Caroline Moorehead: Bertrand Russell. Revisionist review by Rae West Apr 2020

Most Reviews | Big Lies site

BELOW: My 2011 review which was after Internet began, but before much of modern revisionism ...

... & FURTHER BELOW: 2020: My thoroughly revised view of Moorehead on Russell: massage by Jew censorship.

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

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

some of Russell's books
About 25 years after Russell's Autobiography (1967, 1968, 1969), and nearly 20 after Clark's biography (first published 1975), by the time this book was written (at a suggestion—it wasn't a spontaneous decision) the McMaster Archives were well established. These may have included newspaper cuttings—this is not clear, but seems likely. Moorehead supplemented this with papers (G E Moore, J M Keynes etc) and interviews with survivors of those who knew Russell. The result is a sort of composite book: the main lines are as in Russell's Autobiography—upbringing, Cambridge, WW1, USSR, China, 1930s school, WW2, nuclear weapons, Vietnam War. And of course his books. Much of this material is simply taken from Russell. These main lines are interspersed with a multiplicity of affairs, of a sort vaguely reminiscent of some Internet activity now. Some women loved Russell all their lives, though it's not entirely easy to see why, as it's clear few of them were interested in his ideas. I suspect, though nobody ever says this, that it was his aristocratic side which attracted them—after all many adults found Princess Diana a swooningly attractive figure; why not something analogous? In a sense, Moorehead is in this same groupie category. Her comments on his mathematics, relativity, atoms and so on aren't even dutiful: she simply quotes the received views as briefly as possible, without the slightest interest or sign of comprehension. Similarly with related ideas—for example, Keynes and economics. And the same applies to politics and protest. She says nothing intelligent about the USSR. She says absolutely nothing about the ideas in Russell's Reith Lectures, essentially on world government. She is saddened by Russell getting worked up over war crimes—surely he could have been more moderate! Moorehead evidently has no clue about atrocities etc. She has no idea why Woolf was upset over Russell's letter in vol. II of his Autobiography, revealing after nearly fifty years that Russell knew Jews ran the 'Soviet Union'.

The interest of this book is in some side-issues, notably Russell's closing years, when of course he was extremely old. There's some information on his Committee of 100/CND activities, and on his War Crimes Tribunal, though not much, with many sideswipes at Ralph Schoenman. Occasional bits of information surface: for example, Americans students it seems talk of 'Occam's eraser'. Moorehead gives an account of Which Way to Peace? which Russell self-censored from his post-1945 writings. I hadn't known the unpleasant New York Times piece on Russell was written by Bernard Levin. I hadn't known Schoenman was a Hungarian Jew. There's an amusing piece of mischief—Russell listed (in 'Dear Bertrand Russell'—not mentioned at all by Moorehead) his favourite words, including wind, heath, begrime, and multisyllabic words—alembic, chrysoprase, Chorasmian. Moorehead has 'health' in place of 'heath', but more seriously someone inserted 'asholala' into Russell's list.

Rereview of A 'Definitive' Biography of Bertrand Russell. Caroline Moorehead: Bertrand Russell: A Life

REPUTATION MANAGEMENT: THE LONG ARM OF JEWS. And: RECONSIDERING RUSSELL AND HIS PLACE IN THE WORLD.
Moorehead on Russell cover

