You have to factor in IQ. Half the black population has IQ < 85. Unteachable.
I looked up Arktos on Internet. Apologies for a longish quotation: ARKTOS was officially launched to the public on 1 May 2010. Since that time, we have published more than 50 titles in four languages and circulated them globally, both through our own Web site and through our distribution channels. Arktos has established itself as the principal publisher in English of the writings of the European “New Right” school of political thought. We have also issued the first translations into English of the prominent Russian geopolitical thinker Alexander Dugin, who has served as an adviser to Vladimir Putin, as well as several works by the noted Italian traditionalist philosopher, Julius Evola.
Arktos focuses primarily on works pertaining to politics and political philosophy, traditional spirituality and religion, history, philosophy, culture, and literature. We have done reprints, original translations and also published original works.
Dugin of course says nothing about Jews in Russia, an essential topic. Evola is a verbose oddity. 'Traditional spirituality and religion' seems to offer a space for Dutton, who 'studied theology' at Durham even if he hasn't a clue about Jewish history.
Wikipedia has a strange entry about Arktos. A founder an 'Alt-Right'-er was Daniel Friberg, born in 1978, who co-founded Arktos in 2009. I won't quote anything else, but it's clear to me that Arktos is a fake site, designed like the BNP to attract disaffected white 'natives'. Wikipedia adds a few hooks: it is now, according to The New Yorker, the world's largest distributor of far-right literature’. Sure. Of course it is. It sounds a bit like the Jew Gollancz's 'Left Book Club', aimed at well-meaning people before the Second World War.
So I distrust Arktos. And I'm saying this after reading Dutton's book. Which incidentally is one of about six, including a book on Churchill's education, presenting Churchill as an heroic figure. Dutton looks to be like someone taken on to fill publishers' niches. Arktos's website has information about many of their authors; who seem to be miscellaneous Europeans (or Jews). See my screen capture image, to the right.
Arktos's website has at present a quotation from Guillaume Faye on War: ‘War is the force and the red sun that restores the vigour of peoples. Without it, there would be neither friendship nor love, no dynamism, no creativity, no collective emotions, and no meaning for the lives of peoples and men.’ This looks like a wearying rerun of Jews promoting war for others, while making money for themselves. I hope discerning people will see that this version of 'Alt-Right' will fail.
OK. Let's look at Race Differences in Ethnocentrism. Dutton presents an English-style version of US volubility; he has a Youtube site, which is a red flag in itself.
Dutton's book has eleven chapters, plus about 25 pages of references, without descriptions of these books. And an index of names, but not of ideas. The names include Richard Lynn, who contributes to the cover blurb, which is perhaps a mistake.
I'll ignore the chapter titles, which enclose commentaries on other 'research' in a rather dull style, and imply a continuity between chapters which in my view is not real. I think Andrew Joyce has little knowledge of science; when Dutton talks of receptors, or DNA, or testosterone, or genes, it's a characteristic he shares with Joyce. In fact, Joyce's selected quotation from Dutton: “Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have lost an important instinct towards group — and thus genetic — preservation. Once a society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is acting against its own genetic interests and will ultimately destroy itself” relies on 'instinct', meaning religious feeling, and on omission of propaganda and money power. Dutton read Theology at Durham and did a PhD in 'religious studies' and I'll interpret him in this review as a credulous believer in Jewish theology from which he never outgrew.
Dutton starts with the 'Great War', and praises the 'huge propaganda campaign' in England which 'successfully persuaded thousands of young men to fight for their country'. Well, that's the simple version. The figure he uses is absurdly low. And they were paid, more than they were getting generally. Being paid is not exactly the same thing as fighting, though from the Jewish viewpoint it's what they promote: they're not going to fight themselves, are they! Dutton says they 'fought for their country', but this is debatable, at least be intelligent people. They fought and killed for Jews, without knowing it. Perhaps like Dutton. And once it was started, conscription was introduced, with severe penalties against deserters and so on. Using this as evidence of ethnocentrism makes a different point, about Sutton—that he takes the conventional line according to newspapers and hack historians. In practice, for centuries, this has meant the views of Jews in the official and popular media.
I could produce endless other examples. From the power structure point of view, this was a multiply-cornered struggle, of which Dutton leaves the Jewish financial component unmentioned. It's a bit like discussing a legal battle between A and B, without mentioning lawyers' fees and self-interest.
On the religious aspect, Dutton provides no index of ideas, and I don't want to spent time fishing up appropriate quotations. He seems to think high religion shows high ethnocentrism. He probably doesn't know that Christianity was imposed by force, one area picked off at a time. I think Lithuania was the last formally Christian country in Europe, about 1300. I don't see Dutton arguing the ethnocentrism of pre-Christians, though no doubt he has some dismissive name for them. But note that it suits the Jewish outlook to make such claims of religion. And of course of the Jewish, exclusively one person, aggressive 'G-d'.
So far as I could see, Dutton doesn't bother with 'pathological altruism', which Kevin MacDonald employs to prevent whites in the US 'Civil War' were impelled by moral considerations to wreck big chunks of the country.
He mentions such things as 'social security' for Turks, Arabs, African blacks, and others made to move by Jewish stratagems. Many of these people get more money than the locals, probably essentially in fact to carry out Jewish orders. They even get votes. Dutton doesn't go into the reasons for this, and pretends lack of ethnocentric feeling is the reason.
A note on 'Genetic Similarity Theory'—how these people love their carefully-crafted memes and slogans, designed to avoid difficult issues. The Jewish view is that 'goyim' are negligible scum, and therefore presumably 'identical', though science has made some impact against this idea. But for these purposes let's look at the disjunction between genes, which are digital, and what I suppose is the simple early idea that a person imposes his or her entire being on any offspring. The fact is that Jews have a high proportion of 'special' offspring, what more honest phrasing would consider 'defective'. Do Jews feel similarity with their defective offspring? A question Dutton's quoted meme evades.
I couldn't see anywhere Dutton looking into 4 'wives' of Muslims. I don't think he mentioned 'chain migration', in which relatives, and fake relatives, get access to Europe, thanks to Jews.
Dutton mentions the Yanomani as a supposedly aggressive group; who knows. I do recall that they live in a region exceptionally low in salt, and die young as a consequence. Facts about climate, biology, endemic hazards, defensiveness (or otherwise) of territory, are of course generally unknown to the Jewish mindset, and its related Christian and Moslem notions.
An amusing aspect of books of this sort is their excoriation of 'free riders'. Considering they are themselves something of the sort—in the mid-19th century, half of all Oxbridge graduates went into the Church of England.
In fact of course, Dutton's rôle is not to extend understanding. And in a sense my review is irrelevant to him. He is paid his small percentage to produce their crap.
It's a pity, and a crime, that such huge issues as forced migrations and wars should be reduced to the level of pitiful hacks squabbling over petty details, when they aren't collaborating amongst themselves over lies. And it's a pity that the occasional well-made point is lost in the torrent of parrotings. The Occidental Observer gave space to Andrew Joyce's ad for this book. It has not given space to such writers as Miles Mathis, C Bjerknes, or Chris Caskie.
Review of Race John Randal Baker: Race (published 1974 by Oxford University Press. Recent edition by Ostara) Interesting, detailed, multifarious, wide-ranging, but inconclusive, April 2, 2011/ 17 Sept 2015/ 27 July 2018 Baker on 'Race' (1974) is a 600+ page book. It is very detailed and worth consulting even for those interested in only one or two subjects. It's difficult to review because much of the material isn't clearly to do with race, and the arrangement is a bit arbitrary. It's in four main parts: 1 The historical background; (writers on race—18th century to Hitler) 2 The biological background; (species, hybrids, race etc) 3 Studies of selected human groups; (mostly European and African) 4 Criteria of superiority and inferiority. It also has appendices, a long bibliography of 1200 or so items, an Index, and a very short 'table of races and subraces' listing about thirty. The index and bibliography are unusually well laid out, with selected keywords in bold text. Note that Baker commented on arrangements for tribal group reproduction; he concluded that most of these systems were in effect calculated or arranged to reproduce the gene pools of the various groups. However, these did not include polygamous groups of Muslim types, or the effects of inbreeding and caste (as far as I recall; I don't have the book in front of me as I type). Various Jews objected to publication, for example 'Ashley Montagu' (Israel Ehrenberg), though there is little or no comment within the book (as far as I recall). Probably reviews of the book included typical Jewish absurdities; perhaps OUP was threatened. I haven't attempted to test any of this. Some material doesn't easily fit the schema. 'Domestication' is an important example. Domesticated animals behave differently from the ways they do in nature; and this includes man himself. And no doubt plants, too, and other biological organisms. (I wonder whether belief in 'God' might be a result of domestication). 1 The Historical Background—is the history of writings on races, including Monboddo (an early speculator on man descended from non-man), Kant (who was more aware of geography and peoples than I'd realised), Voltaire and Rousseau, Gobineau and (later) Spengler, and Americans such as Lothrop Stoddard. Much of the material resulted from explorations of Africa and the new discoveries of gorillas, chimps, monkeys, and so on. Mostly this was a long time before photography, and before audio recording. Baker records that the sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, in 1928, was the last person to describe alternative views on race. 'Those who believed in the equality of races were free to write what they liked.' This outlook is often ascribed to, or blamed on, Franz Boas, but he is barely mentioned by Baker, except for his belief that the US environment changed immigrants' features. Some material—for example, Latin and Greek writers on Europe—is not included here, but put into the descriptions of race types. Moreover the whole book seems to emphasise Europe and Africa—there's not much on China or the Indian subcontinent; I'm at a loss to understand why this should be. Here's part of Baker's summary of the two chapters on 19th and early 20th century writers on race: Nietzsche and Spengler may be eliminated at once as irrelevant to the ethnic problem ... Nietzsche was primarily an anti-egalitarian, but he did not proclaim the inequality of ethnic taxa. Spengler was intensely interested in the Volk, and its capacity, in certain cases, to initiate a great culture (which would eventually become a civilization and decline) ... Of the thirteen authors already mentioned ... seven strongly proclaim the superiority of people described variously as 'Nordics', 'Germanen', Indogermanen', or 'Aryan'. These seven are Gobineau, Haeckel, Lapouge (especially), Chamberlain, [Gustaf] Kossinna, Grant, and Stoddard. ... however, none of [them] claims superiority for the whole Europid race. Only one of the authors, Lapouge, strongly condemns the Jews. Treitschke is moderately anti-Jewish; Chamberlain, Grant, and Stoddard mildly so; Gobineau is equivocal. ... No unprejudiced person ... would be likely to suppose there was no validity whatever ... in any part of their writings ... . Stoddard was obviously unimportant, Lapouge highly prejudiced; but one cannot lightly dismiss such men as Gobineau and Chamberlain ... and there are passages in most of the books of the others that provoke interest and thought. If one had to choose [Baker] would suggest Essai sur l'inégalité des races humaines but [it is somewhat out of date, and very long]. There seems to be a full translation into English online. Baker believed all the Jewish mythology of the 'Holocaust', writing, for example, nothing on the huge numbers of deaths in the Second World War. No doubt this is why he discounts many of his authors, and why he ignores many political 'anti-Semites'. 