet (nor are images of the typescript pages. Even if Wells saw it, it's uncertain that it could have been of any value to him. Deeks of course took all her material from other others, and her case veered uncertainly between single passages, and the entire scheme of both books. McKillop doesn't describe her schema—I'd guess because it bore little relation to Wells's.

[*3*] Wells' concepts included—this is a tiny subset—1 Tendency of English speaking races to promulgate statements—Magna Carta, U.S, Constitution, Wilson's fourteen points/ 2 Severe criticism of the use of the word `bourgeois' by Marxists to include a huge range of human types/ 3 Private enterprise after the Great War speculating in rents, not providing housing; insisting on closing state shipyards; buying up remunerative public enterprise after WW1/ 4 The importance of print to the human mind and its bearing on the political future/ 5 Distinction between race, nation, and language groups [discussing `Aryan']/ 6 Intellectual tangles due to the differences between Realism and Nominalism/ 7 `The Science of Thwarting the Common Man'. Why didn't McKillop produce the originals in Deeks?

[*4*] One of the points seized upon is the spelling of what's now rendered 'Hatshepsut' as 'Hatasu'. One of Deeks's three 'experts'—in fact none was eminent—seized on this point. Hatasu." McKillop says: '... Irwin had worked in the field [ancient Near East] and had never seen or heard of it until he started the current investigation'. Both Wells and Deeks used this spelling; therefore Wells must be a plagiarist.

The truth is the spelling was widespread; even on Internet I easily found 20 examples. Here are some: (1) 1881 `The Career of Queen Hatshepsut (Hatasu)'—English Translations of the Assyrian and Egyptian Monuments/ (2) 1883 FLINDERS PETRIE (one of the most famous Egyptologists) in 'The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh' has details on monuments of Hatasu/ (3) 1886: ANCIENT EGYPT by GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A. 10th edn has an entire chapter on Hatasu/ (4) 1891 Pharaohs, Fellahs and Explorers. by Amelia Edwards. `QUEEN HATASU has been happily described as the Queen Elizabeth of Egyptian history/ (5) 1904 `The Web of Indian Life' by Margaret Noble mentions Hatasu/ (6) 1905 `To-day on the Nile' Guidebook by Harry Westbrook Dunning./ (7) 1906 Prize winning sculptured panel: Queen Hatasu of Egypt by the English sculptor Countess Feodora Gleichen.

[*5*] Why would McKillop write this book? My best guess is that he's Catholic—he is 'author of scholarly work on the history of religion'. He disliked the rationalistic view of the Outline of History. Incidentally there is much emphasis on Wells's sex life—a dozen or more names, including what might be called 'groupies'. Sex and religion seem to be the psychological mainsprings of McKillop's book.

Anyone writing on Eng Lit who's tempted to assume the case for Wells as plagiarist is proven, would be well advised to assume the opposite!

A longer and more detailed downloadable PDF version of this review is West on McKillop on Wells

Top of Page
image   Review of Science, biology, mathematics, evolution   D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson: On Growth and Form

Pythagorean laws ruling the flux of evolution
3 Jun 2009
First published in 1917; revised in 1942—about 800 and 1100 pages respectively. Those volumes are collector's items by now and perhaps stand as a monument to disinterested curiosity in wartime. This edited Cambridge University version (editor John Tyler Bonner) is about 300 pages and therefore seriously shorter, though the original wording and diagrams were retained as much as possible.

For people unused to this type of material, let me list a few topics (examples only, and simplified!):--

[1] The properties of oxygen—its diffusion in liquids and so on—determine the maximum size of organisms which need oxygen for energy. (I.e. animals rather than plants). Thus insects—which have no heart—are smaller than mammals, for example. Partial pressures of oxygen and nitrogen dissolved in river water have their own controlling influences.

[2] Lengths, areas, and volumes when scaled up are in proportion to length: length squared: length cubed. Thus an internal skeleton, made twice as tall, must support about eight times the musculature of the original skeleton. This sort of thing helps explains thicker bones in large animals—and such things as lung size, and heartbeat rate, and indeed the necessity for these things.

[3] Fish are supported by the surrounding water, and are roughly as efficient irrespective of size. Birds on the other hand cannot fly if their wing size and muscle ratio are too small. Hence birds's sizes have evolved to be very accurately controlled, while fish may grow in size almost indefinitely.

[4] Because of diffraction at the side of a pinhole (i.e. blurring), very tiny eyes cannot have pupils.

[5] Ram's horns grow in a spiral, of a type with keeps the centre of gravity constant. Thus ram's heads bear their load in an efficient manner.

Fascinating stuff which needs some mathematical flair to grasp—though the flair needed is not so much arithmetical and a matter of counting, as geometrical and a matter of appreciation of physics. The material omitted is (I think) on less precise topics, such as water flow in tubes, and the formation of eddies and smoke.

I have one reservation: material on cell structure was edited out by Bonner on the grounds it's outdated. In fact there's overwhelming evidence now that much post-1945 biology of the cell is erroneous. Possibly in time a new comprehensively updated edition will be issued, though it would (probably?) be a work of love rather than profit.

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish attempt at philosophy   Theodore Dalrymple/ Anthony Daniels: In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas

Disappointingly unfocused, 25 May 2009

Thin hardback, no illustrations, 29 chapters, about 126 pages. Author's real, or more real, name is Anthony Daniels. It has very short chapters. The index is sparse and hints at philosophical interests—Plato, Descartes etc, and novels—but also Colin Turnbull on the Ik in Uganda, Peter Singer of Animal Liberation, Adam Smith. There's a quotation from Macaulay (p 9) which is mixed up typographically with Dalrymple's own text... he hasn't proofread his own book.

He takes his definition of 'prejudice' from the Shorter Oxford, not the OED. One wonders if he has any basis for the claim 'the archetypal prejudice is that which relates to race' apart from modern media.

I'd expected this book to be a defence of common sense—prejudging tells you that some dogs are dangerous, some traffic conditions are hazardous, Germans are organised, rain will make you wet and cause drips, and newspapers are unlikely to tell the truth. Prejudice isn't always right—but why is this? An interesting book might be written. But this isn't it.

Dalrymple switches to topics which are barely related to prejudice. His main belief, probably prompted by long involvement with criminals and 'abusers', is that single mothers, unpleasant behaviour, living on a day to day basis, etc, are all deplorable. 'Prejudice' is belief in marriage, civilised behaviour, doing work for exams to get a highly paid job. 'Habit is behavioral prejudice' he writes, doing his bit to change the meaning of a word. (He complains on page 75 that 'discrimination' has had its meaning changed. As has 'valid').

Daniels/Dalrymple also has a tendency to adhere to the one-example school of history, notably of course the 'Holocaust'. Page 14 quotes Keith Windschuttle, who (Dalrymple says) wrote a revisionist book saying the Tasmanian genocide was made up. This single, solitary example shows Aussie intellectuals are short of material. A similar example is 'Ernesto Guevara would have been recognised .. as the arrogant, adolescent, power-hungry egotist that he undoubtedly was.' Was he now? Dalrymple's historical background is largely naive 20th century media parrotings.

Another tiresome thing is Dalrymple's lack of awareness of the backgrounds of some attitudes. For example, in England, people renting houses could be evicted under the terms of the lease is they had an illegitimate child. To describe the resulting attitude of being wary of illegitimacy as 'prejudice' is absurd.

Daniels/Dalrymple is described as a 'retired physician and psychiatrist'. Judging by this book, he regards philosophy or speculative writing as higher status than psychiatry. His philosophy is non-professional. In view of the qualities of professional philosophers (".. they will spend more and more time talking about less and less"—Bertrand Russell) this is not necessarily an objection. But Dalrymple isn't very sound. J S Mill 'On Liberty' is attacked because Mill talked of the 'tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling'. 'Tabula rasa was never very realistic.' An entire chapter says life's too short to check every single thing. He can't resist stating things which sound impressive, but aren't: 'an unachievable goal cannot be a desirable one.' (Page 3). I have to say this is a disappointing book. At the end of it you'll have learned nothing much.
Note added Sept 2015: It appears Dalrymple is (or at least thinks he is) a Jew, hence my note on his 'real' name, Anthony Daniels. Jews usually complain of prejudice against them, but the issue is left undisturbed by 'Dalrymple'. Junk.

Top of Page
image   Review of biography of revisionist   A. N. Wilson: Hilaire Belloc: A Biography

Wilson is OK on things, but has no idea about ideas, 18 May 2009

Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) interested me because of his pro-Catholic outlook; could he perhaps have been onto something? Or at least present an alternative view of reality?

Wilson's biography is a fairly straightforward chronological account from Belloc's birth during a thunderstorm to death as an eccentric figure with a large white beard hiding facial asymmetry caused by a stroke. Wilson's sources are mostly documents in Boston College, Mass., but he energetically corresponded and met people with such surnames as Asquith and LeFanu, and such abbreviations as SJ.

There isn't much in the way of Belloc's personal history of ideas. Unless a certain envy of people who'd made, or held on to, wealth, counts as an idea. Let me look at a few topics....

[1] Catholicism and anti-Catholicism. Belloc was of course Catholic in the western sense, not Greek or Russian Orthodox; so far as I can tell he had no liking of these. Hunting through Wilson's index, I could find no trace of Joseph McCabe, born in almost exactly the same year, an incredibly prolific author of whom Belloc was certainly aware. As far as I know, Belloc never entertained any doubts as to the actual existence of Jesus. His Catholicism must have been reinforced by G K Chesterton, a lifelong friend. (According to Wilson, Belloc retained all his friends throughout his life). I have a copy of 'Survivals and New Arrivals', an account of heresies old and new; it is interesting but of course any rationalist will be unable to take the philosophical side very seriously. He mentions Islam, and in fact wrote a bit about it—for example, Mediterranean pirates being just about a living memory.

[2] Wilson discusses Belloc's pamphlet battle with H G Wells over 'The Outline of History'; it hadn't occurred to me that Belloc would have been jealous of Wells's sales figures. Wilson rather takes Belloc's side over Wells. Belloc thought the theory of evolution (which everyone attributed to Darwin) was taken over from Lamarck. Belloc's knowledge of science was in fact pretty much nil.

[3] Belloc's book 'The Jews' (1922) is unique in British publishing, I think. It was clearly prompted by the 'Russian Revolution', in fact of course a coup by Jews with backing from Jews in the USA. I don't think Belloc ever doubted that 'Jews' were descendants of people in the Bible, although cracks in this belief existed at the time. Wilson treats this book with evasive disdain; he is not a courageous writer. Incidentally a later edition, with a new preface, was published by Belloc in which he praised the new movement in Spain—i.e. the Spanish version of fascism.

[4] Another side to Belloc was the meditative travel book—a combination of historical speculation with a suggestion of energetic striding and/or footsore plodding to inns, eating wholesome peasant food, and orating poems—they surely couldn't have been intended for silent reading. Wilson omits his 1904 volume 'The Old Road', an attempt (I seem to recall) to relocate the Winchester to Canterbury pilgrim's way. He also enjoyed sailing and wrote a long essay on Caesar's invasion of Britain considered from the point of view of tides and wind.

[5] Belloc took the French side in the First World War; he had been anti-German for years. Wilson does not consider whether the First World War was a disaster to be avoided by the British.

[6] Just a note on Freud: Belloc was unimpressed. If man has unconscious impulses, that's an end to all planning.

[7] On history, Wilson found G. G. Coulton (seven pages on him), a Cambridge Professor of History specialising in ecclesiastical history, who exposed Belloc's historical dishonesty (page 359). G. G. Coulton in Medieval Studies No. 19 (London 1930) wrote Mr Hilaire Belloc as Historian, but I couldn't find it online, nor Belloc's reply. Wilson doesn't like Coulton ('dedicated humourlessness', 'none of Dr Rowse's generosity of temper', 'There was, of course, no answering Coulton on his own terms'). Leo XIII of 1899 instructed French clergy not to doubt aspects of the faith when considering history; Wilson (356) says Catholics 'would inevitably feel torn in their loyalties'. As an illustration, 'Survivals and New Arrivals' is online, scanned in by a Catholic organisation: part has been garbled to elide Belloc's sympathy for the Spanish anti-'Communists'.

So while Wilson has made a creditable fist of the narrative part of his book, it's a pity the intellectual component is so confined and locked-up.

Top of Page
image   Review of   A N Wilson: Bottle in the Smoke

Novel set in the 1950s—post-WW2 with Amis, Russell and others in passing, 18 May 2009

Self-centred narrator, as seems inevitable with modern novels. The sheer effort of characterisation is I suppose taught to 'creative writers' and is a bit unnerving: the narrator's relatives and acquaintances—generally treated with a fair measure of contempt—are listed by mannerisms of speech and phrasing (these of course can take up a few sentences), physical appearance (how inadequate is the average novelist .. fat faces—there's simply no vocabulary for much of this), nicknames. Sneaking a look 200 pages on, exactly the same characters appear: the once-famous novelist, Aunt Deirdre and Uncle Roy, grandma, the 'Black Bottle' (pub), Anne (wife), Sibs (um.. someone's relative). I suppose Wilson has a card index, or something similar. By my guesstimate Wilson's books were being output at about one every six months (he also was a 'prolific' journalist) so some disciplined structural effort no doubt was necessary.

All the characters are passive—I noticed this in films aimed at the plebs (e.g. cheery blokes going to join up, not even vaguely curious what's in store). Things happen to them. That's if they're unlucky: these people take no interest in the larger world—it's something like a sink estate mentality, though Wilson is far too fond of these people to be as nasty as to say so. Even the Second World War is firmly history. (There is one exception—a Jewish publisher—you can guess the detail). His people are failed 'creatives' mostly. Their lives spent waiting for a review, a publication date, official approval in the shape of an exhibition or minor stage part, approval from a relative in the civil service, admission to the house of someone better off. In fact they are quite energetically passive, like people who speak enthusiastically about not voting. It's impossible to be certain whether this is Wilson's temperament, or he simply isn't the decisive type. Thus—just a single example—Jeffrey Archer's books allegedly are packed with prices of things. Or at least, one critic said that. One of Wilson's people—runs a pub, swears, perhaps based on that Private Eye Soho pub—is never ever shown wondering whether to try a new beer or put up the price of this or that. For Wilson, he's a backdrop who happens to move and make sounds.

Among the types is a painter, based doubtless on Lowry, with whom the narrative voice worked when young. Another is a northern novelist being perhaps reprinted; he might be Melvyn Bragg or Alan Bennett moved back in time, or maybe Richard Llewellyn or that Dorset chap converted into Yorkshire; something like that. The narrator does his best to act; and to appreciate acting—there are descriptions of Shaftesbury Avenue productions and as far as I remember all the performances are described as deeply convincing and moving, but all their performers are disappointing in person. In between serving in the Black Bottle and writing an early novel (about Aunt Deirdre and Uncle Roy) the narrator (not his phrase) 'marries well'—or at least better—and we have boredom, tears, and betrayal; as a continuo, we have an eccentric couple who rent rooms to would-be actors/actresses, the male of whom gets a part on what is obviously 'The Archers'.

Published in paperback by Penguin; the book is one of a series, though I imagine it's but a tiny segment of the Viking Penguin empire—or whatever that's morphed into.

Top of Page
  Review of overview book about 'Asia'   John M Steadman: The Myth of Asia

Simple idea. Feebly embellished with other people's quotations., 10 May 2009

Terrible book. I had awarded two stars on the grounds some of the content might be helpful. But then decided that, in comparison with what the book might have been, one star is right.

The author was born in 1918 and spent the Second World War in the USAF and US army, and in Korea and Japan. He seems to have studied Eng lit (two books on Milton), the Renaissance (I would guess mostly visual art, not architecture or thought), and 'oriental studies', mostly in California. This is probably the key to the book. Japan had been wrecked, China was in turmoil, Vietnam was being devastated by the Americans. But why should Steadman care? He had money, or 'funding', and could take a secure rather contemptuous American overview. The thesis of this book is that 'Asia' doesn't exist, except as a land mass—it's divided into at least three chunks—the Indian parts, the Chinese-influenced parts, and the Islamic parts. This, of course, is true, and barely worth mentioning, one would have thought. There is therefore immense padding: part two is 'philosophy and religion', and part three 'art and aesthetics'. A much smaller part four is 'Politics'. Steadman displays no real involvement, or probably interest. To save the effort of judging and deciding, there are innumerable sentences of the sort: 'For such-and-such, [a subject] is [some adjective].' He uses standard translations of eastern works into English, and many quotations are taken from these books; the 'select bibliography' is about 300 English language works.