Kendrick Mews, London SW7. South Kensington is a congested part of London, marked by museums, Cromwell Road, expensive shops, and traffic; including travellers by underground. With agents, reps, lawyers, renters, salesmen, collectors, managers, dealers, planners, liars.
It's taken me about ten years to see from Moorehead's passive review (above) to a more fully revisionist view, mainly because there are many individual breakthroughs to be made before the full syndrome moves into focus. And this time in 2020, with its fake virus and hidden Jew activity, resembles some issues (such as the First World War) which exercised Russell, with such futility. This is therefore a longish piece, not just a review, but a meta-commentary on 20th-century media.
The copyright message (1992, by Caroline Moorehead) starts this journey: First published in Great Britain by Sinclair-Stevenson, 7/8 Kendrick Mews. This seems to have been founded by Christopher Sinclair-Stevenson, born in 1939 and author of a few romantic historical novels, it appears. 'Sinclair' is a Jewish red flag. His wife appears to be, or have been, Deborah, her surname unhyphenated. Random House seems to have bought them. Many an agent, editor, reader, literary agent, has followed this sort of path. At that time, computers and publishing had intermeshed in the script input and proof preparation sense, most obviously perhaps in the press and news.
Caroline Moorehead (b 1944) has a jacket photo credited, for some reason, to Newnham College; there seems to be no connection. She is stated (in 1992) to write a column for the Independent on 'human rights'. I'd forgotten this was invented as long ago as 1986. However it was clearly founded as part of the push for 9/11 and Jewish wars, with mostly US thugs, and US money purveyed by Jews, against Middle East targets. It's painfully obvious she has no genuine interest in 'human rights'.
The Jewish-controlled network of Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and all the rest of it reports that Moorehead's biography is ‘definitive’ which of course it isn't. This is another of many clues that Bertrand Russell is a displacement, removing serious comments on and by Russell, much as Jews plan to displace whites. Moorehead has no competence to assess any aspect of Russell, apart from feminine gossip and rivalry. Russell's letters have been mined for their mixture of oratorical skill with sex, and incidentally can be irritating—Russell often praised wild places despite his complete lack of practical skills and one is sometimes tempted to wish a mischievous sprite had dumped him in, say, the Andes or Karakorum.
I think Moorehead must have been suggested for this project because Russell had some serious anti-establishment opinions. Jews wanted a thumping big book in the hope Russell's own biography might be replaced by something 'definitive' in the blank minds of readers to be kept in ignorance.

From a 1934 partwork 'Concise Universal Biography'. Russell received plenty of uncritical media adulation. Unless he wandered into Jewish territory, which only happened late in his life.
Let's look back at Russell. I'll try to be accurate, but not over-detailed. In no special order:–
Aristocracies are much less studied than they were; not many people, except perhaps Miles Mathis, thrill to the pages of Debrett's, and the lines of descent from Russells and Stanleys are barely mentioned in most biographies, including Russell's own. But it should be mentioned that part of the long process of Jewish intrusion involved promotions of people for purely Jewish political reasons. This piece Bertrand Russell duped by Jews and physicists tries to cover this ground, which as regards Bertrand himself (3rd Earl Russell) depends on Lord John Russell, Queen Victoria, and the Test Act, permitting Jews various legal concessions. I think this explains some of the oddities of Russell's family, such as their isolation. For example, Pembroke Lodge (in Richmond Park) was 'in the gift of the monarch'; Bertrand had relatives, such as Lord Portal, later something to do with bombing Germany, though his autobiography only hints at them. Russell seemed to have no idea of handling his copyrights—involving himself with Anton Felton, a shady accountant. His brother Frank became entangled with litigious women, in the American style, and seemed to have mucked about with a Thames-side small business. The brothers showed little sign of what might be thought of as traditional aristocratic pursuits: Bertrand thought in terms of writing for others, in running tiny schools, in being something like an academic employee.
(Russell had a distinctive unattached attitude to property. To illustrate the opposite, Hilaire Belloc thought the sanctity of property was part of the European soul. C N Parkinson in Left Luggage expressed profound fears over what he thought of as Marxist 'expropriation' of property; he never understood Jews. I see no sign that Russell understood, or deeply felt, such things as land ownership, land tenure, rents, church ownership, and so on, and this impeded his understanding of economics—Russell occasionally tried to study economics, but only in a derivative copycat sense, with no creative thought. It prevented him understanding the main thread of organised religion, namely the possibility of long-term income and stability in exchange for tasks which were often simple enough. All his life he underrated the finance of religion, and assumed that people were driven by religious ideas, despite the implausibility of that sort of underpinning
A similar unattached attitude applied to the non-Jewish world of study: Jews studied subjects such as medicine and law as a means to power, including poisons and evading crimes. In contrast to the languor and unimportance of the 'Apostles', and others of the most intelligent men at Cambridge, all of whom Russell wrote he knew.)
Russell on education is a perplexing writer. Britain and Europe have an immense tradition of educational forms: these include tutors, dame schools, charity schools, grammar schools, free schools, small paid schools with a few masters, church schools, language schools, schools with long histories, colleges of the Oxbridge type, paid boarding schools. There was a Jewish school in London. H G Wells I think had more feeling for the variations, and the rather tragic loss and leakage away of talent, during the 19th century. Russell's experience of crammers shocked him. But he seemed to have little feeling for the high quality locked away in these organisations: my bookshelves include (just a tiny sample) the 'Goddard Schools', University College School, Sanderson of Oundle, Elementary Algebra by Hall and Knight, both schoolmasters. Russell tended to lean to people like Pestalozzi.
Russell (and Whitehead) had a rather sad uncritical addiction to foreign stuff. Obvious examples are Hegel, Marx, Cantor, Freud and Einstein. Russell's praise of the 'Communist Manifesto', a bit of Jewish plagiarism, was fulsome and absurd, but all these names still limp along to the present day. Whitehead recorded that he felt relativity swept away all of physics, which made a tremendous impression on him. Moorehead of course knows nothing of this.
I'd be surprised if Moorehead read any of Russell's books. Russell can be a fascinating writer. He was aware of Coudenhove-Kalergi (but without naming him). He nibbled at the supposed Keynesian Revolution, though without being convincing. Russell mentioned somewhere the lack of wisdom in giving money creation to private groups: if Keynes knew of the Federal Reserve, as he certainly should, it was criminal to hide that from Russell. But the essence of Moorehead's uselessness is her inability to steer through Russell's vast output and pick out the pointless and wrong and missing parts.