2 The Biological Background discusses 'race', in quite an extensive sense, including races of animals and plants and insects. He includes for example dogs, and several races or varieties of Anopheles mosquitoes, and certain butterflies. Anopheles has six species, more or less identical to the human eye and microscopes; no doubt if they could talk they'd be amazed the differences aren't obvious. It's a salutary warning against 'obvious' inferences. The herring gull and the crested newt illustrate geographical distributions. Baker has nothing on parasitism, I'd guess because many examples need careful observation to detect. Baker does not consider parasitism in man. Naturally he has to mention things like the 'ethnic taxon', and generally wrestle with the vocabulary: he invented or popularised the word 'stirps'. He discusses of course the interbreeding aspect. There are discussions on e.g. gorillas and assorted new and old world apes and monkeys. There's a long section on skull shapes, with some quite spectacular illustrations of differences: skulls give a lot of information, and of course can be preserved, as Cromagnon and other types illustrate. Size, shape, teeth, eye orbits, and other comparative parts, have been measured and listed and compared. (This sort of thing goes back to Albrecht Dürer; somewhat different from d'Arcy Thompson's regular grid, which is then deformed). Baker gives material on genetic differences—blood groups (including monkeys of course) are one rather unavoidable issue, despite the fact these seem purely empirical: I couldn't find anything in Baker giving sound reasons for blood group differences. It's just that they were discovered by 1974. Similarly with sickle cell anaemias. And with the substance phenylthiourea, which was found, purely by chance, to be perceived as tasteless by part of the population, bitter by the rest. However, races involve multiple genes, and Baker discusses the problems involved here. Many people believe, or at least quote, various factoids HOWEVER there is little on internal organs and biochemistry—hormones etc—nor is there a model for aggressions, emotions, in and out groups ... in fact all the really important stuff is omitted: we're interested in behaviour, both the autonomic sort, and the sort where the brain is involved and beliefs come into play. How are emotions inherited? If people with 'excessive' adrenalin can't sit down and concentrate, is it impossible for them to learn? Are hair-trigger tempers a product of uncertainty? Are some people naturally fanatic? What does it take for other groups to be treated as friends or foes? Baker doesn't have a working model of all the main emotions. Galton has quite a number of mentions (including on dog intelligence). All this of course has suffered from Jewish domination or research money and control of research topics. 3 Studies of Selected Human Groups is the longest section, about a third of the book. As I mentioned, for some reason China/ Mongolia ('Mongolids') etc and India and what's now Pakistan and Bangla Desh ('Indianids') are under-represented. Appendix 1 has two pages on 'Mongolian subraces', without even a map; the Indianids get more space, but not much. Hence I suppose 'Selected'. All the names are geographical, with 'white' names—I'm reminded of geology and mineralogy and the Linnaean scheme, where the oddest names get assigned to strata or rocks or plants. Thus we have Europids (with subdivisions—Alpids, Mediterranids, Nordids, Lapps). Jews. Celts. Australids. Sanids. Negrids—four separate sections on these. 'Sanids' are bushmen, who Baker mentions partly for their bodily constructions (there are some female genital pictures which appear odd) and partly for their rock face art, which he praises highly as work of genius though it seems the eroded sandstone with overhangs which they used is not very permanent. In each case Baker examines the name, the primary characters, and the secondary characters. His Europid material has a digression on how the name 'Caucasian' came about, and discusses hybrids of whites/blacks (Baker has noticed the journalistic use of 'black' in the US). He discusses Britain as a 'mongrel race'—'note that all these peoples were not only of one race (Europid) but of one subrace (Nordid).' He discusses Jews and 'Armenids' with some characteristics. He lists small groups of self-described Jews, and omits colonies. He sees that the 'definition' of a Jew as someone whose mother was Jewish is defective. It's striking how variable his source material is—classical authors or other ancient writings, explorers' notes, archaeologists, modern anthropologists. In this case Baker uses Biblical material (he seems unaware of the Talmud etc). Baker mentions the Khazar/ Cozar group, attributing the rediscovery to Joseph Jacobs, who regarded their kingdom as destroyed by Russians in the 10th century. (Jacobs also wrote on renowned Jews, though judging by Baker he had thin material to work on). The chapter on Celts relies mostly on archaeological evidence—Hallstatt, Danubian evidence, and for Britain Julius Caesar, Iron Age evidence including Maiden Castle, and discussions on migrations. Probably some of this material exists because anthropologists tend to use people whose languages they know to save them the effort of learning other languages. Baker's 'Sanid' (Bushman) chapter plus four 'Negrid' chapters rely largely on explorers' accounts—in fact he lists his main sources as Fynn, David Livingstone, Galton, Du Chaillu, Speke, S W Baker, and Schweinfurth. It's all interesting stuff—ghastly 'witch doctors', innocent tribes corrupted later by whites, human body parts for food, slavery as pretty much universal, unbounded faith in 'fetishes', cruel customs, executions—but one wonders how much is relevant to race. Of course Africa is a huge continent; 'Sudanids' and 'Aethiopids' appear, and Berbers and Moors and Nilotids and Nilo-Hamites. Baker doesn't seem to consider the general question of subdivisions—race, subrace, then maybe tribes? Perhaps because there seem to be endless complications. He barely mentions Nigeria, for example. He does his best to be even-handed and fair; he includes for example a list of plants domesticated by blacks—but these include maize and tobacco, which of course were introduced from the new world by whites—and looks at animal domestication. He does his best to check on and allow for hostile things such as bilharzia, though I don't think he considers geography in sufficient detail—vast plains are for example much harder to defend than regions split up by mountains and water barriers and snow. Section 4 Criteria of superiority and inferiority has several chapters on Race and Achievement. These include twin inheritance, IQ tests and so on, and sporting achievements (no surprise that some races are better at sprinting, high jumping, etc—though Baker doesn't seem to consider examining less socially approved behaviors). He has interesting material on languages; or example the Arunta language, in Australia, in which 'the notion of the object does not exist'. And the Akan language (West Africa) and one feels that Jews such as Chomsky must have wanted such material suppressed, since the idea of deep structure or of similarity between human languages is obviously missing. There's material on mixed races, mainly from the USA, and again one feels Jews would want this suppressed. 'It certainly appears that hybrids having a particularly large Europid element in their ancestry have played a dominant role in the struggle for advancement for Negroes in American society.' Jews would worry about that. Baker is critical of the US media description of hybrids as 'Negroes'; possibly this was a Jewish media construction. Baker goes on to try to assess civilisations, including the cruelty of the 'Andids'. None of this material is very satisfactory; what about wars, for example? Baker's conclusion is a bit flat—groups vary, but also overlap, so nobody can say entire groups are superior or inferior. And 'colour' is not much use as a category. Anyway... interesting, detailed, multifarious, wide-ranging, but inconclusive because it has no way to analyse behaviour differences. I should add that Baker assumes Darwin originated evolutionary theory—he doesn't know about Wallace. And he accepts all the post-World War II mythology (and pre-war) about Nazis, the 'Holocaust', and so on. Note added later: Baker, in chapter 27, part of the long section on 'race and achievement' suggests 21 criteria for 'societies ordinarily regarded as civilized...', which I've abbreviated here:- 1 ordinarily clothed 2 keep clean 3 don't severely mutilate or deform 4 build in brick or stone if available 5 many live in towns or cities 6 cultivate plants 7 domesticate animals 8 metals if available 9 wheels 10 use money 11 laws and peaceability 12 defence for accused persons 13 no torture 14 no cannibalism 15 religious systems include ethical elements 16 use script 17 at least a start in numbers 18 calendar accurate to a few days 19 instruction for young 20 some art appreciation 21 knowledge valued for itself This book was published 44 years ago. It is rather terrifying that Jew control over most aspects of study and research has harmed this most important topic. TREY says:
Rerevisionist, What would you recommend as the best book you've read on this subject?
I don't know any book that covers the subject. Such a book would need, for example:
Maybe there's a book with contributions from many authors; maybe Russian, Chinese or Indian rather than 'western'. if you find one, let me know! |
Thirty years ago-ish. This book was published in 1987 by Allen and Unwin, described as 'The Academic Imprint of Unwin Hyman Ltd'. Note the explicit Jewishness. (They published Bertrand Russell, after a First World War speech that revealed he knew nothing of the issues. If you like details, you might like Russell ... dupe.
We're into a world of gossip, scandal, title-tattle, kids talking about clothes and TV, utterly without substance. 51 children and 39 mothers were 'recruited' around early 1980. Incidentally, the Library of Congress bumph lists 'Children of interracial marriage' as a heading. The 'interracial marriage' is worth highlighting; abandoned and discarded half-castes are ignored, as are damaged wives. It's rather painful to try to read between the lines: councils forced to house, council borrowings forced up, schoolchildren whose potential gains are ruined. Wilson has no idea about academic processes and attitudes; no wonder, as she in any serious sense has none herself. What is as painful is he lack of knowledge of anything practical. For example, many parts of the Mediterranean have left people with sickle-cell anaemia/ thalassaemia, a genetic condition which cannot be removed. Some have diabetes, which may be genetic, though such is the state of medical education that practitioners of various grades are told to pretend there's no difference from sugar-induced diabetes. In that sense Wilson is like a whore carrying out instructions to spread syphilis. She has no concerns over housing, or the perpetual irritants left behind when people with no entitlement are given products other people's work.
The author (b 1955) is or says she's a 'sociologist' and accordingly this is a 'study' rather than a book. I assume she mean she got what's called a degree. This book resulting aged about 32.
This is where we have to move the the nitty-gritty on unwanted relationship. I've omitted to mention the Jewish element much; I wonder whether Wilson is 'Jew Aware' by now. I'd guess not. The plain fact is that Jews, by money power converted by way of controlled banks and outfits such as the Fed, World Bank, and so on, control the media and education to such as extent that many people are simply unaware of the miasma they live in. The LSE ['London School of Economics'] was of course Jewish; poor labourers could not chip in. Ever since the so-called 'Labour Party' has been a vehicle for Jews, starting at the time of the Boer War mass killings. The Acknowledgements list Jews: The Social Science Research Council ('now the Economic and Social Science Research Council'), Professor Percy Cohen, Dr E I Hopper, Mike Herbert who 'gave unflagging friendship and support') Ros Schwarz who read the manuscript, Mark Wilson who 'made the book possible... financial, intellectual, emotional...'. And Carol Carnall 'of the national organization for interracial families called Harmony...'
