Top of Page

Top of Page

Top of Page

Top of Page

Top of Page

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

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

Top of Page

Top of Page

Top of Page

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? 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

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

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.

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.

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

---

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

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

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:–

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!

      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.

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.

---

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.

 

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.

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

---

---

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

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

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?):

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

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

    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.

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

    - 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