Much of Russell's early life was devoted to mathematics, but it's debatable whether he contributed much to mathematics, although he loved to be complimented on his creative genius. Lewis Fry Richardson was more like a creative mathematician (Russell reviewed him a few times). Richardson applied calculus to figures for money, armies, death rates and so on, but of course had no idea about invention of money. Richardson did not deal in groups, classes, sets and logical collections; perhaps Russell might have? Something of genetics was understood; perhaps Russell could have worked on genetics and eugenics? And on parasitism? Perhaps he could have worked on the dynamics of human groups, on the lines of Kirchoff's Laws and inputs and outputs? Perhaps he might have tried to model attraction and repulsion between individuals and groups? Or communications; or weaponry? Russell commented somewhere on times when defence was stronger than attack, as happier than times when attack was stronger than defence. Russell might have speculated on productivity; what proportion of a population might spy on the rest? Russell had opinions on power, on groups ordering other groups around; is there some theory which could explain how tiny a minority can be, to impose a dangerous idea on the others? He had opinions on finance, but nothing on the way the real world is echoed by human arrangements. Moorehead of course hasn't the ghost of an idea of any such possibilities.
Statistical theory was a new topic, to which Russell contributed nothing. So were waves in the aether sense. And Russell was, unfortunately, naïve about physics, including Einstein's copied stuff, and the engineers' mythical atom bomb.

The most important omission in Russell's worldview is facts about so-called 'Jews'. Consider for example the fact that Rabbis think they can fuck 3-year old girls (plus one day), or that an annual ceremony to to disavow all oaths with 'goyim' is thought valid, or that withholding medical help is considered fine against non-Jews. Wittgenstein (b 1889) is quoted as asking at 8 or 9 'Why should one tell the truth', though by Talmudic standards that age is elderly. I'd be surprised if Russell knew such things—despite his claim that Cambridge encouraged completely free discussion.
Russell had no idea of Jewish ideas on deception. As a remote example, he raised Wells's The War of the Worlds (1898) as ‘very good at imagining mass behaviour in unusual circumstances’ when propaganda and the spread of beliefs is of course not part of the war with Martians.
This mental blindness was passed on: Conrad Russell's book on the English Civil War doesn't mention Jews and Cromwell; it is sublimely worthless.