I'm not going to guess whether 100% think they're Jews; and by searching LSE for 'Mark Wilson' b 1952 couldn't confidently located he hubby or ex. But people new to this topic must wake themselves up by investigating Jews as a superstitious criminal subculture, parasitic on others and offloading costs and lives onto them—in this case, whites. You might try big-lies.org or home in on the new piece on Jews collectively mass killing whites, Chinese and others in the Second World War.
And with Dr Johnson's female preacher, there's surprise to see these things written at all. The Jewish ringmaster, with his stick and carrot, and secret supporting cast, squeeze out the contorted wording like plaster toothpaste, and the elephant totters around from one inverted drum to the next. The sheer ignorance is overwhelming: Wilson doesn't knew the Atlantic slave trade was run by Jews. She knows nothing of Jewish history, or of course the oddities passed on to official Christianity and its virtue-signalling unemployables. The US Civil War? Oh well, not worth mentioning. What about sad crops of war bastards? Just move on. But I'd guess the waving of paper academic flags gets really serious over Jews: mention Jew murders in the USSR?—Really, Anne, I hardly think you're worth your MA! Jews in Palestine killing Arabs?—Good heavens, no LSE person believes that's even true, as the 'Holocaust' of course is. Racial differences?—You should know by now that only Jews are worth race supremacy and discrimination.
A 2015 study examined the outcomes of women that have children with black men, the results were staggering. Currently, 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, however when the mother is white and the father black, the rate jumps to 97%. 98% of white mothers studied reported the father does not support their children financially, 97% report the father is not in the child’s life, and 97% of the women have used welfare to help support themselves and their children. Only 10% of women that have children with black men out of wedlock end up marrying. The vast majority of white women that have children with black men live far below the poverty line.
In other words, this tiny survey is worthless. I'd guess it was intended as a holding operation, while numbers and problems built up for whites.
Let me emphasise the comparison with 'war babies': Jews love wars with rape—think of the end of the Second World War, for example. Naturally it sows social horrors and lifetimes ruined, which Jews want to 'goyim'. Jewish media of course are careful to omit rape and violent threats against women, and have sufficient power to prevent such women having legal redress.
RW 8 July 2019
Note the marks of blackwashing and disinformation: all Jewish lies, particularly on World Wars and money and media control, are never criticised. Cuba and supposed nuclear weapons are another example; so is 'brainwashing'. The possibly serious stuff is deliberately ruined by incomplete evidence, distraction, and screeching style. Note that I haven't read or seen most of these items; judge for yourself!
1948 Red stars in Hollywood: Their helpers, fellow travelers, and co-conspirators
1948 Moscow over Hollywood
1949 Moscow marches on in Hollywood
1950 Reds in the Anti-Defamation League
1950 Reds in "crusade for freedom!"
1950 Hollywood reds are on the run!
1950 Documentation of the Red stars in Hollywood.
1950 Reds in the Anti-Defamation League.
1951 What is this thing called anti-semitism?
1951 Saga of Operation Survival
1953 Hollywood backs U.N. conspiracy
1954 Red Treason on Broadway
1956 United Nations "on trial" in Washington, D.C.
1962 Must we have a Cuban "Pearl Harbor?"
1964 How Hollywood is brainwashing the people
1964 Civil rights, most sinister tool of the great conspiracy
1965 How greatest white nations were mongrelized, then negroized: That is the fate planned for the American people
1966 The UN already secret government of U.S.!: Our recall project can smash it!
1966 The complete truth about the "United Nations" conspiracy!
1967 You must decide fate of our nation!!!: The Negro (CFR) plot is our greatest menace!
1969 Proofs of the great conspiracy and how to smash it!!!
Wikipedia says: Between 1967 and 1968 Fagan recorded a set of three spoken-word LP records titled The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations. Produced by Anthony Hilder, the records presented the Bavarian Illuminati, the Protocols of Zion, and internationalist politics as faces of a single grand "Luciferian" conspiracy directed by the Rothschild family. Sounds like 90 minutes of complication, maybe intended ultimately to unsuccessfully blackwash the Rothschilds, much as the Dreyfus Affair operated.
There have been many attempts at world history, some of them by race. Here are my book reviews on these topics. Some, such as Toynbee and Quigley, try with conventional history. Some take an evolutionary approach, such as Darlington's Evolution on Man and Society. Lothrop Stoddard is mostly small-scale. Some are of course US-centred: Wayne Macleod (1968) and Elmer Pendell (1975?) may have been based on Fagan. Arthur Kemp's March of the Titans (1999) is not Jew-aware; maybe a future edition will be aware.
Today, with archaeology, plus DNA, plus observations—on genetics, on Christianity in theory and in practice, and on the Talmud in theory and practice, and on revisionist material—seems to offer hope for serious study, if people can be found able to co-operate.
RW 2019-04-23
Review of Jewish interest Patrick J. Buchanan: State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America Good outline, convincing solution, but ignores the other elephant, July 11, 2010 Buchanan is a Republican, and this book is (I expect) his attempt to change the Party from its self-contradictory and suicidal path. He wants, among other things, a border fence—a double fence with road in between, with motion sensors—to keep out Mexican immigrants. Easily paid for out of savings. (His suggestions are in the last chapter. This book was of course published before Obama, and clearly its suggestions were not taken up). Buchanan looks at these topics: [1] USA and Mexicans in particular and the 'Aztlan plot'; [2] Mexicans' view of their history and the US takeover of SW USA—at the time Mexicans there were as rare as blacks in South Africa. This is a good overview; [3] Europe and Muslims, treated in much the same way; [4] A good overview of immigration laws in the USA going back several centuries—there were many controls until about 1965—attacking the myths of 'a nation of immigrants'; [5] General accounts of population explosions, unskilled and uneducated nature of immigrants. Buchanan has a good account of American blacks forced into competition with Latinos, often enough violently. He's less good on patriotism and nationalism. It seems obvious enough that things like language and habits about food, families, ownership etc tend to bind groups together, on common sense grounds—it can take years to learn a language, find out about promotions and hierarchies, become trained, stake ownership claims. Buchanan has a more mystical view which seems a bit unnecessary to me. He's also not very good on legal corruptions which work in favour of 'minorities' (in fact they are majorities). These are mentioned in passing, but not really commented on: a Russian party which was banned; illegals who get benefits of every kind against the will of most whites; the 1965 Immigration Act in the US which had the opposite effect to that promoted and yet was never changed. 'Sanctuary' cities in the USA where criminals are untouched. Drugs which are imported with little obvious police opposition. Asylum laws are ignored in Britain, but in an outrageously pro-immigrant way. There are prohibitions on free speech on racist violence. And so on. Buchanan additionally persistently talks of cheap labour, when of course it isn't cheap—the ancillary costs are offloaded on whites, who have this extra burden, and incidentally have fewer children—Buchanan notes this but doesn't say why. Another omission—probably necessary in the USA, or Buchanan would have been kept out—is the Jewish influence. Buchanan is wrong in stating the USA had full integration of its citizens, since this group never integrated, and is a model in many ways of what other groups want, i.e. selective favours, most obvious in external relations and in immunity from criticism. Mexicans are pursuing this and have a lot to gain, since their neighbouring country might be forced to pay them vast amounts in the way Israel is paid. Buchanan also fails to note the NAACP and ADL and other Jewish outfits promoted immigration (they failed in the 1920s) probably to make themselves less conspicuous. Anyway, well worth reading, and a companion to Buchanan's other part-revisionist books, which have similar good qualities, and deficiencies. I wonder if the Republican Party noticed? Incidentally Buchanan says nothing about vote reform—maybe proportional representation might help destroy the two party system which is such a very blunt instrument. 12 years later, Feb 2022: Buchanan's Jew-avoiding work has been included in the Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald's website. It's clear enough Buchanan is just fake opposition. |
Incogman looks at causes, for example George Soros, the self-styled Jew from Hungary.
This is to report now (Dec 2020) that Incogman has at least two video sites:
https://gab.com/INCOGMAN but I can't guarantee it will remain online.
and
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/incogman/ but I can't guarantee it will remain online.
He doesn't seem to bother with US violence against other countries. I think he supported most or all US wars.
[Maybe it's worth noting that 'Kakzynski' looks a similar name and has suspicions, such as the so-called 'Unabomber', around him]
This book has a couple of odd aspects. The title page says the contents are 'As Told by: Tom Kawczynski'. Does that mean he didn't write it? And there is no publisher: my copy was 'Printed in Great Britain by Amazon'. Amazon has a heavy policy of censorship; it's unlikely they would print serious political commentary. My best guess is that Kawczynski, whether aware or not, is just another Jew-operated puppet. I think it's likely the content of this book was supplied by one of the countless Jew 'experts' on propaganda. Unless you believe Kawczynski reads Hegel, knows about medical history, is familiar with wartime archives, etc. etc.
I'll review this book on the assumption that it follows a Jewish script, so that we can infer what lies Jews are currently trying out. Chapter 8 ('The Last Stand of Traditional America') has this (p 104): '.. I know many people exist within Jewry and every other group who are just as aware and troubled by what their compatriots have done. In truth. they're some of the biggest supporters of my effort to bring these arguments into the light...' What 'other groups' who are 'compatriots' of Jews are, is not stated. But it may be that since early 2018 Kawczynski has been selected to lead, or pretend to lead.
I won't list the Jewish slang/ sloganistic chapter titles. (There are 28). I'll try to summarise where Kawczynski is leading, or, probably being guided.
This is awful stuff; I doubt it's usefulness even to the most naïve American, since it has no thread running through it, doesn't face serious truths against and for whites, and replaces the Jew-enforced mass media rubbish with a marginally different version of the same.
A site attributed to 'John Young' is europeanamericansunited.com 'created' in 2007, updated on 2017-12-31, though it is below alexa's radar. It says nothing about Karl Marx as rich, a relative of the Rothschilds and promoter of a ridiculous 'proletariat' mythology. It says nothing on the fact that Jews have promoted race invasion into white countries, for many years. It has silly Christmas stories, aimed, presumably, at simple Americans who don't know 'Jews' invented organised Christianity. It seems to have a 'support US troops' policy without mentioning Jewish control of policy. It comments on US 'education': most US 'students' think America invented slavery, for example! It is, in short, very sad stuff. I think a related site claims the Holohoax is the worst extermination ever. To anyone concerned with the world and its future, this material is terrifyingly deathly.
Kawczynski (Kawzinsky? Kawzinski? Cawzhinsky? Cawzinski?) has a new projected, 'created' 3 March 2018, built with 'storefront - the best ecommerce platform for wordpress'. There are some astonishingly long-winded scripts, which must have been assembled by some 'Jewish' 'brains'. Some of them are quite amusing, e.g. material on unemploytemtnat an all-time low in the US, whcih he couldn't possibly hae researched himself. Of course there's nothing on Jew finances, Fed, etc.
RW 22/23 Aug 2018
When trying to get the feel of such areas, it is useless to rely on pets of Jews. They will be 'leaders' who had to be told they were leaders by Jews. They will no doubt quote The Economist, and academics funded by Jews. People such a Matathir bin Mohamad (I'm tempted to write 'pbuh') are therefore valuable, in the same way that honest Jew-aware people in the USA, Europe, Africa and so on are more useful than credo-quoting puppets. This is not a detailed review; I'm concerned mainly to suggest that Jew-aware writers are likely to be far more useful than simple money-grabbing politicians.
Briefly, he's an 'educated Malay', concerned to make Malay the official language, move trade and education away from Chinese and Indian minorities. Malay is now the official language, and 'Tuan' is an official honorific meaning 'Mister'—Malays are or were very polite and deferential, and this allows some ambiguity. This book has good descriptions of things like Chinese business practices and bargaining: 'East of Suez prices are never fixed', and Malays' tendency to 'not understand the potentialities of money', and a survey of what makes nations and citizens. I could find nothing about British or (((British))) 'anti-Communism'. I'd guess his opinions became more explicit in the long interval after 1970 to May 2018, when he became Prime Minister for the second time. And he may have found out (e.g.) that Jews invented Islam.
He had a fairly high opinion of the British, when not involved in world muddles. There was divide and rule between Chinese and Indian immigrants, town Malays, and country Malays. Roads were just for export of rubber and tin. They ruled well, with civil service, law and order, settling of minor wars, putting down piracy, collecting taxes—actually spent on public services.
But British treaties and 'advice' were hypocritical, and they were generous with other peoples' land—notably of Palestine. But World War 2 and Japan crushed faith in Britain. There's much more, some very probably outdated. On migrations, Mahathir is straightforward, not even considering the Jewish fantasist lies. I'll give some notes I made. My point really is that the author seems to have a helpful, objective, top-down view of races, totally different from the Jewish fanatical media-control, money control, and violence attitude.
Malays: Development of small villages or farms, easy life, 21 | Town, country Malays 26 ff | health neglected by British 28 | Abhor celibacy, 29 | urbanising the rural dwellers would be beneficial, because the most progressive nations have maximum urbanisation, 79, 112 | Moslem inheritance involves splitting up land holdings, 112 | Malays don't understand naturalness of racial discrimination, 113 | good manners to be deferent, unlike Chinese & Indians, 116 | insidious campaign to make Malaya not country of Malays, 122 | international consent and recognition important in national identity 122 | are owners of Malaya 126 and 133, unlike Chinese or Indians, who claim loyalty, but can return | Are the developers of a country its owners? | immigration not severely restricted by Malays, 142 | Ethical codes and culture, which 'have never been studied' 154 ff | Islam, has five interpretations, 155 | Fatalism, 158 | Self-examination, 'know thyself', no equivalent among Malays 159 | Islamic idea of saint, 160 | Courage in sense of standing firm, measuring odds, unknown; Malays usually foolhardy 161 | Plato's three cardinal virtues do not apply, 161 | Careless way time is spent, un-timetable like, 163 | Property and land: old sultanates, a Malay just had to find land to clear then claim right 166 | Land disputes become emotional issues, acrimonious legal wrangles 167 | Attitude to money, tends to be spendthrift 167 | Interest and Usury influenced by Islam | Social code a cause or an effect? 169 | Frankness not part of code 171 | Sultans etc, have done no real harm, supported by most Malays 104 & Titles: whole range, Tunku etc princes, Syeds descendants of prophets: feudal society can be dynamic [e.g. from animism to Hindu to Muslim] if there's dynamism at the top 170, 173 | Malays comparatively not good 176
Review topic: Immigration but without Jewish mention David Conway: A Nation of Immigrants?: A Brief Demographic History of Britain Added later: Ricardo Duchesne on Canada Solid shortish book on population movements into Britain, designed to oppose errors, December 8, 2010 Published by 'Civitas' (civitas.org.uk) of The Institute for the Study of Civil Society. Short book—about 100 pages. Has endnotes, but is not indexed. It's unillustrated; this may sound trivial, but it means there are no graphs, maps, photos or other aids. The 'Gumball' video illustrates something like the opposite approach; it can be more effective. Conway clarifies at the start that the 'nation of immigrants' claim presumably is the claim that a majority of people in Britain are descended from immigrants who entered Britain at some stage, when Britain existed—i.e. not the mists of prehistory. British history is split into five time zones - up to the Roman Conquest (and its fall)/ Up to the Norman Conquest in 1066/ then to the Reformation/ then to Second World War/ finally, 1945 to the present—publication was in 2007. He's picked these dates because they represent various types of immigration: * Up to the Roman Conquest—the view now is that agriculture replaced hunter/gatherer life by diffusion, not invasion. Then of course 'Romans' invaded, tho these were mostly Belgae etc. So his first interval includes the Romans. * There were Angles, Saxons and so on, and Vikings. And some Jews. Conway adduces evidence that the numbers weren't large. Throughout there is evidence from DNA studies, some on bones a thousand or more years ago. B Sykes and S Oppenheimer are cited here. The Reformation introduced religious refugees, Protestants mostly. These included the Huguenots, whom Conway praises as does almost everyone. * Up to the Second World War there were Jews round about 1890. Alien Act 1905. And Alien Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919. Their numbers however were dwarfed by the Irish. Conway is good on the reasons for England allying with Scotland, then Ireland—defensive measures against France. * After the Second World War. Conway quotes official figures illustrating the 'staggering growth', mostly in England. He subdivides the period: 1945-1948 (including Poles left from WW2; and Ukrainians—I met an 82-year old Ukrainian woman who bemoaned men she knew from the next village getting married in UK bigamously); 1948-1971 1948 British Nationality Act (under Attlee, Labour) 'extended a right to them all [i.e. Indians and Pakistanis], even after independence' 1969 Commonwealth Appeals Act p 76; 1971-1997 1971 Immigration Act and 'patriality' (p 76) and where the EU had a problem with the eastern borders when the USSR failed, and 1997 is the start of Tony Blair's disastrously dogmatic 'New Labour' regime; 1997—present includes the further unfolding of chain immigration, arranged marriages, female genital mutilation, 'honour killings', fake asylum, fake students, movement of labour, and all the rest. [1981 Nationality Act changed legal meaning of 'British'—under Labour] Conway identifies some influential publications and people:-- * 1996 'Commission for Racial Equality': 'Roots of the Future: Ethnic Diversity in the Making of Britain'. Conway says in effect this was propaganda rubbish promoting the lie of a 'mongrel nation'. * 2000 Barbara Roche speech on 'UK migration in a global economy'. Conway says this was the start of the odd idea that unskilled illiterates were valuable to the economy and would 'pay our pensions'. * 2004, R Winder, 'Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain'. Conway, here implies this book is simple propaganda, aimed at an increasingly annoyed white populace. * 2006 B Sykes and S Oppenheimer publish, says Conway, books with very similar accounts of results of DNA research into Britons, showing small penetration even by Angles and Saxons who were supposed to have invaded en masse. This book needs to be read several times over, to get the feel for the way politicians have slanted and lied about the issues. 'The relatively high level of social harmony Britain has enjoyed results from the fact that earlier waves of immigrants ... had to adapt... Now our culture, and our nation, are in danger of fragmenting...' Conway doesn't tackle, or I think mention, the possible real differences in races—for example the lack of achievements by Africans. Similar propaganda torrent in Canada: The following article is (I think) by Ricardo Duchesne, and was probably used in many publications. This version was taken from https://salisburyreview.com/ —a supposedly conservative 'review' from England, which however includes the Jew 'Theodore Dalrymple'. It deals with the settling of Canada, and is aimed against the Jewish views on migrations. I've taken out some graphics, such as simpleton soldiers, probably British, from the Great War. Probably around 2017; competition between Web sources means basic information is often avoided.
One of the most powerful memes in Canada is that “Canada is a nation of immigrants”. Millions of individuals have indeed migrated to Canada since John Cabot first claimed either Newfoundland or Cape Breton Island for England in 1497. But the intended meaning of this phrase goes well beyond this simple fact.
This phrase, continuously repeated by the media, and shoved down the throats of unsuspecting students from primary to higher education, is intended to fashion an image of Canada as a nation populated from the beginning by peoples from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds, in order to portray the Third World immigration patterns we have been witnessing since the 1970s as a continuation naturelle of past migration patterns, rather than as what they are: a radical departure aimed at the termination of Canada’s deep-seated Anglo-European ethnic character. What follows is a statistical refutation of this deceptive meme. The historical record, the facts we have about the people who came to Canada, the racial makeup of the immigrants, the proportion of Whites to non-Whites, the birth rate of Eurocanadians, the rates of immigration versus the domestic fertility rates, demonstrate, to the contrary, that Canada was a nation created from top to bottom by immigrants from Europe and by Eurocanadians born in Canada, with next to zero contributions by non-Europeans. The Facts
The total intake of immigrants between 1946 and 1962 was 2,151,505. At the same time however, between 1941 and 1962, the population of Canada increased from 11.5 million to 18.5 million, “largely accounted” by Canada’s “extremely high domestic birth rates”, the so-called baby boom generation. Ninety percent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain. It was only after the institutionalization of official multiculturalism in 1971 that immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia at large started to arrive in large numbers. During the 1970s, the proportion originating in Europe was cut by half, whereas the proportion coming from Asia almost quadrupled. Of the 1.5 million who came between 1971 and 1981, 33 percent came from Asia, 16 percent from the Caribbean and South America and 5.5 percent from Africa. In the period 1991-2001, immigrants of European origin fell below 20 percent at the same time that Asian immigration soared to nearly 60 percent. From 1991 to 2000, 2.2 million immigrants were accepted, the “highest ever for any decade”. In recent years, Canada’s visible minority population has been growing much faster than its total population: 22 percent growth from 1996 to 2001 versus 4 percent growth in the general population. Today, roughly one out of every four people in Canada is a member of a visible minority. Fight Against Multicultural Revisionism!Don’t let them deceive you! Copy these facts and use them against the deceivers occupying our educational establishments. Don’t believe the globalist claim that your nation was a creation of diverse races and that “White racists” were supposedly hiding away the equal contribution of non-European immigrants. This is a historical falsehood of major proportions. Canada was created by people of British and French descent, and other European ancestries. All the institutions, legal system, educational curriculum, transformation of wilderness into productive farms, all the cities, the parliamentary traditions, the churches, the entire infrastructure of railways, ports, shipping industries, and highways, were created by hardworking Eurocanadians. SourcesIt should be noted that the following authors try to portray Canada as a nation that was from its beginning created by diverse immigrants leading to the official enactment of multiculturalism by P.E. Trudeau in 1971. Nevertheless the facts they bring out, which are the ones contained in the documents, show that Canada was a nation homogeneously White from its very beginnings.
|
Review of Evolution Cyril Dean Darlington: The Evolution of Man and Society Survey of history with evolutionary biology basis, July 30, 2011 The first three chapters—less than 10% of the book, and smaller than the bibliography and index—are well worth a careful read, as they summarise the whole business of types of ape and monkey -> chromosomes and other genetic links to mankind, including variations between species of these animals which hint at the way mankind evolved. Darlington mostly discusses (of course) the finer points of change, not speciation as such. This includes externally caused changes, such as sickle cell, and also changes in structures needed for speech. He examines monkey societies and the relation to oestrus. He discusses variability, and the connection with breeding strategies and such things as incest taboo and genetic distance between breeding couples. He looks at the way diseases and parasites (and carriers of parasites) were influenced by man's expansion. He looks at ecological niches—fishing, cold climates, farming, hunting—and boundaries between territories, such as mountain ranges, and the effects of climate on races. There's interesting anthropological material, much of it from India. The great bulk of the book examines human history so far as it was known. There are omissions—China, the Mongols, the western hemisphere are rather underrepresented. Moreover, as is liable to happen with history, some of it is wrong—he has for example his map of the spread of Jews shows he had no idea about the Khazars. He is pro-Lenin for some reason. However he's good on the biological effects of (for example) celibacy in some organisations, control of fertility, insistence on inbreeding, the uses of castration, royal dynasties. Roughly speaking, whenever Darlington generalises and makes use of many sources, he's sounder than when focussing on individuals. The first three chapters are recommended for an overview written in pre-DNA times. |
Review of race and civilization David Duke: My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding Long book, detailed, essential reading for the modern world, 10 May 2009 On art paper, with some b/w photos and illustrations, 700 plus pages—this is literally a heavy book. My edition is 2008 printing; the previous was 2002. Published by 'Free Speech Press', it shows some signs of typical small press production—for example there are a few typos and spacing errors left by the word processing software. If anything this adds to the genuine feel of the book—it hasn't been combed through by innumerable editors. It has been translated into 'a number' of languages. Another book, Jewish Supremacism, 'has been translated into fourteen languages', more than one million in print. The layout is good—it has an index, mostly proper names and book titles, and, following that, a list of about 1,000 endnote references. These are in sequence in the book, and I infer that the software used had automated numbering, since some of the chapters seem to have been enlarged to include events which happened after the first printing—such as 9/11. His references generally don't include the date of first publication, which can be irritating when considering books which include revelations—for example about the Russian 'Revolution' or events after the Second World War. 'My Awakening' is in four parts, the final two being the longest; they deal with:- I: AN AMERICAN SON—his early life—including accounts of Louisiana landscape and ecology, and his studies, and influences on him as regards race—a black housekeeper and black mechanics, for example; and Carleton Putnam's 'Race and Reason'. II: RACE AND REALITY—an account of his researches into race. Duke comes across as a serious and inquisitive student, much more so than most. This part of the book cannot be in historical sequence, as he quotes books published relatively late, for example by J Philippe Rushton on two types of evolutionary strategy—high investment in children vs low investment and many of them—followed by Lothrop Stoddard's 'Rising Tide of Color'. The longest chapter, 11: Race and Society deals with the huge increase in black crime, black education and white flight—Washington being his main example. This sort of material of course is largely censored. III: THE JEWISH QUESTION—long chapter, with a woman called Mattie Smith, talking to him when he was young, as the prime mover. Jews, Communism, post-World War 2 media and American politics, the roots of anti-semitism, Israel, 'a Holocaust enquiry', and Jewish Evolutionary strategy make a well-balanced commentary in I think a fairly natural sequence. This chapter has detailed references and verbatim quotations from books and newspapers. The 'evolutionary strategy' includes forcing the idea of race mixing on everyone (except Jews), minimising cruelty and atrocities (except for Jews), fraud and crime (except for Jews), among other things. The chapter is here to make sense of the otherwise inexplicable attitudes to immigration, pornography, miseducation and so on, in part II. (There's a very similar personal account George Lincoln Rockwell Discovers the Jewish Problem in counter-currents.com) . BUT as a corrective Miles Mathis in an essay on Eustace Mullins identifies Rockwell as a phoney, out of US naval intelligence. IV: THE FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH—is an account of world-wide influences on him and his subsequent activism. The other parts gave detailed evidence for the existence of race, and for differences between races; and for Jewish attitudes. This section is biographical. His father worked for Shell and took the young Duke around the world, where he took a Gibbonian interest in declines and falls—there's a moving account of a meeting in India. There are dramatic accounts of police and ADL corruption. He was elected in Louisiana from 1989-1993 and seems to have spent subsequent years as a publicist. It's all convincing, and I recommend this book to anyone wanting to make sense of the world of the American south, American politics, and the roots of 'political correctness', and its immense dangers. Just a few notes:-- * Serious student: Duke made (and still makes?) a lot of effort to look up source material. Libraries both for and opposed to integration; the Soncino Talmud; comparisons of different editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica; photocopies of declassified reports on Russia after the coup by Jews; post-war revisionist writers; Freud; Martin Luther King as a fraud; Old Testament accounts of genocide; how the 'Ten commandments' aren't as represented by Christians; the New Testament's God saying the Jews are no longer 'chosen', Lincoln on separation of races.—Just a small sample of the material Duke conscientiously noted. * Duke accepts the idea that Africa was an easy environment—women could forage and eat, there was no need for foresight as there were no cold winters. I doubt this is quite true. The heat allows plants to flourish easily, but it also allows dangerous animals and parasites and insects to flourish—Guinea Worm, Tsetse fly, locusts, and so on. It could be argued that life was precarious and there was little point in trying to plan. * He thinks the nuclear family was important for cold northern climates. I suspect most families have been extended—elderly, middle-aged, young, babies all together. * Duke is pro-Islam, and gives accurate accounts of Israeli atrocities in the Middle East. But he doesn't seem to realise that Islam is largely derived from Judaism:—Islam has a tribal attitude, sacred texts in a fossilised language, dislike of kuffars/goyim which extend to massacres, promotion of sex with tiny girls, slavery, repression of women, and so on. * On slavery, Duke doesn't mention the huge involvement of Islam in Africa, quite a serious omission. Incidentally he claims to have started the 'Nation of Islam' investigating Jews and the Americas slave trade. * Duke realises 'Communism' was Jewish in the Soviet Union, and seems to assume this must have been true in China, Vietnam, and presumably Cuba. But in view of the suppression of the Jewish angle by most historians and commentators, it may well be true that Mao and the rest simply had no idea about the roots of 'Communism'. It's impossible to tell, because, if historians don't know the truth about the USSR, they won't ask related questions about other countries! My personal view is that Ho Chi Minh and others were more interested in independence than anything that could be called Marxist. But I may be wrong: perhaps they just wanted to ally with Jewish money, as appears to have happened in China. * Related to the latter, Duke doesn't seem aware that there can be genuine socialism. In the UK and Europe we're used to the idea that Keir Hardie, or [fill in name of favourite reformer] were left wing or 'Labour'. It's only later that the ideal was perverted by the USSR into mass murder.
Disappointed note added 16 Oct 2018: Listening to David Duke on Internet radio, with Andrew Carrington Hitchcock, it seems he believes in the 'moon landings', which he regards as all white. He also thinks 3000 Americans died in 9/11. And that Saudi Arabia was jointly involved with 'Jews' in 9/11. Oh, and the fake Manchester bombing was real. It all adds to the feeling that he may just be opposition control, for example by publicising what was in any case known about Jews, but avoiding anything else. Another Disappointing note is that David Duke says little about Freemasonry, despite its massive link between Jews and 'goyim'. Added 16 July 2019.
Note added 6 April 2019. This ends in 1980, and has nothing very useful on Duke's views. And nothing very helpful on his activities.
David Duke, it is said, idolized his father, an engineer for Shell Oil Company. The father, David Hedger Duke, volunteered for service in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. He was sent to Laos as an agent of the U.S. State Department’s Agency for International Development (USAID). Young David, meanwhile, completed high school and enrolled at Louisiana State University, where he became notorious on “Free Speech Alley” for his racist and anti-Semitic harangues. Just before he dropped out of LSU, on March 4,1971, Duke was ordered to report for active duty. Selective Service records show that he was classified 1-A. But in a “highly unusual move,” reports Tyler Bridges of the Times-Picayune of New Orleans, “Duke was given a student deferment, March 18, even though he soon left school and didn’t return for eighteen months…None of the members of his draft board contacted said they knew why the injunction notice was rescinded.” When Bridges asked Duke why he hadn’t been drafted, Duke responded, “Well, I was in Laos during the war.” And indeed he was. He boasted that he spent nine months in Laos beginning in May 1971 flying twenty missions behind enemy lines aboard CIA Air America transport planes, dropping supplies to CIA mercenary troops in the mountains. In attempting to debunk details of Duke’s story, critics only confirm the main point. Charles Green, for example, head of the Agency for International Development (AID) language school in Laos, said Duke served only six weeks as an English language instructor of Laotian army officers. Green claims he fired Duke when he walked into his classroom and saw that Duke had drawn a Molotov cocktail on the blackboard. It is well known that the CIA used USAID as a cover for covert warfare in Southeast Asia. It is entirely plausible that David Duke was recruited as a covert agent of the CIA. That would explain why his induction into the military was mysteriously rescinded. It would also explain Duke’s strange immunity in other criminal and terrorist activities. In September 1976 Duke was the sponsor of a conference of neo-Nazis and Klansmen at a hotel near his home in Métairies, an all-white suburb of New Orleans. When police arrived, Duke and his followers surrounded the squad car. Duke led the mob in chanting, “White Power.” Duke screamed at the officers, “You are a Jew. You work for the FBI. They are commie traitors and you are too.” The police radioed for help and Duke was among those arrested. He was tried but received a suspended sentence. Why? On December 31,1980, Duke sat on a French quarter balcony in New Orleans with a convicted felon named Michael Perdue. According to Gwen Udell, a close friend of Duke’s who was there, the two men “hashed over Perdue’s plan to invade the Caribbean island of Dominica’ “ A small band of mercenaries would sail to the tiny black populated country, overthrow the government and set up a white supremacist junta,” reports the Times-Picayune, Perdue “dreamed of making millions by running a casino and exporting lumber.” Others say the real “export” was to be cocaine and other narcotics. Duke reportedly helped Perdue find a charter boat to transport his mercenary commandos and put Perdue in touch with people who would finance the bizarre expedition, codenamed Operation Red Dog. On April 27,1981, officers of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms arrested them just before they boarded the yacht in Lake Ponchartrain. Despite his ringleader role, Duke was not arrested. He was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury, where he pleaded the Fifth Amendment, refusing to testify. Nine of the ten other conspirators, including Duke’s co-hort Klanman Don Black, were found guilty and served time in prison. Why was Duke let off? |
Review of Jews, Race, Immigration, and France Alec Hargeaves: Immigration, 'Race' and Ethnicity in Contemporary France (1995) Jewish reaction to Le Pen - hopelessly outdated even when published 25 Oct 2012 This is a junk book (note: 1995) by a minor academic ('Loughborough University') who presumably is an unannounced Jew (check e.g. surname online). It is obviously intended for the English-reading market; it claims to be the only book of its kind since about 1975, and the obvious inference is that it's an indirect commentary on Le Pen. This 1995 book published by Routledge (there appears to be a newer version this is NOT a review of any other book: there seems little point) predates Zones Urbaines Sensibles (there are hundreds of towns with no-go areas, handily available on Googling maps); and predates Sarkozy, with his Hungarian-Jewish forebears; and predates serious concerns about the EU, which have steadily increased along with oozings of the malevolence of that organisation. Everything in this book is Jewish-slanted: First World War? - Barely mentioned; there were a few deaths, but not many of Jews, so that doesn't matter. Second World War? - Not many French died to support Stalin's Jewish-run mass murder, so the French deserve no mercy. Vietnam War? A few million Vietnamese were killed, but none were Jews. So that doesn't matter. The Algerian War and Dien Bien Phu are barely mentioned, though obviously they must have had some impact on the French mentality. Plenty more of course in this vein, for example American-controlled media in France (code word for Jewish-controlled). There's nothing on the actual tenets of Islam, unsurprisingly as they are similar to those of Jews. There's some entertaining stuff on polygamy—apparently all Muslims expect a house for each of their 'wives', and many of them find it difficult to get even one French house; heart-rending stuff. There is nothing much on comparative crime, ineducability, illiteracy and so on; and nothing on the tax burden such groups possibly maximally in the case of sub-Saharan Africans must presumably impose. 'Race' is in quotes as per the usual Boas nonsense. Almost the only interest in books such as this is the cross-cultural comparisons with other countries. The long list of acronyms, all non-white and alien, and the names of their think-tank advisors and planners, and the secrecy surrounding their funding; the deliberate avoidance of statistics, the media ownership and decisions on vocabulary to lie over inevitability and historical continuity; the corruption of the legal system and strategic placing of judges, lawyers, the votes/ parties/ lawmakers groups... All this sort of thing takes some winkling out, and of course conclusions are certain to be incomplete. Because there may be some hidden value, I give this a token two stars, but this book carries a stench, and it's not garlic. So I changed my mind. |
Review of Jewish interest Myles Harris: Tomorrow is Another Country: What is Wrong with the UK's Asylum Policy? Myles Harris seems to be a doctor who took up journalism to expose scandals of one sort or another. This book attributes the current mess in the UK to the Human Rights Act of 2000. Like many modern problems, this has been propelled by Jews (both in the 1950s Convention to offer refugees [a code word for Jews] from the Soviet Union 'refuge', and in 'Race Relations' acts which exclude the explicitly racist beliefs of Jews). However this latter is *NOT* stated by Harris, who concentrates on the utter shambles of the 'Human Rights Act' in which lawyers at public expense advise what are often little more than savages to destroy their documents; when social housing is given to people with no rights to the UK at all; when removal even of illegals is all but unheard of; when murderers can claim a 'right to family life'. Harris claims the law would have allowed Hitler, had their been a coup against him in say 1944, to claim asylum in Britain. Much of this is the fault of lawyers, including the original legislation. Harris I think does *NOT* examine the question whether Parliament—which has many lawyer MPs—wanted this legislation with a view to making money for their types. He does *NOT* examine the question whether the whole thing is deliberate:- the EU wants a Mestizo Europe, and the so-called 'Labour' party has a system now in which Blair could tell public lies about controlling numbers, while people flood in, often by organised gangs. All this was and is funded by enormous irresponsible borrowing by Gordon Brown, perhaps with Blair the least competent politicians in British history. The effects will be felt for years and may be disastrous. All of this of course was undebated, by for example the BBC, despite its huge compulsory tax take. There's therefore much missing from this book; however as against that, I give it four stars for facing the issue, and giving accounts of what actually happens in airports, courts, holding places, and in the secret back rooms of local councils where the results show up and the free medicine, housing, translation, rent and other costs are secretly paid out. It's well worth reading through for the pen portraits: phoney 'asylum seekers'; the fake statistics peddled by the government; bigamous and multiple marriages; and the outrageous behaviour of British lawyers (including Cherie Blair) milking the absurd system their fellows have set up. --- There's an additional essay by David Conway on Nationalism and Liberalism (the book is published by a von Mises-free market outfit). Neither term is defined very precisely and what he says (I think—dull writing) is that people on the whole tend to like being with similar people. And this isn't incompatible with liberalism—Conway doesn't seem to have heard of the New World Order theorists who regard Liberalism as an elite vs cheap labour masses. |
Review of Close parallels with the present day. Much better than usual biased accounts state.
Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf This review is from: Mein Kampf - The 1939 Illustrated Edition (Paperback) October 25, 2013 Judging by the other reviews here, Amazon has almost zero readers able to overcome their century or so of brainwashing about Hitler and Jews. The fact is we are in something like a Reformation, targeted against Jews as the earlier Reformation was targeted against Catholics. Who will win, how long it will take, and what the costs in body counts and destruction will be, cannot be predicted. The book is well worth reading, though volume II is of most interest to the few people wanting to establish a new political party. Volume I has a lot on Austria and Hungary, not Germany, which was something like a multicultural state. It also has Hitler's World War I experiences, and expresses his regret or puzzlement over the survivors, many of whom rather than die dodged the fighting. Most of his comments show a grasp of true Jewish 'ethics'. It is of course pre-WW2 and pre-'Holocaust'. (I have a much longer review here on big-lies.org, too long for inclusion here). Americans are by now probably more sophisticated about Hitler and Churchill than Britons, many of whom still have no idea about either of these. Let's hope so, anyway. |
Review by 'Rerevisionist' 2 Sept 2018, some additions 27 April 2021
Arthur Kemp’s 'iron law' is all civilizations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity
Important note added later: Jewish policy seems to always have been to damage host populations. Kemp's 'iron law' is that racial homogeneity is the single determinant of survival of civilization.
But if Jews and collaborators mongrelise peoples, they are making use of the 'iron law'. The obvious example is the Roman Empire, which can certainly be regarded as falling, through mongrelisation—but my point is this was probably caused by Jewish actions, including the use of money power.
This may mean that Kemp understates the influence of ideas. He is good on Christianity, recognising doubts about Jesus, noting it was spread by force, and assessing its contributions coolly. In my view, it grew in parallel with the Jewish money system, and had such jobs as keeping the monopoly for Jews, and giving weekly instruction to the simpler types as tp who to battle, why they should pay rents, and so on. But arguably this is all really just race.
Kemp mentions Jews, including facts about Jews in the USSR and the horrors of 'Communism'. But not Marx as a stinking rich propagandist. He mentions Mohammed's Jewish wife, but doesn't venture into the swamp of Quran revisionism or the vast slaughters of Moslems on India's north-west.
Kemp wrote too early to take on the Jews-as-parasites idea. Jews as a form of disease, battening on to non-Jews with remorseless efficiency, so that Whites are a form of walking wounded, presented in Jew parasite evolution, is not—yet—part of the worldview of March of the Titans, but the evidence is far too strong to be ignored. He views, or viewed, Israel favourably, as a 'racially based state', but hasn't so far faced the possibility of a distributed 'race', interbreeding for crypsis, and parasitic on hosts. This is a different evolutionary path from race in the usual sense of something territorial. Gipsies, and the Thuggee cult, are less important analogies.
Kemp has a list of 'race wars'. These are between races; he doesn't count 20th century 'great wars' and race wars between whites, perhaps to avoid the obvious criticism that maybe whites weren't that bright, after all. Or perhaps they were avaricious and unscrupulous and not sufficiently gregarious.
Kemp doesn't seem to face the fact that wars between mercenaries must ipso facto have been arranged by moneyed groups. An example is the 'Thirty Years War', an archetypically vicious and destructive war between whites in Germany, nominally religious-based. It seem Jewish ghettoes were left untouched amid the desolation, suggesting the possibility that money determined the fighting.
Another good example is the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5), generally known to have been Rothschild-funded against the horrid Russkies.
And another illustration is a Skype debate of mine with Jan Lamprecht, whose African background when young is rather similar to Arthur Kemp's. Trying to discuss Hitler as an agent, clearly Jan wasn't interested. He was excited by Rommel, a 'military genius' who participated in the disaster of WW2. And Jan was excited by the possibility of war, in which the usual caution about spending is replaced by the expectation of expensive military toys. He thought the Vietnamese were 'communists', as described by Jews, the Jewish media, and Jewish 'experts'. What's wrong with these people?
BUT he doesn't notice the possibility of wars WITHIN races, racial 'civil wars' if you will. Jews in the 20th century promoted Japan against Tsarist Russia in 1902. Part of a race war? However, China vs Japan, both with heavy Jewish influence, was a 'yellow civil war' with masses of deaths. The 'white civil wars' in WW1 and WW2 were about the same time. We now seem to have in South Africa Jews arranging a black vs white war, similar to what happened in Rhodesia. This again is a sort of civil war.
Kemp has a remarkable incapacity to see the realities of modern elections and modern employment and money. He says voters will not vote on the basis of facts. He doesn't understand that people don't want to lose their jobs, status, and homes. He doesn't understand the power of perpetual media lies. Listen to his talk on Red Ice Radio with Lana Lotkeff, for example. The fact is that race does not explain everything; economic power and other forms of power make a difference, too.
Kemp's technique to minimise his view of Jewish power is to talk of ‘the Jewish Lobby’. But control of the world's banking system is not a 'lobby'. Control of publishing—from 'academic' books down to porn—is not a 'lobby'. Control of world military systems and wars is not a 'lobby'. Killing millions of whites in Russia was not the action of a 'lobby'. Kemp is like someone talking of Stalin as a 'town councillor'. His entire analysis of the possible fall of Jewish power relies on non-whites disliking Jews; but what have non-whites done to expos and damage Jews? Nothing known to me.
Arthur has three chapters on events which I'd place along with other Jew-financed wars and whites taking money for violence:– White Men Cutting One Another’s Throats—the American Civil War | The First Great Brothers’ War—World War I | The Second Great Brothers’ War—World War II. Of course these are controversial, or would be if historians were more competent. Arthur tends to do a conventional chronology of battles, though he notes many puzzles on the way. The concept of world-wide Jewish power it outside his range.
Kemp's view of the stretch of non-prehistoric history includes (from a blog) these events:
1. The Battle of Nedao, 454 AD.
2. The Battle of Lechfeld 955 A.D.
3. The Battle of Kulikovo, 8 September 1380.
4. 1436. Johannes Gutenberg invents the printing press
5. The Fall of Granada, to Ferdinand and Isabella, 1492
6. Christopher Columbus sights land in the Americas, 1492
7. Siege of Vienna, 1683. Turks defeated.
8. The Battle of Navarino, 1827, '... gave birth to present-day Greece.'
9. 1948. Three American physicists invent the transistor
Kemp looks at land and sea explorations of whites: Canada, South Africa, Rhodesia, Australia, and New Zealand get a chapter each.
It has to be said that science is not a strong point with Arthur Kemp. (Chapter 59: Shaping the World—the White Technological Revolution). Kemp provides dutiful lists of scientists—all of them white, as of course is accurate—but his lists remind me of guides pointing to landmarks, and other points of interest, without explaining how they fit into human experiences. And Kemp has included Apollo 11 'moon landings' and 'nuclear weapons' in his lists of white achievements.
Arthur has an interesting chapter on the Third Reich as 'the racial state'.
It's rather saddening to reflect of the difficulties Kemp must have had with this book. It is expensive, and monochrome. I think many people simply have no idea how much money ideological Jews have handed to them. I remember talking with a head teacher who knew Gove (a 'Jew') had handed (I think) 40 million to some ridiculous bunch of superstitious primitive self-styled Jews. She had zero concept of the graveness of this atrocity. I'm sure just one tenth of that sum would supercharge Kemp's work.
This is a challenging book. Well worth owning. It reminds me somewhat of H G Wells's Outline of History of the 1920s. I wish the book could be easily updated. Kemp is not 60 at the time of writing, and might amend it for many years. Perhaps the Kindle version (includes colour illustrations) might enable this.
Review of Jewish interest in South Africa Arthur Kemp: The Lie of Apartheid and other true stories from Southern Africa If you were in South Africa or Rhodesia, worth reading, July 11, 2010 Nine essays, rather short in total; value for money is unremarkable. This book is indexed and has b/w photos reproduced on ordinary paper. 1 THE LIE OF APARTHEID. Kemp has an admirably simple theory of nations: they have to be mostly homogeneous, or they will fall. (Essay 7 has more on this). The 'lie' is simply the idea that apartheid could ever have worked; he says white farmers and householders had huge numbers of black workers—the whole meaning of the word 'apartheid' is unclear; note also it did not exist in then-Rhodesia. He prints population figures from about 1900 to about the present day, which underline the staggering problems; these may be insuperable, though Kemp expresses no view on that. He does not consider the idea that medical aid should simply be withheld from fast breeding populations who didn't originate it. He thinks the Afrikaners must found a new state of their own. 2 THE MYTH OF MAHATMA GANDHI Revisionist look at Gandhi as a high-caste racist. Does not examine the question of his murder—was it a Hindu enraged at collusion with Muslims? 3 THE PUZZLE OF AUTOGENOCIDE Whites in South Africa were roughly four types: [1] Relatively recent—say post-WW2; [2] Long-established English; [3] Dutch ancestry; [4] Jews. Roughly speaking, the Dutch farmed, the British kept order, the Jews were active more or less secretively in finance and minerals. Kemp maintains all except [3] favoured black rule, at least in theory; for example many recent migrants had no special affection for South Africa, but went purely in the hope of making money. 'Militant leftist Jews' helped the ANC—on this see essay 8. He says 'educated' whites were most prone to propaganda. I'd assumed Kemp would comment on the vast anti-apartheid movement promoted outside South Africa by news media, but he doesn't. 4 HOW THE MIGHTY FALL on the South African military. I can remember when sorties by South Africa into neighbouring countries were reported as bloody events. Now, Kemp produces evidence from the South African Parliament and newspapers there of the lack of equipment, lack of fit soldiers... 5 WHEN THE RIVER RAN RED on the Battle of Blood River; and includes the neglected 'Church of the Vow' (built in 1840). 6 WHEN THE WEST LOOKED AWAY on Zimbabwe. Mostly on murdered whites there, notably farmers, and the fact they're ignored—by for example Peter Hain of the British 'Labour' regime. I remember being in Rhodesia; the journalists most manic about majority rule all left when it was inaugurated. Incidentally calling the country 'Zimbabwe' was rather analogous to calling Britain 'Stonehenge'. There was a joke at the time: Year 1, Zimbabwe. Year 2: Zimbabwe ruins. Despite Kemp's interest in populations, he hasn't looked closely at the demographics—for example the British offers about land at the time they made them were generous, but swallowed up by population growth. 7 INTERVIEW BY A FLEMISH MAGAZINE is Q/A session by I'd guess someone from the Vlaams party. Includes material on Kemp's book on whites, 'March of the Titans', and third world immigration into Europe. (Kemp's book is downloadable from his website, though I won't give the URL here). Kemp has a low opinion of Christianity, right down to the present day—the churches are anti-white. 8 CONSPIRACIES AND THE ASSASSINATION OF CHRIS HANI Is Kemp's own account of this killing. Kemp—who was nearly killed by a bomb—knew some of these people personally—journalists, police, conservative politicians, radicals—and gives his account of the shooting. Kemp was involved through a journalistic attempt to show Mandela's huge house after he was released from prison: incidentally it doesn't say much for the South African intelligence people that they didn't know where the money came from—if, in fact, thy didn't. Kemp is very concerned, throughout this book, to have nothing to do with 'conspiracies'. This I think is a mistake—for one thing, this case alone took four years to resolve. Kemp supplies a photo showing both Mandelas and someone called Joe Slovo, in front of a huge hammer and sickle. It seems entirely credible that Chris Hani wanted to nationalise South Africa's mines and minerals, and, as this was not in the interests of controlling Jews there, he was killed. 9 THE DEATH OF JOHANNESBURG a collection of depressing photos showing previously thriving buildings—hotels, parks, markets—reduced to a mess. Mostly taken from moving vehicles. There are similar photos of Detroit. Arthur Kemp doesn't try his hand at a prognosis; I fear there must be a vast population crash there since black populations are I estimate 500 times higher than in say 1800. |
Review of Jewish interest Arthur Kemp: The Immigration Invasion Basic facts and figures kept out of 'mainstream' media, and possible ways to avoid hell, 7 Jun 2009 Arthur Kemp runs (written November 2017) https://www.newobserveronline.com which is a news source specialising in race, Jews, immigration, the USA, black incompetence, and lies. About 140 pages. Unindexed. Paperback, print on demand book. 1st edition October 2008. Typesetting is a bit too uniform for my taste—for example there are appendices of typical news items, but they are reformatted so you don't get the feeling of the originals. Very good summary of the situation, omitting futurology (more on this at the end of this review).
Kelly M. Greenhill: Weapons of Mass Migration. Forced Displacement as an Instrument of Coercion
This is a 350-page book, not particularly cheap, published I think in 2015. Badly written in US Academese-speak; and it seems to omit Jews, both as media controllers and money-handlers, so it is unlikely to be very useful. However it does recognise population transfers as a form of war. Allegedly it has at least 50 case studies, though it seems not very sophisticated in its analysis, having little concept of truth re Vietnam, Korea, Libya. It refers to supposed International Agreements of the post-1945 Jewish victory, norms-enabling, hypocrisy costs an so on All this of course is supported by small numbers of Jews and larger numbers of puppets, fuelled by the easy money available to Jews. (Added 3 Aug 2019) There are two introductory chapters summarising the present situation. From say 1850-1900, whites emigrated on a fairly large scale. But from 1950 on, third world races have emigrated to the white regions—the northern areas, generally speaking. (Arguably, the latter is the effect of the European 'World Wars'. Kemp does not discuss the motives for mass migrations, which include Indians for example, not just whites.) Arthur Kemp maintains in effect that peoples impose their own standards on their own countries. For African countries this is not an encouraging viewpoint. His second chapter is a good overview of the trite 'liberal' arguments, plus the actual facts of legal, illegal, and 'asylum' immigration. He demolishes the jobs the locals won't do, and they are good for the economy, arguments, usually on a straightforward GDP basis. He also looks at the legality (or rather illegality) of so-called 'asylum seekers'. This chapter is a bit of a 'grab bag', I think that's the phrase—but this isn't Kemp's fault, since the pro-immigration arguments are themselves a mixed collection of different nonsenses. Then follow eight chapters, country by country—roughly: UK, western Europe, south-east Europe, northern Europe, Russia and east Europe, Canada, the USA, and finally ANZ. These quote official figures, generally for 'minorities'—Kemp uses that traditional word, despite the fact that third world countries have majority populations—and for crime. If you're unfamiliar with this material, it comes as a shock. Readers might try comparing TV coverage with the truth: for example, read about rapes in Australia by Lebanese immigrants, and compare the coverage of the facts on Youtube with the ordinary media's omission. The final chapter is Kemp's own favourite: What must be done? He surveys African, Asian, and south American countries, noting their utter hypocrisy. Kemp favours democratic action—for example a 'Euro-American Action Committee'. Sounds to me it's based on AIPAC, but presumably white and stretching right across the northern hemisphere and ANZ, perhaps English-speaking. While this makes sense, it is a fact that many of the most effective groups politically have been secret—Jews, for example, financiers, Bilderbergers, the BBC's self-perpetuating elite, Oxbridge, and the rest. I hope Arthur Kemp is right about democratic action; but with voter turnouts of 30% nobody can be very optimistic. There are some missing elements here: [1] How come immigrants get more rights than the locals? The social security and other laws were never intended for this. [2] Will there be some new Malthusian existence? Perhaps huge urban shanty towns with a trickle of piped water, intermittent electricity, mounds of excrement, diets of rice only, women unable to go outdoors? [3] Will the white populace put up with it? At present there are oppressive laws against free speech and for anti-white discrimination. Could there be civil war? Kemp omits all the Jewish activity to promote invasion of white countries. He thinks Israel is a sort of model of a nation, but hasn't noticed that it isn't—Jews prefer to keep a layer imposed on as many countries as possible, so 'Israel' is not a national country. |
Review of Martin H Millard 'Homeless Jack' 19 Jan 2014
Millard is a contributor to Western Spring, a British white nationalist race-aware site, run, as far as I know, by a member (or ex-member) of Mensa who works (or worked) in finance. Millard's articles are usually attributed to 'Homeless Jack', and written in a US hobo style, perhaps modelled on Jack London. I was not very impressed; but decided to look on Internet. Martin H Millard has three books advertised online under the name H Millard: 2001 saw publication of 'The Outsider', a title in common with other books—Camus? Colin Wilson? Then 2002 'Roaming the Wastelands'. And 2004 'Ourselves Alone and Homeless Jack'. Looking at the ISBN prefix suggests these books were published by iUniverse, connected in some way with AuthorHouse and which also publishes 'Authors Choice Press' and 'Writers Club Press'. (I may be wrong about some details; all this is taken from Internet). Millard appears in 'New Nations News' on newnation.org/Millard. The front page of New Nation News has attacks on whites by blacks, in the USA, taken from such media sources as print them. Millard has a blog, based for some reason on what I presume is British software, cmpress.blogspot.co.uk with the usual problems with blog format websites: old entries are filed away tidily, but they are very difficult to research, and it's difficult to check through their comments. Millard writes about Costa Mesa, part of the coastal sprawl of Los Angeles, a territorial chunk in Orange County by Newport Beach, near the southernmost end of LA, and about a hundred miles from the border with Mexico. The USA is inundated with illegal immigrants, encouraged by Jews running the USA. The Costa Mesa 'homeless task force', and feedback into ever more immigration, and politicians and the money made by 'charities' and suppliers of 'free goods' to the immigrants, is a large part of this blog. Millard opposes this. The USA has more experience with blacks than any other white country, I think: the views and attitudes deserve examination. For that matter, Europe has longer experience with Jews than any other group of countries; maybe reciprocal learning is possible? Millard has only a few topics. Maybe; I haven't read his books, only articles; but it's easy to guess the subject-matter of 'Roaming the Wastelands' and 'Alone and Homeless'. There's an evolutionary/ genes thread, based on a 'philosophy of Arman' about whom I could find nothing; my guess it's Millard himself. Whites should not be forced to mix races. Millard recognises that the Second World War was a disaster for whites, fought by 'the stupid generation'. (So was the 'Great War': Bertrand Russell wrote he was 'proud to belong' to the stupid generation responsible). This shades into something like G B Shaw's evolutionary 'supermen', who were able to change biologically by willpower. In my view Millard doesn't understand DNA: he hasn't realised DNA must itself have evolved from something simpler. Many people don't really understand evolution: they insist on introducing teleology. Millard thinks there is always struggle, and always should be; it's what Life decrees. But better-adapted creatures struggle less—they don't need to make extra effort. Millard thinks the object is numbers, not seeming to understand that in the web of life, numbers now don't guarantee numbers in future. He emphasises individuals (this may well be as a result of propagandist efforts to discourage co-operation). For example, he says 'we are born alone and die alone', although in fact of course most births are accompanied by a mother. And he doesn't face the counter-argument that, if life is set on increasing numbers, why don't whites have vast numbers of kids? But Millard's are common enough misconceptions. More important than the theory is the present-day ideas. Millard likes white genes, and thinks whites should not be forced to live alongside blacks. The USA has experience of this. Does it apply in an ideal world of some sort? H G Wells thought all persons are interrelated, admittedly some of them very remotely. The present day is (I'd say) unique in human history; the combination of technology, some of it life-preserving, with fast population transport, from anywhere in the world, has never existed before. The most honest answer seems to be that it's uncertain; but why take the risk? Races may well be incompatible, and the constructional achievements of whites are so much greater than other races that the dangerous experiment should certainly be stopped now. There's another argument which flickers through Millard: the gullibility of whites. Anyone who tries e.g. chatrooms, forums, or other online sites, or just conversations with strangers, knows that discussions of race and Jews are still taboo. Much of Millard is (and ought to be) a sign of frustration, trying to get people to make some effort. In that sense his work is helpful. Millard is impatient of people who criticise Jews. It's worth pointing out something entirely missing from Millard: he doesn't understand Jews as evolutionary parasites, with camouflage, lies, and mental control much as in animal parasitism in the biological world. The control of money and media by Jews is not yet in his worldview. He thinks whites should compete, struggle, act, not understanding the hefty bias to 'Jews'. Their control of the 'Fed' and Bank of England means they can simply print, or electronically invent, money. He even recommends get rich schemes, and 'self improvement' think-yourself-to-riches books. The fact his hero seems to be homeless suggests he doesn't even believe it himself. So far from multiplying as much as possible, the purpose of Jewish life seems to be to exterminate whites. (See all over Internet for this). In Costa Mesa, as he correctly points out, immigration must be a net loss to Americans, since all the housing, health, education, crime and other costs fall on Americans. Millard doesn't seem to understand that subgroups of Americans can profit, and offload the costs onto others by inflicting debt on them. This is a Jewish role, certainly in part. It's possible the WesternSpring site is Jewish-run (judging by names) and therefore trying to preserve white countries, whilst also preserving Jewish privileges and corruption. They would in my view do better to face the facts. |
Review of race and civilisation Wayne Macleod: The Importance of Race in Civilization Important topic—but this book is confused and not up to the job, 21 Jun 2009 This book is short—about 85 pages. It was first published in 1968, and is republished (2008) by Historical Review Press, England. The production values are careless small publisher: uniform typeface without helpful content indicators, no index, not many references (those given include Ashley Montagu, Carleton Coon, Houston Chamberlain, Darwin, Gobineau). I think the author's Canadian. MacLeod had a religious upbringing. (Another book of his, Dynasophy, a collection of essays, is described online; so is an essay, 'The Mistake of Universalism'; both have a lot on religion). Macleod thinks all great civilisations were based on religion, though this generalisation seems to come mostly from Europe after the rise of Christianity, which seems to rule out Greece and Rome. His atoms of social life are 'nations'. There are difficulties defining 'nations' of course and Macleod seems to take advantage of word changes to allow 'nation' to mean anything from a city state to a racial group. Moreover he accepts the USA view that the USSR was 'socialist'—a deliberate bit of confusion to hide arguments for public control. All this is not very satisfactory. On race, I'm afraid seems naive to me. He thinks blacks dominate sport and TV entertainment. He's not aware of the argument that blacks get selectively promoted in sports and aren't in fact superior. He also thinks race is a matter of blood groups, bone etc etc. But since the body and brain aren't fully understood, it *may* be far deeper. Anyway; we have five chapters:-- I THE LESSON OF HISTORY The 'lesson' seems to be that whites have consistently been the most civilised and creative. Unfortunately this chapter is a jumble of material—Aryans, Indo-Europeans, Rome, Persia, Asia—and doesn't clearly set out his reasoning. II RACE IS A REALITY A confusing chapter, since Macleod doesn't stick to the heading. He discusses race mixing (which he deplores) and racism (in the sense of saying one race is better than another). He also discusses hybrids—but since these are between species, it's hard to see the relevance; he should discuss interbreeding between subpopulations of the same species. III BIOTYPE—THE ESSENTIAL PROMOTER (OR RETARDER) tries a controlled experiment—are some climates and conditions such as to prevent civilisation? Macleod concludes no; it's the people: '.. the only civilizing influence in Africa today has come from Europeans.' IV THE MEANING OF RACE is another chapter containing diverse, thrown-together, material, including bombing the Second World War, and Jews. The most important topics are race as a group, encompassing *all* individuals in it, so that single cases are apt to be misleading; and comments on genes. V THE IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION TO A CIVILIZED CULTURE—another confused chapter. However it's irrelevant to the topic, so I'll ignore it here. It's an important topic, but this book isn't properly thought out. I can't recommend it. |
Review of Races and civilizations Carroll Quigley (intro. Harry J. Hogan): The Evolution of Civilizations: An Introduction to Historical Analysis Amateur feel—doesn't begin to bear out its promise, 2 Jun 2009 Published first in 1961. Harry Hogan wrote the short foreword—he isn't a joint author. Quigley wrote on the conspiratorial elite view of Europe and the USA; I bought this book to see what he had to say generally. I thought Quigley had been a politician or diplomat, and was surprised to find he was an academic historian. This book belongs to the era of Toynbee and a few other writers, many of them evolutionists in a social darwinian sense. Quigley had a background in mathematics and science, and deplores the classicisation of ancient history—literature rather than the technology and substructure. However, it's easy to say this, but less easy to carry it out. [1] Disappointment #1: Quigley doesn't attempt to define key concepts. So his book is anchored in US historical optimism. Examples: (1) What is 'religion'? Quigley assumes it's the bolt-on thing of the sort which then obtained in the USA. He even thinks religious feeling is valuable. He has no feel for Islam or Judaism, because of this. Does Marxism count as a 'religion'? What about industrialism? (2) 'Capitalism' is another undefined idea—Quigley of course simply follows countless journalists etc. (3) Money and 'costs' aren't defined. Is it sensible to talk about 'costs' under a pre-coinage situation? He isn't very abstract-minded and does not tease out the basic elements of power. [2] Disappointment #2; Quigley has little interest in geography and the physical arrangement of the earth. Thus, Europe has defensible spaces—the mountain ranges, rivers, seas to this day help define boundaries. There is some of this in Quigley—there are maps of population movements, for instance, but it seems to me not credible that enough is known of e.g. 10,000 to 6,000 BC to prognosticate as confidently as Quigley does. [3] Disappointment #3: Quigley has little knowledge of life sciences. The distribution of animals and plants, especially edible ones, and their breeding and cultivation and domestication, must presumably be important. The same is true of human races, about which Quigley makes unjustified claims. [4] Disappointment #4: Quigley simply rehashes the material which he was brought up with: 'Western' civilization; Canaanite (meaning presumably Biblical); Greece and Rome; nods to China and India, and so on. Omitted examples include Islam in northern India, Belgians in the Congo. The stuff is mostly descriptive, not analytical. [5] Disappointment #5: Now and then Quigley finds some fairly abstract idea. But he never really pushes these through. