“Anyone who practices any form of Abrahamic religion is controlled opposition [i.e. acting for Jews], even if they do not realise it.” (Kerick Walters, Facebook)

Jewish, Christian, Muslim Religions and their Sources, New Forms, and Intersections.

[With some information on 'Civilization' & 'Pagans' & 'Heathens'. The meanings of these words simply come from towns vs country.]

Book Reviews by Rae West, 'Rerevisionist'

‘Abrahamic’ religions were originally scripted by 'Jews', or modified by 'Jews' from earlier writings.   My review collection below show that whites' beliefs were forcibly hijacked by 'Jews', who, with collaborators, foisted profitable-for-Jews frauds onto non-Jews. Some non-Jews were offered benefits at the expense of their fellows—vicars and Freemasons and rentacrowd hired thugs being three examples. The innocents included 'Pagans' and non-Jew city-dwellers, who were turned into Christians. Arabs—who were deliberately split into two types of Moslem—illustrate the divide-and-rule policy. The 'Umma' corresponds more or less to 'Christendom'. In both cases a theoretical maximum is found useful in some cases.
      Later still Jesuits, and Quakers, and others were newly-minted subgroups of Jews. There's no precise line between power struggle types—military, invasion, financial, propaganda—so readers might find fruitful comparisons, even if they disagree with some of my items. I haven't looked here into real or alleged differences among 'Jews'.
      One might guess that in both China and Japan Jews did their best to generate at least two main groups of locals. (I'm accepting 'Lestrade' here).
Important new school of thought: Internet has permitted a new school of thought, based on the perception of world-wide Jew controls. Some think Jews invented entire psy-ops, including Christianity and Islam, and perhaps predecessors; others think 'Gentiles' used Jews to help keep their lower orders down; others think the must be symbiosis between Jews and their collaborators. See below for César Tort on this.
     
For reference, here's a list of Jews (Tobias Langdon, Swirled World War, Occidental Observer, November 19 2023) pretending pro tem to be allies of Muslims. Alliances with Christians and other groups occurred, always of course accompanied with lies. At this time Hamas, a Jewish-contolled outfit, was paraded as at war with Israel, possibly to generate emigrants.
Ancient India, medieval China, and modern Africa are important examples needing possible re-interpretation. The African population explosion needs careful thought on these lines.

Is there some rational way to decide between religions?   I'm thinking of the heated arguments about the Crusades, about Jews opening gates of towns in Spain to Moslems, about the Reformation/Protestant Revolt, about the Irish who wanted home rule, about the deeds of 'Jews' in Russia.
    All these involve 'Abrahamic' religions, so that a full consideration should include Jews, Christians, and Moslems.
Therefore we need to look into secret policies and crypsis of people, notably Talmudic material, secret collaborations between Jews and others, and long-term aims involving entire countries. All these groups aim at territories, Christians typically ownership of countryside parishes plus tithes, Jews typically (with Freemasons, Common Purpose etc) of towns with money interests, Moslems with taxes. These may mutate with time: many Irish supported Home Rule, without understanding that Jew money eventually gave no support for the native Irish. Luther's exasperated writings on Jews suggest Roman Catholics supported other Jew activities in addition to 'usury'.
    These religions typically favoured a more-or-less literate, but more-or-less fanatical, group of priests, with considerable financial interest in their system. If it was challenged, the fur would be likely to fly. Many people still think of religions as having cult belief and practices, but I don't see any reason why they should avoid (for example) education—schools might spread education, and in fact try to do so in modern Church schools. Vicars in England had some tradition, at any rate in Victorian times, of awarenesses.
    Religions often have a menu of beliefs, which can be judged on their effects. For example, harems and polygyny have societal effects. Judaism uses money manipulation, so the USA Lutherans take money to import aliens. Christianity often opposed intelligent learning, which must have had some harmful effects. Black Africans often believe in body-part magic and witchcraft, though this may be related to relatively weak intellects.
    I recommend people try to take all these things into account. ... But I know it's easier said than done!
RW   March 2023

Amazon bans good reviews. My reviews below were separated from big-lies.org/reviews/ when that file grew too large.
v. 15 March 2024

List of Internal Links:-

Peter London on Islam and sex
J. L. Allen: Opus Dei
Karen Armstrong: Islam
Hilaire Belloc: Belinda Romantic novel by Belloc
      Hilaire Belloc: The Jews   One of the few books addressing the Jewish question (1922)
      Hilaire Belloc: Economics for Helen   1923 or 1924
      Hilaire Belloc: Belloc on Islam   My notes made from his two books on heresies
      Hilaire Belloc: Characters of the Reformation   1936 book
Julien Benda: Trahison des Clercs/ Treason of the Intellectuals
Lady Birdwood: The Longest Hatred   1991 Booklet by Jane Birdwood (1913-2000)
Christopher Jon Bjerknes: Beware the World to Come
Blunt: Dictionary of Sects
Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner: Blasphemy Laws in UK
Frank Britton: Behind Communism   1952-ish view of the Jewish question
Herbert Butterfield: Christianity and History
Caldwell: Immigration, Islam, and the West
Chris Caskie: The War Against 'Goyim'   |   Unscripted talk with Chris Caskie by Rae West 15 March 2022 74 mins
Norman Cohn: Warrant for Genocide
John Coutts: The Salvationists
Cox & J Marks: Is Ideological Islam Compatible with Liberal Democracy?
Gunnar Dahlberg: Race, Reason and Rubbish
Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion [This review is repeated elsewhere]
Hippolyte Delehaye S.J.: Introduction to 'Hagiography' 1907 translation of a COMPLETE BOOK. Official Catholic French work on Saints and myths and hagiographers
Bella Dodd: School of Darkness
G R Elton: Reformation Europe
Freethinker Magazine
Julian the Apostate
Paul Findley: Confront Israel's Lobby
Henry Ford: The International Jew
Erich Fromm: Art of Loving by yet another Jew who hated
Frank Furedi: Imperialism.. Moral Imperative Jewish 'sociologist', once foisted on Canterbury University
Erving Goffman: Stigma
Nick Griffin?: Deus Vult
Christopher de Hamel: The Book. A History of The Bible. (Phaidon, 2001)
Andrew Carrington Hitchcock: Synagogue of Satan
Eric Hobsbawm: The Age of Extremes
Michael A Hoffman: Judaism's Strange Gods   |   Michael A Hoffman: Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare
Tom Holland: Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World
Homer: Odyssey Brief notes on possible secrecy of Phoenician ships
Kenneth Humphreys: Jesus Never Existed
Jewish Year Book Centennial Edition (1996)
E Michael Jones: Goy Guide to World History   2014/2015 snowshoefilm based on The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. My notes on his film look at Jews and the Mediterranean and Khazars; Jews then Christianity and Islam; asks if ordinary people can ever understand Jews, amid perpetual propaganda?
Arthur Kemp: Islam's 1,300 Year War Against Western Civilisation
Hanif Kureishi: The Word and the Bomb
Anthony Ludovici: Jews Two unhelpful books
Kevin B. MacDonald: Separation and its Discontents 'Evolutionary' Theory of Anti-Semitism
      Kevin B. MacDonald: Culture of Critique Jews in some 20th Century 'Intellectual' Movements; but nothing much on their other activities
Joseph McCabe: Rationalist Encyclopaedia
Nur Masalha: Palestine—A Four Thousand Year History
Gil McHattie: The Knights Templars
Spike Milligan: The Bible According to Spike Milligan (1993-...)
Giles Milton: Islam's Million White Slaves
John R H Moorman: History of the Church in England
Malcolm Muggeridge: Winter in Moscow
Revilo Oliver: The Jewish Strategy More on Oliver here at LibertyBell
Tom Paine: The Age of Reason
Melanie Phillips: Londonistan. Phillips is yet another 'Jew'
Plato: Plato: Sophist. Reflections on Jews interfering in Greek texts
James Reston: Defeat of the Moors
Robertson: Jesus: Myth or History?
Cecil Roth: Jewish Contribution To Civilisation short book assembled by a Jew!
Bertrand Russell: Religion and Science
Mary Sherwood: The Fairchild Family
Henry Paine Stokes: A Short History of the Jews in England 1921
Charles Singer: The Christian Failure
César Tort: Neo-Christianity
H G Wells: Jewish Influence
Raeto West: Did Jews Hijack Early Christianity and Invent Islam?  Jew-centric view of religions, foisted violently onto non-Jews.
Joseph Wheless: Forgery in Christianity (Entire book)
Robert Winston: The Story of God
Robert Wistrich: Antisemitism (& Lady Birdwood)
Samuel Zwemer: Studies in Popular Islam


List of Links | Top of Page

Big-lies home page

The Age of Reason
by  Tom Paine

Revisionist review (of Paine and others)   by   Raeto West   5 March 2024


Historically interesting propagandist work, interweaving several ideas which I'm untangling here.   This isn't easy, and I can see no examples of success.   So I can't see Paine's book as wonderful or great.   In fact, one star is about right, but the sad fact is that his book was influential in damaging ways.
      Much of my review looks at Chapman Cohen, who was probably just another urban scribbling Jewish immigrant into England. I'll assume he was rather stupid, like most Jews, a fanatical adherent to rubbish he learned from his mother, from his father, and from his circumambient 'education'. His entire outlook must have been shaped by the need to lie. His 40-page introduction is written in the 'artificial intelligence' style of his day, with Jewish emotions attached to such events as the 'French' Revolution, the English 'Restoration' of the monarchy, and the Bible in English.
      Cohen, like an AI search engine, seeks out aspects of Paine and supplies automated emotion-only standard phrases. He's very helpful in highlighting Paine's intentions, as I found pushing through his words.

Roughly, Paine seems likely to have descent from wealthy and influential people. Jewish influence must have been considerable. This included wealth through control of money (Rothschilds being just one example), control of religions (including Protestant and Roman Catholic Christianity, and Quakers, and Puritans), partial control of aristocracies, and control of wars by means of money.
      Paine (and/or writers under his name) seems to have looked into political theory, mostly of democracy, and religious theory, mostly belief in 'God'. Both had secret long-term Jewish objects, notably–

• 'Democracy' which in practice resembled modern disruptions by rented mobs of the 'Soviet' type, paid or controlled by Jews and with no genuine concern for ordinary people, however useful or good. This understanding has been suppressed at least since 1900; before this there was widespread dislike of the idea of democracy. Paine's work did not say much about practical democracy; instead, it criticised and attacked all established people, resembling Marxism in supposedly supporting the 'proletariat' and avoiding discussion of practice. The avoidance of discussion about the proposed new conditions was essential, since few people wanted rule by obsessive Jewish fanatics.
• 'God' was a Jewish concept, a euphemism for 'Jews' as a group, with emphasis on 'rabbis'. This 'God' was part of the Jewish mentality, deeply embedded and perhaps instinctive. Paine's Age of Reason took the Jewish view that belief in 'God' was rational, itself an irrational idea, but which was repeated so much and over so long a time that people generally have been paralysed mentally into acceptance.
      Religions with paid-up officials, hierarchies and buildings, group payments, collective sense, have an economic momentum which may build into a self-replicating structure taking up a high proportion of spare capacity in communities. So they may become self-perpetuating and persecuting groups—on similar lines to Jewish 'Kahals'.
      Life after death has implications which have not been noticed generally. If evildoers have life after death, they may be judged, prosecuted, and talked about. This distracts from doing anything about their beneficiaries. [It surprised me to see Miles Mathis say in 911again.pdf: 'Silverstein ... is still alive, age 92. ... He will meet his maker soon enough, and have to account for everything down to the last farthing...'. Of course he won't. Many people seem unaware they don't have to join a paid club for their beliefs. Life after death points this out]

And there were other issues, such as opposition to the 'Hereditary Principle'. In practice, this opposed inheritance by goyim, but kept completely quiet on inheritance by so-called 'Jews'. In the words of Bertrand Russell, ‘His objection to the hereditary principle, which horrified Burke and Pitt, is now common ground among all politicians’. They clearly were persuaded successfully, just as many of the surviving important English after Cromwell were persuaded.
      And Paine and others used repeated assertions to 'blackwash' everyone likely to take different views, giving a rather inevitable repetitive and predictable style to their writings. This is clearer after the lapse of time, just as in modern times recent Jewish propaganda does not age well, picking on one-time enemies of Jews who now seem completely unimportant.
      Propaganda includes enticements, and we find Paine recommended such things as old-age pensions, graduated income tax, and death duties. It's an amazing comment on British historians that H A L (Herbert Albert Laurens) Fisher's History of Europe (published mid-Great War, 1916) attributes such things as general education and pensions to Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, not to Paine.

Jewish censorship of wars, bank frauds, budget frauds, debt build-ups, is as great or probably greater than in Paine's time. Media control by Jews is so strong that there are constant legal threats to people with ideas; and the ways things work are hidden by ever-more hard to understand laws, paper secrets, financial concealment.
      The 'Holocaust' fraud is still being pushed on simple goyim as an alternative to Christianity; instead of the tortured 'Jesus' figure, the sacred number of 6 millions Jews is supposed to have been killed horribly. Probably money will be handed out to fanatical priest types in exchange for tithes, land rents, payments to excuse 'sins', and so on. It has to be said whites are so simple or powerless that this may work.
      Today, we must consider the USA, Britain, and France as states, each with a powerful, secret, minority of Jews. It's fairly well-known, now, that 1700s France was under attack by Jews, and the 'French' revolution was secretly but powerfully influenced by Jews. It's not so well-known that the Bank 'of England' was Jewish. The collective interest of the Jews in the American states seems to have been to take over the banking system. Discussion of Paine now has to consider his attitude to these issues.
      Paper money, in the unlimited 1913 Fed scheme in which debt is hidden within money itself, is presaged by Paine: ‘The [sinking fund] funding system is not money; neither is it, properly speaking, credit. It in effect, creates upon paper the sum which it appears to borrow, and lays on a tax to keep the imaginary capital, alive by the payment of interest, and sends the annuity to market to be sold for paper already in circulation.’


Here is generally asserted material on Thomas Paine (1737-1809). Quaker father, Anglican mother. Family history vague. The claim usually made, that he published large numbers of pamphlets and books, but never made money from them—the source(s) of his income being totally obscured—suggests they were commissioned by him. His early life—a staymaker?—suggests a connection with clothing and trade & may be a crypto-Jew link. A sketch map of the town of Thetford in about 1750 (online source) shows the usual features of prosperous small towns of the time. (With lime kilns, and a gallows).
      His reputation as one of the leading democrat theorists must raise doubts: today we are better aware of the mythologies ascribed to 'democracy' than people could have been in the times of royalty, aristocracy, and churches.
      Chronology below. Alleged publications in bold. Non-bold text has other relevant things:–
[1694-1778: Voltaire is my weak revisionist review of his Louis XIV]
[1712-1778: Rousseau]
[1700-1775: Savery 1698; Newcomen 1712; Boulton and Watt founded 1775. Examples of steam power marking increase in mechanical power over wind power & manpower—relevant to reduction in slavery where it applied]
1737-1809: Thomas Paine
1776 Common Sense published
1776-1783 (15 parts) The American Crisis
1786 Dissertation on the Affairs of the Bank
1791, 1792 (2 parts) Rights of Man
1794, 1795 (2 parts) The Age of Reason
1796 The Decline and Fall of the English System of Finance
1797 Agrarian Justice
1810 Posthumous short work in French on Freemasons

[1812–1815 Unimportant war between USA & Britain—infinitely fewer deaths than the 50-year-later 'Civil War'. Neither war has been analysed with Jewish influence, but probably it resulted in rearrangements suiting the concealed power]
[1827 Sir Walter Scott's nine volumes on The Life of Napoleon. Volume II states that the French Revolution was planned by the Illuminati (Adam Weishaupt) and was financed by the money changers of Europe (The Rothschilds). Sir Walter Scott sums up the situation with these words—“These financiers used the (French) Government as bankrupt prodigals are treated by usurious money-lenders who, feeding the extravagance with one hand, with the other wring out of their ruined fortunes the most unreasonable recompenses for their advances. By a long succession of these ruinous loans, and various rights granted to guarantee them, the whole finances of France were brought to a total confusion”]
[1830 William Cobbett (1763-1835): Main work (arguably; he wrote histories, and on cottages, and founded the precursor of Hansard) Rural Rides, his observations made since 1821 of about ten years' travel, published 1830. Cobbett bemoaned "If I had time, ... I would find out how many of the old gentry have lost their estates, and have been supplanted by the Jews, since Pitt began his reign."]
[1848 Chaotic Republican revolutions and secret opposition]
[1858-1866 Goldwin Smith Regius Professor of Modern History, Oxford. Prolific author. Almost uniquely Jew-aware]
[c. 1908 Moncure Conway (1832-1907) biographer of Paine, apparently published after death. 1976 Encylopaedia Britannica says 'no full-length study of Paine ... replaces Conway's biography'. In 2018, we find J C D Clark's Oxford-published book on Paine, which seems unrevisionist and of little value]
[1912 Hypatia Bonner on Blasphemy Laws. Paine has a few mentions. Crypto-Jewish book on blasphemy. No consideration at all of the vast support for Jewish rubbish, which now, more than a century later, has immense legal force.]

 


Oil painting of Paine
Miles Mathis I think considers the 'French Revolution' was about taking land and assets from the Roman Catholic church, without drawing attention to Jews. Plus presumably about taking over vulnerable parts of the aristocracy.

The dates for Paine (1737-1809) are far earlier than the invention of photography: Daguerrotypes date from 1840s; Fox Talbot's claim to the first chemical process negatives was 1834. So the portraits of him can't be expected to be accurate.

Miles Mathis is the best (and more-or-less only) researcher into genealogical detail, but to date has not written much on Tom Paine. “... let us search on the name Payne. We find Gen. William Payne, 1st Baronet, which doesn't immediately help us with Obama, but which does help us with Franklin. His son married Emily Frankland-Russell, daughter of Robert Frankland-Russell, 7th Baronet. The 6th Baronet was a Frankland, so where did the Russell come from? The peerage.com doesn't tell us. The women of that time were Murrays (Dukes of Atholl), Hamiltons, and Grants, not Russells, but they are all related to Russells. All this links Ben Franklin to Thomas Paine, of course, since that is just a variant spelling.”   So it's likely that Paine will show all the red flags of crypto-Jew and Freemasonic ancestry and ideas.

MILES MATHIS on GEORGE WASHINGTON & BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

From wash.pdf.   George Washington was one of the richest men in US history, although they don't teach you that in school. I have shown George Washington was from English royalty and crypto-Jewish families. His lineage (and that of his wife) goes right to the top of both the English peerage and the East India Company. So it is very unlikely George was fighting against either one.
From ben.pdf.   Mathis said Franklin was a British agent. Britain had many power hierarchies, so it's not entirely clear what Mathis means by a ‘British agent’.

Franklin is said to have stated, among other things, that ‘If they are not expelled from the United States by the Constitution within less than one hundred years, they will stream into this country in such numbers that they will rule and destroy us and change our form of Government for which we Americans shed our blood and sacrificed our life, property and personal freedom. If the Jews are not excluded within two hundred years, our children will be working in the field to feed Jews while they remain in the counting houses, gleefully rubbing their hands.’ It's possible such a speech may have been made (as Henry Ford's Dearborn material may have) to seed the idea of hate of Jews into Americans. In Henry Ford's case, after the 'Great War' and before the construction of Hitler.

Here's Miles Mathis: ‘In fact, the encyclopedias try to tell us Franklin's father was a soap maker, and that his grandmother was an indentured servant. They tell us the Folgers were Puritans, “just the sort of rebels destined to transform colonial America.” Given what we have discovered, that already looks like a lie. Franklin's family was from the highest levels of the peerage, as we have seen. And like Samuel Parris of Salem, the Folgers weren't real Puritans: they were crypto-Jews running fantastic projects.
      And what this means is that the founding fathers were actually from the highest reaches of the British peerage, closely related to the Monarch and the peers they were allegedly fighting in the American Revolution. Which should make us ask if the American Revolution—like the other wars we have unwound—was managed. We always see the same families on both sides of these fake revolutionary wars, indicating a large manufactured event. I will have to gather more proof as we go, but it already looks to me like the War of Independence was largely faked, with the same families controlling the United States both before and after the alleged Revolution. The US has never been independent from the beginning.

[Ben] Franklin also published Moravian religious books in German at the same time. This is another red flag, as you will see if you go to the page on the Moravian Church. There is nothing in Ben's mainstream bio to explain his connection to the Moravian Church, but what I have shown you above explains it, since the Church is another Jewish front. It was founded in Bohemia by Jan Hus in 1415. [Bertrand Russell on Whitehead: Whatever historical subjects came up he [Whitehead] could always supply some illuminating fact, such, for example, as the connection of Burke's political opinions with his interests in the City, and the relation of the Hussite heresy to the Bohemian silver mines.]
      Holy Roman Emperor Charles VII, supposedly of the ancient Wittelsbach dynasty, was the son of a Sobieski from Poland, making him Jewish in several lines. However, in the mid-1700s, the issue hadn't yet been decided on the local level.

At age 25 Ben became a Mason, and just three years later he was a Grand Master. That's 33 levels in 3 years, if you are counting. He edited and published the first Masonic book in the Americas, the Constitutions of the Free-Masons. That confirms my readings of him above: he was an extremely prominent spook from birth, groomed from the cradle to a life of projects.

Franklin's close relationship to all these peers in the two decades leading up to 1776 is all the proof you should need of that.

What if he [Franklin] didn't go to London at age 17, but was already there? He was simply assigned his project then, and was shipped out to Philly to start it up.

 

THE
AGE OF REASON
BEING
AN INVESTIGATION
OF
TRUE AND FABULOUS THEOLOGY.
By THOMAS PAINE.

Cover of a 1937 edition. The 'bi-centenary' is of Paine's birth, not publication. There were three publication dates, of three parts; as far as I could find there's no evidence Paine wrote them. He may have financed them while thinking of the legal position. 'Hundreds of people to prison' appears to be true enough, but Cohen doesn't state what the convictions were for; they may have been correct interpretations of the laws of the time. Generally, the Jewish approach to laws is very strictly to consider whether Jews are thought to benefit—or not.
    The eighteenth century (1700s) as supposedly ruled by reason made its impact on Victorian Britain; "eighteenth century rationalism" was a slogan covering everything from 'deism' and Gibbon's history of Rome to the omission of the East India Co and the Jewish financing of wars and warships.
Pioneer Press of 61 Farringdon Street, E.C.4 was G.W.Foote and Co., Ltd. This company also published the weekly "Freethinker" ('Every Thursday, price threepence'). South Place Ethical Society in Red Lion Square was associated with them. All these outfits were Jewish and took a distinctly Jewish attitude, for example claiming that there was rational religion, without ever specifying what it was, and never mentioning Jews.
    Quite a remarkable strategy, on the face of it needing tremendous and unyielding self-discipline, though in practice isolation from the host community and the use of Synagogues as a refuge made the secrecy less intolerable.
    19th century (1800s) education for would-be elites consisted of Greek and Roman military histories omitting the weaknesses and costs, plus Biblical Jewish fanaticism and the Church's expensive preacher propagandists.
Revealing list of titles by Chapman Cohen, all undated, none with comment on the contents. A title Materialism probably looked at 'dialectical materialism', a prop for Jewish historiography, navigating uneasily between the Jewish view of Christianity (Jews invented it, but a lot of benefit went to churchmen) and the Jewish view of Jews (Jews invented themselves as G-d, and they're chosen). Socialism and the Churches probably refers to the USSR, which Jews habitually said was 'socialist'. Plenty of scope for evasion and annoyance against non-Jews. Spain and the Church must refer to the Spanish Civil War, omitting the Jewish invasion elements and omitting everything about Jews and Marranos in Spain. Theism or Atheism? The great alternative must be part of the insistence of a single God (i.e. the Jewish idea) as opposed to the obvious truth of atheism—or the acceptance of any number of non-existent constructions. Determinism or Free-Will must take into account the supposed Calvinist elect, the idea that people are permanently chosen. Blasphemy. A plea for religious equality must be aimed to allow Jews to insult Christianity, while not troubling with the response that Christians should be allowed to insult Jews. Foundations of Religion is Cohen's lecture at Manchester College, Oxford—a northern England college, becoming the 39th college only in 1996. It's small and post-graduate, probably like the 'Oxford Union', a place for Jews to infiltrate maybe doing advanced Frankfurt-school style PPE stuff; it's now Harris Manchester College. Cohen has a title on slavery—no prizes for expecting Jews and slave-trading to be unmentioned.
    But note what's omitted—Cohen avoided many tricky topics: the United States Civil War, India and the East India Co, China and Opium, the 'Great War', suffragists and suffragettes, Lenin and Stalin, Hitler and Germany!

Chapman Cohen's 50-page introduction to this 1937 edition of The Age of Reason proved astonishingly helpful to me—and I'd expect to any reader who understands something of Jewish lies and psychology. He makes it completely clear whose side he says he's on—(direct quotations in small text here)—the 'French Revolution'. ['most significant event in modern times - the French revolution of 1789 .. the first decisive break from the old order, a small minority with all the power and privileges, on the other hand the vast mass of the people possessing - nothing. The crown, the nobility - and the Church, which owned nearly a third of the land of France. Enlightened men and women hailed the revolution as offering a charter of human freedom...]

In true Jewish style, he hates Christianity. Or at least that's his pose, since Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism. It's his pose when he wants it to be: 'an attack on the Christian fortress'.

And in true Jewish style, like South Place in London, Cohen likes what he calls Freethinkers, a codeword for critics of Christianity who fail to criticise Jews. Scientists and Philosophers like Deism. Christians are good and sustained haters ... killing a man by ignoring his work and Christianity is a hotch-potch of primitive superstitions and savage customs
      Inherited religious bigotry is illustrated by Cohen, not with Jewish ideas, but with the description by Theodore Roosevelt of Paine as filthy little Atheist. No, says Cohen, Paine was a theist. Believing in the Jewish one and only God. ..great principle of divine morality, justice, and mercy..  Yes, of course, Cohen...

Cohen disliked the Bible (but says nothing about the Talmud). ...dead ideas such as literal inspiration of the Bible And indeed the King James Bible (of 1611) must have left a feeling of disgust and ridicule; and this may have been part of the long-term policy of Jewish leaders. By 1794, The Age of Reason probably was intended to be sweepingly successful. I suspect the extreme dogmatic silliness in the USA came as a surprise.
      Paine's work incomparable. ... careless of his rights as a author .. not a professional writer ... men and women went to prison for selling it... still a best-seller is worryingly unlikely; if Paine was extremely poor, how could he fund hundreds of thousands of booklets? Were there really hundreds of people willing to be jailed?—all looks like what Miles Mathis calls a 'project'.

      My best guess after a close reading of Cohen is that the Burke vs Paine arguments were controlled opposition, Burke getting his secret pension in exchange for his stodgy defence of establishments and his opposition to the "rebels", advising Marie Antoinette to appeal to foreign armies. Cohen says thousands of English people know of Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution only because Paine wrote The Rights of Man in reply.
      Here's an example of Paine in full flow, very keen on government:– Just a sample of his style:– ‘There never did, there never will, and there never can exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to 'the end of time', or to commanding forever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void.’

Paine was Induced by Franklin to go to America... offered charge of The Pennsylvania Magazine .. joined armed men wrote the first number of The Crisis [on the summer soldier and sunshine patriot]

Paine went back to Europe in 1787. He was supposed to have been a great inventor, but since the iron bridge in Ironbridge was built by 1779, this looks another fake. Possibly an attempt to buy patents.

Were 'Freethinkers' just more crypto-Jews?

Some names quoted are Leslie Stephen, J M Robertson, W E H Lecky, J R Green, and Moncure Conway. Conway has a high position in the rather out-of-the-way world of crypto-Jewish apologetics. I was struck by his omission of Walter Scott's views on Jews and the French Revolution, and by the losses and destruction of evidence relating to Paine. I have to say Conway seems a type of crypto-Jew. I'll stop here (life is short!) in the hope that the 'founding fathers' and Constitution of the United States will be demystified. Preferably not in the remote future!

For reference, I've downloaded from archive.org two pdf books by Moncure Conway (1832-1907). 'Moncure' seems not to be a religious title, but a family name). I'm afraid my patience was not up to the task of finding uniform editions.
Biography of Thomas Paine vol. 1 by Moncure Conway (1908. 7 MB, pdf format). Many of Paine's papers were destroyed; Conway received little help with his books and could not be expected to investigate the French Revolution in detail.
Biography of Thomas Paine vol. 2 by Moncure Conway (1898. 18 MB, pdf format).
Paine's work were printed in numerous formats, some of which perhaps were proof-read by Paine. The best old edition is by Moncure Conway, but is in 4 volumes (1894-1896). So here is
Complete works of Thomas Paine (54 MB, pdf format).


The Fate of Thomas Paine   by   Bertrand Russell   (1934)

Thomas Paine, though prominent in two revolutions and almost hanged for attempting to raise a third, is grown, in our day, somewhat dim. To our great grandfathers, he seemed a kind of earthly Satan, a subversive infidel rebellious alike against his God and his King. He incurred the bitter hostility of three men not generally united: Pitt, Robespierre, and Washington. Of these, the first two sought his death, while the third carefully abstained from measures designed to save his life. Pitt and Washington hated him because he was a democrat; Robespierre, because he opposed the execution of the King and the Reign of Terror. It was his fate to be always honored by opposition and hated by governments: Washington, while he was still fighting the English, spoke of Paine in terms of highest praise; the French nation heaped honors upon him until the Jacobins rose to power; even in England, the most prominent Whig statesmen befriended him and employed him in drawing up manifestoes. He had faults, like other men; but it was for his virtues that he was hated and successfully calumniated.

Paine's importance in history consists in the fact that he made the preaching of democracy democratic. There were, in the eighteenth century, democrats among French and English aristocrats, among Philosophes and nonconformist ministers. But all of them presented their political speculations in a form designed to appeal only to the educated. Paine, while his doctrine contained nothing novel, was an innovator in the manner of his writing, which was simple, direct, unlearned, and such as every intelligent workingman could appreciate. This made him dangerous; and when he added religious unorthodoxy to his other crimes, the defenders of privilege seized the opportunity to load him with obloquy.

The first thirty-six years of his life gave no evidence of the talents which appeared in his later activities. He was born at Thetford in 1739, of poor Quaker parents, and was educated at the local grammar school up to the age of thirteen, when he became a stay-maker. A. quiet life, however, was not his taste, and at the age of seventeen he tried to enlist on a privateer called The Terrible, whose captain's name was Death. His parents fetched him back and so probably saved his life, as 175 out of the crew of 200 were shortly afterward killed in action. A little later, however, on the outbreak of the Seven Years' War, he succeeded in sailing on another privateer, but nothing is known of his brief adventures at sea. In 1758, he was employed as a staymaker in London, and in the following year he married, but his wife died after a few months. In 1763 he became an exciseman, but was dismissed two years later for professing to have made inspections while he was in fact studying at home. In great poverty, he became a schoolmaster at ten shillings a week and tried to take Anglican orders. From such desperate expedients he was saved by being reinstated as an exciseman at Lewes, where he married a Quakeress from whom, for reasons unknown, he formally separated in 1774. In this year he again lost his employment, apparently because he organized a petition of the excisemen for higher pay. By selling all that he had, he was just able to pay his debts and leave some provision for his wife, but he himself was again reduced to destitution. In London, where he was trying to present the excisemen's petition to Parliament, he made the acquaintance of Benjamin Franklin, who thought well of him. The result was that in October 1774 he sailed for America, armed with a letter of recommendation from Franklin describing him as an "ingenious, worthy young man." As soon as he arrived in Philadelphia, he began to show skill as a writer and almost immediately became editor of a journal. His first publication, in March 1775, was a forcible article against slavery and the slave trade, to which, whatever some of his American friends might say, he remained always an uncompromising enemy. It seems to have been largely owing to his influence that Jefferson inserted in the draft of the Declaration of Independence the passage on this subject which was afterward cut out. In 1775, slavery still existed in Pennsylvania; it was abolished in that state by an Act of 1780, of which, it was generally believed, Paine wrote the preamble. Paine was one of the first, if not the very first, to advocate complete freedom for the United States. In October 1775, when even those who subsequently signed the Declaration of Independence were still hoping for some accommodation with the British Government, he wrote:
    "I hesitate not for a moment to believe that the Almighty will finally separate America from Britain. Call it Independency or what you will, if it is the cause of God and humanity it will go on. And when the Almighty shall have blest us, and made us a people dependent only upon him, then may our first gratitude be shown by an act of continental legislation, which shall put a stop to the importation of Negroes for sale, soften the hard fate of those already here, and in time procure their freedom."

It was for the sake of freedom freedom from monarchy, aristocracy, slavery, and every species of tyranny that Paine took up the cause of America.

During the most difficult years of the War of Independence he spent his days campaigning and his evenings composing rousing manifestoes published under the signature "Common Sense." These had enormous success and helped materially in winning the war. After the British had burned the towns of Falmouth in Maine and Norfolk in Virginia, Washington wrote to a friend (January 37, 1776): "A few more of such flaming arguments as were exhibited at Falmouth and Norfolk, added to the sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning contained in the pamphlet Common Sense, will not leave numbers at a loss to decide upon the propriety of separation." The work was topical and has now only a historical interest, but there are phrases in it that are still telling. After pointing out that the quarrel is not only with the King, but also with Parliament, he says: "There is no body of men more jealous of their privileges than the Commons: because they sell them." At that date it was impossible to deny the justice of this taunt.

There is vigorous argument in favor of a Republic, and triumphant refutation of the theory that monarchy prevents civil war. "Monarchy and succession," he says, after his summary of English history, "have laid ... the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it." In December at a moment when the fortunes of war were adverse, Paine published a pamphlet called The Crisis, beginning: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

This essay was read to the troops, and Washington expressed to Paine a "living sense of the importance of your works." No other writer was so widely read in America, and he could have made large sums by his pen, but he always refused to accept any money at all for what he wrote. At the end of the War of Independence, he was universally respected in the United States but still poor; however, one state legislature voted him a sum of money and another gave him an estate, so that he had every prospect of comfort for the rest of his life. He might have been expected to settle down into the respectability characteristic of revolutionaries who have succeeded. He turned his attention from politics to engineering and demonstrated the, possibility of iron bridges with longer spans than had previously been thought feasible. Iron bridges led him to England, where he was received in a friendly manner by Burke, the Duke of Portland, and other Whig notables. He had a large model of his iron bridge set up at Paddington; he was praised by eminent engineers and seemed likely to spend his remaining years as an inventor.

However, France as well as England was interested in iron bridges. In 1788 he paid a visit to Paris to discuss them with Lafayette and to submit his plans to the Academic des Sciences, which, after due delay, reported favorably. When the Bastille fell, Lafayette decided to present the key of the prison to Washington and entrusted to Paine the task of conveying it across the Atlantic. Paine, however, was kept in Europe by the affairs of his bridge. He wrote a long letter to Washington informing him that he would find someone to take his place in transporting "this early trophy of the spoils of despotism, and the first ripe fruits of American principles transplanted into Europe." He goes on to say that "I have not the least doubt of the final and compleat success of the French Revolution," and that "I have manufactured a bridge (a single arch) of one hundred and ten feet span, and five feet high from the cord of the arch."

For a time, the bridge and the Revolution remained thus evenly balanced in his interests, but gradually the Revolution conquered. In the hope of rousing a responsive movement in England, he wrote his The Rights of Man on which his fame as a democrat chiefly rests.

This work, which was considered madly subversive during the anti-Jacobin reaction, will astonish a modern reader by its mildness and common sense. It is primarily an answer to Burke and deals at considerable length with contemporary events in France. The first part was published in 1791, the second in February 1792; there was, therefore, as yet no need to apologize for the Revolution. There is very little declamation about Natural Rights, but a great deal of sound sense about the British Government. Burke had contended that the Revolution of 1688 bound the British for ever to submit to the sovereigns appointed by the Act of Settlement. Paine contends that it is impossible to bind posterity, and that constitutions must be capable of revision from time to time.

Governments, he says, "may all be comprehended under three heads. First, superstition. Secondly, power. Thirdly, the common interest of society and the common rights of man. The first was a government of priestcraft, the second of conquerors, the third of reason." The two former amalgamated: "the key of St. Peter and the key of the Treasury became quartered on one another, and the wondering, cheated multitude worshippd the invention." Such general observations, however, are rare. The bulk of the work consists, first, of French history from 1789 to the end of 1791 and, secondly, of a comparison of the British Constitution with that decreed in France in 1791, of course to the advantage of the latter. It must be remembered that in 1791 France was still a monarchy. Paine was a republican and did not conceal the fact, but did not much emphasize it in The Rights of Man.

Paine's appeal, except in a few short passages, was to common sense. He argued against Pitt's finance, as Cobbett did later, on grounds which ought to have appealed to any Chancellor of the Exchequer; he described the combination of a small sinking fund with vast borrowings as setting a man with a wooden leg to catch a hare—the longer they run, the farther apart they are. He speaks of the "Potter's field of paper money"—a phrase quite in Cobbett's style. It was, in fact, his writings on finance that turned Cobbett's former enmity into admiration. His objection to the hereditary principle, which horrified Burke and Pitt, is now common ground among all politicians, including even Mussolini and Hitler. Nor is his style in any way outrageous: it is clear, vigorous, and downright, but not nearly as abusive as that of his opponents.

Nevertheless, Pitt decided to inaugurate his reign of terror by prosecuting Paine and suppressing The Rights of Man. According to his niece, Lady Hester Stanhope, he "used to say that Tom Paine was quite in the right, but then, he would add, what am I to do? As things are, if I were to encourage Tom Paine's opinions we should have a bloody revolution." Paine replied to the prosecution by defiance and inflammatory speeches. But the September massacres were occurring, and the English Tories were reacting by increased fierceness. The poet Blake—who had more worldly wisdom than Paine—persuaded him that if he stayed in England he would be hanged. He fled to France, missing the officers who had come to arrest him by a few hours in London and by twenty minutes in Dover, where he was allowed by the authorities to pass because he happened to have with him a recent friendly letter from Washington.

Although England and France were not yet at war, Dover and Calais belonged to different worlds. Paine, who had been elected an honorary French citizen, had been returned to the Convention by three different constituencies, of which Calais, which now welcomed him, was one. "As the packet sails in, a salute is fired from the battery; cheers sound along the shore. As the representative for Calais steps on French soil soldiers make his avenue, the officers embrace him, the national cockade is presented"—and so on through the usual French series of beautiful ladies, mayors, etc.

Arrived in Paris, he behaved with more public spirit than prudence. He hoped—in spite of the massacres—for an orderly and moderate revolution such as he had helped to make in America. He made friends with the Girondins, refused to think ill of Lafayette (now in disgrace), and continued, as an American, to express gratitude to Louis XVI for his share in liberating the United States. By opposing the King's execution down to the last moment, be incurred the hostility of the Jacobins. He was first expelled from the Convention and then imprisoned as a foreigner; he remained in prison throughout Robespierre's period of power and for some months longer. The responsibility rested only partly with the French; the American Minister, Gouverneur Morris, was equally to blame. He was a Federalist and sided with England against France; he had, moreover, an ancient personal grudge against Paine for exposing a friend's corrupt deal during the War of Independence. He took the line that Paine was not an American and that he could therefore do nothing for him. Washington, who was secretly negotiating Jay's treaty with England, was not sorry to have Paine in a situation in which he could not enlighten the French Government as to reactionary opinion in America. Paine escaped the guillotine by accident but nearly died of illness. At last Morris was replaced by Monroe (of the "Doctrine"), who immediately procured his release, took him into his own house, and restored him to health by eighteen months' care and kindness.

Paine did not know how great a part Morris had played in his misfortunes, but he never forgave Washington, after whose death, hearing that a statue was to be made of the great man, he addressed the following lines to the sculptor:
      Take from the mine the coldest, hardest stone, It needs no fashion: it is Washington. But if you chisel, let the stroke be rude, And on his heart engrave—Ingratitude.

This remained unpublished, but a long, bitter letter to Washington was published in 1796, ending:
      And as to you, Sir, treacherous in private friendship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any.

To those who know only the statuesque Washington of the legend, these may seem wild words. But 1796 was the year of the first contest for the Presidency, between Jefferson and Adams, in which Washington's whole weight was thrown into support of the latter, in spite of his belief in monarchy and aristocracy; moreover, Washington was taking sides with England against France and doing all in his power to prevent the spread of those republican and democratic principles to which he owed his own elevation. These public grounds, combined with a very grave personal grievance, show that Paine's words were not without justification.

It might have been more difficult for Washington to leave Paine languishing in prison if that rash man had not spent his last days of liberty in giving literary expression to the theological opinions which he and Jefferson shared with Washington and Adams, who, however, were careful to avoid all public avowals of unorthodoxy. Foreseeing his imprisonment, Paine set to work to write The Age of Reason, of which he finished Part 1 six hours before his arrest. This book shocked his contemporaries, even many of those who agreed with his politics. Nowadays, apart from a few passages in bad taste, there is very little that most clergymen would disagree with. In the first chapter he says:
      "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy."

These were not empty words. From the moment of his first participation in public affairs—his protest against slavery in 1775—down to the day of his death, he was consistently opposed to every form of cruelty, whether practiced by his own party or by his opponents. The Government of England at that time was a ruthless oligarchy, using Parliament as a means of lowering the standard of life in the poorest classes; Paine advocated political reform as the only cure for this abomination and had to fly for his life. In France, for opposing unnecessary bloodshed, he was thrown into prison and narrowly escaped death. In America, for opposing slavery and upholding the principles of the Declaration of Independence, he was abandoned by the Government at the moment when he most needed its support. If, as he maintained and as many now believe, true religion consists in "doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy," there was not one among his opponents who had as good a claim to be considered a religious man.

The greater part of The Age of Reason consists of criticism of the Old Testament from a moral point of view. Very few nowadays would regard the massacres of men, women, and children recorded in the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua as models of righteousness, but in Paine's day it was considered impious to criticize the Israelites when the Old Testament approved of them. Many pious divines wrote answers to him. The most liberal of those was the Bishop of Llandaff, who went so far as to admit that parts of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses, and some of the Psalms were not composed by David. For such concessions he incurred the hostility of George III and lost all chance of translation to a richer see. Some of the Bishop's replies to Paine are curious.. For example, The Age of Reason ventured to doubt whether God really commanded that all males and married women among the Midianites should be slaughtered, while the maidens should be preserved. The Bishop indignantly retorted that the maidens were not preserved for immoral purposes, as Paine had wickedly suggested, but as slaves, to which there could be no ethical objection. The orthodox of our day have forgotten what orthodoxy was like a hundred and forty years ago. They have forgotten still more completely that it was men like Paine who, in face of persecution, caused the softening of dogma by which our age profits. Even the Quakers refused Paine's request for burial in their cemetery, although a Quaker farmer was one of the very few who followed his body to the grave.

After The Age of Reason Paine's work ceased to be important. For a long time he was very ill; when he recovered, he found no scope in the France of the Directoire and the First Consul. Napoleon did not ill-treat him, but naturally had no use for him, except as a possible agent of democratic rebellion in England. He became homesick for America, remembering his former success and popularity in that country and wishing to help the Jeffersonians against the Federalists. But the fear of capture by the English, who would certainly have hanged him, kept him in France until the Treaty of Amiens. At length, in October 1802, he landed at Baltimore and at once wrote to Jefferson (now President):
      "I arrived here on Saturday from Havre, after a passage of sixty days. I have several cases of models, wheels, etc., and as soon as I can get them from the vessel and put them on board the packet for Georgetown I shall set off to pay my respects to you. Your much obliged fellow citizen,
THOMAS PAINE"

He had no doubt that all his old friends, except such as were Federalists, would welcome him. But there was a difficulty: Jefferson had a hard fight for the Presidency, and in the campaign the most effective weapon against him unscrupulously used by ministers of all denominations had been the accusation of infidelity. His opponents magnified his intimacy with Paine and spoke of the pair as "the two Toms." Twenty years later, Jefferson was still so much impressed by the bigotry of his compatriots that he replied to a Unitarian minister who wished to publish a letter of his: "No, my dear Sir, not for the world! ... I should as soon undertake to bring the crazy skulls of Bedlam to sound understanding as to inculcate reason into that of an Athanasian ... keep me therefore from the fire and faggot of Calvin and his victim. Servetus." It was not surprising that, when the fate of Servetus threatened them, Jefferson and his political followers should have fought shy of too close an association with Paine. He was treated politely and had no cause to complain, but the old easy friendships were dead.

In other circles he fared worse. Dr. Rush of Philadelphia, one of his first American friends, would have nothing to do with him: "... his principles" he wrote, "avowed in his Age of Reason, were so offensive to me that I did not wish to renew my intercourse with him." In his own neighborhood, he was mobbed and refused a seat in the stagecoach; three years before his death he was not allowed to vote, on the alleged ground of his being a foreigner. He was falsely accused of immorality and intemperance, and his last years were spent in solitude and poverty. He died in 1809. As he was dying, two clergymen invaded his room and tried to convert him, but he merely said, "Let me alone; good morning!" Nevertheless, the orthodox invented a myth of deathbed recantation which was widely believed.

His posthumous fame was greater in England than in America. To publish his works was, of course, illegal, but it was done repeatedly, although many men went to prison for this offense. The last prosecution on this charge was that of Richard Carlile and his wife. In 1819 he was sentenced to prison for three years and a fine of fifteen hundred pounds, she to one year and five hundred pounds. It was in this year that Cobbett brought Paine's bones to England and established his fame as one of the heroes in the fight for democracy in England. Cobbett did not, however, give his bones a permanent resting place. "The monument contemplated by Cobbett," says Moncure Conway, "was never raised." There was much parliamentary and municipal excitement. A Bolton town crier was imprisoned nine weeks for proclaiming the arrival. In 1836 the bones passed with Cobbett's effects into the hands of a receiver (West). The Lord Chancellor refusing to regard them as an asset, they were kept by an old day laborer until 1844, when they passed to B. Tilley, 13 Bedford Square, London, a furniture dealer. In 1854, Rev. R. Ainslie (Unitarian) told E. Truelove that he owned "the skull and the right hand of Thomas Paine," but evaded subsequent inquiries. No trace now remains, even of the skull and right hand.

Paine's influence in the world was twofold. During the American Revolution he inspired enthusiasm and confidence, and thereby did much to facilitate victory. In France his popularity was transient and superficial, but in England he inaugurated the stubborn resistance of plebeian Radicals to the long tyranny of Pitt and Liverpool. His opinions on the Bible, though they shocked his contemporaries more than his Unitarianism, were such as might now be held by an archbishop, but his true followers were the men who worked in the movements that sprang from him those whom Pitt imprisoned, those who suffered under the Six Acts, the Owenites, Chartists, Trade-Unionists, and Socialists. To all these champions of the oppressed he set an example of courage, humanity, and single-mindedness. When public issues were involved, he forgot personal prudence. The world decided, as it usually does in such cases, to punish him for his lack of self-seeking; to this day his fame is less than it would have been if his character had been less generous. Some worldly wisdom is required even to secure praise for the lack of it.


© Raeto West   5-10 March 2024

[Top of page]

image   Review of Jewish interest   Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

Media lapdog, not Darwin's Rottweiler. Unsatisfactory!, 16 Nov 2010

elephant in the room

Update - July 2023

Readers an skimmers of Dawkins' book must have been puzzled by its oddly hollow-centred feel.

How can it be that vast numbers of people, for thousands of years, were all, or apparently all, convinced by the idea of a single, omnipotent, invisible God? Why should so many people, in so many places, have accepted utter rubbish? What was going on—why did this happen? What was the trick?

And of course the answer is simple: there's been a constant drum-beat, in modern terms a psy-op, by Jews. It's unsurprising that Dawkins doesn't mention this. His family tree shows a close relationship with Jews, for example around the First World War in which many whites died, but not many Jews.

Europeans succumbed to this absurdity through the power of money: some of them were offered secure livings as priests, vicars, bishops, archbishops, 'Lords spiritual' and so on, for symbiotically supporting Jews in their Kahal and other exploitations. It's still true: in the USA many simple people say they believe in 'God' and 'God's chosen people'. Even people who've learned to see through Jewish pretences still believe in the Jewish God: a good example is Dr Lorraine Day.

This is the piece missing from Richard Dawkins' book - Rae West

*** VERY LONG REVIEW! ***
2 stars for the title. The credits list nine editors and critics, who, I would imagine, contributed much of the US interest and US-style short 'quotations'.

Dawkins defines (e.g. on p 41) what he considers most people mean by religion - something with supernatural gods, excluding, for example, ecstasy about the natural world. Obviously, this is a bit narrow. I'll try to survey his book by looking in rough categories, as the book is somewhat disconnected.

[1] BELIEF? GOD? Dawkins takes unnecessarily narrow views on such things as 'belief' and 'God'----

*** p.210 on children saying clouds are 'for raining'. Maybe they simply don't have a subtle vocabulary - as with children asked if sweets when spread out are 'more', and they say 'yes' - even though, if they believed it, they'd spread their sweets out to increase them.
*** Polytheism is discussed for just a few pages, around p 56. But the (allegedly) most impressive civilisation that ever existed believed in polytheism. Isn't that some sort of evidence of pragmatic value of religion?
*** Many people, when they say they "believe" something, specifically use the word to cover some official claim or catechism. A 'belief' MEANS something odd. Not being philosophical, they don't say they "believe" that chairs are for sitting in, or electricity comes from wall plugs; they just know and see these things. It's analogous to saying someone is "ignorant", referring to manners, by people with little idea of learning. So when people say they "believe" in God, often it's just a conventional phrase which they've learned to utter.
*** There is such a gulf between people with years of training in (for example) physics, medicine, engineering, or economics, that ordinary people simply feel utterly unable to compete. Hence interest in 'the occult', or Reiki, or strange massage techniques, or homeopathy. This is a sad state of affairs, but clearly one motive for claiming to believe in God is a sort of career move or self-esteem booster.
*** There's a difficulty with theology books. Probably they're not worth reading. But how can anyone be sure? I saw an idea in about 1970, that a being which could move at infinite speed would be omnipotent, because he/she/it would have an infinite time to beetle around moving things, which I thought was quite ingenious. The Dawkins solution is to mention the best-known 'proofs' which he of course correctly demolishes. I don't think anyone will come up with anything, but it needs tighter definitions than Dawkins furnishes to show why not.

[2] SOCIAL FORCES CAUSING AND CAUSED BY RELIGIONS. Dawkins has very little idea of social forces and religions. He seems to misunderstand many aspects ----

*** Christianity (arguably) was imposed by a polity which was facing the prospect of falling to pieces. Hence (arguably) rigging up a belief system in which people within that empire love each other - or at least don't kill each other - whilst also having a family, work and etiquette and contraception function and including a collection of supernatural beliefs, of familiar type, is not unreasonable. Even though it failed. Americans in particular at the present time seem reluctant to drop their belief in 'God' and one has to assume they don't like the feeling that a whole package of behaviours would be tampered with by dropping 'God'.
*** One of his breathtakingly absurd quotations, attributed to a stand-up comedian, is (p 195) 'All religions are the same: religion is basically guilt, with different holidays'. Dawkins has a single reference to Confucianism, which however appears to have held China together for a couple of millennia. Dawkins has no idea of the viciousness of tribal religions, the two most significant now being Judaism and Islam. He doesn't analyse the class and race basis of Hinduism. Let alone thuggism... or Marxism... or Shintoism...
*** His discussion of cargo cults (p 234), apparently relying on a TV presenter, naturally makes fun of the stupid primitives, who build model radio sheds and then hope for a boat or plane of goods to turn up. In fact (arguably) this attitude is common - many economists think the same way - that by introducing a framework, goods will appear. (I noted a comment by Dr William Pierce on Hesketh Pearson's book on 'Hayti': '... there is a bizarre blending of white forms with black substance. To the Haitains, the imitation of civilisation is as good as the real thing. They believe that if they are able to dress like white men and speak the white man's language and mimic the white man's institutions then they are as good as white men. What Hesketh observed of the Haitians applies equally well to blacks in the United States today. ...' - added 24 June 2014)
*** Dawkins resembles Victorian optimists - he thinks we have progressed. But his examples all postdate the rise of science, which has made some portions of the world rich. It's true (p 300) slavery has been abolished (if you don't look closely) - but this is only because we have machinery to do a lot of work. In fact he even believes there is a Zeitgeist (p 298) or consensus - he seems to have not the slightest grasp of the fanaticisms of Jews, Muslims, and plenty of other groups.
*** With regard to the USA, Dawkins doesn't seem to know the freight attached to the phrase 'atheistic communism'. As an example, p. 241 has what may be quotations from an insulting letter, calling someone a 'comunist [sic] whore'. Dawkins hasn't understood the interplay between Jews and Fundamentalists, nor the reality of the origin of modern Jews. (Catholics are less Biblically minded than Protestants).

[3] ETHICS: Ethically, Dawkins is a lapdog of political correctness.

*** Dawkins has no idea of the contrast between Talmudic beliefs of Jews (Kill the best of goyim, child sex, etc) and Biblical and Christian beliefs. In fact he sounds remarkably like American 'Christian Zionists' who have resulted from post-1945 Jewish media control. This is why he has little difficulty in getting publicised and published. He may even believe 'Jews' were entitled to Israel by Biblical prophecy. I've seen his defenders say, Why yes, he has criticised Jews very severely—he's said the Old Testament God is viciously cruel! True enough, but this says nothing about modern so-called Jews and their activities. [Added this rather obvious point 22 July 2014]
*** He states (p 283) 'Jesus 'was surely one of the great ethical innovators.' But is this really true? Did nobody before about 0 AD feel pity for others, or believe it made sense to have friendly alliances?
*** Dawkins takes (p 351) the modern PC view of Catholic atrocities: Crusades, Conquistadores, and the Inquisition. Plus (p 401) Indulgences. When I say modern PC view, possibly the Crusades will be reassessed! But I couldn't help noting Dawkins has never heard of the Belgian Congo under Leopold, one of the most notorious atrocities of the late 19th century. (It was swept under the carpet because of the myth of 'gallant little Belgium'). He hasn't heard of the Catholic minority in Vietnam, installed by the French, who encouraged vast atrocities.
*** Dawkins naively imagines (p 368) Martin Luther King was a moral leader.
*** Dawkins states (p 45) 'apartheid has no rational justification'
*** Dawkins gets incensed (p 368) at the fate of an Inca girl, believed to have been eaten, many centuries ago. But it's notable that, in full PC style, males don't get the same consideration. It's better for infantrymen not to act on their own initiative (p 200) as they 'will tend to lose wars'. Suppose a war is damaging or in some sense evil? Oh well—just some dead bodies. Dawkins does have an argument about modern war: After 'the American invasion of Iraq', casualty figures were 'orders of magnitude lower than ... for the Second World War'. (p 304).
*** Dawkins thinks it's weird that the feelings of the religious, or supposedly religious, should be respected - one example is the 12 cartoons of Mohammed, which event must have happened just as he was about to publish. However he says nothing about the traditional activities of Jews. Thus (p 282) he is in my view rightly incensed at Muslim destruction of statues of Buddha. But he says nothing about Jewish genocide in the USSR, when not only people, but churches, icons, and communities were destroyed; nor about American genocide in Vietnam. Needless to say, his writings are entirely PC by American media standards.
*** Maybe it's worth mentioning Peter Atkins, a friend of Dawkins, and Professor of Chemistry. He told an Oxford theologian (p 89) to 'rot in hell' for a pain-gives-people-a-chance-to-be noble comment on the 'Holocaust', which presumably Atkins, Dawkins and the theologian all believe in, despite two thirds of them theoretically approving of evidence. And yet chemists have produced napalm and bombs and chemicals causing birth defects - things as far as I know missing from Atkins' textbooks and world-view. No apology from him! Not much of an advertisement for the superior virtue of atheists. (Come to think of it, he might have commented on 9/11 - as might be expected, Dawkins says Muslims did it. But Atkins, with chemical expertise, might surely make some remark!).

[4] QUOTATIONS. Dawkins' book has very many short quotations, but it's difficult to see their relevance; maybe they're put there in the same spirit as cartoons or decorations or background music for adverts? I've already quoted the mistake that 'all religions are the same'. Here are a few more questionable quotes----

*** Gore Vidal (p 58) dislikes 'sky gods' and monotheism, because they are patriarchal and hate women. But why should there be a necessary connection between a patriarchal god, and dislike of women? Such a god could presumably just as well be even-handed or pro-women.
*** Buñuel (p 266) says: 'god and country .. break all records for oppression and bloodshed'. Maybe. Or maybe not! What did he know?
*** Neville Chamberlain (p 90) and McCarthy's Commies. These two aren't actually quoted and indeed don't need to be.
*** Martin Luther, one gathers, was in his day one of the most influential thinkers/writers in Europe. Dawkins gives him (p 221) just three sentences, and in English translation from the original language. This is a true insult to any intelligent reader. The three sentences all include the word 'reason', and the extracts are supposed to show Luther and all Christians should hate reason. And yet his whole dispute with Catholicism - one of the most significant events in Christianity - was based on dispute and argument. Probably the sense of the word in the passages was different from modern senses of it. (There are also references to Luther on Jews - with, of course, no consideration of their truth or otherwise).
*** H G Wells. There's a long quotation (p 305) from 'Anticipations' which is deliberately misleading, which I think annoys me more than any other part of this book. The book is downloadable; so anyone can check what I say. The passage talks of 'inferior races - black, yellow, jew' and their position in the 'world state' and the 'multiplication of those who fall behind a certain standard.. they have to go. .. it is their portion to die out an disappear.' Dawkins puts in a bit about killing of the 'diseased bodily or mentally' which is out of sequence, taken from an earlier paragraph. Wells assumed such people would dwindle away. Judging my modern population figures, he was wrong about that. I doubt Dawkins bothered to check the passage. This is irritating, especially as Wells was a populariser of biology. I'd go so far as to say the passage is deliberate deception. (Wells seems to come under a lot of attack, perhaps to deflect attention from his invention of the 'new world order'. See my review of a book by McKillop preposterously claiming Wells was plagiarised a historical manuscript).

[5] SCIENCE. Dawkins has many passages on science, or what may be science. Their function seems to be to provide some armour----
*** Dawkins idolises Einstein, for example, and his supposed religiose feel for the universe. Amusingly, Dawkins ridicules (p 54) the Trinity, but doesn't realise that relativity has as many absurdities, such as the problem with rotating coordinates, and the differential ageing paradox.
*** There's Pascal's Wager, which I've seen in action - many people must know persons who attend church just on the off-chance they'll go to heaven.
*** And Bayes Theorem, a simple probability idea, a favourite because it's easily misinterpretable.
*** There's 'irreducible complexity' (p 151) - a creationist argument from complicated bits which couldn't possibly evolve. Dawkins is wary of this, with good reason - there are mistakes in modern biology, and these mistakes include things which could not evolve. (I don't have space here for details!)
*** Computer software compared to the brain. Dawkins thinks (p 113) the brain has no difficulty in producing completely convincing veridical impressions. This actually is not true - as Dawkins points out in a discussion on physics, the brain has evolved to give usable information. Optical illusions are in fact very rare, needing special constructions. 'Photographic memory' is a myth.
*** Finally, it's troubling to read this, on p 252: 'even now full understanding [of natural selection] is confined to a minority of scientific specialists'. (This reminds me of A J P Taylor's analogous claim about 'trained historians'). Does Dawkins really think he has 'full understanding' of evolution?

For someone listing ten new commandments (p 299) including 'forming independent opinions' all this is rather sad stuff. Incidentally, those who know of the Wallace/Darwin priority dispute will find Dawkins hasn't even checked it. Dawkins states that (inter-war intellectual) Lancelot Hogben's writings are 'significantly marred by their anachronistic barbs'. I think Dawkins' book in the fullness of time will be seen to host more anachronisms than a virus-infected cell i believed to. It's a pity. Dawkins reminds me of J B Bury's 'History of Freedom of Thought' - the concentration on one single issue, excluding other far more important issues. Significantly, perhaps, Bury's book was published in 1913.

It's worth considering who this book might influence. I can't imagine many midwest Americans, perhaps women distressed by their thoughts on this subject, being helped, as it is too socially remote - it says nothing about problems such people face. Televangelists getting 'obscene' amounts of money (p 53) will ignore it; they know why it is they're allowed to continue. I don't think it would have any effect on the Church of England, which by now is just a parasitical unintellectual organisation with no concerns outside its own finances. I can't imagine Muslims will be very impressed as there's nothing much about the Quran - blasphemy in Pakistan (p 324) for instance may include anything in the Quran, not just 'God'. Jews like the book, because it systematically evades (and lies about) Jewish activity - it's no accident it's sold in Tesco supermarkets along with junk fiction, and that Shermer of the bogus American 'skeptics' is a friend of Dawkins.

Anyway ... two stars for raising the issue.

Your Tags: atheism, religion, Richard Dawkins, popular science, rationalism, jews, islam, christianity, myths, monotheism


List of Links | Top of Page

J R H Moorman in Who' Who

John Richard Humpidge Moorman
A History of the Church in England
Reviewed by Rae West.   May 2021  


The C of E in old age   (note below added 22 Sept 2023)

J R H Moorman (1905-1989) was a lifelong 'Divine' in northern England.   His Who's 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 and is 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 Who's 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 British historian who became very popular with his social history lite history books. Moorman had in my view a similar approach to history to Trevelyan's: 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. Freemasons are not mentioned at all, though bishops were members—Martin Short's The Brotherhood gives some information.
      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. It's fair to say Who's Who is a full part of Jewish publishing: probably it always was.

[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; possibly it was the Jewish word?):

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

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

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

Moorman's chapters on Henry VIII, Mary, Elizabeth I, and James I of England are standard accounts—necessarily, as there was simply too much happening which was suspicious in its origins. Cecil/ Lord Burghley seems to have been a Jew; subsequent history naturally overlooked this sinister feature of Elizabeth's reign. I suspect the 'Divine Right of Kings' was propaganda to make the kings feel rather absurdly confident; a similar trick was tried when the Papacy was supposedly 'infallible'. And absurdly spendthrift, though figures are hard to come by. The Restoration is presented by Moorman as something most people regarded as a sensible compromise. One must suspect the alternation between Protestants and Rome (not to mention Arminianism, Presbyterianism and the rest), and parish church treasures being seized and looted as official church services and books were changed, may have been designed, along with Henry VIII's introduction of interest. Even the deaths of Henry's 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.

Added 22 September 2023: The extraordinary longevity of senselessness
The scene is an ordinary small church in northern England, opened for visitors to an adjoining mausoleum, with a relatively new internal small structure in which tea, coffee, and biscuits are prepared, for scattered tables and chairs. It is populated by about ten elderly persons, whose dominant emotion may be smugness or self-satisfaction.
      I spy several cheaply-copied leaflets. The cover of a thin 12-page A5 document has the words Parish ‘Eucharist’ in a modern standard Gothic font. The meaning of 'Eucharist' must have mutated from the Greek components. But the general idea seems to be to use words, chants, and music to thank God for his 'only begotten Son', or to 'give thanks' or 'offer graciously'. Unlike the Mass, it seems to avoid the crucifixion scenes, and go straight the the 'last supper' and through to the 'Resurrection'.
      Included are oddments of considerable antiquity, though not ancient by scientific standards, and fragments from languages and objects and clothing and food and drink. With emotional appeals of undefined vague emptiness—honour, blessing, Peace, heaven, sin, slavery, archangels, praise—factual stuff having been excised, or never included.

 


RW   2021-May-09   and   2023-September-23


List of Links | Top of Page

César Tort: Neo-Christianity.
        &
Tom Holland: Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World.

I noticed a comment in Kevin MacDonald's Occidental Observer online in June 2023, by ‘C.T.’, linking to an online free pdf file. C.T.'s logo is a swastika; I guess that after the Observer only allowed comments by financial contributors, contributors are less likely to have their comments turned down. But it remains not unusual to find comments more interesting than the articles they follow.

Anyway, C T referred to a book by Tom Holland called Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. I haven't read it; Amazon's reviewers gave me the feeling this book tries to link events to Christianity as Herbert Butterfield did, without perceiving the Jewish links. Such links as Jew ownership of slave ships to Africa; Jew control of the USA Federal Reserve, allowing them to fund a huge range of war propaganda and wars; and arranging a mutual benefit system in which churches take over ownership of lands and receive about 10% of the gross national product of the time, in exchange for forcing borrowers to go to Jews.

César Tort appears to live in Mexico, and to be a white descendant of Spaniards. There's of course an unmistakable presence of Roman Catholics in Mexico. And there must be a spectre of gringo armies. He has at least one website, westsdarkesthour.com, which has not been listed in siterankdata since November 2022. It's a Wordpress site, which means that about half the screen can't be used.
      One of his articles is On the need to undemonize Hitler and of course there is that need. The holohoax is one aspect of that. But there's also the need to deconstruct the idea that Hitler was a great leader. Tort is good on most aspects here ("... We would hear choices like Franklin Roosevelt (“he saved the world from fascism”), Albert Einstein (“he taught us about the nature of our universe”), and Martin Luther King (“he helped us achieve racial justice”)...") but doesn't seem aware of the question of his relation to Jews. He seems wrong about the authenticity of Hitler's 'table talk'.
      Returning to NEO-CHRISTIANITY (174 pages) we find:–
The following books have been written, edited, presented or treasured by the author: Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany (by Tom Goodrich) | The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour: Memories and Reflections of an Aryan woman (by Savitri Devi) | Daybreak & On Exterminationism, by C´sar Tort but with others' work, for example Lincoln Rockwell and Maxwell Parrish | Christianity’s Criminal History (by Karlheinz Deschner
      And about 130 pages from Tom Holland

Tort seems to adopt other people's works rather freely; possibly because Spanish is his first language, so these works seem remote to him.

We find a commenter Asdk:   If we were to apply Kevin Macdonald’s perspective on the culture of critique to modern ideologies, Christianity would be very easily understood. Christianity is an ideology created by Jews to benefit the Jewish people, to break the feeling of tribal union of the peoples who are rivals to Jewish hegemony.

And here's a comment on Europeans in south America, compared to Europeans in north America: And they won’t listen [in racialist forums in I think Spanish & Portuguese] for the simple reason that miscegenation on a colossal scale in this American continent, perpetrated by the Spanish and Portuguese since the 16th century, just when they were persecuting Jews and crypto-Jews, is such a demonstration that there is a Christian problem that you don’t even have to argue it: just point to the historical facts in the Spanish and Portuguese-speaking parts of the continent.


All this seems to be historically new, probably rooted in Internet. Probably there must have been comments on (say) the Book of Daniel and Revelations as propaganda aimed against Greece and Rome, and of other books as aimed against Egypt and Persia. There seems no reason why not! But they don't seem to have fused into a general critique of Jews.
      I'm not saying this is correct; there are endless libraries spread over two millenia and in many languages. There's a difficulty analogous to proving that evolution as a theory was not anticipated.
      A problem I find with most of these writers is their ignoring the reasons for the appeal of Christianity in a practical way. Jews identify a weakness, and if they can, exploit it. When they secretly ally with part of their target, if they can offer them a sufficient bribe and work out how to get the other part to pay for it, while skimming off some for themselves, the process may work. Well—it has worked with Christian establishments—for about 2000 years.
      Another good example of Jews vs whites are wars in which Jews covertly fund both sides, making money from them while diminishing their opponents numbers and weakening them in total.

A sound analysis doesn't seem to have been made by Tort, Holland, or Butterfield. But at least there may be cause for some optimism—communication and discussion is now possible.

Rae West   30 June 2023

List of Links | Top of Page

Herbert Butterfield: Christianity and History

CHRISTIANITY AND HISTORY

BY
H. BUTTERFIELD, M.A.
Professor of Modern History in the
University of Cambridge

Herbert Butterfield 'delivered' lectures on the BBC 'Third Programme' in 1949, printed in The Listener. The Third Programme was the supposedly intellectual part of the BBC. These talks were based on seven lectures at the 'Divinity Faculty' at Cambridge in 1948. Published by G Bell and Sons Ltd, of London, who may have published his other bookssomee on Napoleon, Whigs, and so on; one on The Origins of Modern Science 1300-1800.
    Try to bear in mind that Butterfield was the Professor of Modern History in Cambridge. Even allowing for elasticity in the interpretation of 'modern', the Second World War had recently ended officially, with vast numbers of deaths, and vast transfers of power to world Jewry in the USA, USSR, UK, and Germany. Incredibly, Butterfield's trash was presented as serious intellectual work.

Butterfield's book (I have a copy with me, inscribed as a Christmas present in 1949 to a P G Halsey).
      It has an Introduction, on 'The God of History', and seven chapters, listed with a contents summary, perhaps as written by Butterfield before he started. Chapter IV , with its summary, has been scanned in below.
      I. HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP AND ITS RELATION TO LIFE | II. HUMAN NATURE IN HISTORY | III. JUDGMENT IN HISTORY | IV. CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT IN HISTORY | V. PROVIDENCE AND THE HISTORICAL ROCESS | VI CHRISTIANITY AS AN HISTORICAL RELIGION | VII HISTORY, RELIGION, AND THE PRESENT DAY
      The book is unindexed, as might be expected of a script of a radio programme. Probably Butterfield expected it to be read in a properly awe-inspired and devout state of mind.

Butterfield seems to have annoyed Bertrand Russell, though his argument against Butterfield mostly attacked Christianity as not being true. Russell included a chapter in Human Society in Ethics and Politics (the chapter is Will Religious Faith Cure Our Troubles?) which contains a longish account of the conventional history since 1914, which largely avoided Jews, and said it's independent of religious beliefs, meaning Jew-naive Christianity. Both these men have parallels now: Kevin MacDonald's Occidental Observer often has articles of similar types, infused with newer Jew fakery. Nobody ever seems to point out that belief in a completely invisible 'God' is yet another Jewish imposition.

Butterfield seems to me a good example of the hired person, accustomed to being paid for his work, marching along in blinders (or blinkers!)