On Religion Russell's blindness to 'Jews' followed on into whole clusters of related ideas, for example Jewish connections with assorted junk, for example the connections with Roman Catholicism, with the King James Bible, Jesuits, Quakers, Mormons. Miles Williams Mathis, as far as I know, is by far the best writer pioneering in these expansive lands.

The Great War came as a huge shock to Russell. Moorehouse adds nothing here. For example, Britain declared war on Germany, not vice versa. (When I read Russell's Autobiography, I was shocked too—I hadn't known that opposition to WW1 was even possible). His Justice in War-Time (photo-reprint by BRPF) included (my best guess as to dates) An Appeal to the Intellectuals of Europe (1914?), The Ethics of War, which included 'four types of war' (1915?), Why Nations Love War (1915?), The Future of Anglo-German Rivalry (1915?), and Is Permanent Peace Possible? (1915?).
Part of the repeated commentary on Russell is that his lectures were, in 1916, ‘considered the apotheosis of revolution’ but on consideration this seems unlikely. Russell said nothing on the 1913 Federal Reserve, on Russia and the USA, on funding of news sources, on various forms of alarmism and dishonesty of diplomats. He also asked Woodrow Wilson to arrange a peace conference, but as is now well-known Jews blackmailed Wilson. Russell had no idea that behind-the-scenes funding led to the appearance of support—the same principle as the Hungarian Jew Soros paying thugs to ship illegals. I think if Russell had been deeper, he would have been silenced, rather than just left to sew mailbags. After about a century, the coup by Jews remains little known, and many people still talk of 'Communists' when they mean Jews. Maybe in time Christianity and its variants will be renamed for Jews, too.
Russell had little grasp of the importance of wars over time. Probably he accepted Creasy's unconscious attitude on wars—wars as single important events, but without much examination of long-term legal changes, deaths and population changes, wealth changes, civilisation changes, irreversibilities. Disappointingly, as Lytton Strachey said ‘Governments, religions, laws, property, even Good Form itself—down they go like ninepins—it is a charming sight!’—but what effects do hundreds of thousands of war deaths have? Should there be investigations? What about businesses and properties that were taken over or closed?
At the time I enter this, the Coronavirus fraud is in full swing, with the ultimate effects being unclear, though it obviously has a lot to do with the Jewish Fed Reserve, which is as ignored by the Jewish media as serious events during the 'Great War'.

Russell's lifelong worldview remained pretty much the same for life. His mature view of the 19th century (with 'Peter' Spence) is expressed in two volumes, Legitimacy vs Industrialism and Freedom vs Organisation (both 1934). They did their best, with everything from Jeffersonian democracy, British Industrialism, and Bismarck, but of course it omitted serious finance. Here's my review. It's not too long!
History of Western Philosophy (about ten years later) showed no serious awareness of Jews. (He regarded Spinoza as a 'Dutch philosopher'). Or of the importance of secret groups throughout history.
Russell failed to grasp the idea of nations as constructs:– in much of the 19th century Germany and Italy went through 'unification', and arguably this had as much to do with Jews wanting to fund single monarchs, in place of numerous dukes, princes and what-not, as with any processes of advanced thought. All his life Russell thought in terms of nations, ignoring internal stresses: England vs Germany, USA vs Russia, but not the slightest grasp that Jews ran the Netherlands, then the UK, then France, then the USA, then the USSR. Or Turkey, China. All his life Russell thought that 'British' sea power was British. All his life he thought scholars could and would discover truths. He regarded civilisation as started, more or less, by Greeks; probably this attitude was started in the Renaissance. His History of Western Philosophy was utterly shallow as regards Jews—it even had atrocity stories against Germans, including the Auschwitz myth—but probably remains the best book of its type, weaknesses and all.
In fact the outline of a newer worldview is appearing with emphasis on the Mediterranean and perhaps earlier seas to the east, now relatively dry. This would allow evolution, both of men and other life, climate, transport in vast inland seas, writing, and power structures including destructive parasitisms, to be integrated together and perhaps allow for scientific predictions.
I suggest here that H J Mackinder might be rediscovered as a geopolitical theorist; I think he's been suppressed.
The SECOND WORLD WAR is (I hope) entering an intense period of revisionism. The obvious starting hypothesis is that international Jews operated together with secret groups in all the supposedly belligerent countries. I wonder if the local intelligence groups were clued in to it all.
Here is my file How the 'Master Race' Won the Second World War.
And here's a collection of short questions on odd aspects of the wars by 'Hexzane527'.
And the supposed start of the nuclear age, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Here's a very detailed but essentially simple enough forum on nuclear issues. The whole thing was a Jewish science fraud.
(This is a 3 ½ hour audio with Fakeologist and First Class Skeptic, recorded on 29 March 2013. Or look for the video Lords of the Nukes).

Grosvenor Lodge, Babraham Road (I think) - 'Small and commonplace' in Cambridge. Bought after Russell's lawsuit of Barnes. Now near a Cambridge park-n-ride.
Russell after the Second World War: Up to about 1960. The period from about 1945 to 1950 was marked by post-war crimes, activities of the Jew-constructed United Nations, and the very vicious founding of Israel, all of course suppressed by the Jewish media, in which US radio and TV networks and cinema and press must be included. For fifty years, until Internet, most remained hidden.
There was a rather ridiculous tendency, media-promoted, to view the 1950s as a golden age, which, from the most vicious Jew viewpoint, made some sense. Individuals such as Kevin MacDonald and David Irving overlooked the vast death rates of non-Jews, and were unaware of the Jewish control of paper money and immense secret funding of the USSR. They were not aware of Jewish takeovers—because these were kept secret—and had no idea nuclear weapons and power were new Jewish frauds. There was a supposed 'baby boom' which many naïve Americans still parrot. The huge fraud of the 'Holocaust' waited in the wings. The 1960s were manipulated; at present they are regarded as shocking, largely because of the Manson operation by 'intelligence'.
Many Americans believed they were rugged individuals; I've sometimes got involved in arguments with Americans who seriously thought their land was a free gift, and their language, clothes, food, buildings etc and even religion were their own inventions. Many kept secret their activities during the war.
Russell became a grand old man of letters, appearing on BBC radio shows. He wrote stories: Satan in the Suburbs (1953), Nightmares of Eminent Persons (1954). None of his nightmares were assigned to Jews discovering their beliefs were nonsense, unfortunately. Alan Wood, after writing on the groundnuts scandal in Africa, wrote Bertrand Russell, the Passionate Sceptic in 1957. (This book seems to have been more or less pirated later by Herbert Gottschalk in Bertrand Russell Eine Biographie).
But then Russell stepped out of the official corral. He wrote The Vital Letters of Russell, Khrushchev, and Dulles (1958) and Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare (1959). Russell took the nuclear issues seriously; he believed what he'd read.

U.K. MONOCHROME PROPAGANDA OF THE EARLY 1960s....
• Left: Four frames from a pre-digital BBC2 TV programme in 625 lines, That Was the Week That Was, credited to Ned Sherrin. Based loosely on the cabaret style, and complete with something like a brass band on stage—useful for finalising pieces where people attempting to speak could be stopped.
Bottom left is Bernard Levin, just another Jewish propagandist and liar.
The other frames show typical make-up and costume scripted pieces. Many people at the time were uneasy about 'satire'; many hadn't identified the Jewish anti-white threads.
Russell thought the propaganda power of TV was so great that it would be undefeatable. (I've lost the exact phrasing).
• Right: Detail of a photo I found, showing the Daily Mail reporting on supposed H-bomb carrying ships moving to Cuba, October 1962. It's next to a piece on (I think) a boxing match victor, and a report on a horse race accumulator bet which seems to have not yet lost. I've not been able to find an online version.

Russell after the Second World War: After about 1960. This was the era of Ralph Schoenman, a 'Hungarian Jew', born 1935 according to Wikipedia, and who'd spent time at the London School of Economics. I wonder if he rubbed shoulders with Soros. In the words of David Irving, ‘Hungarian Jews have played a shameful and disgraceful role throughout the country’s Bolshevik-Communist history: Rákosi, Péter, Révai, Farkas ... The list goes on and on.’ As far as I know, Schoenman has never mentioned this legacy. There are accounts of his scraping a living in Alaska and hitch-hiking to Russell's house in Wales, but following the splendid example of Miles Mathis in rejecting rags to riches tales, we may disregard all that; I'll just assume Schoenman was some sort of agent.
For some of what follows I'll rely on Mathis (see My link to Mathis and a site searcher).
According to Ronald W. Clark on Russell and Schoenman, Schoenman claimed that since 1960 all Russell's initiatives—Cuba, nukes, Sino-India border, Vietnam, Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation—were all Schoenman's. There are some videos of Ralph Schoenman on Youtube; I wondered if his image is partly based on Abraham Lincoln, another Jew, and another faked assassination victim, like JFK. One Schoenman Youtube video has an account of Jewish atrocities in Palestine; this may be due to the Jewish practice of telling non-Jews what they did, as Sassoon during the 'Great War announced that war was deliberately prolonged. (I just noticed that 'Bob Dylan' the Ukrainian Jew produced something on JFK, doubtless complete rubbish nearly 60 years later). I wonder if Schoenman was in on the various Jewish frauds: these included the 'moon landings' fraud, which Russell may have watched with distaste; the 'Holohoax' fraud, which he believed; the Cuba fraud, Castro being a minor film star and relation of Batista, and Cuba having a big US base—the media event reminds me of the coronavirus fraud, with TV, the Jew press, and Jew commentators, and crypto-Jews both in their regime in the USA and in the USSR all pumping out the official script, designed to suggest great peril, the need for more money, and 'Communism' as inexplicable thing, with the Jewish root never outlined—and in particular the nuclear frauds, which have only started to unwind since films of tests were sold, and the Vietnam War. I don't think Russell ever twigged to the Federal Reserve fraud and the various Jewish bank swindles; his criticisms were at the level of commenting on 'capitalism'.
I have no idea where the truth lies with Schoenman; I hope he'll write it up some time—it must be a fascinating story, far more interesting and instructive than media rubbish. Including his travels and his interests in (for example) Iran. Russell was lied to with great success. BUT he did investigate the Vietnam War, so far as he could. Unlike typical Jews, he had (as far as I can tell) genuine disgust and horror for war crimes, an emotion Jews lack. And of course I assume here Moorehead was instructed, or acted spontaneously, to remove such details from her book.
The War Crimes Tribunals (which were banned from Britain by the 'Labour' Party, nominally led by Harold Wilson, of course a Jewish thing) were entwined by Jews, including Chomsky, Isaac Deutscher, and Sartre. It's possible they were atrocity management: I suspect the timing coincided with mass genocides in China. And/or possibly they were intended to make whites look genocidal killers, happy to bomb, rape, spread poisons, and waste resources on a huge scale. And simply look stupid. They were probably deservedly successful as campaigns by Jew publications in the 'Third World', and must have done something to bolster anti-white campaigns, though Americans seem unable to understand the simple point.
My reviews of many books by Bertrand Russell
© Rae West 2 April 2020
Top of Page