I'll take a few passage at random, literally: p 202: 'At this point we encounter another marked difference between Spengler and the comparative critics of East and West. Where he exaggerates the distinction between Greek and later Western art, they ['other writers'] tend to underemphasize it. Where he opposes linear perspective to "plastic" form as contrasting symbols of radically different world views, they...' and another: p 280: 'Much as Russian revolutionaries urged their countrymen to overthrow the semi-Asiatic despotism of the Czars, Chinese revolutionaries and nationalists exhorted their compatriots to end the despotic rule of the Manchus and the absolutist principles that sustained it. ....' P 281: 'Indian leaders likewise exploited the commonplace of Oriental despotism. According to Dadabhai Naoriji, British rule had freed India from the "oppression caused by the caprice or avarice of despotic rulers." ...'

He shows extraordinarily little interest in (for example) the social effects of Confucianism and such questions as whether the Chinese temperament generated it, or it was imposed, helping cause the Chinese temperament. He ignores trivial things like poverty and the racism of the caste system, since, I suppose, these were not in American newspapers and magazines. He shows no awareness of the sinister side of Islam. He shows no awareness of Christianity as Asian. The Ganges gets one sentence. He almost omits the Mongols and other migrants/ invaders/ conquerors despite the effect they had on destroying large chunks of civilisation. Russia gets a few mentions but surely the Slavs, Siberia and so on deserve more. The middle east gets few mentions though of course there is the 'Judeo-Christian' stuff.

It's amusing that in spite of his emphasis on Asia as a myth, he has no compunction about using the word 'Western', meaning, Northern America (but not southern), parts of Europe, Australia, and, no doubt, Japan.

Top of Page
Russell book jacket   Review of Bertrand Russell   Rupert Crawshay-Williams: Russell Remembered

Affectionate account of Russell from 1945, 7 May 2009

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

Top of Page
image   Review of Jewish corruption on policing   Norman Dennis, George Erdos, & Ahmed Al-Shahi: Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics (pubd 2000)

Crit of reactions to Stephen Lawrence murder (1993) and 'institutional racism', 6 May 2009

The title is misleading—the book is about the Macpherson Report into Stephen Lawrence's murder in 1993. After it, the commentariat all started to say 'the police are riddled with racism' despite the fact that 'no evidence of racism in the police who dealt with the case was ever produced.' Macpherson invented the phrase 'institutional racism'.

Dennis and Erdos date the racism industry from 1991: CCETSW ['Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work'] Diploma in Social Work guidelines 'set out in detail the new orthodoxy'. The 'self-evident truth' that 'racism is endemic in the values, attitudes and structures of British society.' No dissent ... would be tolerated. Colleges and courses that did not accept it would lose their licence to train social workers. Evidence of doubt was evidence of unsuitability...'

The Report was published in February 1999. Most of the book describes the inquiry, a sort of kangaroo court. (For my taste the three chapters on historical and sociological padding is of doubtful validity. For example, it is suggested all hate is more or less irrational and can never have a sound basis).

'There was more than a score of barristers... Witnesses were examined and cross-examined. But there were no defendants and no jury. Sir William [MacPherson] alone was responsible for assessing the degree and nature of the truth... His three advisors were the Rt. Reverend Dr John Sentamu, Bishop of Stepney; Dr Richard Stone, a general practitioner and chairman of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality; and Mr Tom Cook, a retired senior police officer. ..'

There was constant noise from the public gallery. The 'Black Police Association' is mentioned. (There is no white police association). ACPO, Association of Chief Police Officers, apparently a profit-making organisation, gets a mention. Pages 82-3 are on editing of taped interviews for the report, giving a false impression. There are pages and pages including a supposed expert witness who simply repeats the same stuff in different words.

I hate to sound querulous and captious and also lazy—but a straight account of the proceedings would I think have brought out their grotesqueness better. But at any rate this is an important effort at viewing these events objectively.

Top of Page
image   Review of police bias   Norman Dennis: Cultures and Crimes: Policing in Four Nations

Actual increase in crimes; changes in policing; 'political correctness'—all blamed on the 1960s., 6 May 2009

The four countries are England, France, Germany, and the USA. This book is long (over 200 pages) by Civitas standards. It has endnotes, separately numbered for each chapter in the normal rather confusing format. It's unindexed.

Long parts of this book are concerned, at first sight absurdly, to establish that crime has, in fact, increased. A BBC radio transcript gives an example of the nonsense talked about crime figures. There's a good deal of very sound evaluation of sources—Mayhew on the lower orders in England, police statistics, news headlines, government reports. There's also good evaluation of those trying to show there has *not* been much of an increase—Pearson's' Hooligan: A History of Respectable Fears' is one of this type—the use of the word 'respectable' is part of this type of package. Alternatively, some try to show that, even if it is high now, well, it was high then! In my view the factual and interpretational material is the best part of this book. This myth-busting part is important—it's like these books which show that Britain used to be full of whites, in the face of propaganda.

Internationally, it's difficult to assess how much of the book is essential conventional judgment: it's no surprise that France is presented as rather chaotic and revolutionary (whether the few days of the Paris commune is relevant is perhaps doubtful), and Germany as rather vicious and repressive, and the USA as conventional minded, violent, and rather stupid. These are standard stereotypes. Whether any of this is objectively true is hard to decide.

There are interesting hypothesis testing sections. Is crime caused by poverty? Low education?—and the authors debunk these easily enough.

However, the other part of this book is to assign blame:- 'this increase in crime is the result of profound cultural changes which occurred in the 1960s.'—'Crime and disorder are part of the price paid for the advantages of post-1960s society.' I don't believe this. Why should it follow?

Dennis and Erdos are curiously weak on many influential post-war events. A few examples:

[1] The Vietnam War involved atrocities on an enormous scale. Dennis and Erdos seem unaware of this—they simply think demonstrators were just being a nuisance.

[2] The period they deal with is also the period in which, for the first time in human history, large population transfers were possible as a result of modern travel—new motorways even in for example Africa; and aeroplanes. They make no attempt to identify criminal changes which such populations moves may have caused, and which coincide with the period in question. The book was published in January 2005, and therefore presumably was written in 2004. This gives it an outdated feel to anyone seriously interested in modern societies.

[3] They quote examples of political violence at the miners' strike and by the IRA. (So far as I saw, there was nothing on the start of the 'troubles' by Protestants). Neither of these can be regarded as anything to do with the 'permissive society'. And interpreting them is not easy. Sinn Fein, which promotes mass immigration into Ireland, is, in fact, not an Irish nationalist party.

[4] The authors have a persistent tendency to regard drug taking as a universal habit. They seem to think most people end up with needles strewn about their slummy households. The source of heroin is not mentioned.

The book does look in some detail at the effects on the police of controls on their powers, though the authors don't seem to develop a detailed theory. It's highly credible that police, after taking control of an area in Washington, and then being criticised for being violent, should not bother much with similar action in future. And that rules on detention and disclosure can produce odd effects, especially if people have a 'right to silence'. But why did this happen? Was it just elitist contempt for the proles? And what should best practice be? On these essential topics, as on the subject of who exactly produces fake statistics for the government, the authors are silent.

Top of Page
image   Review of Blair Labour   Peter Oborne & Simon Walters: Alastair Campbell

The Apotheosis of Journalism Brings Forth Monsters..., 30 April 2009

Oborne has written and co-written a number of books, some containing material similar to this book's. Simon Walters seems to be a Daily Mail journalist (i.e. 'right wing', but with some sensational penetrating articles). My copy was first published in 2004—clearly it's been updated from 2000, though it doesn't say so anywhere. Let me try to get the authors to speak for themselves:--

They say (page 102) '.. talented journalists ... wield immense social, economic and political power which the Media Class has gathered unto itself...'
BUT
(page 126) '.. Bernard Ingham ... understood the value of denying access. [TV and radio] Programmes that irked Margaret Thatcher suddenly found that no senior minister would go on to be interviewed. ... Campbell and Mandelson never made that sort of mistake. They controlled who appeared where ... Any programme which questioned the glowing public image of Tony Blair and his Shadow Cabinet found itself ostracised. ... Mandelson's method .. with the press was to single out a tiny number of favourites. He had a coterie of trusted souls...'

So journalists wield immense power—but, back in the real world, are at the mercy of secretaries and press officers. Oborne (editor of the Spectator) cannot admit that people like Murdoch have immense and corrupt power—able to tell lies about genocide, for example.

As regards Labour, Oborne and Walters state (page 117) 'Peter Mandelson and Philip Gould were born and bred in the Labour party—it is part of their innermost being, which is why the final ... step... felt ... like ... parricide. This was not so with Campbell...' BUT after all Mandelson is, or believed to be, descended from Jews in Poland who presumably collected taxes from the peasantry. Gould worked in advertising and polls and was a sort of prequel to spin doctoring. Born and bred in the Labour Party?

The co-authors have a curious naivete about Labour: (page 121) '.. Dromey and ... Harman ... [sent] their next son to... a grammar school in Orpington. Harman knew it was a provocative act: almost the entire Labour party was opposed to selection at the age of eleven. ...' This is disingenuous, since these authors must know that most of what 'Labour' politicians do is money-based and soaked in hypocrisy.

They seem naive about the Civil Service; at least, it's puzzling the way time-honoured routines simply seem elbowed out of the way; why didn't the mandarins object or remonstrate? I'd like to know—since after all this is highly significant for democracy—but the influential and powerful journalistic authors seem to make no useful comment. E.g.: (page 150) '.. Cabinet Secretary Sir Robin Butler ... feared the consequences of giving Campbell and Powell access to two areas of government that should be kept separate from political appointees at all costs: the intelligence services and the honours system. ... It was a prophetic warning. [But] Campbell got his way.'
AND
Page 151: '.. GIS, government information service .. seventeen out of nineteen directors of communication inherited by New Labour ... left within two years of the 1997 election.'
AND
Page 288: '.. the Prime Minister [Blair] had chaired no fewer than four meetings ... leading up to the release of Kelly's name. Permanent secretaries and Cabinet ministers had been present. Not one of these meetings had been minuted, a shocking and serious breach of Whitehall procedure. ..'

At a personal level, the authors make quite a bit of the Campbell name—the depths of treachery, which perhaps they believe is hereditary. And of his looks—he may have been a gigolo—an Amazon review speaks of 'exercising the ferret', but it seems more like a marathon. It's not clear to me how he got to Cambridge, being a football-loving drunk; maybe he was a token northerner? He got what the authors call a 'prestigious' training place as a journalist. This was with the Daily Mirror—as prestigious as dog sh*t! He attached himself to Maxwell, Ingham, Kinnock, before Blair. He essentially faked letters: page 230: 'Campbell used the authority of the Downing Street press machine to issue a false account of Mandelson's [dismissal] .. he then wrote the resignation letters. Emboldened by his success with Ron Davies' resignation letter and Nick Brown's gay 'confession'.. he composed both Mandelson's letter of resignation and Blair's reply. ...'

What happened under 'New Labour'—the instructions and agenda and secret directions—doesn't ever surface. This is a book by journalists for people who don't realise that the media are a managed branch of propaganda. I'll give two stars—not that it matters, as Campbell and the rest will vanish like gigolos after servicing their clients.

Top of Page
image   Review of British Archaeology   Ron Shoesmith: Alfred Watkins: A Herefordshire Man

Watkins is an under-rated figure..., 19 Feb 2009

Watkins is under-rated, mainly because he devised a new idea which academics hated, though they weren't very successful in opposing him.

He invented the idea of 'leys', *not* 'ley lines'. The idea was that lines of sight were important; in times before maps, roads, and big towns, not to mention sat navs and signposts. He invented the engaging idea that trading routes had to go long distances, and of course it was important not to get lost en route—not an easy trick when paper and ink, tarmac, road rollers, stone moving equipment, and weedkillers barely existed. Stone markers in lines, the 'gwlch'—a scooped-away path visible on the horizon—beacons, burial and other mounds—including Silbury Hill—and generally things exploiting the straight line aspect of light were in his view arranged and designed as early straight-line tracks. I suspect much of this was thought up by Watkins as he travelled around Wales selling and promoting some of his business ideas. (He was—inter alia—an early photographer and patented his own exposure meter). His ideas led to enthusiasts with maps and rulers trying to find networks of lines in a probably unrealistic fashion. Probably more attention will be devoted to him in time—not many people can invent a new way to picture the world. I think he may have influenced Belloc, who also wrote on trackways, mainly to do with pilgrims' routes. I suspect Tolkien had some knowledge of his books, too '... the road goes ever ever on'.

This biography however, though affectionate, is a bit short. It isn't very detailed, but so far as I know is the only one available as a mass-market book.

My long account of leys and Alfred Watkins's contribution to archaeology.

Top of Page
image   Review of media stars   Norma Farnes: Spike: An Intimate Memoir

It's not easy to describe another human being, 16 Feb 2009

Terence Milligan (1918-2002) made some TV appearances.

They were later than the unsophisticated early type of Hancock and Charlie Drake and Steptoe and The Rag Trade and other rubbish. One was a series, The Melting Pot, apparently filmed in 1976, when Milligan was about 58. Only one episode was ever broadcast, after which the BBC seems to have disowned it. All episodes are now on archive.org, which seem to be the original complete films, plus introductory titles and clock time-downs, added on 2022-10-28. These may not be complete; their timings vary.
      The plot seems to involve two Pakistani illegals (Milligan and I think Neil Shand or John Bird in 'blackface', ie brown make-up) showing them in a house with other immigrants, all entitled to the dole, with a big-breasted white woman serving up food.
      I think part of the objection may have been to a 'London Jew' character, shown arguing with an Arab, dancing about in a possibly highly significant Jew chant, with food cartons labelled things like 'KOSHER FOOD', with an ugly actor with a small hat playing the vulgar Jew. Obviously, after Jews had won the war, they were careful to show whites as horrible or whores, the C of E as silly, other races as harmless. And to never mention anything Jews prefer to hide.

The anonymous rather simple uploader wrote [spelling sic]: "... i uploaded them here because they need to be saved regardless of there racial undertones they was funny really funny for there time and should be preserved."
      He (or she?) also wrote: "The [illegal immigrant] pair quickly mix themselves in with the other residents and visitors of the boarding house, who include Luigi O'Reilly (Wayne Brown), a black Yorkshireman, Eric Lee Fung (Harry Fowler), a Chinese cockney who specializes in selling illicit goods, a spiv in fact, disguised as a non-jew, Richard Armitage (John Bluthal), an Orthodox London Jew, Colonel Grope (Robert Dorning), an alcoholic and racist ex-officer of the Indian army, Bluey Notts (Bill Kerr [Aussie actor who was with Tony Hancock]), a crude and racist Australian bookie's clerk, and Sheik Yamani (Anthony Brothers), a Muslim Arab who speaks with a Scottish accent as a result of working at the Peckham branch of the Bank of Scotland." The author doesn't bother to mention the breast-enlarged woman.
      The actors all use English and part of the point here is to show the death of the British Empire. Without calling it a Jewish empire, more accurately.
      My guess is that drawing attention to Jews is as verboten then as it is today. But it's hard to know; it's a taboo topic. If you can face it, watch the stuff and marvel at the anti-white "BBC".

Here's The Melting Pot episode 6 as a specimen.

An unremarked aspect of Milligan—watch the recording, with floorstanding microphones, of the Goon Show. It's very like the technique with The Archers, all the speakers clutching their scripts. Recorded applause/'canned laughter' in effect plays another part.

Milligan did a long interview (probably watchable online) in which he described his dad as a "fascist", a "real fascist", because he didn't like Pakistanis—a country which only existed from 1947, into Britain. Milligan had quite a few children, though I haven't established their number of the number of mothers. Milligan laughed when he heard some media chap say Milligan only wanted to be happy and not to think. - RW 21 June 2023



It's not easy to describe another human being. I'm not a huge fan of Milligan, but at any rate he played a distinctive part in post-war Britain, with its odd uncertain path. Just a few notes on Norma Farnes' book:-

[1] She got a job as a secretary with Milligan more or less by pure chance, answern advert from the Alfred Marks agency, and as she got settled in, expanded into being his agent. There's an amusing account of her negotiating an advertising deal for him basically by asking twice what they offered, with no idea at all what typical rates were. Milligan offloaded most of his decisions onto her (she says, probably correctly).

[2] Milligan downed pills like smarties (for US readers, something like M&Ms)—Norma gives the trade names of these drugs, which I regard as a worrying sign. I wouldn't be at all surprised if his depressions were caused by pill-popping.

[3] Milligan despite moments of Catholic sense-of-sin, and being married, had lots of sex—Norma says typically from 6 to 12 women at any one portion of his life. One had his child and tried to exploit him, she says. Norma seems not too interested in this aspect of his life—though it does make it seem odd that the Goons and Q5 and so on have female characters, if at all, of a Benny Hill type. I would guess they were often groupie types.

[4] This book is curiously confined. The 'Goons' [Milligan, Sellers, Michael Bentine, Harry Secombe] are discussed of course, especially Peter Sellers and his wives and death, but not their early story. A few impresario types—Sydney Bernstein for example—are in. But the whole sense of the 1960s is empty—Beatles, Rolling Stones, other film actors, clothes designers, are missing. The Monty Python team are unmentioned—despite Milligan often complaining they plagiarised him.

[5] There's not much looking at the way creative types are in thrall to money. From one viewpoint Milligan was enormously lucky; the BBC had a monopoly in broadcasting until ITV ('Independent Television') was invented in the 1950s so anybody on it—typically wartime entertainers, from ENSA—had a career boost worth a fortune in publicity, and this must have helped him as he went into TV shows, books, wartime autobiographies, theatre, TV commercials, pantomime and so on. I saw him myself in about 1966, in 'The Bed Sitting Room', though the theatre was half-empty. Of course this publicity factor continued—Eric Sykes, Hancock, Sid James, Hattie Jacques... the Pythons, and many others up to say Jonathan Ross, were beneficiaries. When the extension of black and white telly to ITV ['Independent'] was being debated, it was with a sort of intense anxiety and dread—would British culture be ruined and commercialised? Most of this feeling—the entire societal framework around Milligan and others—is missing from this book.

[6] I didn't take his vast output of books at all seriously. But they included The Bible ... According to Spike Milligan (Michael Joseph, 1993 and Penguin Books 1994). I found a copy of his mercifully-short Old Testament in a cheap sale. Farnes says he took 'the language of the good book ... completely sending it up.' She said it was a bestseller in hardback, 'nearly 70,000 hardbacks sold.' I hadn't known about his rewritten books, reminiscent of Churchill, methodologically at least; he did versions of Lady Chatterley's Lover and a few others, Wuthering Heights, Black Beauty, Frankenstein. His Bible is an interesting transmutation of the deliberately solemnified Jewish rubbish into what may be accurately ridiculous story-lines. I don't know if he was inspired by the success of Monty Python's Life of Brian.

[7] Milligan disliked the BBC though I'm not sure Norma really worked out why. This is (I hope) a far more common outlook now, as many people have become aware of BBC lies—largely due to Internet, which of course post-dates most of Milligan. A story I read was that 'The Goon Show' was broadcast on a strange radio slot—because the wife of a controller didn't like the show. He was furious about this but I doubt he made much impression on the BBC—all his life he felt undereducated, and that he was patronised by smart types.
      This looks true—his handwritten notes reproduced through the book hint at spelling problems. Which for all I know may be common with 'creative' types. Norma is far too discreet to talk of such things. Nor does she describe any of his multiple women.

[8] Large chunks of Spike are written as dialogue. I wonder if Farnes used her competent shorthand?

So—OK, and for any serious fans essential. But I found it rather disappointing. By the way—it occurs to me that the title might have been designed to pull in readers wondering about Milligan's sexual skill. Norma says that they never had any such activity. I suppose that's slightly disappointing too.

Top of Page
image   Review of Economics   Eamonn Fingleton: In Praise of Hard Industries

Important, well-written, 26 Aug 2008

British viewpoint... Important antidote to Tony Blair/ Gordon Brown/ Alistair Darling/ etc—Brown had a reputation as a financial genius, entirely unjustified by any possible objective facts.

Fingleton is good on Japan, having lived there for years; he notes various important facts about the Japanese: (1) their bosses keep things secret—they have no need to publicise; (2) after allowing the Yen to rip forward once, and provoking a backlash, they learned to be cautious and disinformational; (3) MAJOR POINT—modern manufacture has many very high tech industries; it's not just assembly work. His examples include Japanese monopolies in 'steppers' for making chips, new forms of steel, and modern superfine synthetic fibres. Brown and his simpleton advisors regard engineering as low grade work, and presumably have no clue about this; (4) The Economist which Fingleton lashes into consistently misinterpreted Japan. (5) Japan's policy is not to maximise profits, but to maximise market shares in foreign countries.

He deals also with India, Europe (especially Germany).

His recommendations are somewhat Japonesque—some tariff walls, improved education, ploughing back of profits, increasing the horizon of companies for example by fining corporations if they sack American workers.

I've noticed an increasing trend for commentators NOT to say things like "capitalism has been responsible for the greatest wealth creation in human history etc etc.." because it's increasingly obvious that finance in itself isn't very important—technology, skill, raw materials and so on count.

The book (or my copy) was published about 2000. It was advertised on the BNP website, as it supports their nationalistic approach. It's pre-9/11—he doesn't mention Islam, or the (absurd) idea that steel buildings might collapse at free fall speed. It's also pre the dot com boom and bust, which he got pretty much right. He didn't predict Google, or e-bay, though this latter isn't exactly on line shopping.

On balance, very good and reasonably well written and to-the-point.

Top of Page
image   Review of human right as fraud   A. C. Grayling: Towards the Light: The Story of the Struggles for Liberty and Rights That Made the Modern West

Pitifully ordinary, no deep knowledge, brushes aside vast crimes—paid mediocrity, 16 Jun 2009

I found this in a second-hand bookshop; the hardback jacket design is in the style of an 18th century 'notice'. Grayling, incredibly, is apparently a professor at Birkbeck, which, admittedly, has a second-rate reputation. A single volume outlining the progress of 'liberty' could be valuable; this book is trash.

What is it that makes this book such a disaster? It's difficult to review unresisting imbecility ((c) Dr Johnson) so I'll fall back on bullet points, hoping the cumulative ballistic impact will influence the readership here:-

**Slavery. Grayling says 'Slavery itself was abolished in New York in 1799...' (p. 170), an absolute gem of pure absurdity. Grayling doesn't know that slavery existed widely—no doubt because machinery hadn't been invented; he doesn't know Muslim slavery exceeded in numbers and viciousness anything from the 'west'; he doesn't seem to know slavery still exists and must increase.

**Genocide. Grayling doesn't mention and probably doesn't know about (for example) the Belgian Congo, Armenia, Vietnam—where millions died. Only Jews matter to Grayling, an absolutely consummate racist position. Grayling has no comprehension of the tokenism of Nuremberg—he seems to imagine it was a genuine trial.

**Absolutism. Again—no surprise—Louis is presented as 'absolute'—and yet at the same time not being able to enforce his will! Luckily Grayling is too stupid to see the obvious contradiction here.

**Europe. Page 10 says: 'the Czech Republic returned to its rightful place in the heart of Europe by joining the European Union in 2004'. Well—if the EU represents it in some 'rightful' way, this would be true. But if not—and of course the EU is the opposite of an organisation devoted to liberty—the sentence is laughable.

**Grayling quotes and mentions the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' with no idea of its deep insincerity; what about the rights of Germans expelled from eastern Germany—millions died? What about Biafrans? Vietnamese? Cambodians?

**Grayling quotes the so-called 'Russian Revolution', in fact a coup by Jews, or rather people who thought they were Jews, as though it has something to do with 'liberty'.

**It's probably not to be expected that Grayling could have any grasp of technology. If oil runs out, will slavery return? Would that be 'bad'? Will populations crash? Will 'rights' be maintained, if so?

Grayling is like Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, blinking owlishly, rewarded by historical accident for unthinkingly repeating the obsolete lies and propaganda of past and present hacks. Grayling, just like Williams, may continue to collect cheques until he dies, not because he thinks, but because he doesn't. But then again, he may not.

Top of Page
image   Review of blair era   Cherie Blair: Speaking for Myself: The Autobiography

Read between the lines .. an insult to Britain, 15 Jun 2009

An interesting insight into the transmutation of 'left-wing views' when money appears. The Kinnocks and many others show a similar pattern. This book was another nail in Labour's coffin.

I bought this (remaindered) specifically to check [1] How 'New Labour' was invented, [2] Whether the string-pullers are mentioned, [3] whether the 'Human Rights Act' and related scams were deliberately designed to make money for Cherie B and others.

There's no mention anywhere of Bilderberg meetings and people like Kissinger, nor of Common Purpose and people like Julia Middleton. It's well known that Tony Blair was summoned to the Bilderberg meetings, and no doubt put on the act of his life. A barrister is as much an actor as a legal brain, perhaps more so, and Blair turned in the performance of a lifetime, unfortunately. At any rate, Blair, despite nil previous interest in politics, was soon keen on the EU. (Cherie B says nothing about its 'parliament' having no power to make laws, only to comment). Also of course he got rid of Clause 4—presumably so public assets, the common wealth, could be sold off. Another thing was making the 'Bank of England' independent. All these policies are of course Bilderberg/ 'global'/ banker policies.

After only about a year of New Labour, the Human Rights Act was 'in the Queen's speech'—Cherie B doesn't say who put it there. (Before that Cherie B's work was in employment law). 'Matrix Chambers' with 26 practitioners was set up to aim at 'Human rights' work—they didn't want it to be just in Strasbourg! Cherie B says nothing about phoney 'asylum seekers', or the way lawyers manipulate legal aid. Incidentally one lawyer is quoted as shying away as it might be too 'left wing'—I wonder if he was troubled by the immigration aspect?

Anyway—there are fragments of information about 'New Labour' though Cherie B has no concept of the malignity of its effects. As with legal letters, nothing she doesn't like is mentioned. She says the Olympics were 'won' for London ('won' in the eBay sense); she doesn't mention the Dome. She mentions Mandela, but not corruption in South Africa or the fact its minerals remain under the same control as before. She comes across as a naive Catholic believer, with no clue about its history; ditto with so called 'trotskyites'. She supported war in Iraq because 'Tony would never lie to me.'

She seems to have no abstract ideas about law whatever: the only general statement she makes is that (in Rwanda) if there are hundreds of thousands of murders, it will be difficult and expensive to get three judges to assess each case. In fact I have some doubts whether her claim to have come first in bar finals was true—there's no evidence of any intellect. Maybe it was made up by the controlled media?

Top of Page
  Review of Jewish interest   DVD—History of Nuclear Weapons—The Ultimate Weapons (2-DVD Set) [2007]

1 out of 5 stars—Only six b/w movies and nothing on H Bombs, 15 Jan 2010

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

Top of Page
Image   Review of lies about crimes—media   McLagan, Graeme—Guns and Gangs [2005?]

1 star—Be Aware This Book is by an Ex-BBC Liar, 25 July 2010

The BBC is Britain's state propaganda. McLagan it appears used to 'work' for the BBC. I haven't even read this book, which incidentally was promoted by the 'Guardian', but I can tell you with complete confidence that
[1] It will say nothing about the deliberate decision to allow immigrants to live on benefits in Britain, and to do nothing about the known relatively high criminality
[2] Capital punishment was abolished deliberately to damage white communities
[3] The farcical Stephen Lawrence case was deliberately intended to damage police authority and integrity. In all these cases, the BBC was staunchly opposed to British people's interests.
[4] The BBC continues to fail to report anti-white sex incidents, anti-white violence incidents, and other deliberately introduced aspects of immigration.

It's inconceivable that this book would come anywhere near telling the truth about crime. At present this seems only available through alternative outlets, mainly Internet, including some print-on-demand books from Amazon.

Top of Page
  Review of Jewish propaganda pre-WW2   'George Orwell': Homage to Catalonia

See 'Pawns in the Game' for the Truth

Yes. Download and read 'Pawns in the Game' by William Guy Carr, if you want the truth about this horrible and bloody war. It was the same sort of scenario as the USSR—a Jewish attempt to take over Spain. George Orwell had no idea—all his publishers were Jews; he was a 'useful idiot'.
_______________________

There's more on Orwell as 'useful idiot' here, including of course remarks on 1984: https://nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/orwell-useful-idiot-ignorant-nukes-spain-jews.html

Top of Page
  Review of British 'alternative' media as a fake   Craig Brown: The Lost Diaries

Satire and cowardice don't mix—disappointingly lightweight and superficial

Craig Brown writes parodies for Private Eye, a [British] magazine with an unjustified reputation for serious news exposure, and has written for years; his pieces typically occupying about half an Eye page. About 26 each year, therefore. I'm unsure if he has written 365 by now; quite possibly he's been at it for more than fifteen years. There may be some copyright issue with Private Eye; Hislop is listed as his 'editor' and the sources are not made clear. [NB for American readers, Hislop is on a 'current affairs' TV programme called 'Have I Got News for You'—mostly politically correct garbage]. However, I recognised some fragments originally in the Eye—our Queen explaining what a railway train is to Tony Blair, 'Ming' Campbell on Saddam Hussein being no friend of the Lib Dems, Michael Winner in a ridiculous anthropophagy story. Most of the 'diary entries' are too short to have been printed unchanged.

A cover blurb from the failing 'Sunday Times' says Brown's the 'greatest living satirist'. So what do we find here? This collection, or rewrite, is indexed, and as many names as possible are shoehorned in—thus a Shirley Williams reference proved only to be a mention in passing, not a joke diary entry. Many seem oddly dated, for example Edward Heath. There are such people as Clive Bell and Racine and Lord Lucan and George V; maybe some date coincidence justified their presence. But, given a quarter century or more, what a potential feast we have—ingredients spread on display perhaps including our Archbishop of Canterbury, a political appointee selected by a war criminal; Tony Benn, a consummate hypocrite; Ken Livingstone, Mandelson—well; whole clutches of official state media people—Yentob, Clive James, Dimblebies, Barry Norman; Callaghan, Major, sundry shadows. I'd have liked some satire at the expense of Susan Greenfield. (And Brian Cox. Maybe Dawkins)—too much to hope for, though. Diane Abbott? What about various black appointees who embezzled? What about the Stephen Lawrence propaganda fest? Maybe Dizaei (I think) and 'black police officers' introducing their cultural traits to Britain? Perhaps a Rothschild advising the Queen—surely there's satirical scope for comments on the murder of the Romanovs by Jews in Russia, maybe with smart rejoinders about German royalty?

Sadly, there's little of any merit. Brown has a narrow range of techniques: one is cartoonish exaggeration as with Winner—another example is Roger Scruton mounting a horse backwards. This can work—there's Esther Rantzen complaining about tight belts, though I have to say that plump Daily Mail chap did it better. Another is language, obviously—there's a simple divide between chavs and soap 'stars'—his Madonna has an American accent, and Jonathan Woss says "gweat"—and more-or-less literary figures (such as Hitchens—nothing on Elie Weisel—Isaiah Berlin, A L Rowse, Anthony Burgess etc) who are mostly pastiched with long words, as their underlying outlooks and concepts seem out of Brown's range. (The Dalai Lama pieces... couldn't Brown have done a bit of background work? Harold Pinter and Antonia Fraser—ditto; not just a bit of foul-mouthed stuff touched with east end slang!) As a thought substitute there are walk-on parts for such as Murdoch and Kissinger, both handled with kid gloves.

Omitted names, in no particular order, as well as those listed above, include Andrew Neather, any Dimbleby, any BBC boss e.g. Dyke, J K Rowling, heads of any of the Civil Service, Intelligence, military, the Commission on Equality and Human Rights, the MacPherson Report, asylum barristers—surely there's food for the satirist there!!

An odd omission is Eye writers. Wheen, author of a very useless book on a serious topic, is missing. So is Booker. So is Hislop—a horrible prematurely aged pigfaced little clown, posing for his TV sound bites on Diana, 9/11, or whatever, obvious lies with obviously fake canned laughter. Nor his holiday novelist wife, who seems to thinks nice girls should forever get taxpayers' money for non-jobs..

Just as people of the defunct USSR must sometimes stumble across an old issue of Krokodil and gaze in wonder at its restricted little grubby porthole on the world, so must Craig Brown's books be viewed. Shallowness and parody don't mix; neither do satire and cowardice mix. Avoid this book.

Top of Page
  Review of Jewish psychology science   Edward Bernays: Propaganda

Bernays a useful starting-point to understand Jewish lies

[I don't have the original text—it was removed by Amazon! But some other rerevisionist notes are: 'I doubt Bernays was particularly important—there were 'endless other wartime propaganda departments, peacetime newsaper editors, filmmakers, advertisers, legal manipulators of libel, school textbook writers etc etc etc, all doing their bit to tell lies. Bernays's book Propaganda doesn't say much analytically; he just instances things like promoting eggs and bacon 'as recommended by doctors' etc. I think his only selling proposition was being related to Freud, which no doubt he milked endlessly to get clients'.

Vance Packard mentioned The Engineering of Consent (1955) edited by Edward L Bernays, including Bernays on 'newsworthy events.. planned deliberately'.

Chomsky promotes Bernays in The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda but fails to mention: censorship of 'ZOG' groups in the USA; 1916 atrocity stories and anti-German propaganda of every sort, and of course the other world-war related censorship of Jews. Chomsky's book is mostly devoted to the lightweight marketing tricks of PR people, including Bernays.
Here's more on the Bernays family, more light on Jewish problems. It is an account (unchecked - RW) of the plans and building up of the myths of Nuremberg.

Edward Bernays' Brother-in-Law Designed The Nuremberg Trials
Posted on October 21, 2016 by ariawhitebeam

When we think of the name Bernays we often think of that Propaganda piece of shit. However his brother in law, Murray Cohen, sorry Murray Bernays, as he changed his name when marrying Edward's sister, was also cohencidentally a Jewish piece of shit who also got himself involved in the paperwork of war. I know, small world, right?

So, why and how could this Bernays be just as beastly? When Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were deciding what to do with Germany, they took a stumble when the Morgenthau Plan was used to justify a firing squad on all 'Nazis', but was supposedly received badly and declined (although later revised). Before the trio could make more plans together, Roosevelt died and Churchill was replaced by Clement Attlee of Labour.

Colonel Murray Bernays of the Special Projects Branch was given paperwork that discussed a "Napoleon Precedent" – punishment without trials, which had been dismissed because of its horrific nature and so was to be 'tamed'. This was to the disgust of Morgenthau, who wrote 'The Problem with Germany' and suggested dividing the land into states and de-industrialising the nation.

Lawyer Bernays was able to step in and solve the dilemma. He designed the Nuremberg trials; the Nuremberg charter was officially given the title of 'London Charter of the Military Tribunal', and was very illegal. The Nuremberg trials avoided traditional procedure by simply changing the rules of a trial.
In the words of historian Robert Conot, Bernays was "the guiding spirit leading the way to Nuremberg." Bernays, a successful New York attorney, persuaded US War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial (Mark Weber)

Murray Bernays, with all of his skills, military projects, occupation as a lawyer, and previous work for the social engineering giant of public relations Edward Bernays as a writer and researcher, was the perfect man to be able to sell what looked like a trial. It was, in fact, just another firing squad, but Murray managed to dress it up as a trial.
The allies were guilty of substituting power for principle at Nuremberg. I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg Trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex past fact (after the fact) [ex post facto? - RW] to suit the passion and clamour of the time" (William Douglas, Associate US Supreme Court)
About this whole judgement there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret." (US Senator Robert A. Taft)

There was no trial, there was no 'innocent until proven guilty', the law 'judging' them was unlawful and made up of Zionists/Jews to decide their fate. Murray Bernays came to the conclusion that:
The crimes and atrocities were not single or unconnected but were the inevitable outcome of the basic criminal conspiracy of the Nazi party."

With such a view, the party as a whole was given a 'trial' without having the opportunity to defend itself, as evidence was refused again and again, and all soldiers were seen as 'dual soldiers and politicians' in guilt. Murray Bernays had decided that:
The Nazi doctrine of racism, totalitarianism, involved murder, terrorism and the destruction of peaceful populations in the violations of the laws of war."

About now would be a good time to remind those of you who have not yet watched [or read - RW] Hellstorm to do so and realise the statement above is disgusting, since the first order after Germany's unconditional forced surrender was to reduce their land and create a wave of refugees heading for their new borders, with over two million never to arrive. They were in the hands of what was believed (and is still believed) to be the great victorious liberators from Britain and the US. In reality it was, in the words of Murray Bernays, 'murder, terrorism and the destruction of populations in the violations of the laws of war', but in fact the war was over, and the terrible fate of the German people was cold, calculated murder. The double standards in which these 'new laws' were invented is beyond words. The treatment of the German people at the end of the war and after the war is too great to fully absorb; when reading these facts there is a certain disconnect because of the overwhelming heinous reality.

Bernays suggested that to deal with the so-called 'Nazi' Party's 'guilt that was beyond crime' there would need to be new categories for war crimes.

The overlapping Conspiracies of the Plan were: war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. Germany was deemed solely responsible for the war and accounts from Soviets and Polish reports, as well as Jews/Zionists, were used to concrete the need for Bernays' design for the so called trials. The only difference between the initial plan that Churchill advocated and the one Bernays designed was the latter involved role-play and paper; in fact the 11 men hanged would have suffered less under fire than they did under trial and hanging, which was carried out incorrectly, causing a slow torturous death.
The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment — the sentences." (Judge Iola T. Nikitchenko, USSR)

It had been noted that if they had been able to carry out the Morgenthau plan (in thorough detail) they would not have been able to punish everyone involved within the party for their part in the believed crimes, as they could with Bernays' designs.
The other benefit of using a 'trial' was that Hitler would not be 'elevated to martyrdom', as surely nobody would think such a thing after being indoctrinated with beliefs that are unopen for debate, back then and now. This shows the fear of Hitler's impending legendary status.

Their judgment of perceived benefit was wrong. Many people still 'Heiled' Hitler and still do – the so called deniers, revisionists and National Socialists. Some brave people have been talking aloud, while others talk to their God in the dark, in the quiet, just like every religion and movement starts. People began collecting the things that bring them closer to their figurehead of change, reading his book, his vision, before they sleep.

It must unnerve the chosen ones that the second bestseller worldwide is Mein Kampf, and the first is the Bible. The last thing they would want is for Hitler to be 'elevated to martyrdom', to be seen as a legend, a god, whose words form a new religion. I use these terms in expression of theirs.

The German man, the warrior for his people and his Fuhrer, has been given a legacy of lies. Our strongest souls, who stood up to this orchestrated elite Jewish evil, have had their names muddied by a family of dirty propagandists and lawyers, making up laws to suit their own needs. They have been telling the world that the Fuhrer was unstable and insane maniac. How dare they take his people and ruin his land.

Oh, when the German man awakes this time it will be in the embodiment of Tyr, and the European man will not help take him down again, under the blindfold of Propagandist Bernays and the judgment of Lawyer Bernays, and their entourage of Zionists/jews. Once bitten, twice shy.

We often discuss the jewish ability to stick together, but it is not for love, and not for honour; it is for protection and selfish gains, nothing more.

When we stand together it is for us all. It is for love. It is for honour. Nothing more. Those who stand together for each other are stronger than those who only stand together for themselves. Only they divided and conquered us. We will stand together once more, stronger than before. If National Socialism is a glimpse of the united European man, then it is only the light before the dawn.

I have no doubt in my mind, that I am in love with us all.

Top of Page
Dead Aid   Review of Jewish interest   Dambisa Mboyo: Dead Aid: Why aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa

A token black who ignores herds of African elephants in the rooms, 28 Nov 2010 by Rerevisionist

A rather strange book. The writing style is pitiful—copied from the USA Jewish junk propaganda press, of the Time/Life sort. Staccato assertions and cliches ('palpable excitement', 'mounting evidence', 'latched on to', 'China is motoring', 'california-based interface', 'core focus of policy agenda', 'the Dutch Disease', with utterly irrelevant space-wasting 'human interest' anecdotes presumably as relief. All counter-evidence is censored or, possibly, simply not known or noticed. Large parts read like Goldman Sachs information to big investors—you can imagine Bill Gates or Spielberg being sent the stuff in bulk. For example, sparing the acronyms, in some African counties 'performance across the bond markets is impressive'. The numerical detail falters where ordinary Africans are concerned, though: the 'Myth of Aid' chapter talks of an 'African revival' which means there's been 1. A commodity prices 'surge', 2. 'Positive policy dividends' apparently meaning 'transparent and stable monetary performance' and 3. Some notable strides 'democratic elections and decline in perceived corruption'. It's typical of the book that all these things are unquantified, probably (I'd guess) because the commodities surge benefits only people nominally on company boards. Moyo is interested in performance of bond markets, and masses of people supposedly living on less than a dollar a day are ignored.

It's extraordinary that about thirty people are credited with contributing to and tuning up this book. They're even named!

A quick google shows she's been promoted by all the US media, a certain sign of Obama-style puppetry. It's worth debunking her qualifications: her parents presumably were the first wave of 'educated' blacks—her father supposedly spent eight years in the USA studying linguistics (although he couldn't speak his wife's language). Her mother studied English ditto. Moyo did four years at Oxford: Britain now has a huge debt, has been largely de-industrialised, and has been the victim of vast frauds, mostly of course Jewish, and is in the undemocratic EU, which is tottering. None of the Oxford 'thinkers' have any grasp on these issues. Oxford is also the home of the ridiculous phoney Evans, who retails WW2 propaganda. She also worked at Goldman Sachs, though what she did, if anything, is never stated. This doesn't prove she's no good, of course, but it's not encouraging. I have to say this because of the cocoon of publicity, which includes an unctuous introduction by Niall Ferguson, who is a sort of professional anti-white Rothschild apologist.

It's disappointing, though unsurprising, to find a total lack of any grasp of the possibilities of Africa. No doubt Africa needs appropriate technology, of which there is no sign. It's possible its geography needs reconsideration—many of the states seem hard to defend, for example, and after all they were only invented with lines on maps. There's the depressing possibility, undiscussed by Moyo, that Africans have such low IQs that nothing can be done. Africa has had more wars than many places on earth, and yet Moyo has no examination of spending on arms and who profited. There is nothing on money stashed abroad by some of the great dictators. Is it impossible to appropriate it?—No comment from the banking 'expert'. There's nothing on the actual mechanism: one imagines each of these countries has its Rothschild bank, printing money at huge interest, backed by nothing much, and there's a sort of credit entry, and of course a debit interest entry building up. Moyo gives no information on state banks or private banks which actually do the lending. (Incidentally, it's no surprise she has no idea about 'AIDS'—she's one of these people who spell 'healthcare' as one word).

There are notionally two parts to this book; one showing that aid doesn't work, the other showing what should be done. Neither part begins to address the issues.

I've quoted from the 'Myth of aid' chapter, but won't bother with the others. One would expect detail of how 'aid' has been damaging—figures of guesses for where it's gone, and details of what Moyo calls inevitably the 'fine print'—for example, in effect it's a gift to be paid for by buying the 'donor' country equipment. I wouldn't be surprised if all the power stations are supplied by different countries, at different voltages and fuels, for example. I'd be even less surprised to find the donors take a share, and black officials take another share. But there's no actual detail as to why it doesn't work—a truly incredible, tabloid style evasion, in contrast with the rates of return and balanced portfolio investment claims.

The second part is supposed to deal with what might be done; a lot relates to China, although close examination suggests China contributes only 15% to the influx of 'money'. Also FDI ('foreign direct investment', presumably a euphemism for investment not done through Goldman-Sachs). It's curious that Moyo says nothing about the South African model: after prolonged propaganda against apartheid, by the usual; media suspects, a joke system has been introduced, with all the mines under the same control as before. Worth a mention? Not to Moyo! She also mentions the problem of agricultural subsidies, both in the USA and the EU. The net effects are obscure—I'd guess deliberately, as it can't be conceptually that difficult to visualise. Anyway, she dislikes them, and supports free markets, which she thinks were the basis of development. Maybe her Oxford tutors hadn't heard of Empire Preference, the Zollverein, US tariff walls—but I suppose nobody's perfect. Another section looks at microfinance, something which Goldman-Sachs and the like obviously would avoid. It all sounds a bit like Friendly Societies and Building Societies in Britain. An example is the Grameen Bank in I think just Muslim countries north of India. Hard to judge, as Moyo seems unable to describe them accurately, and doesn't seem to know about Islamic dodges to pretend there's no interest, and there are accusations that they resemble Ponzi schemes. She also mentions remittances—she wants 1/4 of the income of come countries to come from remittances. (It is of course Jewish policy to flood African immigrants into Europe). There's a tantalising comment about savings squirreled away; maybe Goldman-Sachs have a memory of squeezing out gold from starving Russians in the 1930s, in the 'valuta' shops.

Let me try to summarise, first, what is OMITTED. There is NOTHING SYSTEMATIC WHATEVER on ---
[1] What does 'living on less than $1 a day' actually mean?
[2] What is actually done with 'aid'?
[3] What is the mechanism of 'donations' or 'aid' to these countries?
[4] How much damage was done to Africa deliberately by wars?
[5] Capital projects—e.g. new airport in India, space research—are paid for by e.g. the British taxpayer. Why?
[6] How much 'aid' goes into the pockets of donor country officials, perhaps to build bolt-hole homes abroad?
[7] How much money from copper, oil, coffee, whatever actually goes to the inhabitants of the countries?
[8] Are there Fed / Bank of England style Rothschild banks ripping off these countries?
[9] Is it deliberate policy to keep Africans desperate so they will invade Europe?
[10] How damaging are African superstitions such as Islam, Muti etc?
[11] Has anyone got any plans at all for developing Africa in a sane way?
[12] Is some sort of political union possible? The population of Africa is approaching that of China and there's no sign of it slowing. Why have dozens of countries?
[13] What does the 'World Bank', clearly an important 'aid' thing, actually do?

Now let me try to summarise HER SUGGESTIONS. I say 'try to' because of course they are coded and vague:-
[1] She wants a phone call 'scenario'—All African leaders should make a phone call saying aid will be turned off in (say) five years.
[2] 'Strengthening of institutions' she thinks is 'easy to implement' with just a phone call!
[3] Things can't get worse! She thinks the people on less than $1 a day won't be much harmed. I don't know—I can imagine Africa with all wild life eaten, all trees used for fuel, with cannibalism rife. But why worry.

Let me try to illustrate the insanity of this. Mr Mboto on the phone: "Hello, Mr Treasurer. I am the Prime Minister of Xland. As you know, I have a huge bureaucracy of my friends and my tribe, and we run our country, even if some of them find the work a little hard to do properly. I'm grateful for the 100 million in my bank, by the way. We have an army and airforce and national airline and our radio and TV. We have quite an expensive police system. As you know, you have our copper mine and palm oil plantations. Now we are going to cut off money from you, so that none of my tribe can be paid, and our wonderful armed forces will be unequipped, and our strongarm police will not be paid. That nice educated woman Moyo says it's easy to implement new institutions, so we will make one phone call and we will then have an educated civil service, proper entrepreneurial facilities, good hospitals, an exemplary legal system and a well educated workforce, with of course well-thought out plans to research and make use of local resources to supply the needed water, food and energy to our people."

This is clearly nuts. So what does the book actually mean? What's the subtext? I can only guess, but maybe something on these lines: [1] The Rothschild bank system must be kept, however much of a parasitical effect it may have on Africans. [2] All benefits to ordinary Africans should be offloaded onto white taxpayers, and anything profitable taken by investors. [3] The huge frauds recently carried out—mostly by the usual suspects—must be protected. [4] For cult racist reasons, blacks must be put into European countries as much as possible. [5] It's possible China does not have an arms supplier mentality, unlike other 'donors'. Maybe this is giving them an edge, which the others worry about. [6] There must be more!

I don't think Moyo's book is of any value. I'd personally be grateful if people on Amazon who recommend alternatives could give detailed reviews of the books they're recommending! Thank you! I'd like to have a better idea of what's going on!

Top of Page
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy film promotional still   Review of Cold War history deception dramatised   DVD: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy remake

Tinker Tailor Soldier Bore? Not quite—just more garbage. Tinker Tailor Soldier Liar, 2012

I think all the reviewers here have missed all the points. Which is the way this sort of propagandist material is of course meant to be taken in, by the taken-in. The Hungarian sub-plot ignored the blazingly obvious point that Hungary was run by Jews—and the 1956 revolt was part of the period supposedly depicted here. There was of course the supposed development of nuclear weapons—now known to have been a fraud, but used by Jews to pretend the USSR was a formidable force. The truth about atom spies—i.e. they were a phoney, to pretend Stalin and the USSR had got nuclear weapons—would have made a good story, but 'Le Carre', his story as fake as his name, could not write such a thing. Worth noting that a Rothschild during WW2 was allowed access to new developments such as radar. The idea of picking sides of course is part of the bullshit.

As is typical of propagandist crap, the setting has to be elaborate to give some illusion of accuracy. The faded marbly grandeur of official buildings, the filing cabinets, and the incoming melamine and formica style was quite well done. There was virtually no advertising, and this must have been a specific decision to give Britain a 'communist' impoverished feel. As is typical of 'Le Carre' there's a public schoolboy element to the story—obviously a 'Circus' 'traitor' must be someone who was badly brought up. And the elderly lush, quite well done I thought by Kathy Burke. Another characteristic is the complete absence of discussion—so what if there were ships in the Black Sea? What had the 'mole' actually leaked? What sort of information was in fact valuable? What was American intelligence like? Was anyone interested in wars etc round the world? What political events were happening? Would one General in fact know much? What about spying on the Fed and its huge money transfers?—anything thoughtful is replaced by portentous abbreviations and slang, much as Americans use slogans to evade serious questions in their pathetic political pseudo-campaigning.

It's not quite the complete truth to say the film is 'boring'. Bear in mind that truths about the period are still cloaked and hidden; for example the truth about post-1945 eastern Europe, and for that matter the secret pushes to an undemocratic EU and unasked-for immigration. Cut out all that, and what's left is 'Le Carre', a hollow official story as unconvincing as Lenin's Jewish-funded mass cruelties masquerading as creative constructions.

Top of Page
  Review of Low grade military/naval history   Mahan: The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783

No general lessons in this book that I could find, 15 Jun 2009

'The Influence of Sea Power upon History' sounds terrific. A book explaining how and why ships influenced the world! Amazing. You then notice the subtitle 1660-1783. This, says Mahan, writing in 1889, embraced '.. the sailing ship era.. to the end of the American Revolution.' My copy is a University paperback, 1965, printed in Britain; the text is photo-reproduced from an original.

There is somewhat contradictorily a great deal on the Romans, and the Mediterranean, notably the extermination of Carthage. There is nothing on the ages of exploration, or on Chinese or Arabic (or Polynesian) ships. Mahan is purely nationalistic and views shipping as a military contest, though obviously alliances occur too. An Amazon reviewer here states that there are exhaustive, minute descriptions of sea battles. This isn't in my opinion true—there are so many battles that each gets a page, and a diagram, at most. Chapters 2 to 14 (or II to XIV) deal with different aquatic 'theatres' in time sequence—in Europe, typically with Holland, Spain, France, and Britain; in India, when, arguably, there was a world war between France and England; in the Americas; and so on.

Unfortunately I simply could not find any abstract ideas whatever in this book. It's not really my thing; and I may have missed something. However, I think the book is that of an enthusiast—Mahan was interested in sea battles and their costs, causes, and consequences excited him less. To give examples: [1] I could find nothing on the sizes of ships—twice the weight means only 25% longer—presumably stronger, perhaps faster, but more expensive. In effect, he assumes the people making these decisions chose optimally—but did they? [2] What evidence is there that countries with navies did better? Russia for example had a pure land empire but did well enough. [3] I gather that scurvy killed off huge numbers of British sailors. Surely this must have had some effects on impoverishing Britain? [4] The British Empire impressed many people—but on close examination one could argue that the total number of countries was not that great; and India in any case just exploited the local balance of power. Did the Empire in fact benefit Britain? [5] More abstractly, what are the arguments for controlling routes, and communications? Roads, rail, and now air; semaphore, cables and now satellites?

Mahan is like very many authors on (for example) the First and Second World Wars, or Vietnam War, with details (from a superior uninvolved perspective) on battles, this, that, and the other; but the full long term effects, including invisible things such as land ownership, and whether the thing was worth it, are closed books to them.
Mahan says nothing on the networks of rivers and canals that interlace the world, historically most important around the Mediterranean. There must be important things to say about the Mediterranean as a relatively calm inland sea, by far the biggest on earth, plus related areas—Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Red Sea. And about rivers—their sources, and their exits, and their lengths; such as the Rhine with its delta in the Netherlands, the Mekong, the Nile, the Amazon, the Mississipi. And canals, with their high points perhaps 18th to 20th centuries when mechanical equipment made engineering projects most ambitious (though this isn't certain—think of Roman aqueducts, for example). 'Portolano' maps show oceans, with ports dotted around; probably the distinction between seaworthy ships and river boats and barges has prevented general water maps from existing

Top of Page
Mahathir bin Mohamad: The Malay Dilemma   (1970)
Mahathis bin Mohamad: The Malay Dilemma
I've owned a copy of this book for many years; it seems to be the first of many. It dates from the time the USA, under Jew direction, had carried out genocide in Vietnam (with allies such as Britain) and had probably worked out a scheme for owning assets and exploiting a central bank. With control of the media by Jews—and unprecedented effectiveness of TV—probably they foresaw no difficulties with small matters such as mass murder, chemical experiments, and mass rapes by Americans. So with some relief, and puzzlement, I found this book, which is relatively calm, dispassionate, unfanatical, and intelligent. Mahathir bin Mohamad is part of a confusing area, with Moslem influences, Chinese and Malay groups, Indian labour, Singapore, the leftovers of British officialdom, and so on. He became Prime Minister of Malaya in 1981, according to my notes. I was reminded of him by the usual frantic absurdity of Jews: Mahathir bin Mohamad was described as anti-Semitic, overtly anti-Semitic, and the rest of it.

When trying to get the feel of such areas, it is useless to rely on pets of Jews. They will be 'leaders' who had to be told they were leaders by Jews. They will no doubt quote The Economist, and academics funded by Jews. People such as Matathir bin Mohamad (I'm tempted to write 'pbuh') are therefore valuable, in the same way that honest Jew-aware people in the USA, Europe, Africa and so on are more useful than credo-quoting puppets. This is not a detailed review; I'm concerned mainly to suggest that Jew-aware writers are likely to be far more useful than simple money-grabbing politicians.

Briefly, he's an 'educated Malay', concerned to make Malay the official language, move trade and education away from Chinese and Indian minorities. Malay is now the official language, and 'Tuan' is an official honorific meaning 'Mister'—Malays are or were very polite and deferential, and this allows some ambiguity. This book has good descriptions of things like Chinese business practices and bargaining: 'East of Suez prices are never fixed', and Malays' tendency to 'not understand the potentialities of money', and a survey of what makes nations and citizens. I could find nothing about British or (((British))) 'anti-Communism'. I'd guess his opinions became more explicit in the long interval after 1970 to May 2018, when he became Prime Minister for the second time. And he may have found out (e.g.) that Jews invented Islam.

He had a fairly high opinion of the British, when not involved in world muddles. There was divide and rule between Chinese and Indian immigrants, town Malays, and country Malays. Roads were just for export of rubber and tin. They ruled well, with civil service, law and order, settling of minor wars, putting down piracy, collecting taxes—actually spent on public services.
      But British treaties and 'advice' were hypocritical, and they were generous with other peoples' land—notably of Palestine. But World War 2 and Japan crushed faith in Britain. There's much more, some very probably outdated. On migrations, Mahathir is straightforward, not even considering the Jewish fantasist lies. I'll give some notes I made. My point really is that the author seems to have a helpful, objective, top-down view of races, totally different from the Jewish fanatical media-control, money control, and violence attitude.


Malays: Development of small villages or farms, easy life, 21 | Town, country Malays 26 ff | health neglected by British 28 | Abhor celibacy, 29 | urbanising the rural dwellers would be beneficial, because the most progressive nations have maximum urbanisation, 79, 112 | Moslem inheritance involves splitting up land holdings, 112 | Malays don't understand naturalness of racial discrimination, 113 | good manners to be deferent, unlike Chinese & Indians, 116 | insidious campaign to make Malaya not country of Malays, 122 | international consent and recognition important in national identity 122 | are owners of Malaya 126 and 133, unlike Chinese or Indians, who claim loyalty, but can return | Are the developers of a country its owners? | immigration not severely restricted by Malays, 142 | Ethical codes and culture, which 'have never been studied' 154 ff | Islam, has five interpretations, 155 | Fatalism, 158 | Self-examination, 'know thyself', no equivalent among Malays 159 | Islamic idea of saint, 160 | Courage in sense of standing firm, measuring odds, unknown; Malays usually foolhardy 161 | Plato's three cardinal virtues do not apply, 161 | Careless way time is spent, un-timetable like, 163 | Property and land: old sultanates, a Malay just had to find land to clear then claim right 166 | Land disputes become emotional issues, acrimonious legal wrangles 167 | Attitude to money, tends to be spendthrift 167 | Interest and Usury influenced by Islam | Social code a cause or an effect? 169 | Frankness not part of code 171 | Sultans etc, have done no real harm, supported by most Malays 104 & Titles: whole range, Tunku etc princes, Syeds descendants of prophets: feudal society can be dynamic [e.g. from animism to Hindu to Muslim] if there's dynamism at the top 170, 173 | Malays comparatively not good 176


I found this on RT.com

Court finds Bush and Blair guilty of war crimes 23 Nov, 2011 14:13
Those who lobbied to have George W. Bush and Tony Blair tried for their role in the Iraq War have finally got their wish. Though the verdict of the court carries no legal weight, its supporters believe its symbolic value is beyond doubt.

The court in Malaysia where the trial took place may not have the power to convict, but the verdict against the former British and American leaders was unanimous.

“War criminals have to be dealt with – convict Bush and Blair as charged. A guilty verdict will serve as a notice to the world that war criminals may run but can never ultimately hide from truth and justice,” the statement from the Perdana Global Peace Foundation read.

The foundation was set up by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, who was always a staunch opponent of the war against the regime of Saddam Hussain in 2003. He previously branded Blair and Bush “child-killers”.

The tribunal, which consisted of a former federal judge and several academics, paid particular attention to the failure of the Western military to find a single weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. WMDs were cited by the Western coalition as a major reason for their military intervention. It also declared the war to be in contravention of the will of the United Nations.

“The evidence showed that the drums of war were being beaten long before the invasion. The accused in their own memoirs have admitted their intention to invade Iraq regardless of international law,” said the tribunal.

The tribunal has no powers of enforcement, and as yet there has been no response from Bush or Blair. But the Perdana Peace Foundation says it hopes to maintain pressure from the international community on the two leaders, both of whom have now retired from domestic politics.

Meanwhile, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defence during the Iraq War, is next on the list to have his case heard by the mock court.


Top of Page
  Review of 9/11 hoax maintenance   DVD: Remember Me (2010)

Rubbish probably intended as part of 9/11 lies, 9 Jun 2012

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

Top of Page
  Review of Jewish interest   DVD: Last Orders (2002)

Indirectly reveals the powerlessness of actors, 20 Nov 2011

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

Top of Page
  Review of Environmentalism? Green?   Bjorn Lomborg: The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001)

  Magnificent one-volume handbook

-[Feb 2007: found this book while looking up views contrary to global warming CO2 story, including Nigel Lawson's piece. The book was variously described as massively impressive and dealing with multiple topics, to the exact opposite. Online is a collection of reviews published in Scientific American, and a reply by Lomborg, which they (S.A.) wouldn't publish].

2001 book, updated from a Danish book of 1998. As far as I can tell, there's been no new edition. Lomborg states that he will put addenda and corrections and replies to critics online, something cutting edge at the time. In fact he seems not to do this much now; his current website only replies to one person. Perhaps Lomborg got bored with controversy, after one Danish group overruled another which had castigated him; and after 'Scientific American', a joke publication, refused to allow him to reply. Incidentally Lomborg's voice is unaccented American English; so much so I thought he might be American.

Hefty 500-page volume, with endnotes all numbered sequentially. (If it's updated, I'd recommend new endnote numbers could be interleaved to leave the originals - 2345A style).

This is a magnificent one-volume handbook. It has double columns, graphs, with occasional half-tone grey boxes for commentaries. It's arranged by topics, and the writing style is spare and condensed (apart from historical material, usually selected to disparage the past, or at least deflate romanticised notions). When I say condensed, judge from: the 'Food and Hunger' section is about 8 pages. 'Forests' take about 7 pages, Energy and Water about 17 and 11. Garbage - think of Pete Seeger singing 'Garbage' about 1960 - about 4 pages. The longest is Global Warming - about 66 pages. Lomborg (and his helpers - spare a thought for people asked to e.g. check on deaths from cancer, related to foodstuffs etc etc) does a terrific job in trying to be rational. It's not just money; it's how things should be done. If a village spends its time doing this and that, their actions make little difference. If billions of people do things, it makes sense to try to assess their actions.

The exception to spare writing is the introductory material on things like statistics and fundamentals; he's not very successful in explaining where people get their ideas from, including the psychology of probabilities - overestimating unlikely events, and tending to discount likely ones. He does his best to tackle biases in research institutes. (NB for connoisseurs of this sort of thing, Lomborg hadn't twigged that AIDS is a fraud).

His sources are all fairly recent, and also fairly official. Popular books are underrepresented. I checked my own mini-library: out of 55 titles, from the 1960s on, only two are listed by Lomborg, who therefore has ruled out e.g. John Maddox, Barbara Ward, and Edward Goldsmith. I think Lomborg understates the huge swell and push from whole groups of post-WW2 authors, which must have been the main reason for the horror his book inspired. (See the one-star reviews!)

There are some problems: one is, he may well have missed out topics. I found 'desertification' is almost completely missing. (A 1995 book by Julian Morris, including the 'Myth of Man-Made Deserts', is strikingly similar in approach to Lomborg). Lomborg doesn't mention Lake Baikal, a huge inland lake, where the Soviet Union build a woodpulp mill - maybe they stopped, though. There's not much on radiation, I think probably rightly. He doesn't look at effects of wars, possibly because his sources are official: defoliation and resultant birth defects in Vietnam, for example, are largely censored even in supposedly accurate reference books. The possible link of diesel engine exhaust with lung cancer, and the possible link of very fine particles with asthma, aren't mentioned. He also assesses insecticides purely as possible cancer causing agents; organophosphates, having effects on the nervous system, *may* be a cause of multiple sclerosis and/or Alzheimers.

However there are plenty of subsidiary topics: oestrogen mimicking chemicals, quite a long section on GM foods (and flowers), nitrites, bird deaths, lead in petrol.

Another problem is foreseeing supplies of raw materials. Lomborg's presentation is a bit confusing; he notes that estimates of reserves current at any moment, are liable to future revision upward, depending on the value of the material. Tricky thing to graph dynamically. I don't find this entirely convincing; but it might well turn out to be correct. And Lomborg is a bit bullish about fertilisers.

There are quite a few statistical issues mostly to do with trying to find some sort of index number to represent complicated things: for example, Africa unlike China or India or Brazil is at present a patchwork of countries, so it tends to be overlooked as a possibly unit area. Another example is calories in food: maybe extra calories are unpalatable and uneatable?

The main problem is that he's very first world; as the emphasis on prices of raw materials shows. If the price of say petrol/gas stays stable, this still means billions of impoverished people can't afford it. So when he says things are getting better, this may only mean that someone in the huge slum of Dharavi may end up eating 20% more food at the end of life than at the start. He does not consider such questions as: is it possible for say ten billion people to all have a house, car, and electricity, as the optimists seem to think. Lomborg happily accepts the idea that population from now on will taper off; the UN has considered it and says so. Incidentally it seems to me Malthus was wrong; people died of illnesses, rather than the more spectacular famines.

Another issue Lomborg steers away from is how is it possible that lies have been thrust into circulation by the western media. These of course are mostly owned by Jews, so presumably they are following some Jewish agenda.

Lomborg believes in 'Global Warming'; I don't know if he knows one influence, a worthless computer model of the British Meteorological Office. At any rate, his advocacy seems odd, as it's rather obviously a scam, since China has many many coal fired power stations and yet is spared taxation.

Anyway - on the whole highly recommended. There are no pictures - what self-control he must have not to put in a satellite shot of Brazil, or some icebergs!

Top of Page
Big-lies.org home page

imageReview of   low grade science; crypto Jew; addiction skeptic
Anthony Daniels/Theodore Dalrymple: Junk Medicine—Doctors, Lies, and the Addiction Bureaucracy (2007)

Revisionist book: heroin addiction as money-making and something of a myth, 18 May 2009


  Fourteen years later: I've added (same review, below) Jew-aware remarks  
New Gresham's Law:   “Jewish money drives out truth”
Having learned to be generally sceptical, I've had doubts for a long time whether 'addiction' really exists. I met a man some years ago who took heroin to see what it was like, but was never addicted. I sometimes have smoked: but given a change of lifestyle I feel no need to smoke. I can take or leave alcohol. Am I addicted to potatoes, chips, bacon, eggs, tea, coffee? Maybe; or maybe not. Watching people in tobacconists and as they lovingly unwrap the packaging and throw away bits of it, I'm struck by the ritual.

A note on the physical book. The designers have taken some trouble over this hardback; bright red inside page, black with red and white cover, including opaque white, grey ink. Dedications and quotations from obscure people; I don't think the book was widely approved. Publisher stated to be Harriman House of 3A Penns Road, with a Guildford postcode. Not therefore a well-known house.
      The cover blurb says it's ‘one of the UK's leading independent publishers ... on finance, business, economics, and politics.’
      About 150 pages; 3 chapters, the first being about half the book. Not in my view well-planned and almost intolerably slow and indirect. Several look-up sections, including A short Anthology of Nonsense. This is a book by someone in a profession where he seems not to fit; largely the West Midlands Poisons Unit.

Dalrymple (in fact, a Jew, Anthony Daniels, though of some sort of eastern European ancestry—his is an adopted name, after the fashion of 'Ashley Montagu', a well-known pseudo-scientist)—in effect states that heroin addiction is a money-making racket: the addicts and medicos interact with a synergy that provides money and a career for the supposed experts, and a lazy life for the victims. Neither side wants the relationship to end. Bribable or corrupt (or scared) doctors will prescribe. As with alcoholics, 'cures' are expensive—Dalrymple quotes someone who found that alcoholism in Scotland is no worse than in England, and was met with protests in Scotland...

Very important hypothesis. However, the book seems flawed to me.

Note on now-dead Raymond Sackler, 'billionaire and philanthropist' according to the Wikipedia joke factory. Purdue Pharmaceuticals is well-known for pushing Oxycontin, its roots, so to speak, in opium poppy fields. Possibly Dalrymple is trying to help Jewish addicts recover, without taking the daring step of discussing Sackler, and no doubt others. Or perhaps he's following a Jewish tradition of pretending to warn future victims. Decoding the meaning from Jewish lies is a tricky task, but it's probably something along these lines. There's a legal deposition online (dated 28 Aug 2015) of Richard Sackler; perhaps 'Daniels/Dalrymple' was being pre-emptive.

[1] Daniels/Dalrymple does think addiction exists. However it takes a long time to develop—typically months. In other words it is a long-term conscious decision. This is not of course the conventional picture. But it makes his book hard to assess because it's never quite clear what 'addiction' means.

[2] He states that addicts can drop heroin if they want with little difficulty. Much of his evidence is of the sort that's hard to evaluate, however. William Burroughs and Trainspotting (a film) are quoted and discussed respectively; Dalrymple regards the movie as an outrageous deception. The Man with the Golden Arm (1959 novel by N Algren) is another. Patients, some of his own, are described; however, I suppose because of patient confidentiality, or the need to hide incompetence, case studies are more or less entirely anecdotal here. So is Mao, who cured more opium addicts than all the clinics put together - by shooting all dealers, and addicts who wouldn't give up. Or so at least Daniels/Dalrymple claims; personally I've learned to be sceptical of any claims, pro or con, about Mao and China.

[3] Recently there was a typically short-lived press 'storm' to the effect that cured heroin addicts cost £1 million each - the cure rate being so tiny. I don't think figures of this sort occur in Dalrymple's book (published in 2007) though he could probably have calculated them.

[4] The 'liberal' view is criticised by Dalrymple. Indeed, a jacket review quotes an LSE professor, author of The Liberal Mind. It can't be often that a medical/sociology book is reviewed by an LSE man! An example of a 'liberal' is Polly Toynbee, notorious to some Britons as woolly-minded and fathomlessly ignorant.

[5] Dalrymple quotes chunks from de Quincey and Coleridge—the latter as out-of-sequence originator of 'Exaggeration and Self-Dramatization', and from French decadents; and more modern writers, who generally regard drug taking as mind-expanding and all the rest. But not Aldous Huxley, suggesting an incomplete look at the genre. He is scathing about the claims to special insight and all the rest, which is amusing enough, but doesn't count as evidence.

[6] He dislikes prisoners and criminals, and generally, who can blame him? But this seems to spill over into the question of the reality or otherwise of 'addiction'. It's not clear to me whether or not there are respectable heroin users/addicts who never become part of the prison circus.

[7] Heroin is almost entirely controlled by Muslims - Dalrymple doesn't mention this fact.

[8] A niggle is that Dalrymple seems to accept other addictions with complete acceptance: for example valium, cocaine, marijuana. This seems inconsistent.

This book therefore in my view doesn't make as good a case as (presumably) ought to be made.

Fourteen years later: Jewish implications

Fentanyl is a chemical version of an opioid—I haven't found exactly what it is, though it's supposed to be lethal in small doses. It was made famous (as far as I know) in the USA by George Floyd, a black's, death. The case was widely mis-reported by the Jewish-owned US media, and must count as part of the Jewish medical frauds syndrome, including of course COVID.

I want to emphasise the Jewish underpinnings of Daniels/Dalrymple's work, which I understated in my earlier review.
• [1] Daniels/Dalrymple constantly peddles the Jewish line on 'sufferings' of Jews, and alleged unpleasantness of whites/the English. Examples are scattered around unsystematically. They include his uncritical acceptance of Jewish post-1945 victory asseverations such as the 'Holocaust' lies and nonsense on 'concentration camps'. And he adopts the anti-white line, talking of something like ‘the English, since they adopted the thuggish subculture.’ (I couldn't relocate the exact quotation).
• [2] He says nothing relating to Jewish publication, advertising, mutual promotion, news promotion of books and the media. Since media are Jewish-owned, it's clearly their policy to push these things, while censoring Jewish activities such as the Sassoons in China and the opium wars. In the USA, typical authors are William Rosser Cobbe and Burroughs, the latter from a rich family. Daniels/Dalrymple says nothing about experimental pushing of LSD, and the manipulation of hemp in favour of cotton and synthetics.
• [3] In the medical field, he accepts Jew propaganda on WW1 'pneumonia' with allegedly 50M deaths. He of course accepts the Jewish-pushed HIV and AIDS myths. He pre-dated the bogus coronavirus and COVID mass frauds, but seems to anticipate their injection mania. It's rather terrifying to see how it's ‘normalised’, being by default assumed a suitable activity for goyim. As time wears on, it's likely that researchers into the past will find evidence of Jewish activities in wars and biological warfare, such as the 'Black Death', which is entirely compatible with Talmudic beliefs.
• [4] The economics aren't discussed (or understood, probably) in detail. But he points to bureaucracies and orthodox, expensive, medical practitioners. In short, there has been developed intentionally an under-group who are corralled and shepherded, and who collaborate to make money for pseudo-medical handlers, getting something, but not much, out of it. It's reminiscent of homosexuals getting handouts in exchange for fake 'AIDS' treatments.

Raeto West   29 Jan 2023


© Raeto West

Top of Page
Melvyn Bragg 12 books   Review of BBC Does it again   melvyn-bragg-twelve-books-that-changed-the-world-2006

Mony a mickle maks a slightly bigger mickle..., 22 Jun 2009

2006 book. Bragg credits a huge list of people for each of his books or documents. It's an insight into the awfulness of TV: a roomful of hacks dredge their memory and come to some sort of agreement, on things they have no serious idea about.

Newton gets #1 mention, but it's not credible Bragg has any grasp of Newton's (and others') idea of trapping rates of change as a formula, let alone universal gravitation. Darwin is here, but Bragg and his numerous assistants (key texts, and conversations) don't know about the plagiarism issue. Or other factoids - I'm told the first edition of the 'Origin' did not in fact sell out. It's pitifully clear Bragg has no knowledge about the reality of Shakespeare. I quite liked Bragg's account of the 'King James Bible' but naturally Protestantism is not the sort of thing a media person could be expected to understand. Bragg doesn't seem to know that 'Magna Carta' was one of a batch of written declarations. His account of the the slave trade (speech by Wilberforce, 1789) has a timeline with a whole batch of 'abolitions', though the reality (Muslim slaves, modern slavery) naturally is terra incognita to Bragg. The same applies to Marie Stopes condoms are now available; the facts of third world breeding rates are something else. At least Bragg and his advisors dare to step slightly out of the ordinary - Football rules, Faraday on electricity.

I saw Bragg speak once; he was entranced that the establishment permitted a mere northerner to enter an Oxbridge library. No wonder he was promoted!

Top of Page
Rees Auschwitz   Review of More 2nd World War Jewish fraud/ holohoax  ' Laurence Rees: Auschwitz, the Nazis and the 'Final Solution' (2005)

An awful warning about state control of information, 23 Aug 2011

-Published by the BBC. Rees was 'Creative Director of History Programmes for BBC Television'.

-Commissioning editor: Sally Potter/ Project editor: Martin Redfern/ Designer: Martin Hendry/ Picture researcher: Joanne King/ Production controller: Peter Hunt. Blurbs quoted: Andrew Roberts/ Anthony Beevor/ David Cesarini/ Ian Kershaw/ Publishing Week/ Neal Ascherson/ David von Drehle/ Ian Thomson/ The Tribune, & on the back cover: Boyd Tonkin/ Michael Burleigh/ Rafael Nunez Florencio/ Wladyslaw Bartoszewski

Rees - like all BBC apparatchiks - is somewhat of a mysterious figure. His introduction states he spent 15 years 'writing books and making television programmes about the Nazis.' (He did one on Japan, too). He is/was 'Creative Director of History Programmes for BBC Television'—his capitals. There's no description of what qualifications if any he has; possibly Media Studies? Nor of his language skills, interview techniques, forensic knowledge, methodology - probably because he has none. Unusually, for books at least, there are some background people listed - Commissioning editor: Sally Potter/ Project editor: Martin Redfern/ Designer: Martin Hendry/ Picture researcher: Joanne King/ Production controller: Peter Hunt. I won't bother to list the one or two sentence comments supporting the book. Connoisseurs of recycled trash might be amused by a dedication: 'In memory of 1.1 million men, women and children who died at Auschwitz.'

Top of Page
Derren Brown Tricks of the Mind   Review of Persuasion, psychology, conjuring   Derren Brown: Tricks of the Mind (2006) + Sacrifice (Netflix, 2018)

Entertaining and (with luck) helpful discussions about the brain and its quirks...

Interesting biographical material from Derren Brown (if that's his real name—see later). He says he studied German and law at Bristol; English law is a vast mass of material, and wrestling with this caused him to be introduced to mnemonic techniques. Then (a plausible guess is he wasn't 100% interested in law) he saw a stage hypnotist...

I'm a bit sceptical about Brown's name and age: his references to Scarfe and Steadman (cartoonists—flourished from about 1970) and Bertrand Russell (flourished a lot earlier) suggest to me that 1971 was year he adopted a stage name. This would explain his jokey remark to have been born when his mother was miles away. He mentions Kajagoogoo at Bristol Union building—and their peak year was 1983. He claims to have been at primary school after decimalisation, which was in 1971. But never mind.

This book has chapters of rather similar length, apart from two double-length ones, and looks to me as though it was written with different book(s) in mind. It's indexed quite helpfully. It has facsimile emails at the end, from people of the sort you might be well advised to avoid. ('Dear Bertrand Russell' has facsimile letters - possibly Brown copied and updated this idea). The ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS list lots of luvvies, including a 'writing partner' called Andy Nyman. (The writing style has very amusing self-referential bits in it, including fussy spellings - things like the plural of octopus, and singular of dice; page 134 has a spectacular parenthesis. However 'diaphanous' is surely used wrongly somewhere). Brown in addition to a huge cast of helpers has an agent, who got him into TV—apparently for 20%.

There's some description of MAGIC, including choreography of a simple trick, including misdirection, misleading comments, 'accidental' things which look as though they might be mistakes, false endings so the punters relax, etc. It has the same effect—at least on me—as seeing a detailed film script, forcing the reader to realise how artificial and carefully-planned these things are.

And material on MEMORY, none being original. Brown states, in effect, no doubt rightly, that in times when paper was expensive, memory was more valued; the methods in principle are straightforward enough. I can remember making mental notes based on gun - glue - tree - door - hive when I wanted to remember a few things. Brown explains in some detail. He has the link system—where one memory leads to the next; and the simple number system; and also the elaborate system with code consonants replacing individual digits, so that (e.g.) pin numbers can be converted into words by inserting vowels. Brown emphasises striking, surreal, and generally odd images, which are of course relatively memorable. I'm tempted to compare the methods to indexed sequential computer disk storage, random access, etc. He misses the opportunity to point out that 1, 2, 3, 4.. themselves are mnemonics, which allow anything countable in the universe to be counted—quite amazing when you think of it. Ditto with alphabet(s). All this is widely known; I can't be the only person to use "I'm a dinner jacket" to help memorise Ahmadinejad's name. George Orwell pointed out that whacking kids helps imprint memory too. The idea of using a familiar building and putting things 'in the first place', 'in the second place'.. gets an explanation—Brown memorised the conventional (wrong) dates of Shakespeare plays in this way. There's a theory that Greek mythology was a complicated mnemonic to memorise the stars (including periodic stars). However, this is not in the book.

The long chapter on HYPNOSIS/ SUGGESTIBILITY... Its it just a fake?—Brown has pages on how hard it is to be sure. Suggestibility seems to have several meanings: the short-term memory principle as when Brown 'forces' things on people, by not giving them time to collect their thoughts. As examples, think of the 'Do It Now' poster in his 'Heist' programme, and the volcano-style diagram with the word 'zoo' pre-positioned at great expense in shop windows and on t-shirts, which professional 'creative' advertisers absorbed and then duplicated. There's also a supposedly formal meaning, as in psychology textbooks, and by people like Milgram of the electrical killing experiment. (Which may well be a fake—see links below).

This chapter includes stuff that doesn't really fit—self-image, phobias, lack of confidence. Brown recommends adjusting a self-image by visualising an old scratchy faded monochrome film, replacing it by a new improved brightly-coloured sharp film. (This technique alone was claimed to be worth the price of the book by an Amazonian reviewer).

Brown comes across as surprisingly unconfident and also very concerned re others' attitudes—he's clearly not brought up in a Jewish or Muslim background. He turned down some BBC contract because he wasn't sure he could handle being famous, BBC-style. There's are several rather agonising passages in his book, where he apologises for seeming to behave in a disagreeable way. He must I think have problems from people who think he has genuine 'psychic' gifts—can I suggest a tip from Bob Dylan, who, at live performers, gets all the stragglers and latecomers from the end of the queue, the people who couldn't be bothered to plan to get tickets etc, and moves them to the front rows.

UNCONSCIOUS COMMUNICATION; ANTI-SCIENCE, PSEUDO-SCIENCE, BAD THINKING is a long chapter including common mistakes and fallacies. This is the chapter which has annoyed many Amazonian critics, because of Brown's anti-religion stance (or rather anti-Christian—like Dawkins, he leaves other cults, however unpleasant, alone). There are some common mistakes in probability, which are sound, and well worth understanding, though none is original to Brown. (As with optical illusions, there are a few standard ones). I think most of them hinge on words being used in unexpected ways—for example the 34 people in a room who 'share the same birthday' (meaning day and month; and any pair, not necessarily the listener). In my view, Brown is overharsh on fake psychics. We're in a world where the populations of entire regions have been burnt to death. On an evilness index of say -100 to +100 (allowing for 'good' as well as 'bad') some chap in a northern club who says "Aye luv, appen your dear departed 'usband ad a red cufflink" barely registers. Incidentally, Brown is surely correct in quoting a book on police interrogation, to the effect that people telling the truth get things in the wrong order and introduce loads of irrelevancies. I always wonder why people in audiences accept the rather confrontational mode in which the 'psychic' in contact with the deceased is expected to say things for confirmation, or not. Why doesn't the psychic just come out with a torrent of trivial information about friends, old clothes, pets, neighbours..?

The whole world of media 'brainwashing', propaganda, biased information put out by quangoes and special interests is omitted, apart from a few mentions of politicians firing irrelevant statistics. In fact he doesn't examine 'brainwashing' at all. (My personal theory is it's a fraud, invented historically to cover American atrocities in Korea).

As far as I remember, there's not much on perception, for example using the border of the visual field to present a word to a subject told to concentrate on some far-off object.

FURTHER READING includes a book called Blink (already I'd guess out of date; I wrote an unflattering review of it). Brown recommends a book on facial expressions, something made possible by cheap video recorders. There are about 20 facial muscles (I consulted Gray's Anatomy - I'm excluding some small ones). If you assume each can have 3 positions - relaxed, fully tensed, and midway, we have 3^20 facial expressions - about a thousand million, which would tax even Mr Brown's Ceaucescu-sized 'memory palace'.

TV PROGRAMMES aren't mentioned, but while I'm typing this I may as well add:



Phony psychology: Milgram, Zimbardo, Brainwashing as evasion of US war crimes
And a note on 'the Asch Conformity Experiment' (Oct 2022): [source: just a youtube; investigators are recommended to look at information less controlled by Jews:]   This might more accurately be called 'Asch Conformity Experiments', as there were variations on the basic idea of one genuine subject amid all other confederates, typically 5, acting under instructions. Variations included one of the confederates acting the role of sympathetic collaborator: this sort of thing: [Card with line length matching no. 1: replies 2,2,1,2,1 where the collaborator is the first respondent saying 1.]   The effects of secrecy were tested when the subject was told to write down his/her answer.

General conclusions were that accurate perceptions were encouraged by lack of unanimity in the group under examination, and accurate perceptions were encouraged by secrecy.

Probably Jews are encouraged to be unanimous in e.g. discussions on nuclear weapons and power, the so-called 'holocaust', promotion of homosexxuality and 'anti-racism', and (c 2019-2021) the 'pandemic' of COVID and other inventions.
Click for Milgram & fake psychology
Some of Brown's material is in this category. Apocalypse (2012), though amusing entertainment, has a definitive Jewish-style in vs outgroup feel, with 'the infected', modelled on Michael Jackson 'zombies', being definitely 'out'. The science is pitiful, but this befits dumbed-down audiences. In fact quite possibly Brown is a Jew—or believes he is—the possible name-change, the homosexuality, the messages against whites, the use of race, the entree to theatre and TV, the interest in deception, all point that way.
Click for 'mind control', 'programming' etc discussion

Sacrifice (Netflix 2018). Netflix is of course a Jewish-controlled Internet media outlet, presumably translated into numerous languages mainly by voiceovers. This 'special feature' explicitly has a cast, leads listed as Megan Affonso & Bob Cable, and screenplay (claimed to be Stephen Long—no other info—with Derren Brown). Without inside knowledge it's impossible to know if Brown is basically honest, or just revealing his previously-muffled agenda. I note he appeared on TED, July 2019, but it's impossible to guess if this is careerism or support for propaganda. Anyway, here is part of a critical comment on Sacrifice by WotW, Way of the World, at present on Bitchute. (removed from Youtube after a copyright claim by AuxiliaryMode).
      Note: compare the Jewish material with supposed Christianity; in fact there was a large component of violence in the forcing of Christianity into the Mediterranean. And note the complete immersion: in Sacrifice ALL the people are actors, and behave in the same way—like the actors in the 'Asch Conformity Experiment'. (These things are always given Jewish names).

DERREN BROWN'S ANTI-WHITE AGENDA
[Mohave desert setting; bar completely filled with actors, including Mexican vandals damaging bikers' bikes, then coming in for a drink!]

.... and, wouldn't you know, the biker has only one bullet. Watching from the car in horror, Phil is then played his trigger sound through the car radio and jumps into action.
He puts himself in front of the gun, shielding the Mexican bike vandal from harm. He will not be moved and promptly gets shot. With a blank. [Note: probably a radio-controlled explosion makes more sense; a blank might cause harm, or miss].A fake blood pouch explodes inside his new jacket and poor Phil lies on the ground covered in blood trying to comprehend he's about to die.
But fear not. Derren walks onto the set for the big reveal.
Phil's not been shot. He's not going to die. And, best of all, he's officially no longer a racist.
He is now a true hero of our times, and can hold his head up high.
He has seen the light. He has understood that he represents the old order that must be replaced because of kindness and compassion, or something.
He now accepts that he should die to protect any brown stranger who wants to illegally enter his country.
And the cherry on top is the appearance of his pregnant wife to congratulate her husband on being prepared to leave his young family fatherless and in poverty. This is the ultimate virtue signal.
All of which has been achieved through subconscious psychological manipulation, How proud she must be of him. She certainly looks pleased.
Ask yourself what you would do and what you would expect your wife or husband to do if you were placed in this position.
And what of the triumphant Derren? What reaction does he receive for all the heartache and trauma he has just caused?
Well, no one has a bad word to say about him.
Neither Phil nor his wife saw fit to assault Derren for the nightmare he is supposed to have put them through. Everyone just seems to automatically accept his moral superiority and his right to treat people as mere pawns in his career.
Oh how they laugh together just minutes after
Tell me, how did we come to live in a world where Derren's behaviour is seen as anything less than psychopathic?
What a farce this show is at every level.
The question of whether or not it's fake is largely irrelevant. The real target is you, the white person sitting at home. ... It's not meant to cause anything other than our total demoralisation and we must resist ... nationalism is our society's immune response

Messiah (2005). Five groups of Americans appear in this programme. 1 A woman author of an 'alien abduction' book; 2 A woman publisher in Las Vegas reviewing his 'dream catching machine'; 3 New Yorkers in a crypt, where Brown 'contacted the dead'; 4 A group being persuaded that God exists; 5 ESP types with Derren predicting drawings. These are quite impressive, although of course one can only guess what was omitted. The only one I confidently saw through was the psychic drawing; Derren said something like "Draw one of the images which sail through your mind. Don't go overboard—keep it simple." Sure enough, a 'sailboat' appeared. I tried this myself, and found it's all rather tricky—the person drawing has to be confident enough at drawing to produce a variety of images, and yet not skilful with an abundance of images. In fact, the sheer amount of verbal work must be enormous, as with a salesman in full flood.

["You're a gifted psychic with a fertile fruitful imagination. Now I'm trying to influence you—maybe this will go straight to you. Make it a simple one." - Banana?]

The Seance (2004) is worth watching to see how 'Jane' was forced. Again the preparation must have been staggering, from renting the venue and getting electricity etc working, to preparing what looked like polaroids (including black and white ones!) Even the name had to be short, as 'Catherine' or 'Ermintrude' would take too much glass-moving time at the Ouija board. (Made of genuine 19th century plywood??) I think I worked out how room 7 was done, though 'London' and 'Harry the cat' were baffling. Also of course the participants were self-selected, and clearly a bit on the credulous side.

Another 'short word' example was forcing 'BMX bike' on some chap: the patter was something like "By Christ, why saddle yourself with a present you don't want, that won't go anywhere?" with hand touches to split the attention from the form of words. The surroundings, with pairs of rotating objects in the closed room, were obviously intended to reinforce the image.

The business of 'neuro-linguistic programming' seems to just mean making suggestions indirectly through vocabulary suggestion, as explained by Brown in 'Heist'. 'Forging iron bonds' with a group sounds tougher than 'feeling your common humanity' but maybe means the same. One of Brown's televised theatrical performances involved forcing the 'Daily Mail' to be selected; he did this by inserting a short performance between earlier tricks, something like pushing a nail through or in his nose, and making a grammatically nonsensical comment about a 'daily nail'. The horror at the performance distracted from the words, which in any case would be ignored as some sort of mistake. (I assume). I'd like to see him force 'Daily Telegraph', though, or a gift of an 'antique chronometer'!

[Thought experiment not performed by Derren Brown: suppose you really could do tricks? H G Wells's hero who could work miracles was able to stop the earth rotating; his gift was unmistakable. However, suppose you could at a more modest level move small objects around invisibly. It would be quite difficult to design a watertight test.]

An amusing book, though there's a great disparity between the parts, which won't appeal equally to anyone, I'd guess. But this seems reasonable: the brain isn't understood, so there's no alternative to a bitty presentation.

Top of Page
Luria Working Brain   Review of history of science   Aleksandr Romanovich Lurie: The Working Brain—An Introduction to Neuropsychology (1973)

Doesn't begin to deliver its implied promise, 23 April 2011

This copy a Penguin. Translated by Basil Haigh; not stated when it was published in Russian, and by what method, or if at all. Luria died in 1977; I wonder if he left his brain to medical science. Because of the interconnected nature of research I've scanned the index (what decided me was finding a reference to Hyden, who H Hillman once studied under.)

Published in Britain as a Penguin paperback, in 1973, as A M Luria 'The Working Brain', translated from the Russian. Rather chic mostly white cover design, which was their style at that period.

I've owned this book for years, but always found it very unsatisfactory. The title is intended to suggest the brain of living creatures, as opposed to what's found in post mortems and detailed examination. It's hard to describe; as with other subjects which aren't unified, there's a collection of techniques, results, explorations, observations, with no overarching theory or practice. It purports to describe the brain, various 'centres' and what have you, with simple black-and-white diagrams of a low budget type - wiggly lines, cats showing arousal, diagrams drawn by people with their brains damaged in various ways, charts and diagrams of sections of the brain. There's much elaborate vocabulary, and impressive-sounding stuff, and yet actual descriptions of what's involved are evasive. I wondered if this was the USSR's equivalent of Freud and all the other (sigh) Jewish crap. And guess what - Luria was Jewish and of his three collaborators, another had Jewish parents (described as 'non religious') and the other may be (Wiki is silent; I haven't bothered to check anywhere else). My working hypothesis is that Soviet research was predominantly ideological, maybe with some useful functions, e.g. brain operations to try to cure strokes. But a lot must have been state-directed. And some Jewish-directed. In the US I found a book in my collection by Cohen and one of his experiments reminded me of the Asch and Milgrom conformity going-along-with-groups experiment, but was involved with seeing people's reactions to blacks moving into neighborhoods. It appears quite a bit of 'social science' perceived as pointless or useless had a Jewish slant to it; no surprise perhaps.

This book has some historical significance, but it's as hard to interpret as some document in a strange language produced by a remote monastery. Some is speculative; some is wrong - for example some few people with their brains mostly replaced by fluid have appeared normal; some of the biological material on neurons is chemical transmission must be wrong as the work of Harold Hillman shows; some is fashionable and no doubt had strange effects on Russian education; some simply describes what you see if the brain's faint electrical patterns are detected; some is intended as a status marker for the great man. It would have been helpful if an editor or perhaps the translator had produced a handy summary - for example of brain malfunctions which provide some of the more startling materiel of such books. However I imagine he felt he'd worked hard enough.

Top of Page
Arthur Kemp AWB   Review of Race and African Politics   Arthur Kemp: Victory of Violence—The Story of the AWB of South Africa (1990,2008*)

Africa shows how not to do it

-24 chapters; the first half was 1990, the rest an update after nearly twenty years. Unindexed. Illustrated with inline small b/w photos.
-It's a story, rather than history; population figures, economics, external forces etc are pretty much omitted. So are party policies - National Party? Conservative Party? So is information on people like Joe Slovo.
-Certain amount on dirty trickery: Chapter 10 pp 81ff: Jani Allan, model/ journalist. Chap 14 pp 122ff on a killer Barend Strydom. Homosexual allegation at one point - someone called something like Bindle. Disruption of meetings. Probably fake death threat letter. Etc..

-This book was advertised on the BNP website as an object lesson in how NOT to do it. In fact the AWB [Afrikaner Resistance Movement. Afrikaans, with 2 a's, is the language] collected wide support, mainly I think because Eugene Terre'Blanche was an impressive orator. Pp 24-26 has a sample speech; it's a mixture of Biblical material, conventional western history, mention of what Africa was like at the time of the Trek, 'blood', races. Treaty with Dingaan [p 9; p 78 more detail] and battle of 'Blood River' with a circle of ox wagons - now recreated in concrete as a memorial - are important anniversaries. The African history part - pp 76ff Difiquane, largely deserted and ravaged land. Page 203 - Anglo-Boer Wars. P 6 Albert Hertzog 'an astute businessman and a millionaire' secretly funded from 1979.

At their peak the AWB included quite a few martial arts type, and men who'd had military training. They undertook bombing campaigns. The National Party apparently did the same thing - eg see p 22 - wrecking other people's meetings seems to have been commonplace. Kemp (who is South African, or possibly Rhodesian) knew personally many of the people described here - I'd guess he's below 40, which fits with his being early 20s when the first edition was printed (edited, typed and so on by Jeannine).

Kemp takes it for granted the police investigate more or less fairly, which slightly surprised me. Many AWB bombers were let out on bail - apparently this was guaranteed by the legal system, though it seems amazing. The murder of Chris Hani of the Communist Party is described 158ff. There were widespread riots but Kemp doesn't describe the police reaction - it's hard to see what they could have done. P 160: 'nearly plunged the country into a race war'.
Page 174: By '1994.. obvious that South Africa's first multiracial election .. [would] take place.. that year..' The Zulus and Boers both wanted their own homeland - though the latter couldn't decide which bit of land. It's possible that the 1900 map of Africa - Orange Free State, Zululand, Swaziland, British Somaliland, Cape Province etc - was a more accurate reflection than the modern map.

On Jews, p 26 quotes Terre'Blanche '.. financial reserves.. put in the hands of aliens. Our monetary system was coupled to those who are demanding a world state. .. the German, the Christian, and the white man. ..' There are several appearances of swastika bearers here and there - I'd guess agents provocateurs. On pp 14ff: is their programme of principles, including International Judaism as antiChrist. Kemp has a note about the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in 1979, which was dropped in 1988. 'Even the political party parliamentary system was dismissed as being of "British-Jewish" origin and especially designed to weaken the "volk".' Kemp has a short section specifically on Jews: pp 108-109 including the imagery of the triple 7 emblem. Pp 109: traditional or 'irrational' anti-Semitism Christ killer and money lender idea. And scientific or 'rational' anti-Semitism - conspiracy enforced mixing of races ... secret controlling of all governments and the media. .. dedicated revolutionaries in 1917.. majority of capitalists. P 110ff 'is on the Jewish Board of Deputies' and typical comments. Arthur Kemp is very keen to avoid all conspiracy theories, though in my opinion this attitude will not last. He considers nuclear weapons, and the moon landings, to be the apex of white achievements(!!) This attitude spares him from considering the dark side of whites in Africa.

AMAZON REVIEW 28 April 2009

Published in 2008, though it was partly written by 1990, nearly twenty years earlier; the author, Arthur Kemp, must have been in his twenties. He was I think at that time living in South Africa, and chronicled the AWB, translated as 'Afrikaner Resistance Movement'. He knew personally many of the people described.

Eugene Terre'Blanche, a man of South African Dutch origin, with an image not unlike a cowboy in American films, led the AWB. He is/was described as an impressive orator; pages 24-26 have a sample of his prose: it includes Biblical material, conventional western (white) history, races and 'blood', and descriptions of Africa at the time of the Trek. As far as I know his speeches were more or less ignored in the 'west', by, for example the BBC.

South Africa had English arms and policing; Dutch-origin Boers (Afrikaans-speaking) farmers, livestock and wineries; some Jewish influence notably in mining and precious stones; and of course blacks, whose population, because of western medicine and technology, was starting an enormous increase. (Pages 76ff describe the emptiness of pre-white southern Africa, so much so that it's doubtful if blacks have any more right than whites to be there.) The Anglo-Boer Wars of 1900-ish left the Boer population embittered, not surprisingly.

The Jewish component (Slovo illustrates the violent type) was disliked by Terre'Blanche. They disliked the monetary system and International Judaism and secret control. 'Even the political party parliamentary system was dismissed as being of "British-Jewish" origin and specially designed to weaken the "volk".'

Because Africa's future was largely arranged by Europeans, locals could have had little idea what was happening. Kemp describes how the AWB expanded, to include quite a few military and martial arts types, with secret finance. It was opposed with various dirty tricks, for example sex scandals and violence. Kemp misses the off-stage stuff played out both there and overseas: there's very little on Joe Slovo for example, or on party policies - National Party and Conservative. The AWB undertook bombing campaigns, which I was somewhat surprised to find were investigated by the police more or less fairly. There were riots and they 'nearly plunged the country into a race war.' Chris Hani of the Communist Party was murdered (pp. 158ff). While this was going on, there was prolonged agitation against Apartheid in for example Britain, in a most irrational and hypocritical way. The first multiracial elections were in 1994. The end product, with the fake sanctification of Mandela, is with us now - the majority in worsening poverty, whites on farms needing 24 hour security, high levels of crime, white flight - but the mineral wealth (I believe) is still controlled by the people who controlled it before! The AWB's struggles seem rather pitiful and unfocused, and it's unclear what would have been best for them. But bombing seems unlikely to have been of the slightest use.

A model of how not to do it, indeed.

Top of Page
image   Review of Forcing people to play money games   Kiyosaki: Rich Dad, Poor Dad

Fascinating book - same type as psych-you-up seminars on 'buy to let', 1 July 2009

[Written in 2008] Most of the first half of this book looks at the decline of pension funds from final salary to contribution-based, with uncertain final amount, not generally inflation linked. No wonder people worry. (There's an appendix listing US laws dealing with pensions). This part is powerfully strengthened by people's awareness of frauds in big business, and pension selling, which must make the readers very aware of the fragility of their futures. Kiyosaki doesn't talk of frauds, but of incompetence - though perhaps he's just being polite or harder to sue.

The second half is to do with mortgage-based investments and also with psyching people up to get involved with this for themselves. There's no doubt quite a few people have made money by buying up, on mortgages, houses (and businesses) and getting income and capital appreciation.

Can this last? It's hard to say: population pressure must increase demand for housing; therefore there must be continuing scope for renting property. Money now is easy to manufacture (for governments) and there's no sign that inflation will slow. On the other hand, property needs maintenance; renting voids can occur; incomes may plummet; all that's needed is high interest or some form of tax on property to put a stop....

Kiyosaki historically is on strong ground as regards real estate. But he's cautious - he wrote somewhere he'd only buy one in a hundred properties he 'analyses'.

Tips on investigating real estate - housing, leisure, retail, whatever - and financing schemes might be helpful. But he says little on all this beyond claiming he's done it. However, it is possible these sections might set readers on an entrepreneurial path.

His writing style is a mixture of probably spurious biography (two dads - one perhaps based on a Hawaiian Conrad Hilton type) plus Bible-like parables; in this way, quotations can be attributed to others, and almost any conclusion can be hinted at. He uses the 'ark' metaphor - you too can be an individual like Noah, plan ahead with your odd scheme, and ride the coming financial storm while, presumably, others drown.

A good anti-Kiyosaki site is https://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html though Reed gets furious over Kiyosaki's naval and military claims which surely are rather irrelevant. So what is it about this book? - Or rather these books - their repetitive catchpenny nature convinces me Reed is right about Kiyosaki's lack of great wealth; why bother to promote a board game and have seminars otherwise?

Many rich people made their money in banal ways - a start in publishing is a good example: Robert Maxwell (learned societies' yearbooks), Branson (Tubular Bells), Felix Dennis (mags that sell - basically vehicles for adverts), porn publishers. Most rich people invent nothing. Musicians and singers can make fortunes. It certainly looks as though anyone can do it. Or buying up houses - the small town I live in reputedly has several people who bought up houses over many years when they were absurdly cheap. Reed explodes over Kiyosaki's claim that you employ people cleverer than you - part of his anti-education idea. And yet this seems perfectly true - Maxwell wasn't learned, Branson had no knowledge of music or aircraft. One attraction of Kiyosaki is he's noticed this. Presumably a serious real estate person might employ a planner, architects, builders, specialists in utilities, designers and so on, and yet keep control - after all Trump does something like this. Many other rich people got there by obscure loopholes: I'm told a man holding the ground lease (?) on a school claimed the entire area when it was demolished, making $200M equivalent. Some strike oil, and are legally allowed title to it. I remember being told in South Africa that opportunities there are greater in computers because there's less competition - and so (I was told) graduates end up being employed by school-leavers. Despite Kiyosaki, employees can do well - in the UK at least the public sector has index-linked pensions, the ultimate income generating asset. Some people are good at contracts - Branson is stated to work out exit details to make the best advantage of his contractees. Some make money through government - lucrative contracts, subsidies, financial deals hidden from taxpayers. The most successful property speculators are probably those with guaranteed state money - 'Private Finance Initiatives' as they are called in the UK, and suppliers of housing to fake asylum seekers, where the rent paid from public money goes direct to the landlords.

Most people are aware of this sort of thing in a confused and undetailed way - TV and so on does little to enlighten them. Kiyosaki in his way is part of this. He circles the subject matter, throws in some technicalities, and tantalises; and many readers respond. In my opinion however Kiyosaki never even begins to fix on the multiple central secrets and mysteries of money making.
ADDED 12 Oct 2023:   I omitted the Jewish presence in my review. Jews control money and the media so powerfully that it's a mistake to leave them unmentioned. I noticed Kiyosaki (still plugging his board game) on an online video site called Brighteon, which shows scare videos (which always miss out Jews) and sells food supplements and promotes gold, silver, and bitcoin. Jewish theology despises all non-Jews, so if you take their advice they are liable to mislead you. For example, TV casinos are promoted by Jews in a big way, aimed at desperate people. Inflation has been happening as a result of Jews and it makes some sense to own real assets, if you can hold on to them. Virtual, 'cashless', money is liked by Jews, because it yields a percentage with each transaction. Cash of course can circulate almost forever. I've never understood Bitcoin sufficiently to trust it, and, without an explanation of how Jewish waste is directed into Bitcoin, and if it's insulated from sudden drops, wouldn't trust it. Anyway, interesting to see him in the flesh, though whether he is part of the Jewish takeover of China, Japan and Korea is not known to me.
      I note that there's a Jewish move to destabilise rents in the USA—according to an excitable scattery piece orated by Tucker Carlson.
-Rae West

Top of Page
Ruth Rendell   Review of Detective Story in Idyllic England   Ruth Rendell: Road Rage

Probably a projection of the impulse to conceal malevolence, 2 Nov 2012

Two stars because there's some effort. 1997 title by Ruth Rendell, who was made a British 'life peer' in 1997.

Why should a tacky writer be allowed (presumably) to sit and vote in the House of Lords? My detection skills suggest Rendell is a Jew, and much of her motive is to march in step with the sheeplike Jewish order that's been increasingly imposed on the world since about 1900. The whole plot (ultimately the baddies turn out to have purely mercenary motives—inherited house price may drop if a new bypass is built) relies on keeping this motive undiscussed. I'll list more clues in a minute; but I'll ask why do people read these things? It's impossible to be sure how popular a writer she is; an 'average' book title sells 10,000 copies (according to an article by an agency) though I'd guess promotion puts her higher; she has a Sunday Times award and some crime writers' award. Do they read them for a reassuring sense that puzzles are solvable? That someone is in control? Passing time, perhaps?—the golden age of crime writing is often said to be the 1920s and 1930s. I'd suggest the hidden messages are part of the motive for writing.

Scenesetting: the plot is based around new road-building to bypass a town. Disputes around the M3 and Twyford Down, led I think by anti-motorway campaigner John Tyme, are likely to have suggested the basis for the plot, which involves several kidnaps and death threats if the road-building isn't stopped. These actions seem likely to be attributable to protestors who moved in to protect ancient woodland; Rendell's characters are probably, I'd conjecture, based on real-life news reports of people like 'Swampy'.

-Realism (this is where my Jewish influence notes begin) is on the low side, as of course is necessary. The lives of protestors seem hardly possible—entire lives with no income. There's little on money—house prices, of course; bits on inheritance, tax evasion; implausible small businesses, such as a teashop on a crossroads with only two neighbouring houses. Solving the mystery needs the kidnappers not to notice flowers on a wall.

-Treatment of information is quite interesting. First, broadcasting and news: the kidnappers get huge publicity immediately. Rendell has a media-promoted view of mass media: broadcasters are eager for news, journalists love scoops (not her word), news is managed only to the extent of timing. In real life, of course, events may be hidden for decades. The whole idea of controlled opposition is missing: in reality, many 'protestors' are in fact phoney, as are many organisers, union secretaries, people like Ken Livingstone, charity promoters, and what have you. On page 326 a character says: '... look at all those people who get interviewed after disasters. ... they all behave as if they've learned scripts by heart...' suggests Rendell is perfectly well aware of these possibilities. There's a comment (page 90) on the French Revolution and Spanish Civil War, and the Russian Revolution, as matters with 'dozens of splinter groups and factions, almost impossible to follow', a convenient myth. There's a strange complacency, no doubt liked by, or tailored to, the readers: Rendell's incurious middle class history teacher is this type. There's nothing on large scale corruption of the common purpose type. In fact Wexford pronounces (page 324): 'Happily for all of us in this country - there are still some things to be thankful for - there is no one a rich man can bribe to stop something like this bypass. It can't be done. ...'

-That's the information side of things. As to social matters, what's possibly accurate is the presentation of the atomisation of those Britons who aren't part of large organisations. A lot of the white characters are decadent (or silly, daft, lazy...) and, as in US Jewish entertainment, there are lots of immigrants, and Rendell promotes the idea that race doesn't exist, and 'skin colour' is the only difference between the (non-existent?) races. 'Coppery' is a typical approving adjective. There's a red herring subplot with a dead and raped German woman student (cue anti-German stuff). The mental life is lightweight English lit: quotations, no doubt from a book of quotations; Jane Austen; Lewis Carroll; nothing needing tricky interpretation, or presenting unfamiliar historical views, or non-English. It's like a very low end version of J I M Stewart. Science material is similarly lightweight; for example, some wrong entomological material.

The subtext is worth understanding. In fact the northern hemisphere's future depends on large numbers of people detecting such subtexts. The text includes events in Wexford's life, which perhaps are just picked out and arranged in a card-index style, chapter by chapter. In fact, I've forgotten what they were since reading this. Promotion? Divorce? Daughter did something? Someone widowed? Political change in policing? I forget, but something on those lines.

Top of Page
More Jewish WW2 bullshit   Review of More Jewish WW2 bullshit   DVD Glorious 39

Don't be an old British actor, or a Jewish liar, 24 Oct 2012

Garbage which isn't amusing. I do feel sorry for (e.g.) Julie Christie and Jenny Agutter and Christopher Lee. It's very slightly amusing to see e.g. Bill Nighy and David Tennant pretending to be actors. There's a quite funny set of sequences when a pubescent girl decides she hates her sort-of-adopted family with what's meant to be great political insight. Most of the Jewish lies around World War II, which Poliakoff, who of course thinks he's a Jew, repeats with increasing desperation as their bases crumble, are in here, though handling the retreat/exit strategy from the holocaust hoax, yet to be invented, is uncertain. However I leave it to people who watch this to take the lies apart. Start perhaps with Stalin, with Rothschild money, with Baruch, with ... but I can't be bothered. Curse all liars! NB partly (or wholly?) funded by British lottery money.

Top of Page
Review of Very limited look at numbers, fractions, some algebra   Bertrand Russell: Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy

Disappointing
March 2013
All Russell-related reviews have been moved here together (to save space)

Top of Page
Andrews McLone Modelling   Review of Applied Mathematics   Andrews & McLone: Mathematical Modelling

It's not easy to match techniques to problems

Rockets in space. The link looks at calculus applied to rockets and their fuel. And also to possibly simple applications of scaling. Books trying to popularise, or simply explain, mathematics usually fail—either because the authors have learnt techniques which don't seem to apply to legitimate points of interest (so that the title of the subject sounds misleadingly as though it covers more than it does), or because the techniques are too technical to be explained convincingly. Often simple arithmetic proves quite powerful, as in this classic On Growth and Form by Thompson.

This book's problems include the timing of explosive mines in harbours; why rockets are often three-stage; dealing with salary scales in universities, where there are grades and comparisons; and estimating the time taken for milk to pour from a rectangular sachet with its corner cut.

Top of Page
George Spencer Brown Laws of Form   Review of British intellectual guru figure, examined   George Spencer Brown: Laws of Form

I don't believe this book is sound,
November 2, 2012
I bought G S Brown's book years ago, after reading vol III of Bertrand Russell's Autobiography. It was published by George Allen & Unwin, Russell's publisher, for £3. (I also bought another two books by GSB, but they were self-published by 'Cat Books' pseudonymously, as James Keys: Twenty-Three Degrees of Paradise and Only Two Can Play This Game). And read his book 'Probability and Scientific Inference', with notes on randomness - he's a determinist, probably correctly, and was puzzled over the apparent self-contradiction of 'randomness'.

There's a rather tatty little website listing his achievements, largely memberships of this and that, which I have to say absurdly inflated, as do his claims for expertise in multiple time-consuming fields. The site reads a bit like an over-egged CV. He's also lectured on the foundations of mathematics and other topics which post-date Laws of Form by many years, and may well conflict or enlarge upon parts of it.

The main problem with this book of Brown is the idea of 'drawing a distinction'. With 'absolute continence'. In fact, most things are vague; GSB seems to be a Platonist, and perhaps has in mind idealised perfect circles etc.

Let me try to make this clear. Geometry was obviously developed as some sort of map of the world; in effect it's part of physics. Most people don't realise there's an analogy with arithmetic, which models isolated, single, obviously separate, objects, no doubt originally in some sort of accounting sense - numbers of adults, numbers of containers of food, numbers of cattle, etc. (Algebra further developed this, into reversing the methodology to infer numbers; then calculus developed into modelling changes in numbers).

Arithmetic is not much use in counting clouds, counting mental states, counting colours, counting things which change shape or dissolve, and what have you. So G S Brown starts by confining himself to the sorts of things that are easily countable. OK for logic design and so on, but not much good for many other things.
I consider this book an occidental version of the stuff traditionally turned out by Jews - Fromm, Chomsky, Freud, Derrida, Marx, Herman Kahn, Teller etc etc. Brown is a British (I presume) guru figure, in a similar world to 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. However, I may be wrong! Three stars for its artefactual and footnotey presentation skills (and snappy title).
James Keys 23 Degrees Only Two Some of 'Laws of Form' concerns design of circuits, with logic gates. These of course have long been obsoleted, replaced by processor chips with AND, NOT, and other instructions, operating simultaneously on bytes or other collections of data. (There seems to be a mistake in one of the diagrams—a logic gate with three inputs and no outputs, rather than two inputs and an output—Brown perhaps ironically thanks his publisher's 'technical artist'). It's worth examining the mental framework of Brown: he mentions Heisenberg's 'uncertainty principle' ('the Chinese had already realized it as long ago as the fourth century BC' - p30 OTCPTG), photon, waves and particles (yawn) but steers clear of relativity, presumably either through doubts, or because he didn't like to be accused of not understanding. His political awareness appears to be the conventional nil; he says nothing about the Second World War (which Churchill started soon after Brown became 21), and hints unsceptically at nuclear weapons. He comments on the then-new NHS and Crossman and tax and exports, the 'balance of payments' being a news buzzword of the time, TV political broadcasts, Robin Day, the Beatles MBE. He had a huge desire or need to be admired; a poem in 23DoP, 'OM', page 77, lists his ambitions: he had wanted to be a surgeon, or at least a great anaesthetist—'The Lecheres Tale' has passages on medical operations; a brilliant soccer player? Wimbledon winner? A pianist? Great professor? World chess champion... though at several points he requests to be not criticized, both by his readership, and by dons—'the sneerers, the qualified people.' The back jacket cover monochrome photo is a sketch of Brown 'by an unknown girl' with a typewritten comment copied from that German mathematician who had a form letter to reply to critics of his work giving the page number and line of the error (which the Privatdozent had to find).

There's some suggestion he was saw himself as a religious prophet: his pen-name 'James Keys', and an extract from 'The Gospel according to Thomas' (p66 of OTCPTG): '... When you make the two one, and when you make the inner as the outer and the outer as the inner and the above as below ... then shall you enter.'

Quite a bit of his work describes relations between the sexes: wives, love, the differences between men and women. 23 inches is his ideal waistline 'When measured where it ought to be' and there are long descriptions of the female body: 'I never saw/ A bottom more/ In keeping with the ancient lore/ Of how a woman's bottom looks...' This is women between the ages 14 and 24. Slim youths make an appearance, too.

However, mentally, Brown says he regards women as intuitive, rude, patient; while 'every man is poet, lover, actor, sculptor, builder, explorer, fighter, navigator, map-maker, mathematician, orator' etc etc. OTCPTS game is, intermittently, an account of an unsuccessful love affair with a student, I'd guess him 40, her 20. A poem in 23DoP, 'Best Girl', is for my taste a depressing thing: she has to ask him what 'apogees' mean, and reminds herself to buy cheese for supper; but she has exquisite knees.

I haven't been able to find out what Brown did, in any detail, after about 1970. I recall a building I think in Camden, north London, from which he ran a publishing concern; that's all I know personally.

Top of Page
  Review of Chemistry almost 100 years ago
E. J Holmyard: Inorganic Chemistry
J R Partington: A Text-Book of Inorganic Chemistry
Note on P W Atkins (later)


What are things made of? Two Surveys Before The Second World War
12 Nov 2012
Two English books on inorganic chemistry, Holmyard's published by Edward Arnold, Partington's by Macmillan. First publication dates were around 1920. There seems to have been competition between these books (and presumably the authors), and I suspect Holmyard may have based his book on Partington's. Some of the diagrams are identical, though reversed left-to-right. Partington's is far longer—four times, at a guess—but the greater detail may be off-putting. Holmyard is interesting in being pro-Muslim, regarding Islamic science as something genuine in its own right. Partington is more conventional: ancient Egypt and Babylonia, Greece, Rome, Middle Ages, then people like Boyle, up to Lavoisier, Dalton, Bunsen and so on.

On P W Atkins, a Professor who wrote on physical chemistry, I inserted a comment in science revisionism on ethics—Atkins was a gullible believer in the 'Jewish' 'Holocaust', and also said nothing about explosives and burning people alive. At the time of Holmyard and Partington, much of this did not apply.

I recommend, though with some reservations, such books to anyone who would like some grasp of the ways elements and compounds were discovered and investigated—in short, what things are made of. My reservation comes from the fact that individual reading is often less efficient than group teaching; I wouldn't like readers to give up in despair.

'Organic' chemistry is the study of carbon compounds; because carbon atoms form chains, there are far more carbon compounds than all other compounds put together. 'Inorganic' chemistry examines all the other elements, including some simple carbon compounds such as carbonates and carbon dioxide; by the 1920s the periodic table had mostly been formed, so elements could be grouped together by similarities, which of course makes for economical presentation. Holmyard's book rigorously separates generalities from chemical specifics. He has a chapter each on the atomic theory and its history, gas laws (important in establishing molecular structure), atomic weights, formulas, and assorted subtleties—heat dissociation, electrolysis and ions, osmotic pressure, equilibriums and buffers, catalysts, colloids, the phase rule, ingenious ways of e.g. determining molecular weights and so on, by methods such as melting point changes. His style is salty and clear. In passing, he explains chemical equipment; much of this has been superseded by machines, but the principles are the same. Partington has rather more: spectroscopy, hand centrifuge, Brownian movement, conductivity, photography, phosphorescence...

'I have not hesitated to mention uncommon substances where they are likely to thrill the youthful imagination, and I have included many biographical and historical facts, the psychological value of which ... in fixing the attention, assisting the memory and arousing .. enthusiasm .. is well known to every teacher' writes Holmyard, who of course wrote before the present-day dumbed-down education programmes.

If you'd like to know about bronze and iron, lead and tin from the ancient world, the sweet but dangerous lead acetate, calcium chemistry and mortar, the discovery of oxygen and its replacement of the phlogiston theory, the uses of sulphur and how it was purified, the discovery of zinc, the Bessemer converter and iron and steel, chlorine and water purification, German inventions such as nitrogen-fixing by making ammonia for fertiliser (which prolonged the First World War), the structure of diamonds, what washing soda and sodium bicarbonate are... These books are products of their time: the hand typesetting, monochrome pictures, mineral extraction methods, diagrams of equipment, methods of analysing substances, are themselves of historical interest.


Top of Page


Selected Reviews by Subject:- Film, TV, DVDs, CDs, media critics | 'Holocaust' | Jews, Christians, Moslems | Race | Revisionism | Women | Bertrand Russell | Richard Dawkins | Martin Gardner | H G Wells

HTML and © Rae West. First complete-ish upload 2012-10-17. Many additions. Confirmed to be Google mobile-friendly 2015-06-19. Sanserif 2017-01-30. Reviews-race.html latest batch of separated reviews 2018-07-29. Latest version Mar 2024