CHAPTER FOUR:   CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT IN HISTORY


      THE ancient Hebrews are remarkable for the way in which they carried to its logical conclusion the belief that there is morality in the processes and the course of history. They recognised that if morality existed at all it was there all the time and was the most important element in human conduct; also that life, experience and history were to be interpreted in terms of it. By it God Himself had to be explained and justified on those occasions when it was tempting to make the charge against Him that He was deserting His people. Indeed the religious difficulties in those days would appear to have been largely moral ones, just as in the modern world (by virtue of a different phase of human experience) we have tended to assume that the real difficulties are scientific. In the world of the Old Testament it was a moral factor which complicated men's relations with God and caused their terrible wrestlings with Him, provoking even religious minds to protests and expostulations which sometimes quite take one's breath away. Everything that happened in human history had to be capable of being construed into morality, it would seem. And everything that happened was to be capable of translation into terms of moral benefit.
      At the present time people seem to feel that it is just this kind of thing which was once nice and easy, but which now has become impossible. It was all very well, they say, in the neat logical days of hope and progress, in the snugness of Victorian England, when everything fell into place in an intellectual system which easily achieved the reconciliations required. They argue, however, that what is impossible in the general chanciness and terrible cataclysms of the twentieth century {68 HISTORY AND MORALITY 69} is just that attempt to connect the story with morality. It it impossible, they say, yet without it men are thrown back upon a feeling of the total meaninglessness of everything. And because so many people are worried by this inability to see any meaning in the story, the difficulties of the present day are still moral-historical ones as in Old Testament times, though we are so defective in our self-examination that we are often unaware of the fact. Yet the power of the Old Testament teaching on history—perhaps the point at which the ancient Jews were most original, breaking away from the religious thought of the other peoples around them—lay precisely in the region of those truths which sprang from a reflection on catastrophe and cataclysm, lay indeed in their interpretation of cataclysmic history at its worst. It is almost impossible properly to appreciate the higher developments in the historical reflection of the Old Testament except in another age which has experienced (or has found itself confronted with) colossal cataclysm, an age like the one in which we live.
      Machiavelli held the view that no monarch could really know anything of statesmanship unless he was a usurper, alone against the universe and entirely dependent on his wits; for the ordinary legitimate hereditary ruler of a State was supported by custom and the traditional affection of his people, which enabled him to keep his throne without any special exercise of skill. In a similar way men may live to a great age in days of comparative quietness and peaceful progress, without ever having come to grips with the universe, without ever vividly realising the problems and the paradoxes with which human history so often confronts us. And we of the twentieth century have been particularly spoiled; for the men of the Old Testament, the ancient Greeks and all our ancestors down to the seventeenth century betray in their philosophy and their outlook a terrible awareness of the chanciness of human life, and the precarious nature of man's existence in this risky universe. These things—though they are part of the fundamental experience of mankind—have been {70 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} greatly concealed from recent generations because modern science and organisation enabled us to build up so tremendous a barrier against fire, famine, plague and violence. The modern world created so vast a system of insurance against the contingencies and accidents of time, that we imagined all the risk eliminated—imagined that it was normal to have a smooth going-on, and that the uncertainties of life in the past had been due to mere inefficiency.
      All the same, when men used to talk of making the world safe for democracy, one suspected that one heard half an echo of a satirical laugh a great distance away, somewhere amongst the inter-planetary spaces. After that, statesmen became still more presumptuous and promised that by a victory in war they could secure for the world 'freedom from fear'; but it has not taken us long to realise—with what wealth of dreadful meaning—that there are occasions when God mocks. It once seemed likely that all our modern system of insurance against danger only meant that perhaps we might have fewer wars in future but they would be so much bigger when they came as to cancel out the profit—the bulge in the india-rubber ball would simply come out in another place. We have now reason to ask ourselves whether even this was not in all probability an illusion; for, besides being bigger than before, we might well wonder if the wars are not also to be more frequent. It is questionable whether even we can believe again that the next war will end all war, instead of rendering still a further one more urgently necessary within a shorter time than before. Whether we escape the deluge or not, therefore, we are confronted by the threat of it on a scale out of all comparison with what was even feared in 1914. And history has resumed its risky, cataclysmic character.
      When we think of some of the catastrophic events of history, like the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, or perhaps the Norman Conquest of England, we can find an easy reconciliation with them—indeed historians seem to fall unconsciously into the habit of writing about them as though {THE IMPORTANCE OF ANCIENT HISTORY 71} it had turned out to be a good thing in the long run that they did take place. We do not find people saying that life has no meaning because such things happened as the fall of Rome or the Norman Conquest—men point rather to the new world that was able to arise in due course of time on the ruins of the old one. This is a view which seems to imply an acquiescence in some idea of vicarious suffering, for nobody can doubt that such catastrophes were dreadful for great numbers of men who had to live through them, and who had not even the comfort of knowing that from their sufferings there might issue a world more happy than before. There are other catastrophes, however, which do not admit of so easy a reconciliation—for example those Mongol invasions which came like a smear over so many of the lands between Europe and Asia, and which had so great a part in permanently setting back the civilisation of Russia, and in destroying for ever the glory of places like Baghdad. And such were the invasions of the Ottoman Turks, who, when they were turned out of the Balkans in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, left behind them a scene which gives the impression that the Balkan peninsula had just come out of a dark tunnel lasting hundreds of years.
      It might be claimed that for all students who hope to understand either history or the problem of its interpretation the importance of ancient studies is greater than is usually recognised. It would not be an exaggeration to say that those people who study merely nineteenth-century history, and see the nineteenth century running by apparently natural processes into the world of the present day, are liable to fall into a routine kind of thinking which actually incapacitates them for any appreciation of the pro founder characteristics of our time. In (lie ancient world, where a long series of centuries allows us to see how historical episodes ultimately worked themselves out; in more simple forms of society where events are less entangled, so that causes may be seen more clearly leading to their effects; in antique city-states, where we can more {72 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} easily view the body politic as a whole and where developments are telescoped into a shorter compass, so that the processes are more easily traceable—in all such cases as these the student of history may reach a profounder wisdom than can come from any vision of the nineteenth century through the eyes of the twentieth. Even if this were not true it might be well if all historical students were induced to occupy themselves with an internal analysis of a few mighty episodes in history—the fall of the Roman Empire, for example, or the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century—episodes which have represented the climax of human vicissitude and endeavour, high peaks in the experience of humanity on the earth. By all these lines of argument the events in the centre of which stands the famous Exile of the ancient Jews ought to be an element in the curriculum of every serious student of the past. They are more contemporary with the moral predicament of this part of the world since 1939 or 1945 than anything in the history of the nineteenth century. And they enable us to see to what an extent our religious thought itself has developed from wrestlings with God and reflection on tragic history.
      It is possible that the power of much of the Old Testament teaching about history would be more vividly appreciated, and its relevance to the twentieth century more readily recognised, if only we could rid ourselves of an obsession and genuinely convince ourselves that the history of the ancient Hebrews was fundamentally of the same texture as our own. There is ample evidence that in their own great days, in the age of the mighty prophets for example, they looked back upon their own distant past in the way in which we ourselves now look back to them; and in manifold ways they express the thought with which the twentieth century itself is so familiar—the longing of Psalm 44: 'We have heard with our ears, O God, and our fathers have told us, what work though didst in their days, in the times of old.' It would appear to have been one of the functions of the great prophets to point out that God was {THE OLD TESTAMENT AND HISTORY 73} still acting and intervening in history as in the time of Moses—that history in their more modern age and the history of the days of their forefathers must be regarded as running all in a single piece. And there is ample evidence of the repeated failure of the prophets to achieve the task—ample evidence of the desire that God should show Himself more plainly, as in the ancient days, so that people should not be able to ignore His part in history any more.
      What was unique about the ancient Hebrews was their historiography rather than their history—the fact that their finer spirits saw the hand of God in events, ultimately realising that if they were the Chosen People they were chosen for the purpose of transmitting that discovery to all the other nations. Their historiography was unique also in that it ascribed the successes of Israel not to virtue but to the favour of God; and instead of narrating the glories or demonstrating the righteousness of the nation, like our modern patriotic histories, it denounced the infidelity of the people, denounced it not as an occasional thing but as the constant feature of the nation's conduct throughout the centuries; even proclaiming at times that the sins of Israel were worse, and their hearts more hardened against the light, than those of the other nations around them. The great religious thought which stands as the Old Testament interpretation of the whole human drama was clearly the work of a few select souls—of great prophets often standing with their backs to the wall, for example—in a nation whose history otherwise ran under very much the same rules as the history of other peoples. It is even possibly true to say also that the makers of the Old Testament, while having an extraordinary feeling for the might and grandeur of the human drama, were not historically-minded in the sense that this term has come to have in the twentieth century—not interested in seeing that the past should be accurately recorded for its own sake, or that all the great episodes in the history of their country should be put into narrative for the sake of posterity.
      I suppose that we all find it difficult to remember how small {74 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} a country the ancient Hebrews possessed—at largest only the size of Wales, and sometimes only the size of one or two of our average counties—while it is easy to forget for how short a period even before the Christian era they were ever able to exist as an independent monarchy. It is remarkable that so small a nation should have come to occupy so great a place in the history of the world; and George Adam Smith, in his Historical Geography of the Holy Land, has given us cogent reasons for not accepting any mere geographical determinism as the explanation of their peculiar historical destiny—cogent reasons for regarding the story as an example of the triumph of the human soul over physical conditions. It was a stormy history that the country had, moreover, with only a remarkably short period of political independence, and it has been questioned whether any area of the earth felt the tramp of troops more often than Palestine did in the period down to the opening of the Christian era. The great original contributions of the ancient Hebrews to both religious and historical thought are curiously connected with the period when this stormy history came to its climax, and the country was engulfed in the conflicts between the vast empires in their neighbourhood. Once again it is necessary to remember that their fate in this respect was not unique—they experienced that cataclysmic history which we find constantly recurring as the centuries succeed one another in this precarious universe. At the critical moment it was all as though they found themselves between a Nazi Germany and a Soviet Russia, and by the rules of the game they too ought to have been smeared off the map—ought to be as dead as the Hittites and as dim in our memory as Tyre and Sidon. Some of us used to wonder whether after the Second World War the Germans, in the very bottom pit of disaster, might not give twentieth-century history a surprising turn and gain a new kind of leadership amongst us, perhaps by a religious revival, perhaps by the fact that sheer grimness of suffering brings men sometimes into a profounder understanding of human destiny. But it appears that unless great spiritual resources are there {REDEEMING CATASTROPHE 75} already men tend rather to lie prostrate—to droop as mere victims of conditions and circumstances.
      Even without taking any religious point of view at all, but adopting the purely mundane reckonings of a secular historian, one may say that, amid disasters and predicaments more permanently hopeless than those of present-day Germany, and amid a catastrophic history compared with which the story of modern Belgium or Poland is one of blessedness and peace, the ancient Hebrews, by virtue of inner resources and unparalleled leadership, turned their tragedy, turned their very helplessness, into one of the half-dozen creative moments in world history. In particular the period already mentioned, the period associated with the Jewish Exile, provides us with a remarkable example of the way in which the human spirit can ride disaster and wring victory out of the very extremity of defeat. We have had an opportunity in recent years of picturing to ourselves the chilling horrors associated with the displacement of populations, and some of us may have made for ourselves a vision of such a tribulation as almost a kind of living death. Such things apparently took place amongst the grim empires of the ancient world, to the cruelty of which our own world has been fast reverting. Yet both under these conditions and through a long period of other vicissitudes the Old Testament people vindicated human freedom and the power of personality. They showed that by resources inside themselves, they might turn their very catastrophe into a springboard for human achievement, even when the catastrophe was of that irresistible kind which breaks men's backs.
      There is something very moving at times in Negro spirituals—something which makes one feel that human nature under pressure can reach a creative moment, and find a higher end of life (if only in the arts) than the mere continuance of material comfort had seemed to offer them. It is not Old Testament doctrine, so far as I know, but it would seem that one of the clearest and most concrete of the facts of history is the fact that men of spiritual resources may not only redeem catastrophe, {76 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} but turn it into a grand creative moment. It is hard to rid oneself of the impression that in general the highest vision and the rarest creative achievements of the mind must come from great internal pressure, and are born of a high degree of distress. In other words, the world is not merely to be enjoyed but is an arena for moral striving. If the end of history lies in personalities, which represent the highest things we know in the mundane realm, then we must face the fact that the purpose of history is not something that lies a thousand years ahead of us—it is constantly here, always with us, for ever achieving itself—the end of human history is the manufacture and education of human souls. History is the business of making personalities, even so to speak by putting them through the mill; and, though it fails us if we expect it to hand us happiness on a spoon, its very vicissitudes bring personality itself to a finer texture.
      It is necessary to take a long period into our survey all at once, and to be careful on that dangerous ground where the knowledge of the specialist may affect the state of the question. But if we examine the things which the ancient Hebrews were thinking in the times of their great tribulation we shall find that they are matters of very real interest to the general historian. For one thing, though they may have concerned themselves with the matter before, this people seemed to be having to strain their minds to reach at the truth that the kind of righteousness which God demanded of them consisted not in ritualistic observance and mere burned offerings, but in doing good and showing mercy; and it is interesting that we should possess documents in which the change of emphasis from one kind of righteousness to another—from the ritualistic to the ethical idea—was being carried out in a manner that was to affect the whole history of mankind. Further than this, because Jerusalem, on which they had set their hearts, had been razed to the ground, and because their country, on which their religion had been too closely fixed, had fallen into the hands of the enemy—they themselves having been carried away in exile {THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEBREW RELIGION 77} in great numbers—they now raised their hopes to something less materialistic, and it seems to me that you can actually see religion becoming a more spiritual thing. Then again, precisely because they had been broken and had ceased even to be an organic people in the older political sense, those of them who had been scattered and found themselves now strangers in an alien land learned to picture their situation differently. They came to see more vividly that God was not merely interested in them as a nation in a single piece, a corporate community, but was concerned with them as individuals scattered in an alien country, concerned moreover with the other individuals around them, even though these belonged to different nations altogether. They gained a firmer apprehension of Him as the God of all the peoples of the earth, but not merely of peoples—He was God for individuals as such.
      In addition to all this it seems to me that the ancient Hebrews, in the period of their tribulation, gave much of their most anxious thought to the whole problem of human destiny, and superimposed upon their former beliefs on the subject of judgment in history certain peculiar but extremely interesting ideas. Even now their views come short of anything like the Christian outlook on history, but in the development of our religion at each stage of the story the old truth is not cancelled—it stands as a sort of substratum to the new, so that the things which the Old Testament arrived at are ultimately gathered into the Christian synthesis, though often in some sense transformed or transcended. In any case one can hardly resist the feeling that in the work of some of the major prophets the tragedy of human history has that sort of might and grandeur which we often associate with the name of Beethoven. And they even lacked three of the things which ease the path of the modern Christian who has to deal with this question: the doctrine of original sin, which affects any notion of history as judgment; the idea of a future life, with a redistribution of fortunes in another world; and the Christian scheme of salvation.
      Unless we imagine people who were confronting the tragic {78 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} spectacle of their history in an inescapable manner, and wrestling with it, so to speak, as one might wrestle with things when standing alone in the face of a universe somewhat terrifying—unless we realise that the problems were being faced when everything was at high pressure-even the loftiest achievements of Hebrew prophecy will leave us cold. In situations that must have been beyond weeping some of the thought about man in history carries us to such rarefied realms that we can hardly conceive of the exaltation of mind in which a Hebrew prophet could have produced it. The awful nature and the vivid reality of their catastrophe comes home to us when we meet that conception, so interesting to the historian, of the Remnant of Israel, which was to survive the cataclysm, as Noah and his family had survived the Flood, and which—whether they had remained faithful all the time, or because they had been brought to their senses by the thuds and thunders of disaster—would still carry God's promises to fulfilment and inherit all the promises. Even if the Remnant were only a handful it would inherit the fulness of the Promise, and all the hope that history ever offered to man. Jewish history had been based on the Promise, but the thunderous message of judgment in history' winch the prophets came to announce seemed sometimes to denote a final judgment on the nation, in other words an utter destruction. It came to be realised, however, that the idea of history as Judgment was superimposed on the idea of history as Promise, but without superseding the earlier idea—without actually cancelling the Promise. In the very depths of disaster it came to be realised that if God had used the Assyrians to bring a punishment upon Israel, still it was not Israel but the Assyrians whose name would be blotted out of the land of the living for the very presumption which they had shown in their time of victory. The judgments might be terrible, but, for the children of God, the Old Testament view of history was always one of hope.
      It was perhaps in keeping with this that there emerged the messianic expectation, which issued on occasion in such fine {MESSIANISM 79} nostalgic poetry. In so far as it was a hankering for a mere political deliverer, who would bring victory in battle and carry the nation to prosperity and power—which seems to have been its prevailing form—we may regard it as a simple and facile kind of wishful thinking, interesting to the historian precisely because it further illustrates how the history of the ancient Jews tends to resemble that of other nations. Some writers have argued that this political messianism represented a significant moment in human development, since it taught men to look for a grand consummation within the realm of human history itself—it taught people that events were pointing to some end actually to be achieved and enjoyed on the stage of human history. It has even become fashionable to say that this Jewish hope—a hope fixed in the realm of temporal affairs, though possibly in the far future—only required to be secularised in order to become the modern idea of progress, which also purports to give meaning to history by presenting it with a goal in an ever-receding future, but always within the realm of temporal affairs. It is not easy to accept this attempt to salvage Jewish political messianism, for if it produced the effects described it is not clear that it did not mislead the world, and we pay it a doubtful compliment if we make it the parent of the particular idea of progress that is relevant to the case. This political messianism may have led the ancient Jews themselves to political mistakes and disasters at a later time; and it does not make much difference to the political aspect of the case if people, in periods of religious fervour, thought that the political deliverer would be sent by God.
      Forms of messianism are not rare in history and the modern historian has seen traces of it in sixteenth-century Europe, where, after the turmoils of the previous age and the turbulence of over-mighty subjects, the new messiah seemed to be the despotic king. We have not only courted disillusionment in the twentieth century by this form of day-dreaming, but it might even be said, that like the ancient Jews, we have been {80 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} deluded into a false messianism which has drawn us into wrong policies and brought the world to more than one disaster. A nation in a desperate mood has more than once been ready to welcome the dictator as the saviour for whom it had been yearning. On the other hand, when in the First World War Englishmen thought of 'making the world safe for democracy', or talked of 'the war that would end all war'—alternatively when, in the struggle against Hitler, they tried to be apocalyptic about the four freedoms and dreamed that the world was being cleansed for ever from the evil thing—they were reverting to a primitive messianism not only over two thousand years old, but representing a somewhat inferior version of the ideas of that ancient period. Or rather—since wise and good men fall in weak moments into this kind of messianism—it is not too much to see in the phenomenon something that is fundamental to the human mind, something that appears therefore as a recurring pattern in history. It was only at a further stage—at a stage which we might almost describe as ultra-messianic—that ancient Hebrew thought really came to grips with the problem of their catastrophic history. But this whole branch of Jewish thought on the subject of the human drama was to be wonderfully redeemed at a later date, and was to become wonderfully relevant, when it became spiritualised and was brought to a different kind of fulfilment in the Christian revelation.
      In the time of catastrophe all would have been easy for prophets and teachers if God's judgment had fallen only on the wicked, so that the righteous had been spared; but as thought came to focus itself on occasion upon individual people, rather than upon the nation as a whole, the critical problem for the ancient Hebrews was provided by the incidence of suffering in the world. Even die fate of the nation as a whole could not be continuously interpreted as the effect of a judgment and was bound sooner or later to present the problem of undeserved catastrophe. There are signs that the Hebrew prophets dealt tentatively with this problem at first, and put {PATTERNS IN HISTORY 81} out experimental suggestions concerning the incidence of catastrophe. Ezekiel, puzzled to see that some of the unrighteous survived the disaster which God had brought upon the wicked, conjectured that they had been allowed to live in order that their wickedness should provide a standing witness to the provocation that had been given to Heaven. 'Ye shall see their ways and their doings; and ye shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem . . . and ye shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done.' The converse case—the case where the doctrine of judgment was palpably insufficient to account for the incidence of suffering—represents the problem which seems to have exercised some of the highest thought of the Old Testament. At this point in the argument a different shape was given to the formulation of the whole human drama.
      The Hebrew prophets in the periods of successive disaster found what might almost be called new patterns in history; but the word pattern itself is too hard to be applied to anything so elastic as history, and I see no harm and possibly some good if we call these things rather myths, using the word myth not to represent something untrue or something which did not happen, but to typify an essential process in history. Galileo's name is identified with one of these myths or patterns of essential truth; for when he adopted something like the modern doctrine of inertia (the view that a body once in motion continues that motion to infinity unless something intervenes to stop or deflect it), he was opening a gateway to modern science, but he was specifying something he could never have seen in its actual purity, because things become so entangled, and in the actual world there are always problems of air-resistance, gravity, etc., affecting the issue. When the Marxists say that history works on the principle of thesis fighting its antithesis, the conflict resulting in the discovery of a new synthesis, then that view is extremely interesting to an historian, even though it were to be shown that no such case ever existed in a state of absolute purity. It represents an aspect of truth in respect of the workings {82 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} of history—a better myth or pattern to have by us than the generally accepted view of a linear development, an ascending course of progress in history. Similarly when Professor Toynbee talks of challenge and response in history—calls our attention to the kind of challenge which a given environment may give to certain people—he has found a myth or a pattern in the sense which we are here giving to the words, something so wonderful in its elasticity that in a certain sense we can apply it almost anywhere in history, though a critic might pick holes in any particular application of the idea in actual life, where all things are so inextricably entangled. Perhaps the most familiar of the myths or patterns used to typify processes that take place in history is the conception of a Renaissance, which, according to one suggestion, is associated with the idea of the phoenix rising to new life out of its own ashes. It happens that I personally would question the validity of that particular formula or symbol, when used in the way we do use it to indicate the kind of thing which happens in history; but it pleases technical historians immensely, and it illustrates very aptly the kind of point that I wish to make about the application of these symbols or images; for, having begun with a single Renaissance, the Renaissance of the fifteenth century, historians discovered that here was a pattern which could be kept in regular stock and pulled out of the drawer on a great number of occasions. They discovered one Renaissance behind another and applied the concept in many varied fields; and indeed there is no reason why, supposing the concept to be legitimate or useful in the first instance, one should not find a Renaissance every time a new generation grows up, or a Renaissance somewhere or other every ten years.
      Now the ancient Hebrews contributed a number of these myths or essential patterns which were to be symbols of historical processes or formulas for something fundamental and significant in history; and one of the best ever produced, for example, is the simile of the leaven that leavens the whole lump, while the idea of the Remnant of Israel, which was to {THE SUFFERING SERVANT 83} inherit all the promises, has its own applicability in history, as we can sec if we consider the Catholic Church after the fall of the Roman Empire, or possibly even the position of the Church at the present day. But the most remarkable of all such types or patterns was the famous picture of the Suffering Servant, who was wounded for our transgressions and who is described with such amazing vision in the latter half of the prophecy of Isaiah, especially the fifty-third chapter, which has been called the greatest religious poem in the world. It does not matter for our particular purpose whether this Suffering Servant were intended to describe an individual who had actually lived, or the author's autobiographical experience, or the figure of some future Messiah. Nor does it matter if the picture of the Suffering Servant is meant to denote a collective body, like the people of Israel themselves (or the people of Israel idealised), or to mark out prophetically the ideal role of the Church in the world. It does not even matter if the picture owes something to a kind of pagan ritual, or is coloured by the part ascribed to the King in a Babylonian cultus. The fact that these alternative theories have been held—sometimes a number of them concurrently by the same scholars—increases the strength of the argument that here at any rate is a pattern or representation of something which is essential, something which lies at the roots of history.
      The passages in question deal undoubtedly with the problem of suffering, in a period which at least some scholars regard as contemporary with the Book of Job. Without destroying the former teaching concerning judgment, they superimpose upon that teaching a remarkable piece of further interpretation, in which catastrophe is no longer construed as the mark of God's special anger against the victims of it. The original idea that catastrophe was a judgment is not eliminated, and still lies at the basis of every thing—indeed if we took it away the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah would lose much of its meaning—but so much which is new is built upon it that it is completely transcended. In this connection the same type of {84 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} reasoning applies, mutatis mutandis, whatever particular version of the Suffering Servant is adopted, but for purposes of example we may take a fairly conservative and central reading of it. On this view the Suffering Servant is the nation Israel, and if she suffered adversities and even national extinction, it is now realised that this was not because she was wickeder and worse than Assyria or Babylon or Persia, but precisely because she was better, or at least because she had a mission, her sufferings being a necessary part of a Divine Plan. The nation Israel suffered as God's messenger, suffered in order to expiate the sins of the Gentiles; she took their guilt and punishment upon herself, and accepted the consequences of their sins. Israel suffered for all mankind—so that when the Gentiles should hear of it and realise it themselves, even that knowledge alone would move them and exert a redeeming influence upon them—the very spectacle would move the nations to penitence. And behind the whole argument is the assumption that if Israel as a nation could realise that this was her role in the world, she would become reconciled to her suffering and see some meaning in it, and would no longer cry out against God or complain against the apparent injustice of it. If the picture of the Suffering Servant is to be read as implying the nation Israel, as so many people have thought, there can be no doubt of its remarkable applicability to the case of the ancient Jews. This whole piece of teaching also marks in an extraordinarily vivid way the widening of the horizon of that people—the transition to the realisation that Jehovah is the God of all the nations, and is planning to capture all the Gentiles into his fold.
      I should be incompetent to discuss the high theological implications of this teaching, but these in any case do not concern us at the moment. I am also unable to estimate its importance in the history of man's moral life, though so far as I can see it marks a stage—and perhaps it is the first coherent summary of that stage, or at any rate the first that most of us are likely to come across—in the development of still a new and {VICARIOUS SUFFERING 85} transformed conception of righteousness, a new posture of human beings under the sun, and a new role to be performed by man in the whole human drama. In a curious sense, however, this particular teaching (wrapped up in the most moving poetry) is in any case the last voice to posterity from the heart of catastrophic history at its most despairing depths. If I were to pretend to say anything in order to reconcile a people to a calamitous history, you might very well ask me what do I know of calamity in any case? If I answered that all my views on the subject were echoed from people who cried out of the bottom pit of tragedy, you might still say that we must not take any notice of victims like these, because such sufferers are always given to nostalgias, day-dreams and wishful thinking.
      I never feel quite sure that it is legitimate to use both of these arguments at once. Even granting that it is justifiable, however, the objections are inapplicable in the present case. You cannot by any form of reasoning evade the tragedy of history, any more than by merely holding a particular scientific theory you can make even a cut from a penknife hurt any less. You cannot by philosophy alter the fact—supposing it were a fact and also it were worth bothering about—that it may be possible for scientists, ten years hence, shall we say, to disintegrate the earth itself. But the picture of the Suffering Servant, unlike the more superficial political messianism of the ancient Jews, takes in the tragedy as it actually exists and embraces it with both arms. The writer does not complain now that the catastrophe of the nation is against the rules, but accepts it as part of the game, recognising that it has its place in the scheme of things. He even goes further and induces us to see that, far from being meaningless, it provides the nearest thing to a clue for those who wish to make anything out of the human drama. And that dim clue, even if we only take it at the ordinary human level, is left, like all the important things in life, for each person to follow up in his own way; just as we all know that men fall in love but we do not merely imitate one another, and {86 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} if we could see inside one another we should no doubt find that it means different things to different people, precisely because, where things are intimate, they arise as a new creation inside each person.
      Nobody can pretend to see the meaning of this human drama as a god might see it, any more than one could hope to foresee the future—what one acquires is a vision for working purposes in the world, and one gains it by adopting an attitude, assuming a certain role within the drama itself. For any reconciliation to be achieved, it requires to be assumed, at this point in Old Testament thought, that the nation has great spiritual resources and recognises a Divine plan in history, recognises also that it has a mission in that scheme, a mission which, though prescribed by God, must be accepted as self-assumed. It will then read its own sufferings as part of the plan and part of the mission, and will regard them as undertaken vicariously on behalf of others. It must do this, in a certain sense, of its own motion, because nobody has any right to tell anybody else to see his sufferings in that way. Ultimately our interpretation of the whole human drama depends on an intimately personal decision concerning the part that we mean to play in it. It is as though we were to say to ourselves: 'There is dissonance in the universe, but if I strike the right note it becomes harmony and reconciliation—and though they may kill me for it they cannot spoil that harmony.'
      And here is where the thought of the ancient Jews goes one note higher than the top of the piano, so to speak, and meditation upon history drives one into ultra-historical realms—the interpretation of the human drama is thrown back into the intimate recesses of our personal experience. Here also is the place where the Old Testament most gives the impression that it is trying to break into the New. It has often been pointed out that you cannot moralise history or achieve a reconciliation with it except by some development of a doctrine of vicarious suffering. That thesis is still important, {RECONCILIATION WITH LIFE AND DESTINY 87} the question of supernatural religion apart—important as a thesis about history considered merely as a study of human relations. And though it might be a remarkable thing to find an example of the Suffering Servant existing in its absolute purity—though there may have been only one perfect fulfilment of it in history—it is impossible to deny this picture its place as the pattern or the working-model of ideas which do in fact operate throughout the ages, helping to reconcile man with his destiny. We must note also that the ancient Jews, who in their attitude to history seemed to attach too much to the idea of the solidarity of their nation as an organic whole, began to break that idea down and came to achieve a heightened sense of the importance of the individual person—but only to go further and establish the solidarity of the human race at a higher level of thought altogether. Vicarious suffering—and especially the idea of one man taking on himself the sins of others—implies a solidarity of this kind, achieved this time not on anything like what we call the herd-level, but by a principle of love, and actually even by a heightened conception of personality. Indeed it would appear that only in a world where suffering is possible, and vicarious suffering attainable, can human beings measure the heights and depths of love and reach the finer music of life. Because there is tragedy in history love itself is brought to burn with an intenser flame in human experience. The whole conception seems the more remarkable when we consider that it has to be superimposed upon that picture of human nature in history, which we discussed at an earlier stage in these lectures.
      Even so, it is not possible to convince oneself that the men of the Old Testament had resolved the paradoxes of history or found a completely satisfactory interpretation of the human drama. Many significant things seem to have been discovered in the interval between the Old Testament and the New. The Old Testament interpretation of secular history is a necessary substratum to Christianity, or it provides the ground-plan for the edifice. It is difficult to see how anybody could {88 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} understand an 'historical religion'—or accept a Christian view of history—without this initial substratum.
      There is another aspect of human vicissitude which ought to be considered when we attempt to take stock of the whole spectacle of world-history; and that is the tragic element which so often appears in the wars and struggles of mankind, though the belligerents themselves are often too passionately engaged to recognise this element of tragedy, having eyes for nothing save the crimes of the enemy. The great conflicts that occur between vast bodies of human beings would obviously not have taken place if all men had been perfect saints or had been competing with one another in self-sacrifice. Yet—as in the great struggles between Protestant and Catholic in the sixteenth century—it has often happened that both of the parties carrying on the warfare have devoutly felt themselves to be in the right. It is even true that many of the inhuman conflicts of mankind would probably never have taken place if the situation had been one of completely righteous men confronted by undiluted and unmitigated crime. One can hardly fail to recognise the element of tragedy in many conflicts which take place between one half-right that is perhaps too wilful, and another half-right that is perhaps too proud. It is even possible that great wars should come about because idealists are too egotistical concerning their own plans of salvation for mankind, and because the righteous are stiff-necked. Here is a side of human history which makes it necessary to reflect further on the nature of human beings.
      It is not always easy to realise how in modern times we have come to adopt as our initial conception of a human being a pattern that would be more fitting for gods. A speaker once put forward the view that a person who was unable to write poetry was hardly a complete man; he did not extend the principle to the writing of music, but he had caught from the liberals a view of man which was beyond the range of mortals. Those who are scholars and philosophers too easily believe that the unlettered do not really taste life, or that people who are {THE TRAGIC ELEMENT IN HUMAN CONFLICT 89} ignorant in some field of knowledge are less than men. Let us be clear: The whole human race together may compass a great range of knowledge, experience and capacities; but all these are terribly broken and splintered between all the individuals that go to compose the race; and all of us lack a multitude of those things which the liberal would regard as essential to a complete man or a completely rounded view of life.
      The splintering, however, is much more serious and goes much deeper, for it even extends to our vision. Each of us is more or less restricted to a narrow vision, gravely conditioned by time, temperament and age, and by the platform on which we happen to be standing. The most friendly foreign offices, the most friendly historians belonging to different nationalities, find somewhere or other the place where they cannot enter into one another's points of view. The Marxists are right when they assume that a member of a certain social class, even if he is unselfish, is liable to be limited in his outlook by the fact that he sees things from the platform of that social class. We may think that we have a spacious vision, level and equal as it takes in wide horizons; but in reality each of us looks upon the world from a special peep-hole of his own. Where actual interests complicate a question and a certain amount of wishful thinking may give a bias to our minds, it is doubtful whether it is possible for any of us to survey a problem comprehensively. And it is certain that we fail to realise our incompetence in an art that is of the greatest importance for human relations—the simple art of putting ourselves in the other person's place.
      The situation is still further complicated by a certain human predicament which we are too seldom conscious of, and which I can only call the predicament of Hobbesian fear—Hobbesian because it was subjected to particular analysis by the seventeenth-century philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. If you imagine yourself locked in a room with another person with whom you have often been on the most bitterly hostile terms in the past, and suppose that each of you has a pistol, you may find yourself in a predicament in which both of you would {90 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} like to throw the pistols out of the window, yet it defeats the intelligence to find a way of doing it. If you throw yours out the first you rob the other man of the only reason he had for getting rid of his own, and for any thing you know he may break the bargain. If both of you swear to throw the pistols out together, you may feel that he may make the gesture of hurling his away, but in reality hold tight to it, while you, if you have done the honest thing, would then be at his mercy. You may even have an arrière-pensée that he may possibly be concealing a second pistol somewhere about his person. Both of you in fact may have an equal justification for suspecting one another, and both of you may be men who in all predicaments save this had appeared reasonably well-behaved and well-intentioned. You may both of you be utterly honest in your desire to be at peace and to put an end to the predicament, if only in order to enable you to get on with your business. If some great bully were to come into the room and try to take your pistols from you, then as likely as not you would both combine against him, you would find yourselves cherished allies, find yourselves for the time being as thick as thieves. Only, after you had eliminated this intruder, you would discover to your horrible surprise that you were back in the original predicament again.
      In international affairs it is this situation of Hobbesian fear which, so far as I can see, has hitherto defeated all the endeavour of the human intellect. Not only may both sides feel utterly self-righteous, but where a great obstruction occurs—as over the question of toleration in the sixteenth century, and that of disarmament in the twentieth—both may feel utterly baffled and frustrated; and sometimes even allies fall to blaming one another, as on one occasion papers of all complexions in England, out of pure exasperation, blamed France for the failure of the Disarmament Conference. Though one side may have more justice than another in the particular occasion of a conflict, there is a sense in which war as such is in reality a judgment on all of us. The fundamental predicament would {RIGHT VERSUS WRONG IN HISTORY 91} not exist if men in general were as righteous as the situation requires, and of course the fundamental predicament is itself so maddening and exasperating that men sometimes resort to desperate measures with an idea of cutting the Gordian knot.
      Even if vested interests did not enter more directly into the problem of war, therefore, this situation of Hobbesian fear, as I have called it, would make it difficult for historiography in the long run to regard the great wars between nations or creeds as clear straight conflicts of right against wrong. We are right if we want to see our history in moral terms, but we are not permitted to erect the human drama into a great conflict between good and evil in this particular way. If there is a fundamental fight between good and evil in history, therefore, as I think there is, we must regard it as being waged not directly between Catholics and Protestants in the sixteenth century, or between Germans and Russians in the twentieth, but in a deeper realm for the most part out of reach of the technical historian. In reality the essential strategies in the war of good against evil are conducted within the intimate interior of personalities. And if Christianity fights in the world it does not (when Churches are in their right mind) wage war on actual flesh and blood. Like the spread of charity or of education and like most of the good things of the world, it carries on a campaign only in the sense that the leaven may be said to carry on a campaign when it seeks to leaven the whole lump.
      For this reason the historian does not content himself with a simple picture of good men fighting bad, and he turns the crude melodrama that some people see in life into a more moving kind of tragedy. In the last resort he sees human history as a pilgrimage of all mankind, and human achievement as a grand co-operative endeavour, in which whigs and tories complement one another, both equally necessary to the picture. In the last resort even tories and socialists are to the historian only allies who happen to have fallen out with one another. In modern history this view is all the more necessary in that, {92 CATACLYSM AND TRAGIC CONFLICT} owing to the complicated character of society, moral responsibility is so subtly diffused and so camouflaged and dispersed that the forces in a democracy may drive a government to war, or may perpetuate a grave abuse, and it yet may be impossible to pin the precise responsibility for THIS anywhere. During the conflicts of actual life we may have neither the time nor the materials for the understanding of the enemy of the moment; and if a madman is attacking a child, one may have to take action against the madman very quickly, though one might be rather sorry for him in his turn afterwards. But once battles are over the human race becomes in a certain sense one again; and just as Christianity tries to bind it together in love, so the role of the technical historian is that of a reconciling mind that seeks to comprehend. Taking things retrospectively and recollecting in tranquillity, the historian works over the past to cover the conflicts with understanding, and explains the unlikenesses between men and makes us sensible of their terrible predicaments; until at the finish—when all is as remote as the tale of Troy—we are able at last perhaps to be a little sorry for everybody. And this is particularly the case since, as Lord Acton once pointed out, the people who are fighting in real life rarely have clear vision, even of the issues which brought them into conflict with one another. Poor things—hey need the historian to follow upon their tracks sometimes in order to discover what the bother was really about.

List of Links | Top of Page


Robert Winston: The Story of God


Review: 26 Jan 2023 by Rae West. My hardback is dated 2005, by Bantam Press, a division of Transworld Publishers. In New Zealand and South Africa these appear as Random House. The BBC logo is a registered trademark dated 1996. The copyright is Professor Robert Winston's. Bantam is the same publisher as Dawkins in his God Delusion, which appeared about a year later, and is claimed to have been hugely successful. There's a twin volume by Winston on, or at least titled, human instinct, dated 2002.

The 'Acknowledgement' gives some insights into this book's genesis, as support for some BBC series of (I think) six films, or videos: the first part was someone called Lorraine Heggessey, at that time Controller of BBC1. They went to lunch, she being 'vibrant and engaging' persuaded him to do a TV series on God.
      The Professor thanks a large number of people. Matt Baylis has huge knowledge and extraordinary intelligence, and was always available to dig out useful material. Leo Singer 'helped with a good deal of the early research material'. 'Useful suggestions' came from Mark Geller (on Sumer), Michael Pollack ('spiritual themes'). And 'the Chief Rabbi, Dr Sir Jonathan Sacks, Rabbi Ken Spiro, The Ven. Bellanwilla Wilimaratne Thero, Professor Richard Dawkins, Dr Jim Virdee, Professor Aviad Kleinberg, Dr Stephen Unwin, Dr Irving Finkel, Dr Dean Hamer, and Dr Jean Clotte...' There are plenty more, including Maggie Pearlstine, who I think is an agent, and who married one of her clients, the ex-MP Roy Hattersley who made a point of ignoring his constituents who didn't want aliens in their area.
      Certainly a fascinating collection, suggesting in passing that Clinton Richard Dawkins might have had his book on God suggested by this bunch of Jews. Which gives an insight into Jewish control of the media. The story is perhaps more interesting than the book itself, which is just a trot through the Jewish view of 'God', which they seem to think they are entitled to monopolise.


The book has a double-page chronology, a 'Time Line', including such items as hand outlines in caves, the 'Time of Abraham', Babylonian exile ends, Christ lived, Council of Nicaea, Muhammad lived, Einstein published the Special Theory of Relativity—enough to show, with its fantastic mix of exclusionary junk, the Jewish overview, or underview.
      The index has a few entries under Jews, of the 'persecuted' and 'atrocities against' type. There are a few pages on the Talmud, but naturally all the serious stuff is excluded.
      Winston presumably was selected because of his lack of insight and/or honesty, but also because he could claim to be a scientists, on such topics as the human mind (which is not understood) and 'fertility studies'—this latter a dangerous position for any Jew to be in power. An example is a Jew in control of antificial insemination, found to have sired 500 children. As far as I know Winston said nothing on 'Covid', as would be expected.
      Winston must have been approached as a supposed representative of science and religion. I'm assuming he wrote parts of the book, though with the intrusion of copy-editors and editorial types one has to wonder. The importance of Jews and science is not in science, but in science frauds, of which there are many. For a smattering, read my page on science revisionism. This is a subject which will I hope grow like an inflated balloon.

Talmudic studies are starting to reveal the hostile Jew-centred lunacy of their secret beliefs. For example (this is per C J Bjerknes) 'God' is supposed to be feared by Jews, not in any way loved. It's clear that both Christianity and Islam, and other smaller branches of religions, were designed by Jews, as a money- and power-grabbing schemes. They were extensions of the local Kahal systems, and highly successful, from their point of view. It's clear that activities such as funded murders and funded poisonings have been part of Jewish actions.
      Another historical detail is the use of collaborators by Jews. The largest example I'd guess is Christianity, in which lands and thinly-spread money and careers were offered in exchange for security for Jews in their money monopoly. None of this is in the wearying book—with high production values; priced at £18.99 at the time. In the present era, the function of preaching once a week has been superseded by the BBC and similar junk. (Chapter 8 is 'God in Retreat'; Chapter 9 'Religion in the Modern Age'.

Readers may reasonably ask, why review this 15-year old book? My motive is to reach some of the people who look through old books, perhaps having bought them for nothing. I'd urge them not to be taken in by superficial oily artefacts.


Here's another page on Winston: Robert Winston: Science Gatekeeper. It's incomplete I fear; I haven't formatted it clearly. It includes at least one video of Winston in chat. A significant proportion of Jewish effort goes into censoring and suppressing science, but also stealing such parts as appeal to them, chiefly of a military or spying or electronic spying nature.
List of Links | Top of Page


Homer's Odyssey

Does Odyssey Cast Light on Phoenician Ships and Owners?

Rae West - 21 April 2022



I've just uploaded my piece on Plato's Sophist, putting the view that Plato's work at the dawn of the Jewish-induced Christian era was probably mutilated and pruned into a Jew-approved form. Look at my review of Christopher Bjerknes' Beware the World to Come for his slightly speculative take on the long-term parts of Jewish beliefs, which have been almost completely suppressed.
      With Homer, we change focus, to more distant times. Homer's alleged works must be counted as prehistoric, though by comparison ancient Egypt goes back to 8000 BC, the Naqada I period from 4000 BC. (Just two dates from a UC London site). His two principal works (the rest are dubious) are the Iliad and the Odyssey.
      I recommend interested people look at the 1910-1911 Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopædia Britanica (Vol XIII, HAR-HUR, of XXXIII) which at present online at archive.org. I won't give a URL because there are uncertainties about the quality—some bits are missing, blanked out. This edition has about twice as much on Homer as the 1976 edition—which has about seven times as much on an American artist, Winslow Homer! The eleventh edition is the last before Jewish money by way of the USA began to dominate.

I just relocated the following passage from Miles Mathis's phoenper.pdf. (He likes short, enigmatic file-names).

Most of the places Odysseus visited were Phoenician locales, think Pylos, Aeolus (Lipari), Phaeacia, Ithaca, Troy, and Djerba (land of the Lotus-Eaters). Djerba was a Phoenician port for millennia, and later became an admitted Jewish stronghold after 600BC. It is probable that the Odyssey could be read as a Phoen-odyssey, with Homer the Phoenician giving us a covert tour of sacred spots. Even Ogygia, Calypso's island, is probably a real place, though I doubt it is Gozo. It should be a small remote island. Strabo put it in the Atlantic, so it may have been Porto Santo or one of the other Madeiras. Also interesting is that Calypso was probably a cousin of Odysseus, despite being a goddess. Her mother is given as Pleione, who also happened to be the grandmother of Iasion and Dardanus. Dardanus was an ancestor of the Trojans. Like WWI and WW2, the Trojan War was a cousin war, with near relatives squabbling over resources.
      I have told you above that the real denizens of Troy were Hittites, not Phoenicians, but it looks to me like Homer peopled his fictional Troy with cousins instead, to make the story more cosy for his audience. These fictional people were related to real people, and may have been based on real people.

I had intended to look at the treatment of the Iliad (which most critics, certainly of the old schools, seem to have preferred to the Odyssey, possibly because armchair generals seem to think battles are easy to understand. There are strange passages, such as the ‘Catalogue of Ships’, which purports to give logistical information on shiploads on men destined for Troy.
      The Odyssey is more puzzling, including entire passages not connected to picaresque voyaging, on Penelope and her suitors, the latter meeting a stick end as a result of Odysseus' prowess. One can imagine Jewish editors inserting a bloody ending designed to appeal to the simpler types, and removing the adventure stories if the gave secret information away. (I'm not saying this happened; but it might have).


HTML etc Rae West. Thanks to the Encyclopædia Britannica and Miles Mathis.   First upload 21 April 2022
List of Links | Top of Page

Most Reviews | Back to Big Lies site

Selected Reviews by Subject:- Film, TV, DVDs, CDs, media critics | 'Holocaust' | Jews, Christians, Moslems all considered as Jewish | Race | Revisionism in many subjects | Books on and by Women | Bertrand Russell | Richard Dawkins | Martin Gardner  |   H G Wells




Plato?   Let's look at the likely Phoenician/Jew connections

Plato's Sophist

The Case for Sophist as (Originally) a Dialogue on Jewish Methods

Rae West - 20 April 2022



The object of this short piece is to make the case for Plato's Sophist being simply a description of what are now called Jews, but after many years of editing the ancient Greek versions to an 'acceptable' version, probably in early Christian times.

All the detail here is from modern English language sources; I expect a similar case can be made in any other language which has evidence of the inclusion of Greek ideas. Note that digital technology has made it easier to search ancient texts, if they've been scanned in, or otherwise recorded.

Very Brief Timeline.   Some extracts from the 15th Edition Encyclopædia Britannica (1976) (pp 531-539) on Plato and his writings:–

Plato born c 428 BC Plato's lifetime included disastrous years of the Decelian war, the shattering of the Athenian empire, the fierce civil strife of oligarchs and democrats in the year of anarchy, 404-403 BC
Socrates execution 399 BC
c 387 Academy founded by Plato
Plato died 348/347 BC

Library of Alexandria: [After his fall from power in Athens, Demetrius sought refuge at the court of King Ptolemy I Soter ... Ptolemy soon took advantage of Demetrius’s wide and versatile knowledge and, about 295 BC, charged him with the task of founding the library and the Mouseion. ... Within half a century ... the collections of the Royal Library had exceeded the space allotted to contain the accumulated books.]

Philo of Alexandria Life from 15 BC – 40+ AD

GENERAL FEATURES OF THE DIALOGUES   The canon and text of Plato was apparently fixed at about the turn of the Christian era.   Modern scholars, by the use of stylistic criteria, have established that the Sophist, Statesman, Philebus, Timaeus, ... and Laws form a distinct linguistic group, belonging to the later years of Plato's life.

Jews and the Rest of the World
The Jewish hatred of Rome is well-known and obvious enough. But the Jewish dislike of Greeks is less well-known, because Rome's power and fame postdated and exceeded the Greeks. And probably the Latin language influenced Europe more, especially in the west.

Plato left a linguistic legacy which was never really dealt with; consider debates over the meaning of (for example) nous, dyad, logos, archetype, soul, henad. This of course was fortunate for many 'philosophers', giving them harmless work.

On the immense importance of the Mediterranean Sea, my page on Jewish evolution includes about half-way down the Mediterranean and suggests how Jewish evolution was partly framed by its geography.

From Joseph McCabe's Rationalist Encyclopedia (McCabe was anti-Roman Catholic, and silently pro-Jew) we find mention of
  Benn's History of Ancient Philosophy (1912). The Benns were either crypto-Jews or collaborators.
  Prof. Theodor Gomperz, Greek Thinkers (4 vols., 1901-1912). An Austrian Jew.
      McCabe says that Manuscripts were 'stabilized' about the time of Christianity. So little of the late Egyptian, Babylonian, and Phoenician literature has escaped the early Christian vandalism that we cannot say what amount of real originality there was in the systems of the Ionian "wisdom-seekers" (philosophers). This was a common opinion at the time, though after the Jewish victories after 1913 it has been quashed.

      To come forward a few thousand years since the takeover of Christianity by Jews (with their characteristic aggressive hostilities) , near the time of the Jewish victory in the Second World War, 1943 is the date of the 'Preface to he first edition' of Vol. I, The Spell of Plato, of the II-Volume The Open Society and Its Enemies which supposedly influenced Soros. This was a fairly full-blooded attack on Plato, which, rather incredibly, seems to have been the first of its kind. Bertrand Russell said: His [Popper's] attack on Plato, while unorthodox, is in my opinion thoroughly justified. Russell thought it was a defence of democracy.

Map by Gerry:--

From Miles Mathis:–
      Here's 'Gerry' (a German, I think) on the Phoenicians in antiquity (2018) “Phoenician” elites had a global empire in archaic times already, stretching from Spanish Galicia to inner Syria, with trade relations confirmed to extend further, from British Cornwall unto Iraqi Khorsabad. However, he seems to go no further back than 1600 BC. (1.2 MB).
      And here is Miles Mathis on much the same subject, Where did all the Phoenicians go? (2020). Including the Hittites and the Iron Age, probably using techniques based on smelting and processing copper and tin. The eclipse of the Phoenicians—by concealment. And 'Persia' as a manufactured myth. Massive re-engineering of swathes of history. Perception that Jewish historians continually and systematically are given jobs so they can lie for life. (.5 MB).
      Both of these portable documents are well-written, and convey a lot of information. Revisionism of the finest quality.

Modern Scholarship on the Ancient Greeks.
The Greek World   Edited by Anton Powell (1995; this pdf is the 2003 e-edition). Many years ago, I knew Anton Powell quite well; he claimed to be an anarchist, and managed to get into academia—a Professorship in a Welsh University—but his work was non-revisionist, and did not include anything of the sort I'm discussing. In the chapters he edited, on Grote, Hegel, Sidgwick, and Sophists and Christianity, there is nothing on the realities of money and funding and paid propaganda. He can legitimately me described as ‘unsophisticated’unfitted to examine fraud, forgeries, and hoaxes.
      (Sedgwick wrote on ethics, at a time when the British Empire was expanding in Africa. G E Moore took over from him. Probably 'Ethics' was one of the most worthless subjects of philosophers' work, except in the sense that they received money for it).

Summary.
The claim I'm making here is that Plato's work was fixed in the Christian era, which was marked by enormous destructions of earlier writings. I'm incorporating the little-appreciated symbiosis between Jews and Christians.
      My best guess is that 'Christianity' was originally some sort of popular movement, but it was either taken over by Jews, or invented and encouraged by Jews. (Modern equivalents include the taking-over of 'socialism' from its republican and well-intentioned roots. And the invention of 'Bolshevism'). I've written elsewhere on early Christianity, and will just note here the fact that early Popes were all Jews, that the Church prohibited interest and forced people to borrow from Jews, and the reliance on Jewish 'sacred books', the installation of the tithe system, and the sicut judaeis principle.
      Before this—and it's possible Philo of Alexandria was a significant figure here—any honest writings about Jews, including stories which they copied, would have been edited out or destroyed. (Modern equivalents include huge frauds such as the mass murders of Jews ascribed to the Germans).
      Suspicion must fall, therefore, on Sophist, this being the only dialogue with an original Greek title. But Statesman and Laws also seem candidates for Jewish heavy editing.
Does this matter?   I think it's important in fighting back against the multiple lies spread by Jews. If people can't understand Jews, they are missing the truth about Jews and their sophistry, and are therefore unsophisticated. A correct reply to charges of 'anti-Semitism' by the usual fools and liars is to point to their lack of awareness of sophistry. People will probably not like this accurate description, and perhaps it will prove a very effective counter.
HTML, research © Rae West. First upload 20 April 2022.
List of Links | Top of Page

Review of   Chris Caskie   War Against Goyim

Book first published January 2022. Print-on-demand by lulu.com

C Caskie The War Against 'Goyim'
^   Paperback cover design back and front
Some of the contents
^   Scan of part of table of contents

Important!   May well be a new style of book on the Jewish Problem. This is the first book known to me taking a top-down view of Jews and the world.

      Chris Caskie has produced a book based largely on Internet material, sorted by topic; he has selected twenty themes and presented them in roughly equal chapters, with the exception of his long chapter on Jews in the USSR. As his title suggests, The War Against ‘Goyim’ uncompromisingly considers 'jews' as enemies of all others. (The title does not mean there's a hostile country called 'Goyim' as someone I spoke to believed!).

I'm personally reminded of H G Well's Outline of History of almost exactly 100 years ago. That book was widely popular, and had the novelty of trying to present the history of the whole world. And it proved that there was popular demand for serious history. But Wells, all his life, missed the Jewish issue, and was a failure in the revisionist sense. Official historians were uneasy about Wells, but of course none commented on his omission of Jews.

Caskie's book may prove more influential than Wells's. It may help spark histories of the most diverse topics: corruption of medical science by Jews; influence of ships from the Mediterranean outwards; the Turkish regions; India and China; the psychology of language, long infancies, education and irrationalities; studies of secret causes of deaths and population control, and in general the use of concealment and crypsis. Non-Jews will have to consider whether they should counter jews by secret methods.

Many people have been involved in this sort of revisionist material. As regards readership, probably the book is well-suited to newbies, people of any age who have never been in contact with these ideas, or young people who wish to read and discover and interpret forbidden thoughts.
      I'd like to suggest that schools, libraries, colleges, universities might buy copies so that students can read the book without being targeted.

... Greek word 'philosophia' was originally used in a very general sense to cover all investigations into the nature of man and the universe. But in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a discovery was made about scientific method which seems to us nowadays trivial and obvious, perhaps because it is the unquestioned foundation of a civilisation based on the achievements of natural science. This was the discovery that if you want to know what the world is like, you have to look and see. As a practical maxim, this was not always a commonplace. There have been long periods in the history of the world and no doubt the will be again, when people were discouraged from looking either by the intellectual fashions of their time or because the prevailing religious or political outlook might conflict with that observation would tell them.
    Just a reminder (extract from D J O'Connor in 1957) that scholarship is limited—in fact, in a way suited to jews, who like to pretend that material written or paid for by jews is completely reliable. It's necessary to look and check, not just read, when information is censored.

The War Against Goyim is 6" by 9", perfect bound (i.e. pages glued to the spine of the cover, after which whole book is trimmed. The cover is matte finished, like Bjerknes's books. Caskie has chosen sanserif type—good for reference books. Each chapter has endnotes of sources, some of which Caskie put onto archive.org.
      His bibliography (about 40 pages) is in two parts, the first being printed material, the second being online. The demarcation isn't strict; Miles Mathis for example is in the printed sources. Most of the books and Internet sources have a useful description, to help situate them intellectually.
      He is refreshingly accurate: Foxman in 2007 is 'Rubbish with no basis in reality'; Lipstadt in 1994 as 'Absolute rubbish'; David Baddiel 'A short but boring book'; Nathan Cofnas 'a good example of Jewish pilpul and prevarication'; C Hitchens on Kissinger as 'exposing Kissinger as a war criminal. Fails to connect the dots ...'; Kevin MacDonald, 'because the book is academic, it pulls punches'.
      The brief comments are very useful. The positive comments in particular must enable newcomers to identify helpful material. By contrast, MacDonald's books have bare lists of titles in his bibliography, and he says nothing about his book list, giving bare author and title information. However, MacDonald has indexes in his books, though they aren't very helpful in tracing ideas.

Warning: the printers and distributors (lulu.com) recently seem to have dropped Beware the World to Come by Christopher Bjerknes. Caskie may have his book disrupted.


      I'd like to try to summarise the currents moving through revisionist movements over the years. Revisionist books so far have tended to be single-issue monographs, for example on the 'Holocaust' fraud. Or they have been rather cringing works, either omitting Jews (as in Kemp's March of the Titans) or being cautious and evasive (as in MacDonald's work), incomplete revisionism, completely omitting money frauds, wars, starvation, etc). There are monographs on Jews, tending to present them as religious, without commenting in detail on their actual activities (Hoffman and E Jones seem to me of this type). Many writers are 'scholarly' in the weaker senses, substituting textual matter for genuine grasp of events. Most histories of war are of this type, unaware of the raw facts of costs and plans. And most historians are a sad shadow of what history should, presumably, be; they inherit a huge legacy of evasion. Machiavelli's theory of history looks very feeble, for example.
      Few historians make allowances for censorship and suppression, and simple non-recording of important acts. In such circumstances, it's obvious that guesswork and conjecture and hypothesis testing are essential. David Irving for example, says nothing much on Jewish collaboration and money subsidising, as he seems unlikely to have no access to bank records.
      Jewish attitudes of 'scholarship' and deception lean them to forgery. The early Church was plagued by this. And modern media produce more fake material than true. Money power is routinely ignored; 'protestors' are paid to demonstrate, for the media. Armies have been paid by Jewish money promises for many centuries, and military power is linked with religious power: After 1066, Oxford University was founded. There are fascinating similarities with blasphemy and heresy and treachery, similar to the horror of simple Americans to 'Communism' and 'racism'.
      Repetitive propaganda doesn't last forever. I remember Alistair Cooke—a Manchester fellow-traveller of jews, now I think forgotten. Jordan Peterson, after taking money from Soros and getting huge promotion, is now subsiding. Many web-based people seem to have run out of motivation; I won't name names. archives. But jewish funding is positively terrifying. (A good example is London University's sas.ac.uk, the so-called 'School of Advanced Study', which has mutually-congratulatory reviews of ignorant people's books).

Chris Caskie has steered around obstacles and traps, and written a useful book with well-selected sources. This itself is quite an achievement, in view of the vast deposits of feeble and erroneous material bequeathed to us. When you next see people gazing at TV news rubbish, or failing to understand events from their own lives, or quoting obvious rubbish from religions, ask yourself if you want to be like that. If you prefer curiosity about the world, this book may change your life.


      Chapter-by-Chapter Survey
These discussions are in no special order, as suggested by the author.

The Jewish Genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks
Caskie largely uses the model of Jews, secretly in leading positions, dividing their chosen enemies and helping them fight each other. Simple idea, needing fairly complete secrecy. In Victorian times, Disraeli used this approach against Egypt and Bulgaria; by the time of the 'Great War' starting 1914, the basic events of the chapter title took advantage of war conditions.
      Caskie starts with earlier times, of which Hilaire Belloc said the average Englishman had never been allowed to hear of, and Arthur Butz described about fifty years later, largely in Cyprus, though these seemed to use the simpler model of direct Jewish hostility.
      Caskie has condensed Bjerknes' book of 570-ish pages (downloadable free) and other sources down to about ten pages.

‘Central Banking’ (and Other Jewish Financial Frauds)
With about 18 sources, Caskie examines England after Cromwell, and the 'Bank of England'. Then USA banking, and the privately-owned 'Fed'. And a few pages on frauds: Madoff is one example, extortion against Swiss banks another. A well-constructed chapter, summarising a lot of material.

The Jewish Hoax of Nuclear Bombs and the Mythical ‘Cold War’
12-page condensation of a lot of material, which Caskie has accomplished in quite a masterly fashion. Some is from the nukelies.com website, which I personally managed to save and reconstruct, apart from indirect material. This was a forum, started roughly 2010, which attracted about 8 or 10 excellent contributors. There was some trolling, but not much; the site was and still is unmentioned by the 'mainstream' [jewish] media. I was pleased to find Caskie traced a pioneering researcher, Roger Desjardins, from Canada. And I was pleased to see two recent books on the hoax. Modern readers probably have little idea of the intensity of the nuclear propaganda. I made a long video called Lords of the Nukes covering all this.
      Caskie doesn't look at the evidence that 'nuclear power' is another fraud. Jews seem to love big mines for uranium ores, covering big regions with slag, and pretending the whole process is 'green'. In fact, the whole issue of jewish corruption of science is hardly know, yet. Caskie's book will help change this.

The Jewish Diamond Industry and Conflict Diamonds
Interesting chapter, involving several angles on the world: the misery of much of Africa, and the dismal population there; discovery of minerals in South Africa, and the 'British' Army in a rôle resembling the Opium Wars more than 50 years before. And the Dutch-descended Boer farmers; diamonds as a marketing commodity (which they seem to be repeating in Japan); the technology of cutting them, and the role of Antwerp in Belgium (and the reason why Belgium exists at all); 'conflict diamonds', sometimes called 'blood diamonds'; Civil Wars in Angola and Sierra Leone. Includes a map of part of Africa (made with mapchart.net) in the huge territory near what were the slave coast, the gold coast, and the ivory coast, updated with air travel. You will understand how (e.g.) Kissinger could describe an African coastal country as 'rich'.
     Well-researched piece—42 different references. Caskie makes Interner research and writing look easier than it is.

The Cultural Selection Process is one attempt to explain Jewish behaviour.
Jewish Evolution as a subject probably needed something like Darwin as a precursor, plus historical appreciation of jews worldwide. Sociobiology emerged as a subject in about 1975, which Jews frantically opposed and muddied. Kevin MacDonald before 2000 is credited with the first modern sociocultural investigation, though he didn't understand Jewish aggressive lethality and intentional exploitative parasitism. Caskie dates Talmudism from about 70 to 1800, and I think (the brain isn't yet understood) claims that its beliefs as feedback led to increasingly inbred populations, displaying characteristic behaviours in a similar way to types of domestic dogs, though the use of language led to more elaborate structures than animals and insects ever could have evolved.
      Caskie takes the view that the bosses of Jews enforced a strict separation of Jews over many generations. And in effect blames others for co-operating—for example, in Poland, preceding the expulsion, or planned movement, out of Spain and Portugal. He dates this from about 70 CE (the Jewish version of 70 AD—though AD is itself a jewish time stamp). Others think the time interval was far longer.
      An interesting fairly brief chapter, usefully surveying the topic without being unreasonably precise.

Jewish Control of Media
Has many pages of lists of media bosses. Mainly in the west, where official records are kept. So far as I know, behind-the-scenes influences are not usually listed. Caskie gives 21 references. These give fairly bare lists. The same sort of structure is described by Caskie in, for example, Britain, Canada, Sweden and France. Other 'actors', such as unions for media workers, aren't detailed, though of course people at the BBC or New York Times would not survive honest reporting. A historically new issue is Jewish control of 'social media', online mass sites such as Facebook. Media Dishonesty and Deception is a short chapter with information on the 'software' emitted by the media's hardware. Caskie looks at geographical ideas—hatreds are easily fanned between countries; England and Germany being one of the first in the most modern times. This is a huge issue, including quiz shows, actors, long-running 'soap operas', novels, movies and plays, crime reporting, 'culture'. Caskie, probably sensibly, steers clear of the elaborate detail needed.

Jewish Involvement in the Transatlantic Slave Trade of Africans   and   Jewish Drug-Pushing: The Opium Wars and Beyond
present very good condensed accounts, including much up-to-date information, such as Jews in the Americas and slave ship owners, including Mathis on Caribbean pirate ships and Port Royal, and the sham of compensation for freed slaves.
      Jewish Drug-Pushing looks at India and China from the 1830s, and the Sassoons, who arranged to grow opium poppies in India to be pushed onto China. I need hardly say that Hollywood, Spielberg etc have never made movies on this, or that historians praising Victoria place little emphasis on these events, or the lessons they suggest for Jewish impacts.

The Supremacy and Evil of Judaism
is about 18 pages long, with 48 references. It condenses a vast library into a concise space. It discusses the likely sequence of Jewish books, emphasising Deuteronomy, Joshua, Isaiah. And emphasises the Torah. Caskie writes: ‘In my view, Judaism is the most evil religion ever conceived.’

I must mention Zionism and the Crimes of Jews in Palestine   and   Jewish-Zionist Wars in the Middle East   and   9/11: Jewish Mass Murder and Fraud
which, again, are concise and sharp chapters. I'm agnostic about Palestine, taking the view of Brandon Martinez that Arabs were used by Jews the invade and loot Spain; probably the idea is to get Palestinians to emigrate to white countries. However that may be, Caskie again does a good short sharp job on 9/11 and its propaganda lead-ups, the subsequent Iraq wars and the devastation. He discusses Syria, and the use of Afghanistan as an opium centre.



A good aspect of this book is the fact that Caskie has retained his indignation. Many historical writers lose the horror (if they ever had it). The Thirty Years War ... devastated half of Europe? Yawn. Second World War ... Millions of raped women? Better not mention them. Bombed cities? Who cares!—Official histories, jewish media, civil servants, generals, wouldn't like it. Possibly there will be ever-increasing assaults on whites, who will say "We dindu nuthin".
      Caskie's Conclusions chapter is uncompromising: 'Jews are the biggest threat facing the world today.'



Rae West   big-lies.org   2 Feb 2022
List of Links | Top of Page

Review of   Christopher Jon Bjerknes   Beware the World to Come (2nd edition 2020)

C J Bjerknes Beware the World to Come
Paperback cover design (2nd edition)
Physical Description and Ordering   7" by 12" paperback. Available from Lulu.com, who print on demand and handle the distribution. (They are long established; the print Arthur Kemp's Titans book, for example). Perfect bound; cover is matt finished.

Some illustrations, all monochrome. Entire text is monochrome. For my taste, the text is rather undifferentiated Times (all in English), something easily avoided with computer fonts. There's a bit of bold and italic, but not much. Come to think of it, the appearance reminds me of Kevin MacDonald's books and Michael Hoffman's.
      330 pages. Unindexed, to my great annoyance. And, or an ideas, book, an index of ideas is most important; if you recall some detail—long-term Jewish stuff on their thousand-year intervals, for example—you have to leaf through to relocate them. The book has 259 endnotes.
      Sources include Jewish newspapers, the Soncino Talmud in English, assorted Jewish-authors books in English, the Zohar, Kabbalah material, Wheless Is it God's Word?, Rabbinical stuff.

I first noticed Bjerknes in an absurd video argument with 'Dennis Wise' of 'The Greatest Story Never Told', hosted by Adam Green. Bjerknes appears to be from a Norwegian family including scientists, perhaps a parallel to Arrhenius in Sweden. Dennis Wise is part of the strictly-demarcated Allies-vs-Germany school. I'd assumed Bjerknes was part of the Hitler-as-a-disguised-Jew school (see hexzane527 on this site) but Beware the World to Come is enormously wider than a single war.

I ordered this book, which duly arrived (well-packed) today. It deals entirely with Jews over time, and their beliefs and predictions and considerable viciousness and absurdities. Mostly it's theological, if that's the right word: solid with Jewish beliefs as available now, for probably the first time. Certainly the first time these matters can be obtained without visits to libraries and/or personal contacts. In effect, it includes the works of people like Hilaire Belloc as a small subset.

We have exactly 4 chapters:
1 ANDROGYNY AGENDA
2 SATAN'S SON
3 WAR OF THE SONS OF LIGHT AGAINST THE SONS OF DARKNESS
4 THE OMINOUS AGE OF AQUARIUS

And I have to admit that my heart sank at these bald, unpromising titles. But they are taken from Jewish attitudes and I suppose are acceptable, though the second chapter, Satan's Son, is by far the longest, taking up more than half the book, and not subdivided or subtitled in any way. This is why I think the next edition should be signposted. And incidentally why it should have an index of ideas, as I'll now show...

1 ANDROGYNY AGENDA   20 pages   Must have been added to explain the oddities of LGBT etc and an absurd Jewish male dressed in women's clothes and passing as a health official. And it succeeds; it's the best explanation of these bizarreries I've ever seen.
      Bjerknes' sources tell him that Jews think—well, they were syncretists, stealing from other sources—the world, when created by God—incidentally, a compound of male, female, and combined as something like neuter—was perfect, presumably in the idealistic sense, not just the completeness sense as in a 'perfect insect'. Obviously, these primitives had no concept of genes. Sexual reproduction counters the possible defects in reproduction of immensely long DNA sequences; one parent's defects are cancelled by the other's, with luck. My review of Richard Dawkins looks at that issue; immortal non-sexed beings seem unlikely.
      Some of these ancients seem to have an implausibly large interest in hermaphrodites, as the Greek-origin word suggests. Some butterflies are described as hermaphrodites, based on wing colouration. Maybe it's just a matter of cosmetics, or similarities between young and beautiful males and females. Bjerknes worries about Jewish scientists experimenting with such things.
      Note that COVID and coronavirus aren't anywhere in this book (that I could find). The publication date, given as 2020, was close to the propagation of the myths attributed to late 2019. I'd suggest potential buyers hold off until the 3rd edition! Modern print-on-demand books can be updated instantly online, without stocks needing to be held, though I think they need new ISBNs.

TO BE CONTINUED!
-3 way god -Creation of world [absurd] -perfection to be restored -mixing races because of guardian angels! -6000 years and eg Schneerson thinking date passed/ -cover design explanation
2 SATAN'S SON
3 WAR OF THE SONS OF LIGHT AGAINST THE SONS OF DARKNESS

4 THE OMINOUS AGE OF AQUARIUS   42 pages  


Rae West   Dec 24 2021
List of Links | Top of Page

  Review of   H P Stokes   A Short History of the Jews in England   (First published 1921)

Frontispiece of Stokes's book. Note the claim that it is 'from a portrait by Rembrandt'. Reproductions of paintings were often made from re-drawn engravings, before modern techniques. But this picture seems to have been just a 'portrait of an old man'. It looks vaguely like a man dressed in Scottish style, perhaps chosen not be appear outlandish.
    (Rembrandt has had an easy ride, probably because his lifetime coincided with the invasion of England. I've never seen an examination of his life it terms of Jews in the Netherlands arranging the invasion.)








The author, Canon Dr. Henry Paine Stokes   (1849-1931)   is shown on the title page as

THE REV.   H.P. STOKES, LL.D., LITT.D., F.S.A.   HON. FELLOW OF CORPUS CHRISTIE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; HON. CANON OF ELY

Stokes was 'President of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 1901-11'.

Stokes’ A Short History of the Jews in England was published in London by the Central Board of Missions, and in New York: The Macmillan Press by Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
      On the book's spine, in gold foil, is S·P·C·K which must have been recognised by the classically educated as similar to S·P·Q·R, for the Senate and People of Rome, carried on banners by Roman armies. It must have suggested muscular Christianity.

This book was one in a series of Jewish Studies, edited by A. Lukyn Williams, D.D.   (1853-1943)   whose life until 1885 seems to have been lived in Sydney, Australia, after which he moved to England and lived off the Church of England. Lukyn wrote: ... It cannot be pretended that we English [sic] know much about their [Jews] post-Biblical history, practices, and beliefs, much less that we have studied these in relation to Christianity past and present. The aim of this series is to do something towards supplying this want...
So much for the pieties. What seems to be the truth here?

The publication date of 1921 postdates the publication of Belloc's book The Jews. It of course postdates not just the start, but the nominal end, of the Great War. There is no mention of Jews in Europe, or even Jews migrating into Europe and the USA in the late 1900s. Ellis Island and Winston Churchill (for example) are omitted. Anything recent is omitted, apart from a few obscure stories written by Jews.
      And conversely the whole thrust of the book is to emphasise ancient stories and mythologies. The author was an antiquarian, meaning, generally, one concerned with ancient appearances, not with realistic estimates of true events. Not a genuine historian.
      In the same way, the treatment generally is reminiscent of histories of Christianity in the 19th century, with little or nothing said on Christian violence, Christian tithes, and so on. Treatment of Jews says nothing Jews as medical people (though with the rise of science it was clear that many treatments were harmful). The assumption is that Jews are always innocent and harmless, for instance in Clifford's Tower in York, and the numerous reports of child murders. In short, it's a joint Christian-Jewish presentation based on previously-secure principles of censorship which Stokes took as certain.

The book starts with Jews in England 'before the Expulsion'. It seems unlikely that 'the Expulsion' can ever have been complete. It asserts that 'Jews came into England with the Conqueror'. There's a pretty complete absence of discussion of the money dealings of Jews, such as financing wars. Before we get to Cromwell, there are brief passages on the Domus Conversorum, Houses for converts. In view of what happened in Spain and Portugal, it seems more than likely that supposed converts to Christianity were largely pretenders. Possibly these apparently small buildings provided temporary cover while Jews plotted their tricks based on Kahal principles.
      It would be like asking the people who wrote and published and publicised the Harry Potter wizard stories to express their sincere belief in the truth of the stories—when, after all, they made them up themselves. The Jews in England has some pages on missions to convert Jews, though without evidences for the unlikeliness of these attempts.

Archive.org has several online scans of Stokes and this is just one of them. It's eerie to note the way in which everything malign in Judaism is ignored. There's a single reference to the Talmud or Thalamud, and mention made of 'condemnatory edicts', but nothing in Stokes is substantial.
      I'll leave interested readers to look online to see if they can identify anything genuine in the book. If not, adopt the hypothesis that such books are just designed to confuse ordinary people.
Conclusion
I have to say the entire absence of serious comment, in 1921, suggests that the S·P·Q·R was a covertly Jewish operation. It's easy to see how Jewish finance would support such an organisation, keeping an eye open to suppress true but unwanted information on Jews. Bear in mind that Orthodox Christian churches, notably the Russian Orthodox, were looted by Jews, but without comment by Stokes. (Hilaire Belloc, by contrast, discussed these events with indignation, despite not liking or associating with the Orthodox churches).

So it seems the S·P·Q·R was another part of Jewish control, probably supplying money for feeble books on Christianity, designed to waste the time of readers, in accordance with long-term Jewish aims. The S·P·Q·R is still with us, wasting time, printing rubbish, appealing to weak-minded people, in exchange for a little money.

© Rae West   9 April 2022

 

List of Links | Top of Page



Deus Vult   'God Willing'

Apparently by Nick Griffin (ex-BNP leader, ex-MEP) and Jim Dowson (ex-BNP N. Ireland nationalist and computer mailshot man)

12 July 2021

I don't like reviewing books I haven't read, or even seen published, but there's some information out there so I'll give it my best. There appear to be three books, one published; the second announced and perhaps published; and the third to come. I'd thought at first that these books were in the style of Arthur Kemp's big book on the white race, or races, entitled March of the Titans, partly aimed at home educators.

However, the intention seems to be to analyse current conspiracies—real ones, with Gates and others—and work out what they're likely to aim for. And what to do about it.

There's a huge problem at the outset: Griffin has avoided the Jewish issue almost completely. I remember an annual BNP meeting where a man from the north (I don't know his name) implored Griffin to visit his home and be inducted into the mysteries of currency. Griffin ignored him. And it certainly seems the case that Griffin does not discuss such things as the 'Federal Reserve'. And he doesn't discuss the existence and actions of such outfits as the Freemasons and Common Purpose. Therefore it's entirely possible that his activities are now, and were then, 'controlled opposition' designed to fizzle out.

Another point, obvious to me at least, is that the worldwide Jewish establishment and its sidekicks of the Freemason types are getting jumpy at the thought that World War 2 stories are starting to be reconstructed with greater accuracy than before. I don't just mean Pearl Harbor as a fraud, vast amounts of money given to Stalin, Churchill as an activist for war, Hiroshima and Nagasaki as frauds, still censored in Japan to this day, and the post-1965-ish 'Holocaust' fraud— but the realisation that Hitler was just another Jew, the whole of his "anti-Semitism" being faked to move Jews into Europe, the USA, and Palestine, and wars—there were more than one hundred—being arranged. White genocide has been very successful; but most people (at least, non-Jews) haven't yet noticed.

Griffin shows no interest in that topic. He does mention some events which look to me like false flags, such as Whitty supposedly being mildly attacked in front of cameras. And he mentions much larger events, such as 'blood & money poured down the drain by war criminal Bush and Blair for absolutely nothing' in Afghanistan. In fact, Jews made a fortune from the war, if it can be called that. From their viewpoint, it was a terrific success.
      There are rumours that Griffin's father was a Freemason, possibly high up in their hierarchy. As far as I know he never addressed this issue. An estimate of the numbers of Freemasons, just in Britain, is half a million—by now, probably more that Church of England members. Reports say that judges and the police, and no doubt others making money from administering the system, are often Freemasons. These groups are of course involved in failure to investigate cases of murders of whites, rapes of whites, and so on. This was a very serious failure on the part of the BNP. The same thing applies to 'Common Purpose'.
      There are obviously many groups which are more-or-less secret, not necessarily for any nefarious purpose. Relevant secret societies straddle and add links to otherwise independent interest groups.

Anyway, the book under review. It is subtitled something like 'the great reset', and according to a couple of talks with Andrew Carrington Hitchcock, who felt himself unable to talk to me on these subjects; I fear that, like Griffin himself and Kevin MacDonald and even David Irving, he's slipped too far back in the revisionist world. ACH stated these books deal partly with the Knights Templars of the Middle Ages. (Griffin's Twitter site mentions track and trace, though he seems to have no inside info on what the so-called COVID vaccines are supposed to be for. And Boris the Liar; and fighting back against a knife-wielding 'enricher'; and the RNLI as picking up illegals (they also give swimming lessons to blacks); and memories of the Somme in 1916 ("it can't happen by accident"); and three German women stabbed in Germany, and not in the controlled junk media. Most of these were BNP staples, but the COVID fraud is new.
      (Note on Templars: Griffins site is knightstemplarorder.com and specifically states it is separate from 1700 or so other sites using the name Templars. An online video states in a computer voice that members all believe in the Nicene Creed. They seem to be aiming to unify Christendom. They seem unaware of the Jewish roots of Christianity and say nothing about Jewish practices and money or related issues, such as their later invention of Islam).
      (I've had 6 or 8 chats with Andrew Carrington Hitchcock online: here's an audio from August 2017.)

Griffin has always favoured Christianity, never noting that both Christianity and Islam were Jewish inventions, from which Jews covertly benefitted. The Knights Templar in central and south-east Europe, and the Crusades, being a result. Christianity in the Orthodox version appeared strong in Russia, and European versions such as Bulgarian Orthodox, left from part of the ancient Greek empire. As far as I know Griffin has never mentioned them as part of Christianity—attacked by the Jews of Bolshevism and cut down in huge numbers.

Part of the 'USP' of the first volume is detail on what to do about the police and their activities against serious activists. Good advice is hard to come by; I've heard some accounts which, though not fatal, were very unpleasant. Such a book might be worth the cost just in advice, though it's irritating that it's not online, and updatable. This has happened to me (on top of censorship by Youtube and Amazon and Facebook) but so far nothing additional happened.

The online talks by Nick include such topics as the phasing-out of money, so that only electronic money remains. Cash would be as remote as iron bars or cowrie shells used as currency. I'd guess the book includes such things as what happens if electricity fails, whether bitcoin works, and whether local unofficial mints might come into existence.

Another issue is the possible sabotage of the world's food supplies. And the related issue of odd new foods: old people may remember Magnus Pyke on the BBC talking excitedly about the possibilities of growing muscle fibres in tubes, still far beyond anything practical. And the New Scientist, yet another Jew-controlled piece of piffle, then and now, which ran a cartoon about 'Grimbledon Down', obviously based on Porton Down 'research establishment', with 'Nu-Food' as a running joke. There are obvious possibilities in arranged famines, analogous to arranged bank crashes and depressions.

He seems to recommend practical skills (plumbing, electrical, building construction, vehicles, education, food ...) rather than 'professions'. This could be just a nod to Jews worried that their promotion of low-IQ people and killing of experts will lead to serious incompetence, as happened in the 'Soviet Union'. And they're not as simple as they can be made to sound; TV technologies are upgraded every 6 months; there is 'continuing professional development'; and so on. I haven't read these books; he may make a good case.
      His online chatter omitted the possibilities of computer work and expertise, which may prove to be one of the most important skills. Computerised data, processed by competent people, may yet lead to social and economic models far better than the constricted trammels of present-day models.

I note that 'Deus Vult' is a computer game phrase of the moment. The most popular ever Youtuber is or was a Swede, whose videos were mostly his comments on computer games. The popular view is that these enthusiasts are semi-adults living in large US homes with basements, unlikely to contribute much to anything. Possibly Griffin is aiming at that demographic group.

With a slight note of nostalgia, I turn to the British National Party website bnp.org.uk now nominally led by Adam Walker, I believe a Geordie married to a Japanese. The site is 100% Jew naive. It runs some good stories, though nothing on Jewish control of money, Jewish ownership of British homes to make money, Jewish control of education and media, nothing on Jews such as Osman in government: it is useless in identifying Jewish and Masonic/Common Purpose groups. Griffin doesn't mention any of this.
      Walker, or whoever writes their material, persist American-style in referring to Jews and their funded pups as 'left-wing'. In fact, socialism originally was mostly native English, fumbling with ideas on how to spread the newly-emerging machine-powered wealth, though it was hi-jacked by Jews, showing their terrific lack of originality. There was a transition by the Jew-controlled 'Labour' party in the 1930s.

There are maybe a million ex-BNP one-time supporters in the UK. They deserve more. In my opinion, they won't get it from Nick Griffin.


Rae West   13 July 2021
List of Links | Top of Page

Review Topic: New Approach to Palestine, from Muslims and Jews?
Nur Masalha: Palestine. A Four Thousand Year History.


The Jew York Times Review of Books   — “Exceptionally Valuable”

The copyright is dated 2018; my chunky paperback version is dated 2020, and published by Zed Books. I see 5 ISBNs, for hardback, paperback, and 3 online versions. Masalha is introduced as a Professor, a Palestinian historian, at SOAS, School of Oriental and African Studies, part of the cluster of buildings in London including the Institute of Education and perhaps the LSE. This of course marks him as part of the Jew-centred 'education' nexus which started in the 19th century. Since 1913, Jewish printed money has replaced bullion, and it may be assumed confidently that large assets are Jewish-funded, usually covertly.

Zed Books is described as a 'co-operative'. It seems to have recently been bought out by Bloomsbury, including J K "I insist on my actors being English, provided they are Jews" Rowling. It's of course solidly Jewish, and has published people like Chomsky and Zinn and Eleanor Roosevelt. It's supported, if the extract is correct, by the Jew York Times. So what do we have here?

We have 10 chapters, the last two being relatively long; the Introduction is a long chapter of its own. We have a bibliography, notes, and index compiled by the Professor. Perhaps he wanted to save on the costs of an indexer. I noted with irritation that some entries were just a series of bare page numbers, inviting readers to check every one to find what's there. Only one Rothschild entry. A few on Balfour. Nothing on the great reset of the world wars, with their Jewish victory: such things are out of Masalha's range. The Holocaust fake is not indexed, though I came across a reference to a sculptor. On the other hand, the Palestine Nakba is indexed, throughout the book.
      The 'notes' are endnotes, rather brief, and listed by chapter numbers, not pages. The chapters aren't numbered on the page-tops, so a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing is imposed.
      And the bibliography is the usual list, without much indication of why the volume is important; or indeed if it is. There's no mention of any Encyclopædia Britannica, which always seems an odd omission.


Anyway. I'm viewing this book partly as a white who dislikes all the so-called 'abrahamic' Jewish trash. And also as someone interested in getting an accurate picture of Palestine.
      Some Jews have claimed that Palestine was unpopulated, or didn't exist, and possibly this book is aimed against that view. The Introduction is subtitled PALESTINE AS A NAME COMMONLY USED THROUGHOUT ANCIENT HISTORY. And of course here is plenty of scope for finding place-names, including 'Filistia' and 'Philistines' and 'Provincia Palestina', in assorted alphabets (though Hebrew seems missing); and for finding peoples, tribes, communities, and so on. Masalha may have absorbed the Jewish idea of 'diversity' for other people. Most or all of his descriptions assign general happiness to mixed groups. And 'scholarship' to Jews and Moslems; it's difficult to know how much truth there is to this.

Many incidents of history appear in these pages; we're told of such and such a man who led a stellar career, promoted to a leading post somewhere; somewhat incongruous in a several-thousand-year span. A problem I noticed is Masalha's lack of theory into which to slot modern times. In particular, science and technology has led to huge increases in productivity, both in hopeful things and in mass murder. It's perhaps analogous to the rise of the bronze age, when copper, tin, timber and other things such as reading and writing, combined to point the way to an uncertain but exciting future. Whether this will last is impossible to predict, but so far Jews have led the way in frauds and parasitism; think for example of the waste involved in NASA, in the nuclear frauds, in inconclusive long wars.
      Another issue is the evasion of repulsive events of history; the rise of Islam, invented by Jews, used for mass murders and thefts in north-west India, and in the invasion of Spain, are ignored by Masalha. Like a guide holding up his umbrella, he sweeps past and tries to ignore ghostly remains. The most important collective omission is Jewish history and its related exploitation of Mediterranean shipping.

A significant but understated part of this book is the claim that Jewish belief in the 'sacred' books is no longer maintained, under archaeological evidences mostly. On TV, popular programmes on ancient Egypt all seem to show a probably fake 'opening of the mouth ceremony' for some recently-dead Pharaoh. Maybe they haven't made a decision yet! The Bible, Torah, and Talmud aren't indexed, but one name is Herzog. Zeev Herzog, who wrote books c. 2000 on the 'Walls of Jericho'. Pages 29-30 in Masalha conclude The Old Testament is not actual history but imaginative fiction, theology, sacred literature, ethics and wisdom. One might question the 'wisdom', but certainly this attitude must impact Islam too. How true this is, I simply don't know; judging from past Jewish activity, this material may be only a part in the jigsaw games which Jews like. Keith Whitelam is another intense critic of Biblical stuff.
      Hexzane527 has predicted the Third World War based around 'Greater Israel' (right-click here to see the 40-or-so pages). This volume suggests to me some plan for Jews and Muslims to jointly loot the west, with Jews very much the senior partner and Moslems, arrogant and 'educated', being set up for falls in Africa, the West insofar as it still exists, and other Islamic zones.

There are no maps whatsoever in this book. When discussing Syria, and Cana'an, this can be a difficulty. Admittedly, maps that speak aren't easy to design. And the typeface is a bit on the small side.


I'll try to guess the backstory and real aims of this book.
      There are some odd omissions: Deir Yassin is not in the index. Nor is Spain: I noticed (in Martinez of alt-right) that Spaniards aren't pro-Palestinian, because Moorish Arabs invaded Spain with Jews. what about horses? As far as I know, Masalha says nothing about this. The eight short credit-lines on the back cover are puzzling: what on earth could a 'deputy minister for tourism and antiquities, Palestine' really do? A guided tour round Deir Yassin, inspection of brothels in Tel Aviv, olive groves destroyed by so-called Jews?
      The final chapter, which might be expected to give a retrospective overview of the past, with hopes for the future, is largely on 'the appropriation of Palestinian place-names by the Israeli state'. Masalha, in London, says little about the plight of people. However, it does have a seven-page (pp 347-354) bulleted list of names of 'almost the entire political, military, and intellectual Israeli elite', from David Ben-Gurion (David Grün, Russia) & Moshe Sharon (Moshe Shertok, Russia) & Golda Meir (Golda Mabovitch, Kiev) and Yitzhak Shamir (Icchak Jeziernicky, Eastern Poland) through to Rachel Cohen-Kagan (Rachel Lubersky, Ukraine) & Yehuda Karmon (Leopold Kaufman, Poland) & Hanoch Barrow (Hanoch Helfgott, born in Palestine of parents born in Poland). I couldn't find a discussion the ways in which state names were imposed on Jews, as Belloc attempted. (Belloc is not indeed; nor, out of interest, are Irving and Lipstadt. Masalha seems to have restricted his scope to Palestine matters somewhat over-zealously).

My best guess is that Masalha is uneasily allying himself with Jews, perceiving the hopeless uselessness of Christians in their bondage to modern Jewish printed money, which has largely eliminated the use of bullion. (The Federal Reserve of 1913 isn't indexed). I can't tell if Masalha is aware of Jews as a network attacking Europe in the 20th century, very successfully: even Hitler isn't in the index. If he has a plan for taking back assets from Jews, arranging world-wide co-operation to that end, I can't find it. And the cunning schemes of Hexzane527 (see link, above) don't seem present: maybe elite Jews will sacrifice Israel, not thinking much of them, and after all having weaseled into aristocracies and united with bureaucracies. Biribidzhan (and Mozambique) aren't indexed.
      I haven't looked for the Jew York Times Review of this book; but, assuming it's favourable, that must be a huge red flag in the warning sense.

  © Rae West 26 Jul 2021   (Canonical copy is elsewhere on this site)

List of Links | Top of Page

 New on 14 April 2020      E Michael Jones: Goy Guide to World History   2014/2015 multipart film by snowshoefilms
based on Jones's 2008 book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History


Review by Rae West   26 April 2020
EMJ
E Michael Jones in snowshoefilms' Goy Guide to History.   Jones's website is culturewars.com
Goy Guide to World History. This link is to a 320 x 240 pixel video on E. Michael Jones, which is long (about 700 MB) and not of wonderful quality. It may have been in 8 parts. The soundtrack has some simple music on 'Jesus' with simple stories, in painful contrast with what should be serious issues. I don't know if all the still pictures and scrolling text were Jones's choice.
I'll work from that film making numbered notes on Jones, more or less in order of appearance. My numbering; my own comments are indicated.

      E. Michael Jones—the 'E' is 'Eugene'—has a bow tie, a clear voice, and occasionally plays what may be an 8-string lute.
      He works in South Bend, Indiana, I think from a house of the standard US plywood and cardboard walls and monoculture lawn type, utterly disconnected from traditional Roman Catholicism.
      If things go wrong, many people will turn to comforting old beliefs, or so they say; it's even possible Jones may be controlled opposition for Catholics and Jews taken together.

EMJ (has a PhD on Nathaniel Hawthorne) has a number of books to his credit. He seems to have counted himself as a journalist. As is usual, no sales figures are available.
      Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (2000)
      The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing (2004) is something like a Catholic answer to Jane Jacobs on American cities. Jones seems to take little interest in other countries, or their cities.
      The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (2008), on which this film is based. It is very low on wars and other violence; Jones says, for example, almost nothing on the Thirty-Years' War in Germany, with its huge death-toll of Catholics and Protestants in central Europe.
      The Medjugorje Deception (2010). I can't remember having heard of this place previously; appears to be a money-making hoax in Croatia. Not very different from Lourdes, or for that matter the Christianities.
      Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict between Labor and Usury (2014). Not labor and capital, note. Jones appears to think 'usury' is the root of concentration of wealth. EMJ it seems discusses gold and the substitution of paper, the weak dollar implying militarism by the USA, and Qadaffi gold backed dinar by Qadaffi. I haven't seen or read this book, but I expect it doesn't answer all the points.
      How Meyer Lansky Took Over The Cincinnati Ballet: And What Four Ballerinas Did About It (2017).
      Jewish Privilege (2019). I'll review this book soon.
      Logos Rising: A History of Ultimate Reality (2020). Yes, he's a Roman Catholic.

All these books are handled by Amazon, a red flag—such books are very unlikely to be allowed to be deeply critical! EMJ's books are often unusually long, and high-priced when out of print. I haven't seen or read any, yet. But dictionaries, encyclopædias, Bibles, and religious works of all kinds exist in vast numbers, so it's easy enough to fill many volumes with material which is difficult to assess. (This link finds my index to Joseph McCabe's short but well-informed articles on Roman Catholicism. Unlike E Michael Jones, McCabe was utterly Jew-naive).

“Anyone who practices any form of Abrahamic religion is controlled opposition, even if they do not realise it.”
- Kerick Walters
• 1   The start of all this exquisite absurdity; I quote from an Amazon comment: “God chose the Jewish people to bring Jesus Christ into the world.”   Unfortunately. Eugene Jones seems unable to counter this thousands-of-years' network of nonsense. However, he does address some of the issues. It may turn out to be necessary, in removing Jews, to make alliances everywhere.

One view of Christianity as an enemy: Christianity is “…the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.”

One view of Christianity as a friend: Christianity introduced a nationwide network of civilised people, with administrative and pastoral functions, performing yearly festivals and time-honoured sanctified duties, recording important events such as births, marriages, and burials.

Christianity involved wars, slaughter, taxation, propaganda and destruction, land ownership on a huge scale, the spread of alien mental habits.

BUT PLEASE NOTE this article is mainly concerned with a different issue: can Christianity today help awaken people to the terrible menace of 'Jewish' power? Christians do at least have the potential to understand Jewish actions, via 'scripture', if they can throw off the mental chains tying them to 'Jews'.   E Michael Jones is trying to do this. (Andrew C Hitchcock ('Synagogue of Satan') and Michael A Hoffman (revisionisthistory.org) are two fellow researchers of similar type. Hoffman hopes Jews by God's grace will see that rabbis are evil slavedrivers—my wording).
 

• 2   “Because of usury, the wealth has been concentrated in so few hands”. EMJ presumably follows simplified traditional Catholic teaching here. He quotes Aristotle in translation on usury, something like: ‘interest .. applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent’. Unimpressive reasoning, which seems to have been part of the 'controlled opposition', Roman Catholics denying interest to their sheep, while covertly taking Jewish money.   BUT
      (1) 'Wealth' is largely in the hands of Jews by mechanisms in which 'usury' isn't important. At present, the Federal Reserve system allows Jews to print money; this is enormously more important than scraps of interest.
      (2) 'Usury' is not just a question of interest. In one form, 'usury' means the borrower has to repay in full, personally without assistance, or his entire assets are forfeit.
      (3) Interest rates obviously make a difference. If it was illegal to charge more than 1%, most people would borrow.
      (4) Borrowing is of huge importance to Jews and bankers. Most people can't understand how wars are funded easily. But anything Jews don't want is not funded. Jews in effect hand over paper money, and expect repayment over many years. I doubt if interest is all-important here; pure 'repayment' means they can buy assets; the more governments waste money, the more Jews get. And borrowing goes relatively unnoticed, in expenditure announcements, because it's spread over very many years.
      It took me a long time to realise that Lyndon 'Butcher' Johnson wanted planes and helicopters to crash in Vietnam, and endless bombs and bullets to be used, so that non-Jews in the USA could be soaked for money in years to come.

• 3   “... totally unresponsive to the overwhelming majority of American people”. Yes, it is. EMJ leaves you to suppose Catholicism would not be. But he doesn't prove this; he just thinks Catholicism would follow 'the moral law'. He doesn't explain how Catholicism built up its enormous wealth.

• 4   “... Looting of the manufacturing base ...” Like most people, EMJ doesn't distinguish assets such as factories and roads from financial holdings, typically shares. There's now one black African listed as a billionaire. It's incredible that a primitive continent from (say) 1850 could have built up such a sum. No; it's a question of shares (of uncertain value) being handed over. This is the sort of thing easy to loot, but it's not the manufacturing base.

• 5   Note: Censorship by Roman Catholics in their great days vs censorship by Jews in modern times. Explicit censorship by Catholics may have been a huge mistake. Catholic books contain statements of Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, saying the book is safe to be read by Catholics. Jews have a much less detectable system: books which Jews dislike are pressured into not being printed, not being reviewed, bought up, authors killed, print works arsoned, etc.
      It's notable that both 'faiths' are keen to wipe out rivals. Ruthless destruction is common to 'Abrahamic' religions. The library at Alexandria illustrates the point; so do actions against early translations of the Bible; so does the wiping out of south American artefacts by the Spanish. That hostility recurs in Islam, particularly when the Q'uran is considered the only important book.
      The 'Abrahamic' faiths have the same ideology when it comes to telling lies: 'pilpul', 'taqiyya', and what is called 'sophistry' or 'Jesuitry'.
      Unfortunately, this is an efficient strategy which perhaps in time will be applied to so-called Jews themselves. It is infinitely saddening to see white Americans whose 'knowledge' is confined to nonsense from the King James Bible and Jewish TV, movies, and press.

• 6   Jones uses lightweight journalistic Jewish categories which have grown to avoid mention of Jews: 'Conservatives' oppose abortion, gay marriage; 'Liberals' may oppose wars in the Middle East. But these feeble categories never mention Jews, and therefore continue to spread intentional confusion.
      There are so many examples of these. One example is a stock market 'crash', meaning that dealers in title deeds valued the things lower—often for obvious reasons.
 

• 7   “Jews are protagonists of anti-logos.”   "In the beginning there was logos"—"in a sense logos created us"—"logos is eternal"—"truth is logos". To anyone with any sense of geological and historical time, the idea that a word (in Greek, of about 200 BC) existed at the dawn of time and persisted forever is limiting and dwarf-minded. As is the idea that a word on its own is 'true' or 'good'. These are copied from Jewish scribbles.
      In my opinion, EMJ weakens his case with this long-outdated tribal fetishism.

On 'logos', Aristotle's ‘three primary pillars of persuasive speech’ are (1) Ethos (authority, credibility), (2) Pathos (emotion, appeal), and (3) Logos (logic, reason). Note the absence of empirical evidence, which in this instance might mean authenticity of documents, reliability of witnesses, likelihood of fakes, bribery and force. It's easy to see why such issues are discouraged in religious disputes.
      Another oddity—for a Roman Catholic—is the emphasis on Greek rather than Roman thought. Roman Law was a considerable achievement for Rome, but, again, it's easy to see why 'Jewish' interlopers would minimise it.
 

• 8 On the Critical Importance of the Mediterranean and Connected Sheltered Seas   vs   Open Lands to the East
Med 500 BCmed 2000

The map (right) was drawn from descriptions by Herodotus (500 BC or so). The globe (far right) is from Google; I couldn't remove the clouds (or appearance of clouds), but the Mediterranean should be plain.

The Mediterranean and connected seas (and the Red Sea and Persian Gulf) are protected from the oceans and relatively storm-free. Ships with sails and/or oars allowed transport of large loads, including men—something far more difficult by road at the time. Raw materials, intermediate materials, finished goods, food, people with skills, could be moved.

The area is by far the largest set of inland waterways on earth.

As outlined above, areas with defensive barriers (most of Europe, though not in the east) could genetically have high-specialisation societies.

Areas with open areas (grassland, steppes, possibly deserts) without defensive barriers (eastern territories, but not to their west) could genetically have tribal, inward-looking, aggressive groups unable to spend time on arts, theories, techniques, beauty, speculation.

The spread of Christianity in my view offered successful members land ownership and control of largish areas. It involved groups who were neighbours being led to believe in common new idea(s). Trade routes would be an effective way to spread such ideas. Reading, writing, oratory, and some fluency in languages would be necessary. Probably money would be an essential part of such a package, to offer careers to some of the target populations. It could spread slowly; it certainly did.
      Very likely some absurdity would be needed as a badge of credulity, to show willingness to submit. Exemplary violence, or threats, would be needed. Nominal beliefs would not be easily disprovable:– adherents could claim to speak in tongues, but not to fly; they could claim life after death, but not let the undead pay visits; they could claim healing powers, but not for serious diseases; they could claim credit for harvests, but not claim to generate food; they could claim priestly knowledge, but not what's now called science; they could claim darkness fell over the land some time ago, but couldn't claim to do it themselves; they could claim to be special to 'God', but not summon 'God' to show himself; they cold claim specially revealed information, but not supply proof.

On the Critical Importance of the Khazar Conversion and the Khazar Influence over Lands in Asia to the East. Look at Herodotus' map of about 500BC. The Khazars were protected, and isolated, by huge mountains and huge lakes. Water transport would depend on such things as timber, and considerable skill. But to their north were land routes, westward to Europe, eastward to China. When the Roman Empire was defunct, Jews invented Isla. Khazaria is supposed to have converted, adopting Jewish books, I'd guess for a minority only and in abbreviated and simplified forms. Whether controlled by Jews or not, the Khazars seem to have learned powerful messages: rents, taxes, tariffs, violence, secrecy, hierarchies, and insinuation.

I'd suggest something like this is what happened. And the vast Mediterranean, with the surrounding lands, was unique in the globe.
 

 
• 9   Jews and Catholics. EMJ has the long-established view of The Catholic church on Jews. EMJ said: “The [Roman] Catholic Church has long experience with Jewish minorities in Christian culture ... for many, many centuries it was the Catholic Church that kept Jewish power in check.”
      Well, that's one way of putting it. It seems though that Jews and Christians parcelled out populations between them.
      EMJ doesn't seem to realise that Catholicism took many centuries to 'convert' Europe. The last country in Europe to be officially Catholic was, apparently, Lithuania, in the 14th century. (See my piece on Early Christianity). It was not a monolithic process. It seems to have involved Jewish money, with collaborators in countries around the huge inland sea of the Mediterranean being picked off for conversion one by one. Jews and their allies got ports and towns and secret meetings, Christians got the land and tithes and the supposed Power of the Keys.
      Both Catholics and Jews have very fixed ideas on the Roman Empire. I'm surprised Catholics don't kiss the Roman fort in Jerusalem along with Jews.
      I'd guess EMJ's families once had Catholic church positions and benefits, in exchange for undemanding but literate work among simple country folk, taking money from Jews, who in turn extorted as much as they could from non-Jews.

 

“Jews invent the bullshit they need at the time they need it” – Jan Lamprecht
• 10   Frequent Jewish Tricks—IMPORTANT!   Reinterpreting Self-regarding Biased Descriptions as Practicable Expedients ...

      Slogan time: the Roman Catholic/Jew Double Act Hypothesis says Jews and Roman Catholics secretly acted together in Europe; not necessarily completely—many countries partially co-operate—where Catholics got land and taxes and tithes and donations and pardons; Jews were actively protected by the Church, and extorted what they could for themselves. Jews were controlled opposition for Catholics, and Catholics were controlled opposition for Jews. They covered this up by furious denunciations of each other.

      There were complications with aristocrats and monarchs: for example the Russian aristocracies seem to have had Hebrew connections, and offered free education to Jews, and may have co-operated with the Jewish coup in 1917.
      Greek Orthodox Christians seem to have not co-operated with Jews. Nor did Russian, Bulgarian, Finnish and other orthodox Christians. All Jewish groups seems to have been hostile to local elites, UNLESS they penetrated them.
      Some Jews, in my revisionist opinion, pretended to be kicked out, a cover sob-story, in fact taking their loot to Poland via Jewish towns, in well-established routes, or by river, often leaving behind ruined opponents, or Jewesses with aristocrats, or quasi-professional medical doctors, or court advisors.

Jews went with William the Bastard to invade England. Jews pretended to be kicked out of Spain and Portugal, to go to Holland. Jews secretly married into aristocracies in Poland, Italy, Germany, France. Jews decided to collapse Poland so they could diffuse into eastern Europe. Jews ran African slave ships. Jews established Freemasonry as a secret society, and the new 'revolutionary' U.S.A. was taken over by them. Jews invented the 'French' Revolution, killing many French people. Napoleon invaded the Middle East, with his eyes on Palestine. Disraeli took over Egypt. Jews ruined China with the opium wars, and owned the 'British' fleet. Jews using British armed thugs took over ores in South Africa. In 1913, Jews set up the Federal Reserve, then arranged both world wars, in the process taking over Russia.

EMJ mentions the Medieval slogan, attributed to Pope Gregory, Sicut judaeis non which gave Jews special protection. EMJ says between the 5th and 15th centuries “Christians were forbidden to take interest on loans”—he doesn't mention the Jewish claim that their money built Cathedrals. He doesn't point out that Roman Catholicism worked with Jews to keep their monopoly. He doesn't point out that Jewish money centres were near cathedrals. He doesn't point out that strategically-positioned colonies of Jews were given special protection.
      EMJ goes into a flurry of evasion: a film (!) A Serious Man, of a rabbi, a representative of Talmudic hate speech, keeping Jews in their place. (Michael A. Hoffman agrees that rabbis are bitter enemies of ordinary Jews; and both Hoffman and Jones hope for conversion—on the face of it a forlorn hope, since it failed in Spain, and seems like expecting people who wrote works of fiction to wholeheartedly believe the works were genuine. Imagine J K Rowling being asked to sincerely believe in 'Potterism'). EMJ wants Jews “waking up to logos ... fullest acceptance to accept baptism and Jesus”. EMJ claims “Positivism says history is meaningless—the only candidate [for explaining history] is the conflict between Jesus Christ and the Jews.”

Note that Jews seem to have compiled Islam and its practices, in the process taking over Moorish Spain and Turkey—and the north-west frontier of India, unmentioned by Jones. Many people are puzzled by 'Converso' or 'Marrano' Jews, and such facts as Castro being a Jew, and there being Jew areas in the West Indies, but most of these puzzles vanish with understanding.

 
[There are still pictures in the video, for a short time each. These MAY NOT BE JONES'S CHOICE; so here's just one list of several:–
Fed Reserve | Guy de Rothschild | Bernie Madoff | Sheldon Adelson | Michael Milken | Jack Abramoff | Milton Friedman | Max Boot | Cass Sunstein | Time (or Life) with Greenspan et al | Bernanke | Soros | Stanley Fischer | Janet Yellen | Netanyahu]
 

• 11   In 1230 Nicholas Donin, a Jewish convert to Christianity, translated the Talmud, presumably into Latin, and pressed 35 charges against it—which seems rather few. The Pope was Gregory IX. The Church, says EMJ, had no knowledge of the written Talmud, ‘even though it had existed for 600 years’. This is not very credible; all the earliest Popes were Jews. The Talmud's contents (such as Jesus in Hell in boiling excrement, and Mary being a whore) were shocking, but EMJ says nothing about Talmudic orders to kill even the best goyim, or that non-Jews were cattle, which could mean selective quoting from the Talmud. Anyway; St Raymond of Penufort 'put this book on trial.' It was found guilty and burnt—at least in France—which of course would remove the evidence.
      EMJ says Thomas Aquinas was the result—an attempt to convert Jews. He seems to claim Thomism was aimed at Jews.
      I'd guess the whole thing was a controlled opposition operation, to save Jews.

• 12   Note on Determinism, Free Will, Prediction.   And on Destruction of Documents and History.   (Unphilosophical people may ignore the first. In fact, they'll have to!)
      Free Will seems to be a mistake. But an understandable one; given that every atom and molecule and wave produces a well-defined next step outcome, there are so many that they defy human interpretation—though huge aggregations, such as planets, are predictable enough. Most people think free will ought to imply human understanding of what will happen.
      Both Jews and Catholics have similar attitudes to rivals; both like to erase them. So-called pagans and heathens wrote defences of their beliefs, but Christians, as soon as they were powerful, destroyed these works forever. Jews have the same attitude, destroying towns, people, women, children, animals, and documentary evidence of their activities. Very likely these attitudes come from the same source.

Note on culturewars.com
I have to say I found this site depressingly feeble. We have extracts from the paper version: Jones reviewing a series of violent Jew videos or movies or whatever, with Al Pacino earning his crust and apparently taken seriously. Jones doesn't seem to have any idea about WW2 and Jewish lies, though he's absolutely right about Jewish methods. There's a piece on Ireland, which among other things pretends Jew-funded Sinn Fein is a 'left' party. We have a look at a supposed 'visitation by the Mother of God' in Medjugorje, which looks like a skilful money-making scheme. There's a piece on Catholics and Jews relying entirely, so far as I could be bothered to peruse it, on 'scripture' and Papal announcements (in English translation) which have done so much to make the USA a sad and vicious braindead cultural desert. But I suppose they know their market.
• 13   E Michael Jones states Christianity pre-dated Talmudic Judaism. It wasn't clear to me what EMJ thought of claims by modern and early Jews about Babylon and Egypt. It's not very clear who is counted as 'Jews'—many people think 'Jews' now must have a 'Jew' mother, because it's what they say, ignoring genetic facts.
      Jones gives the story of the Roman Empire, the Masada holdout and defeat, and another 'revolutionary', Simon bar Kochba who holed up in Jerusalem, permitted by Vespasian to start a school. Obviously Christians would like to claim priority; but Hiburim pre-history, as thugs descending on the plains, and as supposed priests or shepherds, suggests real or faked pre-Christian longevity. There has of course been endless debate, forgery, and destruction on the subject. EMJ is sure that Jesus was first, and that he existed. EMJ seems to have no view on the Phoenician idea, that the Mediterranean allowed for shipping of heavy loads, which assisted sailing, oar technology and navigation, permitting trade and wealth, things which were impossible to other areas.
      “"What is a Jew?”   Jones: “Jewish people are an organised entity, whose constitution is the Talmud, which is anti-logos. Jewish leaders keep the Jewish people captive.”   This seems to be taken from La Civiltà Cattolica on the Jewish question. Teasingly, this appears to be (or have been) a Jesuit publication—i.e. possibly a Jewish operation. (Why not see e.g. Miles Mathis on Jesuits?)

• 14   E Michael Jones on Economic Accumulation.   Jones says Rome was based on usury; it was "capitalism before there was capitalism". "All the wealth of English aristocrats [presumably Normans] was stolen—centuries of stored labor and acquired wealth... land enclosure... sheep ..." This in my view is hopelessly vague, vaguely like Marx.
      Protestants "Appropriated surplus value from labour—Jews lent surplus to labourers". It was "like the US in 1970s with credit cards to give the illusion of having money." "Christianity arose to fill the gap left by the Roman empire ... Christianity understood the value of labor ... you owed your lord labor, or the produce of your labor ... all that wealth stolen by Henry VIII..."
      I don't think Jones's comments are anything like precise enough. But perhaps they can be arranged in a more accurately-defined way. There is a place for generalisations; it's obvious that modern techniques are far more productive than ancient techniques, and also obvious that they may be far more destructive, and offer far more scope for effort in many directions. It seems likely that attack is stronger than defence. More precision may lead to insights at present being missed.

• 15   RE-EXAMINING JEWISH EXPULSIONS. — I suggest 'expulsions' are an ex post facto justification for two types of event:–
      (1) When Jews leave more or less in secret, to escape with loot or having achieved some Jewish purpose. Expulsions between 1100 and 1600 'to Poland', the Paradisus Judaeorum may illustrate.
      (2) As an excuse to move to a newly-selected territory. I suspect the abolition of the Venetian Republic gave a reason for Jews to move to the Spanish Netherlands. The expulsion by Isabella may in fact have really been to move Jews. Supposed expulsion by Hitler was used to move Jews to Palestine.

• 16  Jews and Drugs and Alcohol   seem to form a perennial Jewish pattern. EMJ says "something like 18 rum distilleries in Boston were owned by Jews." EMJ states that Jews were licensed as alcohol producers in Poland. Jews seem to have dominated illegal booze production during the USA Prohibition Era—in fact I'd guess they were behind the push against alcohol. Seagrams is very likely in the same tradition. Even Rothschilds vineyards may be part of this. Jews lent money to Ukrainian farmers; if they couldn't repay Jews owned the grain harvest, and converted it to alcohol. If the truth about the Holodomor ever comes out, however, I'd expect this to be based on the causing of famine—judging by Jews in Africa, famine is another favourite trick.
      The Opium Wars form another aspect of Jews and drugs. So do the Sacklers and the opium-derived 'Oxycontin'.

• 17   Jews and Aristocrats.   For my taste, Miles Mathis has made refreshingly new examinations, including intentional targeting of aristocrats by Jews, suggestions usually starting in Poland, of Jewish crypto-aristocrats such as the Jagiellons, and even Russian aristocracies, suggesting the 'Russian' Revolution partly involved the Yiddish-speaking Tsar.

• 18   Jews and Wars.   Both Jews and Catholics have a similar attitude to wars: they like them if they can make money from them. Jones says nothing about the incredibly destructive Thirty Years' War. Discussing wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants, he casually talks of some territories being taken back. I've noticed this with regard to the US invasion of Vietnam; the French had left a wobbly Roman Catholic caste, and Roman Catholics were happy with any amount of destruction. This sort of thing, 'corruption', of course helped propel the Reformation, though, equally of course, events did not follow the ideologues' expressed wishes.
      Jones said little about Jewish funding of two or more sides; I'll look for that reviewing his book Jewish Supremacy. Ditto with people who takes sides in wars without the slightest grasp of the issues, such as people asking "Did we win the war in Vietnam?"  I hope Jones will go some way to clarifying these issues for ordinary Americans.

• 19   The Reformation and After.   EMJ has a long list of Roman Catholic claims, rather reminiscent of Jews' victim pleadings and lies. He says the papacy at the Renaissance (naming Alexander VI) was indeed deep in ‘carnal riches’, but it was reformed through mendicant orders! He says Luther helped the European aristocracy (singular) to steal church property. He thinks this 'began the rise of capitalism, which is state sponsored usury'.
      EMJ is fixated on 'usury'; I hope he can learn a more general view of finance. He regards Henry VIII as a 'man of appetites' without stating whether the then-recent Popes were worse or better. He doesn't like the Elizabethan Age, since Catholics were hanged, drawn, and quartered. He doesn't express any surprise that Protestants hung on to the reverence for rabbi Yeshua, the dead male 'Jew'. He doesn't like Francis Drake stealing huge amounts of money from the Spaniards, but has no comment on the Spaniards looting south America.
      Jews and Shipping   is an issue perhaps derived ultimately from shipping and trade and slave labour in the Mediterranean, expanded after 1500 into the Atlantic, and the rest of the world. The starting-point was the Netherlands—"the delta of the Rhine"—and"20,000 European ships, 15,000 Dutch." The Dutch East Indies followed, then British East Indies. And Cromwell and the 1651 Navigation Acts. EMJ relates economic theories to Jews, which must be correct, even if suppressed: mercantilists, physiocrats, Heinrich Pesch (1854-1926), a Jesuit (EMJ doesn't seem to have checked to see if they were Jews!), up to Milton Friedman and newly invented 'Nobel' prizes for Jews to avoid serious economics. Flags of convenience, and shipping lines seem largely Jewish; Hilaire Belloc remarked on the Jew Balin in Germany.
      EMJ doesn't (I think) clearly distinguish between types of colonisation. Some look more permanent than others, though Jews don't seem to think so. Barbados, Jamaica, St Thomas; slaves, sugar, rum; and the first masonic lodge in Newport Rhode Island—and a synagogue. Jews 'chased out of Portugal and Spain'—see my doubts on the accuracy of this claim; maybe it was an excuse to move— were stockholders in the Dutch West Indian Company, and Jews in Brazil dealt in slaves, including warehousing, auctioning, provisioning. Sephardic Jewish names—Lopez, Nunez, Castro, Ferrero—have not been recognised by Americans, and have led to acceptance of extraordinary rubbish, for example about Cuba.

• 20   Jews and north America.   EMJ borrows from Kevin MacDonald: Freud, the Institute for Social Research ('Frankfurt School'), Boasian anthropology, ethnic warfare, cultural subversion, The Authoritarian Personality (1950. Copyright the American Jewish Committee). EMJ, at least in that film, said nothing about the huge advantage of having unlimited money, and handing out 'advanced degrees' to unqualified Jews, before, during, and after WW2 (the 'GI bill'), a technique now extended to third worlders. EMJ also mentions porn. And the 'Russian Revolution'
      EMJ mentions Congress giving 29 standing ovations to Netanyahu—"told by AIPAC if they don't do it they'll get no money."
      And the 'Russian Revolution', with long list of 'Bolshevik' Jews. And the coup of 9/11 and the 'Project for the New American Century' (PNAC), with the Jew Wesley Clark saying things which may be true, or not. And a convoy flying a white flag bombed. And a list of Rothschild-owned central banks.

But there are very worrying omissions, as there are in MacDonald. EMJ is unscientific and has no conception of the harm that race-mixing can do. He doesn't know much about even gross science frauds, as per NASA and coronavirus and nukes. He said nothing in the film on the holohoax or the world wars. Possibly these things are insuperable in E Michael Jones, a huge dam of silt deposited presumably in childhood by Roman Catholicism.

But he did say: “We cant pretend any more. Those days are over.”   I'll review his book on Jewish supremacy soon.

RW 26 April 2020

List of Links | Top of Page

 

hoffman-judaism-strange-gods   Review of Michael Hoffman   Judaism's Strange Gods   (2011; revised 2017. Published by Independent History and Research, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho)


The title is taken from an English version of Exodus 20:2-3. I am Yahweh your God who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no strange gods before me. The book therefore examines gods, presumably from Judaism, given preference over ‘Yahweh’.

 
And here we have a problem, as Michael Hoffman is convinced not only that ‘Jesus Christ’ once existed, but also that he was fathered by ‘God’—presumably ‘Yahweh’. Hoffman is also convinced that Christianity's principles and doctrines make up some sort of complete prescription for life, the ‘true Church’.

 
But 'Judaics' are fixated on writings which don't accept the priority of Jesus Christ. This is (one assumes) why Hoffman spent many years over Johan Eisenmenger and McCaul and learning to read ancient scripts—but it's not clear to me how, or if, the meanings of their words are definitely known—and carrying out careful processes of exegesis. If the texts have survived accurately, and if they are the words of some superior being, all well and good; if not, they are human products, aimed at persuasion, bias, control, information, and resulting from human psychology of learning processes. Hoffman claims, and his claim appears true, to have burrowed deeply enough to guarantee the accuracy of his quotations. He pleads that readers who oppose him 'do so on solid ground, disputing our facts, details and data.'

 
Another problem is that the Old Testament has a great deal of vicious material (the Torah is the first five books of the O.T., in the usual meaning at least) and it's not clear to me that the Talmud has much additional stuff, apart from relatively chronologically new material, padding, amplified unpleasantness, Rabbinical hair-splitting and confusion. I suspect Catholics of all types shy away from the absurdly non-Christian O.T. because of this. So, a few but not many, tackle the Talmud

 
      '... God grant you the grace to understand that it is the rabbis who are the world's most flagrant and virulent Jew-haters.'

I'm afraid his book is somewhat amateurish in its layout, with paste-ups, a great deal of centred text in place of the usual left-justified text, little in the way of helpful emphasis, and no running chapter headings. To find a chapter, you have to look up the starting page number in the contents—for example, p 62 starts his list of 'Principal Sources of the Divine Law of ... Orthodox Judaism', of which there appear to be about twenty, arranged chronologically in five eras. It's somewhat pathless and confusing—though this is unlikely to be entirely his fault. His introduction is a rather dismaying assemblage of extracts whose significance is unclear.
      It occurs to me, in fact, that Hoffman has considerable experience with both modern and ancient books, and with booklets and online material; maybe the dismaying layout is intentional? Perhaps Jews who want to kill people with the temerity to read their stuff are put off by lack of clarity? Who knows.

Here are the Contents: Author's Preface / Caveat (omitted from the Contents table) / Introductions, including to the General, Judaic, and Christian / Principal Sources of the Divine Law of Judaism / Judaism's Attack on the Prophets and Patriarchs / Judaism's Bible Code Nullifies the Word of God / Loopholes and Escape clauses / Lying / Bribery / Contents of the Babylonian Talmud / Warrant for the Murder of Gentiles / Groundwork for Talmudic Courts / Anti-Black Racism / Christians in the Talmud [which includes the duping delight Maimonides 'Guide of the Perplexed']/ Judaism and Reincarnation / Star of Bohemia, Not David / Judaism and Menstruation / Judaism and Abortion / Calendar and Holy Days / Yom Kippur and the Kol Nidrei Nullification of Vows / Birkat HaMinim: The Curse on Christians / Child Molestation and Homosexuality / Priestcraft in the Synagogue / Glossary & Index.
      The glossary (c. 130 words and short phrases, are Anglicized, presumably from Hebrew. I don't know if the words are transliterated in French, German, and other European languages. Thus ‘Ladino The language of the Iberian Sephardim’. The glossary in many cases needs expansion: for example, ‘Kohen: Priest’ presumably includes only 'Judaics', but what about grades? And who says some person is a 'Kohen'?
      ‘Mamzer: Bastard’ has similar problems of definition. Hoffman's longest glossary entries give explanatory detail: Khazars and Yichus; movements and schisms; details of compilations; legalisms. The longest entry is Shiksa. There is no entry for 'gentile'.
      The Glossary doesn't mention important details outlined in the rest of the text, for example the Eruv [wired area considered Jewish, by Jews], the Hanukkah hoax, Kol Nidre, 'Noahide Laws', and Purim.
      The 8-page index has subsections on BIBLE, GENTILES, JUDAISM, RABBIS, and TALMUD. Almost all these entries are anti-Gentile or pro-Judaic. For some reason, ‘God's word’ is not indexed. Nor is ‘pagan’. Unfortunately, complicated references are only give a string of page numbers; does Hoffman really expect readers to look at twenty or so entries on 'nullification of its [the Bible's] laws and words'?

The Caveat forewarns readers that   there is a 'death penalty for critics of Judaism who study the Talmud.' Very few non-Jews know this, and Jews are careful to avoid the topic.   Hoffman quotes a number of rabbis (I'm not sure he, or anyone, states just exactly who counts as a Rabbi—there seem to be large numbers of them). It's not clear to me whether reading such non-Jewish authors as Hoffman counts as 'study of the Talmud'. I expect an exponent of pilpul might argue that it doesn't; after all, endless apologetics for Judaics would never have been considered liable for death.

I'm not particularly attracted by Hoffman's presentation. But he makes an extremely important point: bookshop shelves groan under the weight of books against Islam (and, he refrains from pointing out, books against Christianity, and pro-vulgarised and wrong religion) but books giving facts on Judaism are all but non-existent. For that reason, his book (and the longer version from which this is condensed) may be the only book of its type that you will ever see. And it could be censored soon enough. So I have to recommend it on grounds of importance; hence my star rating, which is not a very honest assessment compared with similar, but non-existent, books.

Unfortunately, modern features emerging from Judaic woodwork aren't historically important enough for Hoffman. The word 'shiksa', more or less calling all non-Jew women whores, isn't explored much by Hoffman, though it must have had effects—Leo Frank, and 'Jack the Ripper' come to mind. The implausible matrilineal inheritance belief isn't (I believe) dated. The invention or co-option of such groups as Freemasons and Common Purpose, and structures such as Supreme Courts and company law, aren't looked into; neither are the fanatical groups which emerge from time to time.

Let me outline some disparate topics here, so far as I've found them.

I think I detect a distinctive feature in some passages, of Judaics pleading for money. The writers are generally what might be called scholarly types, whose brains react to texts placed before them, and who respond to repeated applications of similar material. Destroyers of other people's libraries, interested solely in topics they have been accustomed to, anxious that women with money will selectively marry them, wanting their flocks to be timid and scared, concerned that their expertises, however thin, should be valued. Perhaps the Jewish century will crumble as the real value of their absurd rubbish is perceived.

Hoffman takes many of his premisses from Christianity. One of them is love. His Introduction to Judaics assures them he loves them. And hopes to find a Judaic wanting to convert, with co-operative work in mind. Does he love Jews who mass murdered Russian Orthodox priests, for example? Well, who knows. But he is clear on 'Nazis' (National Socialists) who he abominates. So the love seems unevenly distributed. Hoffman's reasons for disliking 'Nazis' seems to be their 'racism'—his word, which seems truly odd, since it is a Jewish neologism not even 100 years old. It's also one of his reasons for disliking 'Jews': '... Judaic souls enslaved to racial nationalism ... an absurdity when it is applied to a conglomerate of disparate people and races today classed generically and falsely under the heading of “Jew”'. We also have a chapter-and-a-bit on 'Anti-Black Racism'. Jewish or Judaic (or Pharisaic?) writings express dislike for blacks, but Hoffman doesn't seem to realise they had more contact with them than the white Europeans later persecuted to convert to Christianity. Maybe they knew what they were talking about, and felt a difference which Christianity had no need to know of. Hoffman writes on abortion and other aspects of Jewish tampering with bodies; he takes what seems to most whites a common-sense view of approximate equality taken from times in which societies were more homogeneous, versus the Rabbinical view that only Jews count. The chapter Christians in the Talmud is Hoffman's longest.

Judaic obsessions with toilets, menstruation, non-Jew women as whores, child molestation make rather disgusting material for Hoffman's pen. The chicken twirling thing is amusing and suggests a hypnotic inbred tendency to do whatever the victim is told when young.

I have to say there is some unrevisionist information from modern times. Hoffman's treatment of false flags, the 'Holocaust', First and Second World Wars, US war crimes suppression, for example seem over-conventional to me and not in the spirit of revisionism.

Hoffman looks at the calendar, the six-pointed star, but not (I think) the number system, defects in which may help explain absurdities such as the '6 million' repetitions, the 600 cubit penis, etc. It's striking how unoriginal the Judaic mind seems to be: the calendar, star, number system, alphabet, hanukkah through to Bernstein, Boas, Einstein, Freud, are impressive more by their failings than achievements.
      Hoffman devoted many pages to halachic observance, and menstruating Judaic women, who are niddah—goyim women, if that's the right word, are always 'niddah'. Parents of disabled or retarded children, it seems, blame this rubbish above genetics.
      On 'The Hebrew Calendar' (pp 330-337) we have two diagrams, showing 12 months with of 30 days and 29. This of course falls short of a year, and a system of leap months at 2 or 3 years intervals makes some sort of correction, apparently repeating every 19 years. What happens to the remaining quarter of a day isn't explained. Annoyingly, Hoffman explains that the Judaics to some extent plan by their calendar. A table of significant dates—such as Tisha b'Av—for the next (say) forty years, to watch for Judaic crimes, wars etc, might have been handy. Hoffman divides the past into pagan times and then times illuminated by the transcendent splendours and wonders of Christianity. This weakens his writings—he seems to think achievements of Babylonians and others were evil, damaging, or negligible. Hoffman underrates the importance of observations and calendars. All this is perhaps typical of human parasitism: let others do the work. Then we may deign to mimic it.
      Six pointed star. Page 291 has a scan of a 'medieval rabbinic text of magic spells and incantations', showing simple small circles linked with lines. Bequeathed, says Hoffman, in the 14th century by Charles IV of Bohemia'. Taken from a 1991 edition of a book by 'Rabbi Gunther Plaut'. (Hoffman does not provide a bibliography; references are in the text).
      Hoax of Hannukah (pp 344-345). Rather disappointingly (I'd expected this to have an identifiable date of fakery) Hoffman is concerned with interpretations, such as a sign of God's continuing adoration of the Jewish people!
      Purim. The 14th of Adar beginning the evening before. Religious customs 'include a host of primitive revenge motifs'. Including George W Bush launching an invasion of Iraq on Purim, March 19, 2003.

Notre Dame picNotre Dame commentNotre Dame denial
First Facebook comment describes a Jewish technique: warn people, and take indifference as proof Jews can go ahead, in this case burn Notre Dame.
  The second comment states the image was not genuine, which of course is hard to check without trawling through Simpsons cartoons. It shows why sources are helpful.
  Something urgently needed is a concordance of Jewish techniques of deception, derived from, but not spelt out, in the Talmud.
    People of Hoffman's mentality seem to assume that 'sacred' books are reliable indicators of activity. But it's obvious enough that the activities of Christians often, or usually, haven't and don't follow their bookish ideas. And no doubt the same is true of the Talmud.
What's missing is a sense of Judaic techniques to parasitise and damage. Hoffman's topics are like descriptions of bones and organs, but do not explain how they work together. (Hoffman's admired Scottish predecessor, Alexander McCaul, has the same approach, in my view unhelpful in decoding 'Judaic' behaviour). Judging by Hoffman's textual evidence, these people could never have achieved anything: they would have died out through wasting time on pointless debates about unimportant subjects, and through lack of science, and inbreeding, and opposition. Kevin MacDonald, and Solzhenitsyn, go some way to supplying greater completeness, but the basis of laws, rents, money, control of countries, control of daily lives, secret language groups remains unexplored.
      Here's an example of what's missing. Someone online wrote that Jews usually or always support, in their secretive, covert, way, the weaker party of two. There are therefore several issues: (1) When do they decide to start such a scheme? (2) Is the summary an accurate statement of what they do? (3) Is it in fact 'Talmudic', since there must have been some limit to additions to the Talmud. (4) What are the results of such policies in practice?

Other conspicuous omissions include Jewish destructiveness, commemorated in their real or claimed complete destruction of enemies' buildings, animals, and men—but not female sex slaves. In practice, Jews have destroyed large chunks of Russia, China, central/eastern Europe, and central and South America—which had civilisations which had developed in isolation for the longest time, and which Roman Catholics and other proxies for Jews destroyed on a huge scale. Notre Dame's destruction points the same way. Another example is the British Empire, which in 1900 had more shipping than the rest of the world, now almost erased from historical memory. The spoliation of Vietnam and its people is another example. The ancient world is still a target: the Ziggurats in Iraq having been mostly demolished.

Much of this seems to be a pre-literacy attitude. Jews seem to assume that survivors or observers or rediscoverers of atrocities can simply be forgotten.

I expect Hoffman's work to take its place with other modern critical types, such as Kevin MacDonald, who do not go as far as they should. And the CODOH people systematically dismantling the Holohoax fraud. But it's nowhere near as useful as it might have been.

RW 2018-01-16 | Enlarged 2018-12-23 & 2019-04-20

 


Disappointingly, Hoffman is unable to face examination of facts about Jews and the so-called Holocaust, and Jews and 20th-century wars. This 'affirmation' is copied from his website in December 2020, but was certainly there a long time previously.
rerevisionist | October 19, 2018
Nobody here (I think; checked quite carefully) has considered the idea that WW2 was orchestrated by Jews. The British (saturated with the Jewish BBC radio, the Jewish press (both the Times and down to the Daily Mirror), the Jewish-based Church of (((England))) etc had been primed to be anti-German. The Germans, whatever Hitler lovers think, were saturated with Jew media including the 'Social Democrats', so-called Nazis, German churches etc and ideas of 'perfidious Albion' etc. The fact is Jews controlled the USA, the USSR, the UK, and no doubt France, Turkey, China—and Germany. Jews unfortunately had a worldwide overview and could direct propaganda wherever they wanted, in different versions for different countries. Jewish motivation was as per the Talmud aimed to kill as many 'enemies' as they could. Hitler was not a single agent acting on his own any more than Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin et al. Jews arranged Japan to fight Russia; then China. The whole thing was Jew money and propaganda vs a bunch of peoples in disarray—as we still are. I’ve made notes in big-lies.org/how-master-race-won-ww2/ which is incomplete, but imho needs at least to be understood and debated. Hitler knew what he was doing and so did his financiers and backers and writers.

Note added 20 Oct 2018: In an online commentary on Hitler, Hoffman includes this: ... it is difficult to believe that Hitler was so steeped in the occult that he was more of a practicing magician than a statesman or military prodigy. ...

I don't know if Hoffman will read this; if so, I'd advise him to prepare himself by first relaxing in a comfortable chair, drinking something comforting and non-alcoholic, bracing himself, and reminding himself of good experiences in his past life. Now, please take a deep breath, and read on. The comment I must make is (wait for it; calm yourself; open your mind to a safe and secure extent)—wait for it: Mr Hoffman, there is no such thing as magic! Shocking, I know. Terrifying. Horrifying. Hitler more of a 'practicing magician'? Ridiculous and saddening stuff from Hoffman.


26 Nov 2018. Searching for Jewish practical algorithms to explain the state of world. Michael Hoffman's replies convince me his interest in Judaics begins and ends with religion.

 
Dear Michael Hoffman II -----
'Talmud' treated as a rule book - what can be inferred?
I'd like some help from a non-Judaic scholar of the Talmud. The question I have is: how does the Talmudic book of rules explain activities of Judaics through the ages? The point being to try to identify patterns which have repeated in the past, and which presumably may reappear in future. And to try to decode whether events are consistent with Judaic authorship. This of course is difficult--it may be difficult to reliably identify Judaics, and it may be difficult to find reliable evidence--for example, events of 9/11, start of the 'Great War', how the 'Fed' really works.

You give 18 Talmudic quotations in a video, about half being about deaths of 'Goyim', plus the reasons (mostly I think the 'animal nature'), and material on lies, oaths, and sex. But there are more complex instructions, or recommendations, of this type (apologies for the non-technical accounts):
      'Goyim' should be warned of future acts by Jews, in coded form, so they can't claim not to have been warned
      Jews should act as separate groups if they attack separate groups of Goy(s). I.e. one fraud somewhere should be regarded as the business of only one group of Jews. E.g. Japan and Russia finances to be considered separately from Britain and Germany
      Priests are to be paid by their underlings/congregation/whatever for specifically laid-down activities; I believe getting the best cuts of 'burnt offerings', fees for checking a body is in fact dead
      Maternal descent, although in defiance of genetics, rules out males Jewish descent with 'Goyim'
      Kol nidre is a way to bypass even the most solemn oaths, once a year
      Usury seems to include complete ruin of a defaulter, e.g. not just selling an asset of 'Goyim' but seizing the entire assets, even if far greater than the loan
      Judaics seem to go for people at the top of hierarchies. And this seems to include support for pretenders where feasible; perhaps agitating for nations, so one national leader might replace many local leaders of smaller geographical areas
      Supporting two rival sides financially, while ensuring both loans are honored, is recommended
      Identifying splits and rivalries is part of their policy.
      Their skill in lying and deception might be genetically descended. It seems very common in them

I've given a lot of possible examples, wondering whether a process of deduction from the Talmud (or other writings) allows such things to be predicted as likely activities for Judaics. On the face of it, since life is short and intense logical study is not for everyone, activities to be followed by all would appear to be fairly simple. For example, Barbara Spectre and many others like her need a fairly simple logical chain to come out with their non-forward-thinking repetitive aphorisms.
If you've read this far, I hope you can see what I'm trying to deduce/infer from the Talmud(s). Surely some historical dots can be connected. And I'd hope some opposition devised.
Rae West


revisionisthistory.org has many articles by Michael Hoffman. One is www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/page12/page12.html “The Complete Guide to Killing Non-Jews” a review of a 2009 newspaper piece on a book Torat ha-Melekh, of which the ‘principal anti-goyimite author is Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira.’
      Hoffman seems innocent of mathematical logic. The book mentioned seems to be a collection of large numbers of extracts from the, or a, Talmud, I think with interleaved material written in modern Hebrew. It appears to be on such lines as: If the probability of a non-Jew harming a Jew (to some specified extent) exceeds the probability that non-Jewish reaction will cause equal harm, then the non-Jew may be killed. It's an amusing idea that the 'Torah' could be represented by Venn diagrams. I suppose military action operates on the same sort of lines: Christian attitudes to war, in practice, must have some such formulation. The Jewish idea is simply that it's at war with all other communities.
List of Links | Top of Page

 

Hoffman Secret Societies   Review of Michael Hoffman   Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare
First published 1989. Privately Published in the USA. This review of 116-page, 1992 edition. I have not looked at subsequent editions).


Naive and Uncritical Reaction to Monopoly Media Control in the USA. Pre-Internet, and Entirely Unrevisionary.
If I'm reading his bibliography correctly, Hoffman wrote on the Holohoax under the influence of Zündel trials in the 1980s, but only discovered Jewish writings around 2000 and after (Judaism's Strange Gods (2000), The Israeli Holocaust against the Palestinians (2002) with Moshe Lieberman, The Traditions of the Jews (2006) with Johann Andreas Eisenmenger and J.P. Stekelin, Judaism Discovered (2008), and Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not (2012).

 
Jan Lamprecht videoed and wrote on 'Jew Shock', his term for odd behaviours of whites, aware something was wrong in the world, but not—despite his misdirected phrase—knowing much about Jews, or linking the state of the world with them. Jan wrote (for example) on the supposed hollow earth. I suspect, but don't know, that Hoffman is a similar type, starting from US Roman Catholicism and US 'news' media. This early book (Hoffman was about 35) suggests a similar development occurred in Hoffman: this is a rather ridiculous book, very low on evidence, and of course pre-Internet, which, with mnemonic helpfulness, may be dated at 2000 AD.

 
We have short (3- or 4-page) chapters, with titles of the type used by Marshall McLuhan, which are all the more irritating as there's no index—Nature or Gnosis? Divine Creation and its Counterfeit | Church Fathers Who didn't do Tricks with Mirrors | Ceremonial Psychodrama | Mystical Toponomy | Episodic Reveltaion and the Lone Nut Syndrome | The Alchemy of Ritual Murder | Rosemary's Babies. Unfortunately, Hoffman tends to (let's be kind) redefine words which most people never use: epistemology, gnosis, hoodwink. He doesn't seem to see that, in ages before modern chemistry, 'alchemy' made sense, since nobody knew anything better.

 
He shows no insight or scepticism about: 'AIDS', climate change, ozone layer, 'Wicca', hypnotism, astrology, the Garden of Eden, TV violence, war crimes, Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Freemasons, John Lennon, 'Jack the Ripper', eye movements, moon landings, nuclear fission and fusion, supposed mass murders in the US (none of them black), Untermyer, JFK supposed murder. He seems to believe 'golems' were, or are, actually made. And he seems to think US TV is freighted with meanings, and is more than just garbage deliberately inserted by Jews to lie to 'goyim'.
      I have to say the advent of Internet must, on average, have raised the average level of ordinary people, although this may be a controversial view. At the time Michael Hoffman wrote this book, I knew AIDS was a phoney, but not NASA or nukes. I knew about many evils of war, but not that they were sourced by Jews. The lesson of this book is that understanding 'cryptocracies' needs care, and that more evidence is around us than before, so there's less need to flail about helplessly. I hope Michael A Hoffman grows out of the Roman Catholic deceptions which have helped ensnare him. Readers of the latest edition of this book (2000, I think) should be able to tell me; has he explained 9/11 by now, for example?

RW 2018-04-02

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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

 
** This review was banned by Amazon 1 Feb 2015! **


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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

Hilaire Belloc: Economics for Helen

Note on the title: Belloc saw the huge sales of H G Wells's Outline of History and I presume must have thought that economics was a subject of great interest. Time for a book aimed at simple readers. And the money would roll in.

The main surprise I felt was that Belloc uses all the phrases of Victorian economics without originality, whereas Wells peppered his book with ideas. Belloc talks of land, labour, and capital. And of rent and interest. Like the official economists, he has nothing much on raw materials, wars, ownership, coining of money, hierarchies. Therefore the book has little to offer people happy with traditional economics; and it has little to offer people who want new approaches or fruitful rewordings.

The only novelty, as would be expected, is Belloc's Roman Catholic slant. He gives a definition of 'Usury': Usury is the taking of any interest whatever upon an unproductive loan. He distinguishes this from interest, and seems to assume interest must be fixed and defined in time; he doesn't see that there could be other styles of repayment.

I found with my desktop searcher that the whole of my website has noting at all on the 'just price'. There are problems with this, of course. But the point here is there might have been a 'just interest' or 'just repayment terms', but I don't think there were, though a close reading of Papal Bulls would yield something.

But an important point is the symbiosis between Jews and the Church, unsurprising since the Church was an outgrowth of Judaics. The Church condemned certain loans, and forced people into the grasping arms of Jews. Something more-or-less analogous applies to Islam, a later outgrowth from Jews.

RW   November 2023

List of Links | Top of Page

 
Big-lies home page

Characters of the Reformation
by  Hilaire Belloc

Review by Raeto West   15 March 2024

CHARACTERS OF THE REFORMATION

Published by Sheed & Ward, established as publishers of Roman Catholic works, in Paternoster Row, London EC4. My copy is a 3rd edition, dated 1937; the first edition was 1936. As usual there's no information on print runs. Traditionally printed—342 pages, text only, thick paper, unindexed.

'Nature of the Reformation' is a 25 page introduction, on the disastrous implications of the Religious Revolution and the possibility that Europe may be destroyed. Belloc seems to prefer victory of one side or the other, to a draw or stalemate. He notes that the German Empire, ruled from Vienna, enjoyed peace compared with otther places, from which he selects Scotland, Ireland, and France. It's a puzzle to me that he barely mentions the Thirty Years War, except as preceding the Treaty of Westphalia. He prefers complete wipe-outs, such as 'the success of our civilization against the Albigenses'.

Belloc has 23 character sketches. Belloc gives no special place to Luther, Zwingli, Calvin; or to 'Shakespeare' or Cervantes. Only his selection of central characters, and with no examination of movements or groups. These seem more-or-less identical across 'historians': a 2007-2008 BBC series of the Tudors has the same content.

CONTENTS:
NATURE OF THE REFORMATION
KING HENRY VIII
CATHERINE OF ARAGON
ANNE BOLEYN
THOMAS CROMWELL
SAINT THOMAS MORE
POPE CLEMENT THE SEVENTH
THOMAS CRANMER
STEPHEN GARDINER
MARY TUDOR
QUEEN ELIZABETH
MARY STUART
WILLIAM CECIL
HENRY IV OF FRANCE
JAMES I OF ENGLAND
FERDINAND II
GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS
RICHELIEU
LAUD
OLIVER CROMWELL
RENÉ DESCARTES
BLAISE PASCAL
WILLIAM OF ORANGE
LOUIS XIV

There's some fascination Belloc's mentality. He seems to have no doubts about immortality of the soul, while skipping difficult facts such as the effects of age at death. He seems to have no doubt about Papal infallibility, despite obvious difficulties. He sees no problems with a God created in man's image, despite obvious difficulties. He is entirely happy with the division of people into low, medium, and high birth. He is entirely happy with God ordering that thou shalt not kill, and yet 'just war' being accepted by most men.
      One obviously missing facet of human life is the prolonged infancy, about which Belloc says nothing. 'Revealed truth' would appear to be what was told with emphasis just after infants learn language.

But the major omission here is the almost complete failure to mention Jews, despite their overwhelming importance in shaping the narratives, from Messiahs and Angels to Apostles and Jesus Christ, to the more recent events of Hitler and Stalin to paper money and 'democracy'.

Belloc starts from about 1500. This time was roughly the start of the discovery of the New World by whites, an important event clearly shaping the shift from the Med to ocean sea power, the rise of Britain, population shift, and world trade of varying levels of violence. But Belloc only considers Europe and its old bosses.
      Belloc is keen on wealthy men. This is before fully-developed stocks & shares & exchanges, and before detailed published accounts. In effect, though he is never clear, 'wealth' means landowning and a cut in its produce, and was liable to dramatic rises and falls. The resulting accounts have an open-mouthed gasping effect plus the impression of endless riches, which conveyed emotion but cannot have been accurate.
      Belloc's social history has learned to talk of 'culture': Roman Catholic and Protestant 'cultures' vie in his writing in a mostly undefined way, though he thinks 'capitalism' is Protestant—a convenient way to sidestep Jewish Kahal and banking money-grabbing.
      It's saddening to find Belloc had no awareness of such things as Jesuits as a Jewish foundation or Roman Catholic-Jewish secret co-operation. There is some trace of evidence-based scepticism; he wonders if Cranmer was burnt, for example, since Foxe is 'quite unreliable'. But shows little awareness of possible poisoning of Henry VIII's children, and other such topics.
      His book The Jews was published about 15 years before ... The Reformation and yet Jews are almost unmentioned (I noticed a reference to 'rich men of the City of London' or something similar. And in the world of the time, Jews had carried out massacres of vast bloodiness, and money manipulations of vast fraudulence. My guess is that Sheed & Ward hampered Belloc, or were hampered themselves, resulting in extreme censorship. This book is what Belloc might have written in 1895 for his history degree. Maybe it was; perhaps it was a hack work written for money.

I had thought of quoting parts of Belloc's book, but since it can be read online I've decided not to take the trouble. But the impact of half-digested ideas on an impressionable mind is saddening.

Raeto West   15 March 2024

 

 

List of Links | Top of Page

 

Hilaire Belloc on Islam

Notes by Rae West   9 July 2021

'Wikipedia' has a big collection, from I think Belloc enthusiasts, here. I don't think it can be complete; French writings and Free Press writings may well be missing. Belloc's book on the opening part of the 'Great War' is missing.
     A very odd book by Belloc, published by Chatto & Windus, is The Mercy of Allah (1922), in 14 chapters, which may be a reconstruction of Mohammad's life, or may be a translation from some unnamed source.
      I've just found a 1914 review by Belloc in a Dublin journal, of J B Bury's History of Freedom of Thought which I wrongly thought I'd reviewed somewhere. Belloc is long and shows Belloc in full flight—laborious statements saying little, rather piffling date and time criticisms without his own sources, interesting and passionate, but stating finally not much on freedom of thought. Maybe this sort of thing was the best he could do. Sigh.
      Belloc's Characters of the Reformation, first published by Sheed and Ward in 1936, has 23 short biographies plus an introductory essay explaining what the 'Reformation', or revolt, was, in his Catholic terms. Two essays are entitled Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange; they don't mention Jews (nor does the entire book, or Islam for that matter). Belloc's writing style rests on character sketches, with no source references of any sort. His dynastic material talks of people, but not assets.



Belloc's first book on Islam (as far as I know) as a heresy from Catholicism was published in 1929.

Survivals and New Arrivals. It was published by Sheed and Ward, founded in 1926. I have a copy—somewhere—a paperback, with a paper wrapper, I think as advertisements; Belloc's book could not have been their first book. It seems likely to me that Sheed and Ward must have borrowed, and that contractual details somewhere prohibited them from any deep discussions on Jews.
      Survivals and New Arrivals—which, by the way, uses the phrase 'The Two Cultures', though not very meaningfully—has but one mention of Jews: If you had hazarded such guesses, even as little as fifty years ago, as (i) that by 1929 the United States would be under prohibition [of alcohol], (ii) that women would be sitting in the English House of Commons, (iii) that Russia would be organised as an experiment in Communism under a clique of Jews, the suggestions would have sounded mad.

Belloc's book is based on the belief that the Catholic Church has uniquely been attacked for 1,900 years 'from every conceivable point'. He counts some of these attacks as 'heresies'. Others aren't based on detailed beliefs—Belloc believed in such things as Jesus' blood really being present at Masses—but such things as scientific scepticism, and 'neo-Paganism'.

Belloc regards Islam as heretical, 'a direct derivative from the Catholic Church', but doesn't state how common this belief is or was. He may just mean that some of the ideas were in common, and the Jewish-origin hypothesis explains that, in fact far better. (My best guess is that both Christianity and Islam are rooted in Judaism). Belloc classifies it as a 'new arrival', which of course looks odd. He devotes about ten pages of his book to Islam.

An odd aspect of Belloc's view is its remoteness from such earthly things as money and weaponry and horses and hired thugs and spies. He says nothing about Mohammed's large-scale rapes, or about mass-murders in India by Islam. These things are almost entirely censored, very successfully (Arthur Kemp's books know nothing of northwest India, for example). Belloc claim that Arabs in north Africa had been savagely taxed and were relieved when Roman exactions were removed—the Jewish hypothesis explains all this completely satisfactorily as a result of Jews switching from support of Rome to inventing and using Islam, including support in Spain by 'opening the gates' to Islamic savagery. And the Jewish hypothesis explains the switch to north-west Europe well: better trans-Atlantic communications, better timber ships, higher IQ people phrased in the language of the time.



Belloc's other main book on Islam is The Great Heresies (1938; I can't identify the publisher(s)). I have not found a good online version. Archive.org doesn't have it; nor does the Gutenberg site. There are some pdf and html versions, often rather skimpy. I haven't been able to even find out the publisher(s) name(s).
      Interestingly, Belloc gives his definition of 'heresy', which is a disrupting claim which harms some closed system of thought. He seems to abandon the idea that Catholicism should be Catholic, with its answer to everything. I think he was challenged to produce a definition.

Anyway, Chapter III The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed must be Belloc's main statement on Islam. Unfortunately, Belloc's style is at its worst. Perhaps he was space-filling; all his life he had to write for money. There are endless accounts, omitting the blood and logistics, of battles, each with a value-judgment attached: unexpected blow, overwhelming power, very high civilization, maintained its power, vigorously survived. Perhaps he was backing both sides, never being completely wrong. He seems to be impractical and never gives numerical or factual information. One has to wonder whether Belloc is worth reading when at his vaguest. Even such a thing as 'high civilization' is vague; does he just mean gold, silver, and gems?
      Please note that the anti-Catholic writer, Joseph McCabe, admired Islam. His book The Splendour of Moorish Spain was published in 1935, by Watts & Co, who were Jewish promoters essentially. His book is a history from the degradation of Rome to modern Spain. Islamic times in Spain are highly praised, and such things as the Inquisition condemned; I think this book had some influence with pro-Jew factions, though less with English Protestants. McCabe was known to Belloc, who was aware of McCabe's dislike of Catholicism. At any rate, McCabe must have worried Belloc to some extent. Incidentally, McCabe was about as little inclined to attribute power to Jews as Belloc was.
      I'll try to deal with his case, but bearing in mind the Jewish question too.


My Conclusion—based on evidence including more than just this chapter—is that a theory of Roman Catholicism inserted itself into Belloc's mind, like irremovable shrapnel; he seem to have never freed himself from it sufficiently to even reconsider. It's touching to read of his concerns for the future—one feels he might have spent some of his concerns on the survival of Roman Catholicism itself. His comments on Islam show a rather saddening lack of real history, as opposed to the Jew version, of silly stories and dangerous self-obsession. He is Eurocentric; nothing on China or India; almost nothing on the Americas. He was interesting as a voluble representative of Roman Catholicism; this must be something like what most Catholics believed. But of course official historians in England have been equally feeble. It is truly astounding how little attention has been paid to worldwide Jewry, which has controlled for years the way Islam was allowed to spread.
      Belloc seems to have hated 'Communism', the Jew ideology for non-Jews, because 'Communism', by holding all land in common—in practice of course, by Jews—the safeguarding of small property, which is the opposite of Socialism—meant no land for the Catholic Church, which had been given lands and took over lands; Belloc is vague on how Catholicism started to collect lands. He says somewhere that Church landholdings—which grew to a high proportion of lands in may countries—safeguarded small property, though he was not clear on the details, since Jews often spotted people in trouble and focused on them to take all their assets. I suppose he took the side of small Catholic believers who managed to hold on to land. But Belloc never gave serious details. Jewish propaganda easily outpaced Catholic propaganda. Belloc hated 'industrial capitalism' without ever saying what it is; he never commented on 'rural capitalism'.

What follows is from Chapter III. The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed. I've edited it down, selecting from the long chapter what seem the most relevant parts, though of course you may have made different choices. Belloc's attempt to build up from a philosophical basis, itself in my view full of errors, resists accurate description; and he avoids all mention of Jews as a belligerent power. Belloc's intention seems to be to prove Islam might well become a resurgent menace. All my extracts are verbatim and in sequence, and in red; the few notes [in square brackets] are my attempts to explain details:

... before following that story we must grasp the two fundamental things—first, the nature of Mohammedanism; second, the essential cause of its sudden and, as it were, miraculous success over so many thousands of miles of territory and so many millions of human beings.

Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. [Belloc never mentions the word 'Allah' and leaves it uncertain as to whether this was another, different, God, in his view]

... he advanced a clear affirmation, full and complete, against the whole doctrine of an incarnate God. He taught that Our Lord ['Jesus'] was the greatest of all the prophets, but still only a prophet: a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity altogether.

With that denial of the Incarnation went the whole sacramental structure. He refused to know anything of the Eucharist, with its Real Presence; he stopped the sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore the institution of a special priesthood. In other words, he, like so many other lesser heresiarchs, founded his heresy on simplification.

Now, why did this new, simple, energetic heresy have its sudden overwhelming success?

One answer is that it won battles. It won them at once, as we shall see when we come to the history of the thing. [Belloc doesn't ask why Catholicism took many centuries to convert Europe; something like 1,000 Years] But winning battles could not have made Islam permanent or even strong had there not been a state of affairs awaiting some such message and ready to accept it.

There was weariness and discontent with theological debate, which, for all its intensity, had grown out of touch with the masses. There lay upon the freemen, already tortured with debt, a heavy burden of imperial [presumably Roman Empire, part of which was Greek-speaking] taxation; and there was the irritant of existing central government interfering with men’s lives; there was the tyranny of the lawyers and their charges.

To all this Islam came as a vast relief and a solution of strain. The slave who admitted that Mohammed was the prophet of God and that the new teaching had, therefore, divine authority, ceased to be a slave. The slave who adopted Islam was henceforward free. The debtor who “accepted” was rid of his debts. Usury was forbidden. [This of course is supposed to belong to Catholicism, but may well just be a way to give Jews a monopoly in money-lending. Another borrowing may be child sex, though Belloc doesn't mention this bequest from Jews.] The small farmer was relieved not only of his debts but of his crushing taxation. Above all, justice could be had without buying it from lawyers.

That is the main fact which accounts for the sudden spread of Islam after its first armed victory over the armies rather than the people of the Greek-speaking Eastern Empire. But this alone would not account for two other equally striking triumphs. The first was the power the new heresy showed of absorbing the Asiatic people of the Near East, Mesopotamia and the mountain land between it and India. The second was the wealth and the splendour of the Caliphate (that is, of the central Mohammedan monarchy) in the generations coming immediately after the first sweep of victory.

Now when Islam came with its first furious victorious cavalry charges springing from the desert, it powerfully reinforced this tendency of Asia to reassert itself. The uniformity of temper which is the mark of Asiatic society, responded at once to this new idea of one very simple, personal form of government, sanctified by religion, and ruling with a power theoretically absolute from one centre. The Caliphate once established at Baghdad, Baghdad became just what Babylon had been; the central capital of one vast society...

But even more remarkable than the flooding of all near Asia with Mohammedanism in one lifetime was the wealth and splendour and culture of the new Islamic Empire. Islam was in those early centuries (most of the seventh, all the eighth and ninth), the highest material civilization of our occidental world.

One might sum up and say that the contrast between the Mohammedan world of those early centuries and the Christian world which it threatened to overwhelm was like the contrast between a modern industrialized state and a backward, half-developed state next door to it:

Yet when the second dynasty which presided for so long over Islam, the Abbasides, with their capital further east at Baghdad, on the Euphrates, restored the old Mesopotamian domination over Syria, ruling also Egypt and all the Mohammedan world, that splendour and science, material power and wealth of which I spoke, arose and dazzled all contemporaries, and we must ask the question again: why was this?

The answer lies in the very nature of the Mohammedan conquest. It did not, as has been so frequently repeated, destroy at once what it came across; it did not exterminate all those who would not accept Islam. [Its 'great days' didn't last many centuries; ruin and decay set in] It was just the other way. It was remarkable among all the powers which have ruled these lands throughout history for what has wrongly been called its “tolerance.” The Mohammedan temper was not tolerant. It was, on the contrary, fanatical and bloodthirsty. It felt no respect for, nor even curiosity about, those from whom it differed. It was absurdly vain of itself, regarding with contempt the high Christian culture about it. It still so regards it even today.

But the conquerors, and those whom they converted and attached to themselves from the native populations, were still too few to govern by force. And (what is more important) they had no idea of organization. They were always slipshod and haphazard. Therefore a very large majority of the conquered remained in their old habits of life and of religion.

What ever was not Mohammedan in the immense Mohammedan Empire—that is, much the most of its population—was subject to a special tribute; and it was this tribute which furnished directly, without loss from the intricacies of bureaucracy, the wealth of the central power: the revenue of the Caliph.

First they rise with great violence and become fashionable; they do so by insisting on some one of the great Catholic doctrines in an exaggerated fashion; and because the great Catholic doctrines combined form the only full and satisfactory philosophy known to mankind, each doctrine is bound to have its special appeal. [Material on Arianism and Calvinism, omitted. Note though that 'predestination' sounds very like the 'Chosen People' idea]

After this first phase of the great heresies, when they are in their initial vigour and spread like a flame from man to man, there comes a second phase of decline, lasting, apparently (according to some obscure law), through about five or six generations: say a couple of hundred years or a little more.

Then comes the third phase, when each heresy wholly disappears as a bit of doctrine: no one believes the doctrine any more or only such a tiny fraction remain believers that they no longer count. But the social and moral factors of the heresy remain and may be of powerful effect for generations more.

Now in the case of Islam none of all this happened except the first phase.

And there is another point in connection with this power of Islam. Islam is apparently unconvertible.

The missionary efforts made by great Catholic orders which have been occupied in trying to turn Mohammedans into Christians for nearly 400 years have everywhere wholly failed.

Now what is the explanation of all this? Why should Islam alone of all the great heresies show such continued vitality?

These men ['highly educated European gentlemen' who converted to Islam] always give the same answer—Islam is indestructible because it is founded on simplicity and justice. It has kept those Christian doctrines which are evidently true and which appeal to the common sense of millions, while getting rid of priestcraft, mysteries, sacraments, and all the rest of it. It proclaims and practices human equality. It loves justice and forbids usury. It produces a society in which men are happier and feel their own dignity more than in any other. That is its strength and that is why it still converts people and endures and will perhaps return to power in the near future.

Now I do not think that explanation to be the true one. All heresy talks in those terms. Every heresy will tell you that it has purified the corruptions of Christian doctrines and in general done nothing but good to mankind, satisfied the human soul, and so on. Yet every one of them except Mohammedanism has faded out. Why?

Islam has differed from all the other heresies in two main points which must be carefully noticed:
(1) It did not rise within the Church, that is, within the frontiers of our civilization. Its heresiarch was not a man originally Catholic who led away Catholic followers by his novel doctrine as did Arius or Calvin. He was an outsider born a pagan, living among pagans, and never baptized.

(2) This body of Islam attacking Christendom from beyond its frontiers and not breaking it up from within, happened to be continually recruited with fighting material of the strongest kind and drafted in from the pagan outer darkness.

Not long after the first conquest of Syria and Egypt it looked as though the enthusiastic new heresy, in spite of its dazzling sudden triumph, would fail. The continuity in leadership broke down. So did the political unity of the whole scheme. The original capital of the movement was Damascus and at first Mohammedanism was a Syrian thing (and, by extension, an Egyptian thing); but after quite a short time a break-up was apparent. A new dynasty began ruling from Mesopotamia and no longer from Syria. The Western Districts, that is North Africa and Spain (after the conquest of Spain), formed a separate political government under a separate obedience. But the caliphs at Baghdad began to support themselves by a bodyguard of hired fighters who were Mongols from the steppes of Asia.

In spite of the advantage of being fed by continual recruitment, the pressure of Mohammedanism upon Christendom might have failed after all, had one supreme attempt to relieve that pressure upon the Christian West succeeded. That supreme attempt was made in the middle of the whole business (A.D. 1095-1200) and is called in history “The Crusades.” Catholic Christendom succeeded in recapturing Spain; it nearly succeeded in pushing back Mohammedanism from Syria, in saving the Christian civilization of Asia, and in cutting off the Asiatic Mohammedan from the African. Had it done so perhaps Mohammedanism would have died.

But the Crusades failed. Their failure is the major tragedy in the history of our struggle against Islam, that is, against Asia—against the East. What the Crusades were, and why and how they failed I shall now describe. [I'm very tempted to delete Belloc's long, long account, which ended in failure. But it meant a lot to Belloc.]

But while Mohammedanism was spreading, absorbing greater and greater numbers into its own body; out of the subject Christian populations of East and North Africa, occupying more and more territory, a defensive reaction against it had begun. Islam gradually absorbed North Africa and crossed over into Spain; less than a century after those first victories in Syria it even pushed across the Pyrenees, right into France. Luckily it was defeated in battle halfway between Tours and Poitiers in the north centre of the country.

We of the West had been besieged in three ways; pagan Asiatics had come upon us in the very heart of the Germanies; pagan pirates of the most cruel and disgusting sort had swarmed over the Northern Seas and nearly wiped out Christian civilization in England and hurt it also in Northern France; and with all that there had been this pressure of Mohammedanism coming from the South and South-east—a much more civilized pressure than that of the Asiatics or Scandinavian pirates but still a menace, under which our Christian civilization came near to disappearing.

Then came the great reaction and the awakening of Europe. [Belloc calls it 'a great reaction', but he states that it failed!]

The chivalry which poured out of Gaul into Spain and the native Spanish knights forcing back the Mohammedans began the affair. The Scandinavian pirates and the raiders from Asia had been defeated two generations before. Pilgrimages to Jerusalem, distant, expensive and perilous, but continuous throughout the Dark Ages, were now especially imperilled through a new Mongol wave of Mohammedan soldiers establishing themselves over the East and especially in Palestine; and the cry arose that the Holy Places, the True Cross (which was preserved in Jerusalem) and the remaining Christian communities of Syria and Palestine, and above all the Holy Sepulchre—the site of the Resurrection, the main object of every pilgrimage—ought to be saved from the usurping hands of Islam. Enthusiastic men preached the duty of marching eastward and rescuing the Holy Land; the reigning Pope, Urban, put himself at the head of the movement in a famous sermon delivered in France to vast crowds, who cried out: “God wills it.”

The First Crusade was launched in three great bodies of more or less organized Christian soldiery, who set out to march from Western Europe to the Holy Land. ... In order not to exhaust the provisions of the countries through which they had to march the Christian leaders went in three bodies, one from Northern France, going down the valley of the Danube; another from Southern France, going across Italy; and a third of Frenchmen who had recently acquired dominion in Southern Italy and who crossed the Adriatic directly, making for Constantinople through the Balkans. They all joined at Constantinople ...

The Emperor at Constantinople was still free, at the head of his great Christian capital, but he was dangerously menaced by the fighting Mohammedan Turks who were only just over the water in Asia Minor ... another Crusading leader made himself feudal lord... [Some military material omitted. Partly because these events have been subjected to such disputation that even simple statements are probably wrong. Think of the lies about World War 2 as an analogy]

... they ... stormed the city [Jerusalem] on the 15th of July of that year [1099], killing all the Mohammedan garrison and establishing themselves firmly within the walls of the Holy City. They then organized their capture into a feudal kingdom, making one of their number [Godfrey of Bouillon] titular King of the new realm of Jerusalem. ...

... a string of towns ... These “ports of the desert” have always been rendered very important by commerce ... towns thus stretched along the edge of the desert begins from Aleppo in the north down as far as Petra, south of the Dead Sea. They were united by the great caravan route which reaches to North Arabia ... The Kings of France and England set out with great armies to re-establish the Crusading position, and this time they went for the strategic key of the whole country—Damascus. But they failed to take it ... Salah-ed-Din—whom we call Saladin—... acquired all power over the Mohammedan world of the Near East. ... The Christian Army was approaching Tiberias and had got as far as the sloping mountain-side of Hattin, about a day’s march away, when it was attacked by Saladin and destroyed... in the summer of 1187, was followed by the collapse of nearly the whole Christian military colony in Syria and the Holy Land. Saladin took town after town, save one or two points on the sea coast which were to remain in Christian hands more than another lifetime. But the kingdom of Jerusalem, the feudal Christian realm which had recovered and held the Holy Places, was gone. ... All the great leaders, the King of England, Richard Plantagenet, the King of France and the Emperor, commanding jointly a large and first-rate army mainly German in recruitment, set out to recover what had been lost. But they failed. ...

Thus ended a series of three mighty duels between Christendom and Islam. Islam had won.

[Now for 'what might have been'] Had the Crusaders’ remaining force at the end of the first Crusading march been a little more numerous, had they taken Damascus and the string of towns on the fringe of the desert, the whole history of the world would have been changed. ... As it was Mohammedanism not only survived but grew stronger. It was indeed slowly thrust out of Spain and the eastern islands of the Mediterranean, but it maintained its hold on the whole of North Africa, Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, and thence it went forward and conquered the Balkans and Greece, overran Hungary and twice threatened to overrun Germany and reach France again from the East, putting an end to our civilization. One of the reasons that the breakdown of Christendom at the Reformation took place was the fact that Mohammedan pressure against the German Emperor gave the German Princes and towns the opportunity to rebel and start Protestant Churches in their dominions. [If Belloc is correct, and Islamic shipping was powerful in the eastern Mediterranean but kept out of the west, this must have affected shipowners, presumably in favour of Western European ships, and perhaps explaining the shift by Jews to northwest Europe, the City of London, and the future British (or 'British') Empire.]

Many expeditions followed against the Turk in one form or another; they were called Crusades, and the idea continued until the very end of the Middle Ages. But there was no recovery of Syria and no thrusting back of the Moslem.

Meanwhile the first Crusading march had brought so many new experiences to Western Europe that culture had developed very rapidly and produced the magnificent architecture and the high philosophy and social structure of the Middle Ages. [The opposite view is that Islam simply stole and copied and took over, like Judaism. Parkinson's East and West, 25 years later, takes the view that it was destructive, but also added to European culture] ... At last came the storm of the Reformation; Christendom broke up, the various nations and Princes claimed to be independent of any common control such as the moral position of the Papacy had insured, and we slid down that slope which was to end at last in the wholesale massacre of modern war—which may prove the destruction of our civilization. Napoleon Bonaparte very well said: Every war in Europe is really a civil war. It is profoundly true. Christian Europe is and should be by nature one; but it has forgotten its nature in forgetting its religion.

 

The last subject of all in this connection, the one which I will treat next, is the very important and almost neglected question of whether Mohammedan power may not re-arise in the modern world.

While this beating back of the Mohammedan into Africa was going on to the Western side of Europe, exactly the opposite was happening on the eastern side. After the Crusades had failed Mohammedans made themselves secure in Asia Minor and began that long hammering at Constantinople which finally succeeded.

The fall of Constantinople at the end of the Middle Ages (1453) was only the beginning of further Mohammedan advances. Islam swept all over the Balkans; it took all the Eastern Mediterranean islands, Crete and Rhodes and the rest; it completely occupied Greece; it began pushing up the Danube valley and northwards into the great plains; it destroyed the ancient kingdom of Hungary in the fatal battle of Mohacs and at last, in the first third of the sixteenth century, just at the moment when the storm of the Reformation had broken out Islam threatened Europe close at hand, bringing pressure upon the heart of the Empire, at Vienna.

It is not generally appreciated how the success of Luther’s religious revolution against Catholicism in Germany was due to the way in which Mohammedan pressure from the East was paralysing the central authority of the German Emperors. They had to compromise with the leaders of the religious revolution and try to patch up a sort of awkward peace between the irreconcilable claims of Catholic authority and Protestant religious theory in order to meet the enemy at their gates; the enemy which had already overthrown Hungary and might well overthrow all of Southern Germany and perhaps reach the Rhine. If Islam had succeeded in doing this during the chaos of violent civil dissension among the Germans, due to the launching of the Reformation, our civilization would have been as effectively destroyed as it would have been if the first rush of the Mohammedans through Spain had not been checked and beaten back eight centuries earlier in the middle of France. [Note that Jewish influences affected Europe and Islam. Belloc seems unable to note this unrecognised power bloc, perhaps because it was distributed. Turkey and Arabia for example both were secretly run by Jews.].

A huge Mohammedan armada fought at the mouth of the Gulf of Corinth against the Christian fleet at Lepanto. The Christians won that naval action and the Western Mediterranean was saved. But it was a very close thing, and the name of Lepanto should remain in the minds of all men with a sense of history as one of the half dozen great names in the history of the Christian world. It has been a worthy theme for the finest battle poem of our time, “The Ballad of Lepanto,” by the late Mr. Gilbert Chesterton.

Today we are accustomed to think of the Mohammedan world as something backward and stagnant, in all material affairs at least. We cannot imagine a great Mohammedan fleet made up of modern ironclads and submarines, or a great modern Mohammedan army fully equipped with modern artillery, flying power and the rest. But not so very long ago, less than a hundred years before the Declaration of Independence, the Mohammedan Government centred at Constantinople had better artillery and better army equipment of every kind than had we Christians in the West. The last effort they made to destroy Christendom was contemporary with the end of the reign of Charles II in England and of his brother James and of the usurper William III. It failed during the last years of the seventeenth century, only just over two hundred years ago. Vienna, as we saw, was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history—September 11, 1683. But the peril remained, Islam was still immensely powerful within a few marches of Austria and it was not until the great victory of Prince Eugene at Zenta in 1697 and the capture of Belgrade that the tide really turned—and by that time we were at the end of the seventeenth century.

When that vast revolution in human affairs introduced by the invention of modern machinery began in England and spread slowly throughout Europe, the Mohammedan world proved itself quite incapable of taking advantage thereof. During the Napoleonic wars, although supported by England, Islam failed entirely to meet the French armies of Egypt; its last effort resulted in complete defeat (the land battle of the Nile).

All during the nineteenth century the process continued. As a result, Mohammedan North Africa was gradually subjected to European control; the last independent piece to go being Morocco. Egypt fell under the control of England. Long before that Greece had been liberated, and the Balkan States. Half a lifetime ago it was taken for granted everywhere that the last remnants of Mohammedan power in Europe would disappear. England bolstered it up and did save Constantinople from being taken by the Russians in 1877-78, but it seemed only a question of a few years before the Turks would be wiped out for good. Everyone was waiting for the end of Islam, on this side of the Bosphorus at least; while in Syria, Asia Minor and Mesopotamia it was losing all political and military vigour. After the Great War, what was left of Mohammedan power, even in hither Asia, was only saved by the violent quarrels between the Allies.

 

To what was due this collapse? I have never seen an answer to that question. There was no moral disintegration from within, there was no intellectual breakdown; you will find the Egyptian or Syrian student today, if you talk to him on any philosophical or scientific subject which he has studied, to be the equal of any European. If Islam has no physical science now applied to any of its problems, in arms and communications, it has apparently ceased to be part of our world and fallen definitely below it. Of every dozen Mohammedans in the world today, eleven are actually or virtually subjects of an Occidental power. It would seem, I repeat, as though the great duel was now decided.

But can we be certain it is so decided? I doubt it very much. It has always seemed to me possible, and even probable, that there would be a resurrection of Islam and that our sons or our grandsons would see the renewal of that tremendous struggle between the Christian culture and what has been for more than a thousand years its greatest opponent.

Why this conviction should have arisen in the minds of certain observers and travellers, such as myself, I will now consider. It is indeed a vital question, “May not Islam arise again?” [Belloc follows with his usual vague assertions: that Mohammedanism has vitality; it lived by Catholic truths; it possessed a reservoir of men outside Europe; it declined 'in the particular business of arms'; the Grand Turk ceased to be a trouble; 'cultures spring from religions'; nothing in Mohammedanism makes it incapable of modern science and modern war; the 'fatalism' idea was believed even when it was at its height; Arabic 'individualism' is inherent in the Arabic temperament...]

After the Great War the Turkish power was suddenly restored by one such man. [Kemal Atatürk ?1880-1938. Belloc doesn't mention he was Jewish] Another such man in Arabia, with equal suddenness, affirmed himself and destroyed all the plans laid for the incorporation of that part of the Mohammedan world into the English sphere. Syria, which is the connecting link, the hinge and the pivot of the whole Mohammedan world, is, upon the map, and superficially, divided between an English and a French mandate; but the two Powers intrigue one against the other and are equally detested by their Mohammedan subjects, who are only kept down precariously by force. There has been bloodshed under the French mandate more than once and it will be renewed; while under the English mandate the forcing of an alien Jewish colony upon Palestine has raised the animosity of the native Arab population to white heat. Meanwhile a ubiquitous underground Bolshevist propaganda is working throughout Syria and North Africa continually, against the domination of Europeans over the original Mohammedan population.

Lastly there is this further point to which attention should be paid:—the attachment (such as it is) of the Mohammedan world in India to English rule is founded mainly upon the gulf between the Mohammedan and Hindu religions. [Pakistan was not invented until 1948]

It would seem as though the Great Heresies were granted an effect proportionate to the lateness of their appearance in the story of Christendom.

The English historians do not deny Milton’s materialism; quite recently several English writers on Milton have discoursed at length on his refusal of full Divinity to Our Lord. But this effort at suppression will break down, for one cannot ever hide a thing so important as Milton’s attack, not only on the Incarnation, but on the Creation, and on the Omnipotence of Almighty God.

But Mohammedanism coming as much later than Arianism as Arianism was later than the Apostles has left a profound effect on the political structure of Europe and upon language: even to some extent on science.

... the glory and unity of Byzantine rule disappeared for ever under the attacks of Islam. The Russian Tsardom, oddly enough, took over a maimed inheritance from Byzantium, but it was a very poor reflection of the old Greek splendour. The truth is that Islam permanently wounded the east of our civilization in such fashion the barbarism partly returned. On North Africa its effect was almost absolute and remains so to this day. Europe has been quite unable has been quite unable to reassert herself there. The great Greek tradition has utterly vanished from the Valley of the Nile and from the Delta, unless one calls Alexandria some sort of relic thereof, with its mainly European civilization, French and Italian, but beyond that right up to the Atlantic the old order failed apparently for ever. The French in taking over the administration of Barbary and planting therein a considerable body of their own colonists, of Spaniards, and of Italians, have left the main structure of North African society wholly Mohammedan; and there is no sign of its becoming anything else.


Musing over all this on Internet, I found an article in 'The Catholic Thing' for Sept 11, 2014. (I have no idea what official status this site had or has). 9/11, Belloc, and Islam by Fr. ('Father'?) C John McCloskey III discusses 'another sad anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks ... this conflict between the radicalized Muslim world and the Christian ... population.'r
      Pitiful nonsense which elides Jews from history. A permanent feature of Catholicism? Long-term symbiosis?
      I wonder who benefitted more: Jews evidently made fortunes, but not, until recently, spread over many people; it's entirely possible that the Catholic Church made more, spread over more people.
List of Links | Top of Page
 

 

Peter London, commenting in Much Worse than Rotherham: How British Politicians, Police and Feminists Are Guilty of Systemic Rapism. From The Occidental Observer, Nov 6 2020.

A Muslim well-versed in taqqiya will tell you their tradition permits a man a maximum of four wives at any one time. What they don’t tell you is that their tradition also permits men as many slave-girls as they wish: the Koranic expression for such girls is “those whom your right hands possess” (sura 4:3; 4:24; 23:6; 70:30, see also 33:50). The ‘Prophet’ himself had perhaps thirteen official wives at one time or another, but in addition he kept innumerable slave-girls taken in his wars. Even if the supposed limit of four were to be strictly observed it would still be the case that Nature doesn’t produce the sexes in a ratio of four-to-one. Such a system places immense pressure on the men at the bottom of society. How are they to be satisfied when the rich and powerful men have rounded up all the women? In such a world a steady supply of slave brides offers a vital chance – probably the only chance – to reduce internal violence, hence the vast slave trade conducted by Islam for nearly fourteen centuries without the slightest sign of a bad conscience. Non-Muslims soon learnt to associate their Muslim neighbours with armed raids in search of women. Even Muslims themselves became distrustful of fellow believers who claimed to be stronger in the faith. The inevitable kidnapping and fear of kidnapping soon led to the removal of women from most open-air activities. Polygamy has always been a recipe for turbulence, a reason why blood feuds are still a marked feature of Muslim societies. You can see why the Islamic ideal was one of perpetual foreign war to extend the frontiers of the ‘House of Peace’ and bring in more women captured from those who lived in the ‘House of War’.
      Surveying the record of Islam’s astonishing early expansion you should always remember – at the root of all that extraordinary aggression was polygamy. This primitive custom, with its accompanying traditions of early arranged marriage and the enforced seclusion of women, was thus an essential part of the Islamic war-machine. Polygamy has always been accompanied by slavery. That remains so to this day.


See below: Giles Milton on North Africa and one million white slaves. Peter London does not examine the way Jews likely invented Islam, and therefore to what extent Jews were liable for the process. -RW
At about the same time, Nov 2020: In the first-ever expulsion of a peer in the history of the House of Lords in the UK, Lord Nazir Ahmed has controversially announced his retirement only to Pakistani news outlets, keeping silent in the UK.
    As per a report in Insight UK, the House of Lords Conduct Committee has published a report on Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham, concluding that for the first time ever, a peer should be expelled.
    The report finds Ahmed to have breached the Code of Conduct for “failing to act on his personal honour” over sexual assault and exploitation.

But this is not as simple as it seems; look for the Jew supremacist stuff here—
He [Nazir Ahmed] was due to appear before the Labour [The (((British))) 'Labour Party' has always been Jew backed] National Executive Committee for his anti-Semitic remarks, but to pre-empt his expulsion from the party, he resigned from the party two days beforehand, Insight UK said.
    There is a history of other anti-Semitic incidents. In 2005, Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for neo-Nazi holocaust denier Israel Shamir, who frequently uses anti-Semitic language in his work.
    In 2009, Ahmed, along with several extremist ['Extremist' in Jew media speak, means critical of Jews] British Islamists, signed a letter praising the anti-Jewish Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan after he walked out of a debate with then Israel President Shimon Peres at the Davos Conference in Switzerland.
    In 2009, in an interview on Iranian Press TV, Ahmed said that British Jews who served in the Israeli army should be arrested and charged with war crimes, Insight UK reported. [Some of this from: https://ommcomnews.com/ ]

List of Links | Top of Page
 

 

Samuel M. Zwemer DD LLD: Studies in Popular Islam (1939).
Professor of History of Religion and Christian Missions (Emeritus), Princeton Theological Seminary
... Papers [from The Moslem World Quarterly dating from about 1914; funding not stated] dealing with the Superstitions and Beliefs of the Common People
Book dated 1939 (New York, Macmillan and and the Sheldon Press, London): 'Many have written regarding the rising tide of modernism in Moslem lands. This volume deals with the undertow, the reactionary current, continually dragging down the cultured pioneers to the level of pagan superstition. ..'

Slightly puzzling title for 1939. But it does seem to show Jews had future plans for Moslems before their Second World War, continuing a very long tradition. Probably Jews viewed Islam as one horse in their varied stable of Jewish puppet groups, including Christians of many denominations (including for example Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Quakers and Jesuits and Mormons. But not for example Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox Christians). Islam probably was set up intentionally with internal divisions. Plus other groups, of which Freemasons seem to be the front runners across the world.

I'll list the ten chapters with brief explanations from Zwemek, and if possible Jew-relevant interpretations. For example. 'pagans' may mean non-Christian 'goyim'. Or something.

  1. The Rosary in Islam
    Seems part of the 'daily prayer ritual'. The litanies are not all in the Koran. Anyway rosaries play some part. A subha. One is a string of 99 beads, with a marker after every 33. The 'Seven names of Allah' total 441,574 ejaculations.
  2. The Palladium of Islam
    Palladium (in classical antiquity), was a statue that protected Troy and later Rome. Or so 'Wikipedia' states. The Black Stone, a meteorite. Broken, held together by a silver band and nails etc. I wonder if there's a reliable description anywhere.
  3. The Sword of Mohammad and 'Ali
    Dispute which is common in Islam. And in Christianity and Judaism, one should in honesty add. 'Holy war is a duty ... on all male, free, adult Moslems, sane in mind and body and having means enough to reach the Moslem army...'
  4. The Clock, The Calendar, and the Koran
    The lunar year of 12 months is 354 days, says Zwemer. So roughly the days repeat 11 days earlier each year. (And Ramadhan, the burning month, which used to be in the hottest month, now moves round). Zwemer does not mention the Jewish calendar. Zwemer wrote this in the late 1930s; does it still apply?
  5. The Familiar Spirit or Qarina
    This is an opposite-sex 'devil, shaitan, or jinn', born at the same time as a person, a sort of official imaginary friend. No doubt there's a weird Jewish imaginary friend too. May be something from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
  6. Hair, Finger-nails, and the Hand
    This is about animism, as identified by (e.g.) James G Frazer's Golden Bough. The concept I hope is outmoded, since it doesn't separate religious and other motivations: fingernails, red berries, harvest festivals, dolls with pins, blood, white harts, executions, talking animals, all mixed like a Christmas pudding. Here, 'the use of the hand as an amulet, especially in lower Egypt' seems to be important. '... in Arabia, Egypt and North Africa everywhere this custom of stowing away clippings of hair and nails is still common among Moslems..' Zwemer says nothing about Samson.
  7. Translations of the Koran
    '... The Koran may not be sold to unbelievers... many a copy bears upon it a warning to Unbelievers not to touch. ... The Arabic Koran is today the one sacred text-nook in all Moslem schools in Turkey, Afghanistan, Java, Sumatra, Russia and China, as well as those lands where Arabic is the mother tongue. ... Yet to three-fourths of the Moslem world Arabic is a dead language; Islam spread even more rapidly than did the language of the Koran..' Note that Zwemer sys nothing about the Talmud and its death threats against 'goyim'.
          The general view of Moslems seems to be that the Koran is magically written and lucid. It's hard to judge; I wouldn't be surprised if it was in fact something along the lines of the Book of Mormon.
  8. The "Illiterate" Prophet
    Chapter trying to discuss whether Mohammed was literate. Zwemer leans towards "Yes", just as he assumes Moses as in the 'Old Testament' existed.
  9. The So-called "Hadith Qudsi"
    Seems to mean 'Hadith Collection', an assemblage of stories and short statements. Some statements are supposedly Mohommad; some by God (presumably 'Allah'). Zwemer says they are not distinguished from each other.
  10. The Worship of Adam by Angels
    Zwemer thinks 'angelology'—including belief in angels, jinn and demons—is based on 'numerous passages in the Koran, countless traditions, and endless superstitions in popular Islam.'
The impression conveyed by this book is not unlike that of the various types of official Christianity: endless disputes about the origin of their religion, except from tricky stuff as to whether Jesus or Mohammed and other key characters in fact existed, and the sources of their odd books, manuscripts, fragments, translations, epistles, debates, lectures, convocations... And of course Judaism at present, replete with lies and evasions and deception, and above all perhaps time-wasting.
      And the unsavoury side of things. For example, this book made no mention, I think, of Mohammed as a rapist, and his Jewish connections. And no mention of mass killings in northwest India.
      There is no mention of the money side of things, notably the permanent features of rent and ownership, which stamp power onto the large contingents of followers who must count as exploiters, or at least beneficiaries. No wonder the accounts of their riches are secret. And the rather empty disputes are a distraction—while the cats arrange the money, the verbal mice amuse themselves, icing on a secret cake hidden elsewhere.

Surprising comments emerge from odd corners. ‘Witchcraft, sorcery, spells and charms are the background of native Moslem psychology to an extent that is realized only by those who have penetrated most deeply into the life of the people. ... Not only does superstition prevail among the vast majority of the Moslems—with literature on magic, the universal sale of amulets, charms, talismans, magic-squares and the practice of geomancy—but in the very source-books of Islam, the Koran and the Traditions, these practices nearly always find their origin or their justification. ... Their doctrine of God includes the magical use of His [sic] names and attributes. The belief in revelation has degenerated into a bibliomancy and a bibliolatry more crass than that ever found in any other book-religion. ...
      In no monotheistic faith [Zwemer probably means Jew-derived] are magic and sorcery so firmly established as in Islam. This is one of the chief reasons for the spread of Islam in Central Africa and among the Malays of the Dutch Archipelago. ...'

RW 24 July 2019


List of Links | Top of Page
 

Freethinker

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

 
Established 1881. 'The Voice of Atheism' is in fact covert Jewish propaganda.
25 May 2014


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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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


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

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

 
[1] The index, mostly names, is bare—the word 'Zionism' for example is followed by about fifty page references, without any detail whatever. The readers is expected presumably to comb through all these in search of his/her interest. This can be infuriating when trying to track down members of the Inquisition, medieval writers on Jews, Roman Catholics, Jews rewriting history to suit themselves, and so on. However there is a bibliography of something approaching 1,000 titles, mostly by Jews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
[5] MacDonald is in my opinion a bit naive about Jews and science and invention. The whole Jewish mind-set as described by MacDonald isn't compatible with disinterested, slow, uncertain processes. Thus Einstein is widely accepted by now to have been a phony, though not by MacDonald. The same pattern is seen in biology, and nuclear physics which Sachs and the Oppenheimers took over in the 1930s. (I don't have the space to outline this here; look at nukelies.org - for example the forum on nuclear science). MacDonald's website, the Occidental Observer, even allows comments on the 'moon landings' being heroic white achievements!

 
    An important point is MacDonald's treatment of a poor male Talmudic 'scholar' marrying a rich merchant's son. MacDonald thinks this is unconsciously eugenic. I'd suggest that, if you consider a Jewish merchant engaged in the slave trade, or full usury involving seizing all the assets of a debtor, or funding weapons and 'opening the gates'—typically Jewish activities—a Talmudic 'scholar' would provide backup, slightly like a company lawyer. The word 'scholar' of course hides this obvious likelihood.
    I'd suggest MacDonald on 'eugenics' has made a subtle mistake (which is Jew-flattering). He means they have a breeding programme, aimed mainly to increase verbal intelligence and a sort of literary fanaticism. This is arguably analogous to special breeding. In the natural world, analogies include selecting strains of wheat with polyploidy, or hens to maximise egg production, or horses to run fast. Eugenics presumably ought to be concerned with removing genetic errors (which seem to be increased by special breeding) rather than looking for special characteristics.

 
    The alternative hypothesis, that corruption by money explains their success, and that the Jewish paper money monopoly is an essential part of that—and explains many wars—is unexplored by MacDonald. For example, any honest economics department could produce in a few days evidence that Jews dominate in fraud. This naivety extends to intimidation and violence by Jews—per head it's possible they were/are the most lethal group that ever lived.

 
All this sounds a bit negative—it's true that a decent index would enhance this book enormously, and MacDonald could have compiled it himself—it's not only Jews who dislike certain types of work! It's also true that MacDonald saw no reason to arrange his material helpfully, or use subheadings. (Possibly this is why he remained more-or-less untouched in his university: it's simply not very clear what he means). However this book is probably the best available, and repays careful reading. The evolutionary part—'cultural and genetic separation with resource and population competition'—looks technical and no doubt has a disguising effect. The general ideas aren't new—the Bible, Talmud, Julius Caesar etc contain them—and, if you find them off-putting, just ignore them, as MacDonald explains the implications anyway.

 
Recommended as a rather awkward reference book.


Added 17 Sept 2017: A recent Internet radio discussion, between MacDonald and Paul Stevenson, MacDonald stated that the problem of self-deception was dealt with in this book. He named Chapter 8 (which is 'Self-Deception as an Aspect of Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy') but said it was about 70 pages, presumably including the previous chapter 'Rationalization and Apologia: The Intellectual Construction of Judaism', including e.g. Trivers: .. the best deceivers are self-deceivers because they do not show any psychological tensions or feelings of ambivalence.
    (Added later: Trivers I think is, or thinks he is, a Jew; the self-deception examples he uses struck me as superficial—I'd advise readers to be sceptical of Trivers' supposed achievements. These generally are rather laughable examples of common Jewish behaviour put into supposedly academic English: 'reciprocal altruism' something like Jews doing each other favours, for example. Trivers was at Rutgers (as with Robin Fox ...); and wrote an intro to Dawkins's The Selfish Gene. He even joined the Black Panther party! Trivers' examples are jejune and don't begin to address serious issues—including of deception itself.)

 
MacDonald's discussion of self deception reminds me of mediocre philosophers attempting to discuss determinism, and of course concluding nothing. MacDonald has numerous accounts of Jewish lies and deceptions, but as far as I can see, doesn't handle the deep question of whether genuine self-deception is possible. But he acknowledges 'considerable interest' and cites R Alexander (The Biology of Moral Systems, Aldine, 1987), J O Beahrs (Ritual Deception: A window to the hidden determinants of human politics, about ten pages from Politics and the Life Sciences, 1996), and R Trivers Social Evolution, Menlo Park, 1985; and a chapter Deceit and self-deception: The relationship between communication and consciousness from Man and Beast Revisited, Edited Robinson & Tiger, Smithsonian Press, 1991). These few fragments don't suggest much interest, and no doubt the subject is censored by Jews.

 
Another issue is Christianity and Islam. Jews sometimes describe Christianity and Islam as 'daughter religions'. See how my book reviews, banned by Amazon, are of books which explain—or usually fail to explain—the connections. Certainly the unrelenting lies of Jews about the 'Holocaust' suggest that Jews in the past scripted and pushed both religions when new, with the aim of (i) taking over Greece and Rome, (ii) taking control of Arabs. Arabs are indexed; Islam is not. Torquemada is mentioned (a bit). Jesuits, Quakers, Freemasons, are unindexed.

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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


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

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

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

 
In the same way, US 1960s radicals were mainly Jewish—there was mass murder in Vietnam, organised by Kissinger, but this seems to have been regarded as unimportant—it was only the pro-Jewish radicalism that appealed to them. In Europe, there were big demonstrations in 1968, but censorship by Jewish media is so great very few people are even aware of US genocide. Fakes like 'Jack Straw' and Daniel Cohn-Bendit illustrate the type—they do nothing for or about Vietnam, and clearly care nothing about war crimes.

To see how Jews and American militarist fellow-travellers co-operate in censorship, read
Russell Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal (1967)
MacDonald does not face the facts of this sort of material, which weaken his case for whites being friendly and peace-loving—unless it can be shown white militarists are simple dupes of Jews.
MacDonald isn't good on 'feminism', which in the US also was largely Jewish and targeted against whites, families, and children. They were for example pro-abortion, pro-alien immigration, pro-race-mixing, pro-small (or no) families, pro-women working, pro-divorce, pro-divorce settlements excluding men, pro-homosexuality, pro-giving housing to aliens. MacDonald has no excuse for leaving these issues unanalysed.

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

 
MacDonald clearly identifies Jews—for example, Derrida, Hofstadter, Freud—which helps clear away a certain amount of fog. He clarifies why their writing style is often absurdly opaque—because of course they can't say what they really mean, or alternatively they are being boosted and hyped. But there are Jews who are under-mentioned; a good example is 'Horace Kallen', (1882-1974), described in Wikipedia's joke factory as 'a Jewish scholar and writer' but also as 'a Polish-born American philosopher who supported pluralism and Zionism' apparently from 1915. To this day, MacDonald's website has no list of presumably influential Jews such as Kallen.

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

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

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

 
The present volume has a preface which updates the book—this new preface mostly consists of journal reviews and disputes, summaries of books published on the topic since 1998, and some media stories including of course 9/11. The Muslim world, the Black Book of Communism, fanatics like Norman Podhoretz, an account of Charles Lindbergh—'greeted with a torrent of abuse and hatred unparalleled for a mainstream public figure in American history', long and detailed account of ownership of the movie industry and other media, and so on, including attempts to censor Internet. Someone called Joseph Bendersky's 2000 book The "Jewish Threat" provides an account of a new hostile elite, according to MacDonald; an elite with a ridiculous sense of unique superiority. Quite a lot of the introduction looks at the 'north Eurasian and circumpolar culture area' and its probable evolutionary effects.
      On Lindbergh, Miles Mathis published on Feb 23rd 2016 his account of Lindbergh's supposed life and achievements, which make it fairly certain that Lindbergh was controlled opposition, designed to black the horrid Nazzies in the eyes of ordinary America without any chance of legal challenge. In fact, this probably was part of the entire 'New Deal' fake ('Josh G', July 2017) distracting away from serious investigation of the 'Great Depression', which tradition MacDonald has in effect followed.

    The preface also has interesting material on Jews in the American media (long lists of names and corporations), censorship and Internet, and autobiographical material tracing his realisation that Jews are intentionally and seriously harming white interests, something that Barbara Lerner Specter in 2010 underlined spectacularly. MacDonald dislikes Jews in the media never announcing their affiliation to Judaism.

 
MacDonald applies in- and out-group strategies to the modern world. MacDonald is concerned about whites in the USA and Europe, and elsewhere, now, and has to face the problem of why whites seem so gullible. (Including MacDonald himself: following the Jewish mass media, he has no idea of prolonged and disgusting white brutality, and, because he doesn't know about it, does not try to disentangle the part played by those just obeying orders, and Jews behind atrocities and killings. This gives him an outdated feel. For example, in 2019, he clearly believes in the 'Cold War', not as a Jewish money-maker, and in NATO, not in its undercover assassination role, but as a stalwart defender).
      His comments on whites, evolved in areas with harsh winters, involve 'altruistic punishment', which are based in part on fairly simple experiments of the 'prisoner's dilemma' type, where situations are set up and people's reactions assessed.
    He writes 'This suggests the fascinating possibility that the key for a group intending to turn Europeans against themselves is to trigger their strong tendency to altruistic punishment by convincing them of the evil of their own people. Because Europeans are individualists at heart, they they readily rise up in moral anger against their own people once they are seen as free riders and therefore morally blameworthy ...' These sentences (page xxviii in my edition) are probably the key to MacDonald's message. Self-criticism is exploited by Jews, and has resulted in the present situation. This is well worth reading.
    Note that MacDonald does not explore the question of bribery or violence against 'out group members' although these are significant in Jewish activity. In Britain at present, Ken Livingstone and MPs, and UAF thugs, illustrate those types. MacDonald may seem naive to practical people whose activities have been harmed by Jews: they are more aware of Jewish misuse of legal and financial power, police activities, and systematicised lies. And he may seem even more naive to people whose experiences, for example of war crimes, prove that many whites are not remotely altruistic.
    Interpreting the bare facts of Jewish deception leads to the issue of self-deception: is it possible for persons to shrewdly weigh up their self-interest, but simultaneously deceive themselves? This seems unlikely to me; but intricate logical puzzles of the Russell paradox types on Jewish self-deception are hard to avoid.


A precursor to Kevin MacDonald is The Ordeal of Civility, by John Murray Cuddihy, subtitled Freud, Marx, Lévi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity, published in paperback in 1974. As with MacDonald, it's an explanation of Jewish behaviour, omitting Talmudic material. Cuddihy makes the valuable mnemonic point that 'Id' sounds very much like 'Yid'. To see what Freud meant by 'Id', just think of Yiddish behaviour.

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

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

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

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

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

 
A note on the title: I take it the title of The Culture of Critique is itself part of MacDonald's intellectual journey: Jewish activities have been vicious and aggressive, but MacDonald's title suggests something cultured, and something querulous. Probably the depth of Jewish destructiveness was not remotely understood by MacDonald when he wrote this book. But if he'd been more aware, I doubt such a book would have been published.


November, 2012. Here's a comment on www.theoccidentalobserver.net from Mary Thomas (may not be his/her actual name). It illustrates the effect MacDonald can have. She talks of the USA, but it could be any once-white country: France, Britain, Sweden, Canada, Germany, Australia, ... She follows some of MacDonald's omissions, notably war and war expenditure:

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

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


Added at the end of 2016, after Trump's US Presidential election victory: It must be expected and hoped that criticism will be turned against Jewish 'critics' of the types of Adorno, Horkheimer, and Benjamin. And that public understanding will modernize, deepen and expand.
    A good example is explanations of human racial differences, which of course have been censored by Jews whenever possible. It may be that long arctic nights influenced whites: once shelter and food are planned in advance, there must be some survival value in caution and waiting for warmer times: perhaps this is a reason why some men spend time on apparently pointless activities—woodcarving, playing croquet, studying horseraces, growing easily available plants, solitary piano playing—were hobbies of men I've met; and perhaps fashion, design, sewing are niches appealing to women. It's easy to see how research, laboratories, workshops, collections, libraries might develop from hobbies. And how a dependant employee mentality might develop. On the other hand, in countries near the equator—with dangers close at hand, and not even much need for shelter—long-term occupations such as animal taming, agriculture, writing, and invention of tools would not instinctively have much appeal. Nor would schooling.
    The Occidental Observer, MacDonald's online website, had a comment on blacks and sports, a hard-to-describe mental outlook, an immediacy 'grounded in the here and now', unconcerned with the future or anywhere else in the present, people for whom today really is 'the first day of the rest of your life'. Can such people develop technologies and lifestyles appropriate to themselves, while fending off aggressive parasites? It seems unlikely.
    I hope that the whole subject will expand, to include the distribution of abilities and emotions in entire populations—probably the balance between strong, nimble, patient, risk-taking, farsighted, trainable, aggressive etc types must itself be evolved. Specialised parasites find weak points in general populations, so this type of work is of great importance. US researchers might try to find explanations for differences between Aztecs, Incas, plains Indians, woods Indians, Haitians et al where this has been discouraged. Mixed races need to be studied. Genetic changes caused by new technologies are important, too; think of the effects of the invention of writing and reading, for example, and the effects of modern medicine.
    All countries with present or past exposure to Jews ought to compare detailed notes, which must certainly show common patterns—for example, the absurd Jewish 'same sex marriage' meme infected many countries at similar dates, and must have had a common source. The Freemason/ Common Purpose/ shabbos goy/ 'Useful Idiot'/ rented thug Jew-conspiratorial power structures need study.
    The Culture of Critique is rather narrow, mainly looking at a few books and university departments, and a few issues, notably immigration, in one country, the USA, in the 20th century. It isn't even very critical of so-called Jews: rage and exasperation are considered unscholarly emotions. And it has unrevised baggage: Americans, Brits and Germans bombing, shelling, drowning, shooting and starving each other doesn't sound much like white altruism. But the book is an important seed.
    But in my opinion, MacDonald is a bit dishonest in his self-defense: he does not discuss, or allow discussion, on the 'Holocaust', 9/11, and psyops for example (or nuclear and medical issues) because, he says, it's a morass and there's 'no evidence'. But he makes no clear statement that he's concerned almost entirely with Jew-forced mass population movements. This conflicts with the appearance of academic generality of his online and paper output. 'The Occidental Observer' sounds like a dispassionate survey of the entire 'western' world, which may be in the uniform style of US university junk, but is not good enough for serious counters. Its weaknesses are considerable, and are becoming more undeniable. There are dull, otiose, and ill-informed pieces, probably sheltering cowards; and book reviews which say nothing of sources, but read like standardised Jewish eulogy sales pieces; and timewasting 'trolls', such as 'David Ashton', (supposedly a sociologist) and 'Pierre de Craon' (Roman Catholic of disgustingly Jesuitical, i.e. Jewish, type) who are permitted to repeat their lies, apparently indefinitely; and evasions of Jews and war crimes. Maybe it should be rechristened The Small Mind Observer.

Note added 7 Nov 2018: After watching James Edwards (bald, talked more about himself than MacDonald, referred to KM as 'Doctor' rather than 'Professor') with MacDonald more-or-less in rabbit in the headlights mode, I did some searching, and found a book review of Sept 2012 by MacDonald, of Fairness and Freedom: A History of Two Open Societies, New Zealand and the United States by David Fischer (OUP). The truly odd thing, probably taken from the book itself, as Oxford University Press is of course Jew-unaware, is MacDonald's failure to mention Jews: Puritanism for example might be a Jewish technique to make people live with poverty, after Cromwell's victory. Quakers arguably are another Jew-invented pseudo-religion. Cavaliers are described behaviorally, but not as reduced aristocrats. The 'kinder, gentler British Empire of the mid-19th century and later' is oblivious of South Africa and Jewish control of mines.
      'The Occidental Quarterly' is published by the 'Charles Martel Society'; that Society's website avoids the Jewish issue. An online talk of Kevin Macdonald and Paul Fromm showed Fromm claiming, apparently seriously, that journalists now (2019) would have been thrown out of 'Journalism School' a few decades ago—he had no idea that journalistic lies went back as far as 1945, and 1913, and the US Civil War, and 1776. I'm afraid MacDonald is either feeble, or just another agent. Disappointing.

List of Links | Top of Page

 

Review of Anti-Jewish Interest     Revilo P. Oliver: The Jewish Strategy

 
Short incomplete book, published 2005, which doesn't quite pack in a lifetime's learning


Oliver was a Professor of Classics in Illinois. This book has thirteen short chapters; I think it was assembled from lecture notes. The copyright is advertised as held by Kevin Alfred Strom. Indexed.

 
Oliver ('Revilo' is an inherited family first name) hasn't made much attempt to provide a definitive book; perhaps the strategies are too wide, multifarious, and also alarming, to make for a schematic bullet-pointed approach. And he has some contempt for Americans, not many of whom seem able to understand the simple facts of Jewish aggression, which in normal times is hidden. He in a sense sympathises with Jews wanting to race replace whites: he draws a parallel with Texas longhorn cattle, useful in settling the wild west, but now replaced by a more placid type. The parallel fails when considering activities: cattle just give some products and get eaten—suggesting anthropophagist and organ-harvesting and sex slavery and blood—but does not allow for creativity and work, an omission which may grow to plague Jews. He refers to a modern 'definitive' book on the Hyksos, which he recommends as a solution to the problem of Egypt's decline, attributed of course to slow invasion across the Sinai Peninsula by Jews, who set out to find fault lines, divisions, subgroups—select your word—and exploit them, to elevate themselves. Oliver thinks it must be some sort of biological instinct, so constant is it among all Jews, irrespective of intellect.

 
Naturally Oliver looks at Christianity and Rome, particularly. In my view he makes the mistake of assuming 'Jesus Christ' and variants gave the name to Christianity, rather than assuming the name post-dated the Greek or Roman religion. But he is very sensible on Jews considered as religious, considering it provides a near-perfect camouflage for their impulses; he thinks Jews are correct (so to speak) in funding absurd groups in the USA; and correct (as it were) in adopting a cloak of blamelessness; and correct (it may be said) in defensively pretending to be persecuted. Oliver is also good on whites, wondering why they fall for what Martin Gardner called flim-flam, though he doesn't come to any conclusion.

 
If you like well-worded, fairly well-informed, speculation on the unease of the modern world, without being too precise, or overladen with Talmudic or Biblical material, this should be a useful short volume.
RW 19 Dec 2017

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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


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

 

This review is from: THE THINKER'S LIBRARY, NO. 39: PENALTIES UPON OPINION; OR SOME RECORDS OF THE LAWS OF HERESY AND BLASPHEMY.
Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner

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


- Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891) was a secularist, well-known in Victorian times, for birth control activities, campaigning for 'affirmation' rather than Church of England swearing in, and being ejected from Parliament.
      His life intersected with overt Jewish penetration; I cannot say whether Bradlaugh was secretly funded in his campaigns, and his selection and promotion as party candidate and MP, but it's clearly possible. He published The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy in 1878.
      Bradlaugh's daughter was Hypatia Bradlaugh.
      All that follows refers to legal actions, not just in heresy and blasphemy, but sedition of British societal power structure. At no point is covert Jewish power—the 'Bank of England', and the Jewish parts of the 'Church of England'—ever mentioned. The publishers were a typical collection of Jews, censoring with complete ruthlessness gains which Jews had made. Hence the lists of executions, convictions and imprisonments are all from the Jewish perspective and of course mostly postdate William of Orange. I personally hope revisionism will take hold and this will change. Many of the legal cases may be understood as 'turf wars' between Jew writings and their beneficiaries, and the English.
      The 'J' suffix means 'Judge'.
      Apart from the already-mentioned censorship, the book is interesting on the interrelations & changes of power structures & systems of beliefs; e.g. Rome, Popes, bishops, Kings, nobles, heretics, peasants etc etc

penalties upon opinion thinkers library
-Published as #39 in the Thinker's Library series by Watts & Co
- Well laid out small format with dates and names in the margins
- 1912 Introduction by Bonner refers to 1878 Bradlaugh pamphlet & 1882 'History of Criminal Law' & a few other things; & 'a new generation has come to manhood.. recent recrudescence of prosecutions for blasphemy..'
- pp 1 ff seem to have been added by F W Read, who 'revised and enlarged the third edition'. (Thinkers Library aren't good on saying who wrote what); seems to refer to, among others, 1914 Criminal Justice Administration Act, Bowman v Secular Society 1915-1917 [IMPORTANT!], and J W Gott 1922 (who got 9 months hard labour), and Blasphemy Laws (Amendment) Act, 1930.
- Unindexed in the sense there's no way to look up particular subjects; however there are dated notes of cases in the margins
- Sources quoted include J R Green and Hallam; and volumes on constitutional history and law. There's a larger book, G D Nokes A History of the Crime of Blasphemy of about the same date. I haven't attempted to survey recent works.

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

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

Note: is 'Christianity' part of English law? Of the following all but Coleridge say yes, but in a hesitating way, since obviously Biblical exhortations aren't part of the law at all [Law of property? Laws on arms and soldiering? Tithes? Slavery etc?]
      41 Eliz./ 1649 Judge Jermin/ 1649 and 1657 Lord Keble/ 1676 Matthew Hale/ 1726 Raymond/ 1797 Kenyon (on bookseller of Tom Paine)/ ? Tenterden/ 1883 Coleridge/ ? Erskine
      Somewhere in the book is a Judge stating that the Church of England is 'established' and thus differs from all other religions.

This is English law only, and only the Christian religion: legal and violent actions by Jews, Muslims, etc aren't considered even in passing. This book naturally assumes that blasphemy and heresy are opinions which should not be subject to legislation, and equally naturally says nothing about e.g. The Talmud.. Interesting and curious cases include George Fox and James Naylor (the latter's tongue being bored, forehead branded, and the remainder of his life at hard labour); Paine's The Age of Reason; a forged Act of Parliament used by bishops to make money.

- Index (pages ix-xi) lists Cases & Laws chronologically; the newest parts therefore are at the end of the book. The following list is NOT EXHAUSTIVE:
12th and 13th Centuries
WYCLIFFE 1378
STATUTE OF HERETICS 1400 seems to be de haeretico comburendo [Note: revisionism: it appears heretics were burnt long before witches - abolished 1677]
WILLIAM SAWTRE 1400
JOHN BADBY 1410
HENRY V
HENRY VI .. HENRY VII
HENRY VIII
EDWARD VI
DEPRAVING THE LORD'S SUPPER
IN DEROGATION OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER
EDWARD WIGHTMAN 1611 ['Last person burnt for heresy in England..']
GEORGE FOX 1656
HOBBES 1666
9 WILLIAM III/ 60 GEORGE III/ 6 GEORGE IV
CHAMBERLAIN OF LONDON v. EVANS
JOHN TAYLOR, 1676
(gap of 52 years!)
THOMAS WOOLSTON, 1728
DE COSTA v. DE PAZ, 1745
THOMAS WILLIAMS 1797 [Selling one copy of Tom Paine Part 2]
SHELLEY V WESTBROOKE 1817
1817ff RICHARD CARLILE [And 150 or so 'ordinary people'; this was in connection with selling Tom Paine's 'The Age of Reason']
[Huge list of 19th Century people...]
LAWRENCE v SMITH 1822 [Book on physiology pirated by a bookseller who claimed it was blasphemous and hence not subject to copyright; Lord Eldon refused injunction against bookseller 'considering the law does not give protection to those who contradict the Scriptures']
WADDINGTON 1822 [inc. description of selling books in a way that neither buyer nor seller could see each other]
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT ON THE LAW 1841
CHARLES SOUTHWELL 1842
ACT OF 1842
THOMAS PATERSON 1843
1845 last date Ecclesiastical Court ordered imprisonment for heresy for not exc 6 months
BRADLAUGH 1859
"ESSAYS AND REVIEWS" 1864
"THE NATIONAL REFORMER" 1868
ANNIE BESANT 1878
DR PANKHURST 1886
SPENCER BEQUEST 1887
RELIGIOUS PROSECUTIONS ABOLITION BILL 1889
[Several bequests inc Jones 1907 to organisations of Secular Society type]
HARRY BOULTER 1908
J A JACKSON (SHANGHAI) 1911
J W GOTT 1911
FREDERICK CHASTY AND DOUGLAS C. MUIRHEAD 1912
1914 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION ACT
BOWMAN V SECULAR SOCIETY 1915-1917 [Long court case; family tried to get money, taking their claim to House of Lords. Includes the part of the judgment that Christianity is not part of the laws of England; this is 'rhetoric' (126); and discusses legal position as to whether anti-Christian objects are legal - or something like that. Lord Sumner is quoted]
J W GOTT 1922
BLASPHEMY LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1930 [inc. Draft Bill]

    - 4: '.. In the long run persecution, unless it is extermination, always tends to injure the cause of the persecutor and exalt that of the martyr. Catholics, formerly the persecutors, became proscribed in their turn; and laws which might have been used against them remained unrepealed till 1926.' - typical rather weak argument; cp perhaps arguments to abolish capital punishment.
Note: feeble revisionism: Bradlaugh is quoted after title page: '.. the sedition, blasphemy and immorality punished in one age are often found to be the accepted, and sometimes the admired, political, religious, and social teaching of a more educated period. ...' (Hence, laws to 'punish differences of opinion are as useless as they are monstrous.') - More typical unsupported (except by a few related cases, which in any case are rather obsolete)
    - 5-6: '.. the law of Rome... You will get laws intended to aggrandise the priests, to shield them from civil and criminal responsibility, and to enable them to extort money with ease and hoard it with safety. .. also.. many statutes .. to despoil of their property, to banish, even to kill, all those sects of Christians who did not bow the knee to Rome, but were guilty of the crime of understanding the teaching of Christ differently from the Roman bishops. Few people are aware of the ruthless violence with which all dissent from the Church of Rome was stamped out. Before a century had passed under the Christian Emperors the catalogue of Rome's victims was to be reckoned by hundreds of thousands. In a statute passed in the year 428 against heretics we have a curious numeration of sects.. Arians and Macedonians, Pneumatomachi and Apollinariani and Novatiani or Sabbatiani, Eunomiani, Tetraditae, Valentiniani, Papianistae, Montanists or Priscillianists, Marcianists, Borboriani, Messaliani, Eutychitae or Enthusiastae, Donatists, Audiani, Hydroparastatae, Tascodrogitae, Batrachitae, Hermeieciani, Photiniani, Saccophori, and, worst of all, the Manichaeans and Nestorians. .. about thirty sects who were broken up and destroyed by the criminal law.' [From W A Hunter, 'The Past and Present of our Heresy Laws']
(NB p 17 mentions Ebion, Cerinthus, Valentinian, Arrius, Macedonius, Simon Magus, Manes, Manichaeus, Photius, and the Anabaptists as ten heresies 'laid to' Edward Wightman).
    - 6: [Forgery by bishops of an Act of Parliament in c 1380 when the only power of the bishops was excommunication; they wanted something more severe. Note: power: 'Henry IV .. purchased the support of the nobles by a promise to reverse the peace policy of his predecessor, and the support of the clergy by the even more terrible promise of persecution. ..'
    - 7: Statute of Heretics 1400: may be the same as de hæretico comburendo - unsure from here.
'.. power to the bishops .. to arrest and imprison .. all preachers of heresy.. all schoolmasters.. all owners and writers of heretical books. On a refusal to abjure or a relapse after abjuration, the heretic could "be handed over to the civil officers.. to be burnt.." .. the earliest and most ferocious laws against heretics were.. the handiwork of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal...'
    - 9ff: 'The powers of the clergy under the law were still further extended in 1414 under Henry V... The Statute of Heretics was only finally abolished in 1677, under Charles II...' [gives various estimated for total deaths; and names of sundry persons who were burnt.] '.. Henry VIII...'
    -16: [last person burnt to death for heresy usually spoken of as Bartholomew Legate, but in fact Edward Wightman was burned about a month later.]
    - 27: [Note: power: 1748 bye-law fining people who refused to serve in the Corporation of London, but with legal proviso that such persons must have taken the sacrament in the Church of England .. etc; in this way Dissenters were fined huge sums of money.]

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

    - 28ff Judge-made law as to blasphemy - 1676. Sir Matthew Hale. Someone called Taylor, described as mad, saying things like 'religion is a cheat' and also claiming to be Christ's younger brother. Hale said "... Christianity being part and parcel of the laws of England, therefore to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law." Hale's judgment has been followed and his words slavishly adopted by Lord Chief Justice after Lord Chief Justice for two hundred years.. to Lord Chief Justice Coleridge [see below] .. in 1883. .. Hale's observation introduced a conundrum..
Various similar phrases eg from 41 Eliz. and 1649, Judge Jermin. And Lord Keble at the same trial, and 1657....
    - 34: Thomas Woolston, Fellow of Sydney Sussex published various works. 1726 Six Discourses on the Miracles. 30 000 copies said to have been sold, 60 pamphlets in reply. No extract is quoted here. Lord Chief Justice Raymond: "Christianity in general is parcel of the common law of England, and therefore to be protected by it. ... To say that an attempt to subvert the established religion is not punishable by these laws upon which it is established is an absurdity." Woolston never seems to have got out of prison - perhaps because of a fine and huge 'recognisance' of £2000 - and died about four years later in jail.
    - 35: de Paz, Jew, £1200 bequest for a 'jesuba' declared illegal; £1000 given to the Foundling Hospital.
    - 39 Revisionist view of Wilberforce: '.. name.. handed down in honour during the past hundred years for his unwearied endeavours to procure the emancipation of the slave; but .. he was a ruthless persecutor of his heretical fellow-countrymen. ..' (Account of The Society employing Erskine against the bookseller Williams - Erskine found Williams' children had small pox, or something, but The Society wouldn't be merciful - Erskine refused any further contact with them). Ashhurst J said attacks upon Christianity are crimes which e.g. strip the law of the dread of future punishment.
    - 43: [Last use of the pillory. Abolished 1837]
    - 45-46: [Two juries find William Hone in 1817 Not Guilty 'received with a burst of applause from the court' - parody of Athanasian Creed but apparently with political overtones though what these were aren't made clear; probably Tom Paine related]
    - 46ff: Paine's Age of Reason: Richard Carlile arrested 1817 for 'The Parodies..', then 1819 ('at the instance of the Society for the Suppression of Vice') Three day trial apparently Lord Chief Justice; judgment three years and £1,500 fine. Carlile jailed six years. Then his wife - two years. Then sister - three years as also wouldn't pay. 53: '.. his shopmen and shopwomen came forward to sell the condemned work, and they also were sent to prison.. Volunteers came from all parts of the country.. first behind the counter in the shop, next in the dock, and finally in the gaol. ... It has been estimated that about 150 persons were imprisoned in this way..'
    - 50fn: '.. People were sent to prison for staying away from church without satisfactory excuse so late as 1842.'
    - 63ff: History of the Taxes on Knowledge by Collet Dobson Collet
    - 80 Thomas Pooley case which attracted John Stuart Mill's attention, then Buckle, who investigated it thoroughly
    - 83: Bolton Concert Hall 1859 'walls placarded with the announcement that the lectures would not be permitted to take place.' - breaches of contract for the next 25 years.
    - 87 Essays and Reviews off 1860 'produced a great outcry in ecclesiastical circles.'
    - 103: Lord Chief Justice Coleridge in 1883; opened up a new reading of the law [on blasphemy, and/or blasphemous libels]. He said Jews and nonconformists now have civil rights. Christianity isn't the law of the land. He said Hale, Raymond, and Tenterden used it in that sense. (This was an offensive cartoons trial).
      105ff outlines the outcome: Coleridge was himself surprised. Chief Justice Kenyon (Christian Evidences) & Chief Justice Best (beauty of the Christian religion) made fun of. W Blake Odgers accepted the ruling; Sir J F Stephen didn't and said it was essentially and fundamentally bad. This was on grounds of manner rather than matter.
    - 126 Charles Bowman's gift to the Secular Society Ltd.
      'One matter of great interest is the final denial of the famous dictum that Christianity is part of the law of the land. A trenchant passage may be quoted from Lord Sumner: "With all respect for the great names of the lawyers who have used it, the phrase 'Christianity is part of the law of England' is really not law; it is rhetoric, as truly as was Erskine's peroration when prosecuting Williams: 'No man can be expected to be faithful to the authority of man who revolts against the Government of God.' One asks what part of our law may Christianity be, and what part of Christianity may it be that is part of our law? Best C.J. once said in Bird v. Holbrook (a case of injury by setting a spring-gun): 'There is no act which Christianity forbids that the law will not reach: if it were otherwise, Christianity would not be, as it has always been held to be, part of the law of England'; but this was rhetoric too. Spring-guns indeed were got rid of, not by Christianity, but by Act of Parliament. 'Thou shalt not steal' is part of our law. ... [ellipses in original] 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself' is not part of our law at all. Christianity has tolerated chattel slavery; not so the present law of England." '
    - 132-139: CONCLUSION
    - 135: 'Christians are hardly in a position to complain .. while representative of their religion heap coarse and scurrilous insults upon Freethinkers as a body, ..' [Missionary Exhibition, London, 1911 'to some extent.. regarded as a gross travesty and an insult by some of those whose native religions were being thus exploited for the entertainment of the British public.']

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

The weakness of this book is, of course, that it has no comparisons with other groups and their censorships, notably of course Jews, but in general with other belief systems. It will be a long time before Jewish-imposed laws in the USSR and other conquered areas can have any honest presentation. Its possible strength is that it predates post-1945 Jewish supremacism. There may be second-hand copies still available.


Notes, HTML, by Rae West in the 1990s. Online review 20 Feb 2017. Expanded version 1 Sept 2019.
List of Links | Top of Page

 

NOTE: more information here 'The Longest Hatred—Anti-Gentilism' on events surrounding Lady Jane Birdwood (1913-2000)

 

[ Introduction | Chronology Notes | Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' | ]

THE LONGEST HATRED
An Examination of Anti-Gentilism

by Inter-City Researchers

Published in July 1991
by
Inter-City Research Centre
31 Eastvale, Acton Vale, London W3 7RU.
Telephone: 081-749 0629

ISBN 1 873704 00 3


CONTENTS:
PUBLISHER'S FOREWORD
THE BANKING RACKET | The Bank Fraud: How It Works | The Bank Fraud: How It Was Invented
THE BANK ‘OF ENGLAND’ AND THE NATIONAL DEBT | U.S. ‘Federal Reserve’ A Similar Racket | Behind Those Bank TV Adverts...
CONTROL OF MONETARY ISSUE MUST RETURN TO THE CROWN | “Her Majesty’s Inspector Of Taxes” A Lie | National Independence: Japan Shows The Way
THE ROTHSCHILDS: HEREDITARY PRINCES OF USURY | A Russian Count On The Rothschild Dynasty
THE BANKING SYSTEM CORRUPTS ‘DEMOCRACY’ | Banks Create Inflation And Recession | Parliament: The Tool Of The Bankers | The Centre Of The Money Power
TYRANNY COMPUTERISED IN THE ‘CASHLESS SOCIETY’
COMMUNISM IS JEWISH | Bankers Control Capitalism And Communism | The ‘Cold War’ A Fraud | American Intelligence Officers Expose The Jews Behind Communism | Zionism And Communism: Jewish Twins | Why The Change In Eastern Europe?
THE REAL REASON FOR COLOURED IMMIGRATION INTO BRITAIN | Race-Mixing Is Deadlier Than The H-Bomb | The Race Laws | Plans Formulated Years Ago | Race-Mixing: The Lesson Of History Suppressed | “Make Racism A Dirty Word!” | Immigration And The Slave Trade: The Jewish Connection
THE MEDIA—AN INSTRUMENT OF THE BANKERS
‘ANTI-SEMITISM’ CAUSED BY JEWISH ANTI-GENTILISM | Talmudic Blasphemies | “Fundamentally, Judaism Is Anti-Christian” | ‘The Jews And Their Lies’ | Organised Evil
MASONIC SECRET SOCIETIES ARE CONTROLLED BY JEWRY | Planned Chaos | “Beloved Brethren Of Moses...”
DELIBERATELY CONTRIVED WARS | The Real Iraqi Conflict
THE TRUTH REVERSED IN ‘HOLOCAUST’ HOAX | Mass Extermination By Gas Chambers—How The Jews Say It Was Done | What Fred Leuchter’s Evidence Revealed Was Done | Anne Frank’s Story
THE JEWS WERE EXPELLED FROM BRITAIN ONCE BEFORE | Good Queen Bess Expelled The Blacks

PUBLISHER’S PREFACE TO APPENDIX
THE BIBLE AND MULTIRACIALISM
ZIONISTS MISDIRECT EDUCATION
ZIONIST HOAX UNMASKED
THE DESTRUCTION OF EVIL—THE TRIUMPH OF GOOD


Publisher's Foreword

IT IS NOT a very commendable truism that in the Christian West today, we live in a materialistic society. But was it always so?
    There must be enlightenment somewhere if we only knew where to look for it.
    A good starting point is undoubtedly The Bible where, for instance, in the New Testament we find St. Matthew's warning in Chapter 6, Verse 24 of his Gospel: "Ye cannot serve God and mammon"—i.e. worldliness, riches and greed. Those six words of caution immediately suggest Christian soundness and common sense. We should remember too that it was Christ himself who angrily drove the money-lenders out of the Temple.
    Left to their own devices and their somewhat unusual ideas of a contented, rewarding life, native Britons in the past instinctively shunned great wealth, preferring simpler tastes, pastimes and possessions, free from the massive financial entanglements which bear so heavily on us as we approach the 21st Century.
    So, what has gone wrong? How can we start to give money its proper place in 'the daily round and common task' of life, without the burdens of insatiable borrowing which bestow a crippling legacy of interest-bearing debt upon our hapless children?
    Try taking a close look at what this little book has to say about the problems confronting all of us. It makes a lot of sense, as you can see for yourself, and "serving mammon" really has so little going for it. "Serving God", on the other hand, could quickly remind us that the 'power without responsibility' wielded by those who largely underpin and manipulate our day-to-day lives through money-mania, is no substitute for honest-to-goodness living.

Jane Birdwood, London
July 1991
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
THE BANKING RACKET

HAVE YOU ever wondered where the Banks get all their money from? When they grant you a loan or allow you an overdraft, where does the money come from? According to Frederick Soddy, former eminent Oxford University Professor, Banks are:
      “Institutions which pretend to lend money, and do not lend it, but create it, and when it is repaid to them, de-create it and have achieved the physically impossible miracle thereby, not only of getting something for nothing but also of getting perennial interest from it.”
      So the Banks create money out of nothing and charge you, the customer, over 10% interest to borrow it. And woe betide you if you default.
      It is a delusion promoted by the Banks themselves that they are merely the custodians of their customers’ deposits, that they lend these same deposits, and that their profit consists of the difference in the rate of interest they pay depositors, and the interest they receive from borrowers.
      The truth is that no Bank lends as much as a penny of the money deposited with it. Every Bank loan or overdraft is a creation of entirely new money (credit) and is a clear addition to the amount of money in the community. It is no more than a record in a Bank ledger or computer and is actually the creation of new money out of nothing.
      When an account is drawn on by cheque and the cheque is lodged in another account at the same or another Bank, a deposit is created and the supply of money increased. Thus Bank loans create “deposits” which are not the source of loan money, but rather the other way round—they are the outcome of loans. Banks can create credit virtually without restraint. But usually sound Banking practice limits the creation of credit to nine or ten times the amount of cash or legal tender which a Bank holds.
      When it is said that a particular Bank has so many million in deposits, it is erroneously believed that it actually has this amount of money to lend out. It is a complete delusion. Those deposits are not cash at all—they are nothing but an enormous superstructure of credit.
      In the early thirties, the Great Depression was deliberately contrived by restricting credit (overdrafts, loans) and plunging nations into unemployment and bankruptcy for millions. In this planned crisis there was no shortage of goods, the shops and stores were full, but the Banks stopped the flow of money.

      Governments, councils, businesses and industry are in bondage to the Banks. Banks being the only source of money, the community has to borrow from the Banks the money to pay the interest on the money it has already borrowed. Under this system we get deeper and deeper into debt. The debts owing on public undertakings are debts in perpetuity—they are seldom fully repaid. Debt is compounded on debt and interest on interest, ad infinitum.
      On June 25th, 1863, the Rothschild Brothers sent a letter to Messrs Ikleheimer, Morton and Vandergould at No. 3 Wall Street, New York, which included the following passage setting out the system by which Banks monopolize the creation, control and distribution of the nation’s money from nothing and charge exorbitant interest to borrow it:
      “The few who understand the system ... will either be so interested in its profits or so dependent on its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand the great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps even without suspecting that the system is inimical to them.”
      We are the mugs who bear its burdens.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

THE BANK FRAUD: HOW IT WORKS
According to any dictionary definition, every Director of a Bank—if not every local branch Bank Manager—is guilty of a deliberate fraud and hoax against their individual clients and against the British people as a whole. The fraud or hoax is quite simple:
      A Bank makes an entry in one of its own ledgers (nowadays a computer file). This act brings a sum of ‘money’ into ‘existence’. That sum of ‘money’ is then loaned to a customer—generally by means of a ‘credit’ to his account, which he ‘spends’ by issuing cheques. The loan, however, must be secured by a collateral of real value such as a house, and must be repaid—‘capital’ and interest—in real money, that is, money that has had to be worked for and is therefore a token of real wealth. Thereafter, by another stroke of the pen (or tap of the computer keys) the ‘capital’ sum originally created can be made to disappear out of existence. It really is a magic trick!
      Many people believe that Banks only lend their own capital and the cash which their clients leave on deposit with them. This is far from the case. The total amount of ‘money’ which the Banks lend far exceeds the amount they have on deposit. It is only belief on the part of the borrower and other members of society with whom he conducts transactions—that Banks’ cheques and the nation’s currency notes and coins—are tokens of real wealth that keeps the whole system functioning.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

THE BANK FRAUD: HOW IT WAS INVENTED
The Bankers discovered how to exploit human credibility in the days when they were goldsmiths in the Middle Ages. They were the people who had strong vaults in which to store their stock. Other rich folk would hire space in the goldsmiths’ vaults to protect their valuables. The goldsmiths would issue written receipts for the gold and other precious items they took in for safe keeping. In due course these receipts became items of transaction. Then the goldsmiths realised that they could make loans in the form of paper receipts rather than actual gold or silver coinage.
      To begin with, they only loaned an amount which was equivalent to the total worth of the valuables they held in store. Eventually, when they realised that rarely, if ever, all their clients simultaneously withdrew their valuables from storage, they began to issue ‘paper’ loans far in excess of the actual wealth in their vaults. Thus began the great swindle that was to accrete to the Bankers their enormous affluence and inordinate power.
      How that wealth and power built up can be appreciated from the fact that in England, prior to their expulsion in 1290, Jewish bankers were charging their clients two pence (2d.) in the shilling per week interest. [12 pennies in one shilling, 20 shillings in £1—remember?] At the end of just one year, even at simple interest, the borrower would owe eight shillings and eight pence in interest plus the original one shilling ‘capital’. At compound interest, at the end of a year the borrower would owe a staggering one hundred and eleven pounds, five shillings—plus the original shilling!
      Early in 1991 a very brief reference to this usury was made in a BBC2 TV ‘documentary’ about the ‘persecution’ of the Jews in England in mediaeval times. The programme quite ignored the terrible social consequences of such usury, and merely remarked that such interest rates were “usual”! That fact served to show who was ‘persecuting’ whom in those days—as in these! As an aside, it is noteworthy that the Jewish-run film and TV media love to churn out films about Italian/Sicilian Mafia “loan sharks” whose activities are rightly put on a par with drug-dealing and prostitution. When did you last see a film about Jewish money-lenders—even mediaeval ones—with their activities thus described? Where Jewish money-lenders, of any era, are featured in films they are always depicted as self-sacrificing charity donors and/or sponsors of ‘enlightened’ political causes and/or great patrons of the Arts. Yet the man who consolidated the Mafia’s ‘banking operation’ and thereby created the international crime syndicate known as the ‘Cosa Nostra’ was the Zionist Jew Meyer Lansky. That crime empire should more correctly be described as ‘The Kosher Nostra’!
      The Jewish Bankers in the mediaeval era were able in England and throughout Europe to enforce their usury on the generality of the population because they cleverly cut the local King in on their racket. The King’s soldiers and Law Courts could be relied upon (usually) to provide the Jews with protection and enforce judgements against loan defaulters. (As a matter of fact, this is pretty much how the racket operates today, with power-hungry politicians frantic for Jewish patronage and anxious to stick all four trotters as well as their snouts in the Bankers’ money trough!)
      Fortunately for the English people in olden times an honest man in the form of King Edward the First came to the throne. He became known as “Good King Edward” and “The Law Giver”. He opposed usury for sound moral reasons, took no bribes from the Jews, passed laws forbidding them to engage in usury and, when they persistently sought to evade this and also took up coin-clipping. He expelled them from the land in 1290 under the terms of The Statute of Jewry. (We will deal in greater detail with this great act of liberation in a later chapter.)
      As we know to our cost, the Jews were allowed to settle in Britain again by the regicide dictator and commoner Oliver Cromwell, and by 1694 they had got their whole racket in top gear again with the creation of the Bank ‘of England’.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
THE BANK ‘OF ENGLAND’ AND THE NATIONAL DEBT

“In 1694 JEWS created the Bank of England.”—The Jews and Modern Capitalism.
      The Bank of England is not English in origin and was not founded as a Government institution but a privately run Bank.
      The Government of the day surrendered its sovereign prerogative over the issue and control of the nation’s money into the hands of a private group of financiers. From this date to the present, successive British Governments have borrowed money from the Bankers to run the nation’s business and fights its wars—money which the Bankers create out of nothing.
      All unpaid ‘loans’ plus accumulated interest forms the National Debt. Income tax and all other taxes are not paid simply to meet all the current and anticipated expenses of Government—these are mainly paid for out of new loans—but in large part to service the National Debt which has been built up over centuries. Thus the whole country and its people are in pawn to the Banks and all the real power resides, therefore, not in Parliament but with the mega-Bankers who issue the nation’s money and control its value and distribution.
      The ‘nationalisation’ of the Bank of England in 1946 provided an opportunity to reverse this situation. But it was not taken, so the charade continues, although by slightly different means.

      For centuries the British people have toiled, laboured, starved and begged; not because of any shortage of food, goods and services, but because the Banks have withheld the means of exchange. They have created poverty in the midst of plenty.
      The Government offers Treasury Notes (the nation’s IOUs) to the Banks in return for money to carry on the nation’s business. Thus the national estate has been systematically pawned to the banks, and the people have been progressively sold into debt-and-tax bondage.
      Every Government, every municipality, every public utility is debt-logged, and to meet their increasing interest obligations they must do one or all of three things:
1. Constantly increase the cost to the public of the services which they provide, i.e.: higher Government taxes/local Council rates, etc.
2. Invent new sources of income, i.e. selling off publicly-owned assets such as real estate and the ‘privatisation’ of Government-owned industries.
3. Borrow more debt money from the Banks.
      As we know to our cost, they do all three, and the spiral of price, debt and taxation is ever upward.
      Reginald McKenna, one-time Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing a meeting of Bank shareholders in 1920 confirmed that the Bankers control the Government and direct its policy:
      “Banks can and do create money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the Banks in increasing and decreasing deposits and hank purchases. Every loan, overdraft or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan, overdraft or bank sale destroys a deposit. And they who control the credit of a nation direct the policy of governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.” [our emphasis]
      George Knupffer in his book The Struggle for World Power revealed that the founder (in 1694) of the Bank of England, William Patterson [The Financiers’ ‘Front’] stated openly that: “The Bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”
      Knupffer explained how the Bankers printed and issued banknotes, most of which was ‘book-entry’ money, passed on by cheque. (Over 90% of all payments nowadays are by cheque or credit card). He went on to state:
      “The Bank of England ... was the first payment institution which was legally empowered to issue state-authorised paper currency and, therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to borrow the privately-created money from the bankers... Not only the thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and deception [it should have been ‘Bank of the Jews’] to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services for no return, which is a fraud and theft, made worse by the circumstances that the money is lent out at interest ... it follows that those who have the power to ‘create’ out of nothing all the money in each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and so on. Therefore the powers or Parliament are largely ephemeral ... The power of Parliament in general, and especially with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money and determine its value and distribution.”
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

U.S. ‘FEDERAL RESERVE’ A SIMILAR RACKET
A racket similar to that operated by the Bank ‘of England’ was set up in the United States of America with the creation of the Federal Reserve Board in 1913. The matter was described in the South African patriotic periodical News of the World as follows: “Today in America the institution known as the Federal Reserve, which was also created by the International Bankers, carries more power than does either Congress or the President. In 1916 Woodrow Wilson said: ‘A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men....—and these few men are the heirs of those who long ago laid the foundation for the takeover of the entire world! ... bankers such as the Rockefellers, the House of Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Kuhn Loeb & Co., Lehman Brothers, are among those bankers who have tremendous interest in the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has never had a public audit and all too often has acted in complete defiance of the Constitution of the United States...” It should also be mentioned that membership of the Board of the Federal Reserve has never been divulged officially; and that all the Chief Executive officers of ‘The Fed’ since its formation have been Jews. (Alan Greenspan is the latest.)
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

BEHIND THOSE BANK TV ADVERTS...
Contrary to all the glossy TV adverts about the kind and generous services offered by the banks to their customers, every year they destroy thousands of peoples’ lives and businesses—driving some to suicide—as a result of their high interest rates and high pressure tactics. The Banks have loaned billions to corrupt Third World countries. Many of these loans are said to have been “written off”. In fact what the Banks have done is cancel some of the debts owed by Third World nations and recoup their losses by upping their charges and interest rates to clients in North America and Europe. Set against this the fact that in Britain many elderly folk die each winter because they are unable to feed themselves properly and keep warm. An estimated hundred thousand people sleep rough.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
CONTROL OF MONETARY ISSUE MUST RETURN TO THE CROWN

ON 22nd DECEMBER 1964 Captain Henry Kirby, M. P., called upon the House of Commons to support the Motion that:
      “The continued issue of all the means of exchange—be they coin, bank notes or credit largely passed on by cheque—by private firms as an interest-bearing debt against the public should cease forthwith; that the Sovereign power and duty of issuing money should be returned to the Crown, then be put into circulation free of all debt and interest obligations, as a public service, not as a private opportunity for profit and control for no tangible returns to the British people... so as to assure the State and Nation the benefits of that emission and relieve them of the immense and growing burdens of a parasitical National and private debt; and to make certain that control passes to the taxed and is taken out of the hands of the present hidden unlawful beneficiaries of taxation ... this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to introduce the required legislation... to assure unprecedented prosperity with true sovereignty and liberty.”
      If our cowardly and contemptible bunch of politicians had supported Captain Kirby we would now have interest-free mortgages and virtually no taxation. We could have become the most prosperous nation on earth. But the Members of Parliament we vote for look after their own interests and faithfully serve the satanic Bankers who are wrecking and ruining Britain.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

“HER MAJESTY’S INSPECTOR OF TAXES” A LIE
Captain Kirby’s Motion made it clear that the name given to tax collectors—“Her Majesty’s Inspectors of Taxes”—is more than just a misnomer, it is a lie. The name implies that control over the issue of money is in the hands of the Crown in Parliament. It is not. It is merely a Government-organised service whereby the general public are forced to pay interest to service the National Debt.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE: JAPAN SHOWS THE WAY
The real reason for the amazing Japanese success since the end of World War Two is that they control their own money system and are served by politicians who put Japanese interests first. They take advantage of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and other International Banker-created arrangements designed to promote “World Free Trade” by getting their goods into other nations’ markets, but they erect all manner of barriers to inhibit, if not completely prevent, other nations selling their goods to the Japanese market. They pursue, in effect, economic nationalism, while British politicians of all the main Parliamentary parties—and indeed, the Establishment politicians of all the parties throughout most of the rest of the world—advance economic internationalism as a way of creating what they see as the ultimate goal for Mankind: “One World”.
      In fact, as we know, the only people to benefit from “One World” will be the Jewish International Bankers who will control its monetary and economic system and, thereby, control the World Government.

[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
THE ROTHSCHILDS: HEREDITARY PRINCES OF USURY

NO STUDY of the banking swindle would be complete without some reference to the House of Rothschild whose members have established themselves as hereditary Princes of Usury. The family business was started in Frankfurt in the 18th century by Mayer Amschel Rothschild. He send his sons to England, France and Austria to establish local branches, and within a generation this family held all the nations of Europe in the grip of debt.
      Early in the 19th Century Nathan Rothschild, founder of the ‘British’ branch of the House of Rothschild [‘Rothschild’ = ‘Red Shield’ in German] declared: “Let me control a nation’s money and I care not who writes its laws”.
      Nathan Rothschild was very annoyed to find in the earlier stages of his career in usury that the Bank of England refused to grant his banking house special privileges. How he brought the governors of the Bank to heel was explained by Virginia Cowles in her pro-Rothschild book The Rothschilds: A Family of Fortune (published in 1973 by the Jewish firm Weidenfeld and Nicolson):
      He arrived one day at the Bank with a group of henchmen and presented Bills of Exchange to all the cashiers, demanding gold. (At that time banks were then required by law to exchange their paper money for gold upon demand.) He did this for the following two days, disrupting all other business. When the Bank’s governors came to realise that he was prepared to demand at least £11 million in gold—worth scores of billions in today’s values—they took fright and quickly granted the special privileges Rothschild had demanded!
      It was on account of exploits such as this that in 1828 the Whig Member of Parliament for Hertford, T.P. Duncombe, addressed the following comments about Nathan Rothschild to the House of Commons:
      “There is—deny it who can—a secret influence behind the Government whose form is never seen, whose name is never breathed, who has access to all the secrets of state and who arranges the sudden springs of Ministerial advancement...
.       “... Closely connected with this invisible, this incorporeal influence stands a more solid and substantial form, a new and formidable power, till these days unknown in Europe; master of unbounded wealth, he boasts that he is the arbiter of peace and war and that the credit of nations depends on his nod; his correspondents are invulnerable; his couriers outrun those of sovereign princes and absolute sovereigns; Ministers of state are in his pay. Paramount in the cabinets of Europe, he aspires to domination of our own ...
      “... I trust that the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel will not allow the finances of this country to be controlled any longer by a Jew.”
—Hansard, 2nd. Series, XVIII, 542-3.
      They did—and the stranglehold of the Rothschilds and other international Jewish Bankers over Britain’s and the world’s economy has got ever tighter. Duncombe started to write a book entitled The Jews in England, but unfortunately he died before it could be completed and published.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

A RUSSIAN COUNT ON THE ROTHSCHILD DYNASTY
Major-General Count Cherep-Spiridovich—a member of the old Russian aristocracy who saw his beloved Russia decimated by the Jewish Bolsheviks wrote in his book The Secret World Government or The Hidden Hand (which first appeared in 1926):
      “Evil is enthroned in Moscow. The promoters are not Russians, they are Jews... all the Soviet Jews changed their names into Russian ... all the Czars were murdered by the Hidden Hand ... Modern history must be looked at as a mortal implacable assault of the Judeo-Mongol Invisible Government (headed by a Rothschild since 1770) against Christ, Christendom, Christian ideals and Monarchs.
      “... Baron Edward A. Rothschild V. is today the ‘Uncrowned Ruler of the World’. He controls the 300 men of the Hidden Hand, 300 billion dollars and 90% of the world’s press. Most of the ‘statesmen’ are his obedient valets! Now the Rothschilds are the Dictators and Assassins of the World.
      “The founders of the dynasty of the Occult Supreme World Emperors and World Assassins were Amschel Mayer, a Jew, and his wife, Gutter Schnapper, a Jewess, in Frankfurt-on-Main, in Southern Germany... Rothschilds are everywhere masters of the financial situation: there is one power in Europe, and that is Rothschild... The Rothschilds can start or prevent wars. Their word could make or break empires ...
      “The ‘French’ Revolution, as the others, was organised and financed by the Rothschilds in order to murder the Christians, to plunder them and to obtain ‘all the kingdoms’. ... All the revolutions and world unrest have been and will be organised by the same Jewish Occult World Government ... every bloodshed since 1770 was organised by the Rothschilds; and as they control 90% of the world’s press, it was ordered to keep silent about their nefarious deeds.
      “The Rothschilds wish to whitewash themselves as much as possible. They fear that the so-called ‘Christians’ might cease to be unheard-of imbeciles, cowards and boot-lickers. Therefore the Rothschilds pretend or claim their motto is “Concordia, Industria, Integritas”, while no family has done more to cause bloody discords and murders and has less integrity than these Satanists.
      “... The Rothschilds have been the backbone of all political and financial happenings since 1770. Their name ought to be mentioned on each page of the history of every country. The authors, teachers, lecturers and politicians who do not speak of them, must be considered dupes, hypocrites or criminally ignorant.”
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
THE BANKING SYSTEM CORRUPTS ‘DEMOCRACY’

THE PRATTLE of the Jewish former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson are just so many lies and falsehoods for the British sheep. His master, the Rothschild’s financial system, is totally to blame for rampant inflation, ever-more taxes and soaring interest rates—and this situation will get worse, not better. “Frankness and honesty are vices in politics”—The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
      So-called ‘democracy’ is an illusion; it represents not the will of the people but control by the Bankers. Long ago Benjamin Disraeli, the Jewish Prime Minister and protégé of Lionel Rothschild, put the real truth in a few words in his book Coningsby:
      “The World is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those not behind the scenes.”
and
      “Governments do not govern; they merely control the machinery of government being themselves controlled by the Hidden Hand.”
      All elections are an exercise in futility. A facetious choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The pawns may change but the hand which moves them remains the same. Democracy is supposed to mean that the will of the majority is paramount. But even the unthinking can see that on all the really important issues like coloured immigration, entry into the European Community, the adoption of the Metric system to replace our ancient system of weights, measures and money, the wishes of the British people have counted for nothing, because politicians are the obedient servants of the mega-Bankers.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

BANKS CREATE INFLATION AND RECESSION
At the time of writing this work the main ‘High Street’ Banks are charging the average individual customer and small businesses requiring an overdraft up to 6 or 7 per cent interest above the Bank ‘of England’ Base Rate, currently about 12 per cent—i.e. a total of about 18 per cent interest! Attempts by the Conservative Government to revive the recession-gripped British economy (and their chances of getting re-elected!) by a series of 1/2 per cent reductions in the ‘Bank Rate’ have not been matched by the main clearing banks. The Banks’ policy in this regard has been given the approval of the Governor of the Bank ‘of England’, Sir Robin Leigh-Pemberton—further proof that the Bankers are independent of Governmental authority. In addition to their interest rates the Banks also impose on their hapless clients sundry “commission”, “transaction” and “arrangement” fees.
      “Money is not a commodity, though regarded and operated as such. Money is a mechanism of distribution. If goods and services are available, restriction because of a shortage of money amounts to a sacrilege. Goods and services are the correct basis for money”—Lieut. Col. J. Creagh Scott, Hidden Government.
      In Britain today, many old age pensioners are forced to penny-pinch on food and fuel when these are available in abundance.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

PARLIAMENT: THE TOOL OF THE BANKERS
With the notable exception of a few honest and courageous parliamentarians like the late Captain Henry Kirby and the late Duke of Bedford, all the people you elect to Parliament have made themselves the willing and obedient servants of International Jewish Finance.
      The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion state:
The administrators whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the art of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of genius who will be their advisers.”
      It is the age of Rothschild “Think Tanks” and “Experts” and “Advisers” who stand behind every government. The political leaders of this world are no more than pawns in the game that is being played out. The late Duke of Bedford tried to expound the truth in the House of Lords and published a book. He met with a premature death (murdered?). Captain Henry Kirby M.P., put down two motions in the House of Commons in 1964 to return the power of the issue of money to the Crown. Kirby met with a premature death a few years later (murdered?). The late Archbishop Temple died immediately after saying that be would do something about the issue of money (murdered?). United States Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were assassinated for trying to return the issue of money to Congress as laid down in the US Constitution. The American War of Independence was fought over the payment of taxes to the Crown—i.e. the English Bankers. The money power is ruthless and will silence anyone who alerts the people to their planned take-over.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

THE CENTRE OF THE MONEY POWER
Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions, wealthy banks—dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Bank of ‘England’—Lloyds of London, the London Stock Exchange and the offices of many leading international trading concerns are concentrated in that small area of London known as ‘The City’—only 677 acres in extent and once known as “the wealthiest square mile on earth”. ‘The City’ used to be the Capital of International Finance, and though still a very powerful centre of usury that title has long since fallen to the financial district of New York (Wall Street, Manhattan).
      In New York are to be found, for example: The Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan Bank, The Federal Reserve Board, Kuhn Loeb & Co., the Rockefeller U.N. Building, the Rockefeller-run Council on Foreign Relations, the Warburg Bank and all the rest of the international money-and-power mongers. Perhaps New York is the “great city” referred to in Revelations, Chapter 18: “... for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived ... And in her was found the blood ... of all that were slain upon the earth”.
      In his book Descent into Slavery Des Griffin wrote:
      “The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. it tells them what to do and when In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These fronts go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. History clearly reveals that the British government is the bond slave of the invisible and inaudible force centred in ‘The City’. The City calls the tune. The ‘visible and audible’ leaders are mere puppets and dance to that tune on command. They have no power, they have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.”
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
TYRANNY COMPUTERISED IN THE ‘CASHLESS SOCIETY’

OBVIOUSLY the day will come when incomes will not suffice to pay both for essentials and interest payments to the Money Gangsters. When it does, the whole system will collapse by having become an unbearable and unworkable scandal. Then the Money Moguls plan to introduce their ‘Cashless Society’—which would make abject slaves of everyone—and set up their One-World Government with a World Dictator chosen from among the number of their own inner elite. This is the direction in which current trends are leading us.
      As George Knupffer wrote in The Struggle for World Power:
      “The steps being taken since the end of the last World War to create a European State are part of the preparations for the destruction of the national states and the establishment of the World Government”.

      To consolidate their stranglehold over peoples and nations, the Top Bankers will soon introduce their ‘Cashless Society’ in which all cash money—coins and notes—will be abolished. All financial transactions will be fully computerised. Individuals’ incomes (wages, salaries, pensions, etc.) will be automatically credited to their Bank accounts, and all payments automatically deducted. All traded products will have a Bar Code in which product name, price, weight and other information will be computer-scanned at check-outs. This system is already in operation in most supermarkets. It is a system that will accelerate the destruction of small independent shops and tradesmen as only the big chain stores and conglomerates will be able to afford such systems.
      In due course the Bankers plan to have every human being invisibly but indelibly marked at birth (by means of laser technology) with his or her own Bar Code. The six-bar Bar Code (‘666’) system will encode the individual’s name, address, family antecedents, and social security number. This information can be added to and amended at various stages of life with details of education record, employment history, current financial status, business interests and associates, Court convictions, health record, social contacts, friends, enemies, visits abroad, political views and associations, hobbies, etc. Scanners in Banks, shops, Government and municipal offices, the personnel departments of potential employers, Police stations and patrol vehicles, etc., would be equipped to access relevant parts (and in some cases all) of this data.
      In effect, people will become mobile credit cards. A simple version of just such a system has already been perfected to assist the authorities trace the owners of stray animals. This system would be the very ultimate in surveillance, making all of us abject slaves of the Financial Moguls and of the various kinds of State functionaries whose job it is to impose “Social Control”.
      Of course such a system would make certain types of crime, particularly financial fraud—except that of the Bankers!—all but impossible. But any such advantage would be infinitely outweighed by the stupendous power which such a system would bestow on those who operated it. Any individual who offended the Bankers or the Government hirelings who serve them could be cut off, electronically, from income, pension, employment, health care, housing and Social Security rights ... even the ability to effect a simple purchase from a shop. At the tap of a few computer keys any individual found to be out of step with the International Banker-imposed World Order would be cut off from society’s increasingly computerised life-support systems and rendered an ‘unperson’.
      The horror of this development was foretold in the last volume of the New Testament—The Book of Revelations (otherwise known as The Apocalypse):
      Chapter 13, Verses 16 & 17: “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark on their right hand or their foreheads. And that no man might buy or sell, save he had that mark, or the name of the beast or the number of his name.”
      Chapter 14, Verses 9—10: “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice If any man worship the beast and his image and receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand the same shall drink the wine of the wrath of God...
      Chapter 16, Verse 2: “And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.”
[Emphasis ours throughout]
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
COMMUNISM IS JEWISH

WE HAVE all been led to believe that the Communists are the implacable enemies of the Capitalists, especially the super-wealthy, and seek to rob them of their fortunes. The truth is very different. In his book Zionism Rules the World Henry Klein, a Jewish New York lawyer, wrote: “In 1917, Schiff, Warburg and their associates (super-rich New York Jewish Bankers) financed Trotsky [Bronstein] and Lenin [Ulyanov] who overthrew the Russian government. Their revolutionary followers murdered the Czar and his family and millions of persons in the Ukraine ... Communism is no menace to money control—it is an instrument of money power.”
      An official American Intelligence Report at the time of the ‘Russian’ Revolution revealed: “In February 1916, we learned for the first time that a revolution was being fomented in Russia. We discovered that the persons and concerns given below were engaged in this work of destruction:
Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mortimer Schiff, Jerome Hanauer, Charles Guggenheim and Max Breitung—Jewish Directors of Kuhn Loeb & Co (Jewish Bank, Rothschild subsidiary, New York). There is scarcely any doubt that the Russian Revolution, which broke out a year after the above information reached us, was worked up and launched by distinctly Jewish influences.”
      The Report listed all of the people who came into prominence in the first Soviet Government from Zinovieff [real name Apfelbaum] to Zibar [real name Martinow]. ‘A’ to ‘Z’, they were all Jews. (A full text of the report appears in the book Plans of the Synagogue of Satan.)
      The Russian General Arsene de Goulevitch in Czarism and Revolution confirms that it was Jewish Bankers who financed the Revolution. Later on, (according to F. J. Irsigler in Who Makes Our Money?) the financing was handled by a syndicate of international Bankers which included J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller interests and Lord Rothschild. Rothschild “spent over 21 million roubles in financing the ‘Russian’ (sic) Revolution.
      The financiers’ participation in the Communist take-over of Russia was well known among Allied Intelligence services, but not a finger was lifted to stop them because they are the real masters of the world.”
      In a letter published in The Times on 14th November 1919, a British Army officer in Southern Russia—an eye-witness of the Bolshevik Revolution wrote: “The Bolshevists form about 5% of the population of Russia—Jews. (80-90% of the Commissaries are Jews). In towns captured by the Bolshevists the only unviolated sacred buildings are the synagogues, while churches are used for anything from movie shows to slaughter-houses. If a commissary, steeped in murder and rape, with mutilation, happens to be a Jew, as most of them are, should he receive exceptional treatment?” His letter goes on to describe in horrific detail the bestial tortures and mass killings inflicted on the Russian people by the Jewish Bolshevists.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

BANKERS CONTROL CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM
A one-time Director of British Naval Intelligence, Admiral Sir Barry Domville, wrote in his memoirs From Admiral to Cabin-Boy that Parliament was controlled from behind the scenes by a “Judeo-Masonic Combination”. Commander Guy Carr, R.N., in his book Pawns in the Game quoted Domville as stating: “International Jewry, headed by the Jewish bankers, was the secret power behind the world revolutionary movement”.
      (Carr’s view was that the secret power Domville referred to was in fact the Masonic sect known as The Illuminati. Many students of secret societies and subversive cults hold that The Illuminati was Jewish in its intellectual inspiration—and probably also in its leading personnel. It owed many of its beliefs to The Cabbala and other esoteric Jewish texts. Certainly the opinions and techniques advocated by The Illuminati bear close comparison with the contents of The Protocols of the Learned Eiders of Zion. So in a sense both Domville and Carr were correct.)
      The Gangster Bankers created and financed Communism and have kept it going throughout the years with massive infusions of Western aid. They created it and they control it. The confrontation between Communism and Capitalism is a pretence. The Bankers, according to Douglas Reed in Far and Wide “plan to achieve their objectives through the clash between these masses”. Only recently a consortium of ‘British’ bankers granted a loan of £3 billion to China and some £2 billion to Soviet Russia. This means that they have given £5 billion in credit (created out of nothing) to Communists to buy British goods—mainly high-tech goods which could be used against us in another war. Think what £5 billion would do to help our under-funded hospitals, the aged and disabled.
      The Capitalist West and the Communist East are controlled by exactly the same people. “Only recently our race has given the world a new prophet, but he has two faces and bears two names: on the one side, his name is Rothschild, the leader of all the Capitalists, on the other, Karl Marx, the Apostle of those who want to destroy the other.”—Blumenthal, Judisk Tidskrift, 1929, Sweden.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

THE ‘COLD WAR’ A FRAUD
For nearly half a century the West spent untold billions of pounds/trillions of dollars to defend itself against an enemy which it created itself and continues to maintain. Communism in Russia would have collapsed years ago had it not been for the constant infusions of Western aid. And why? Because the Jews who control both camps have plundered the West to build up their system of Communism with which to threaten the rest of the world
      The Soviet military machine is almost entirely the creation of the West, and there is no such thing as “Soviet technology”—only Western technology on Soviet soil. Since 1917, 90-95% of ‘Soviet’ technology has come from the United States and Western Europe. We have built for—or sold, or traded, or given outright to—the Communists everything from steel mills to tyre factories, from copper wire to motor vehicles, from missile equipment to computers. Major Jordan’s Diaries (New York, 1951) revealed that America delivered to the Soviets “tons of materials for the manufacture of Atomic bombs”. Commander Baillie Grohman, R.N., stated in the British newsletter Candour that Russia had complete access to all of Britain’s technology. Professor Antony Sutton conducted a massive in-depth study of East-West trade and published his findings in National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union. He provided masses of evidence to prove and confirm that “Russia was made in America”.
      John Stockwell, of the US Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) broke his secrecy oath to reveal in his book In search of Enemies that America and Russia are not enemies but loyal allies pursuing the same objective: A One-World Socialist-Communist Dictatorship. (See Henry Kissinger—Soviet Agent by Frank Capell).
      Louis Marshalko, on page 227 of his book World Conquerors, quoted Chaim Weizmann (the Rothschild-funded leader of Zionist-Jewry during the first half of the 20th Century) as saying:
      “We are one people despite ostensible rifts, cracks and differences between the American and Soviet democracies. We are one people and it is not in our interest that the West should liberate the East, for in doing this and in liberating the enslaved nations the West would inevitably deprive Jewry of the eastern half of its world empire.”
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS EXPOSE THE JEWS BEHIND COMMUNISM
Colonel John Beaty of US Military Intelligence stated in his book Iron Curtain Over America that Communism was imposed on Russia by Jews, that members of the same tribe had infiltrated the American Government and Administration and were the real directors of America foreign policy. Furthermore, they controlled the American media, were brainwashing the people, undermining the Constitution and destroying America from within.
      Major Robert Williams of American Counter Intelligence, revealed in his book The Ultimate World Order that there was “A Jewish World Power movement hidden inside the Communist movement” and that “it is the Anglo-Saxon who must be undermined, softened, brainwashed, made to breed with the dark races if the Zionists are to win”. He projected that the master strategists would precipitate a Third World War between the Zionist State of Israel—backed by America and the West—and the Arab-Moslem World, supposedly backed by the Soviets, the real objective, however, was to destroy the industrial and military capacity of the West and Communism. He regarded Communism as merely a temporary tool of Jewish ambition, and predicted that a Jewish World Super State would be built on the ruins created by such a war. He concluded: “Unless the American people recapture their government and smash the Zionist machine, the insane elements within that machine may wipe out Mankind”.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

ZIONISM AND COMMUNISM: JEWISH TWINS
Douglas Reed stated that Communism and Zionism both sprang out of the Jewish ghettoes of Eastern Europe—one to undermine Government from above and the other from below, and that the final objective of both these movements is the same: Jewish World Government..
      The late King Faisal of Saudi Arabia who, you will recall, was assassinated, revealed the truth about Communism when he described Zionism as “the Mother of Communism”, in an interview published in Newsweek magazine on 2lst December 1970. He added “It helped to spread Communism around the world. It is now trying to weaken the US and if the plan succeeds they will inherit the world ... it’s all a great plot. They
[Russia and Israel] are only pretending to work against each other in the Middle East... The Zionists are deceiving the US.. the Communists are cheating the Arabs, but actually they are in league with the Zionists ... Zionism and Communism are working hand-in-glove to block any settlement [in the Middle East] that will restore peace.”
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

WHY THE CHANGE IN EASTERN EUROPE?
The present moves in Russia and elsewhere behind the so-called ‘Iron Curtain’ to give Communism a more human face may be no more than a propaganda exercise to deceive and soften-up the people of the West. However, we should remember the prediction of David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, published in Look magazine of 16th January 1962:
      “The image of the world in 1987.. the Cold War will be a thing of the past. International pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union.
      “On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a Welfare State with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a socialist and democratic regime—with the exception of USSR—as a Federated Eurasian state. All other continents will become united in a World Alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force ... Jerusalem will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind.” [Emphasis ours].
      In other words, the union of Eastern and Western Europe will be a prelude to Jewish World Government.
      The Eastern Bloc countries must seem to become more liberal and democratic preparatory to their absorption into a United States of Europe. A multi-billion pound ‘loan’ to Poland by the European Community is being mooted to prop up its inefficient economy. This means that British resources will pour into Poland instead of helping the British people. The Poles are hard-working and their present economic mess is due to the corrupt alliance between International Bankers and their previous Communist government.
      It was recently announced that the industrialised nations—including Britain—have agreed on a £36 billion aid plan to “help the new European democracies to develop”. Parallel with this is the setting up of a European Central Bank for the use of emergent Eastern Bloc nations requiring loans. This will bring new problems as once again the money is created out of nothing as an interest-bearing debt.
      What price our government’s claim that British workers’ pay rises are fuelling inflation?
      The newly-established European Central Bank must therefore be a stage in the eventual setting up of a Jewish One World Central Bank with a single currency. Moves are already under way to establish a single European currency.
      It is significant that many of the leaders of the “new democratic parties” emerging in the Eastern Bloc are Jews. The electorate in Poland, however, has made a stand against the “Zhids”.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
THE REAL REASON FOR COLOURED IMMIGRATION INTO BRITAIN

THE REALITY is that the Gangster Bankers who created and financed Communism also control the ‘British’ Parliament from behind the scenes. The House of Commons is no more than a House of Traitors. For years politicians of all parties have furthered the plans and ambitions of the Money Power, not looked after the interests of the British people. There could be no more clear evidence of this than Coloured Immigration.
      Against the clear wishes of the indigenous British people and in a manner which can only be described as treasonable, an estimated 10 million racially unassimilable aliens have been brought into our already overcrowded island. The incomers include: West Indians, Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Iranians, Vietnamese, Tamils, Philippinos, Arabs, Egyptians, Indonesians, Malaysians, South and Central Americans, Chinese, Greek and Turkish Cypriots, etc., not to mention vast numbers of ‘nearly-Whites’ from southern Europe. Now we face the prospect of further millions from Hong Kong—and Turkey, if Turkey’s application to join the ‘European’ Common Market is successful. The hostility which these various ethnic groups bear for us, the ‘host’ community, is often only exceeded by the imported ancestral hatreds which they nurture for each other
      Why is this being done to our country? Because the almighty International Bankers—Rothschilds, Warburgs, Rockefellers and their associates have decided that all the peoples of the world are going to have a World Government imposed on them whether they like it or not, and breaking down the identities of the various sovereign nations is best achieved by mixing up their populations. As the pro-World Government spokesman Rabbi Abraham Feinberg put it “One World—One Race: the deliberate encouragement of inter-racial marriage.”
      Britain has been selected by the Bankers to be their first victim nation in the context of the Common Market and other developing World Government structures. To ensure that the planned destruction of our nation is total and permanent the Bankers have determined that our unique Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people must be obliterated as a distinct ethnic group by means of forced race mixing with hordes of Blacks, Browns and Yellows who are being deliberately brought into our country for this purpose

      Eustace Mullins, in his book History of the Jews, quoted a speech by Rabbi Rabinovitch in Budapest forty years ago, which shows clearly what the intentions of the Jewish Bankers are: “Mixing the dark with the white means an end of the White man..... thus the White Race will disappear and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory”.
      The politicians you vote for have been fully co-operating with the Bankers in this strategy. To speed up the process of the destruction and decay of our race and nation and to create room for more new alien immigrants, the British people are being deluged with mass media propaganda to induce them to reduce their numbers by means of abortion, sterilization, vasectomy and contraception. Remember that mass media hacks, like Parliamentary politicians, are simply the obedient servants and handsomely-paid hirelings of the International Jewish Conspiracy.
      Our race and nation is now being destroyed. What are you doing about it? A vote for any of the Parliamentary political parties is a vote of support for the Satanic Bankers and the destruction of your own kind.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

RACE-MIXING IS DEADLIER THAN THE H-BOMB
In his book Deadlier Than The H-Bomb Wing-Commander Leonard Young states that there are only two reasons for Coloured Immigration:
1. To pollute and destroy our race by mongrelization; and
2. To provide degenerate urban mobs which can be used for revolutionary purposes.
      He clearly identified the real driving force behind the plan to destroy Britain when he wrote:
      “The Banking System which was foisted on this country in 1694 and during succeeding years over most of the world has been the main means by which the Jews have brought misery and impoverishment everywhere. By their manipulation of finance they have been the cause of most wars and economic and social troubles. They have been able to obtain control of governments and of the means of publicity (Press, Radio, TV, Films, Publishing Houses, News Services, etc.) and so have been able to suppress the truth and propagate the lie. This has enabled them to fool and bully the people of the world into following the most suicidal courses until the Jews are now in the position of expecting to clamp final dominion upon the world by means of a supranational organisation and some form of irresistible world police force which they would control.”
      If you think we don’t have censorship in Britain, try and buy a copy “from any good bookshop” or borrow one from a public library.
      The United Nations is the prototype for World Government. A prominent Jew—Harold Wallace Rosenthal—wrote in his Confessions:“The U.N. is nothing but a trap door to the Red world’s immense concentration camp ... We [i.e. the Jews] pretty much control the U.N.”
      The U.N. has declared in its numerous conventions that there should be international interbreeding and a uniform world population. Successive British governments have supported these aims by subscribing to The Charter of the United Nations. This foundation document of the U.N. was for the most part drafted by Alger Hiss, top foreign policy adviser to President Roosevelt. Hiss was later convicted of being a key member of a Soviet spy network in America. Apart from Hiss and the man who exposed him, all of the leading members of this network—including the Soviet Embassy officials who managed it—were Jews.
      In 1912 Israel Cohen wrote a book on Communist tactics entitled A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century. It has proven to be prophetic:
      “We must realise that our Party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension. By pounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the Whites, we can mould them to our program. The terms ‘colonialism ’ and ‘imperialism ’ must be featured in our propaganda. in America we will aim for subtle victory while inflaming the Negro minority against the Whites, we will endeavour to instil in the Whites a guilt complex for exploiting the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sport and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negroes will be able to intermarry with the Whites and begin a process which will deliver America [and Britain] to our cause.”
      This is why our Banker-controlled TV and advertising industry are working mightily to promote the Negro and why we now have Negroes and Asiatics reading the ‘news’ and entertaining our children. Just how successful has all their propaganda been can be seen throughout Britain by the increasing numbers of Britons rushing to commit racial suicide by cohabiting with the dark races and producing mongrels. Carried to finality this means the permanent and irreversible destruction of Britain and the British people, which is exactly what the Money Lords intend.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

THE RACE LAWS
The Zionist Board of Deputies of British Jews formulated the ‘Race Laws’ which now amend the Public Order Act and various other Statutes. The first Race Relations Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by the Labour Attorney General, the immigrant Russian Jew Sir Frank Soskice in 1965. Draconian amendments to the Race Relations Act of 1976 (which, for example, removed from the Crown the need to prove ‘intent’ in prosecutions for ‘Incitement to Racial Hatred’) was passed in the House of Commons with only 132 of the 635 Members being present. It is well known that numerous M.P.s are privately opposed to the Race Relations law but they were terrified that if they went to the House and spoke up and voted against the amendments they would be ...
1. Smeared in the Jewish-controlled mass media as being “racist”, which might deprive them of the votes of the ever-increasing ‘ethnic minority’ communities and/or
2. Made targets of physical violence by Jewish organised and funded “antiracialist/anti-Fascist” ‘Rentamob’ organisations, and/or
3. Deprived of funding and patronage—personal as well as political—from Jewish sources ...
      ... so on that crucial occasion 80% of our M.P.s hid away in their funk holes. It is thanks to these craven traitors that the Jews are able to make a farce of Parliament and get their way even against the wishes of the vast majority of the British people.

      A subsequent series of amendments to the Act were introduced to the House of Commons in 1986 by the Lithuanian Jew Home Secretary Leon Brittan(isky) now a European Community Commissioner.
      You may wonder why all the various amendments to the Race Relations Act have had such extensive backing from the Home Office. Quite apart from the Jewish Home Secretaries and campaigning by pressure groups such as the Jewish Board of Deputies, there is the crucial factor of the behind-the-scenes influence of Jewish Civil Servants—one in particular being Neville Nagler.
      Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Nagler was the head of the Home Office Department responsible for race relations matters. The Jewish Chronicle has boasted of the influence of this Pinner, Middlesex, Synagogue official. It revealed that whenever a Cabinet Minister made a speech on the subject of race relations, notes for the text were always drafted by Nagler. The J.C. also made it clear that Nagler regularly “liaised” with top officials of the Jewish Board of Deputies. These reports only confirmed anti-Immigration campaigners’ suspicions as to why the Board of Deputies was so well-informed about their activities, personnel and personal circumstances. The Board often betrayed (through its subsidiary organisations and publications, as well as through the boastful columns of the Jewish Chronicle) knowledge which could only have been gained through official (i.e.: Police/Special Branch/M.I.5) facilities. The Home Office, obviously, has right of access to these intelligence data sources.
      Patriots were given further grounds for consternation when it was brayed in the J.C. early in 1991 that Nagler had retired from the Home Office and had been appointed full-time paid Chief Executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews!
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

PLANS FORMULATED YEARS AGO
The plans to promote racial chaos in the Gentile world were laid long ago. In 1850, Karl Marx (real name Moses Mordecai Levy) the son and grandson of Jewish Rabbis, published his Communist Manifesto. In this he advocated the abolition of the family, countries and nationalities together with “all religion” and “all morality”. Who can doubt that this is now literally in process of fulfilment? The evidence is all around us with Coloured Immigration and officially-encouraged mongrelisation. The massive assault on marriage and the family, and morality generally, by the promotion of pornography, explicit sexual videos, sexual licence, a jungle cacophony that passes for ‘music’, and ‘slip-slosh’ ‘daub-and-drivel’ that the gullible are persuaded is ‘art’ ... ad infinitum.
In a letter to Karl Marx published in La Revue de Paris, the Jew Baruch Levy wrote:
      “The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will obtain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and the establishment of a World Republic.”
      This is now all very close to fulfilment. The near complete success of International Jewry’s plan has been made possible by:
1. Their control of Money;
2. Their control of the Media;
3. Their ruthless exercise of the powers which go with Money and Media control to stampede the masses and manipulate key individuals.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

RACE-MIXING: THE LESSON OF HISTORY SUPPRESSED
At the International Court of Justice The Hague on June 23rd 1965, evidence was given relating to the impact of diverse ethnic groups upon each other. At this session Professor Van den Haag of New York University stated unequivocally before the Court that it was a fact of history that unregulated contact between ethnic groups resulted in social disorganisation and an increase in the crime rate. Needless to say, this warning placed before the World Court made the professor extremely unpopular and received little publicity.
      There is in fact clear evidence from history that the mixing of different ethnic groups and alien elements with an established pure-bred population played a part in the decline and eventual fall of all the great empires and civilisations of history, one of the most recent examples being that of Portugal. In the 15th and 16th centuries the Portuguese were a race of navigators, explorers and adventurers. They established colonies in Asia, Africa and South America. As a result, Portugal become one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in all Europe. However in 1441, after the voyages of discovery down the coast of Africa, the first Black slaves were imported into Portugal and within 100 years ten percent of the population was Black. In the 1911 edition of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—before the Jewish distorters of history had really intervened—is the following entry: “The Portuguese inter-married freely with their slaves and this infusion of alien blood profoundly modified the character and physique of the nation. It may be said without exaggeration that the Portuguese of the 17th and later centuries were two different races”.
      The Portugal of today is backward and impoverished; it is a living testimony to what happens to a White country when its population is decimated by Blacks. This crucial due to an understanding of Portuguese history has been blotted out of all modern history books. No modern encyclopaedia or history book mentions the impact of race-mixing on the nation of Portugal. History is not only being distorted, it is being obliterated in order to hide from us the consequences of Coloured Immigration.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

“MAKE RACISM A DIRTY WORD!”
Our ancestors fought and died to keep the Spanish, the French and the Germans out when they tried to invade our island home. But the present generation of Britons have been cowed into silence and inaction while the biggest invasion in our history is taking place. If our ancestors were to return they would consider us all mad or stupid—or traitors. Half the world would like to come to Britain, not just the 3,250,000 Chinese in Hong Kong who are poised to flood in. It is about time that our contemptible bunch of politicians started to put the British first in their own country. By using propaganda smear words like ‘Racist’ and ‘Fascist’, the Banker-controlled media have brainwashed the British into remaining passive and impotent while their race is destroyed and their country is stolen from them.
      In 1922, the Bolshevik leader Selenkov stated in Moscow: “We must create a climate of anti-nationalism and anti-racialism amongst Whites. We must reduce patriotism and pride of race to meaningless abstractions and make racialism a dirty word”. How successful that plan has been!
      The British now shrink in fear of being called a ‘racist’. It is worse than being called a thief. Yet ‘racism’ is no more than another word for patriotism—a righteous cause for which millions have died. To put one’s own kind first is a virtue not a crime. It is the greatest of crimes to help an enemy destroy one’s own race and nation, and the Mega-Bankers are the greatest enemies of the British nation in all history.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

IMMIGRATION AND THE SLAVE TRADE: THE JEWISH CONNECTION
By way of a postscript to our analysis of the way in which Jewry has sought to encourage race-mixing among Gentile peoples (while jealously asserting its right to defend itself against “assimilation” with any kind of non-Jew—White, Black, Brown or Yellow) we draw readers’ attention to the book Who Brought the Slaves To America?, published by The Sons of Liberty in the USA.
      This work is based on authentic contemporary records available in the Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They show that it was overwhelmingly Jewish merchants and ship owners who introduced the Negro to America. The book urges us to remember these figures: “Approximately one hundred and ten million Black people were captured and removed from their homelands in Africa. Only eleven million of these Black slaves reached the Colonies alive”. It is time that the Negro people knew the truth about the obnoxious slave trade.
      It is ironic that as part of their continual brainwashing campaign to promote race-mixing (among non-Jews) Jewish film and television moguls work overtime to give Negroes a sense of grievance and White people a sense of guilt by depicting White Gentiles as being responsible for the slave trade when in fact, as the historical records show, this vile business was operated by Jewish get-rich-quick artists.
      This small illustration of what Jews of yester-year actually did and how the Jews who control the information media today manufacture lies to distort the historical record, should prompt even the most craven Gentile opponent of ‘anti-Semitism’ to ask their Jewish friends a few direct questions about the game Jewry is playing in the field of race relations. In the likely event that their questions are met with abuse and threats of prosecution under the Race Relations Act, we suggest they turn for a due to Jewish strategy to George Orwell’s book about a future tyrannous world super-state Nineteen-Eighty-Four: “He who controls the Present, controls the Past; he who controls the Past controls the Future”.
      The Jewish media debauches the historical record in order to manipulate our emotions and values and thereby warp our political judgement so that we can be made to accept willingly decisions which serve the interests of Jewry even when injurious to our own best interests.

 
      We will explore this aspect of the Jewish propaganda war against the Gentile mind when we come to a later chapter dealing with the gigantic lie known as ‘The Holocaust’.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
THE MEDIA: AN INSTRUMENT OF THE BANKERS

OBVIOUSLY the people who have the power to create limitless amounts of money out of nothing and lend it out as stated, control nations and governments, education, the media, secret societies, the churches—in fact, everything of any consequence in the land. Their control of the media is almost total. They view the people as “stupid pigs that grunt and squeal the chants we give them whether it be truth or lies” and “horses asses” whose opinion they shape and fashion. (Source: Confessions of Harold Wallace Rosenthal).
      When you buy a newspaper or pay for your TV licence you are paying for the privilege of being lied-to, conned, brainwashed and deceived; kept occupied with masses of trivia that conceals much subversive material.
      Former foreign correspondent of The Times, Douglas Reed, stated in his book The Controversy of Zion: “Opinion today is a manufactured product and can be produced in any form desired” and “The newspapers are under occult control” [i.e. under Zionist control]. The newspapers and all the rest of our mass communications media are in the pocket and firmly under the control of a few super-rich Jewish billionaires like Edgar Bronfman, Robert Maxwell, Harry Oppenheimer, Armand Hammer and the Rothschild family. Under the direction of these people journalism has be come an ever more disreputable business for professional propagandists and paid liars. A few years ago this fact was stated by one of their own number. At a retirement banquet given in his honour, the Managing Editor of the New York Times, John Swinton, declared:
      “If any one of you dared to write the truth he would soon find himself on the street looking for a new job. The major function of a New York [or Fleet Street] journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie openly, to crawl at the feet of Mammon and sell his race and his country for his dally bread. We are the tools and puppets of rich men who stay behind the scenes; we are jumping jacks. They pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our resources, our very lives, belong to other men. We are spiritual prostitutes.”
      Professor Arthur Butz (head of the Engineering faculty at North-Western University, USA, and author of Hoax of the 20th Century, a devastating exposé of the Zionist ‘Holocaust’ fraud) put the position rather more concisely: “The media is exposed as constituting a lie machine of vaster extent than many of the more independently-minded have perceived.”
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
‘ANTI-SEMITISM’ CAUSED BY JEWISH ANTI-GENTILISM

FEW Gentiles realise that today’s world ‘Jewish’ community is divided into two quite distinct racial strains. The majority (about 80%) are known as “Ashkenazim” or “East European” Jews. They are not the descendants of the 12 Jewish tribes of the Bible, but the descendants of a Turco-Mongoloid people who formed an empire in the area between eastern Turkey and southern Russia called The Empire of the Khazars. This empire flourished after the Roman Empire had crumbled and as the two great religions of Christianity and Mohommedanism were seeking converts (mainly by military conquest). The Khazar empire was trapped between these two religious power blocks. The Khazar emperor, wishing to maintain the independence of his domain, decided that he and his entire people should adopt a religious ‘third way’ and become converted to Judaism. At that time Jews of ‘the Twelve Tribes’ had mostly been scattered from the Holy Land and were weak. A part of the remnant found itself in the land of the Khazars, regarded the Khazar emperor’s decision as a bit of a windfall and happily obliged him with the mass conversion process. The bulk of the ‘authentic’ Jews did not go northwards from Palestine but westwards along the coast of North Africa and from there they entered Spain. This minority strain of today’s Jewry are called “Sephardim”, or “Spanish and Portuguese” Jews. The history of the Khazar conversion to Judaism is given in the book The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler, the well-known Jewish author and student of mysticism. The Zionists are, of course, much embarrassed by Koestler’s findings, because it means that their claim that “all Jews have a right to return to the land of their ancestors” can only be advanced by the Sephardim (and then only tentatively). The claim of the 80% Ashkenazim ‘Jewish’ majority is entirely bogus.
      Christians are stultified in their attitude to Jewry because they believe that Jesus Christ was a Jew and that Christianity came out of Judaism. Both of these beliefs, although now well established, are lies. Jesus Christ was not a Jew. He was a direct descendant of Judah, the son of Jacob, which the Ashkenazim (Khazar) Jews have never been. Jesus was a Galilean as were all of his disciples, except Judas who was an Edomite Jew. It was the Jewish Pharisees and Sadducees who were Christ’s bitterest opponents and finally had him crucified. Christ himself uttered the most scathing denunciations and rebukes against the Jews which today would certainly land him in the dock under our Jewish imposed Race Relations laws.
      Christ called the Jews “a generation of vipers” (Matt. 23:33). According to the eminent Biblical scholar Scofield, in his Reference Bible, the word translated “generation” in the New Testament of the Bible means “race”. Christ also seemed to hold the Jews responsible for all the innocent blood shed from the beginning of history (Matt. 23:25). The Jews, in fact, use the serpent as the symbol of their tribe and have stated that when the serpent entwines the globe they will rule the world
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

TALMUDIC BLASPHEMIES
With references human excrement and semen, what The Talmud teaches about Jesus Christ is unprintable. The Talmud, in fact, contains the most terrible blasphemies against Christ and incitements to hatred against Christians ever written. The hatred against Christ, Christianity, Christians and, in fact, all non-Jews (‘Goyim’) which is inculcated into many Jewish hearts and minds through the vile contents of The Talmud spills out into all kinds of cultural media—not least films. Jews have been in control of the film business, particularly Hollywood, since the very beginning of this medium. This stranglehold is re-enforced by the total Jewish domination of the major ‘coast-to-coast’ television networks in the United States. In fact, Jews dominate the films/TV media throughout most of the rest of the West. A recent example of Talmud-inspired hatred was the film The Last Temptation of Christ in which Christ is depicted as “a lunatic, a bungler ... a mental case who falls down in fits”.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

“FUNDAMENTALLY, JUDAISM IS ANTI-CHRISTIAN”—The Jewish World, March 1923
The Jewish film producer and script writer Ben Hecht, in his book A Jew in Love expressed the Jewish hatred for Christ as follows:
      “One of the finest things ever done by the mob was the crucifixion of Christ; intellectually it was a splendid gesture. But trust the mob to bungle. If I’d been in charge of executing Christ I’d have handled it differently. You see what I’d have done was to have him shipped to Rome and fed to the lions. They never could have made a saviour out of mince meat.”
      Can you imagine it being remotely possible for anybody to remain a top scriptwriter in Hollywood—or at the BBC TV here in Britain—who expressed similar opinions about Moses, or any notable character in Jewish history?
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

‘THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES’
The Talmud, is the guide to the practical performance of Judaism. It is in fact many books, a compilation of the sayings of Jewish “sages” down the years. It teaches that all non-Jews are beasts of burden created to serve Jews; that all the property of the ‘Goyim’ [a word translated by Jews in works written for the benefit of Gentiles as meaning simply ‘non-Jews’ but which in fact correctly translates as ‘cattle’] rightfully belongs to the Jews. This is stated quite openly in, for example, Choszen Hamiszpat 388 of the Schulchan Aruch,which is a kind of résumé of the very much longer complete Talmud (29 volumes plus index in the Soncino English-language translation).
      Martin Luther, (1483-1546) one of the key figures of the Reformation, a scholar of Hebrew and Aramaic, was one of the first to expose the evil contained in The Talmud. He did this in his last work entitled The Jews and Their Lies which in essence argued that the root cause of Gentile ‘anti-Semitism’ is Jewish anti-Gentilism.
      The Talmud justifies and encourages every possible kind of depraved act—including acts of sexual intercourse with infants—to say nothing of murder, theft and perjury—providing that such acts are carried out against ‘the Goyim’, to whom the Jewish ‘sages’ concede the status of bipeds, but not fellow human beings. Numerous scholars since Martin Luther have exposed the vileness of The Talmud, such as Father I.B. Praniatis, a Lithuanian Roman Catholic Professor of Theology and Hebrew at St. Petersburg, Russia, during the 1890s whose book The Talmud Unmasked obtained an official Roman Catholic Church Imprimatur. (An English-language version of this book is available from: The Noontide Press, Suite 183, 1822½ Newport Blvd., Costa Mesa, California 92627, USA)
      Benjamin Freedman, himself a Jew, included in his book Facts Are Facts a summary of the blatant and incorrigibly evil anti-Gentile teachings of The Talmud. He wrote:
      “From the birth of Jesus until this day there never have been recorded more vicious and vile blasphemies of Jesus, of Christians and the Christian faith by anyone, anywhere or anytime that you will find between the covers of the infamous 63 books which are the legal code which forms the basis of Jewish religious law ... You will have to excuse the foul, obscene, indecent, lewd and vile language you will see from the official unabridged translation of The Talmud into English.”
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]


ORGANISED EVIL
In the 1920s Henry Ford, demonstrated that Jews were behind much of the organised evil in America. His articles on the subject were originally published in his newspaper The Dearborn Independent, and later reprinted and expanded in his famous book The International Jew. The learned historian Nesta Webster, writing at about the same time as Ford, showed that much the same situation prevailed in Europe. Her book Secret Societies and Subversive Movements is of particular interest. Her researches constitute the starting point of the next chapter
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
MASONIC SECRET SOCIETIES ARE CONTROLLED BY JEWRY

IN THE days before Britain’s security services were thoroughly penetrated by Communists, liberal internationalists and members of the Rothschild family, the historian Nesta Webster was often invited to give lectures to members of the Secret Service on the origins of world unrest and subversion. She traced the origins of the network of the Communist international subversion to their Jewish sources. She was familiar with much of the research material which we have published in our earlier chapter entitled ‘Communism is Jewish’. Through her researches she was able to link the intellectual origins and techniques of subversion employed by the Communist International with the world of Masonic Secret Societies.
      Indeed, she was able to show that both movements, at heart, were Jewish in inspiration and key personnel. When the core objectives of each movement are considered together with their Jewish intellectual inspiration it can be seen that they are essentially the same movement: a movement of Jewish revolt against Christian European Civilisation.
      Nesta Webster was quite frank about the Jewish connection. She declared that another secret society existed within Freemasonry “for which the visible organisation of the latter serves merely as a cover”. She identified the hidden controlling group within Freemasonry as “The Jewish Power”.
      The Protocols of Zion state: “It is this which has served as the basis for our organisation of secret masonry which is not known to, and aims which are not even so much as suspected by, these Goy cattle, attracted by us into the ‘Show’ army of Masonic Lodges in order to throw dust into the eyes of their fellows” ... “Masonry blindly serves as a screen for us and our objects”.
      The Protocols speak with scathing contempt for Masons; they are simply the stupid “Goy cattle” in complete ignorance of its real aims and who exactly forms the controlling hierarchy. Freemasons are gullible pawns and dupes who have been enlisted in the service of International Jewry to further their secret aims and objectives. As demonstrated in this booklet, foremost is Satanic World Government and the destruction of all Gentile races and nations, and particularly the destruction of White European races and nations. Put succinctly, Freemasons are busily engaged in working for their own destruction.
      According to some estimates, one in fifty British males is a Freemason. Many prominent people in politics, the civil service, the judiciary, financial institutions, education, etc., are Masons. The police service throughout the United Kingdom is especially noted for being dominated by Masonry.
      Writing of the “Judeo-Masonic” control behind the drive towards World Government, Admiral Sir Barry Domville stated in From Admiral to Cabin Boy: It is a tragedy that the British people have been so ill-informed on this crucial matter and so careless in the way that they have been governed, as to permit this secret Junta to gain control over their affairs. The Jews form only a small minority in each country and would be unable to ensure the execution of their policy unless they could obtain the collaboration of persons in the government service. Obviously this could not be done openly, or the whole plan would be exposed and exploded. They must therefore build up some secret organisation and what could be better than the one already in hand [Masonry] in which Jews figure so prominently. That is the simple explanation, and it only became necessary to try and establish chosen men in key positions in the government offices, and in organisations like the police, to put the machine in working order”.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

PLANNED CHAOS
Commander Guy Carr—a life-long student of secret societies—was convinced that Freemasonry was controlled “at the top” by a Masonic sect known as The Illuminati. In his book Pawns in the Game he revealed that The Illuminati is an élite secret society founded by a Jew, Professor Adam Weishaupt, in 1776. The name of the sect is a reference to the Devil—“Lucifer, the angel of light” to Satanists. The Illuminati devised a plan to destroy Western Civilisation and literally to implement the programme of Satan on Earth in opposition to God. It never worked for immediate success, all its plans were long-term. Founder members included a number of Jewish bankers: Itzig, Friedlander and Meyer Amshel, founder of the Rothschild dynasty. Commander Guy Carr believed that The Illuminati has been behind all the troubles, misery and carnage of the past two centuries, including all the revolutions, wars and depressions and is, today, the driving power behind the mixing of races.
      In a remarkable work published by John Robison, M.A., in 1789 entitled Proofs Of A Conspiracy Against All Religions And Governments Of Europe is the following statement by the Abbé Baruel concerning The Illuminati: “In the desires of a terrible and formidable sect, you have only reached the first stages of the plans it has formed for that general revolution which is to overthrow all thrones, all altars, annihilate all property, efface all laws and end up by dissolving all society”.
      The Protocols contain the outline or draft of the plan of action to destroy Christian civilisation and establish a One World Dictatorship controlled by Jews. The principles and policies of The Protocols are not new. The same morality of “limitless ambitions, burning greediness, merciless vengeance, hatreds and malice” is to be found in The Talmud. This is the motivation which has driven Jews throughout the centuries.
      In 1492, Chemor, Chief Rabbi of Spain, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin in Constantinople for advice when the expulsion of Jews from Spain was pending. The reply of the Sanhedrin is to be found in the 16th century book La Silva Curiosa by Julio Iniguez de Medrano. A photostat copy of the original and a translation are to be found in the edition of The Protocols published in the United States by The Sons of Liberty. The text of the reply is as follows:
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

“BELOVED BRETHREN OF MOSES...
“Beloved Brethren in Moses:
      We have received your letter in which you tell us of your anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by a great pain to hear it as yourselves.
      The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:
1. As for what you say that the King of Spain obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise.
2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs.
3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.
4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.
5. As for the many other vexations you complain of arrange for your sons to become advocates and lawyers and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.
6. Do not swerve from this order we give you, because you will find by experience that humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.
[Signed] The Prince of the Jews of Constantinople.”
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
DELIBERATELY CONTRIVED WARS

LONG ago, Clausewitz, a student of war and exponent of military tactics, wrote: “Modern wars are the pursuit of policy by other means, that is to say that wars are prime fights between the populations of ‘A’ and ‘B’ for the benefit of ‘C’.”
      In 1905, Lenin [Ulyanov] wrote in The Two Tactics of Social Democracy: “Ally yourselves with one of your enemies against another, and destroy them one by one.” This has always been the policy of Jews.
      George Knupffer wrote: “It is not difficult to see that precisely this technique is being used by the Soviets also in international relations. It is in this light that we must see the Red alliance with the Nazis and then the West in the Second World War.”
      In 1952 Rabbi Rabinovitch addressed a conference of European Rabbis in Bucharest behind closed doors—but his speech was leaked:
      “... Our increasing numbers in certain vital areas is arousing opposition to us, and we must now work with every means at our disposal to precipitate World War Three.. the Third World War will surpass in destruction all previous contests. Israel, of course, will remain neutral, and when both sides are devastated and exhausted we will arbitrate, sending our Control Commissions into all the wrecked countries. This war will end for all time our struggle against the Gentiles”
      The full text of this speech was published in the periodical Canadian Intelligence Service in September 1952, and at about the same time in the American publication Common Sense.
      In Le Contemporair, July 1st 1860, Rabbi Reichorn wrote: “We shall drive the Christians into wars by exploiting their national vanity and stupidity. They will then massacre each other, thus giving place to our people”.
      Colonel A.H. Lane wrote in his privately-published [1938] book The Hidden Hand: “In order to bring about Jewish World Domination it is necessary from time to time to engender wars so that the most virile and patriotic men are killed or crippled physically or mentally”.
      Clemanceau, French leader during the First World War, arrived at exactly the same conclusion. In a little book entitled A Pied Sinai he wrote: “The Semitic race has a programme for the extermination of other races and the peopling of the whole earth with their own blood. Their zeal for this cause is such that in comparison with this, nothing else matters at all. To this cause no sacrifice is too great, no suffering too terrible”.
      Kurt Kerlen, a spokesman for General Ludendorff, commander of the German Army in the First World War, wrote of “the skill” by which Jewry is able to divide white nations so that they cut each others’ throats for Jewry’s gain. (He was quoted in Nesta Webster’s book Boche and Bolshevik).
      In his book The Hidden Tyranny Benjamin Freedman claimed that the Jews prevented the First World War from ending in 1916 when a German peace offer was on the table at the British War Cabinet and needed only one signature to end the carnage: “Great Britain would have quickly accepted Germany’s October 1916 peace offer if the World Zionist Organisation had not interfered. The British War Cabinet was then taking their instructions from Talmudist Jews in London”.
      Numerous Jewish sources have admitted that they were behind the two World Wars. The Jewish World of London, dated 16th January 1919 declared: “International Judaism forced Europe into war, not only to seize a large part of the gold (paid out in armaments and their seizing of the gold bullion in Russia), but to start a new ‘Jewish World’ with the help of this gold”.
      A prominent London Jew, Dr. Oscar Levy, wrote: “We Jews, who have posed as Saviours of the World, are today nothing but the World’s seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners”. Dr. Levy wrote the preface to a book by George Pitt-Rivers (1920) entitled The World Significance of the Russian Revolution.
      Henry Ford wrote in his book The International Jew: “I studied the causes of war and I am convinced that nearly all wars were caused so that someone would profit, and those who profited and those who are profiting now are the international financiers, the Jews. ... Two very prominent Jews began telling me about the power of the Jewish race, how they controlled the world through gold, and that the Jew and no-one but the Jew could stop the war. [WW1] They went into details to tell me the means by which the Jews controlled the war... how they had the money, how they cornered all the basic materials needed to fight the war and all that, and they talked so long and so well that they convinced me. They said that the Jews had started the war and would continue it as long as they wished, and until they stopped the war it would not be stopped. ... Gather together the fifty most wealthy Jewish financiers, the men who create wars for their own profit, control them, and you will put an end to it all.”
      The fratricidal wars of this century, coloured immigration, the erosion standards and values, the promotion of perversion and degeneracy in all its forms, the corruption and debasement of music, art and literature is all part of the same programme: The annihilation of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people of Britain, the incorporation of the British nation into a One World Government controlled by the very people behind all the mischief and carnage of the 20th century.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

THE REAL IRAQI CONFLICT
If anything demonstrated the Jews’ ability to get Gentiles fighting wars to serve Jewish power, it was the mobilisation of almost all the member nations of the United Nations Organisation to pursue firstly sanctions and then all-out war against Iraq on the pretext that Iraq had invaded its neighbour, the Kingdom of Kuwait.
      For centuries Kuwait was a part of Iraq during the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Kuwait was created by British administrators after the First World War. Arbitrary ‘border’ lines were drawn over the map of the Middle East probably with a school ruler. The most powerful families who had served Britain well during the war were rewarded with ‘kingdoms’.
      The artificial Kingdom of Kuwait was fortunately positioned over a huge lake of oil. Iraq had long campaigned for Arab oil-producing nations to ration their production and sale of oil to world markets in order to maintain a high price for this commodity, which in due course will run out. Iraq also wanted the Arab nations to use oil production as a lever to compel the West to deal more fairly with the Arab world in general and with the Palestinians in particular.
      For decades, representatives of Arab oil-producing nations would meet under the auspices of their co-ordinating body OPEC to thrash out an agreed production quota for each nation and an agreed price. Within weeks, sometimes hours, of such agreements, smaller members of the body, notably little kingdoms such as Kuwait (ruled by a single family or clan who treat the country as if it were their own private corporation) would disregard the quota and price agreements and sell as much as they could for whatever price they could get.
      As often as not, the main reason for this irresponsibility was the need for more ready cash to squander in the casinos and night clubs of the West and to maintain lifestyles of unimaginable luxury as and when they happened to return home. Kuwait did not need to behave in such a manner as its investments around the world were producing more income than their oil production—but the greed of former goat-herders-turned-billionaires knows no bounds.
      The exasperation of Iraq finally boiled over when the Iraqis discovered that the Kuwaitis were not only pumping out their own oil at a rate in contravention of OPEC agreements, they were also pumping Iraqi reserves from under their mutual border. This was the immediate cause of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
      Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq, had no reason to suppose that the world would be mobilised against him. Over the previous couple of decades both the West and the Soviet Union had supplied him with armaments. Britain and America had sided with him in his war against Iran when that nation was believed to be the greatest threat to the West and Zionism. But with Iran exhausted by war and with a new and slightly less fanatical Muslim fundamentalist leadership, Iraq became the biggest single threat to the West and to Israel.
      The West wants as much oil as it can get as cheaply as possible. It does not want Saddam Hussein imposing a production and price discipline on the Arab world The Zionists did not want Iraq to galvanise the previously disunited and chaotic Arab nations into putting Up a united front against Israel and using oil as a weapon to force the West to give justice to the Palestinian people.
      So the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was made the excuse for mobilising the world to “defend poor little Kuwait”...“to uphold democratic standards”, etc., etc. All this, of course, was sheerest hypocrisy.
      The ‘World Community’ did not rise up and impose sanctions and then declare war on Israel when Israel invaded the Lebanon. ‘The World Community’ is still doing nothing about the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the extermination of the peaceful Tibetan people. The West still supports the genocidal Khmer Rouge terrorist force in Cambodia despite its monstrous record of genocide.
      It must surely be obvious to all that the ‘World Community’ was not mobilised against Iraq for the sake of “Kuwait’s freedom, democracy, civilised standards of international diplomacy” and other such propaganda objectives, but to crush Iraq as a threat to the Jewish-dominated international oil cartels and, above all, as a threat to Israel. (Military force—though on nothing like such a huge scale—was employed by America against General Gadaffi’s Libya in 1985 for precisely the same reasons).
      Those who doubt the truth of this analysis of why Iraq was crushed might care to ponder the reported words of President Mitterand of France: “I assure you France won’t go to war in an American car driven by Israel”.
      It must be noted that the war against Iraq is now being used as a precedent for further ‘Police actions’ under the ‘authority’ of the United Nations. World Government tyranny is a few steps nearer, its way being prepared by President Bush’s “New World Order”. Nations who appear to threaten Jewish International Financial interests and/or the State of Israel can expect to find themselves bombed to smithereens. The Jewish controlled mass media will, of course, be relied upon to justify all such actions as being “in British interests” (or in France, “in French interests”; in the United States, “in America’s interests” ... etc., etc.) and to whip up the ignorant Goyim into paroxysms of flag-wagging ‘patriotism’.
      How the Elders of Zion must laugh at us!
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
THE TRUTH REVERSED IN ‘HOLOCAUST’ HOAX

WINSTON Churchill identified Jewish leaders as the driving power behind Communism in an article entitled “Zionism versus Bolshevism: the Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People”, published in The Illustrated Sunday Herald, London, in 1920.
      As we have seen, the Jewish leaders of Communism have been behind the torture and deaths of hundreds of millions of anti-Communist and Christian people. Yet because of the unremitting outpouring of Jewish propaganda from the Jewish-controlled press and broadcasting media, the average person in the West, if asked to name the worst atrocity of the 20th Century would, in a preconditioned reaction reminiscent of a Pavlovian dog, declare: “The Holocaust—the systematic extermination of 6,000,000 Jews in the gas chambers of German Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War”.
      While it cannot be denied that there were massacres of Jews by German Nazis and their allies during WW2 (often in revenge for the ghastly activities of Jewish-led Communist secret police—then known as the N.K.V.D. or the ‘Chekists’) the total of such Jewish deaths can be computed in the hundreds of thousands, not millions as claimed in the ‘Holocaust’ legend.
      The news film of emaciated Jews in newly-liberated German concentration camps like Belsen and Dachau, though horrific to see, are not evidence of “systematic extermination”... but of famine and typhus—phenomena which affected the whole of Germany and other parts of Europe at the end of the war, due to the massive extent of Allied bombing. More than two million German civilians died of famine and typhus during the years 1944-1947. That figure does not include the number of German civilians killed by bombing. As many as 300,000 civilians died in just three nights in the 1944 raid on Dresden, a non-military target crammed with refugees fleeing from the Russians.
      Those who have studied ‘Holocaust’ propaganda over the years have long realised that the Jews (of both the Communist and Zionist variety) have grotesquely exaggerated—and in many cases invented—stories of Jewish suffering and ‘extermination’. One need only examine pre-war Jewish sources on world Jewish population totals, and compare those figures with post-war world Jewish population totals, to realise that world Jewry could not possibly have maintained, indeed slightly increased, its total population during the Second World War and also have lost 6,000,000 in the ‘Holocaust’.
      Those who promote the ‘Holocaust’ legend point to the relatively small post-war Jewish populations of Germany, Austria, Hungary and other parts of Europe compared with the pre-war Jewish population figures. In fact, of course, before the war started hundreds of thousands of Jews left central and western Europe for the United States, Britain, Canada and South America; millions of Jews left eastern parts of Europe for the Soviet Union, where huge numbers were located east of the Urals for the duration of the war.
      The Zionists used (and still use) the ‘Holocaust’ horror stories to bounce the world into accepting their conquest of the land of Palestine after WW2, and other Arab territory since then. They also use the ‘Holocaust’ as a way of raising vast sums of money: ‘reparations’ from Germany; gifts from soft-hearted and gullible Gentiles elsewhere.
      The Communist Jews play up the ‘Holocaust’ story because they hope to distract world attention from the true horrors perpetrated by them in the Gulags of Siberia to false tales of German Nazi “Death Camps”.
      Bit by bit the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ story has become increasingly threadbare as various “eye-witness accounts” and items of “evidence” became subject to critical and intelligent examination by independent-minded historians and scholars in a variety of other academic disciplines. The following examples illustrate this point:
Firstly, many people think that the concentration camp at Dachau, Germany, was one of the legendary “Death Camps”, which operated the gas chamber system for the “systematic extermination of Jewish inmates”. Immediately on the capture of Dachau by American troops photographs were shown of the door of one such “gas chamber”. Senior German officers who had been in charge of the camp were put on trial, convicted and hanged for “mass murder” by use of “gas chambers”. Years later it was admitted that the only gas chamber that existed at Dachau was a small airtight room used for delousing clothes by means of hydro-cyanic acid gas. (This method of eliminating typhus-carrying lice was common throughout Europe at the time.) This was the facility which was depicted in earlier propaganda photographs as being the “gas chamber” used for the “mass murder of Jews”—a crime which did not happen, but for which innocent men were hanged by Allied War Crimes Tribunals! Even Greville Janner, Q.C., M.P., admitted in the House of Commons ten years ago, when he was Chairman of the Board of Deputies of British Jews: “... as everybody knows, there were no gas chambers in Dachau...”
      Secondly, many people will recollect seeing photographs of a medical kidney dish with white lumps in it which were described as “human soap”. This was an official exhibit at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials designed to prove that the Nazis melted down the corpses of their Jewish victims to make soap. Since then it has been admitted, even by Jewish ‘Holocaust’ study centres, that no such “human soap” ever existed and that this ludicrous Soviet exhibit (the authenticity of which went unchallenged by any of the Allied judges and prosecutors) was a propaganda hoax.
      Much the same process happened after the First World War when horror stories about “The Kaiser’s Tinned Human Flesh Factory” and “German troops riding into Belgium with babies impaled on their lances”, etc., were disproved, formally withdrawn and apologised for by the British Government in 1925!
      No such apology would seem to be in prospect in respect of the Second World War ‘Holocaust’ horror stories, even though 45 years have elapsed, because international Jewry is deriving such incredible benefits, political and financial, from instilling into the Gentile peoples of the world a massive guilt complex about the ‘Holocaust’. Jewry is well able to cow and brainwash large sections of the world’s population because, through their control of the world banking system, they have been able to achieve a virtual monopoly control of the international mass media: press, television, films, book publishing, theatre, etc. They use that media monopoly relentlessly to keep alive the ‘Holocaust’ legend in the minds of gullible brainwashed Gentiles, and, thereby, licence themselves to perpetrate all manner of crimes, from squalid financial frauds [e.g. the Guinness scandal in Britain], to treason and subversion [e.g. the Pollard spy scandal in America], to international terrorism and genocidal warfare [e.g. the Israeli invasion of the Lebanon and occupation of the West Bank].
      It is because Jewry needs to have the propaganda weapon of the ‘Holocaust’ legend that it not only keeps on pumping out propaganda extravaganzas on the television but also bullies the politicians of nations throughout the world to mount “War Crimes Trials” against elderly men who served with the German forces during the last war, and who since the war have tried to build new lives for themselves in Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia, etc. Britain’s legal system has recently [April 1991] been corrupted by the House of Commons (with stout resistance from the House of Lords) solely as a result of Jewish pressure to legislate retrospectively so that show-trials can be mounted which would serve as a focus for the Jewish owned media to pump out yet more propaganda lies.
      But the Jews do not have everything entirely their own way. Apart from the very brave resistance to the Jewish ‘War Crimes Trials’ lobby by many members of the House of Lords, there has also been the recent appearance of an item of research entitled The Leuchter Report which has severely rattled the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ industry.
      About six years ago Jewish lobbyists in Canada persuaded the authorities to prosecute a German-Canadian, Ernst Zuendel, for distributing the international best-seller Did Six Million Really Die? by Richard Harwood. Charges were laid against Zuendel under the terms of a law which prohibits “Spreading False Rumours”. This law was enacted during the First World War (!) as a measure to hide from the civilian population the full extent of the horrors taking place at the battle front.
      Zuendel was convicted at the first trial and on Appeal, the trial judge was held to be so biased against the Defendant that a new trial was ordered.
      The key Defence witness at the second trial was Fred Leuchter, head of the American engineering firm Fred Leuchter Associates. This firm has America’s—and therefore probably the world’s—leading specialists in the design, construction and maintenance of execution gas chambers. Until recently, when American Jewish lobbyists intervened to try to destroy the firm, Fred Leuchter Associates had contracts of many years’ standing with several States of the United States which still execute criminals convicted of capital crimes, in gas chambers. Mr. Leuchter and his firm have no political background or involvements whatsoever.
      Prior to Zuendel’s second trial, Leuchter and a team of his firm’s employees went to various of the so-called “Death Camps”—Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc., in order to examine the “gas chambers” and crematoria facilities to see if they were capable of executing and disposing of the remains of millions of people on the kind of factory ‘mass-production’ basis claimed by the ‘Holocaust’ propagandists.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

MASS EXTERMINATION BY GAS CHAMBERS—HOW THE JEWS SAY IT WAS DONE
At this point it might be well to refresh our memories of what the promoters of the ‘Holocaust’ legend claim, for it is only when we bear in mind the essential details of their account that we can appreciate the enormous importance of Leuchter’s evidence:
      They claim that many hundreds of Jews [and others—but mostly Jews] were crammed naked into gas chambers. Once inside and the door shut, a quantity of Zyklon B [chalk pellets containing hydrocyanic acid which give off lethal cyanide gas when exposed to the air] was tipped inside through a roof hatch. After an hour or so the door of the gas chamber would be opened and the bodies dragged out. The mouths of the corpses were immediately searched for gold fillings and extractions performed. Other orifices were also searched for hidden valuables. This work was carried out by camp inmates under the immediate supervision of their SS guards. Neither the inmates nor the SS men wore any breathing apparatus or any other kind of protective clothing; indeed, the guards often callously smoked and ate during the gruesome process. Thereafter, the corpses would be sent to the crematoria where they would be reduced to ashes in conventional coke-fired cremation ovens. On days that the ovens were too busy to cope with the workload, pits would be dug, corpses thrown in and incinerated. This process continued 24-hours a day for a period of years. In the case of Birkenau, in the Auschwitz complex
of camps, this ‘mass production’ method was supposed to have sustained an extermination/incineration rate of 1,000 an hour—24,000 a day.

      Even before we turn to the detail of Leuchter’s evidence to the Canadian Court, the preposterous impudence of the Jewish ‘Holocaust’ story must be self-evident to those who can perform a little simple arithmetic: If Birkenau-Auschwitz exterminated 1,000 Jews an hour for a year that would result in 8,760,000 Jewish dead. [1,000 x 24 x 365]. As that “death factory” was supposed to be functional for about four years, we arrive at a figure of 35,040,000! Suppose we allow for just a little Levantine exaggeration, and cut the projected Birkenau-Auschwitz figure by 75%, that still leaves a total of 8,760,000. That number is nearly half the claimed Jewish population of the entire world in 1938! And let us not forget that gas chambers at other “Death Camps”—Treblinka, Chelmno, Sobibor, etc., were also supposed to have accounted for “millions” of Jews.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

WHAT FRED LEUCHTER’S EVIDENCE REVEALED
Fred Leuchter explained to the Court that the technology of execution gas chambers employing cyanide gas had been fully developed in the United States by the early 1920s. Literature concerning this technology circulated the globe thereafter and all of the relevant technical information would have been available to the Germans. In particular, they would have been aware:
    A. That cyanide gas is so dangerous that if it is not to injure or kill those operating the gas chamber as well as the condemned person, the chamber must be specially constructed to be airtight and, specifically, the entry door must be gasketted.
    B. Cyanide gas is persistent, that is, it clings in corners and holes—and in hair, in body folds and orifices for many hours after it has been released. Hence, after the condemned person has died it is necessary to have a ventilation system which can expel as much of the gas as possible from the chamber to a height where the gas can diffuse in the air without posing any danger to persons in the vicinity. In the interests of safety, the body should be left in the ventilated chamber for 24 hours before the gasketted door is opened. Only staff wearing breathing apparatus and protective clothing should be in the room in which the gas chamber is situated when the door is opened. Thereafter, staff should hose down the body and the entire chamber to disperse the final, potentially fatal, traces of the gas.
    C. Cyanide gas had been used by the German and French armies in WW1 to delouse buildings and clothing. Both armies would post armed guards around—but a good distance away from—the building being used for this purpose. After 24 hours troops wearing breathing apparatus would open the doors and windows of the building, but retreat to a safe distance for a ventilation period of not less than 24 hours. Thereafter clothing, blankets, carpets, etc., from the building would be put on lines and beaten by personnel wearing breathing apparatus to dispel the final traces of the gas. Cyanide gas is potentially explosive and personnel connected with operations involving it were routinely searched for matches and lighters before commencing any delousing operation.
      Leuchter told the Court that he and his team of experts had visited Birkenau-Auschwitz and other alleged “Death Camps” in Poland and had seen the buildings which are described as having been “gas chambers”; had taken samples from the walls of rooms said to have been “gas chambers” for later forensic analysis in the United States; had inspected the crematoria facilities and had inspected other buildings in—and the land surrounding—the camps. He reported as follows:
    1. None of the rooms said to have been “gas chambers” had gasketted doors or were in any other aspect of airtight construction. Had cyanide gas been released in any of the alleged “gas chambers” the camp staff would themselves quickly have fallen victim to it. Indeed, at Auschwitz the “gas chamber” was directly adjacent to the SS hospital. A channel ran between the two buildings along which the gas would have accumulated, causing fatalities among the hospital patients, either by gassing or an explosion.
    2. The rooms described as “gas chambers” were far too small to accommodate the hundreds of persons who were supposed to have been packed into them. Had it been possible to cram the rooms as claimed, the occupants would have died of asphyxiation, even though the doors were not gasketted, long before cyanide gas could have permeated the remaining space in the room not taken up by people. Had people been crammed in the rooms in the numbers claimed, and had the rooms been filled with cyanide gas, then the job of extracting the corpses without preliminary intensive ventilation would have led to the deaths of those performing the work—and those supervising it—if they wore no breathing apparatus, especially if searches of the corpses’ orifices were conducted immediately on removal.
    4. The crematoria at all camp sites were of the conventional type, fired by coke. Some cremation chambers (retorts) could accommodate two corpses, most only one. Such retorts could only reduce cadavers to a few bones (which thereafter would have to be pulverised) after a period of hours. None of the “extermination” sites had anything like the number of crematoria retorts capable of reducing to ashes the huge number of corpses which were allegedly being produced by the “gas chambers”. Each of the camps examined had a necessary number of crematoria retorts in relationship to the camps’ populations and the likely death rate from all of the usual natural causes (not including severe epidemics like typhus).
    5. Any attempt to burn corpses in deep pits would be quite futile as all of the camps examined were built on marshland with a water table about 18 inches below the surface. Any hole deeper than that would quickly become a pond. Corpses cannot be burned under water, even with the assistance of petrol.
    6. Leuchter’s team had not only taken samples from the walls of alleged “gas chambers” at the camps visited, but also samples from rooms where all agree that clothes had been subjected to cyanide gas for delousing purposes. These samples bad been given to a reputable firm of forensic scientists who regularly undertake work for American Courts. They were not told where the samples had come from nor the reason for the examination. They were merely asked to report on the content of cyanide in the various samples. The forensic scientists’ report, in the form of a sworn affidavit, indicated that the content of cyanide in the samples which came from the walls of rooms used to delouse clothes was extremely high, but the samples taken from rooms where supposedly millions of people over a period of years had been gassed to death, showed almost no cyanide content whatsoever.
      The very small amount of cyanide to register from the samples taken from the walls of the alleged “gas chambers” was due to the universally acknowledged fact that those rooms, along with all other rooms in these camps, were periodically deloused by means of cyanide gas in an attempt (eventually in vain, as we have discussed earlier) to protect the inmates from outbreaks of typhus.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

ANNE FRANK’S STORY
As a footnote to the twin subjects of the reputation of Auschwitz as an “Extermination Camp” and the fatalities caused by typhus, we might observe that the tragic Anne Frank of Anne Frank’s Diary fame was sent to Auschwitz after she and her family were captured by the Germans in Holland. If the ‘Holocaust’ horror story accounts of Auschwitz are to be believed, Anne would have been an early candidate for the “gas chamber” as she was too young and not strong enough to perform hard physical work. Yet even as publisher’s postscripts to ‘her’ book, statements made by her by her father after the war (another member of the legion of ‘Survivors’), and statements made by the ‘Anne Frank Foundation’ readily concede, Anne did not get gassed at Auschwitz. She did not even die at Auschwitz. For some reason, the cruel Third Reich, having built an “Extermination Camp” for just such hapless victims as she, and having sent her there at some expense by train, they added to it by keeping her alive and healthy and then, unaccountably, went to the yet further expense of sending her on another train journey, this time to Germany (to Belsen, in fact) where, near the end of the war she, along with so many of her fellow inmates, contracted typhus and died, with not a gas chamber in sight. (There were no “gas chambers” in Belsen, as even Jewish propagandists admit nowadays.)
      Anne’s end was tragic, but we think the events which immediately preceded it provide some additional perspectives by which we can judge the worth of ‘Holocaust’ fable.
      [We think it right to state at this stage that the information which we have given above concerning the evidence supplied given by Fred Leuchter to the second trial of Ernst Zuendel in Canada, constitutes only a very abbreviated digest of the facts which he put on record under oath. However, we believe we have given sufficient of his evidence to indicate, when it is compared with the horror stories highlighted in Jewish propaganda, that the fundamental proposition of the ‘Holocaust’ legend: that the German Nazis set about the “systematic extermination” of the Jewish race on a mass production basis by means of “gas chambers” in “Death Camps” such as Auschwitz, has no foundation in fact and is, on the contrary, a propaganda invention designed morally to intimidate Gentiles and thus provide the Jews with a carte blanche to behave as the Lords of the Earth which they believe that they are—or are destined by their God to become. Those who wish to study Fred Leuchter’s evidence in greater detail should obtain a copy of The Leuchter Report at £5 from: Focal Point Publications, Duke Street London, W1M 5DJ]
      Leuchter’s revelations caused high anxiety among Jewish ‘Holocaust’ propagandists, though they were quick to use their power to ensure that nowhere in the world did the mass media report any aspect of his evidence and have now set about trying to destroy his company and his livelihood. But despite their evil and subversive hounding of this honest and brave man the truth about the ‘Holocaust’ lie is leaking out. It is essential that it be exposed for it is the greatest single propaganda weapon in Jewry’s arsenal. This big lie, together with the monopoly control which Jewish bankers exert over the mass media, constitute the principal means whereby the majority of Gentiles is kept in a passive trance of guilt, fear and ignorance.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
THE JEWS WERE EXPELLED FROM BRITAIN ONCE BEFORE

THROUGHOUT history various nations which hospitably admitted an influx of Jews in the first instance eventually became aware that the Jews were ungrateful Gentile-hating cuckoos in the national nest, and so expelled them.
      When King Edward the First came to the throne of England he soon became aware of the social and economic problems the Jewish community was causing as a result of their usury. Unlike other kings and national leaders then and now, Edward would not allow himself to be bribed by the Jews into protecting their money-lending activities. On the contrary, in 1275 he passed a law forbidding them from practising usury. It is often claimed by Jewish propagandists that their ancestors only took up usury in olden times because they were forbidden to engage in any other trade or occupation. This was not the case in Edward’s England. In his law he declared that the Jews could only earn their living as merchants, farmers, craftsmen or soldiers—the honest occupations followed by their Gentile fellow-subjects. But the Jews were not happy with this law, so they secretly carried on with their usury, and also engaged in coin-clipping. They melted down the clippings from gold and silver coins of the realm and sold the bullion abroad, thus putting the economy of the nation in peril.
      The King finally lost patience and in 1290 he promulgated the Statute of Jewry in which all Jews were ordered out of the realm and forbidden ever to return. The full details are recorded in The Calendar of Closed Rolls: 18 Edward I and Patent Roll, Edward I, mem. 21, 2lst June 1290.
      The King expelled the Jews because he was morally opposed to usury (as was the Church at that time) and appalled by its social consequences, not because he was a Jew-hating bigot. He afforded the Jews the full protection of the law until they left his realm and, indeed, he allowed them to take their possessions with them. During the period of the expulsion one family of Jews had all their possessions stolen by a rascally sea captain who loaded his ship with the Jews’ goods at Dover, and then sailed off leaving them on the dockside tearing their hair. The King sent his navy after the ship. It was apprehended and the captain was hanged from his own yard-arm. The Jews, with their possessions, were then given safe escort over to France. One other family of Jews was not treated so decently during the expulsion. It was offloaded (minus possessions) onto Thames estuary mudbanks at low tide. All perished. It is noteworthy that while both these incidents are matters of historical record, a BBC2 TV ‘documentary’ broadcast early in 1991 about the expulsion of Jews from England only thought fit to mention the second incident, and deliberately suppressed mention of the first because it reflected well on the integrity of the man who delivered our land from the pestilence of Jewish usury and who was generally celebrated for his piety, valour and sense of justice. This was the same ‘documentary’ in which the sole comment on the usurious interest rates charged by Jewish bankers at that time—2 pence in the shilling per week—was that such interest rates were “usual”. No ‘cause-and-effect’ link was suggested in the programme between such rapacious usury, the hatred for Jews which grew up among all classes of English people and the expulsion of all Jews from our land. Any such suggestion, needless to say, would have been “anti-semitism of the worst possible kind ... deeply offensive”, etc.
      Unfortunately for England and for Britain as a whole, the Jews were allowed to resettle in Britain by the dictator Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell needed money for his New Model Army and the Jews were prepared to lend him all he needed in order to get a toe-hold in England once again. In correspondence between Cromwell and the leader of European Jewry at that time, Menasseh Ben Israel, the proposition was canvassed by Cromwell that the Jews be allowed to have St. Paul’s Cathedral in London (where Cromwell once stabled his cavalry horses) as their central synagogue. This unholy correspondence may still be examined at the British Museum.
      As Captain Ramsay, M.P., made plain in his book The Nameless War, Cromwell, as a commoner, had no authority to disregard the Statute of Jewry. Indeed, the Statute has never lawfully been revoked. Hence all laws which Jewish Members of Parliament have instigated [e.g. the Race Relations Act] since they were permitted to re-establish themselves, may be viewed as unlawful.
[ Introduction | Chronology Notes | Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' | Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' | Big-lies home page ]

GOOD QUEEN BESS EXPELLED THE BLACKS
In this context, it is also noteworthy that by decree of Queen Elizabeth the First, all Blacks were expelled from Britain In the Acts of the Privy Council dated 11th August, 1596 it was decreed:
      “Her Majestie, understanding that there are divers Blackamoors brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are already too manie, considering how God has blessed this land with great increase of people of our own nation ... those kind of people should be sent forth of the land”.
      Though King Edward and Queen Elizabeth lived hundreds of years apart, the wording of their laws (and numerous other actions in their lives) demonstrates quite clearly that they saw themselves as the protector of their people and realised that they had an obligation to put the interests of their own folk, however lowly, first before foreigners. In short, they were patriots. What a contrast there is between those two great monarchs and those who are responsible for our nation’s affairs today!
      Great harm has befallen Britain as a result of King Edward’s and Queen Elizabeth’s laws being swept aside. Jewish usurers dominate our economy and warp our culture as a result of their domination of the opinion-forming media—and we have an Afro-Asian and half-caste population said to be as many as 12 million persons.
      If the British people wish to survive they will have to find the courage, the energy and the leadership to unite and take action to re-impose these wise laws.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 


 
Publisher’s Preface To Appendix

THE preceding chapters of this booklet deal with topics which a librarian might file under such categories as ‘Politics’, ‘Finance’, ‘History’, ‘Sociology’ and ‘Philosophy’. Disparate though they may seem, we are confident that our Author has wedded them together to provide a coherent, valuable and viable insight into what has happened, is happening now and seems/likely to happen to our nation and the world at large—and why. The case he makes can be understood and we believe, accepted by perceptive readers from all manner of backgrounds who will not fail to take note that he has brought to his dissertations a strong Christian viewpoint.
The Appendix that follows highlights some of those views which the Author believes are crucial to a complete understanding of the central thesis of the booklet and offer encouragement to those prepared to do battle.

THE BIBLE AND MULTIRACIALISM
THE BIBLE, which forms the true basis of the Christian faith, nowhere teaches the amalgamation of races. What it does teach is that God is the author of racial separation and that He originally scattered the races across the face of the earth, assigning to each its own territory. In promoting and defending the mixing of races, ministers of religion have placed themselves firmly on the side of the enemies of God. It is the Communists, the Illuminati, the UNO and other assorted anti-God groups who are determined to destroy the God-given and ordained entity of race.
      Of course, all of this is no wonder, for the religious leaders of the people have largely rejected The Bible for the twin errors of Evolution and Modernism—the so-called “Higher Criticism”. This originated with Jews who confessed Christian conversion. Many of them taught in theological seminaries in Germany from where the “Higher Criticism” spread to the rest of the world. Arthur Pachkofsky, in his book Israel and Judah wrote: “Since the time of Voltaire, Spinoza, Hegel, Kant, Paine and others, criticism of The Bible had begun. At about the same time a group of German Jewish critics, among them Straus, Hitzig, Kachne, Wellhausen and Ervald arose. They began to question every statement in The Bible and to destroy its authority. This ‘Higher Criticism’ which came out of Germany, not from Germans, but from Jews living in Germany”.
      As a consequence millions are stumbling over their faith while brainwashed and subverted clergymen preach Theology based on Jew-inspired ‘Higher Criticism’ or Judeo-Christianity to near empty pews. All exactly according to plans formulated long ago.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
ZIONISTS MISDIRECT EDUCATION

THE PROTOCOLS of the Learned Elders of Zion state: “We have got our hands into ... education and training as being the corner-stones of free existence.”
      Our State system of education has been deliberately misdirected from the top down for years. We have witnessed the destruction of thousands of excellent village Primary schools and most of the Grammar and Modern schools to be replaced by inferior Middle and High schools—huge factory-like entities that can be more easily controlled from the top of the pyramid of power.
      Teachers have been thoroughly brainwashed in their colleges of education in false and pernicious theories that have done incalculable harm to children in our schools. Misnamed “progressive methods of education” such as the ‘Discovery Method’ of teaching (which The Protocols describe as “a departure from the truth in every case”—and the fools that follow them as “brainless heads”) have resulted in the erosion of real discipline and learning.
      If you want proof of this, consider the fact that pupils are now doing millions of pounds worth of damage to their own schools, while schools themselves are turning out an ever-increasing number of weirdos, freaks and social misfits as standards of reading, writing, numeracy and examination achievements plummet. Opportunistic headmasters, chosen, as The Protocols suggest, “with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience” may be oblivious to the real significance of what has taken place but those at the top of the educational hierarchy know exactly what they are about. Education today has become a corrupt system for the mismanagement and misleading of the young.
      Those blockheads who have shown themselves the most ready and willing to absorb and propagate whatever nonsense and filth is fed them from above, have been promoted and advanced. It is from this element that Heads are recruited. “Success” in education, no less than in politics, depends on subservience to all the destructive policies of the Hidden Hand of Jewry. As The Protocols state: “But above all let us control education, by this means we spread ideas that are useful to us and shape the children’s brains as suits us”. This control is now being revealed thanks to Freemasons, dupes and stooges in our Education Authorities and in our schools.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
ZIONIST HOAX UNMASKED

OF ALL the many lies promoted and advanced by our lying news media and controlled State education system, none has more far-reaching consequences than the ‘Man from Monkey’ myth—the Theory of Evolution.
      The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which numerous well-informed people claim spells out Jews’ plan for the destruction of Christian Civilisation, state: “Think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism [Evolution] ... To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had on the minds of the Goyim [i.e. human cattle]... We have fooled, bemused and corrupted the youth of the Goyim by rearing them in principles and theories (like Evolution) which are known by us to be false, although it is by us that they have been inculcated ... We also robbed them of their faith in God”... Only years divide us from the moment of the complete wrecking of that Christian religion ...”
      A copy of this remarkable document was placed in the British Museum in 1906. Most of it is prophetic and as 95% of it has now been meticulously fulfilled there can be little doubt that whoever wrote it has controlled the history of the Twentieth Century. The New York Jewish lawyer Henry Klein declared in his books Zionism Rules the World and A Jew Exposes the Jewish World Conspiracy that The Protocols were “... The world plan of the Jewish Sanhedrin—the Heads of Zionism—which desires world control ... led by the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers... The Sanhedrin controls all sources of information. No newspaper is free from Zionist control. Every large radio and T.V. chain is under control... every system of education and religion is under control ... ”
      Intelligent people are aware that wars are conducted not just with martial weapons of death and destruction, but also with ideas, words, music, films ... in fact with propaganda through every medium which can reach the human mind. The Jewish Communists have refined propaganda warfare down to a fine and deeply cynical art which can be described as Mind Control. Their techniques were revealed in a book by Charles Stuckley entitled Brainwashing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psycho-Politics published by the College of Scientology, New York, in 1955. The Russian textbook had a Foreword by the Jewish Communist mass-murderer Levrenti Beria, Chief of the Soviet secret police during the 1940s (then known as the N.K.V.D.).
      The book revealed that by means of “the scientific approach... man must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic reaction... man must be consistently demonstrated to be a mechanism without individuality... Religion must become unfashionable by demonstrating that Man is an animal. We have battled since the century’s turn to bring to nothing any and all Christian influences and we are succeeding... We must destroy all faiths in nations marked for conquest ... you must work until religion is synonymous with insanity”.
      It is the Theory of Evolution which teaches that “Man is an animal”, and it is the Theory of Evolution that has done more than anything else to undermine and destroy the Christian faith and belief in God and The Bible.
      In his introduction to the edition of The Origin of the Species published by Dent in the Everyman series, Professor W. R. Thompson confirmed that “the decline of Christianity is largely due to the influence of Darwin”. Those who seek a concise and scathing refutation of the Theory of Evolution by an expert biologist would do well to read Prof. Thompson’s ‘Introduction’. He examined various lines of evidence usually advanced in support of the theory and demolishes them one by one. He wrote: “I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence on scientific and public thinking has been beneficial ... But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince. The long continued investigations on heredity and variation have undermined the Darwinian position ... since no one has explained to my satisfaction how evolution could happen, I do not feel impelled to say it has happened”. This distinguished biologist stated the absolute truth when he wrote that Evolutionists attempted to maintain the credit of the Theory of Evolution with the public “... by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties”.
      In fact, discoveries have been made in recent years which prove the Theory of Evolution to be false. These discoveries include:
1. The discovery of shoe prints and human footprints in some of the most ancient rocks on earth. Perfect shoe prints in Cambrian rocks, claimed by Evolutionists to be 500 million years old, and dated beyond doubt because they contain small trilobites (ancient sea creatures) embedded in them proving that they must have been made when the rocks were soft mud. Prints in Permian sandstone, Carboniferous rocks and numerous shoe prints and bare foot prints in Cretaceous rocks, often side-by-side with footprints of dinosaurs, proving that men lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, not 80 million years apart as taught by Evolutionists. Men were alive when all the rocks of the Geological column were laid down. The discovery of these prints makes moonshine of the whole idea of Evolution.
2. The discovery of fossil pollen grains from Angiosperm and Gymnosperm plants in all of the rocks of the Grand Canyon in Arizona from top to bottom, including the pre-Cambrian Proterozoic rocks, claimed to be 1,000 million years old. This proves that the most advanced plants were alive and flourishing when all these rocks were laid down. Dr. Clifford L. Burdick who has done much work on fossil pollen in the Grand Canyon has tried to get his work published in Nature, The Scientific American [sic], etc., and has met a brick wall. The truth regarding the Theory of Evolution is being deliberately suppressed.
3. The discovery of fossil skulls of modern type, large-brained men in older rocks than any of the supposed links, proving man did not evolve. The Calaveras skull, now in the Peabody Museum of Harvard University in the United States, was found in the early Pliocene rocks dated, according to Evolutionists, at 10 million years, yet it has a bigger brain capacity than modern European man. These ancient skulls are not mentioned in any recent book on the subject. Evolutionists pretend they don’t exist. But they do exist and prove the Theory of Evolution to be totally fraudulent.
      Sir Cecil G. Wakely, Past-President of the Royal College of Surgeons, wrote in a Foreword to the book Creation or Evolution by Professor H. Enoch: “Scripture is quite definite that God created the World and I for one believe that to be fact not fiction. There is no evidence scientific or otherwise to support the Theory of Evolution yet it is still taught in our universities, schools and colleges.”
      It should be remembered that Marx offered to dedicate his new book Das Kapital to Charles Darwin. The Theory of Evolution forms the foundation stone of atheistic Marxism/Communism and Humanism and many other ‘isms’ which have plagued 20th century Man. Neither should it be forgotten that Darwin renounced and repudiated the Theory of Evolution on his death bed.
[ Contents of 'The Longest Hatred' ]

 
THE DESTRUCTION OF EVIL—THE TRIUMPH OF GOOD

WHEN visiting London not long ago one of the contributors to this volume saw painted in large letters across a brick wall the anarchist symbol together with the slogan: “God is Dead”. Let there be no doubt that God is very much alive! However, we must fight evil with all our might. The whole world is in chaos with world-wide pollution both human and environmental—but the ultimate picture is bright. Right and Truth is of God and will triumph in the end for no one defeats God. The current world situation and all the signs of the times make it clear that the intervention of God in world affairs and the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is imminent. All the forces of evil, the secret subterranean powers that have for so long controlled events on this planet are doomed to destruction. This is why Jewish World Government will fail and all the machinations of evil men and their stooges will founder.
      “For my sword shall appear in Heaven and shall come down upon Edom dooming that accursed race.”
      “For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance, and the year of recompense for the controversy of Zion”
—Isiah
Ch. 34, v. 5 & 8, Moffat A.V.


[Back to start of The Longest Hatred | Home page | Case Against Judaism]
HTML Rae West. 2000-07-04.
List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

 

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

 
Valuable, Condensed, Thorough, and Little-known Measured Criticism of 'Jesus' Considered as a Genuine Personage. Helps Pave the Way for Future Understanding.
  Review by Rerevisionist, Jan 7th, 2017


I have a copy of this book, in the original small-format red hardback of the 'Thinker's Library'. First printed 1946, second edition 1949. Most Thinker's Library volumes were bound in brown, with black printing, and with a one-colour on white dust-jacket in their Watts & Co. house style. There are other editions, some, I think, more or less pirated; or perhaps the copyright situation isn't clear. Whether these are accurate, I don't know; for interested readers I'd recommend an original copy, just in case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laura B.20 hours ago

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

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

You also write:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laura B.8 hours ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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


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

2023 Note: I wrote this before revisionists, notably Miles Mathis, pointed out that the Jesuits are controlled by Jews. And they originated in Spain, so it's likely this organisation is an attempt to re-run Jesuitry. But of course the modern world is dominated by Jews in the USA, so Jewish paper money and the CIA are inevitable intrusions. And it is becoming more obvious that Jews and traditional Catholics were in secret collusion.
-RW

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

How Google shows "Anti-Semite Henry Ford." Another big Jewish fake, aimed against Americans.

 
Henry Ford (publisher, not author)   The International Jew   Review by Rae West

I'll write this up as a narrative, explaining the various stages I moved though in disentangling the story.


This review was suggested by comments on an article in The Occidental Observer, King of Kings 1927 by Andrew Joyce, Ph D. This article is on Jewish censorship, in this case of Cecil B de Mille on Christianity. (Few people in the Occidental Observer are aware of symbiotic links between Jews and Christians). Joyce mentions Henry Ford, his 1920 The Internal Jew articles (not written by Ford) and much-publicised Rabbinical discussions against those articles.

My site includes a copy of an article by hexzane527, on Henry Ford, dated, rather incredibly, 2013. I titled it henry-ford-jew-or-freemason-staged-anti-semite.html, including many keywords. So far since 2020 it's only had about 500 downloads. Hexzane527 says, I think, that Jews would not allow a non-Jew to run any large corporation. And deduces that the Dearborn Independent was propaganda for Jews, intended to introduce a set of ideas into the American psyche, the ultimate aim being to provide reasons for Germans to become 'anti-semitic' and support Hitler, a carefully-selected Jew puppet. I recommend that my readers read it too; it's short and sweet.

Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique (paperback 1998) says nothing about Ford, or his books. There is a 1-page number in the index, which isn't correct. But MacDonald's Introduction has many pages on Lindbergh, another token 'anti-semite' who I'll mention later.

For people new to Jewish intricacies, let me refer to a paper by 'Josh G', published on Miles Mathis's highly penetrating site. My copy is dreyfus.pdf .

https://big-lies.org/mileswmathis.com/dreyfus.pdf is Josh G. on the Dreyfus Affair, with its echoes of France, Roman Catholics, swindles over the Suez Canal, early cinema, and a fin-de-siècle atmosphere of Zola and Oscar Wilde and cheap pulp paper. At the time this was a huge event, what would now be called a psyop, and a very effective one. As late as 1966, in his 90s, Bertrand Russell was still a believer. Josh G shows the object of the exercise, to show a Jew as a victim of of the French, and by a less-than-logical extension, Jews generally as innocent, was a success, to be trumpeted by the Jewish media.
      Probably this proved to Jews that carefully-planned campaigns including media, politicians, lawyers, police, the military, and spies, could easily defeat most goyim.

Only about 20 years later, we'll see that Henry Ford was part of a similar propaganda coup. The First World War had just been won, and Jews had taken control of Russia, and done their best to take over many countries, such as Germany and Hungary. Looking at the time taken from buying up the Dearborn Independent in 1918, and the secrecy over the authors—familiar with Jewish crookery, and careful to miss out the worst examples—we have The International Jew.

On Henry Ford's personal life, Miles Mathis's skill in genealogical research ford.pdf demolishes the fantasies of Ford's early, poverty-stricken life. Don't believe the BS about Ford!

The International Jew
As anyone can see on Internet, this remains a cause celèbre, hosted on many Jew lies sites. This in itself is a clue that something wicked this way comes. These websites are very careful not to host serious criticisms of Jews. Ford's stuff is always referred to as 'anti-Semitic', in the same way that NASA actors are always referred to as 'Astronaut' Brainless (or whoever). It's not entirely easy to find even scanned copies of the Dearborn Independent. A copy I have, printed on demand by Filiquarian Publishing, doesn't make it clear which parts are copied, what is transcribed, what dates the originals were published, and so on. But what follows seems to be correct:–

wikisource on The International Jew appears to be accurate, judging by a comparison with online PDFs found by searching for "archive.org henry ford dearborn". I haven't been able to find any of the authors. The contents are:

Volume 1: The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem (20 parts, published from Sat May 22nd to Sat Oct 2nd, 1920)
The titles are: The Jew in Character and Business | Germany's Reaction Against the Jew | Jewish History in the United States | The Jewish Question -- Fact or Fancy? | Anti-Semitism -- Will It Appear in the U.S.? | Jewish Question Breaks Into the Magazines | Arthur Brisbane Leaps to the Help of Jewry | Does a Definite Jewish World Program Exist? | The Historic Basis of Jewish Imperialism | An Introduction to the "Jewish Protocols" | "Jewish" Estimate of Gentile Human Nature | "Jewish Protocols" Claim Partial Fulfillment | "Jewish" Plan to Split Society by "Ideas" | Did the Jews Foresee the World War? | Is the Jewish "Kahal" the Modern "Soviet"? | How the "Jewish Question" Touches the Farm | Does Jewish Power Control the World Press? | Does This Explain Jewish Political Power? | The All-Jewish Mark on "Red Russia" | Jewish Testimony in Favor of Bolshevism

Then we have Volume 2: Jewish Activities in the United States (April, 1921), Volume 3: Jewish Influences in American Life (November, 1921), and Jewish Power and America's Money Famine Volume 4: Aspects of Jewish Power in the United States (May, 1922).

Now here's an extract from hexzane527 on Ford:
The anti-Semitism of Ford also gave a reference for the anti-Semitism of Hitler and nazi. It is said that Hitler was inspired by Ford regarding his anti-Semitism. Indeed, the problem was that Germany didn't have many references regarding anti-Semitism. Latin countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, had the French movements (like the "Action Francaise") and French intellectuals to inspire them. But Germany didn't have that kind of thing (and Jewish leaders couldn't use the French as a reference for Germans, since they were enemies). Jewish leaders didn't use German intellectuals to write anti-Semite books before the rise of Hitler; probably to avoid having a political movement already existing before the rise of Hitler. And as Germany had to be the aggressor during WWI, it was difficult to say that it was a Jewish controlled government. Thus, the rise of the German anti-Semitism could come only after WWI. And, as there was a lack of intellectual references to explain where Hitler found his ideas and information about jews, Ford was mandated by Jewish leaders to be at least one of the sources of inspiration of Hitler.

This is because those things were made on command that Ford didn't suffer any real consequences from them. As his role was only temporary, he was meant to be forgiven by jews.

The hypothesis to be tested is that Ford's publication was intended to provide a spark for Germans, to either be taken up genuinely by a Hitler, or as a pretence for a Hitler and his puppet party, to be invented as a secret Jewish party.
      It would be expected that the genuinely deep and long-term arguments against Jews would not be included. But faked ideas and easily debunked material would be included. But to make any sort of resonant case, some of the items would be what non-Jews would regard as clearly evil. So we have to read The International Jew, and the repercussions to it, in that light. For example, legal action might in fact be mutually arranged by Jews on both sides, with a view to censorship or new laws. Another example might be violent agitation, the object being to make ordinary voters fearful. Another example is Jew-owned media reaction: frantic headlines, magazine articles, radio (then new) pieces, movies, courses in colleges and universities and such things as the New School for Social Research. Yet another is reaction from churches with connections to Jews, groups of Freemasons, and so on.

Volume 1 strikes me as the least controversial; it was probably a sighting shot, an experiment to see what Americans thought. Here's the opening of Vol 1 Chapter 7, Arthur Brisbane [apparently a popular journalist of the time; whether Jewish himself is not stated - RW] Leaps to the Help of Jewry
     Once more the current of this series on the Modern Jewish Question is interrupted to give notice of the appearance of the Question in another quarter, the appearance this time consisting of a more than two-column “Today” editorial in the Hearst papers of Sunday, June 20, from the pen of Arthur Brisbane. It would be too much to say that Mr. Brisbane is the most influential writer in the country, but perhaps he is among the dozen most widely read. It is, therefore, a confirmation of the statement that the Question is assuming importance in this country, that a writer of Mr. Brisbane’s prominence should openly discuss it.
      Of course, Mr. Brisbane has not studied the Question. He would probably admit in private conversation—though such an admission would hardly be in harmony with the tone of certainty he publicly adopts—that he really knows nothing about it. He knows, however, as a good newspaper man, how to handle it when the exigencies of the newspaper day throw it up to him for offhand treatment. Every editorial writer knows how to do that. There is something good in every race, or there have been some notable individuals in it, or it has played a picturesque part in history—that is enough for a very readable editorial upon any class of people who may happen to be represented in the community. The Question, whatever it may be, need not be studied at all; a certain group of people may be salved for a few paragraphs, and the job need never be tackled again. Every newspaper man knows that.
      And yet, having lived in New York for a long time, having had financial dealings of a large and obligating nature with certain interests in this country, having seen no doubt more or less of the inner workings of the great trust and banking groups, and being constantly surrounded by assistants and advisors who are members of the Jewish race, Mr. Brisbane must have had his thoughts. It is, however, no part of a newspaper man’s business to expose his thoughts about the racial groups of his community, any more than it is a showman’s business to express his opinion of the patrons of his show. The kinds of offense a newspaper will give, and the occasions on which it will feel justified in giving it, are very limited.
      So, assuming that Mr. Brisbane had to write at all, it could have been told beforehand what he would write. The only wonder is that he felt he had to write. Did he really feel that the Jews are being “persecuted” when an attempt is made to uncover the extent and causes of their control in the United States and elsewhere? Did he feel, with good editorial shrewdness, that here was an opportunity to win the attention and regard of the most influential group in New York and the nation? Or—and this seems within the probabilities—was he inclined simply to pass it over, until secretarial suggestions reached him for a Sunday editorial, or until some of the bondholders made their wishes known? This is not at all to impugn Mr. Brisbane’s motives, but merely to indicate on what slender strings such an editorial may depend.
      But what is more important—does Mr. Brisbane consider that, having disposed of the Sunday editorial, he is through with the Question, or that the Question itself is solved? That is the worst of daily editorializing; having come safely and inoffensively through with one editorial, the matter is at an end as far as that particular writer is concerned—that is, as a usual thing. ... Etc Etc Etc

This reads like a tepid bit of unimportant space-filler.

So what of volumes 2, 3, and 4? Some of these look important, and in fact are recognisable as part of the common currency against Jews. The problem we have is, are they accurate? And are they important?

Vol 2 Chapter 25, "Disraeli of America" - A Jew of Super-Power talks of Bernard M Baruch, and says Doubtless not one in every 50,000 of the readers of this paper ever heard of this man before 1917, and doubtless the same number have clear knowledge of him now. My problem is that it may not be true. There may have been a few hundred Jews in each important town and industry during the 'Great War', and what they did was more or less secret.

And there's the issue of what was in fact important at the time; volume 2 has varied articles on concealment, scope of dictatorship in the USA, "Rights|"; and Copper Kings, Theater and Movie problems, and for example Jews, Poland, and the Peace Conference at Versailles; all fairly important, but not perhaps crucial. Where are the reports on the Rothschilds and Britain's money control? What about Jews getting the USA into the war? What about Wilson being blackmailed? Why did the peace negotiations fail? Why did Jews want war? What about mass slaughter?

      To try to get a purchase on such questions, I loaded a PDF of the full four volumes in archive.org, and searched for:–
Rothschild: 20 hits. Many were related to the Napoleonic Wars issue, and the loss by Napoleon at Waterloo. The history seems reliable, but the surrounding events sound doubtful to me; for example, how could owners of Government gilt-edged bonds mostly be in London at the time?
Dreyfus appears once. So does Leo Frank. Both only in the publicity sense.
Keynes (of Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919) is not here.
Marconi scandal and Suez have 3 entries
Opium has one mention, unrelated to China. South Africa had an entry, but there's nothing on the Boer Wars.
• There are 16 mentions of Kahal. “From the first century forward, as any reader can see by consulting the Jewish Encyclopedia, the "community," "assembly" or "Kahal" has been the center of Jewish life. It was so earlier, in the time of the Babylonian captivity. And the last official appearance of it was at the Peace Conference, where the Jews, in accordance with their World Program, the only program that passed successfully and unchanged through the Peace Conference, secured for themselves the right to the Kahal for administrative and cultural purposes.”
• Sanhedrin is spread over about 6 pages.
Passchendaele, Somme, Ypres each have zero hits. No interest in the 'Great War'?
Slavery, slaves, slave ships I think had zero hits. I don't know how many references there were in Jewish 'Encyclopedias'; probably some. However there were hits on white slavery, ie prostitution, of course a long-term Jewish interest. But mainly on discontinued investigations. General Bingham ("50% of crime is committed by Jews") appearing here.
• Animal slaughter a few comments.
Fraud only 5 entries, all to do with fake alcoholic junk spirits and duty.
• Kol Nidre has a few detailed mentions, though not on its practical effects.

It seems fair to say that scandals are mentioned, many very repellent, but really serious issues aren't, as would be expected of a lightish propaganda piece. Some problems are difficult to search for, in this manner. I don't think there's much in the way of systematic exposure of Jews who renamed, or companies owned by Jews. But in general I think hexzane's hypothesis holds up well.


Let me comment on Lindbergh, a popular (or at least widely popularised) 'hero' who was attacked when he said he wanted neutrality in the Second World War. The introduction to Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique says there was an 'unprecedented media campaign' against him. Poor Lindbergh! In fact he seems to have come from a long line of fraud practitioners. Try Lindy.pdf.

 


RW   First upload 2021-May-23. If people care to comment, comment [at] big-lies.org is easiest.

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
In girlish mode, Armstrong has no interest in actual achievements of Islam, if there were any: destruction and desertification, takeovers of others' constructive work, kidnapping of children and women, and progressive invasions for example east into Indonesia and south-west into Africa, being a considerable proportion. As far as I recall, the capture and castration of black slaves by Moslems goes undiscussed. There must have been an analogous process to Jewish secret alliances with traders, Freemasons, some aristocrat branches, political parties and 'communists' and the modern Common Purpose.

 
The Armenian genocide and genocide of Assyrian Christians aren't (I think) mentioned. The Anatolian peninsula had one end in the relatively safe Mediterranean, but the other more exposed to invasion. There must have been traitors who encouraged invasion; at any rate Turkey is almost all Islamic by now, and people who hate Europe have been doing their best to include Turkey in the EU, so that its backward hordes might scavenge in Europe.

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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


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

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

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

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

 
This book is dishonest in not clearly facing the options.

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

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

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

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

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

In contrast, some 2012 truths by 'Paris Claims' about Britain:–

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

 

protocols of zionModern English reduction of the Protocols of Zion to individual phrases. (Source not known to me).
Cohn warrant for genocide   Review of 1967 book on Holocaust Exterminationism   Norman Cohn: Warrant for Genocide

 
Part of the post-1945 Jewish house of cards,
10 Nov 2012/ minor changes 2016-12-24


If you don't have the subtitle, you won't know this book is a supposed history of the Protocols of Zion.

 
Cohn's book is not remotely scholarly or thorough. Disappointing, because the factual story of the documents would be interesting. Cohn makes no attempt to even summarise the 'Protocols'! Or of course the 'Holocaust'—the expression being then-recent. Cohn just about mentions Maurice Joly at the time of Napoleon III. Rosenberg's 'Myth of the Twentieth Century' has many mentions, but is dismissed as 'unreadable'. Houston Chamberlain gets a couple of references. The Russian Orthodox Church is skated over. There's nothing on the Khazars; this book predates Koestler, but even so Cohn doesn't seem aware of that issue. Pretty much every serious topic is ignored: Carthage? Middle Ages? Modern financial frauds? Chosen people? Soviet Union? Secret societies? This book is just part of the ridiculous apologetic stuff which marred the second half of the twentieth century.
    Looking back, I assume this rubbish was written as a career move, though I haven't checked Cohn's pseudo-career.


    Here is an elaborated edition of the Protocols online, called Basic Training for Revolutionaries (2009). It has introductory chapters, mostly quotations and short extracts, starting with the American Revolution, which is taken at face value. And with quotations on Cromwell, the French Revolution, and Hungary (under Bela Kun, or Hun as it's spelt) and Russia when it was the USSR. I recognised an extract from Bertrand Russell as not being correct; I think the quotations are taken from online. The style is intense and reminded me slightly of 'The Communist Manifesto': a call to action. The author/editor includes some comments in brackets on recent events. Useful to survey the whole picture of the Protocols; it reads like a megalomaniac plan, compiled by fanatics. If reading it helps people understand Jews, it will be valuable and (with luck) useful
List of Links | Top of Page

 

Most Reviews | Big Lies site

Selected Reviews by Subject:- Film, TV, DVDs, CDs, media critics | 'Holocaust' | Jews, Christians, Moslems | Race | Revisionism | Women | Bertrand Russell | Richard Dawkins | Martin Gardner  |   H G Wells

JOHN COUTTS: THE SALVATIONISTS   (published 1977)


- Book on the Salvation Army; however, it's also (c) The Salvation Army, and no doubt light on criticism as a result. At the time I noted this, before 2000, I did not know that Jews often founded religions. I've made no attempt to survey literature on the Salvation Army, or to find out who Coutts was - RW
- Unindexed
- Photos collected together midway (mainly oldish looking scenes, horse-drawn 'fort', people in Africa, Asia, parts of Britain regarded as slums, Booth House Whitechapel, Missing persons interview etc] including poster for meeting in Princes Hall, Piccadilly, on Protection of Young Girls, and another [Note: use of force:] dated 1881 in Salisbury announcing the formation of a group to 'forcibly break the ranks of the Salvation Army when in Procession through the Streets..'


    - CONTENTS:
   
    PART ONE: WHAT THEY BELIEVE
    1 THE CREED THEY PROFESS
    2 THE ARMY AND THE CHURCHES
    3 THE RULES THEY LIVE BY
    4 THEIR INWARD FAITH
    5 THEIR WAY IN WORSHIP
    6 THEIR SOCIAL CONSCIENCE
   
    PART TWO: THE ARMY WORLD WIDE
    7 IN EUROPE
    8 IN AMERICA
    9 IN AFRICA
    10 IN ASIA AND AUSTRALASIA

- viii: 'Anthony is five years old. As a baby he was dedicated under the Salvation Army flag. ..'
- ix: 'Affiong John is a Nigerian, and a widow. She can read Efik and she speaks a little English. Since she cannot read English her book knowledge is largely limited to the vernacular Bible, of which, like any 17th C puritan, she knows a great deal. her social life in centred on the local Salvation Army community, and especially the women's organization - the Home League. .. her work is seasonal, with hard labour in January when the bush is cut down and fired. .. she has to live in two eccentric cycles: for religion.. follows the Western seven-day week, but markets keep to the ancient African eight-day week: ..
    Affiong John is a Christian animist - that is to say her world-view is largely pre-scientific. She does not worship the primeval spirits that haunt the river, the stream, the great forest tree; but she believes in their existence..
    She only got angry when her son tried to explain to her how bigoted Christian missionaries had helped to destroy traditional culture, condemning palm wine and new yam festival and colourful masquerades. What did he know - she asked - about traditional culture? Had he ever seen a suspected wife put to the poison ordeal? Did he know what it was like when the all-male secret societies terrorized the women of the village, or when the girls were out in the fattening house and forbidden to 'learn book'? Affiong can remember from childhood how the Christians marched singing into the forest to cut down the Evil Bush where people abandoned twin babies and smallpox victims and the unhallowed dead. ..'
- xi: 'Hazel is 17. Her father and brothers are fishermen. .. [she] is going to break with her boy-friend. .. Jim is an alcoholic. He was brought up in The Salvation Army.. began to play the cornet.. By the time he was sixteen .. a solo performer..'
    - 4: The 'Articles of War' with 11 articles of faith, which apparently are Methodist
/5: Tom Jones, Parson Thwackum says when he means religion, he means the Church of England.
/1878 the Christian Mission turned into The Salvation Army: 'We believe in the old-fashioned Salvation. We have not developed or improved into Universalism, Unitarianism, or Nothingarianism.. taught in the Bible, preached by Luther and Wesley and Whitfield
/6: Booth took sides with Wesley.. Whitfield had followed John Calvin and opted for.. predestination. .. the Methodists, in agreement with the Dutchman, Arminius, had maintained that God had foreknowledge.. Christ therefore died for all, not for the elect..'
/7: 1873.. Conference of the Christian Mission directed an anathema against those who denied freewill: 'Resolved that no person shall be allowed to teach.. the doctrine of final perseverance..'
/7: 1876.. George Scott Railton.. convinced that the Methodists were losing the fire as the Quakers had done before them. .. For creeds are like ancient and abandoned fortifications, monuments to intellectual conflicts of a bygone age.
/8: In 1846 George Eliot.. published her translation of Life of Jesus by David Strauss. .. Darwin.. T H Huxley.. Wilberforce.. Marx.. Charles Bradlaugh.. excluded from the British Parliament for refusing to swear by almighty God.
/8: '.. the chief corner-stone.. the inspiration of the Bible. .. traditional Christian doctrine of a totally reliable Bible, graciously given by God and free from mistakes. They saw no need to define the matter further, .. left room.. for 'liberals' and 'conservatives', 'fundamentalists' and 'modernists', to coexist.. in the Army
/Catherine Both.. 1886.. condemned 'Christian freethinkers.. The inspiration of the Bible is to them on a level with that of Homer or Shakespeare, and for anything they do not like they have a free rendering, or a cool excision. ..'
/9: `1919 liberal commentary by A S Peake'
/10: 'Methodistic articles'
/10: 'No general assembly meets.. The administration controls the press, which rarely airs controversial issues.. The would-be officer does not have a choice of Colleges.. one looks in vain for fair play on the intellectual field
/10: 1905 Bible correspondence course on Genesis and geology, Noah's flood
/10: 1905 Bramwell Booth, eldest son, wrote on 'the Higher Criticism'; circular argument on reliability of the Bible
/12: Bramwell Booth in 1927 on evolution and Sir Arthur Keith
/13: 1923 Handbook of Doctrine
/13: Cunningham's articles only in Staff Review, a journal restricted to Lieutenant-Colonels and above. .. not made available to the rank and file in book form till 1961. ..'
/14: labels 'fundamentalist' and 'modernist'
/15: T H Huxley, and Engels, on the Salvation Army; Engels thought it revived the propaganda of early Christianity
/15: Freud says in 'Two Short Accounts of Psychoanalysis' that a band of dedicated spirits as lay assistants was needed
/16: late 1920s 'articles by such heavy-weights as Samuel Brengle, upholding the importance of the preaching of hell.'
/16: 'Eternal death disappeared from the young people's song book .. in 1963'
- 20: 'There were many cross-currents in the evangelical movement in 19th C Britain. The 'old dissenters' (Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers) who had parted company from the Established Church in the 17th C, had been reawakened by the appearance of Methodism in the 18th. Led with zeal and authority by John wesley.. part[ed] company with the Church of England.. in 1784, when Wesley, frustrated by the refusal of the Anglican bishops to provide spiritual care for Methodists in North America, decided to do so himself. But Thomas Coke, the American 'Superintendent', had ideas of his own. Across the ocean superintendents became bishops, and the American Methodist Episcopal Church was born.



    Meanwhile, back in Britain.. The constitution bequeathed by John Wesley was far from democratic, and etc etc [More on groupings - New Connexion, primitive Methodists, Bible Christian Societies, East London Christian Mission, until 22: in 1875 William Booth seems to have appointed himself General Superintendent, and be unremovable.
- 23: name 'Salvation Army' more or less an accident, derived from a slogan. .. Absolute autocracy modified in 1904 under advice from Gladstone and others.
- 24: 'General Bramwell Booth guided the Army through the First World War.'
- 25: 'Students of the one-party state will recognize the symptoms: adulation.. reports of progress on all fronts.. total absence of any criticism..'
- 25-26: 'High Council' in 1929 deposes Bramwell Booth [whose sickbed was at Southwold]
- 26: Salvation Army Act of 1931 [not clear whether this was Parliament - I presume not] .. self-perpetuating oligarchy..'
- 29: Railton agreed with Fox [i.e. his views] about Oxbridge. 'condescending curate'.
- 40: Prohibition in US, and repeal
- 41-42: They don't drink alcohol. '.. the Army's anti-alcoholism programme is usually carried out by small groups of specialists: the rank and file .. knows little or nothing about it.'
- 42: Smoking
- 42: Sex; 1899 Orders and regulations forbad kissing, 'unless a relative or some person to whom he is engaged.'/ purity/ Hollywood/ SA stood for sex appeal
- 45-6: Gambling [except that in Sweden they raise money by raffles]
- 46: Make-up
- 47: Sport
- 49: Story about 'ex-débutante Mildred Duff who went to work in London slums.. everyday thing for British boys and girls to be sent hungry to school..'
- 68: [More on 19th C revivalism, with a 'sympathetic account of Salvationist worship in the early 1880s'
- 79: 190 'Staff Review' asked [note: psychology:] 'Is prayer autosuggestion?' - 79: 1922 R S Thouless studied some of the [Salvation] Army's classical methods from the psychological point of view: '.. end of .. service.. invited to come up to the Mercy Seat on stage.. confident tones.. monotonous singing.. the word "Come" .. hypnoidal [i.e. hypnosis-like]..'
- 81: ['organized social work began.. in Australia']
- 83: 'The Army was born amid the great outburst of Victorian philanthropy and voluntary effort.. Barnardo.. Josephine Butler.. William Booth declared that the London poor should be treated at least as well as a cab horse which had shelter, food and work..'
- 127: 'In darkest Africa.. reaching South Africa by 1883, Rhodesia in 1891; in the 1920s, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia (then Northern Rhodesia). In the 1930s.. Uganda, Tanzania and Zaire (then the Belgian Congo) and across the river to French Congo as well..'
- 126-7: 'When Railton reached Zululand, the impis had been defeated and white power had been imposed. .. In his opinion Zulu sinners differed little from British sinners, And the Zulu dandy closely resembled the English dandy.. beginning of urbanization.. 'Natives.. sent to what is called a "location".. overcrowding.. hovels.. moral degradation.. mine compounds .. simply large squares or sheds.. do not contain a scrap of furniture.. drunkenness.. Boer War.. 'Amidst all the tons of paper.. how many square inches have been used to plead the interests of the peoples of Africa? ..'
- 128: [Quote from H A L Fisher on conversion of Goths etc]
- 129: POLYGAMY: 'All Christian churches have.. found it necessary to provide a half-way house for the polygamous Christian. ..'
- 130: [ANTHROPOLOGY; RELIGION OF THE OPPRESSED: Account of 'Simon Kimbangu in Leopoldville, an African Bunyan in a ravaged land, with no book but the Kikongo Bible, sentenced to .. death.. then reprieved to a living death in Elizabethville jail by the Belgian colonial regime.' S on the collar, shaking hands with a whited and not suffering mishap, touching the 'red cord round the Penitent-form': .. emerged.. syncretistic movement with an odd variety of officials such as 'Pasteur', 'Capitaine', and 'L'Etat'; legalised in 1958. -132: [Rhodesia and Mashona and early history: Jameson of the Raid assigned 3000 acres to the Salvation Army..]
- 133: ZAMBIA: Kenneth Kaunda helped by Salvation Army doctor
- 133-4: TONGA: 9 per cent active Christians.. Every time we have damaged or destroyed a traditional custom like girls' initiation or village beerdrink, without integrating a visible alternative, we have contributed to the destruction of the very fabric of society..'


Text, HTML, uploading © Rae West 21 November 2021. In the hope that my reviews may be helpful.
List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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

The Great War [First World War] brought thousands upon thousands of educated men (who took up public duties as temporary officials) up against the staggering secret they had never suspected—the complete control exercised over things absolutely necessary to the nation’s survival by half a dozen Jews, who were completely indifferent as to whether we or the enemy should emerge alive from the struggle.
For detailed notes on this book (and Belloc's life and writings) click here (opens in new window)
List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

 
'An Examination of the Biological Credentials of the Nazi Creed'   'Published by GEORGE ALLEN & UNWIN LTD for THE SCIENTIFIC BOOK CLUB 121 CHARING CROSS ROAD LONDON W.C.2   1942; Scientific Book Club edition 1943
This Review: 23 June 2017


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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

 

  Review of   Julien Benda   La trahison des clercs/ Translated into English as e.g. The Treason of the Intellectuals, The Great Betrayal
Probably just another Jew propagandist. But with French seasonings. [NB 1948 Who's Who has an Illustrator and Mural Painter, Wladyslw Theodor Benda, born in Poland 15 Jan 1873, living in W 67 Street, New York.]
Benda's 1927 book is barely available in translation into English. Fragments online suggest it would be rather untranslateable, in any case. Benda—judging by a brief look online—lived in France 1867-1956, authored essays in classical French style. The clue is he considered himself a Jew; he's quoted (or misquoted—who knows?) as calling Germans 'one of the plagues of the world'. He wrote articles on 'the Dreyfus Affair' in 1898. (See the anonymous piece demolishing this psyop at https://mileswmathis.com/dreyfus.pdf).

Probably Benda liked the position of Jews in France. He, with breathtaking dishonesty, suggests France was deeply Catholic for 2,000 years, or at any rate a long time, and had dispassionate thinkers of profound thoughts all that time. In fact of course, Jews infiltrated and fomented wars and revolutions, both within France and outside it, notably in Africa and south-east Asia. Benda appears not to mention any of this, or to think of mentioning it. But I haven't read any of his stuff. For people trying to study him, please bear in mind he was almost certainly just another variety of Jewish liar.

 
In case you might wonder what you're missing, here's a paragraph from Part 4: Prediction to sum up (translated by Richard Aldington; published 1928):–

This remark may be put in another form. Imagine an observer of the twelfth century taking a bird's-eye view of the Europe of his time. He would see men groping in the obscurity of their minds and striving to form themselves into nations (to mention only the most striking aspect of the realist will); he would see them beginning to succeed; he would see groups of men attaining consistency, determined to seize a portion of the earth and tending to feel conscious of themselves as distinct from the groups surrounding them. But at the same time he would see a whole class of men, regarded with the greatest reverence, laboring to thwart this movement. He would see men of learning, artists and philosophers, displaying to the world a spirit which cared nothing for nations, using a universal language among themselves. He would see those who gave Europe its moral values preaching the cult of the human, or at least of the Christian, and not of the national, he would see them striving to found, in opposition to the nations, a great universal empire on spiritual foundations. And so he might say to himself: "Which of these two currents will triumph? Will humanity be national or spiritual? Will it depend on the will of the laymen or of the "clerks"? And for long ages the realist cause will not be completely victorious; the spiritual body will remain faithful to itself long enough to our observer to be uncertain of the result. To-day the game is over. Humanity is national. The layman has won. But his triumph has gone beyond anything he could have expected. The "clerk" is not only conquered, he is assimilated. The man of science, the artist, the philosopher are attached to their nations as much as the day-laborer and the merchant. Those who make the world's values, make them for a nation; the Ministers of Jesus defend the national. All humanity including the "clerks," have become laymen. All Europe, including Erasmus, has followed Luther.
RW 19 Feb 2018
List of Links | Top of Page

 


  Review of   Anthony Ludovici, but writing as 'Cobbett'   The Jews, and the Jews in England (1938)
Pseudonymous book which is utterly unhelpful on the Jewish Question.     This review February 22, 2015



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

 

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

 
Realistic novel of westerners collaborating with Stalin's regime


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

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

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

For detailed notes—all references to Jews—from Muggeridge's book (and notes on Muggeridge's life) click here (opens in new window)
List of Links | Top of Page

 

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

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


I have a copy of this slim volume (the 1943 'pocket edition', published 'under the auspices of the Leeds Lodge of B'Nai B'rith'). The preface says it was first published in February 1938—obviously a sensitive time, of course. It was adapted for America—there's at least one online downloadable version (the following link is the 1940 US edition; but the plain text version is full of scanner errors)----
https://www.archive.org/details/jewishcontributi00roth

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

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

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

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

 
Image

 
(Roth's book more than slightly resembles the 'black inventions' mythologies that are out there. See this debunking site about black invention myths
https://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/inventions/)

List of Links | Top of Page

 

Review of Bertrand Russell's Religion and Science 1935

Russell's relatively short book on the historical clashes between religion and science, meaning in practice between Christianity—with emphasis on Roman Catholicism and Protestantism—vs Science.

Not much on non-Christian religions; and nowhere near enough on Jews. Russell was aware that the sciences had increasing issues with corruption; he was not naively pro-science. He did not predict Jewish absurdities, for example on race being non-existent, or sex with children. Re-reading Russell I was led to wonder whether Jewish medicine has always been aimed at killing goyim; lack of salt, putting fluoride in water, and Bill Gates' phoney science point that way.

Published by 'Home University Library' (edited by H A L Fisher, Gilbert Murray, and Julian Huxley) not his usual Allen and Unwin.

I recommend this to Americans in particular, many of whom have had such books hidden from them. Both Catholics and Protestants in the USA are still pitifully gullible; Russell's book, though 85 years old, is punchy with the force of a long-lived man with a lively mind. I've duplicated this in my site, as I think it deserves more exposure.


By Bertrand Russell FRS; published by Thornton Butterworth in London. Advertised as late as 1970 as an 'Oxford Book'.

References
      INDEX [Only four pages of double columns: names and topics such as:—Acosta, Father Joseph/ Prof Alexander/ Descartes/ Eratosthenes/ Father Clavius/ Gadarene swine/ various Popes like Calixtus III, Innocent VIII and so on/ Hitler/ Hobbes/ Hegel/ Hell/ Lecky/ Lightfoot/ Playfair/ Pope/ Rameses/ Siena/ quantum mechanics]

White's Warfare of Science with Theology seems to have been the source of much of Russell's information; listed by Bury as 1896, 2 vols. Lecky's History of Rationalism in Europe is by a standard Victorian author. The Bible, Aristotle, and Galen are mentioned. Other more specific titles include Copernicus On the revolutions../ 1489 Malleus Maleficarum/ Galileo's Dialogues../ Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and Henry V/ 1673 book by de Angelis/ Alexander Pope's Essay on Man/ Newton Principia/ Kant 1755 Natural History and Theory of the Heavens../ Laplace Systeme.. 1796/ 1681 Burnet Sacred Theory of the Earth/ 1749 Buffon Natural History/ Hutton Theory of the Earth 1788/ Lyell Principles of Geology first published 1830/ Joseph Acosta, 1590, Natural and Moral History of the Indies/ 1859 William Gillespie The Theology of Geologists../ Hugh Miller Testimony of the Rocks [no date quoted]/ Gosse Omphalos/ Rivers Medicine, Magic and Religion 1924/ Burton's History of Scotland vols 7 & 8 mentioned/ Needham, History of Embryology/ Waley, The Way and its Power.

CONTENTS OF 'RELIGION AND SCIENCE' IN DETAIL:

      CHAPTER I — GROUNDS OF CONFLICT
      [Russell does his best to describe religions:] -page 8: Each of the great historical religions has three aspects: (1) A Church, (2) A creed, and (3) a code of personal morals. Well, maybe. Russell in his traditional way says nothing about money and assets—tithes, livings, Bishops' palaces, granges, vicarages... And nothing about the part played by violence and force in 'conversions'. These of course are serious omissions, which the Jewish originators of course were aware of.

      CHAPTER II — THE COPERNICAN REVOLUTION
      'Copernicus has the honour, perhaps scarcely deserved, of giving his name to the Copernican system. In the year 1500 he was a mathematical professor in Rome; three years later he returned to Poland, where he was employed in reforming the currency and combating the Teutonic Knights. His spare time in 1507 to 1530 was spent composing 'On the Revolutions of Heavenly Bodies' [sic; correct title surely 'De Revolutionibus'] published in 1543.'
      'Kepler's two laws were published in 1609 and the third one .. in 1619'
      'Father Clavius.. satellites of Jupiter.. to see.. men had to make an instrument..'
      Galileo's 'Dialogues on Two Systems of the World' completed 1630, published in 1632
      'Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and Henry V.. take it for granted.. comets are heralds of disaster..'
      'Pope Calixtus III, Pope from 1455-1458.. greatly perturbed by the Turkish capture of Constantinople.. connected this disaster with the appearance of a great comet.. addition to the litany.. 'from the Turk and the comet, good Lord deliver us'
      'Cranmer wrote to Henry VIII in 1532 about a comet.. 'what strange things these tokens do signify'. .. In 1680 there was an unusually alarming one.. some Scottish divine said they were 'judgments for sins'
      'In 1673 father Augustine de Angelis rector of the Clementine College at Rome published a book on meteorology, saying that comets are not heavenly bodies.. they must originate in the earth's atmosphere.. everything heavenly is eternal and incorruptible, he thought..'
      '.. diary of Ralph Thoresby FRS in the year 1682.. when Halley's comet was making the appearance which enabled its orbit to be calculated.. fit us for whatever changes it may portend.. not ignorant that such meteors proceed from natural causes yet are they also frequently the presages of natural calamities..' [a British compromise, comments Russell]
      .. the final proof that comets were due to natural causes was due to three men.. a Swiss named Doerfel, showed the orbit of 1680 was approximately a parabola. Halley showed the 1682 comet, which aroused terror in 1066 and at Constantinople had a very elongated orbit .. period of 76 years. Newton's Principia in 1687 showed the laws of gravitation accounted for all this.
      '.. for Deists, everything without exception was regulated by natural law. Pope's Essay on Man: '.. general laws, the exceptions few'.. but when the demands of orthodoxy are forgotten, the exceptions disappear. 'From nature's chain whatever link you strike/ Tenth or ten thousandth breaks the chain alike.' The reign of law, as conceived in the time of Queen Anne, is associated with political stability and belief that the era of revolutions is past.'
      '.. 1755.. book by Kant.. called Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, or Investigation of the Constitution and Mechanical Origin of the Whole Structure of the Universe, treated according to Newtonian Principles .. very remarkable work.. in some respects anticipates the results of modern astronomy.. not well received.. Kant was only 31.. hadn't a particular reputation'
      '.. Laplace's nebular hypothesis 1796: Exposition du Systeme du Monde.. also wrote 'Celestial Mechanics


      CHAPTER III — EVOLUTION
THE sciences have developed in an order the reverse of what might have been expected. What was most remote from ourselves was first brought under the domain of law, and then, gradually, what was nearer: first the heavens, next the earth, then animal and vegetable life, then the human body, and last of all (as yet very imperfectly) the human mind. In this there is nothing inexplicable. Familiarity with detail makes it difficult to see broad patterns; the outlines of Roman roads are more easily traced from aeroplanes than from the ground. A man's friends know what he is likely to do better than he does himself; at a certain turn in the conversation, they foresee the dreadful inevitability of one of his favourite anecdotes, whereas to himself he seems to be acting on a spontaneous impulse by no means subject to law. The detailed acquaintance derived from intimate experience is not the easiest {49} source for the generalized kind of knowledge which science seeks. Not only the discovery of simple natural laws, but also the doctrine of the gradual development of the world as we know it, began in astronomy; but the latter, unlike the former, found its most notable application in connection with the growth of life on our planet. The doctrine of evolution, which we are now to consider, though it began in astronomy, was of more scientific importance in geology and biology, where, also, it had to contend with more obstinate theological prejudices than were brought to bear against astronomy after the victory of the Copernican system.
      It is difficult for a modern mind to realize how recent is the belief in development and gradual growth; it is, in fact, almost wholly subsequent to Newton. In the orthodox view, the world had been created in six days, and had contained, from that time onwards, all the heavenly bodies that it now contains, and all kinds of animals and plants, as well as some others that had perished in the Deluge. So far from progress being a law of the universe, as most theologians now contend, there had been, so all Christians believed, a terrible combination of disasters at the time of the Fall. God had told Adam {50} and Eve not to eat of the fruit of a certain tree, but they nevertheless did eat of it. In consequence, God decreed that they and all their posterity should be mortal, and that after death even their remotest descendants should suffer eternal punishment in hell, with certain exceptions, selected on a plan as to which there was much controversy. From the moment of Adam's sin, animals took to preying on each other, thistles and thorns grew up, there began to be a difference of seasons, and the very ground was cursed 80 that it no longer yielded sustenance to Man except as the result of painful labour. Presently men grew so wicked that all were drowned in the Flood except Noah and his three sons and their wives. It was not thought that man had grown better since, but the Lord had promised not to send another universal deluge, and now contented Himself with occasional eruptions and earthquakes.
      All this, it must be understood, was held to be literal historical matter of fact, either actually related in the Bible, or deducible from what was related. The date of the creation of the world can be inferred from the genealogies in Genesis, which tell how old each patriarch was when his oldest son {51} was born. Some margin of controversy was permissible, owing to certain ambiguities and to differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text; but in the end Protestant Christendom generally accepted the date 4004 B.C., fixed by Archbishop Usher. Dr. Lightfoot, Vice.Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, who accepted this date for the Creation, thought that a careful study of Genesis made even greater precision possible; the creation of man, according to him, took place at 9 a.m. on October 23. This, however, has never been an article of faith; you might believe, without risk of heresy, that Adam and Eve came into existence on October 16 or October 30, provided your reasons were derived from Genesis. The day of the week was, of course, known to have been Friday, since God rested on the Saturday.
      Within this narrow framework science was expected to confine itself, and those who thought 6,000 years too short a time for the existence of the visible universe were held up to obloquy. They could no longer be burned or imprisoned, but theologians did everything possible to make their lives unhappy and to prevent the spread of their doctrines.
      Newton's work . the Copernican system {52} having been accepted . did nothing to shake religious orthodoxy. He was himself a deeply religious man, and a believer in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. His universe was not one in which there was development, and might well, for aught that appeared in his teaching, have been created all of a piece. To account for the tangential velocities of the planets, which prevent them from falling into the sun, he supposed that, initially, they had been hurled by the hand of God; what had happened since was accounted for by the law of gravitation. It is true that, in a private letter to Bentley, Newton suggested a way in which the solar system could have developed from a primitive nearly uniform distribution of matter; but so far as his public and official utterances were concerned, he seemed to favour a sudden creation of the sun and planets as we know them, and to leave no room for cosmic evolution.
      From Newton the eighteenth century acquired its peculiar brand of piety, in which God appeared essentially as the Lawgiver, who first created the world, and then made rules which determined all further events without any need of His special intervention. The orthodox allowed {53} exceptions: there were the miracles connected with religion. But for the deists everything, without exception, was regulated by natural law. Both views are to be found in Pope's Essay on Man. Thus in one passage he says:

The first Almighty Cause Acts not by partial, but by gen'ral laws; The exceptions few.

But when the demands of orthodoxy are forgotten, the exceptions disappear:

From Nature's chain whatever link you strike,
Tenth, or ten thousandth, breaks the chain alike.
And if each system in gradation roll
Alike essential to th' amazing whole,
The least confusion not in one, but all
That system only, but the whole must fall.
Let earth unbalanc'd from her orbit fly,
Planets and suns run lawless through the sky;
Let ruling angels from their spheres be hurl'd,
Being on being wreck'd, and world on world;
Heav'n's whole foundations to their centre nod,
And Nature tremble, to the throne of God!

The Reign of Law, as conceived in the time of Queen Anne, is associated with political stability and the belief that the era of revolutions is past. When men again began to desire change, their conception of the workings of natural law became less static. {54}
      The first serious attempt to construct a scientific theory of the growth of the sun, the planets, and the stars, was made by Kant in 1755, in a book called General Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, or Investigation of the Constitution and Mechanical Origin of the Whole Structure of the Universe, treated according to Newtonian Principles. This is a very remarkable work, which, in certain respects, anticipates the results of modern astronomy. It begins by setting forth that all the stars visible to the naked eye belong to one system, that of the Milky Way or Galaxy. All these stars lie nearly in one plane, and Kant suggests that they have a unity not unlike that of the solar system. With remarkable imaginative insight, he regards the nebulae as other similar but immensely remote groups of stars . a view which is now generally held. He has a theory . in part mathematically untenable, but broadly on the lines of subsequent investigations . that the nebulae, the galaxy, the stars, planets, and satellites, all resulted from condensation of an originally diffuse matter about regions in which it happened to have somewhat more density than elsewhere. He believes that the material universe is infinite, which, he says, is the {55} only view worthy of the infinity of the Creator. He thinks that there is a gradual transition from chaos to organization, beginning at the centre of gravity of the universe, and slowly spreading outwards from this point towards the remotest regions . a process involving infinite space and requiring infinite time.
      What makes this work remarkable is, on the one hand, the conception of the material universe as a whole, in which the galaxy and the nebulae are constituent units, and on the other hand the notion of gradual development from an almost undifferentiated primal distribution of matter throughout space. This is the first serious attempt to substitute evolution for sudden creation, and it is interesting to observe that this new outlook appeared first in a theory of the heavens, not in connection with life on the earth.
      For various reasons, however, Kant's work attracted little attention. He was still a young man (thirty-one years old) at the time of its publication, and had as yet won no great reputation. He was a philosopher, not a professional mathematician or physicist, and his lack of competence in dynamics appeared in his supposing that a self-contained system {56} could acquire a spin which it did not originally possess. Moreover, parts of his theory were purely fantastic . for example, he thought that the inhabitants of the planets must be better the farther they were from the sun, a view which is to be commended for its modesty as regards the human race, but is not supported by any considerations known to science. For these reasons, Kant's work remained almost unnoticed until a similar but more professionally competent theory had been developed by Laplace.
      Laplace's famous nebular hypothesis was first published in 1796, in his Exposition du Système du Monde, apparently in complete ignorance that it had been in a considerable degree anticipated by Kant. It was, for him, never more than an hypothesis, put forward in a note, "with the mistrust which must be inspired by everything that is not a result of observation or calculation"; but, though now superseded, it dominated speculation for a century. He held that what is now the system of the sun and the planets was originally a single diffuse nebula; that gradually it contracted, and in consequence rotated faster; that centrifugal force caused lumps to fly off, which became planets; and that the same process, repeated, gave rise to {57} the satellites of the planets. Living, as he did, in the epoch of the French Revolution, he was a complete freethinker, and rejected the Creation altogether. When Napoleon, who conceived that belief in a heavenly Monarch encouraged respect for monarchs on earth, observed that Laplace's great work on Celestial Mechanics contained no mention of God, the astronomer replied: "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis." The theological world was, of course, pained, but its dislike of Laplace was merged in its horror of the atheism and general wickedness of revolutionary France. And in any case battles with astronomers had been found to be rash.
      The development of a scientific outlook in geology was, in one respect, in a contrary direction to that in astronomy. In astronomy the belief that the heavenly bodies were unchanging gave place to the theory of their gradual development; but in geology belief in a former period of rapid and catastrophic changes was succeeded, as the science advanced, by a belief that change had always been very slow. At first, it was thought that the whole history of the earth had to be compressed into about six thousand years. In view of the evidence afforded by sedimentary rocks and deposits of lava and so on, it was necessary, in order to fit into the time scale, to suppose that catastrophic occurrences had formerly been common. How far geology lagged behind astronomy in scientific development may be seen by considering its condition in the time of Newton. Thus Woodward, in 1695, explained the sedimentary rocks by supposing the whole terrestrial globe to have been taken to pieces and dissolved at the flood, and the strata to have settled down from this promiscuous mass as any earthy sediment from a fluid." He taught, as Lyell says, [is this Russell's way of saying BR is quoting??] that "the entire mass of fossiliferous strata contained in the earth's crust had been deposited in a few months." Fourteen years earlier (1681), the Rev. Thomas Burnet, who subsequently became Master of Charterhouse, had published his Sacred Theory of the Earth; containing an Account of the Original of the Earth, and of all the general Changes which it hath already undergone, or is to undergo, till the Consummation of all Things. He believed that the Equator had been in the plane of the ecliptic until the flood, but had then been pushed into its present oblique position. (The more theologically correct view is that of Milton, that {59} this change took place at the time of the Fall.) He thought that the sun's heat had cracked the earth, and allowed the waters to emerge from a subterranean reservoir, thereby causing the flood. A second period of chaos, he maintained, was to usher in the millennium. His views should, however, be received with caution, as he did not believe in eternal punishment. More dreadful still, he regarded the story of the Fall as an allegory, so that, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica informs us, "the king was obliged to remove him from the office of clerk of the closet." His error in regard to the Equator, and his other errors also, were avoided by Whiston, whose book, published in 1696, was called: A New Theory of the Earth; wherein the Creation of the World in Six Days, the Universal Deluge, and the General Conflagration, as laid down in the Holy Scriptures, are shown to be perfectly agreeable to Reason and Philosophy. This book was partly inspired by the comet of 1680, which led him to think that a comet might have caused the flood. In one point his orthodoxy was open to question: he thought the Six Days of Creation were longer than ordinary days.
      It must not be supposed that Woodward, Burnet, and Whiston were inferior to the {60} other geologists of their day. On the contrary, they were the best geologists of their time, and Whiston, at least, was highly praised by Locke.
      The eighteenth century was much occupied by a controversy between two schools, the Neptunists, who attributed almost everything to water, and the Vulcanists, who equally over-emphasized volcanoes and earthquakes. The former sect, who were perpetually collecting evidences of the Deluge, laid great stress on the marine fossils found at great altitudes on mountains. They were the more orthodox, and therefore the enemies of orthodoxy tried to deny that fossils were genuine remains of animals. Voltaire was especially sceptical; and when he could no longer deny their organic origin, he maintained that they had been dropped by pilgrims. In this instance, dogmatic free thought showed itself even more unscientific than orthodoxy.
      Buffon, the great naturalist, in his Natural History (1749), maintained fourteen propositions which were condemned by the Sorbonne theological faculty in Paris as "reprehensible, and contrary to the creed of the Church." [Note: Russell doesn't actually say what 'condemned by the Sorbonne' means; was it legally binding in some way? Were there penalties?] One of these, which concerned geology, affirmed: "That the present mountains and {61} valleys of the earth are due to secondary causes, and that the same causes will in time destroy all the continents, hills, and valleys, and reproduce others like them." Here "secondary causes" means all causes other than God's creative fiat; thus in 1749 it was necessary to orthodoxy to believe that the world was created with the same hills and valleys, and the same distribution of land and sea, as we find now, except where, as in the case of the Dead Sea, a change had been wrought by miracle.
      Buffon did not see fit to enter into a controversy with the Sorbonne. He recanted, and was obliged to publish the following confession: "I declare that I had no intention to contradict the text of Scripture; that I believe most firmly all therein related about the creation, both as to order of time and matter of fact; I abandon everything in my book respecting the formation of the earth, and generally, all that may be contrary to the narration of Moses." It is evident that, outside the domain of astronomy, the theologians had not learned much wisdom from their conflict with Galileo.
      The first writer to set forth a modern scientific view in geology was Hutton, whose Theory of the Earth was first published in {62} 1788, and in an enlarged form in 1795. He assumed that the changes which have occurred in past times on the surface of the earth were due to causes which are now in operation, and which there is no reason to suppose more active in the past than in the present. Although this was in the main a sound maxim, Hutton carried it too far in some respects, and not far enough in others. He attributed the disappearance of continents to denudation, with consequent deposition of sediment on the bottom of the sea; but the rise of new continents he attributed to violent convulsions. He did not sufficiently recognize the sudden sinking of land or its gradual rise. But all scientific geologists since his day have accepted his general method of interpreting the past by means of the present, and attributing the vast changes which have occurred during geological time to those very causes which are now observed to be slowly altering coastlines, increasing or diminishing the height of mountains, and raising or lowering the ocean-bed.
      It was chiefly the Mosaic chronology that had kept men from adopting this point of view at an earlier date, and the upholders of Genesis made vehement onslaughts on Hutton and his disciple Playfair. "The {63} party feeling," says Lyell, [Principles of Geology, eleventh edition, Vol. I, p. 78.] "excited against the Huttonian doctrines, and the open disregard of candour and temper in the controversy will hardly be credited by the reader, unless he recalls to his recollection that the mind of the English public was at that time in a state of feverish excitement. A class of writers in France had been labouring industriously for many years, to diminish the influence of the clergy, by sapping the foundations of the Christian faith; and their success, and the consequences of the Revolution, had alarmed the most resolute minds, while the imagination of the more timid was continually haunted by dread of innovation, as by the phantom of some fearful dream." By 1795, almost all the well-to-do in England saw in every un-Biblical doctrine an attack upon property and a threat of the guillotine. For many years, British opinion was far less liberal than before the Revolution.
      The further progress of geology is entangled with that of biology, owing to the multitude of extinct forms of life of which fossils preserve a record. In so far as the antiquity of the world was concerned, geology and theology could come to terms by agreeing that the six "days" were to be interpreted {64} as six "ages." But on the subject of animal life theology had a number of very definite views, which it was found increasingly difficult to reconcile with science. No animals preyed on each other until after the Fall all animals now existing belong to species represented in the ark; [Footnote: This opinion was not without its difficulties. St. Augustine confessed himself ignorant as to God's reason for creating flies. Luther, more boldly, decided that they had been created by the Devil, to distract him when writing good books. The latter opinion is certainly plausible.] the species now extinct were, with few exceptions, drowned in the flood. Species are immutable, and each has resulted from a separate act of creation. To question any of these propositions was to incur the hostility of theologians.
      Difficulties had begun with the discovery of the New World America was a long way from Mount Ararat, yet it contained many animals not to be found at intermediate places. How came these animals to have travelled so far, and to have left none of their kind on the way? Some thought that sailors had brought them, but this hypothesis had its difficulties, which puzzled that pious Jesuit, Joseph Acosta, who had devoted himself to the conversion of the Indians, but was having difficulty in preserving his own {65} faith. He discusses the matter with much sound sense in his Natural and Moral History of the Indies (1590), where he says "Who can imagine that in so long a voyage men woulde take the paines to carrie Foxes to Peru, especially the kind they call 'Acias,' which is the filthiest I have seene? Who woulde likewise say that they have carried Tygers and Lyons? Truly it were a thing worthy the laughing at to thinke so. It was sufficient, yea, very much, for men driven against their willes by tempest, in so long and unknowne a voyage, to escape with their owne lives, without busying themselves to carrie Woolves and Foxes, and to nourish them at sea." [Footnote: Quoted from White's Warfare of Science with Theology.] Such problems led the theologians to believe that the filthy Acias, and other such awkward beasts, had been spontaneously generated out of slime by the action of the sun; but unfortunately there is no hint of this in the account of the ark. But there seemed no help for it. How could the sloths, for instance, which are as unhurried in their movements as their name implies, have all reached South America if they started from Mount Ararat?
      Another trouble arose from the mere {66} number of the species that came to be known with the progress of zoology. The numbers now known amount to millions, and if two of each of these kinds were in the ark, it was felt that it must have been rather overcrowded. Moreover, Adam had named them ail, which seemed a severe effort at the very beginning of his life. The discovery of Australia raised fresh difficulties. Why had all the kangaroos leapt across the Torres Straits, and not one single pair remained behind? By this time, the progress of biology had made it very difficult to suppose that sun and slime had brought forth a pair of complete kangaroos, yet some such theory was more necessary than ever.
      Difficulties of this kind exercised the mind of religious men all through the nineteenth century. Read, for example, a little book called The Theology of Geologists, as exemplified in the cases of Hugh Miller, and others by William Gillespie, author of The Necessary Existence of God, etc., etc. This book by a Scottish theologian was published in 1859, the year in which Darwin's Origin of Species appeared. It speaks of "the dread postulates of the geologists," and accuses them of a "head and front of offending fearful to contemplate." The main problem with which {67} the author is concerned is one raised by Hugh Miller's Testimony of the Rocks, in which it is maintained that "untold ages ere man had sinned or suffered, the animal creation exhibited exactly its present state of war." Hugh Miller describes vividly, and with a certain horror, the instruments of death and even torture employed against each other by species of animals which were extinct before man existed. Himself deeply religious, he finds it difficult to understand why the Creator should inflict such pain upon creatures incapable of sin. Mr. Gillespie, in face of the evidence, boldly reaffirms the orthodox view, that the lower animals suffer and die because of man's sin, and quotes the text, "By man came death," to prove that no animals died until Adam had eaten the apple. [Footnote: This was the view of all sects. Thus Wesley says that, before the Fall, "the spider was as harmless as the fly, and did not lie in wait for blood."] [Extraordinary stuff! - RW]
      After quoting Hugh Miller's descriptions of warfare among extinct animals, he exclaims that a benevolent Creator could not have created such monsters. So far, we may agree with him. But his further arguments are curious. It seems as though he were denying the evidence of geology, but in the end his courage fails him. Perhaps {68} there were such monsters, after ail, he says but they were not created directly by God. They were originally innocent creatures led astray by the Devil; or perhaps, like the Gadarene swine, they were actually animal bodies inhabited by the spirits of demons. This would explain why the Bible contains the story of the Gadarene swine, which has been a stumbling.block to many.
      A curious attempt to save orthodoxy in the field of biology was made by Gosse the naturalist, father of Edmund Gosse. He admitted fully all the evidence adduced by geologists in favour of the antiquity of the world, but maintained that, when the Creation took place, everything was constructed as if it had a past history. There is no logical possibility of proving that this theory is untrue. It has been decided by the theologians that Adam and Eve had navels, just as if they had been born in the ordinary way. [Footnote: Perhaps this was the reason why Gosse called his book Omphalos.] Similarly everything else that was created could have been created as if it had grown. The rocks could have been filled with fossils, and have been made just such as they would have become if they had been due to volcanic action or to sedimentary {69} deposits. But if once such possibilities are admitted, there is no reason to place the creation of the world at one point rather than another. We may have all come into existence five minutes ago, provided with ready.made memories, with holes in our socks and hair that needed cutting. But although this is a logical possibility, nobody can believe it; and Gosse found, to his bitter disappointment, that nobody could believe his logically admirable reconciliation of theology with the data of science. The theologians, ignoring him, abandoned much of their previous territory, and proceeded to entrench themselves in what remained.
      The doctrine of the gradual evolution of plants and animals by descent and variation, which came into biology largely through geology, may be divided into three parts. There is first the fact, as certain as a fact about remote ages can hope to be, that the simpler forms of life are the older, and that those with a more complicated structure make their first appearance at a later stage of the record. Second, there is the theory that the later and more highly organized forms did not arise spontaneously, but grew out of the earlier forms through a series of modifications; this is what is specially meant by {70} "evolution" in biology. Third, there is the study, as yet far from complete, of the mechanism of evolution, i.e., of the causes of variation and of the survival of certain types at the expense of others. The general doctrine of evolution is now universally accepted among biologists, though there are still doubts as to its mechanism. The chief historical importance of Darwin lies in his having suggested a mechanism . natural selection . which made evolution seem more probable; but his suggestion, while still accepted as valid, is less completely satisfying to modern men of science than it was to his immediate successors.
      The first biologist who gave prominence to the doctrine of evolution was Lamarck (1744.1829). [No titles named.] His doctrines, however, failed to win acceptance, not only on account of the prejudice in favour of the immutability of species, but also because the mechanism of change which he suggested was not one which scientific men could accept. He believed that the production of a new organ in an animal's body results from its feeling a new want; and also that what has been acquired by an individual in the course of its life is transmitted to its offspring. Without the second hypothesis, the first would {71} have been useless as part of the explanation of evolution. Darwin, who rejected the first hypothesis as an important element in the development of new species, still accepted the second, though it had less prominence in his system than in Lamarck's. The second hypothesis, as to the inheritance of acquired characters, was vigorously denied by Weissmann, [Russell mentions him again in this chapter - maybe the Germans had more importance here than nationalistic Brits incline to tell; name also spelt Weismann] and, although the controversy still continues, the evidence is now overwhelming that, with possible rare exceptions, the only acquired characters that are inherited are those that affect the germ cells, which are very few. The Lamarckian mechanism of evolution cannot therefore be accepted.
      Lyell's Principles of Geology, first published in 1830, a book which, by its emphatic statement of the evidence for the antiquity of the earth and of life, caused a great outcry among the orthodox, was nevertheless not, in its earlier editions, favourable to the hypothesis of organic evolution. It contained a careful discussion of Lamarck's theories, which it rejected on good scientific grounds. In later editions, published after the appearance of Darwin's Origin of Species (1859), the theory of evolution is guardedly favoured.
      Darwin's theory was essentially an extension to the animal and vegetable world of {72} laisser-faire economics, and was suggested by Malthus's theory of population. All living things reproduce themselves so fast that the greater part of each generation must die without having reached the age to leave descendants. A female cod-fish lays about 9,000,000 eggs a year. If all came to maturity and produced other cod-fish, the sea would, in a few years, give place to solid cod, while the land would be covered by a new deluge. Even human populations, though their rate of natural increase is slower than that of any other animals except elephants, have been known to double in twenty-five years. If this rate continued throughout the world for the next two centuries, the resulting population would amount to five hundred thousand millions. But we find, in fact, that animal and plant populations are, as a rule, roughly stationary; and the same has been true of human populations at most periods. There is therefore, both within each species and as between different species, a constant competition, in which the penalty of defeat is death. It follows that, if some members of a species differ from others in any way which gives them an advantage, they are more likely to survive. If the difference has been acquired, it will not be {73} transmitted to their descendants, but if it is congenital it is likely to reappear in at least a fair proportion of their posterity. Lamarck thought that the giraffe's neck grew long as a result of stretching up to reach high branches, and that the results of this stretching were hereditary; the Darwinian view, at least as modified by Weismann, is that giraffes which, from birth, had a tendency to long necks, were less likely to starve than others, and therefore left more descendants, which, in turn, were likely to have long necks . some of them, probably, even longer necks than their already long-necked parents. In this way the giraffe would gradually develop its peculiarities until there was nothing to be gained by developing them further. Darwin's theory depended upon the occurrence of chance variations, the causes of which, as he confessed, were unknown. It is an observed fact that the posterity of a given pair are not all alike. Domestic animals have been greatly changed by artificial selection: through the agency of man cows have come to yield more milk, racehorses to run faster, and sheep to yield more wool. Such facts afforded the most direct evidence available to Darwin of what {74} selection could accomplish. It is true that breeders cannot turn a fish into a marsupial, or a marsupial into a monkey; but changes as great as these might be expected to occur during the countless ages required by the geologists. There was, moreover, in many cases, evidence of common ancestry. Fossils showed that animals intermediate between widely separated species of the present had existed in the past; the pterodactyl, for example, was half bird, half reptile. Embryologists discovered that, in the course of development, immature animals repeat earlier forms; a mammalian foetus, at a certain stage, has the rudiments of a fish's gills, which are totally useless, and hardly to be explained except as a recapitulation of ancestral history. Many different lines of argument combined to persuade biologists both of the fact of evolution, and of natural selection as the chief agent by which it was brought about.
      Darwinism was as severe a blow to theology as Copernicanism. Not only was it necessary to abandon the fixity of species and the many separate acts of creation which Genesis seemed to assert; not only was it necessary to assume a lapse of time, since the origin of life, which was shocking to the {75} orthodox; not only was it necessary to abandon a host of arguments for the beneficence of Providence, derived from the exquisite adaptation of animals to their environment, which was now explained as the operation of natural selection, but, worse than any or all of these, the evolutionists ventured to affirm that man was descended from the lower animals. Theologians and uneducated people, indeed, fastened upon this one aspect of the theory. "Darwin says that men are descended from monkeys!" the world exclaimed in horror. It was popularly said that he believed this because he himself looked like a monkey (which he did not). When I was a boy, I had a tutor who said to me, with the utmost solemnity:
      "If you are a Darwinist, I pity you, for it is impossible to be a Darwinist and a Christian at the same time." To this day in Tennessee, it is illegal to teach the doctrine of evolution, because it is considered to be contrary to the Word of God.
      As often happens, the theologians were quicker to perceive the consequences of the new doctrine than were its advocates, most of whom, though convinced by the evidence, were religious men, and wished to retain as much as possible of their former beliefs. {76}
      Progress, especially during the nineteenth century, was much facilitated by lack of logic in its advocates, which enabled them to get used to one change before having to accept another. When all the logical consequences of an innovation are presented simultaneously, the shock to habits is so great that men tend to reject the whole, whereas, if they had been invited to take one step every ten or twenty years, they could have been coaxed along the path of progress without much resistance. The great men of the nineteenth century were not revolutionaries, either intellectually or politically, though they were willing to champion a reform when the need for it became overwhelmingly evident. This cautious temper in innovators helped to make the nineteenth century notable for the extreme rapidity of its progress.
      The theologians, however, saw what was involved more clearly than did the general public. They pointed out that men have immortal souls, which monkeys have not; that Christ died to save men, not monkeys; that men have a divinely implanted sense of right and wrong, whereas monkeys are guided solely by instinct. If men developed by imperceptible steps out of monkeys, at {77} what moment did they suddenly acquire these theologically important characteristics? At the British Association in 1860 (the year after The Origin of Species appeared), Bishop Wilberforce thundered against Darwinism, exclaiming "The principle of natural selection is absolutely incompatible with the word of God." But all his eloquence was in vain, and Huxley, who championed Darwin, was generally thought to have beaten him in argument. Men were no longer afraid of the Church's displeasure, and the evolution of animal and vegetable species was soon the accepted doctrine among biologists, although the Dean of Chichester, in a University sermon, informed Oxford that "those who refuse to accept the history of the creation of our first parents according to its obvious literal intention, and are for substituting the modern dream of evolution in its place, cause the entire scheme of man's salvation to collapse"; and although Carlyle, who preserved the intolerance of the orthodox without their creed, spoke of Darwin as an "apostle of dirt-worship."
      The attitude of unscientific lay Christians was well illustrated by Gladstone. It was a liberal age, although the Liberal leader did his best to make it otherwise. In 1864, {78} when an attempt to punish two clergymen for not believing in eternal punishment failed because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council acquitted them, Gladstone was horrified, and said that, if the principle of the judgment was followed up, it would establish "a complete indifference between the Christian faith and the denial of it." When Darwin's theory was first published, he said, expressing the sympathetic feelings of one also accustomed to governing: "Upon grounds of what is termed evolution God is relieved of the labour of creation; in the name of unchangeable laws He is discharged from governing the world." He had, however, no personal feeling against Darwin; he gradually modified his opposition, and once, in 1877, paid him a visit, during the whole of which he talked unceasingly about Bulgarian atrocities. When he was gone, Darwin, in all simplicity, remarked: "What an honour that such a great man should come to visit me!" Whether Gladstone carried away any impression of Darwin, history does not relate.
      Religion, in our day, has accommodated itself to the doctrine of evolution, and has even derived new arguments from it. We are told that "through the ages one {79} increasing purpose runs," and that evolution is the unfolding of an idea which has been in the mind of God throughout. It appears that during those ages which so troubled Hugh Miller, when animals were torturing each other with ferocious horns and agonizing stings, Omnipotence was quietly waiting for the ultimate emergence of man, with his still more exquisite powers of torture and his far more widely diffused cruelty. Why the Creator should have preferred to reach His goal by a process, instead of going straight to it, these modern theologians do not tell us. Nor do they say much to allay our doubts as to the gloriousness of the consummation. It is difficult not to feel, as the boy did after being taught the alphabet, that it was not worth going through so much to get so little. This, however, is a matter of taste.
      There is another and a graver objection to any theology based on evolution. In the 'sixties [1860s] and 'seventies [1870s], when the vogue of the doctrine was new, progress was accepted as a law of the world. Were we not growing richer year by year, and enjoying budget surpluses in spite of diminished taxation? Was not our machinery the wonder of the world, and our parliamentary government a {80} model for the imitation of enlightened foreigners? And could anyone doubt that progress would go on indefinitely? Science and mechanical ingenuity, which had produced it, could surely be trusted to go on producing it ever more abundantly. In such a world, evolution seemed only a generalization of everyday life.
      But even then, to the more reflective, another side was apparent. The same laws which produce growth also produce decay. Some day, the sun will grow cold, and life on the earth will cease. The whole epoch of animals and plants is only an interlude between ages that were too hot and ages that will be too cold. There is no law of cosmic progress, but only an oscillation upward and downward, with a slow trend downward on the balance owing to the diffusion of energy. This, at least, is what science at present regards as most probable, and in our disillusioned generation it is easy to believe. From evolution, so far as our present knowledge shows, no ultimately optimistic philosophy can be validly inferred. {81} [end of chapter III]


      CHAPTER IV — DEMONOLOGY AND MEDICINE
      82: The scientific study of the human body and its diseases had to contend with a mass of superstition, largely pre-Christian, but supported until quite modern times by the whole weight of ecclesiastical authority. Sometimes a divine visitation was a punishment for sin; more often the work of demons. Much less support could be found in the gospels; the rest of the theory is developed by the Fathers, or grew naturally out of their doctrines. St Augustine maintained that "all diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to the demons; chiefly do they torment fresh baptised Christians, yea, even the guiltless new-born infants." It must be understood that, in the writings of the Fathers, "demons" mean heathen deities, who were supposed to be enraged by the progress of Christianity. The early Christians by no means denied the existence of the Olympian gods, but supposed them servants of Satan - a view which Milton adopted, in Paradise Lost. Gregory Nazianzen maintained that medicine is useless, but the laying on of consecrated hands is often effective. Similar views were expressed by other Fathers. [No source to that quotation]
      .. relics.. Middle Ages.. the bones of St Rosalia, which are preserved in Palermo, have for many centuries been found effective in curing disease; but when examined by a profane anatomist, they turned out to be the bones of a goat. Nevertheless, the cures continued. We now know that certain kinds of diseases can be cured by faith, while others cannot. No doubt "miracles" of healing do occur and unscientific atmosphere legends soon magnify the truth and obliterate the distinction between the hysterical diseases which can be cured in this way and the others which demand a treatment based upon pathology.

      White, Warfare of Science..: '.. An unusually complete instance, the supposed miracles of St Francis Xavier, the friend of Loyola, the first and most eminent of Jesuit missionaries in the east, who spent many years in India, China, and Japan, and died in 1552. .. [Letters complain about difficulties with the languages etc] In 1622 when he was canonized it became necessary to prove to the satisfaction of the Vatican authorities that he had performed miracles; without such proof no-one could become a saint. The Pope officially guaranteed the gift of tongues, and was specially impressed by the fact that Xavier made lamps burn with holy water instead of oil. This was the same Pope, Urban VIII, who found what Galileo said incredible. The legend continued to grow, till in the biography published by Father Bouhours in 1682 we learn that the saint raised fourteen persons from the dead. By 1872 Father Coleridge at the Society of Jesus reaffirmed the gift of tongues in a biography. From this example it is evident how little reliance can be placed upon the accounts of marvels in the periods when the documents are less numerous than in the case of St Francis Xavier. .. they were believed by Protestants as well as Catholics. .. Charles II touched about 100,000 persons for the King's Evil.. His Majesty's surgeon published an account of sixty cures thus effected, another surgeon himself saw, so he says, hundreds of cures due to the King's touch, many of them cases which had defied the ablest surgeons. There was a special service in the Prayer Book provided for occasions when the King exercised his miraculous power of healing. These powers duly descended to James II, William III, and Queen Anne, but apparently were unable to survive the Hanoverian Succession. .. Plagues and pestilences.. The chief practitioners of the scientific studies of medicine were Jews, who derived their knowledge from Mohammedans... Dissection was virtually forbidden, in consequence of a misunderstood Bull of Boniface VIII..
      The treatment of mental disorders, as may be imagined, was peculiarly superstitious, [Note: mental disorders? - could be brain damage, or genetic, or caused by maltreatment; or obsessive etc etc - difficult to generalise surely?] and remained so longer than any other branch of medicine. Insanity was regarded as due to diabolical possession - a view for which authority could be found in the New Testament. .. exorcism.. touching a relic.. holy man's command to the demon to come forth. ... 'spew-water'.. savouring of magic.. foul odours were used.. disgusting substances.. the formula of exorcism became longer and longer and more filled with obscenities. By such means, the Jesuits of Vienna, in 1583, cast out 12,652 devils. ... prevention of sleep was a recognized method.. Bible.. Exodus XXII, 18, 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'.. Wesley said that giving up of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible.. [Footnote: Unless we accept the view which was waged against belief in witchcraft when it was decaying that the word translated as 'witch' actually means 'poisoner', but this does not dispose of the Witch of Endor.]
      Rivers, 'Medicine, Magic and Religion' 1924: .. who tries to distinguish.. 'When I speak of magic, I shall mean a group of processes in which man uses rites which depend for there efficacy on his own power or on powers believed to be inherent in or attributes of certain objects or processes which are used in these rites. Religion on the other hand will comprise a group of processes the efficacy of which depends upon the will of some high power, some power whose intervention is sought by rites of supplication and propitiation.' Russell says this definition is suitable when dealing with people who, on the one hand, believe in the strange power of certain inanimate objects, such as sacred stones, and, on the other hand, regard all non-human spirits as superior to man. Neither of these is quite true of Medieval Christians or Mohammedans. Strange powers, it is true, were attributed to the philosopher's stone and the elixir of life, but these could almost be classed as scientific; they were sought by experiment, and their expected properties were scarcely more wonderful than those which have been found in radium. And magic as understood in the Middle Ages constantly invoked the aid of spirits, but of evil spirits. Among the Melanesians, distinction of good and evil spirits does not seem to exist, whereas in the Christian doctrine it was essential. Satan as well as the Deity could work miracles, but Satan worked them to help wicked men while the Deity worked them to help good men. This distinction as it appears from the Gospels was already familiar to the Jews from the time of Christ, since they accused him of casting out devils by the help of Beelzebub. Sorcery and witchcraft in the Middle Ages were primarily, though not exclusively, ecclesiastical offences, and their peculiar sinfulness lay in the fact that they involved an alliance with the infernal powers. Oddly enough, a devil could sometimes be induced to do things which would have been virtuous if done by anybody else. In Sicily there are (or recently were) puppet plays which have come down in unbroken tradition from medieval times. In 1908 I saw one of these at Palermo, dealing with the wars between Charlemagne and the Moors.. Pope secured the Devil's help.. the Devil was seen in the air giving victory to the Christians. In spite of this excellent result, the Pope's action was wicked and Charlemagne was shocked by it, though he took advantage of the victory.]
      It is held nowadays by some of the most serious students of witchcraft [Russell quotes no sources] that it was a survival in Christian Europe of pagan cults and the worship of pagan deities who had become identified with evil spirits of Christian demonology. While there is much evidence that elements of paganism became amalgamated with magic rites, there are grave difficulties in the way of attributing witchcraft mainly to this source. Magic was a crime punishable in pre-Christian antiquity. There was a law against it in the Twelve Tables in Rome. So far back as the year 1100 BC, certain officers of certain women of the harem [sic] of Rameses III were tried for making a waxen image of that king and pronouncing magic spells over it with a view to causing his death. Apuleius the writer was tried for magic in AD 150 because he had married a rich widow, to the great annoyance of her son. Like Othello, however, he succeeded in persuading the court that he had used only his natural charms. When Innocent VIII in 1484 issued a Bull against witchcraft he appointed two inquisitors to publish .. in 1489 Malleus Maleficarum, the hammer of female malefactors. They maintained that maintained that witchcraft is more natural to women than to men because of the inherent wickedness of their hearts. It is estimated that in Germany alone between 1450 and 1550 100,000 witches were put to death, mostly by burning. [Russell, perhaps typically, gives Germany as an example; why not England or Italy?] .. Towards the end of the 16 C Flade, Rector of the University of Trèves, Chief Judge of the Electoral Court, after condemning countless witches, began to think perhaps their confessions were due to the desire to escape from the tortures of the rack, with the result that he showed unwillingness to convict. He was accused of having sold himself to Satan.. tortured.. in 1589.. strangled.. burnt.
      Protestants were quite as much addicted as Catholics to persecution of witches. In this matter James I was peculiarly zealous. He wrote a book on demonology in the first year of his reign in England. Cope was Attorney-General and Bacon was in the House of Commons. He caused the law to be made more stringent by a statute which remained in force until 1736. Sir Thomas Browne who was a medical witness in a prosecution declared in Religio Medici 'I have ever believed, and do now know, that there are witches; they that doubt them do not only deny them, but spirits, they are bleakly and of consequence a sort, not of infidels, but of atheists'. [NB: I've read a later edition of Browne present the opposite opinion]
      Lecky, History of Rationalism in Europe .. Lecky pointed out a disbelief in ghosts and witches was one of the most prominent characteristics of scepticism in the 17 C, at first nearly confined to men who were avowedly freethinkers. In Scotland the persecution was much greater. Burton's History of Scotland.. tempests which had beset James I on his voyage from Denmark .. a certain Dr Fian confessed under torture they were produced by witches who had put to sea in a sieve from Leith. .. first invented the new torture of pulling out fingernails and thrusting needles in.. Dr Fian.. kept denying what he had formerly avouched and so he was burnt. .. 1736 Act repealed witchcraft in Scotland at the same time as in England though the belief was still vigorous. .. R quotes professional textbook of law of 1730.. 'nothing seems plainer to me than that there may be, and have been, witches and that perhaps such are now actually existing.' .. What happened in 1736.. there was a secession from the Established Church of Scotland.. their leaders in 1736 published a statement on the depravity of the age.. complained about dancing and the theatre, and the penal statutes which had been repealed contrary to.. Exodus. There is a remarkable simultaneity in the cessation of punishments. There were as many executions for witchcraft during the Commonwealth as in all the reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts. .. With the Restoration, scepticism became fashionable.. The last execution in 1682.. though it is said there were others as late as 1712.. 1712 trial in Hertfordshire.. the judge directed the jury to disbelief the possibility but they convicted him.. the conviction was quashed.. In Scotland it became rare after the end of the 17 C... the last burning of a witch was in 1722 or 1730. In France, the last burning was 1780. In New England there was a fierce outbreak of witch-hunting at the end of the 17 C. Everywhere the popular belief continued and still survives in some remote rural areas. The last case of the kind in England was in 1863 in Essex, when an old man was lynched by his neighbours as a wizard. Legal recognition of witchcraft as a possible crime survived longest in Spain and Ireland. In Ireland, the law against witchcraft was not repealed until 1821. In Spain a sorcerer was burnt in 1780
      .. Lecky points out the curious fact that belief in the possibility of black magic was not defeated by arguments on the subject, but by the general spread of the belief in the reign of law. He even goes so far as to say that, in the specific discussion of witchcraft, the weight of argument was on the side of its upholders. This is perhaps not surprising when you remember that the Bible could be quoted by the upholders, while the other side could hardly venture to say that the Bible was not always to be belief. Moreover the best scientific minds did not occupy themselves with popular superstitions, partly because they had more positive work to do, partly because they feared to arouse antagonism.
      .. Newton's work caused men to belief that God had originally created nature and decreed nature's laws so as to produce the results that He intended without fresh intervention, except on great occasions, such as the revelation of the Christian religion. Protestants held that miracles occurred during the first century or two of the Christian era and then ceased. If God no longer intervened miraculously, it was hardly likely that He would allow Satan to do so. There were hopes of scientific meteorology which would leave no room for old women on broomsticks as the causes of storms. ... Lightning and thunder.. 1755 Massachusetts earthquakes.. Rev Dr Price attributed them to the 'iron points invented by the sagacious Mr Franklin. There is no getting out of the mighty hand of God'. [This example I think in Gardner too]
      .. [Medicine; which I suppose is vaguely connected with demonology] Anatomy and physiology were necessary to start with.. these in turn were not possible without dissection, which the Church opposed.. Vesalius who first made anatomy scientific succeeded in escaping official censure because he was physician to the Emperor Charles V.. feared his health might suffer if he was deprived of his favourite practitioner.. during that reign the Conference of Theologians [who are these?] gave it as there opinion that dissection was not sacrilege. Philip II was less of a valetudinarian, and he saw no reason to protect a suspect, so Vesalius got no more bodies. The Church believe that there is in the human body one indestructible bone which is the nucleus of the resurrection body; Vesalius on being questioned confessed he had never found such a bone. This was bad, but perhaps not bad enough. The medical disciples of Galen, who had become as great an obstacle to progress in medicine as Aristotle in physics, pursued Vesalius with a relentless hostility and at length found opportunity to ruin him. .. Spanish grandee's corpse was being examined the heart supposedly showing some signs of life.. accused of murder and denounced to the Inquisition.. allowed to do penance by pilgrimage to the Holy Land.. on the way home he was shipwrecked and died of exhaustion. .. Fallopius was one of his pupils...
      Physiology developed later than anatomy, and may be taken as becoming scientific with Harvey 1578-1657. Like Vesalius, he was a court physician, to James I and then to Charles I, but he was not persecuted. In Spanish universities the circulation of the blood was still denied at the end of the 18 C, and dissection was still no part of medical education. .. The old theological prejudices reappeared when awakened by any startling novelties. [Note: cp VD, AIDS etc] Inoculation against smallpox aroused a storm of protest from divines. The Sorbonne protested against it on theological grounds. An Anglican clergyman published a sermon in which he said that Job's boils were caused by inoculation by the devil. And Scottish ministers joined in the manifesto saying that it was 'endeavouring to baffle the divine judgement.' .. The effect in diminishing the death rate was so notable that theological terrors failed to outweigh fear of the disease. The controversy began to die down when the discovery of vaccination revived it. Clergymen regarded vaccination as bidding defiance to heaven itself, even to the will of God, and at Cambridge University sermons preached against it. So late as 1885, when there was a severe outbreak of smallpox in Montreal, the Catholic part of the population resisted vaccination with the support of their clergy. One priest said that it was caused by having a carnival last winter, 'feasting with flesh which offended the Lord.'
      .. anaesthetics.. [information source not given; possibly White again] .. Simpson.. 1847.. was reminded that Genesis 3, 16 said 'in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children'; how could she sorrow if she is under the influence of chloroform? In any case, God put Adam into a deep sleep.. In Japan women are expected to endure the pains of labour.. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that to many men there is something enjoyable in the sufferings of women, and therefore a propensity to cling to any theological or ethical code which makes it their duty to suffer patiently even when there is no valid reason for not avoiding pain. The harm that theology has done is not to create cruel impulses but to give them the sanction of what professes to be a lofty ethic and to confer an apparently sacred character on practices which have come down from more ignorant and barbarous ages.
      106: .. Opinions on such subjects as birth control and the legal permission of abortion are still influenced by Biblical texts and ecclesiastical decrees. See, for instance, the encyclical on marriage, issued a few years ago by Pope Pius XI. "Those who practise birth control" he says "sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. Small wonder therefore if Holy Writ bears witness that the divine Majesty regards with the greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death." .. goes on to quote Augustine, on Genesis 13, 8 to 10. No further reasons for the condemnation of birth control are thought necessary. As for economic arguments, "we are deeply touched but no difficulty can arise that justifies putting aside the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil."
      .. Needham, 'History of Embryology'.. formerly held by theologians that the male embryo acquires a soul at the fortieth day and the female at the eightieth. Now the best opinion is that it is the fortieth day for both sexes. .. Interruption of pregnancy, even if it is considered necessary to save the woman's life, is no justification, because of the law of nature, the precept of God thou shalt not kill.. goes on at once to explain that this does not condemn war or capital punishment.. Over most of the field, the battle for scientific independence has been won. No-one now thinks it impious to avoid pestilences and epidemics by sanitation and hygiene, and though some still maintain that diseases are sent by God, they do not argue that it is therefore impious to try to avoid them. The consequent improvement in health and in increase of longevity is one of the most remarkable and admirable characteristics of our age. Even if science had done nothing else for human happiness, it would deserve our gratitude on this account. Those who believe in the utility of theological creeds would have difficulty in pointing to any comparable advantage that they have conferred upon the human race.


      CHAPTER V — SOUL AND BODY
      [This chapter is very largely philosophical, starting with the Pythagoreans who influenced Plato, and Aristotle; and Museus, Orpheus as quoted in the Republic by Plato; Aquinas; Descartes, Locke, Kant, Hegel..]
      Aquinas 1225-1274 [no books of his mentioned] .. Teachers and educational institutions controlled by the Vatican must make it clear that the only true system is that of the seraphic doctor. The utmost permissible licence is to suggest, as his translator does, that he is joking when he discusses what happens at the resurrection of the body to a cannibal whose father and mother were cannibals. Clearly the people whom he and his parents ate have a prior right to the flesh composing his body, so that he will be left destitute when each claims his own. This is a real difficulty for those who believe in the resurrection of the body, which is affirmed by the Apostles Creed. It is a mark of the intellectual enfeeblement of orthodoxy in our age that it should retain the dogma while treating as a mere pleasantry a grave discussion of awkward problems connected with it. .. Objection to cremation.. my brother.. cremated at Marseilles.. the undertaker had hardly any previous cases of it..
      115: .. 'Substance' is a notion derived from syntax, and syntax is derived from the more-or-less unconscious metaphysic of the primitive races who determined the structure of our languages. Sentences are analysed into subject and predicate and it is thought that, while some words may occur either as subject or predicate, that here are others which (in some not very obvious sense) can only occur as subjects; these words - of which proper names are the best examples - are supposed to denote "substances". The popular word for the same idea is "thing" or "person" when applied to human beings. The metaphysical conception of substance is only an attempt to give precision to what common sense means by a thing or a person. .. Socrates was wise, Socrates was Greek, Socrates taught Plato.. in all these statements we attribute different attributes to Socrates. .. Socrates has exactly the same meaning in all these sentences, and the man Socrates is thus something different from his attributes, something in which attributes are said to 'inhere'. Natural knowledge only enables us to recognise a thing by its attributes: if Socrates had a twin with exactly the same attributes we should not be able to tell them apart. Nevertheless a substance is something other than the sum of its attributes. This appears most clearly from the doctrine of the Eucharist. In transubstantiation the attributes of the bread remain but the substance belongs to the body of Christ. In the period of the rise of modern philosophy, all the innovators from Descartes to Leibniz except Spinoza took great pains to prove their doctrines were consistent with transubstantiation. The authorities hesitated for a long time but finally decided that safety was only to be found in scholasticism. It thus appeared that, apart from revelation, we could never be sure whether a thing or person seen at one time was or was not identical with a thing or person seen at another time. We were in fact exposed to the risk of a perpetual comedy of errors. Under Locke's influence, his followers took a step upon which he did not venture. They denied the whole utility of the notion of substance. Socrates, they said, insofar as we can know anything about him, is known by his attributes. When you have said when and where he lived, what he looked like, what he did and so on, you have said all there is to say about him. There is no need to suppose an entirely unknowable core, in which his attributes inhere, like pins in a pin-cushion. ... The conception of substance as something having attributes but distinct from any and all of them was retained by Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, also, though with greatly diminished emphasis, by Locke. It was however rejected by Hume, and has gradually been extruded both from psychology and from physics. ... [More of this in this chapter, but it doesn't seem to fit well in with the scheme of the book. Kant; Descartes; perception; memory; physics] ... the Roman Catholic belief that the soul survives the death of the body is a doctrine which has been widely held by Christians and non-Christians, by civilized men and by barbarians. The Pharisees believed in immortality among the Jews at the time of Christ, but the Sadducees who adhered to an older tradition did not. In Christianity the belief in the life everlasting has always held a very prominent place: the soul enjoyed felicity after a period of purifying suffering in purgatory. According to Roman Catholic belief, others endure unending torments in Hell..
      .. In modern times.. liberal Christians often incline to the view that hell is not eternal has come to be held by many clergymen in the Church of England since the Privy Council in 1864 decided that it was not illegal for them to do so. But until the middle of the 19 C very few professing Christians doubted the reality of eternal punishment. .. The fear of Hell was, and to a lesser extent still is, a source of the deepest anxiety, which much diminished the comfort to be derived from belief in survival. The motive of saving others from hell was urged as a justification of persecution; for if a heretic, by misleading others, could cause them to suffer damnation, no degree of earthly torture could be considered excessive if employed to prevent so terrible a result. For, whatever may now be thought, it was formerly believed, except by a small minority, that heresy was incompatible with salvation. The decay in the belief in hell was not due to any new theological arguments, nor yet to the direct influence of science, but to the general diminution of ferocity which took place during the 18th and 19th Cs. It is part of the same movement which led shortly before the French Revolution to the abolition of judicial torture in many countries and which in the early 19th C led to the reformation of the savage penal code by which England had been disgraced. In the present day, even among those who still believe in hell, the number of those who are condemned to suffer its torments is thought to be much smaller than was formerly held. Our fiercer passions nowadays take a political rather than a theological direction.
      It is a curious fact that, as the belief in hell has grown less definite, belief in heaven has also lost vividness. Although heaven is still a recognized part of Christian orthodoxy, much less is said about it in modern discussions than about evidences of divine purpose in evolution. Arguments in favour of religion now dwell more upon its influence in promoting a good life here on earth, than on its connection with the life hereafter. The belief that this life is merely a preparation for another, which formerly influenced morals and conduct, has now ceased to have much influence, even on those who have not consciously rejected it.
      [.. psychical research:] I have not myself sufficient knowledge on the subject to judge of the evidence already available, but it is clear that there could be evidence which would convince reasonable men. To this however certain provisos must be added. In the first place the evidence at the best would only prove that we survive death, not that we survive for ever. In the second place, where strong desires are involved, it is very difficult to accept the testimony even of habitually accurate persons; of this there was much evidence during the war, and in all times of great excitement. In the third place, if, upon other grounds, it seems unlikely that our personality is not dying with our body, we shall require much stronger evidence of survival than we should if we thought the hypothesis antecedently probable. Not even the most ardent believer in spiritualism could pretend to have as much evidence of survival as historians can adduce to prove that witches did bodily homage to Satan, yet hardly anyone now regards the evidence of such accounts as even worth examining.
      The difficulty for science arises from the fact that there does not seem to be such an entity as the soul or self. As we saw, it is no longer possible to regard soul and body as two "substances" having that endurance through time which metaphysicians regarded as logically bound up with the notion of substance. Nor is there any reason in psychology to assume a "subject" in contact with an "object". An atom is now merely the convenient way of grouping certain occurrences. ...
      140: .. These two ways of defining a person.. one of them being each person's private experience.. other derives from the body.. these two ways conflict in cases of what is known as dual personality. In such cases, what seems to outside observation to be one person is subjectively split in two. Sometimes neither knows anything of the other; sometimes one knows the other but not vice versa. In cases where neither knows anything of the other there are two persons if memory is used as the definition, but only one if the body is used. There is a regular gradation to the extreme of dual personality through absent-mindedness, hypnosis, and sleep-walking. This makes a difficulty in using memory as the definition of personality, but it appears that lost memories can be recovered by hypnotism or in the course of psycho-analysis, so perhaps the difficulty is not insuperable.
      ... habit.. personality being a matter of organisation.. We may regret the thought that we shall not survive..

      CHAPTER VI — DETERMINISM
      [Another very philosophical chapter, starting with the definition of 'science'] .. Determinism has a two-fold character. On the one hand it is a practical maxim for the guidance of scientific investigators; on the other hand it is a general doctrine as to the nature of the universe. The practical maxim may be sound even if the general doctrine is untrue or uncertain. .. The maxim advises men to seek causal laws, that is to say rules connecting events at one time with events at another. In our everyday life we guide our conduct by rules of this sort, but the rules that we use purchase simplicity at the expense of accuracy. If I press the switch, the electric light will come on, unless it is fused; if I strike a match, it will burn, unless the head flies off; and so on. Such rules will not do for science, which wants something invariable. This ideal was fixed by Newtonian astronomy, where, by the means of the law of gravity, the past and the future positions of the planets can be calculated throughout periods of indefinite vastness. ... smaller degree of regularity of periodic recurrence.. nevertheless, causal laws have been discovered in chemistry and electromagnetism, in biology and even in economics. This discovery of causal laws is the essence of science, and therefore there can be no doubt that scientists do right to look for them. [I'd assumed from one of his essays that he didn't believe in 'cause'; but perhaps it was 'first cause' that he regarded as obsolete; there's a letter in 'Dear Bertrand Russell' open to just the same ambiguity of interpretation] .. Causal laws themselves do not necessarily involve the complete determination of the future by the past. It is a causal law that the sons of white people are also white, but if this was the only law of heredity known we should not be able to predict much about the sons of white parents. Determinism as a general doctrine asserts that complete determination of the future by the past is always possible, theoretically, if we know enough about the past and about causal laws. It is difficult if not impossible to state this precisely: when we try to do so, we find ourselves asserting that this or that is "theoretically possible"; no-one knows what "theoretically" means, and it is no use to assert that "there are" laws which determine the future, unless we add that we may hope to find them out. The future obviously will be what it will be, and in that sense is already determined: an omniscient God such as the orthodox believe in, must now know the whole course of the future; there is, therefore, if an omniscient god exists, a present fact - namely its foreknowledge - from which the future could be inferred. This however lies outside what can be scientifically tested. If the doctrine of determinism is to assert anything that can be made probable or improbable by evidence, it must be stated in relation to our human powers. If we are to have a doctrine that can be tested, [note: relevant to Popper?] it is not enough to say that the whole course of nature must be determined by causal laws. This might be true, and yet indiscoverable - for example, if what is more distant had more effect than what is nearer, we should then need a detailed knowledge of the most distant stars before we could foresee what was going to happen on earth. If we are to be able to test our doctrine, we must be able to state it in relation to a finite part of the universe... We cannot know the whole universe... Things from outside may always crash in and have unexpected effects.. We could attempt to escape from this difficulty in the following manner. Let us suppose we know everything that is happening at the beginning of 1936, within a certain sphere of which we occupy the centre. We will assume, for the sake of definiteness, that the sphere is so large that it takes just a year for light to travel from the circumference to the centre; then, since nothing travels faster than light, everything that happens at the centre of the sphere in 1936 must, if determinism is true, be dependent only on what was inside the sphere at the beginning of the year. ... We can therefore now state the hypothesis of determinism, though I am afraid the statement is rather complicated. The hypothesis is as follows:
      There are discoverable causal laws such that, given sufficient (but not superhuman) powers of calculation, a man who knows all that is happening within a certain sphere at a certain time can predict all that will happen at the centre of the sphere during the time it takes light to travel from the circumference of the sphere to the centre.
      I want it to be clearly understood that I am not asserting this principle to be true; I am only asserting that it is what must be meant by determinism if there is to be any evidence either for it or against it. I do not know whether the principle is true, and no more does anybody else; it may be regarded as an ideal which science has held before itself, but it cannot be regarded, unless on some a priori ground, as either certainly true or certainly false. Perhaps, when we come to examine the arguments that have been used for and against determinism, we shall find that what people have had in mind was something rather less definite than the principle at which we have arrived.
      For the first time in history, determinism is now being challenged by men of science on scientific grounds.. through the study of the atom by the new methods of quantum mechanics. The leader of the attack has been Sir Arthur Eddington.. according to quantum mechanics, it cannot be known what an atom will do in given circumstances; there are a definite set of alternatives open to it, and it chooses sometimes one, sometimes another.. It now appears that all these laws may be merely statistical.. the atoms chose among possibilities in a certain proportion.. being, a giant who could not see individual men.. never became aware of an aggregate of less than a million.. he would notice that Mr Dixon was in bed and did not take his usual train, and the next day Mr Simpson.. the average is not affected..
      [several more examples:] ... mechanics.. large bodies.. behaviour is only probable and approximate.. 157: a determinist might say it is analogous to male and female births.. in Great Britain there are about 21 male for every 20 female births.. although not necessarily in any one family.. everybody believes that there are causes which determine sex in each separate case; we think that the statistical law.. proportion .. must be a consequence of laws which apply in individual cases.. tossing a penny.. the calculation is too complicated for us so we do not know what will happen in any particular case.. long before quantum mechanics were invented, statistical laws already played an important part in physics.. gas consists of vast number of molecules moving at random.. when the average speed is great, the gas is hot; when it is small the gas is cold..
      160: The theory of probability is in a very unsatisfactory state, both logically and mathematically; I do not believe there is any alchemy by which it can produce regularity in large numbers out of pure caprice in each single case. If the penny really chose by caprice whether to fall heads or tails, have we any reason to say that it would choose one about as often as the other? Might not caprice lead just as well always to the same choice? This is no more than a suggestion, since the subject is too obscure for dogmatic statements.
      163: [Other things vaguely related to religion:] The emotional importance supposed to belong to free will seems to me to rest mainly upon certain confusions upon thought. People imagine that, if the will has causes, they may be compelled to do things that they did not wish to do. This of course is a mistake; the wish is the cause of action, even if the wish itself has causes. We can't do what we would rather not do, but it seems unreasonable to complain of this limitation. It is unpleasant when our wishes are thwarted, but this is no more likely to happen if they are caused than if they are uncaused. Not does determinism warrant the feeling that we are impotent. Power consists in being able to have intended effects, and this is neither increased nor diminished by the discovery of causes of our intentions.
      Believers in free will always, in another mental compartment, believe simultaneously that volitions have causes. They think, for example, that virtue can be inculcated by good upbringing, and that religious education is very useful to morals. They believe that sermons do good, and that moral exhortation may be beneficial. Now it is obvious that, if virtuous volitions are uncaused, we cannot do anything whatever to promote them. To the extent to which a man believes that it is in his power, or in any man's power, to promote desirable behaviour in others, to that extent he believes in psychological causation and not in free will. In practice, the whole of our dealings with each other are based upon the assumption that men's actions will result from antecedent circumstances. Political propaganda, the criminal law, the writing of books urging this or that line of action, would all lose their raison d'etre if they had no effect upon what people do. The implications of the free will doctrine are not realised by those who uphold it. We say "Why did you do it?" and expect the answer to mention beliefs and desires which caused actions. When a man does not himself know why he acted as he did, we may search his unconscious for a cause, but it never occurs to us that there may have been no cause.
      ... It is said that introspection makes us immediately aware of free will. Insofar as this is taken in a sense which precludes causation, it is a mere mistake. What we know is that, when we have made a choice, we could have chosen otherwise - if we had wanted to do so. We cannot know by mere introspection whether there were or were not causes of our wanting to do what we did. In the cases of actions which are very rational, we may know their causes. When we take legal or medical or financial advice and act upon it, we know the advice is the cause of our action. But in general the causes of our acts are not to be discovered by introspection; they are to be discovered, like those of other events, by observing their antecedents and discovering some law of sequence. It should be said, further, that the notion of "will" is very obscure, and is probably one that would disappear from a scientific psychology. Most of our actions are not preceded by anything that feels like an act of will; it is a form of mental disease to be unable to do simple things without a previous decision. We may, for instance, decide to walk to a certain place, and then, if we know the way, the putting of one foot before another until we arrive proceeds of itself. It is only the original decision that is felt to involve "will". When we decide after deliberation, two or more possibilities have been in our minds, each more or less attractive, and perhaps each more or less repulsive; in the end, one has proved the most attractive, and has overpowered the others. When one tries to discover volition by introspection, one finds a sense of muscular tenseness, and sometimes an emphatic sentence: "I will do this". But I, for one, cannot find in myself any specific kind of mental occurrence that I could call "will". ... ...
      168: [Note: asymmetry:] Perennial controversies, such as that between determinism and free will, arise from the conflict of two strong but logically irreconcilable passions. Determinism has the advantage that power comes through the discovery of causal laws; science, in spite of its conflict with theological prejudice, has been accepted because it gave power. Belief that the course of nature is regular also gives a sense of security; it enables us up to a point to foresee the future and prevent unpleasant occurrences. When illnesses and storms were attributed to capricious diabolical agencies, they were much more terrifying than they are now. All these motives lead men to like determinism. But while they like to have power over nature, they do not like nature to have power over them. If they are obliged to believe that, before the human race existed, laws were at work which, by a kind of blind necessity, produced not only men and women in general but oneself with all one's idiosyncrasies, saying and doing at this moment whatever one is saying or doing - they feel robbed of personality, futile, unimportant, slaves of circumstances, unable to vary in the slightest degree the part assigned to them by nature from the very beginning. From this dilemma, some men seek to escape by assuming freedom in human beings and determinism everywhere else, others by ingeniously sophistical attempts at a logical reconciliation of freedom with determinism. In fact, we have no reason to adopt either alternative, but we also have no reason to suppose the truth, whatever it may be, is such as to combine the agreeable features of both, or is in any degree determinable by relation to our desires. [End of chapter]

      CHAPTER VII — MYSTICISM
      [First sentence:] The warfare between science and theology has been of a peculiar sort. At all times and places - except in late 18th C France and Soviet Russia - the majority of scientific men have supported the orthodoxy of their age. Some of the most eminent have been in the majority. Newton, though an Arian, was in all other respects a supporter of the Christian faith. Cuvier was a model of Catholic correctness. Faraday was a Sandymanian, [sic; surely Sandemanian] ... The warfare was between theology and science, not men of science. Even when the men of science held view which were condemned, they generally did their best to avoid conflict. Copernicus, as we saw, dedicated his book to the Pope; Galileo retracted; Descartes, though he thought it prudent to live in Holland, took great pains to remain on good terms with ecclesiastics, and by calculated silence escaped censure for sharing Galileo's opinions. In the 19th C most British men of science still thought that there was no essential conflict between their science and those parts of the Christian faith which liberal Christians still regarded as essential - for it had been found possible to sacrifice the literal truth of the Flood, and even of Adam and Eve. The situation at the present day is not very different from what it has been at all times since the victory of Copernicus. Successive scientific discoveries have caused Christians to abandon one after another of the beliefs which the Middle Ages regarded as integral parts of the faith, and these successive retreats have enabled men of science to remain Christians unless their work is on that disputed frontier which the warfare has reached in our day. Now, as at most times during the last three centuries, it is proclaimed that science and religion have become reconciled: the scientists modestly admit that there are realms which lie outside science, and the liberal theologians concede that they would not venture to deny anything capable of scientific proof. There is, it is true, still a few disturbers of the peace: on one side, fundamentalists and stubborn Catholic theologians; on the other side the more radical students of such subjects as biochemistry and animal psychology, who refuse to grant even the comparatively modest demands of the more enlightened churchmen. But on the whole, the fight is languid compared to what it was. The newer creeds of Communism and Fascism are the inheritors of theological bigotry; and perhaps in some region of the unconscious, bishops and professors feel themselves jointly interested in the maintenance of the status quo.
      173: ... [Point about the BBC - this of course was radio:] The present relations between science and religion as the State wishes them to appear may be ascertained from a very instructive volume, Science and Religion, a symposium consisting of twelve talks broadcast by the BBC in the autumn of 1930. Outspoken opponents of religion were of course not included since (to mention no other argument) they would have pained the more orthodox among the listeners. There was, it is true, an excellent introductory talk by Professor Julian Huxley, which contained no support for even the most shadowy orthodoxy, but it also contained little that liberal churchmen would now find objectionable. .. The speakers.. Professor Malinowski's pathetic avowal of a balked longing to believe in God and immortality.. Father O'Hara's bold assertion that the truths of revelation are more certain than those of science.. Canon Streeter.. "a remarkable thing about the foregoing lectures.. their general drift had been in the same direction.. the idea that science by itself is not enough." Whether this unanimity is a fact about science and religion, or about the authorities who control the BBC, may be questioned. .. J Arthur Thomson says science never asks why.. Professor J S Haldane holds that 'it is only within our selves, in our active ideals of truth, right, charity, and beauty, and consequent fellowship with others, that we find the revelation of God.'       [Russell doesn't quote theologians, 'since their concurrence is to be expected'] .. 175: When Canon Streeter says that science is not enough, in one sense he is uttering a truism: science doesn't include art or friendship or various other valuable elements in life but of course more than this is meant. There is another rather more important sense in which science is not enough, which seems to me also true. Science has nothing to say about values. It cannot prove such propositions as 'it is better to love than to hate' or 'kindness is more desirable than cruelty'. But the authors I have quoted certainly mean to assert something further, which I believe to be false. "Science does not pretend to be arbiter of truth" implies there is another non-scientific method of arriving at the truth. Dean Inge is explicit on revelation. The proof of religion then is experimental, he said, speaking of the testimony of the mystics. He says a progressive knowledge of God under the three attributes by which he has revealed to mankind what are sometimes called the absolute or eternal values, goodness or love, truth, and beauty. If that is all, you will say, there is no reason why religion should come into conflict with natural science at all. One deals with facts, the other values. This is not quite true. We have seen science poaching upon ethics, poetry, and what not. Religion cannot help poaching either. That is to say, religion must make assertions about what is and not only about what ought to be. This opinion, by Inge, is implicit in the words of Thomson and Malinowski.
      .. [Men of science's experiments; how the experiment was performed, so others can repeat it:] 179: Russell asserted in Mysticism and Logic that mystics vary greatly in the capacity for giving verbal expression. He thinks the following three points are maintained by all of them: 1. that all division and separateness is unreal, and that the universe is a single indivisible unity; 2. that evil is illusory, and that the illusion arises through falsely regarding a part as self-subsistent; 3. that time is unreal, that reality is eternal, not in the sense of being everlasting, but in the sense of being wholly outside time. I do not pretend this is a complete account of the matters on which all mystics concur, but the three propositions I have mentioned may serve as representatives of the whole. [.. what should we make of this, to a jury?] We shall find that, in the first place, while the witnesses agree up to a point, they disagree when that point is passed, although they are just as certain as when they agree. For example, visions in a which a virgin appears. Truths revealed by the archangel Gabriel, if you are Christian or Mohammedan, or the Taoists say that all government is bad. ... ... There is also a definite physical discipline called Yoga, which is practised in order to produce the mystic certainty. Breathing exercises are the most important feature.. [book he quotes is Waley, The Way and the Power, as regards yoga in China. At some point he also quotes William James on nitrous oxide, which produces a similar feeling. (Nothing on more recently publicised or discovered things like LSD, psilocybin). Great deal of stuff on what is 'unreal', with the meaning and distinctions of words:] There must be nothing in reality corresponding to the apparent distinction between earlier and later events. To say that we are born and then grow and die must be jut as false as to say that we die, then grow small and finally we are born. ... [Mostly concerned with Dean Inge, 'for whom on many grounds I have very high respect'.]
      184: [Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy on Parmenides, great tradition, from Parmenides to Hegel:] What is, is uncreated and indestructible, for it is complete, immovable, and without end. Also, Parmenides said, there is a vague Unknowable, as with Herbert Spencer. [Also mentions the Bishop of Birmingham]
      [Last few lines of the chapter:] I cannot admit any method of arriving at truth other except that of science, but in the realm of the emotions I do not deny the value of the experiences which have given rise to religion. Through association with false beliefs, they have led to much evil as well as good. Freed from this association, it may be hoped that good alone will remain.

      CHAPTER VIII — COSMIC PURPOSE
[Carries on from the previous chapter; Sir J Arthur Thomson. I thought I'd found a quote here to the effect that it's perfectly right that science has nothing to say on things like good and bad and so on, but then neither does anything else. Perhaps I was thinking of the end of Chapter IX]
      190: .. Cosmic purpose.. doctrines.. theistic.. pantheistic could not be considered emergent. The first, which is the simplest and most orthodox, holds that God created the world and decreed the laws of nature because he foresaw that in time some good would be evolved. In this view, the purpose exists consciously in the mind of the creator, but remains external to his creation. In the pantheistic form, god is not external to the universe, but is merely the universe considered as a whole. There cannot therefore be an act of creation but there is a kind of creative force in the universe. .. In the emergent form, the purpose is more blind. At an earlier stage, nothing in the universe foresees a later stage but a kind of blind impulsion leads to those changes to bring more developed forms into existence. [Mentions BBC talks again: Bishop of Birmingham [Dr Barnes] is theistic, Haldane is pantheistic, and Prof Alexander is the emergent form. 'Although Bergson and Professor Lloyd Morgan are perhaps more typical representatives.']
      .. Barnes.. rationality in the universe akin to the rational mind of man. This makes us doubt whether the cosmic process is not directed by mind. There has obviously in this vast panorama been progress which has culminated in the creation of civilised man. Is that progress the outcome of blind forces? It seems to be fantastic to say yes. [Russell continues with omnipotence and so on, and the conception of purpose being a natural one to apply to a human being..] But omnipotence is subject to no such limitations if God really thinks well of the human race - an unplausible hypothesis, it seems to me. Why not proceed as in Genesis to create man at once? What is the point of ichthyosaurs, dinosaurs [sic], diplodoci, mastodons, and so on. Dr Barnes himself confesses that the purpose of a tapeworm is a mystery. What about rabies and hydrophobia and so on? It is no answer to say that the laws of nature inevitably produce evil as well as good, for god decreed the laws of nature. ..
      .. [Dean Inge] .. Outspoken Essays.. at least two volumes.. presages Haldane's views are connected with Hegel, and like everything Hegelian, it is not very easy to understand. .. According to Haldane, there is no such thing strictly speaking as dead matter, or living matter. .. [Possibly something similar in Wells' Mind at the End of its Tether: idea that non-living matter is hot, energetic, radioactive, and it's only in the late decaying stage of matter that you get life. This is also in 'War of the Worlds']
      .. [Haldane. Russell opposes a book The Mechanistic Conception of Life by Jacques Loeb, French, 1912, talking about reproduction on purely mechanical principles.. also.. Encyclopedia Britannica.. pages and pages about memories, psychology, space, the mind, and so on. Here's a statement that leaves Russell gasping:] 208: Like all who follow Hegel, he is anxious to show that nothing is really separate from anything else. .. if one accepts this argument then each man's past and future should co-exist with his present, and that the space in which we all live is also inside each of us. He also has a further step to take in the proof that "personalities do not exclude one another". He says an active ideal of truth, justice, charity, and beauty is always present in us.. The ideal is moreover one ideal, although it has different aspects. It is these common ideals and the fellowship they create from which comes a revelation of god. That leaves me gasping. .. Does he really think that Hitler and Einstein have one ideal, though it has different aspects? Hitler's ideas come mainly from Nietzsche, in whom there is every evidence of complete sincerity. ..
      .. Professor Alexander.. the emergent view.. close affinity with that of Bergson's Creative Evolution.. Bergson holds that determinism is mistaken because in the course of evolution genuine novelties emerge, which could not have been predicted in advance, or even imagined. .. various difficulties make the philosophy of emergent evolution unsatisfactory. Perhaps the chief of these is that, in order to escape from determinism, prediction is made impossible, and yet the adherents predict the future existence of god. They are exactly in the position of Bergson's shellfish which wants to see, although it doesn't know what seeing is.
      Prof Alexander maintains that we have a vague awareness of "deity" in some experiences which he describes as "numinous". The feeling which characterises such events is, he says, "a sense of mystery at something which may terrify us or may support us in our helplessness, but at any rate, which is other than anything we know by our own senses or our own reflection. He gives no reason for attaching importance to this feeling, or for supposing that, as his theory demands, mental development makes it become a larger element in life. From anthropologists one would infer the exact opposite. ... The argument is extraordinarily thin. There have been, it is urged, three stages in evolution: matter, life, and mind. .. There is no reason to suppose that the world has finished evolving; there is very likely to be at some stage a 4th age and a 5th and 6th and so on, one would suppose. But no. With the fourth phase, evolution is to be complete. Now matter could not have foreseen life and life could not have foreseen mind, but mind can dimly foresee the next stage, particularly if it is the mind of a Papuan or a Bushman. It is obvious that all this is the merest guesswork. It may happen to be true, but there is no rational reason for supposing so. The philosophy of emergence is quite right in saying the future is unpredictable, but having said this it at once proceeds to predict the future.
      .. James Jeans.. considers it doubtful whether there is life anywhere else. If it is the purpose of the cosmos to evolve mind, we must regard it as rather incompetent in producing so little in such a long time. .. Second law of thermodynamics, telling us that on the whole energy is passing from the more concentrated to less concentrated forms, and that in the end it will have all passed into a form from which further change is impossible. Therefore life will cease. .. Jeans says 'the three centuries which have elapsed since Giordano Bruno suffered martyrdom for believing in the plurality of worlds have changed our conception of the universe almost beyond description. But they have not brought us appreciably nearer to understanding the relation of life to the universe. ... Throwing humility aside, shall we venture to imagine that it is the only reality which creates instead of being created by the colossal masses of the stars and the nebulae, and the almost inconceivably long vistas of astronomical time?' [Russell goes on to consider that, and also discusses what he calls 'the last question', which is 'are we really so splendid as to justify such a long prologue?' Isn't there something absurd in the spectacle of human beings holding a mirror before themselves and thinking what they behold is so excellent as to prove a cosmic purpose must have been aiming at it all along? Lions and tigers destroy fewer lives than we do, and they are much more beautiful. How about ants; they manage the corporate state much better than any fascist. What about nightingales, larks, and deer? They are not cruel, unjust, or war-mongering. Believers in cosmic purpose make much of our supposed intelligence, but their writings make one doubt it...
      .. Man as a curious accident in a backwater is intelligible; his mixture of virtues and vices is such as might be expected to result from a fortuitous origin; but only abysmal self-complacency can see in man a reason which Omniscience could consider adequate as a motive for the creator. ... [the Copernican revolution not having done its work yet.]

      CHAPTER IX — SCIENCE AND ETHICS
[Again, very philosophical; mentions Waley's book again]
      233: Let us take the legislator first. I will assume for the sake of argument that the legislator is personally disinterested. That is to say, when he recognises one of his desires as being concerned only with his own welfare, he does not let this influence him in framing the laws, for example his code is not designed to increase his personal fortune, but he has other desires which seem to him impersonal. He may believe in an ordered hierarchy from king to peasant, or from mine-owner to black indentured labour. He may believe that women should be submissive to men. He may hold that the spread of knowledge to lower classes is dangerous. .. He will then, if he can, so construct his code that conduct promoting the ends which he values shall as far as possible be in accordance with individual self-interest; that he will establish a system of moral instruction which will, where it succeeds, make men feel wicked if they pursue other purposes than his. Thus "virtue" will come to be in fact, though not in subjective estimation, subservience to the desires of the legislator, insofar as he considers these desires worthy to be universalized. [Footnote: Compare the following advice by a contemporary of Aristotle, Chinese not Greek, from Waley: A ruler should not listen to those who believe in people having opinions of their own, and in the importance of the individual. Such teachings cause men to withdraw to quiet places and hide away in caves or on mountains, there to rail at the prevailing government, sneer at those in authority, belittle the importance of rank and emoluments, and despise all who hold official posts.] The standpoint and method of the preacher are necessarily somewhat different, because he does not control the machinery of the State, and therefore cannot produce an artificial harmony between his desires and those of others. His only method is to try to rouse in others the same desires that he feels himself, and for this purpose his appeal must be to the emotions, as Ruskin caused people to like Gothic architecture, not by argument, but by the moving effect of his rhythmical prose. Uncle Tom's Cabin helped people think slavery an evil by causing them to imagine themselves as slaves. Every attempt to persuade people that something is good (or bad) in itself, not merely in its effects, depends upon the art of rousing feelings, not upon an appeal to evidence. In every case the preacher's skill consists in creating in others emotions similar to his own - or dissimilar, if he is a hypocrite. I am not saying this as a criticism of the preacher, but as an analysis of the central character of his activity.
      [Goes into subjective ethics:] 237: When a man says "This is good in itself" he seems to be making a statement just as much as if he said "This is square" or "This is sweet." I believe this to be a mistake. [This of course was what Santayana persuaded him of]. It is a form of the doctrine which is called the subjectivity of values. The doctrine consists in maintaining that if two men differ about values, there is not a disagreement as to any kind of truth, but a difference of taste. If one man says I think oysters are good and another says I think they are bad, we recognise that there is nothing to argue about. The theory in question holds that all differences in values are of this sort, although we do not naturally think them so, when we are dealing with matters that seem to us more exalted than oysters. The chief ground for adopting this view is the complete impossibility of finding any arguments to prove that this or that has intrinsic value. .. The consequences of this doctrine are considerable. In the first place, there can no such thing as sin in any absolute sense. What one man calls sin, another may call virtue, and though they may dislike each other on account of this difference, neither can convict the other of intellectual error. ..
      - 240: [Something I've been unable to follow:] Those who believe in "objective values" often contend that the view which I have been advocating has immoral consequences. This seems to me to be due to faulty reasoning. There are, as has already been said, certain ethical consequences of the doctrine of subjective values, of which the most important is the rejection of vindictive punishment and the notion of "sin", but the general consequences which are feared, such as the decay of all sense of moral obligation, are not to be logically deduced. Moral obligation, if it is to influence conduct, must consist not merely of a belief, but of a desire. A desire, I may be told, is the desire to be "good" in the sense which I no longer allow. But when we analyse the desire to be "good" it generally resolves itself into a desire to be approved, or alternatively, to act so as to bring about certain general consequences which we desire. We have wishes which are not purely personal, and if we had not, no amount of ethical teaching would influence our conduct, except through fear of disapproval. The sort of life that most of us admire is one which can be guided by large impersonal desires; now such desires can, no doubt, be encouraged by example, education, and knowledge, but they can hardly be created by the mere abstract belief that they are good, or discouraged by an analysis of what is meant by "good". ... human race etc..
      .. I conclude that, while it is true that science cannot decide questions of value, it is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.

      CHAPTER X — CONCLUSION
[Short; eight pages]
      244: .. We have seen in the period since Copernicus whenever science and theology have disagreed, science has proved victorious. [NB: I'm not sure that he has actually proved that] We have seen also that where practical issues were involved, as in witchcraft and medicine, science has stood for a diminution of suffering while theology has encouraged man's natural savagery. [Russell notes at some point that the Black Death in 1348 caused superstition.. scientific medicine was practised by the Jews who had got their knowledge from the Mohammedans. He mentions Pope Pius V] The spread of the scientific outlook as opposed to theological has indisputably made, hitherto, for happiness. 244: The issue is now, however, entering upon a wholly new phase, and this for two reasons. First, that scientific technique is becoming more important in effects than the scientific temper of mind; secondly, that newer religions have taken the place of Christianity and are repeating the errors of which Christianity has repented.
      245: .. The scientific temper of mind is cautious, tentative, and piecemeal. It doesn't imagine that it knows the whole truth. But out of theoretical science, a scientific technique has developed, and a scientific technique has none of the tentativeness of the theory. Physics has been revolutionised during the present century by relativity and quantum theory, but all the inventions based upon the old physics are still found satisfactory. The application of electricity to industry in daily life including.. power stations, broadcasting.. and electric light is based on the work of Clerk Maxwell, published over sixty years ago, and none of these inventions has failed to work because .. Clerk Maxwell's views were in many ways inadequate. .. practical experts who employ scientific technique .. governments and large firms.. acquire a quite different temper from that of the men of science; a temper full of the sense of limitless power, of arrogant certainty, and a pleasure in manipulation even of human material. It is the very reverse of the scientific temper, but it cannot be denied that science has helped to promote it.
      246: .. The direct effects of scientific technique also have been by no means wholly beneficial. On the one hand they have increased the destructiveness of weapons of war, and the proportion of a population that can be spared from peaceful industry for fighting and the manufacture of munitions. On the other hand, by increasing the productivity of labour, they have made the old economic system which depended on scarcity very difficult to work, and by the violent impact of new ideas they have thrown ancient civilisations off their balance, driving China into chaos and Japan into ruthless imperialism on the western model. Russia, in a violent attempt to establish a new economic system, and Germany, in a violent attempt to maintain the old one. These evils of our time are all due in part to scientific technique, and therefore ultimately to science.
      .. [section apparently praising religion:] The warfare between science and Christian theology, in spite of an occasional skirmish on the outposts, is nearly ended, and I think most Christians would admit their religion is the better for it. Christianity has been purified of inessentials inherited from a barbarous age, and nearly cured of the desire to persecute. There remains among more liberal Christians, an ethical doctrine which is valuable: an acceptance of Christ's teaching that we should love our neighbours, and the belief that in each individual there is something deserving respect, even if it is no longer to be called a soul. There is also, in the churches, a growing belief that Christians should oppose war. But.. new religions have arisen with the persecuting zeal of vigorous youth [sic] and with this greater readiness to oppose science as characterised the Inquisition at the time of Galileo. If you maintain in Germany that Christ was a Jew or in Russia that the atom has lost its substantiality and become a mere series of events you are liable to very severe punishment. The persecution of intellectuals in Germany and in Russia has surpassed in severity anything perpetrated by the churches during the last 250 years.
      .. The science which in the present day bears the brunt of persecution most directly, is economics. In England - now, as always, an exceptionally tolerant country - a man whose views on economics are obnoxious to the government will escape all penalties if he keeps his opinion to himself, or expresses them only in books of a certain length. But even in England the expression of Communist opinions in speeches or cheap pamphlets exposes a man to loss of livelihood and occasional periods in prison. Under a recent Act, which so far has not been used to its full extent, not only the author of writings which the government considers seditious, but any man who possesses them, is liable to penalties, on the ground that he may contemplate using them to undermine the loyalty of His Majesty's Forces ...
      .. Germany.. Russia.. Galileo.. If there had been a country where the men of science could have persecuted Christians, perhaps Galileo's friends would not have protested .. intolerant.. only against that of the opposite party.. In that case his friends would have exalted his doctrines into a dogma..
      .. economics.. It may be urged that persecution nowadays is political and economic rather than theological, but that would be unhistorical. Luther's attack on indulgences caused vast financial losses to the Pope. Henry VIII's revolt deprived him of a large revenue which he had enjoyed since Henry III. Elizabeth persecuted Roman Catholics because they wanted to replace her by Mary Queen of Scots or Philip II. Science weakened the hold of the church and in many countries led to the confiscation of much ecclesiastical property. .. other new truth is often inconvenient to some vested interests. The Protestant doctrine that it is not necessary to fast on Fridays was vehemently resisted by Elizabethan fishmongers, but it is in the interest of the community at large that new truths should be freely promulgated. The threat to intellectual freedom is greater in our day than at any time since 1660, but it does not now come from Christian churches. It comes from governments which owing to the modern danger of anarchy and chaos have succeeded to the sacrosanct character formerly belonging to ecclesiastical authorities. It is the clear duty of men of science to protest against the new forms of persecution rather than congratulate them on the decay of older forms. .. [Comments on what's really happening in Russia, and Germany] .. New truth.. important.. most important of our intelligent but wayward species.



By Rae West. Extracted from Rae West's reviews of Russell's works. 12 Sept 2020
List of Links | Top of Page

 

home page

Most Reviews   More reviews, by subject:- Film, TV, DVDs, CDs, media critics | 'Holocaust' | Jews, Christians, Moslems | Race | Revisionism | Women | Bertrand Russell | Richard Dawkins | Martin Gardner  |   H G Wells

engraving from Fairchild Family

The History of the Fairchild Family by Mary Martha Sherwood.
And Other Victorian Christian Books.
Review by Rae West   30 Jan 2020


Interlude: Watching the Jew-controlled BBC when Britain is supposed to leave the EU (European Union). This piece on possible Jew-planned WW3 after 'Brexit' is by Hexzane527. Anonymous scripts are read out by Jews (Kuenssberg or Kuennsberg, Adler) and a whore of Jews, Reeta Chakrabarti, who read out a piece a few days ago about the fake 'Holocaust'.
      At about this time, BBC 'news' is running a standard fraud, this time on 'coronavirus', supposedly starting in China. It's amusing to see their tenth-rate actors trying to look serious, all with no idea how difficult it is to test for viruses...
Mary Martha Sherwood (born 1775; died 1851, in England) had her History of the Fairchild Family; ... being a collection of stories   The importance and effects of a religious education published in 1818, when she was in her early 40s, in book form. She was married into a Church of England family; her accounts were probably taken from life. Two volumes were added, in 1842, and later in 1847, though this latter is reported to have shared authorship. As far as I can tell, she wrote well before copyright law applied to writings; anyway, title pages and illustrations online show a lot of variation. (Charles Dickens, born 1812, died 1870, as a perhaps comparable author).

Fairchild Family Sunday School prize
I heard of this work from Bertrand Russell, in On Education, where he takes an example of how not to educate from The History of the Fairchild Family by Mrs Sherwood. Read, for example, the chapter in The Fairchild Family, about how little Henry was taught Latin. He was told that he could never hope to become a clergyman unless he learned that language, but in spite of this argument the little boy did not apply himself to his book as earnestly as his father desired. So he was shut up in an attic, given only bread and water, and forbidden to speak to his sisters, who were told that he was in disgrace, and they must have nothing to do with him. Nevertheless, one of them brought him some food. The footman told on her, and she got into trouble, too. After a certain period in prison, the boy, we are told, began to love Latin, and worked assiduously ever after.
      I found a copy of this book, given in 1900 as a Sunday School Prize, Published in London by James Nisbet & Co, Limited, of 21 Berners Street, London. Nisbet published the "Pilgrim" series, and the smaller "Golden Silence" series. (These were not all religious; for example no. 31 of their Pilgrim series was Nor'ard of the Dogger by E J Mather.) The general, undated appearance of my copy suggests it was warehoused for years as a prize.

Sure enough, about a third of the way through the complete 3-volume book (p 147 in my copy) is Story of the Absence of God in which the son Henry tries to learn Latin; his father becomes infuriated, and decrees that the family should ignore Henry. The point is that Latin was needed to become a clergyman. Russell, a member of an aristocratic family, made fun of this ambition, a fashion established by 'Jane Austen'. This was all very well for them, but, as with U.S. Jews now, and people in the BBC and the Civil Service now, a lifetime career was more-or-less guaranteed. Patrick Brontë is a good example of a determined careerist, rewarded with a parsonage in a recently built part of Yorkshire. England was divided into parishes, sufficient of them, with the then death-rate, to guarantee livings to something like half of the entire output of Oxbridge colleges. In my young and naive days, I'd thought many academics and professors wanted to discover and invent and classify things and ideas, but of course this is rare. So Henry's dad might well have been right to try to continue, with his own inside knowledge, his 'career'.

Russell in Power, his chapter Powers and forms of governments wrote: 'In capitalistic enterprises there is a peculiar duality of purpose: on the one hand they exist to provide goods or services for the public, and on the other hand they aim at providing profits for the shareholders.' There's a similar duality in official religion.
      Maybe I missed it, but I've never seen any attempt to assess the costs and benefits of established Christianity. No doubt it was useful to register births, marriages, and deaths, and have some format for stability, and have distributed centres covering an entire country. There were literacy and calendars and holidays. Some vicars made discoveries or creative works; Brewer's Phrase and Fable, Stirling's engine, Cox's orange pippin, twiddly hazel, Tristram Shandy, illustrate the sort of thing. Governments must have regarded the Church of England in the way the BBC is regarded, as a convenient source of lies, broadcast across the country, telling people who to hate and fight and celebrate and admire—however much they may have contradicted official dogma. Its constant grasping must have been tolerated.
      The weakness of course is the fundamentalist dogma. (Russell liked to point out that the Service for the Ordination of Deacons all the respondents had to agree to: Do you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament?)
      Since the vast promotional push for the King James translation of the Bible—not just the Jesus part, but the much longer part from the mists of the oriental Mediterranean—and deliberately mistranslated to obscure horrors and atrocities—and since Edward Gibbon on 'antifa'-style funded thugs, and the emergence of novelties such as the early 20th century Scofield Bible (published by Oxford University Press) it's become clear that the Church of England is almost as phoney as the Bank of England.


One of the attractions of the Church of England is or was the administrative structure. A prime Archbishop, approved governmentally from a shortlist; Bishops; a collection of appointees with mysterious titles—what on earth are Deacons, Vicars, Parsons, Curates? (Many people held different livings, and hired Curates to look after them). A 'Grange' had some ecclesiastical function. A tithe barn was for storage. What were Priories, Monasteries, Nunneries?
      In about 1900, a road called 'Chapels' in Darwen, Lancs, then a major part of cotton spinning and weaving in Britain, housed Methodists, Primitive Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, and an Ebenezer chapel. And no doubt others which have vanished.
      In about 1970 I looked at a C of E place, the incumbent having servants, who all looked downcast and bullied. He read the Daily Telegraph which even then I knew censored out atrocities in Vietnam. I had an unpleasant insight into the Church in it supposedly great days, a vast landowner doing nothing about wars and violence.
      Much of this must be attributed to 'Jews' in collaboration with more or less secret groups of locals. Here's my view on the spread of Christianity and Islam by Jews. South America is under-represented.
Sherwood could be an Americanised form of some Jewish name(s), but in this case she looks English. Her maiden name was Butt. At least one hymn or poem in her book is attributed to Butt.
      My collection of books includes THE QUIVER An Illustrated Magazine for SUNDAY AND GENERAL READING. Published in 1872 by Cassell, Petter, & Galpin, London, Paris, and New York. 864 pages with about 53 'etc etc' contributors. Mostly stories with occasional engravings. Note the Jewish publisher. There are incursions of Jewish themes. I wonder if the themes are designed to ensure religious people can act their parts.

Rae West 1 Feb 2020

List of Links | Top of Page

 

CHARLES SINGER — The Christian Failure 1943

Notes and Comments - Rae West

- Very important question, namely the historical influence of Christianity: good or bad? Difficult of course even to get much of a grip on the question.
    Singer is unfortunately somewhat of a waffler - at some point I made an exasperated pencilled note to the effect that at this point I decided definitely that he was drivelling. He can't bring himself to admit that religion and science are opposed, I think; at any rate this seems a likely cause for many of his dubious and tiresome generalisations & for the related problem of treating the history of science as though religious questions were the more important part of the thought of the 'scientific people' who presumably worked out the stuff. However, he's at least aware this is problematical - he criticises a theologian, Barth I think, for just this weakness, and takes the liberty of 'translating' a sentence of his into less convoluted language. He can't bring himself to admit that a state of mind isn't a 'religion' and spends much time on 'the religion of humanity', largely futilely I'd say.
Note July 2018: Six years later, obviously I attribute this sort of thing to Singer being, or thinking himself, Jewish. On Assyrian Christians, it's likely that policy around the Second World War was run by Jews, who of course would not be interested in giving help to Christians. Here's a comment from David Irving c 30 July 2018: There were 1,112 Syrian “refugees” resettled in the UK in the first three months of 2018. The Home Office now admits that there was not a single Christian among them, reports Premier Christian Radio. Probably they were Jewish-backed war criminals.
    - No indication of what induced him to write histories of medical science, but I'd very much expect his attitude to be conditioned by his early youth.
    - Because of the date, quite a lot of material deals with the Nazis and Fascists and Jews (and minor churches, groups I've never consciously heard of, the Assyrian Christians, for example) and comments on their temporising and dishonest unscrupulousness. Because of his background from originally I presume German Jewry, he can read German and is therefore familiar with Luther's diatribes against Jews - a tradition which seems to have been maintained.
    - The last chapter deals with his own life (see below) and no doubt explains everything above. Interesting stuff on Russian pogroms, which he dates precisely to the decade 1881-1891 & 1933 on; and on e.g. his father sonorously reading biblical passages which aged 67 Singer still found entering his dreams.
    - Interesting to compare Belloc's view of Jews with Singer's view of Christians.

- Unindexed


    CONTENTS
    PREFACE
    I DAWN OF THE SCIENTIFIC AGE
    II SCIENCE CONFRONTS RELIGION
    III SCIENTIFIC METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
    IV CHARACTER AS MOULDED BY THE SCIENTIFIC MOOD
    V THE RELIGION OF HUMANITY
    VI CHRISTIANITY FACES THE "NEW PHILOSOPHY"
    VII THE HISTORICAL RECORD - THE ROOT
    VIII THE CHURCHES IN CRISIS - THE FRUIT
    IX THE CHRISTIAN FALLACY
    X A PERSONAL NOTE



        DETAILS OF CONTENTS Scanned and checked 8-9 October, 95

    PREFACE

    I DAWN OF THE SCIENTIFIC AGE
14-15: ..important on that account. The direct influence of his own theological efforts may, however, safely be dismissed as negligible.
    Newton was more gifted with the power of scientific demonstration than any man. He is rightly regarded as the very type of the modern man of science, and, in the pages which follow, he is treated as the scientific exemplar. Modern science, however, did not originate with him. It opened its triumphant course at least a century before he was born. Several of its most famous exponents had done their work before he saw the light. Nevertheless, Newton formulated, more clearly than any of his predecessors, those primary data on which others came to build that comprehensive philosophic system which later became known as "scientific determinism." The term was introduced about the middle of the nineteenth century but the passages just quoted from Newton's Principia contain essential elements in the determinist faith. Some of the exponents of that faith have, however, extended the conception of "phenomena" far beyond anything that Newton intended. They have, for example, ranked as phenomena events within the mind itself, and they have treated them also as determinate.
    The conception that mental events are determinate has been much more revolutionary for religion than anything in the Newtonian system proper. That man's body works on ascertainable mechanical principles had indeed seemed obvious to Descartes (1596-1650) before Newton and as long ago as 1627. The followers of Descartes directed the thought of the age for about a century. All the Cartesians, however, recognised with their master that men are something more than mechanical systems. Man thinks as well as acts. Only if man's entire nature, including his thinking, could be fitted as links into a long chain of causal development, could his actions and his mind be treated as truly determinate. It was in this very way that the conceptions of Descartes and Newton were extended in the mid- and later nineteenth century, especially after 1859, in which year appeared both Darwin's Origin of Species and Marx's Communist Manifesto. The former contains the germ of modern biological determinism, the latter of modern psychological determinism. Both are sources of the doctrine of social determinism.
    Years before the Origin and the Communist Manifesto, the seer William Blake (1757-1817) had seized on the apparently unoffending figure of Newton as type of those who deny freewill -- which in fact Newton did not. Blake could not read any part of Newton's science, but echoes of the evolutionary rumours of his own age must have reached his very limited circle. Despite his misunderstandings, Blake had a remarkable vision of scientific determinism. But he was not the first. There were certain schools of thought in the eighteenth century that followed the determinist path. Such were the French Encyclopaedists and some of the first English Utilitarians. With these may well be classed certain heretical groups during renaissance and mediaeval times. Behind these again were strains of Stoic and of Epicurean thought in classical antiquity. Further back, too, at the very dawn of philosophy, we see a cleavage on determinism between the thought of Socrates and that of his rival Anaxagoras. Rational religion, moreover, exhibited early a comparable antithesis as between freewill and predestination. The contrast is presented with all the simplicity of superbly sophisticated art in The Book of Job. Through all the ages to modern times, these attitudes have opposed each other. Neither had nor could then have demonstrational backing. It was Newton who first demonstrated a Law of physical movement the writ of which ran equally...


18-21: II SCIENCE CONFRONTS RELIGION
EXAMINATION of the records makes it clear that misinterpretation of the nature of the impact of science and religion has commonly arisen, and still commonly arises from two very different errors. First, the confusion between the pursuit of scientific knowledge, on the one hand, and the application of such knowledge as has been won on the other. Second is the assumption of an inherent and deliberate hostility or incompatibility between science and religion. We will begin with the first.
    Science, like religion, is extremely difficult to define but, like religion, it involves simultaneously a "mood," an attitude of mind, and a method. The result of the concurrence of these and their combined action is a body of knowledge. It is characteristic of the body of scientific knowledge that it is necessarily growing. But science is no more scientific device than religion is theology. And science should no more be identified with scientific mechanisms or inventions--that is to say, with the application of the knowledge won by science--than should religion with either liturgy or ecclesiastical preferment. To ascribe to science the evils of modern warfare, for example, is as absurd as to treat the invention of the cutting edge in the Old Stone Age as the "cause" of murder. That error should hardly need refutation outside the Fifth Form Debating Society.
    The causa sine qua non, the indispensable condition of war, as of murder is, of course, the evil inclination of man, which uses the most effective instrument available to it. There is nothing so innocent that it may not be turned to an ill use, for you cannot have power for good without having also power for evil. Mother's milk itself has been the first nourishment of every murderer. This power for evil, which is exactly the same as the power for good, is surely one of man's chief prerogatives. To say this is the same as saying that it is one of his chief responsibilities. The point is fundamental for any understanding of either science or religion. It is more: it is fundamental for all thinking. For, if there is any significance at all in our activity--if and in so far as we are anything but mechanisms--it must be an activity of choice; it must be a selection of a course that is relatively good as against one that is relatively evil. In other words our activity must have some "value."
    The very conception of value clearly involves the existence of evil as well as of good. There are various evasions of what is called the "problem of evil" as, for example, the denial of the existence of evil; or the allegation that it is purely negative or privative--that is, that evil is the mere absence of good; or the complete separation of mind from matter--the old Nous and Hyle --the one good in essence and the other in essence evil. All in the end must involve an abandonment of the conception of value. But, properly speaking, there is no problem of evil and what goes under that name is rather the problem of existence which necessarily involves both good and evil. The problem of existence is insoluble. ['This sentence caused me to definitely decide that Singer is a waffler' - RW] Surely on this the prophet has said the last and only word:
        "My thoughts are not as your thoughts,
        Neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord,
        For as the heavens
        Are higher than the earth,
        So are my ways higher than your ways,
        And my thoughts than your thoughts."

    Why should any man seek further? The meaning of existence is hidden from us by a veil that never can be rent. It is best not discussed, for the conventional theological solutions are no more than verbal devices. But that there is such a thing as value we can hardly doubt, for the act of doubting itself implies it.
    Acceptance of value involves the separation in two very different categories of the things called evil. On the one hand there are things evil in themselves, evil intrinsically, evil in all their aspects. Such things, in the nature of the case, can only be things of the mind, mental states. On the other hand, there are things outside the mind which are evil in relation to mental states. For such things we need a suitable word; they may be called misfortunes or miseries. They are relative evils, relative, that is, to ourselves. Among them are, for example, those ills to which all flesh is heir. These are not evil in themselves. There is nothing intrinsically evil in the bacteria of disease, for example. The activities of bacteria may become misfortunes in relation to ourselves but, under certain other circumstances, they may be relatively good. Other such misfortunes which may also be relatively good are the cataclysms of Nature and all those miseries that arise from the determinate workings of Nature. Into the same category must go those activities which arise from the mental states of others. To ascribe any of these things to the action of a Devil, not only makes science meaningless, but must ultimately destroy the whole conception of value. Belief in a Devil is more than error; it amounts to denial of value to human personality. If the kingdom of God is within us, so also is the kingdom of Satan.
    The power to choose between good and evil is not the only great human prerogative and responsibility. Another is the power of reason. However determinate the processes of man's mind, whatever man's origin, and whatever man's lower manifestations in the idiot or lunatic, these two powers, to sin and to be foolish, separate him pretty clearly from the beasts. And it may be that, ultimately, these are not two powers, but one power. Such, at least, was the opinion of those who wrote the "Wisdom Literature" of the Old Testament. Man may be foolish and sinful or may be wise and virtuous in employing scientific apparatus. For the moral character of those who employ its aids, science as such, and men of science as such can be neither praised nor blamed.
    The point may be exemplified by a single illustration. It has been said that in the first forty years of the twentieth century a greater weight of minerals was won from the earth than in all the ages before. This might have been used for improving the human lot. The larger part was the immediate instrument of destruction, and much of it was hurled with murderous intent from one side to the other of a no-man's-land. Shall we charge this evil and foolish use against the miner on the coal-face against the metallurgical chemist in his laboratory? Against the professor of mathematics, geology or physics? Against the engineer improving the internal combustion engine? Against the pathologist investigating the biology of gas-gangrene and trench-feet? Against the meteorologist predicting the weather for flying? Surely such charges could mean nothing unless we assume that these men- each living his own life, each with his own loves and duties, his own cares and joys--are, on the whole, worse than they would have been had science not shaped the pattern of their lives.
    For such worsening of human nature there is no shadow of evidence. Men are not manifestly worse than they were; but also they are not manifestly better. There was no Golden Age. There was no primitive state when men lived in unspoiled mutual love and gentleness. And if ...

- 23: [Singer says the 'famous Bridgewater Treatises', 1833-1840, were funded by the will of 'semi-insane' Francis Henry Egerton, and had as introductory volume 1833 THE ADAPTATION OF EXTERNAL NATURE TO THE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL CONSTITUTION OF MAN, by Thomas Chalmers, 'the theologian'.
    '.. perhaps the last important pronouncement of the anthropocentric view of Nature.']
    24: 'That Nature reveals the mind of God was the very foundation of eighteenth-century Deism..'
    [Russell is his essay 'The Place of Science in a Liberal Education' seems to make this almost a central feature of science].


    III SCIENTIFIC METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
-26-27:
.. might be supposed. All the major departments of science have, at some time or other, been involved in some or other of the greater and more urgent human issues, and any minor department may, at some time or other, become similarly involved. The innocuous neutrality that we seek is not characteristic of any department of research. Knowledge is "neutral" and fails to raise these issues only in so far as it cannot be seen to bear at the moment upon the human state. A science the advance of which is at one stage far removed from these dangerous fields, at another may cross and recross them. Historically the sciences that most disturbed thinking in the early seventeenth century were mainly astronomical; in the later seventeenth they were mainly physiological; in the eighteenth, mathematical; in the early nineteenth, physical; in the mid-nineteenth, geological and biological; in the early twentieth, physical; and in the mid-twentieth they are perhaps especially psychological. We must therefore avoid all the major departments of science and turn rather to some minor speciality.
    For a science as neutral as any, there may serve the intensive study of some group of insects. We must be careful that it is not an economically significant group. Unfortunately insects are the prevalent creatures on this planet. In the evolutionary sense, they are marvellously successful. More species of insects have been recognised than of all other creatures put together. Many species exist in numbers of astronomical magnitude. Certain species not only deeply affect human habits, but even determine the possibilities of human life. Therefore, even among the insects, we cannot safely choose at random. Let us select for our example some group of beetles of no immediate or obvious economic importanceù Having chosen our subject for scientific investigation, let us examine the implications.
    First, if I decide to be a specialised entomologist, I must, by that very fact, abandon (in my entomological mood) all thought of animals other than insects. I must concentrate as much as possible on my own special group of beetles. While I am at work on these Coleoptera I must give up any consideration of other sciences, save for their bearing on beetles and their ways of life and relationships, to say nothing of all consideration of the great themes of religion, art, philosophy, literature and the rest. If I cannot put these things aside while at work in my laboratory, it is quite certain that my entomology will be ineffective. This is but to say that a science must work by abstraction. If it does not, it is not a science.
    Changing a word or two, all this might be said of any other science. Perhaps, therefore, in the strictest sense, there is no such thing as science, but only sciences, each of which has its own field. Insects are the field of entomology, minds of psychology, metals of metallurgy, and so on. Sometimes sciences may combine to form a new science with its own technique. Thus, combining two of our examples, there is a science of insect psychology. One science can use the results of another science, but each science can describe only its own little bit of the universe in its own terms. These terms are derived by a comparison of yet smaller bits of the universe with other smaller bits. Such terms have little or no application outside the particular science for which they were devised. The technical terms of the sciences have no universal application or value and their use outside the field for which they were invented is, in fact, a very frequent source of misunderstanding.
    Much misunderstanding, even by scientific men, has arisen from such transference of scientific terms from their original field of reference. Consider, as examples, the mass of fruitless and futile disputation that has arisen in ...


    IV CHARACTER AS MOULDED BY THE SCIENTIFIC MOOD
- 36-39:
.. Their force is their own, but their authority should never be mistaken for the authority of science when they are not speaking within the range of their own chosen studies. Within that area proficiency is proven in the only way in which science can establish its claims--namely, by an appeal to the senses, especially through exact prediction. In other forms of activity things quite different are needed to carry conviction, and proficiency is exhibited in quite other ways.
    Nothing in the mental constitution or temper of most great exponents of experimental science suggests that the highest importance need be attached to their utterances on philosophic and religious themes. Set down, for example, the greatest names in the annals of experimental science through three centuries. (Of course no two historians would make exactly the same list.) Copernicus (1472-1543), Vesalius (1514-64), Stevin (1548-1620), Galileo (1564-1642), Kepler (1571-1630), Harvey (1578-1657), Boyle (1617-91), Huygens (161???29-95), Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723), Newton (1624-1717), Hales (1677-1761), Linnaeus (1707-78), Herschel (1638-1822), Lavoisier (1743-94), Laplace (1749-1827), Cuvier (1766-1832), Young (1773-1829), Darwin (1809-82), Joule (1818-88), Pasteur (1822-95), Kelvin (1824-1907)ù Nearly all of this long list of men held somewhat conventional views outside their own sciences. A few were exceptionally conservative and even backward. The most influential of them all, Newton and Darwin were negligible as regards their personal outlook on philosophy. Perhaps only Galileo among them wrote effectively on anything of the nature of philosophic themes.
The great investigators are thus not commonly the best exponents of the nature of the scientific method. Nor is that method easily deduced from their published results. In fact the very process of scientific exposition is so constructed as to conceal the process of discovery. If we seek those who have best elucidated the nature of scientific method and its relation to general thinking, we should need to step outside the circle of the experimenters. There we shall find in our period such names as Bacon (1561- 1626), Descartes (1596-1650), Locke (1632-1704), Leibnitz (1646-1716), Bentham (1748-1832), Whewell (1794-1866), Mill (1806-73), Spencer (1820-1903), all interested in scientific theory and its bearing on religion, but none making very effective experimental contributions.
    Thus most of those who have written effectively on the relationship of science to the other regions of experience have not themselves participated very actively in the process of scientific demonstration. But even if they have done so, it should be emphasised that, when discussing universal topics, they are not using the scientific method and should therefore not be credited with the rightful prestige of that method in its own marvellous field of experience. During the present generation a number of men of the highest scientific eminence have written sheer rubbish on universal themes. To draw attention to this is no more to belittle what scientific men in general may have to say outside their sciences than it would magnify their scientific work to say that they were men of saintly character, musical ability or philosophic attainments. It has to be recognised that scientific achievement is irrelevant to universal themes. Specifically it is irrelevant to the inmost nature of man and the inmost element in religion. All that can be safely inferred as to the producer of good scientific results is that he is a man of great mental activity.
    Despite all this, it is yet true that the pursuit of science has certain effects on the mental and spiritual life of that society or community in which it is active. It has created and introduced a new kind of intellectual climate. It attracts a type and intensity of interest which changes the content of the mind so fundamentally that ultimately it alters even the way of thinking. Science has done more than give us a new heaven and a new earth. It has given us not merely an altered and revised version of heaven and earth, but a heaven and earth of a kind unconceived before. But more. Science has also given us new minds and hearts and memories to enjoy the new heaven and the new earth.
    Theologians miss this point at their peril, for science has set such a wall between the generations as has never before been seen. The worlds of Newtonian interrelationship of parts, of Darwinian grading of beast and man, of Freudian extension of the field of mind, and of Einsteinian space-time continuum, for example, do not, perhaps, integrate with each other. They have this, however, in common, that none of them can be discussed in either the language or the mood of the days when theology was Queen of the Sciences and St. Thomas thought he was reinterpreting the synthesis of the moral and material universe set forth fifteen hundred years before him by Aristotle of Stagyra.
    "The longest Tyranny that ever sway'd
    Was that wherein our Ancestors betray'd
    Their free-born Reason to the Stagirite
    And made his Torch their universal Light.
    So Truth, while onley one supplied the State,
    Grew scarce, and dear, and yet sophisticate;
    Until 'twas bought, like Empirique Wares, or Charms,
    Hard words sealed up with Aristotle's Armes." 1                                         JOHN DRYDEN, I663
    1"Sealed up empiric wares" is the seventeenth-century equivalent for what we should nowadays call "patent medicines"--that is, costly standardised mixtures the composition of which we do not understand, and the action of which is a matter of faith. "Sophisticate" in the language of the time means adulterated or mixed with some inferior substance, and is a term specially applied to drugs and other "empiric wares."

    The very habit of sustained ratiocination on a deductive basis, so cherished still by certain theological and philosophic minds, had lapsed even in Dryden's day in so far as it was not even then discredited. Of our own age we may safely say that only those who have submitted to a special discipline can ever again think the thoughts of the ages of faith. Indeed the application of the experiential method had barely started on its triumphant course before many perceived that they had reached a parting of the mental ways. They discerned--as we discern again to-day--that the coming world was to be a new one, though they could hardly descry--as we to-day cannot descry--what shape its newness should take.
    The first to grasp clearly that the intellectual revolution had come was certainly Francis Bacon (1561-1626). The nature of his "New Philosophy," which is almost (though not quite) What we call science, was a main object of debate by the "wits" of the seventeenth century. It is nevertheless extraordinary how little impression it made on the literature or the formal theology of the age. From that learned century there has come down to us much discourse both of religion and of science, but the two seldom met and yet seldomer disputed. (The incident of Galileo requires special treatment. See ch. vi, p. 52.) Their interests fell apart; there was hardly a struggle between them. Religion and science came to employ a different vocabulary; that of science was designedly developed, that of theology as deliberately arrested. Nullius in verba, [Footnote: The phrase is taken from Horace's Epistles (I, I, I4), Nullius addictus urare in verba magistri, "Pledged to swear by the words of no master."] "By the words of no man," was the motto from the beginning (1664-) of the Royal Society of which the function was the exposition of the new philosophy.
    The phrase Nullius in verba is sometimes taken to mean the rejection of authority. In the sense in which the ...


- 42-43:
Further, on the plane of human relations, the first needs of the pursuit of a science are sober, industrious and modest living and, above all, loyalty to the great ideal of unflinching criticism of evidence, and therefore openness of mind, acceptance of correction, and outspokenness wherever error is in question.
    Thus the sciences produce in their votaries very noble and characteristic patterns of conduct and even elements of sanctity. Anyone who denies this cannot be well informed as to the lives of the great devotees of the sciences and of the ways in which they have come to be interpreters of nature. Let him read the personal records of such as Archimedes, Boyle, Darwin, Faraday, Hales, Herschel, Huygens, Lister, Linnaeus, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Ray. True, there have been great exponents of science who were not of this lofty type--Gauss and Young were perhaps among the meaner of scientific thinkers of the front rank. But the general character of great men of science bears comparison with that of any class and, notably, with that of any long line of distinguished theologians or ecclesiastics. This is no criticism of religion but it is a criticism of certain approaches to it.
    Patterns of conduct produced by devotion to the sciences are different from the patterns produced by religion; yet they are not wholly different. The mood in which scientific men approach their task can never have been derived from religion, even though some of then have thought it was. But it may well be derived from something that bears a strong likeness to religion, something that may enter into religion, something very near to that "holy, subtle, lively, clear and undefiled thing that is more moving than any motion and goes through all thing by reason of her pureness." It is pictured in the unforgettable seventh chapter of the Book of Wisdom, itself an echo, on its own peculiar Alexandrian sounding-board, of the authentic prophetic voice. The Prophetic Religion does indeed adapt itself to the pattern of conduct produced by absorption of the mind in the beauty of natural order. In this very book of about 100 B.C., we watch the prophetic spirit seeking, under Greek inspiration, to adjust itself to what we should nowadays call the metaphysical foundations of science. It is a note that will hardly be heard during the first fifteen Christian centuries.

    "I prayed and understanding was given me
    And the spirit of wisdom came to me.
    Riches I esteemed nothing in comparison of her
    Because all the gold of the earth in her sight is but a little sand.
    Above health and beauty I loved her,
    And chose to have her rather than light,
    For the light that cometh from her never goeth out.
    All good things together come to me with her
    And I rejoiced in them all.
    I learned diligently and communicate her liberally,
    I do not hide her riches,
    For she is a treasure unto men that never faileth,
    Which they that use become the friends of God.
    For God hath granted me to speak as I would
    And to conceive thoughts worthy of what has been given.
    For in his hands are both we and our words
    And it is he that hath given me knowledge of the things that are.
    How the world was made, and the operations of the elements,
    The turnings of the sun, and the changes of seasons,
    The circuits of years, and the position of stars,
    The natures of living creatures, and the furies of wild beasts,
    The Powers of minds, and the reasonings of men,
    The diversities of plants, and the virtues of roots.
    These things Wisdom, which is the artificer of all things, taught me.



    V THE RELIGION OF HUMANITY
-46-49:
.. was the basic religion of the West, it has probably long ceased to be so. But regarded as a civilisation, the history of the Christian Church remains an inescapable fact. Its record is unalterable. We all partake of the civilisation in which we are embedded whether we profess the Christian faith or not. The history of Europe is in effect the history of Christian civilisation. The Christian civilisation is in our daily habits; it is in our dress and diet; it is in the structure of our language and in the script which we use to write it; it is in our social and legal systems; it is in the very form in which our thoughts are cast. That the Christian religion has moulded the Christian civilisation is manifest, but the civilisation has also moulded the religion. Neither therefore can be considered entirely without the other, but the Christian religion is confronted and largely displaced by another religion, whereas the only competitor of the Christian civilisation is its mere negation, Barbarism.
    Quite justly it has been said that a religion can be understood truly only from within. But apart from personal religion, there is the effect of religion on the life of a society. With equal justice it may be urged that the functioning of religion in the human fellowship can be observed effectively only from without, for it is not given to all of us to see ourselves as others see us.
    To estimate the influence of a religion on a society is extremely difficult. Many factors, besides religion, determine those relations of men to each other which give their special characters to human societies. But it must be borne well in mind that the society influences the religion just as the religion influences the society. An analysis of the effect of the inflence of a religion is therefore likely to be best formed by those who can adopt the perspectlve of observers. It is only as one of these that this writer can offer any reflections. He professes neither the Christian religion nor what seems to him to be its most formidable immediate rival which has largely displaced it. This has sometimes been very ineptly called the "Religion of Science." At risk of misunderstanding, it is here discussed as the "Religion of Humanity." By this is meant the religion that regards man as both a means and an end in himself.
    The Religion of Humanity is by no means incompatible with theistic doctrine but customarily treats it mainly as irrelevant to conduct. It is largely concerned with conduct. And since it is a recognised law that competing faiths stress opposing human needs, it is natural that the Religion of Humanity should stress the humanitarian aspect in precisely those circumstances in which its rival, Christianity, most emphasises ritual and theological activities. Indeed, humanitarianism (which is an aspect of the Religion of Humanity but must not on that account be confused with it) is often a way of escape for the ritually and theologically glutted. These are wont to speak and act as though humanitarian conduct were itself Christianity or, at least, the peculiar prerogative and characteristic of the Christian religion. A very little reflection is sufficient for the conclusion that this is by no means the case. Read Marcus Aurelius.
    The Religion of Humanity in our age and country is a basic rather than a professed faith. For this reason the immense hold that it has is but little apparent and has not been fully appreciated. Nevertheless it is by far the most serious opponent of Christianity. The Religion of Humanity has a much firmer grip on men's minds than the other competitors with Christianity, the pagan faiths of Nationalism, or than the Prophetic Religion. The Religion of Humanity pervades the centuries and has retained its outlines through the millennia. The Religions of Nationalism are forming and dissolving under our very eyes, like miasmic clouds, unsavoury emanations of ill-corralled herds, nor are they aught but the reek of the herd-instinct. The Religion of Humanity has a grand philosophic background and a venerable ethic of its own; both its Philosophy and its morality have stamped themselves deep on Christianity. The Religions of Nationalism are founded on an error as to their origin, and have in common only a hatred af all that is universal; the only way in which they can embrace Christianity is when, as often, Christianity belies itself and ceases to be universal. Philosophically the Religions of Nationalism are merely contemptible, or rather they are the very negation of philosophy. They will be remembcred only as a nightmare is dimly recalled. But be assured that the Religion of Humanity will endure, since it answers certain unchangeable needs of man's heart and mind. I say that not as one of its initiates from within, but as an observer from without.
    During the last few centuries the Religion of Humanity has been partlcularly forward in applying the conclusions of the sciences to the amelioration of the human lot. Its ethical system has thus become na‹vely regarded, even by some of its ablest exponents, as based upon and developed from scientific data. It is in this way that there arose the misconception of the "religion of science." The error perhaps began with Voltaire whose writings, like those of the English Utilitarian school, are full of some such idea. But the Religion of Humanity is something very much older than the "New Philosophy" which began only in the seventeenth century, and it is something incomparably deeper set in the spirit of man. It is indeed a religion and is neither an appanage nor a product of science, nor does it need science for its full development. It is one of the great independent faiths.
    Of the great Religion of Humanity--for a great religion it verily is--Communism is a modern sect, product of certain special conditions. But the Religion of Humanity has far more ancient roots than Communism and is antecedent to Christianity itself. Who shall say how old it is? Perhaps it is coeval with man himself. Scientific activity is in no way essential to its efflorescence. In that minute fraction of human time during which man has been literate, the Religion of Humanity has appeared under many names. Such are Stoicism, Humanism, Deism, Utilitarianism, Positivism, Secularism, Communism and a hundred more. A way of thinking and of living that inspired Hippocrates, Pericles, Zeno, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, Vives, Herbert of Cherbury, Grotius, Locke, Voltaire, Pope, Benjamin Franklin, Bentham, Mill, Comte, Marx, Lenin has had a series of very great prophets.
    The Religion of Humanity is ignored in most works on political history, for it has never, until our own age, developed organised Churches. It has no architectural monuments to show. Until of late, it has not had many formal followers. Its historic course is at some periods difficult to trace since it constantly makes compromises with any form of religion the ethical system of which is not wholly incompatible with its own ethics. Many of its greatest exponents have been and are content to bear the labels of other faiths and even to profess orthodoxy therein. I believe the Religion of Humanity to be the prevalent basic faith of our own time. Compared to it, Nationalism is a shallow thing for, after all, the forms of Nationalism must, in due course, cancel each other, but the Religion of Humanity is a universal religion.
    The historian of the human mind can hardly be in doubt of the continued significance of the Religion of Humanity. For long in the Roman Empire it was openly, as Stocism, a formidable rival to Christianity. Episodes ..


    VI CHRISTIANITY FACES THE "NEW PHILOSOPHY"
- 54-62
.. its end, from the great region of pure and endless light, infinite in space and time.
    With such a plan of the heavens in mind, there was erected a complete system of thought in which the spiritual and moral world was immeasurably more important and incomparably more interesting than the diagrammatically known material world. Indeed, it would be more true to say that in such a world-view, the mere material universe was hardly worth serious study at all. Such was the world of the doctors of the Church from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas and beyond. Such was the system of thought in which developed the technical terminology of theology.
    With such a world-outlook science could not flourish. The material world was not worth the trouble of detailed investigation. Perhaps the only serious reason for studying it was as a means of succouring human life; that is, as a basis for the art of medicine. But since science had ceased to be an active process, medical practice had become necessarily divorced from scientific theory. Thus medicine had degenerated into mere lists of drugs and recipes, often of disgusting character, more or less furtively supported by the verdicts of astrology. The only group who took any deep interest in the material world were the artists. Their attention was drawn to Nature because they thought that the material world that they were depicting did, in some degree, foreshadow as an "archtype" the spiritual world on which alone they, like all their contemporaries, had fixed their deeper thoughts. They used Nature, but only for such edificatory value as they thought they could extract from her.
    And would such a material world as we have briefly outlined, if we believed in it, be worth exploring by the painfully laborious methods of research? Remember that there was the adventure of thought, the experiences of the soul, the subtleties of ratiocination, the analogies and imagery of religious discourse, the marvellous experiences of the mystic. Surely these would be not only far more exciting and more interesting than the paltry material world, but also the only things exciting or interesting. There are those who still seek to exalt the medieval ways but, of a truth, those ways are open now only to such as are prepared to embrace the mediaeval world-scheme and to repudiate that of Newton. In those centuries of faith there was no scope for the method of scientific fragmentation. Thus among the "sciences," among which Theology insisted on her place as Queen, there was hardly to be numbered any of those which are now regarded as sciences. The scientia of the mediaeval thinker is immeasurably different from that which we call "science." The one is a complete and rounded scheme, closed at all points by a divine mystery; the other is a series of exploratory adventures into a boundless ocean of experience, each voyage yielding new wonders.
    Remember again how much more science has done in our age than merely to produce fragmented knowledge. It has opened up spacious vistas, the beauties of which may be endlessly explored in widening regions of space and time and thought. It has unveiled an inconceivable complexity of minute things. At every turn it has revealed unsuspected types of order. It has disclosed astonishing beings, denizens of a world more strange than ever dreamed by the most fantastic artist of mediaeval or renaissance times. Think back to the coming of these new things in the seventeenth century. It was an epiphany for all men to see with the eye of flesh, and has been not seldom compared to another that, like it, spread ever wider. In a sense very different from that of the poet, a wit of the day might have wished his scientific friend:
        "May the great time in you still greater be,
            While all the year is your Epiphany."
                        RICHARD CRASHAW, c. 1642

    It was to be a revolution, but it began very gradually and at first with a most subtle change in mood, but Oh! how fundamental it was. We cannot here trace the change and perhaps its beginnings may never be altogether clear, for there are certain peculiar difficulties in its elucidation at that early stage. There were inklings and rumours and partial attempts and glimpses of what was to come, that together make a story as intricate as it is absorbing. Not until the early seventeenth century, even in the intellectual class, was there any appreciation that somehow some drastic adjustment of the old scheme must be made. And among those who felt thus were some few who were following the experimental way.
    At first, as was natural, these men of the New Philosophy sought a compromise with the medieval system. They had no complete scheme of their own and hardly even a partial one. What justification, then, would there be for any of them--even for Galileo or Descartes--to break with what he was in no way prepared to replace? The compromise they sought is the compromise that men still seek. Galileo put it in a sentence when he said: 'The Bible teaches men how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." He asked therefore that the clerics should go their way and allow him to go his until he had finished his work. Such a dichotomy was still quite possible, and Galileo's work, On the Interpretation of Holy Scripture (1636), really amounts to hardly more than this.
    Galileo shielded himself to some extent with the name of that conservative and orthodox scholar, Copernicus (1473-1543), long since dead, whose views were, of a truth, much more medieval than modern. The Scriptures speak always as though earth were flat. Mediaeval scholastics had fully accepted the spherical earth of the Aristotelian system (see p. 52). Why should not the seventeenth-century clerics accept the sun-centred world of the Copernican system and go their way as before? The adjustment of view would have been no greater than that admitted by their medieval forebears who had adapted the Aristotelian world system to Christian theology. In fact, some of the wiser clerics were much inclined to make this not very difficult compromise.
    Why then should a shifting of the Earth from the exact centre, as suggested by Copernicus, have introduced such an upheaval? The true answer is that it did not. The religious mood is always conservative. There was certainly opposition to the views of Copernicus in his own day, but for two generations it was neither fierce nor dangerous. Copernicus died in 1543, in which year was issued his book, De revolutionibus orbium celestium, "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres." It was seventy-three years before it was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books (1616). What had happened in the meantime? The answer, which demands considerable readjustment of the conventional historic view, brings out the essential nature of the clash which roused such ferocity. The conflict was on something incomparably more significant than the interpretation of a few biblical passages or the mathematical formulae used to express the movements of the heavenly bodies.
    In the scheme of Copernicus the outer heavens were, as in the orthodox scheme, at a limited distance from the Earth. Copernicus thus offended conservatism, but hardly orthodoxy. The world of Copernicus, being thus limited, could still be treated as a "creature," a thing made, [Footnote: Greek ktisis (Rom. viii. 19-22 and elsewhere); ktizein, to build, establish, make, create] and thus something separate from the Godhead. But into this view, fully accepted by the orthodox Copernicus, a corollary factor was injected even before the end of the sixteenth century. Before Galileo had spoken, there was in the air another view, dimly adumbrated in the Middle Ages, that the Empyrean had no definite existence. It was suggested that the stars were not set in an outermost sphere, but were scattered through infinite distances of space. [Footnote: The conception of an infinite universe had been expounded by Nicolas Krebs of Cues (Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, 1401 -64). But the writings of that active papal statesman aroused little attention during his lifetime, though they profoundly influenced Bruno in the following century.] Thus the world, being devoid of frontiers or limits, could not be thought of as a "creature." To say this is, in effect, to say that Creator and Creature are indistinguishable. It is in effect Pantheism.
    This was a truly revolutionary conception and was entirely inconsistent with the medieval world-outlook. It was most forcibly voiced by Giordano Bruno (1547-1600), who was its martyr. To place him among martyrs of science is to get him out of focus. He was no man of science. He knew nothing of the experiential method. Had he known of it, he would not have been interested in it or have sympathised with it. Science was not at all in his way of thinking but, like certain others of his day, he sensed certain philosophic implications if the same treatment as that accorded by Copernicus to the inner spheres were extended to the outmost frontier of the astronomical universe.
    In Bruno's view the stars lay scattered in infinite space. This was, with him, still philosophical theory, for Galileo's telescope was not invented (1610) till a decade after he was burned to ashes (1600). But it could not be conceived that infinite space, with its sprinkling of starry universes could whirl around the minute sphere of Earth which moreover, could no longer be regarded as the heavens' centre. All thought of a centre and circumference of the world must go. The whole range of ideas involved in the conception of a limited astronomical world must be abandoned. The conception of absolute position has lost all meaning. The very frontier between the corruptible earthly sphere and the incorruptible heavens has vanished. Nay, the act of Creation itself can no longer be maintained. The whole of medieval cosmological thought and with it much of mediaeval theology becomes nonsense.
    Thus it was something very different from a technical change in the mathematics of the heavens that so deeply moved the theologians. They obtained a dim view of the implications of Bruno's thought. They were right to be moved. But it was still a dimly philosophical vision; it had not received that demonstrative garb that we now call scientific.
    The issues involved were not at first generally recognised. Some, who were profoundly stirred by the pagan form in which much of Bruno's thought was cast, fixed on the almost irrelevant detail of the Earth moving round the Sun as contrary to Scripture. This idea Bruno had certainly taken from Copernicus, whose work was not, as yet, prohibited. But Bruno's vision had far deeper implications than a mathematical readjustment of the current world-scheme. A finite universe, spherical or not, with or without the Earth as its centre, whether the sun moves or not, can be conceived as "created." An infinite universe cannot be so contemplated. Creation is fundamental to Christianity--at least to the Christianity of that age--nor need it surprise us that the Christianity of that age struck at Bruno. In 1600 he was burned at the stake, havingù passed eight years in the prisons of the Inquisition. His philosophical writings were suppressed, but their seed had been sown. During the centuries which followed, the seed came to fruit.
    Bruno perished miserably without the hope or thought that he had a disciple. Yet his view was soon to displace that of medieval Christianity. Before he had been dead for half a century, the world was, for the man of science, no longer a diagrammatic scheme which required investigation only as regards its details. It had become a world without bounds and therefore of infinite possibilities. Yet it was a world whose parts were slowly being revealed as uniformly related according to mathematical rules, the physical bases of which were in process of discovery. And then, toward the end of the century with Newton, it was seen that these mathematical rules of the heavens were the very rules obeyed by earthly engines. The world, as it was more and more explored, seemed everywhere a machine.
    It was, of course, true then; as it is, of course, true now that the view of universal law did not and does not occupy the whole mind of all men of science. Most men of science reserved, and still reserve, some department of experience in which they forbid full play to their vision of universal law. But when and where they give rein to that mood, then and there it is bound to displace the mood of faith, nor can the Cartesian compromise stand against it. Thus the three little tracts of Bruno, printed in London in 1584 and containing the essence of his philosophy, mark the real change from mediaeval to modern thought and especially to modern scientific thought. The change was long in coming, longer for some topics than for others longer in some minds than in others. But the coming of that change was inevitable once these three tracts had got abroad. Every attempt was made to suppress them, but they had done their work.
    Bruno's view links up with the Pantheism that long after his death came to flower with Spinoza. It was indeed the case that those who condemned him had more cause to fear than he whom they condemned, as he himself said at his trial. But when, ten years later, Galileo's Messenger of the Heavens (1610) announced a host of new stars arranged in no crystalline sphere but stretching magnitude after magnitude, beyond the reach of vision even with his telescopes, it was, indeed, something terrifying that had happened. The whole fabric of traditional thought was at risk, the very scheme that seemed to hold civilisation itself together. There is evidence that from now on Galileo himself was more than a little afraid. The world has hardly, even now, recovered from the fear that he shared.
    It is otiose at this date to discuss the misunderstandings of stupid men about the movements of the earth. Yet it is the simple fact that to this day theology has not settled its account on this point of the distinction of Creator and creature. This is no conflict between religion and science. It is a fundamental antithesis between two ways of looking at the world. One of these has developed a philosophy that has come to terms with science; the other has not. One is the Religion of Humanity, the other has remained, in all essentials, traditional Christian theology.


-62-65:     CHAPTER VII THE HISTORICAL RECORD - THE ROOT
Since the rise of the New Philosophy in the seventeenth century, the theological apologist has had to bear with him, on his defensive manoeuvres, the enormous burden of a vast, ancient, rigid and antiquated tradition. Many nowadays refuse to take him quite seriously, since they feel that he is not appealing to a real public but rather is entertaining his fellow athletes. There is surely a private world, a multitude of private worlds, where Christ is King. That world does not need his apologetic exercises nor is its nature relevant to the issue before us, nor even, perhaps, substantially supported by any of the theological scaffolding used for erection of the edifices of the Churches. Yet some there are that can still hear a dialogue between the two main ways of thinking that have always commanded the respect of men. And as they listen to the great debate that goes on through the centuries between the philosophy of Theism and that of the Religion of Humanity they can, perhaps, afford to regard the ground-rumble of theological apology as "noises-off." It is with the relation of these two outlooks that they are primarily concerned.
    Can the historical record be subsumed under either of these world outlooks? The answer of any theistic thinker must necessarily be "Yes." We must find God in history; if God cannot be found there, he can be found nowhere save in private worlds. If history is devoid of purpose, there can be no real value in human society. This is to say that, effectively at least, there is no God. The Religion of Humanity can afford to accept this situation and is not very greatly shaken thereby. Theism can hardly do so. But to take the theistic standpoint that we can see God in history is very different from saying that we can see or demonstrate God's purpose throughout all history or through most of history. That we certainly can not do.
    To assume God and God's purpose in history is to frame a "hypothesis," in the original and primal meaning of that word. A hypothesis in its first sense is literally "something placed under" - that is, a support. God is such a hypothesis, a support to life. Be it noted well that this is no hypothesis in the scientific sense of that word. The one kind of hypothesis, the scientific kind, provides a support for obtaining knowledge; the other kind of hypothesis supports the knowledge when obtained.
    Behind these two uses of a word there lies a great deal more than a mere question of definitions, or of current usage, or of etymology. The whole contest around the determinist position is involved, and not only the Christian but the whole theistic outlook is at stake. At the beginning of his Principia Newton uses his famous phrase: "I frame no hypotheses." The prestige of his name led to the bold assertion that "whereas his predecessors described the motions of the heavenly bodies, Newton was the first to explain them." But did he explain them, or has anyone explained them? The matter is important for any theistic view of the world.
    The critical passage of Newton runs as follows: "I have not yet been able to deduce from the phenomena the reason of these properties of gravitation and I frame no hypotheses. For whatever cannot be deduced from the phenomena should be called an hypothesis." Now Newton here gives the word its exact original meaning. In the works of Plato, as well as in yet earlier writings, the word "hypothesis" has its literal sense, "a thing placed under," a foundation - that is, a postulated scheme - which must be accepted if discussion is to take place. We have such hypotheses constantly before us in the language of the Law. Of these legal uses some are mere fictions, as that "the king can do no wrong"; others are convenient presentations of an extremely remote possibility, as "the lease that runs for 999 years"; others refer to procedure, as that "a man is innocent [i.e. treated as innocent] until proved guilty." All these are hypotheses in the Platonic and Newtonian sense. None are deduced from the phenomena. None are verifiable. Most are false. All are parts of a working scheme into which certain events can be conveniently and tidily fitted. In this use and sense of the word, Newton was certainly right when he said, "I frame no hypotheses."
    But if hypothesis is to mean what we usually understand by a scientific hypothesis, that is to say, a generalisation drawn from a series of observations which, it may reasonably be hoped, will be confirmed by yet further observations, then we must say that Newton was constantly both framing and employing hypotheses. His application to the movements of the moon of the doctrine of gravity as he had experimentally demonstrated it on earth was an obvious example. Once he had such a "hypothesis" that would fit the moon, he could and did apply it to other members of the planetary system. Its verification from the planets strengthened his conviction of the value of his first inference. The whole of his scientific activity was remarkable for invention of such hypotheses. The successful invention of such hypotheses is indeed the very mark of his scientific eminence.
    As regards the distinction between description and explanation, the position is somewhat similar. Newton knew that a property which we call gravity is associated with all matter of which we have direct experience. Having reached an exact conception of this property, he proceeds to examine the motions of the planetary bodies and finds that they may be re-expressed in terms of gravity. To do this is to give a description, not an explanation, for as to the nature of gravity, as to why bodies possess gravity, Newton could say nothing at all.
    It may reasonably be claimed that such "description" is the true aim of science. Science is ever engaged in bringing things together into new or wider categories and expressing their behaviour in general formula. This merely indicates for us with some clearness the field and the limitation of the scientific method. That method enables us to describe any piece of the universe that we select. To explain such a fragment, it must needs be related to all other pieces. For this, science does not helP at all. In the attempt to present the world as a whole we are left effectively with two outlooks which confront each other, that of Theism and that of the Religion of Humanity. Both are "hypotheses" in the Newtonian and Platonic but not in the scientific sense.
    Of either of these religions or "hypotheses" we are entitled to ask: "What then is Man?" The Religion of Humanity avoids the answer or is content with one or more of the scientific answers. To me all of these seem intellectually trivial and fundamentally unsatisfying. For Man is neither a walking test tube nor a living anatomy. He is neither a colony of cells nor a self-repairing machine that carries its own spare parts. He is neither a summation of the factors of heredity and environment nor a unit in a social system. He is neither a logical apparatus nor a bundle of complexes. And, finally, he is not a mere summation of all these things and their like because, among many reasons, these things, as we have seen, cannot be added together. [I noted 'drivel' - RW] But again, as we have seen, we may consider man as a whole as separated from the rest of creation if we think of him as a being with values and, therefore, a being with a purpose.
    What is that purpose? The answers to this question are
verbal subterfuges and..


- 68-71: ... all this is that "Being is Becoming." Moreover, such is the history of the human race - "biological evolution" as we are accustomed to call it - that we carry our history in our very bowels. Both spiritually and biologically the dead live in each one of us.
    The resemblance between our social and mental life on the one hand and our biological life on the other is more than a mere analogy. We need to remember - and how we long to forget - that we are the resultant of the entirety of our experiences, the bad no less than the good, the pleasant no more than the unpleasant. In the inner sanctum of the private world a man may doubtless be born again through repentance and through grace, but that in no way changes the fact that his sins were sins and have now become parts of his history. And so it is also with human societies. Social institutions, and specifically religions, are the products of historical processes which are not inappropriately compared to the evolution of biological types. Religions, like living organisms, like ourselves, have their rudiments and their vestiges; their dependent, degenerate and parasitic phases; their static and their developmental periods; their rapid metamorphoses and their cataclysmic declines. They, too, carry their history with them. Alike of men and of the lives of men, as of religions,
    "Our deeds still travel with us from afar,
    And what we have been makes us what we are."

    Therefore, while it would be foolish to judge a religion by its feeblest exponents, it must and should be judged by its historic, its official, its formal representatives. The intelligent and the only intelligible practice of the Church is to be found in the acts of its leaders and the writings of its most respected theologians. We must not accept the common mode of evasion that such men often have not the root of the matter in them. How often one hears of some detestable action or attitude of the Church: "Oh, but that isn't Christianity." But it is Christianity; it is historic Christianity. Whatever pang the limitation may cost the Christian, he cannot be allowed to choose his history, or even to select from it. All that has been is history, and the individual Christian of our day is the heir of the whole historic record of the Christian religion and of Christian civilisation. We live in this moment which, at the next, goes past recall to make us what we shall be. What we do at this moment will be still with us in the next and each one of us is heir of all that has been. History is utterly unforgiving and ruthless.
    The acts of the Spanish Inquisition; the massacre of the Albigenses; the record of Luther with reference to the Peasants' Revolt and royal divorce; the inhuman temper of Calvin; the evil lives and designed cruelty of many of the Popes; and, in our time, the temporising of Christians and of Churches with the evil forces that have overwhelmed much of the world; these are, for comparative and scientific purposes, as essential parts of the history of Christianity as are the lives of the saints. All these events, in sober fact, have had their share in shaping current Christianity. They have had their share in shaping Christians themselves.
    Some may say that from these acts, these records, these attitudes, these lives, the spirit of Christ had wholly departed. Let it be so. We have not been discussing the spirit of Christ, but the record, and to claim that these things are not representative of the historic process known as Christianity is to attempt to falsify the record. Torquemada, Luther, Calvin, Innocent III, Alexander VI were official exponents of Christianity. They were, indeed, the very embodiments of its history. They were typical products of the history of Christianity just as they shaped the history of Christianity. The Christian apologist must answer for them no whit less than the exponent of the Religion of Humanity must answer for, let us say, the persecution of religion in Russia. And should the Christian apologist evade the charges against historic Christianity of the many accommodations that it has made with the forces of evil of our time?
    Can there be a quantitative measure of inhumanity? If so, we should need to rank the standard of cruelty attained by Christianity high among the achievements of the great religions and the great civilisations. The Christian attainment in cruelty has certainly not been lower than anything of the sort reached by the religion of Humanity. And even in our time the overwhelming majority of National Socialists still Profess a formal Christianity.
    The man who can read history and say that Christianity has not produced many abominations, many horrors, many perversions of the human spirit, must have been reading with specially constructed spectacles. Yet how many there are who habitually wear these odd distorters of vision. We are urged to make our society Christian. But Europe had been Christian for a full nine hundred years after the vision of the Cross had come to Constantine when every soul in B‚ziers was butchered in Christ's own name, by the will of Christ's own vicar. "Kill all; the Lord will know His own." It is but one example among many; but this, and all the wickedness that led to it and flowed from it, was approved by one of the greatest of those who have sat in Peter's seat. Each of the centuries as it went by was lit by its own cruel fires and religious wars. How grand if we could wipe out these records as from a slate. We cannot. The human soul may doubtless be freed from sin by grace, but history never forgives. That, to me, is one of the most solemn thoughts that is.
    The plain record is that some of the fiercest and most cruel peoples that the world has seen have exhibited their fiercest and most cruel moods in the very name of Christianity. The plain record is that among the fiercest and most cruel wars have been those waged by Christians in the cause of what they regarded as their religion. The plain record is that massacre, torture and pillage have repeatedly been employed by Christian men in what they held to be a Christian cause. And, above all, the plain record is that the leadership of the Christian world has seldom had any clear relationship to personal sanctity.
    Theologians will doubtless be loth to believe that the history of Christianity can have anything to do with the shape of the religious war in which we now find ourselves, but the theologians will be wrong. If Christianity means anything at all, it means that history is all of a piece, and that, were our knowledge adequate, a pattern could be traced in the human drama throughout the ages. Nor is it theologians alone who refuse to remove the veil that they have themselves drawn over their eyes and are blind to that which they do not wish to see. Yet to some of those who are not theologically minded, it is not at all difficult to discern how a modern religion of hate, cruelty and pride has developed out of religion as expounded by such men as those who have been named above. The loathsome and satanic religion of National Socialism seems to have come as a surprise to Christians. It has not come at all as a surprise to some of the observers of historic Christianity. Those who have read the life of Martin Luther or Alexander VI need not be astounded at the life of Adolf Hitler. There is a stock whose root is rottenness and its fruit shall come up as dust.
    In the physical world there is a law of the indestructibility of energy, but there is also a rule of passage from a higher to a lower potential. The pebble dropped into a ...



- 75-85: CHAPTER VIII THE CHURCHES IN CRISIS--THE FRUIT
THE true measure of influence of Christianity on the body politic is surely the way in which the community of Christian states--and, above all, the Christian Churches of those states - respond to acts which ignore or views which repudiate central Christian doctrines. Surely the I most fundamental, anticipating even the Incarnation, is that there is a dignity and worth of the individual soul, for without that the Incarnation itself would be meaningless. How have Christian states and Christian Churches responded?
    We pass over the record of the Churches in relation to torture and cruelty. We set aside compulsory conversion, along with the wars of religion, the horrors of inquisitions and of their variants, and the subtler but yet more deadly enemy of human dignity, clerical censorship in all its forms. It is better to be silent as to the witch-mania as well as to the Christian doctrine of serfdom. We must not print specimens of the foul invective which became a commonplace of theological debate, nor discuss the persistent and systematic defamatory propaganda of the Church against Islam and against Judaism, compared to which that of Goebbels shows as a mere prentice effort. Forget the futilities of the Crusades and the endless and fruitless misery and bereavement that they brought upon mankind. Pass over the long monopoly of higher education by the Churches, as well as the record of the Churches in their subservient moods as buttresses of ruling powers or classes. Turn rather to the situation as it is.
    Memories are short. The failure of Christian states to respond to the call of human suffering seems to many to be a major cause of the crisis of our civilisation, but pass that by to consider the Christian leadership. Will anyone suggest that everywhere men who call themselves Christian have been for the last ten years aflame with the outrages inflicted on the most sacred human rights? Will anyone say that the leaders of the Churches, or that Christian men who occupy high positions in politics, were in general, or even often, early to see and to proclaim that acts of injustice were foul offences against the Christian conscience? Will anyone make this claim, for example, for the major ecclesiastical and lay leaders of the great Churches from 1933 onward, men whose names must be in the minds of any reader? No one will do so, for the opposite is most certainly the case. The conception of the nature of the crisis came late to leading Christians. It was accepted very reluctantly by them. Those outside the Christian fold, and notably exponents of the Religion of Humanity, long anticipated them.
    Memories are short. A very few examples--there is no space for more--of how Christian leaders have shouldered their moral responsibilities, may perhaps serve to awaken some memories. It would be best not to adduce as a Christian responsibility acts of those whose Christianity may be doubted by any Christian, or of those who do not represent a large section of Christian opinion. We must seek typical examples.
    Consider what was held to be the best standard of Christian conduct only four short years ago. A single but typical example must suffice. The Dean of Chichester, particularly well known for his humane and modern views issued a learned and authoritative work, The Struggle for Religious Freedom in Germany. (The Preface is dated May 1938.) This scholarly production will doubtless remain current as a record of the events that it records, though at the time of its issue there had ceased to be any effective struggle, if indeed such had ever existed. In sober fact, it had never been conducted with any very convincing vigour, or by any but a minute proportion of professed Christians in Germany. This admirable book is, in effect, a presentation of the Christian effort, not for religious freedom--for no such effort was seriously made--but for the freedom of certain Churches. The text runs to 270 pages, and the treatment of Jews is not discussed until the two hundred and sixty-seventh. There it receives exactly one and a half lines in the following passage:
    "It certainly does not become us to utter one word of reproach for those who have not been able to rise to sacrificial heights. Nor may we criticise those who have so risen, because they have not done something else as well; because, for example, they have not made a violent protest against the shameful treatment of the Jews, or the horror of the concentration camps.
    "Karl Barth, himself a Swiss, has forestalled any such criticism for us in his lecture at Oxford, when he asks how little likely it is that the Christians of any other country would have given greater proof." (Italics added.)

    So much for the heroism that a Christian expected Christianity to elicit in its most devoted adherents. And this 1,600 years after the adoption of Christianity as the State religion of Europe. A Christian, defending the action of representatives of his faith, hints that the same courage and steadfastness cannot be expected from the soldiers of Christ as we are now daily witnessing by the ten thousand from the soldiers of Satan. But one cause of the feebleness of the Churches shows through this very passage. Apart from the point that Professor Barth, far from forestalling any such criticism in his lecture, had in fact dealt with it most inadequately, it must be said that the very plan of the book is corrupted by the great Christian fallacy. Nor is it this book alone. There is now a large literature on the anti-Christian movement in Germany and I have been able to find very few indeed that do not contain the same fallacy.
    Before going further the reader should be seized of what so open-minded a Christian as Dr. Duncan-Jones regarded, as late as May 1938, as "forestalling any criticism." In Dr. Barth's lecture, as printed, the sole reference to the subject is contained in the following passage which exposes with great frankness the unhealthy state of European Christianity:
    "There are many spectators in other countries of the struggle of the Church in Germany who make it a cause of reproach that the Church has not given a greater proof of the reality of the Christian faith. Why, one hears it asked, have the Christians in Germany not been able to prevent the horrors of National-socialism, the concentration camps, the persecution of the Jews? Yes, and still more: where were the Christians in Germany when this National-socialism first rose up? Why did they for the most part go so far as to accompany it with enthusiasm? Such questions lie only too near; but one should be very careful before giving expression to them. It is only too easy to overlook much: how complicated the situation in Germany had become in the fifteen years after the War, how weak internally the position of the Church at that time was, how easy it was at the beginning of 1933 to deceive oneself as to the bolshevistic character of the Hitler movement, and above all, how little likely it is that the Christians of any other country would have been in a position to give in similar circumstances that greater proof of the reality of the Christian faith. But even if it be assumed that a greater proof would in fact have been possible, this remains true: a small proof of the reality of the faith has been given and is still being given by the Church in Germany." [Footnote: Trouble and Promise in the Struggle of the Church in Germany, by Karl Barth: "Translation of the substance of the Deneke Lecture at Oxford on 4 March 1938 by P. V. M, Benecke" (Oxford, 1938).]

    Yes, Dr. Barth is just in his claims. But no one has ever suggested that there were no Christians. What many more than suspect, however, is that Christians are very few and that they are little represented in the leading of the Churches. Thus, to return to Dr. Duncan-Jones' account of their position, if the question of the relations of the Churches to the Nazi Movement is to be treated as a whole, if the attempt is made to get these relations into true historic perspective, if in fact we are to understand what has happened in Germany, then the passage quoted above from Dr. Duncan-Jones' book is wrongly placed and wrongly stressed. It should open the whole story, not close it as a sort of afterthought. Surely the treatment of Christians has a related sequence to the treatment of Jews. The false step taken early in 1933 by the Church leaders in accepting the "shameful treatment" of Jews, as Dr. Duncan-Jones rightly calls it, was at least a factor that led to the shameful treatment of Christians as Dr. Duncan-Jones wrongly omits to indicate. It was at least partly because the Church leaders had uncovered the nakedness of their own professions, and had showed that they had no regard for human dignity, that they were exposed to treatment with contempt by their enemies. How could it have been otherwise? Surely even on the very simplest Christian view a man must be a man before he can be a Christian, and God's estimate of man's worth must precede His Sacrifice. Every Nazi knew that.
    The book rightly indicates that the enemies of the Churches were not slow to perceive their weakness. Dull indeed would they have been to have missed it! It needed no very recondite knowledge of human character to foresee that opponents of the Churches were likely thus to react to signs of yielding, especially by their leaders, to doctrines and practices manifestly opposed to the most elementary Christian principles. Yet the leaders of the Churches in Germany, while the Churches were still "intact," made no protest till their own interests were manifestly and immediately threatened. And even when they did at last make some stand, their protests were--as they still are - with insignificant exceptions, based upon their corporate rights or deduced from their own specific doctrines and not upon the dignity and worth of man as man which surely forms the very basis of all their teaching.
    By the Catholic Church in Germany, so far as I have been able to learn, practically no stand has been made except upon its own rights. The material has been ably collected and admirably set forth in the anonymous volume: Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich (London, 1940). Much of this refers to the critical years when National Socialism was newly in power and something might have been effected. But evidence of efforts to take a stand on the rights of man as a child of God, instead of his rights as a member of the Church, is conspicuous by its absence. On this Point the story is practically identical with that of the Protestant Churches. [Footnote: Such protests as were made by the Churches are collected by Elizabeth Castonier, The Eternal Front, 1942, "The inside story of the Christian opposition--both Protestant and Catholic- to Nazi doctrine within Germany and in the occupied countries of Europe, with translations from original documents." It is a very short book and, especially for Central Europe, singularly unconvincing. For Poland the Jews are not even mentioned!]
    Dr. Duncan-Jones' book and Dr. Barth's lecture must suffice as examples of the state of informed and sympathetic Christian feeling in the first half of the year before the war. Let us pass to the end of that year and again take a typical example.
    November 11th is a day of remembrance, the Armistice Day of the termination of the 1914--18 War. The eve of that day in 1938, four years ago, was celebrated by a massacre of Jews in Germany. Nearly all their synagogues were burnt under police supervision. Thousand of homes were wrecked by Government-directed violence. Many persons were killed, and yet more died of ill treatment. The German Churches showed hardly any reaction at all. But on that November 11th, National Socialism having been in power for five years and nine months, the then Archbishop of Canterbury wrote as follows to The Times:

            "Strain upon British Friendship.
    "SIR, -- I believe that I speak for the Christian people of this country in giving immediate expression to the feelings of indignation with which we have read of the deeds of cruelty and destruction which were perpetrated last Thursday in Germany and Austria. Whatever provocation may have been given by the deplorable act of a single irresponsible Jewish youth, reprisals on such a scale, so fierce, cruel and vindictive, cannot possibly be justified. A sinister significance is added to them by the fact that the police seem either to have acquiesced in them or to have been powerless to restrain them.
    "It is most distasteful to write these words just when there is in this country a general desire to be on friendly terms with the German nation. But there are times when the mere instincts of humanity make silence impossible. Would that the rulers of the Reich could realise that such excesses of hatred and malice put upon the friendship which we are ready to offer them an almost intolerable strain!
    "I trust that in our Churches on Sunday and thereafter remembrance may be made in our prayers of those who have suffered this fresh onset of persecution and whose future seems to be so dark and hopeless.
        "Yours faithfully, COSMO CANTUAR: "LAMBETH PALACE, November 11th, 1938" (Italics added.)

    The language of this letter may be subject to a little analysis. "Whatever provocation may have been given by ... an irresponsible youth, reprisals on such a scale, so fierce, cruel and vindictive, cannot possibly be justified." This can only have a meaning if it be supposed that reprisals on a lesser scale could be justified. To give a meaning to the word "possibly," it must be supposed that the writer seeks at least to palliate reprisals on a lesser scale. Moreover, the sentence carries the suggestion that an act of an irresponsible youth is a provocation.
    "It is distasteful to write these words when there is a general desire to be on friendly terms with the German nation...but mere instincts of humanity make silence impossible." As though at other times reprisals would be of less significance or their discussion less distasteful, and as though nothing but the most extreme act could justify silence! The same suggestion is made a third and fourth t;me. "Would that the rulers of the Reich could realise that such excesses of hatred and malice put upon the friendship which we are ready to offer them an almost intolerable strain.') To give this sentence meaning, it must again be supposed that excesses less outrageous would put only a tolerable strain! Had the Archbishop ever heard of Mein Kampf?
    Is there one of the six sentences of this letter which bears a distinctive Christian mark? Is there one that expressed what was by then the general feeling that had been reached by the people of this country? That the laity differ from their official leaders is perhaps to be explained by their having a different basic religion. But if ecclesiastical language is intended to mean anything--and perhaps it is not--this letter can only mean that an English Archbishop had only a qualified disapproval of these crimes committed upon non-Christians. Of course, much of this is mere blundering in the use of language. But that such blunders can be made, and that repeatedly, reveals a hesitance and cowardice in the presence of revealed evil that augurs ill for the Church in the world that is struggling to birth.
    The temporising hesitancy of this letter, and comparable actions by other high ecclesiastics in several confessions, in part reflected and in part determined the wavering reluctance of Christendom in the face of what, to all outside the Christian fold, was apparent as a direct attack on the very essence of Christianity. There were, happily, others who, if they could not speak in the name of a formal ecclesia, could do so for that universal Church that is to be found wherever two or three are gathered together unto the Name. At the time when the Archbishop was finding it "distasteful" to write a word against National Socialism, Dr. Karl Barth who, as resident in Germany, had seen the thing at close hand from the beginning, and whose previously expressed view must have been familiar to all responsible theologians, was now perfectly clear as to the danger that threatened Christianity. [Footnote: Dr.Barth is not German but Swiss by birth and early education. He has been professor of theology in three German universities: G”ttingen, 1921-5, Mnster, 1925-30, Bonn, 1930-5. In 1935, when residence in Germany became impossible for him on account of his views, Dr. Barth returned to his native Basel, where he has since held a chair.] Dr. Barth wrote as follows from within sight of the German frontier:
    "The Church should have established from her own perceptions and knowledge that in National Socialism there had entered the field not only a strange God, but a hostile, evil God, and a hostile, evil service of God. The decisive reason for this does not lie in the anti-Christian asseverations and actions of National Socialism. It lies in that thing which, in this last week, has specially moved us, namely the anti-Semitism which is one of its principles. This by itself is sufficient to justify the sentence National Socialism is the anti-Church fundamentally hostile to Christianity. Hitler and those responsible do not realise, of course, the thing that they have touched upon. When it is resolved to exterminate the people of Israel, to burn the synagogues and Scriptures, to reject the 'Jew God' and the 'Jew Bible' as the essence of abomination to the German, then an attempt is made to strike a mortal blow into the roots of the Church. Can any even wish to close his ears to all the unutterable misery caused by this anti-Semitic pest, crying to Heaven in every German country? How can Christian ears do other than tingle? Objectively what are we without Israel? He who rejects and persecutes the Jews rejects and persecutes Him who died for the sins of the Jews and thereby for our sins. A radical enemy of the Jews is a radical enemy of Jesus Christ. Anti-Semitism is a sin against the Holy Ghost for it is rejection of the grace of God. But National Socialism lives, moves and has its being in anti-Semitism. What sign must still come if this does not say to the Church that she can have nothing whatever to do with National Socialism; that she has to awake and at every point resolutely to reject it." [Footnote: For the reader's sake I have slightly abbreviated this passage and somewhat simplified Professor Barth's very involved style of writing. The passage will be found in full in his The Church and the Political Problem of Our Day (London, 1939).]
    But Dr. Barth was, from the beginning, fighting what proved a losing battle. The large majority of those who called themselves Christian outside Germany, and an increasing and finally overwhelming proportion of those who called themselves Christian within the German orbit, still preferred to temporise in the spirit of the Archbishop's letter. It is true that now, in 1942, most Christians have received such an awakening that a change in the temper of Christendom is clearly observable. But it was before that change that this vast evil had fastened itself on European civilisation. For its alleviation, on the most hopeful estimate, the work of unborn generations will be needed. It is an evil so great that it must bulk as one of the major incidents in European history. But Nazi iniquity is only one side of the picture: a side with which all are now familiar. Christians complaisance and hesitancy, trimming and time-serving, is the other side of the picture. From that Christians have very wrongly and unwisely averted their gaze. It is truly an ugly sight and an ugly story.
    Memories are short. The Archbishop was not the only one engulfed by the Christian fallacy. What was the proportion of Christian leaders who, professing their religion to be Catholic or Ecumenical or Universal or Orthodox, exclaimed at the first hearing that the claim of a race to override the rights and dignity of man as man could by no means be Christian or compatible with Christianity? The true answer is that there were hardly any Christian leaders who assumed that attitude until the nature of the crisis had long been obvious to every intelligent non-Christian observer. The profession of Christianity added no penetration at all to scrutiny of the situation, but seems rather to have dimmed the spiritual vision. Not until it became quite evident, even to the wilfully blind, that the Churches themselves were threatened were their leaders able to see through what did not seem to others a particularly dense fog. Since then they have discovered that National Socialism is wickedness. Since then they have seen, what others saw long before them, how weak and feeble and sick is Christianity in ...


- 88-93: .. or not--it is a very grave portent that the Churches in Germany were so extremely tardy as to appear actually reluctant to defend the civilisation, the ethics, and the liberty of their own creation. The gravity of the portent is not lessened but emphasised by stressing the internal weakness and division of the Churches.
    The line adopted by Dr. Barth that, to quote his own words, after Hitler's seizure of power, "the Church of Christ took some time to recognise the Nazi régime as its enemy," is certainly true, but it carries with it an extremely severe condemnation of the leaders of that Church, including Dr. Barth and including Niemöller himself. The racial policy of National Socialism was the very basis of Hitler's Mein Kampf. This book, which both Dr. Niemöller and Dr. Barth had certainly read, was published in the years 1925-6. The racial policy was given a Prominent place in all Hitler's early speeches. It was also given a place in the often published and very widely circulated Programme of the Party, to which my own attention was drawn in 1931 by several German colleagues. It is quite impossible to believe that German Church leaders were ignorant of the significance of a current matter of internal German policy perfectly familiar to every intelligent German outside clerical circles as well as to many foreigners. It is very much easier to believe that Church Leaders hoped that by silence or by compromise or by accepting the Nazi régime, they and their followers and Churches would escape attack. Of humanity outside their own Churches they were not thinking and, with very few exceptions, there is no evidence that they have much thought even now. That, I believe, is the highly discreditable fact. That I believe to be a major key to the religious situation in Europe. That great lapse is a most important historic event and is an integral and irremovable part of the history of Christianity. Those who seek to conceal this do an ill-service to Christianity.
    Memories are short, but the plain and damnatory fact, which the historian will record, is that from 1933 and for four full years and more, all the major Churches sought to come to terms with the abominable heresies of National Socialism and Fascism. In so far as the Churches spoke at all it was, at least until 1937, evasively and with the manifest desire to avoid committal.
    Memories are short, but with the documents of these years before him the historian will not omit to record, as significant events in the history of Christianity, many incidents which some would fain forget. There are the papal agreements with the murderers and blasphemers, Hitler and Mussolini. There are the many early equivocal pronouncements of high Anglican dignitaries. There is the expertly oracular amphibology that has consistently emanated from the Vatican. There is the pitiful breakdown of Protestantism in Germany and its substantial absorption into the Nazi system. There is the miserable acceptance of National Socialism by Austrian clerics and notably the open allegiance to Hitler and his doctrines by the Archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Innitzer. There are the many unholy alliances in many Roman Catholic countries between Churches and Fascism from 1933 to 1938 and beyond. There has been the ill-concealed sympathy of many if not most Churches with totalitarian methods. There is the inhuman indifference of the Central European Churches, and the very slow reaction of all the Churches outside Germany, in face of organised anti-Semitism. How slow it was, how dull it was, how reluctant, how inhuman, how unimaginative, how senseless it was, only those who watched the situation at near hand will, perhaps, ever fully realise. There is the stupid and semi-wilful blindness of the Churches to the evident fact that the formal basis of National Socialism is not only a denial of Christianity, but makes it also a deadly enemy, not only to Christianity, but to every thing that is universal in every religion. There is the degrading silence of the elderly adolescent who represented Britain in Berlin. There is the ill-concealed support of Hitler's way by certain so-called statesmen in this country. Not least there is the long procession of presumably Christian British Foreign Secretaries, so humiliatingly tongue-tied whenever confronted with the denial of the humane foundations of that international law which is, perhaps, one of the greatest products of Christianity. Perhaps they and other heroes of the Munich agreement and of German and Italian appeasement have now reached the conclusion that we all are members one of another. It is a pity that their spoken words still do not more clearly indicate as much. Is there any passage in all our history that raises such a blush as our foreign policy from 1933 to 1939?
    Regarded as an event in the long course of ecclesiastical history, the striking feature of the terrible episode through which we are living is negative. Nothing that has happened in it is as significant as what has not happened. There was, until the Churches themselves were in unmistakeable danger, no general Christian upsurge of indignation, even against their own treatment. The salient spiritual characteristic of our age has been the failure of the Churches to produce seers or martyrs or even great leaders. Christian reaction to the situation has been very, very slow and, in general, very, very reluctant.
    Think of the hundreds of millions of people in Europe who call themselves Christian and then of the minute number of those who have made any voluntary sacrifice for their Christian faith. Their names are mostly known - Niemöller and the rest. They made, till quite recently, a mere stage army that passed in and out of the news. Those who have shown any willingness to sacrifice themselves for Christianity, outside perhaps Holland and Norway, form the merest handful. Even fewer are those who have shown, by deliberately facing personal danger, any care for Christian ethics.
    The theologians have manfully wielded their pens overtime, but Christian men who by their lives and with their lives have shown eagerness or even willingness to bear practical witness to their faith have been conspicuously few. Compare the numbers of this tiny band to the hosts of young men who have risked and lost their lives gladly for the idolatrous Religion of Nationalism. Hardly one of the very few Christian protesters who has taken a personal risk has occupied a prominent ecclesiastical position. If the blood of the martyrs be indeed the seed of the Church, then we must have lean spiritual years ahead, The name Niemöller is constantly "in the news," but in the Lutheran Church alone and in the limits of the old Reich there were some 20,000 pastors. And, moreover, Niemiöller himself was a Nazi till he realised that the Church itself was threatened. I have read all his available sermons. They are able and eloquent, but if they contain a breath of humanity, in the sense in which that word is normally understood, then it has escaped me.
    But if saints and martyrs, and even steadfast and consistent Christians, have been few, even fewer have been the Christian leaders who, early in this world-crisis, showed insight as to its essentially spiritual origin. We now have it dinned into our ears that Christianity is in danger from these new religions of National Socialism and Fascism, of course it is. So it was from the first. But when did Christian leaders discover this extremely unpleasant truth? The answer is that it took hardly any of them less than four years to reach this elementary conclusion. Yet the fundamental incompatibility of Christianity with the Religion of Nationality--"the new paganism," as it came to be called--was abundantly evident from the very first to many outside the Christian fold, of whom this writer was one. The twenty-five point programme of the Nazi Party was published in 1920, not 1942, and there was, above all, Mein Kampf.
    The Religion of Humanity has had a better record than Christianity during these apocalyptic years. Without the Religion of Humanity our state now would be even worse than it is. Human mercy would have been an even scarcer commodity, and this war would have assumed on both sides, instead of only on the Axis side, all the traditional horrors of a "war of religion." Looking back on the last three centuries of history, the Religion of Humanity can be seen increasingly as the effective working faith of the great "humanitarian" movement so characteristic of the age. This rise of the Religion of Humanity, largely indistinguishable as a separate faith, has concealed an insidious, an ancient and a deep-seated process in the course of which Christian faith has receded as a motive.
    To ascribe this recession to "science" is a shallow misunderstanding. The Churches, it is true, have shown an indisposition or an incapacity to adapt themselves to the philosophic needs of the time, dating from an outstanding and unsettled account with the New Philosophy. But this last is a mere symptom of a much deeper lesion, for far more important than events external to Christianity has been an insidious process the seeds of which were sown much earlier. The trouble lies within the Churches not without.


- 93:     CHAPTER IX THE CHRISTIAN FALLACY
Such is the situation as seen by one, and I believe by many, outside the Christian fellowship and by some at least within. In this, one of the greatest contests of all time, the religion of Christianity is receding. I believe that this will continue until some internal revolutionary change becomes manifest within the Church of Christ. The nature of that upheaval cannot be hazarded, but it must be of internal origin. No external event will serve. The trouble has arisen within, nor, to those without, do some of the seeds of decay seem wholly obscure. In traditional Christian habits of thought they perceive grave dissonances summarised and typified in a tension of ancient standing between the claims of the Church and those of the Faith.
    Certain elements, which have in part both contributed to this tension and arisen from it, may be separately distinguished. On the negative Side we have referred to (1) a maladjustment to the "new philosophy," leading to (2) displacement of Christianity in the social field by its rival, the Religion of Humanity, opening the way for (3) further weakening of the Christian position by totalitarianism, at first welcomed by most Churches. On the positive side we have to consider (1) the fallacy that history may be read selectively, treating some events as though they had not been, (2) an ostrich-like fantasy that the Church's failures in the field of her own doctrine are not apparent to those without, and (3) the deadening illusion that the Faith can be supported by the State. There is a widespread fallacy that certain major passages, incidents, personalities, and aspects of personalities ...


-94-95: [Interesting material on Luther and written works, many not translated says Singer, as a foul mouthed bigoted type, especially as anti-Jewish. This is not put into perspective though, nor [Note: censorship:] can 'all that he says of them.. be printed in decent English'.]
    96-7: Hitler as follower of Luther
    'Not a few theologians' follow Hitler, heir of Luther.
    99: 'There is, or rather was, a separate and specifically Jewish civilisation. That civilisation.. is now in the ladt stages of decay..'
(Singer seems not interested in the German peasants; nor in other massacres, e.g. Armenians).


-102-103: .. compulsory or, as it has now become, semi-compulsory religious element in our own State schools,
    Should it succeed, what can be hoped from it? For a full thousand years the Church has possessed an endowed representative in each of the hundreds of thousands of parishes throughout Europe. She has controlled all schools and all seats of learning and maintained a representative in almost all institutions. Thus states have become specifically Christian and have been designated as such. Moreover the Church herself has always distinguished between states that are Christian and those that are not. If, therefore, after all these centuries, Christian states still fail to act on ethical principles distinguishable as Christian, then Christianity must be held to have failed in its major field. It has been an extremely long experiment--long even on the grand, historical scale. It has been a most unsuccessful experiment.
    It is sometimes disingenuously rejoined that the State itself is not the field in which to seek the characteristic social contribution of the Church, which is the emphasis on the individual. This is certainly true in the limited but highly important sense that Christianity has succeeded in making a consideration of the dignity and worth of the individual a part of the ordinary thought of many ordinary men. But the challenge cannot be thus avoided. How has the Church presented, developed, exampled, that which she claims, with partial justice, as her own doctrine of man's birthright, the preciousness of human personality? Seek to history for the answer.
    Historically, states have been habitually guided by men who called themselves Christian. Historically, such states have constantly elaborated ingenious apparatus for compulsory conformity in all its varied and various degrees and forms, designed to bring to nothing the dignity and worth of the individual. Historically, organised Christianity has been the chief enemy of that for which its greatest claim is made. The greatest concession to the dignity and worth of the individual is that he shall worship God as he believes God desires. That concession has never been made by Christianity. Rather it has been wrung from Christianity by the Religion of Humanity, and that only in very modern times.
    Historically, the Churches have always claimed to guide the State. There was an epoch in which they really succeeded. Only a crazed medievalist will suggest that then was the Golden Age. It was the age in which the Inquisition began its evil course; it was the age of forced conversion; it was an age of basest superstition; it was an age of the most extreme mental contraction in which all the wisdom of antiquity dwindled away; it was the age in which beliefs known to be untrue were most sedulously inseminated from the highest quarters; it was the age of the most rigid separation of classes; it was the age of serfdom; it was the age of barbarous cruelty in which the statesmen of the Church may have succeeded in reforming morals within the monasteries, but conspicuously failed outside them. But to the next age--and to that section of the Church whose special charge it was to voice the claim of the individual conscience--it was left to sink the worth and dignity of the individual to nothing at all. The Cujus regio, ejus religio, "Of whom the power, his be the religion," of the Peace of Augsburg L(1555) Carried an equal threat to freedom of conscience and to faith. To that most evil of compromises between several evils, we trace directly the spiritual dilemma of our times, though the origin of the tension thus expressed must be sought much further back in history.
    The point of view makes so much difference to the appearance of the scene surveyed. Thus to those within the Church Innocent III seems one of its great architects, ...



107-115: CHAPTER X     A PERSONAL NOTE
WE are in a spiritual blizzard. In the last chapter I have expressed my belief that, despite its anachronistic and threadbare covering, the Jewish faith is standing the weather better than the Christian (p. 99). This may seem difficult to believe. I feel, therefore, that I cannot end this little volume without some justificatory evidence. I am not at all concerned here with either of the two religions as such and still less with their theology; least of all would I wish to claim that one is better than the other. I am concerned only with the relation to conduct of certain habits of thought. For our purpose, the actual ethics of the two faiths are identical.
    It is difficult to display the relation between religious thought-habits and conduct because, in our modern complex world, conduct is determined by so many cross-currents. Turning the matter over, I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that certain relations that I have myself observed can best be made clear by telling something of my own life. I am not so simple as to suppose that my own experience is, in itself, either sufficiently interesting or sufficiently important to be worth relating, but I can think of no better way of putting outside myself certain things that I see clearly.
    I was born in London sixty-seven years ago. My father was a rabbi and, like my mother, of English birth. He was a man of learning and culture, but, before all things, a minister of religion. He is remembered as the author of the standard translation into English of the Hebrew liturgy. This was made during my most impressionable period. I was, from my childhood, constantly in and out of his library in which he was engaged upon this, his main work. There, even as a child, I came in contact with many distinguished Jewish and Christian scholars and often heard their discussions. There was, of course, much that I could not understand, but I was accustomed to ask my father questions about their talk which he would try to answer as suited my childish powers. I believe that he enjoyed thus reducing difficult theological and philosophical problems to their simplest forms. I, on my side, learned at least to keep quiet and to listen, so that I have a memory richly stored with matters of this kind.
    My father was an observant and deeply religious, though certainly very far from what is usually called an "orthodox" Jew. His sympathies were always with what is now known as "Liberal" Judaism, a movement that was making considerable progress in my later formative years. Had he been a Christian divine he would doubtless have belonged to what used to be the "Broad Church." His intellectual interests were wide. One of the memories of my early teens is that of his reading to me some of the dialogues of Plato in the then comparatively new version of Jowett. I can well recall his comments, suited to a childish mind, and his simplified accounts of the impact of Greek philosophy on the Hebrew religion. He spent also much time and thought explaining to me the differences between Judaism and Christianity, and I learned from him something of Hebrew and rabbinic studies. This balanced my schooling, which was entirely in a Christian atmosphere.
    Toward the Bible my father took what was then regarded as an "advanced" attitude. He was an excellent German scholar and made a point of keeping abreast of the literature of biblical criticism which then emanated mostly from Germany. But he was an especial lover of the English Bible. I shall always carry with me the echo of his declamation of the messianic chapters of Isaiah and especially of the great passages of Judaeo-Christian controversy. Their cadence is, I think, constantly sounded in his English renderings of the Hebrew liturgy.
    My father had a devoted young friend and disciple, Israel Abrahams, who rose, as is generally admitted, to be one of the great Hebrew scholars of our time. He is well remembered in learned circles for his New Testament studies and the light from rabbinic sources that he shed upon the Gospel narratives. His expositions of certain aspects of the Hebrew religion seem to me on a peculiarly lofty plane. He and his friend, Claude Montefiore, worked together for many years. They did more than any others to reveal to the English reader some of those elements that give the Jewish religion its astonishing vitality and power of endurance. Both were very often with my father.
    Moving in such an atmosphere, few can have had more competent early biblical instruction than I, and it is in no way remarkable that this should have set its stamp on my thoughts. After sixty years I find that some of those early lessons are reflected in my dreams. Nothing in literature means so much to me as the magnificent roll of some parts of the Book of Isaiah which I can still hear resounding in the voice of my father or of Montefiore. To any with experience comparable to mine, the decline in Bible-reading with the corresponding impoverishment of language and thought must appear a national disaster.
    Along with religious and biblical instruction, I received a grounding in Hebrew. Of this I acquired the first elements from my Christian nurse. She had been my father's nurse also, and had learned something of Hebrew in trying to follow his studies when he himself was a mere boy. My father had been left an orphan at fourteen, and she lived with him for fifty-three years in all and died in his service. She would at one time gladly have become a Jewess, but my father was against this course. As with most Jews, he attached no great importance to professions of faith. Since in this case proselytisation might have been misinterpreted--as almost every act may be misinterpreted--he preferred, and she came to prefer, that she should live and die a professed Christian.
    As I seek to recall my childhood, there stand out vividly in the background two events which affected the life of my family. They both proved significant for subsequent European history, and especially for developments of the last decade. Those developments were actually foreseen much more clearly and far earlier by most intelligent Jews than by any but a minute proportion of Christians. The two events that changed the spiritual climate in which my youth was passed were the wave of persecution of Jews in Russia and the rise of Zionism.
    The era of pogroms in Russia began in 1881. I will not set down again the story of those wicked deeds, of the organised massacres of thousands and of the systematic degradation of millions of God's creatures. I recall only the famous saying of a Russian statesman of the time who claimed to be directing the Russian Church. "When the pressure on the six million Jews in the Russian Empire has had its full effect," said the Procurator of the Holy Synod, "one-third will be dead, one-third will have fled the country and the remaining third will have adopted the Christian religion." These pogroms were organised by the Russian Government as the means to such an end. If they were not approved, they were substantially ignored by the ecclesiastical chiefs of the Russian Church. They were actually directed by the supreme lay chiefs of that Church. Their ostensible cause was, in the first instance, the murder of the Czar Alexander II, with which, in fact, no Jew had anything whatever to do. These are things that Christian theologians may forget, but they are things which the historians of Christian civilisation will certainly remember.
    The degrading record of carefully directed murder, pillage, persecution and humiliation can be traced until the outbreak of the First World War. When I recall the sequence of events in those thirty-five years of the history of the Jews in Russia, I often wonder that any human beings emerged sane from them. To seek among men and women, fleeing from generations of such horrors, the poise and balance of those who have behind them generations of security and peace, is to seek what human faculties will not yield. To expect that those who have suffered these things will be able to train their children in the calm, wise atmosphere of an established and historic culture, and that in a language that is foreign to them, is to ask them to exhibit superhuman powers. It is a fact that a great many Jews are abnormal beings. Our civilisation must take it to heart that, whatever happens, it must be at least some generations before the Jewish people can possibly return to a normal condition.
    Among my earliest memories is the talk of my elders concerning the state of the stricken multitudes, fleeing to Western Europe as a haven of refuge, mostly hoping to find their way to the "land of promise," America. As the emigrant ships, packed with their wretched human cargoes, approached the harbour of New York, there loomed up out of the mist the great statue of Liberty holding her torch aloft. Had they known the language they might have read inscribed on that monument certain verses written by an American Jewess:
        "Give me your tired, your poor,
        your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
        The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
        Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
        I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
                        EMMA LAZARUS, 1849-87.

    It was the action of secular men that made possible the passage to America and the settlement there of these outcasts from Europe. How did the Churches comport themselves toward the mass of human misery? The Greek Orthodox Church connived at all this cruelty. The Catholic Church had almost nothing to say. The German and other Continental Protestant Churches in effect ignored it. The Churches of the English-speaking countries were at least benevolent to the victims and took a stand somewhat more speedily than they did on the German persecution in the twentieth century.
    There were, of course, in the nineteenth century as there are in the twentieth many Christians sufficiently interested to pass resolutions on the matter. A few too saw then, what has perhaps become more obvious now, that unchristian conduct is at least as much a Christian problem as it is a Jewish problem, even when the victims are Jews. My father was much occupied with the relief of distress among the Russian and Polish refugees and was in constant contact with the very few Christians actively involved in such work. He made a number of journeys to Eastern Europe and to various parts of the Continent, to learn something of the sources of the endless waves of misery that beat upon our shores. On several occasions I travelled with him, to bear him company and to keep him in spirits, for contact with suffering made him very depressed. Thus when little more than a child, I obtained a first-hand glimpse of how anti-Semitism was becoming a factor in that dissolution of civilisation which we are all now forced to admit as a reality.
    I have often reflected that the world might have gone differently during the last ten years if the leaders of Christianity had not repeatedly turned a deaf ear to those whose tradition of millennia gives them a unique insight as to the spiritual consequences of cruelty. Considering the matter from this distance of time, it seems to me significant that Christian circles were so blind. I can see, clearly enough, where and how the spiritual decay was at work.

                    . . . .

    In my childhood and youth, the Jewish population of London was divided into two fairly distinct groups. On the one hand there was an older settlement of those fully Anglicised, whose ancestors had come originally mostly from the Iberian Peninsula, Holland and Western Germany. On the other hand were the more recent migrants from Russian Poland and other parts of Eastern and Central Europe. The latter group were almost entirely of working class, had received an education entirely mediaeval in character, and had lived in an almost mediaeval environment. The former group were mostly of middle-class and perhaps rather better educated than non-Jews of comparable status. They had become set in English ways and of a conservative manner of life. The older universities had been recently opened to them and they were beginning to take to the professions.
    Had the immigration been gradual, the newcomers would have been assimilated by the older group and any trace of a "Jewish question" in England would have disappeared automatically in a few decades. But my father's generation of English Jews was suddenly faced with a new and overwhelming responsibility from which it never escaped and never sought to escape. The charge laid upon it was the rescue, the reception, the training and, as far as possible, the re-emigration of numbers far larger than its own of a driven and persecuted people. The small community of English Jews had to help a people of language, culture and tradition very different from its own, that had had all its ways of life deliberately perverted, degraded and humiliated.
    [Note: different view: cp Belloc's unflattering description of this emigration:-]
    I was too young to share in this great task of mercy and redemption, but I heard and saw much of how the situation was handled. I came only gradually to realise to the full the nobility, courage, and self-sacrifice of the men, and perhaps even more of the women, who handled it. It was an epic of self-surrender and it deserves its own historian. I was one of a family of six, but almost the whole of the energy of my very vigorous and hard-worked mother as well as of my devoted and scholarly father was given from that time, and for the whole remainder of their lives, to the relief of suffering refugees. In this they were very far from being peculiar or even exceptional, for many of their flock made even greater sacrifices than they.
    It is fortunate that the tradition of Judaism has always emphasised the service of man. Charity, however, in the limited sense of alms-giving, hardly comes under this head, because it is just part of the ordinary Jewish habit of thought and way of living. The man or woman who did not practise it, on a scale which would astonish many Christians, would hardly be regarded by any body of Jews as a member of its brotherhood. Charity in this sense, is so much the habit of Jews of every type and of every variety of opinion that it is not necessary and hardly even fitting to preach to them on the subject. So much has charity always been taken for granted that in classical Hebrew there is no separate term for it, and the one word zedakah is equivalent to both Charity and Justice. [Footnote: In the English Bible zedakah is usually translated "righteousness," which, in the Jewish tradiiton, is made up of these two elements, Charity and Justice.] Charity is said to be merely "justice to those in want." To the Jew it would seem necessary that this should be so if human beings are to live together in a society and, of course, the very conditions of ghetto life emphasised this. With the general claim of charity thus automatically accepted, Judaism was at least as well equipped as Christianity has ever been to meet calamity. The Russian exodus threatened, but failed to submerge, the little Jewish communities of the West.
    I doubt if, outside Jewish annals, it would be easy to find comparable cases of devotion of a whole group. Perhaps a near parallel is that of the societies of early Christians. In my fairly long and fairly varied experience I have seen no movement among the Churches at all measurable, in self-sacrifice and devotion, to that of the minute body of English Jews faced with the charges laid upon them between 1881 and 1891 and again from 1933 onward. If the blood of the martyrs be the seed of the Church, then I say that I have myself seen, and that at close hand, such harvests sown by that small band as men have not beheld elsewhere in my time.
    Some years ago I was witness of the Christian handling of a problem incomparably less difficult, and needing incomparably less work and resources from a vastly more powerful and wealthy body. I am thinking of the saving of the Assyrian Christians. What is the Church's record in regard to them? Put the matter into approximate figures. Some 100,000 Jews were living in Britain about 1890 and they supported perhaps 100 ministers of religion. They had to settle and absorb some 200,000 of their brethren and to send on their way more than a million who settled elsewhere. The task was accomplished. There were in Britain in 1919 some 40,000,000 nominal Christians, for whom endowments provided some 25,000 clergy. They had to care for the persecuted Assyrian Church of 100,000, to whom Britain had pledged her word. The Churches failed. These are things which it will be the business of historians exactly to estimate and to set down.

        . . . . .

    What I have said here requires, perhaps, a certain amount of explanation. I know, of course, that there are ...'


-116-121: '...
    The Christian reader should ponder that point very carefully indeed. The Jewish religion can thus summon, and has hundreds of times succeeded in summoning, and will yet again summon the devotion of ordinary men and women. Not specially pious or specially clever, or specially wise, or even specially good men and women. Judaism can and will and does summon ordinary men and women to duties that come to them as a mere accident of birth. This is a true noblesse oblige. Does the Christian love of his Saviour so affect every Tom, Dick and Harry? Surely there is some value to mankind in a spirit that can produce these results over and over and over again.
    The segregation of the Jewish people for 1,000 years necessarily confined their practice of charity to the ghetto. It was not until the eighteenth century that Jews were released from those prisons, and very many have not yet been freed. Hardly had they rubbed their eyes in the world of light when the strongest of all Jewish traditions asserted itself. Jewish charitable enterprise has proved to be constructive and progressive and something far more vital than the rather negative conception commonly read into the word "charity." To expound this statement would, however, lead us to a discussion of aspects of modern social history that cannot be followed in this place.
    All religions produce certain special patterns of character in those they affect. The peculiar history of the Jewish people and the peculiar teachings of the Jewish religion have combined to produce a pattern of distinctive type. In that pattern of life the call of pressing human need makes an automatic, an immediate, an overwhelming appeal. That pattern of life makes its own call to men who are very far from being saintly, or devout, or refined, or even, in other respects, particularly good. It is no accident, I think, that in matters of social reform, and in the organisation of charity, Jews have had a share out of all proportion to their numbers and social status. [Footnote: Those interested in this point may read of details in C. Roth, The Jewish Contribution to Civilisation (London. 1938).]
    The special pattern of character created by a religious tradition can perhaps be traced in its simplest outline and therefore be seen most clearly in the conduct of men who, though born within that tradition, are little moved by its actual expression and little interested even in its products. This is quite as true of Judaism as of Christianity. To me it seems, however, that the working of the Jewish religion on the conscience is more subtle-- I do not say and I do not mean more profound--than the working of Christianity. Judaism can survive with a. minimum of expressed or formal faith. The Jewish pattern of life, like the Christian pattern of life, can often be seen even in those who have formally separated themselves from the religion.
    How long can the influence of a religious inheritance survive without the constant renewal induced by religious practice? I have no answer to this critical question. A period like the present, when large numbers of those who derive from the Christian and Jewish inheritance find no satisfaction in the activities of Church and Synagogue, offers a special opportunity for the examination of the real strength and weakness of the two religious traditions. The matter is worth a special study.
    Christianity has, however, certainly failed to impress its ethic on its own society which is specially that of the great Nation-States. Perhaps it would be more exact to say that, for whatever reasons, and despite appearances, Christianity has not conveyed to most members of those States the idea that it possesses an ethic which could and should control social action. This is in glaring contrast to the position within Judaism. Very many Jews, wholly indifferent to any formal expression of the Jewish faith still feel constrained to carry out its practical teachings on social responsibility. I do not at all doubt that there are other fields wherein the advantage is with Christianity. But the point I would make is that the conduct of men no explicitly conscious of direct religious impulsion is some gauge of the strength and subtilty of their religious inheritance.

    . . . . .

    I turn to the second movement--not unrelated to the first--that affected Jews in the nineteenth century, Zionism.
    Montefiore, Abrahams and my father spent much time in the consideration of the bearing of Messianism on the general situation, and especially on the new Zionist movement. I thus became, from childhood, familiar with many aspects of this question. To all three of these men the mission of Judaism, the ultimate justification of it existence, was the evangelisation of the world, however long that event might be deferred, however unexpected the form that it might take. Their opposition to Zionism did not involve any reluctance to aiding refugees to settle in Palestine. Quite the contrary. What they rejected and what they feared was Jewish nationalism, which, in their view, was incompatible with any lofty conception of Jewish mission. From their point of view, Judaism had a completely outgrown the conception of a Jewish State a the Jewish liturgy should have outgrown the priestly service of the Temple and its sacrifices.
    On this point the message of the prophets seemed to them, as it seems to me, unequivocal. To them a national movement was an attempt to throw back Judaism to a Maccabaean stage. I can well remember hearing my father say to Herzl, the founder of Zionism, who had come to visit him, "A Jewish Nation! Why, you are fifty years out of date. Only the little half-civilised peoples need an artificial nationality and are busy all over Europe finding their new national consciousness. These persecutions must surely pass. They are against human nature itself. Our distant vision is disturbed by the horrors in the foreground. Israel has waited for centuries: Israel must still wait. Perhaps the deliverer is among us at this moment," How wrong he was! But we were still in the nineteenth century.
    And yet was he so wrong? He was speaking not of his own time, but of things independent of time. And in true Jewish fashion--and in the fashion of the prophets--he was speaking both of his own people and of mankind in general. It may seem a strange thing that people who have suffered most are also the most hopeful; but it is a true thing. Suffering is not wholly evil. Hope in the salvation of man is the very condition of the survival of Israel. Judaism has ever seen redemptive power in man's own deepest nature. For those who cling to that faith, life is still worth living, and the world is still worth living in--with patience and with hope. And in so far my father was speaking in his century, it was a century of hope. This was, perhaps, its messianic message to the century that was to come.
    Whether or no there survives among the rank and file of Christians a comparable hope, an effective' belief in the second coming of the Messiah, I am unable to judge, though I doubt it. In any event, however, it is the case that, through history, the presentation of the Christian faith by most, if not all, the Churches has been deeply coloured by a profound despair of the world which we know. The prevalence of this attitude is one reason why the Christian ethic has not had any real effect on the political actions of Nation-States in spite of innumerable and admirable expositions of what that effect ought to be. For, at bottom, Christianity has been pessimistic in its attitude to the world. The theologians, Catholics and Protestant alike, repudiate with varYing degrees of ferocity the suggestion of a progressive evolution of the human state or of the human spirit. It is thus not wonderful that there has been little effective Christian guidance on the level of statecraft since States ceased to be closely linked with Churches. Moreover, the conduct of States before that stage was reached was not sufficiently edifying to suggest a resumption of these experiments in government. Contemplation of the records of the Spanish Inquisition, of the holy Roman Empire, of Holy Russia, of the Papal States--to go no further among such attempts --is sufficient to turn the utopian inventor to other models.

    . . . . .

    As I look back on what I have here written, there comes to my mind an oft-quoted passage on the blindness of the Synagogue:
        "We use great plainness of speech and are not as Moses who put a veil over his face that the children of Israel should not look steadfastly on the end of that which was passing away. Their minds were blinded. Until this very day at the reading of the old covenant, the same veil remaineth unlifted; which veil is done away in Christ" (2 Cor. iii. 12-15).

    He must be indeed a hardy defender of the Churches who would maintain that their bearing during the last ten years shows that the veil cast over the minds and hearts of Jews had, by divine grace, been entirely removed from the minds and hearts of Christians.


HTML Rae West - uploaded May 2012. Note July 2018

List of Links | Top of Page

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

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

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


'Pluto Series in Racism & Imperialism')

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

hitchcock satan
  Review of Jewish interest. First published 2006 in UK, 2007 in USA.
Andrew Carrington Hitchcock: The Synagogue of Satan.

Lists standard info on 'Jews', partly with a fundamentalist Christian standpoint (Texe Marrs thinks 'God has ordained a collective curse due to the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden' though fortunately this is in a separate introduction). July 11, 2010

Added 28 Feb 2021 Disappointingly, I've had to reconsider Hitchcock. I listened to a 55 minute audio on Hitchcock's Internet radio site. The episode is saved on this site as https://big-lies.org/media/2021-02-25-ACH1459-Hammond-on-WW2.mp3
      Its title was The Real History You Can Find In Patrick Buchanan “Churchill, Hitler And The Unnecessary War” broadcast on February 25, 2021.

Peter Hammond makes no mention of Jewish money and Jewish interests, including killing non-Jews, collecting assets of all types, and propagandising Jewish lies. And seems to have no idea about Churchill's Jewishness and the support for Stalin and Jews in Russia. Nor of the support by Jews for Hitler, to establish the next war. Fascinating to listen to Hammond, who is utterly simple. Re-examination of Churchill's 'errors', to check how they fall into place with Jewish plans, isn't mentioned by Hammond.
      Hitchcock offered no critique whatever. Instead he promoted Hammond's websites on aspects of Christianity, I'd guess subsidised by Jewish 'philanthropists'.

*My conclusion is that Hitchcock is just another propagandist for Jewish interests. Disappointing; but there it is.*   The best understanding of what's being done is Hexzane527's https://big-lies.org/hexzane527/2020-01-historical-revisionism-elite-creation.html

Added 2011: My review (nearly ten years old) under-rated this book, which is a huge list of frauds, wars and atrocities by Jews—the secret history of Jewish world domination. The 22-page index is a useful starting-point for detail on frauds, corruption etc. though I wish people wouldn't have an entry followed by 25 pge numbers; do they expect people to look them all up? It includes Jews in many countries outside the USA, including Turkey, Russia, and China. Hitchcock had some difficulties with updating and publication, was might be expected. Unlike most chronologies of world history, this focusses on so-called Jews. Very useful to renew your appreciation of the evil of Jews, or as an introductory handbook.

9/11 2001 Long section on the events of 9/11. Including Mossad and 'dancing Israelis'
AIPAC investigations 2004
Yiddish language
Catholic money 1823 Rothschilds take over Vatican money
Expulsions of Jews from European towns, principalities etc listed p 25
Federal Reserve in USA 1913 owned by ten Jewish banks. Never audited.
French Revolution 1814 four profits from stolen money. 1815 begin their policy of funding both sides in wars. New Bank of England.
Russia 1880 'pogroms' invented for US readers 1917 so-called 'Russian' Revolution
Turkey 1915 Ottoman Government overthrown by Masonic Jews, so-called Young Turks. Armenian genocide of c. 2 million people
President Wilson 1913 Blackmail and other Jewish methods which result in Wilson joining WW1.
President Jackson 1828-1838. Hitchcock adopts a revisionist view of the time. But 'The bank that Jackson destroyed was the Bank of the US, not the Federal Reserve - which didn't exist at that time. Once the BUS was destroyed, it could be replaced by private banking.' (MWM)
1944 Lord Moyne & Count Folke Bernardotte murdered by Yitzhak Shamir et al. Tiny sample of Jew murders
1973 Full page on Spiro Agnew's attack on Jewish media control
Jews 1988 Drafting legislation to hide Jews
2003 Purim getting known World war plans by Albert Pike 1871 Kabbalistic stuff
WW1 1914 'Great War' in Europe. Rothschilds in Germany lend to the Germans, in Britain lent to the British, in France to the French. 1919 Aron Solts, Yakov Rappoport, Lazar Kogan, Matvei Berman, Genrikh Yogoda, Naftali Frenkel of the 'greatest killing machine in the history of the world'
WW2 1930 'Bank of international Settlements' in Switzerland 1945 records of assistance to Hitler censored
Freemasons 1927 Jewish from beginning to end
Talmud 2000 e.g. child rapes and murders by Jews in Italy
1948 Israeli flag design
Media 1880 Famous announcement by John Swinton 1921 'Council on Foreign Relations' and news censorship 1988 Mass murders in Germany during and after WW2
Cromwell 1649 execution of Charles I. And resulting 'National Debt' to Jews
Bilderberg Group starts 1954 Bilderberg Group kept unreported by Jewish media 1991
Some notes on omissions. I don't want to give the impression that this book is perfect.
• Deals between Christian churches (and their rents) with Jews are omitted. Many times Jews were given special protection, despite their supposed hostility
• Islam - Almost nothing on this, though it was largely Jewish and had a huge influence
• Nuclear Weapons in my view were a fake all along. Read the 'Samson option' and Vanunu, a supposed spy revealing Jewish nuclear weapons, and 'atom spies' as fakes
• Thirty years War in Europe is omitted, though it may have had a lot of Jewish input. And the European Wars from 1914-1945 may also be read as Jews vs everyone else, with Hitler as part of a network of crypto-Jews
• Jewish calendar is not publicised; it's quite important as moveable so there's no direct comparison between the Latin calendar and the moon-based calendar.

'The Synagogue of Satan' is a Bible-inspired phrase. This book points out that modern Jews are Khazars, and therefore phoney, which, with the conspiracy material, is something the Bible supposedly predicted. There are many Christian fundamentalists in the USA and this book is probably aimed at them, though the author is British. (The feel is slightly like Nesta Webster). I cannot explain why there is no Biblical or Talmudic material on 'Jews' and their contemporaries, which would seem natural in a book entitled The Synagogue of Satan.

Hitchcock's book's format isn't very impressive—it's a print-on-demand book with the left margin being too wide, so it's not wonderful to handle physically. There is an index, but no bibliography, though there are some sources in the text: Washington Post, Stiglitz—an economics writer, on the World Bank 'Four Step Strategy', Public Order Act in UK, 'papers' written by 'Jews' in the US administration, for example. There are no diagrams, graphs, or illustrations, except for info on Texe Marrs, the publisher, who has a website, and seems to work from Texas.
      First published in Britain in 2006. I seem to be wrong about print-on-demand; my copy of the US version says fourth printing, by RiverCrest Publishing, 2009. But the contents look very Internet-based—conveniently, books after about 2000 show increasing Internet influence, including sprinklings of unsourced material.

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

Despite the poor signposting—the index doesn't include Reagan or Thatcher or 9/11! The only bold type is the years, and there are no headings, so it can be a long trawl to relocate a passage of interest—the book is very good as a conspiratorial compendium, including the founding of the 'Bank of England', Illuminati as German 'Jews' pretending to be Catholics, French Revolution, US and the slavery connection, Andrew Jackson, Lincoln and other connections with greenbacks and the Fed etc, Jews and the USSR, financing of Hitler, Second World War and propaganda, 1965 Race Relations Act in the UK as a deliberately designed wrecking strategy, phoney opposition to apartheid, 9/11 and the anti-Islam movement and the Iraq War. Items often fall into groups: ... In [World War 1] the German Rothschilds loan money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds loan money to the British, and the French Rothschilds loan money to the French. ... the Rothschilds ... control the three European news agencies Wolff (est. 1849) in Germany, Reuters (est. 1851) in England, and Havas (est. 1835) in France. Hitchcock's book ends on a high note, prophesying that the system will collapse as the extent of Jewish corruption gets known.

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

Inevitably, there are bits of Jewish propaganda mixed in: he's good on expulsions of Jews, but not on their frequent executions; he's good on 9/11 and the London Underground, but not nuclear issues; good on the Holohoax, but not very good on chemical warfare in Vietnam and Iraq.
      Equally, there are bits of anti-Jew information, in which most readers would I imagine find new, though the lack of bold type or headlines which I've mentioned makes them easy to miss: 1881 James Garfield assassinated; 1915 'Young Turks', Jews in Turkey, and the Armenian genocide; 1921 The Council on Foreign Relations founded in the USA (so Jews can decide on how they want to treat the world's countries); 1988 ADL competition for law students to draft 'anti-hate' legislation; 1995 Victor Ostrovsky'; 1997 Kofi Annan becomes Secretary-General to UN (he married a presumably female Rothschild); 2000 Jew paedophile murder ring in Italy; to 2006, updated in newer (white cover) edition.

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


Update: in 2011, the book (which I haven't seen) was expanded throughout and updated to the end of 2011, forming a chronological encyclopedia of this criminal network which spans over 140,000 words, and features a 30 page index to aid navigation. Included within the wealth of additional information are the complete, “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” together with excerpts from each of the eighty articles that make up Henry Ford's four volume set, “The International Jew,” which are presented for the first time in chronological order.

An interesting online genre is audio readings: Andrew Carrington Hitchcock's reading from the expanded Synagogue of Satan

Andrew Carrington Hitchcock and I have talked online in one-hour sessions, most of them made by me into videos, with comments. Search online for Rerevisionist/Rae West and Andrew Carrington Hitchcock. I won't give links as these may change or be censored.


Andrew Carrington Hitchcock works with EuroFolkRadio and has been recording an interview a day. (I've spoken several times, including
#1036 on Miles Mathis
#546 Was Hitler An Agent?: How The Master Race Won The Second World War
#410 big-lies.org website
White Genes vs Jew Genes
Jewish Question part 1
Jewish Question part 2

I haven't linked these; the URLs may be removed. I may host them on my own site eventually.

List of Links | Top of Page

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


*'Held open the gates': there are many Jewish references to 'holding the gates open' to permit invasions; 'opening the city gates' and so on, referring to times when cities had walls.
    Raspail's Camp of the Saints for example: ‘And the traitors keep coming. Since that day in 1522, the twelfth of October, when that noble knight Andrea d'Amaral, your patron saint, threw open the gates of Rhodes to the Turk.’
    It occurs to me that (apologies) a 1960s song 5 4 3 2 1 by 'Manfred Mann' carries a Jewish message: (the words online are usually wrong): '... onward, rode the six hundred/ Down the valley on their horses they thundered/ Ah, but was it them who really really blundered?/ Uh-huh, it was the Manfreds | The Trojans waited at the gate for weeks/ In a wooden horse, to the city they sneaked/ Who let em in, was it the Greeks?/ Uh-huh, it was the Manfreds ...'
List of Links | Top of Page

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

The Bible According to Spike Milligan
Shows the Astounding Resilience of 'Jewish' Rubbish—Given Fairly Complete Control Over the Written Word and its Spread

Spike Milligan 1918-2002; 21 when the Second World War between Germany and Britain & France was declared by the latter. He fought in the War. After it he had more than 50 years to write, act, play the trumpet in the style of then-popular informal music. He was part of the entertain-the-stupid-troops people who dominated large chunks of the post-war Jewish-piloted BBC. He was about 75 when he wrote The Bible. The Old Testament According to Spike Milligan. I haven't been able to trace a corresponding book on the New Testament; maybe Jewish publishers didn't like it? Well, who knows. I only became aware of this by chance, looking at a tabletop of no-longer-wanted books. The intimate biography of Milligan by Norma Farnes says Milligan's Bible was published in 1993 by Michael Joseph, and next year by Penguin. (These are UK facts; I don't know details for the rest of the world, or indeed for the rest of its publishing history). Farnes says it was a 'bestseller'.

On the right of this page should be a scan of just two facing pages, to give a feel for the contents.

There's some fascination in looking over this stuff. It reads a bit like a TV soap opera, when its audience is shrinking and it tries out violence and odd sex. And it's notable for the complete exclusion of anything wide-ranging. I don't think I can be the only person who has looked at (for example) Salisbury Plain with evidence of abundant human life, now almost entirely lost. What is it that makes people, generation after generation, learn the same unevidenced stuff? It's probably something deep in the human psyche, the powers of words, both valuable and not. I'd guess illiterate societies, as in much of Africa, confined only to speech, show rather different patterns. The history of all religions with castes of officials shows a link with money economies, and also with legal feelings: if such a caste develops and reproduces, it presumably is essential to get its claws into a reproducible system, tithes exchanged for superstition, the latter including some useful features. Or features believed to be useful; think of muti in Africa, presumably of zero value.

Anyway, here we have someone not formally educated; fascinating to see the anachronistic modern-day aspects of life inserted. And fascinating to see the beliefs left nascent and unexamined and intact; such as the supposed existence and benevolence of Yahweh and the 'children of Judah'.



Rae West   22 Nov 2022
List of Links | Top of Page

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

Pointlessness and cruelty of Islam, December 1, 2010


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

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

None of these reviewers mention Jews as forcing immigration


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Links | Top of Page

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

Undeclared authorship: these are all Rudolf Steiner people 24 Oct 2012


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


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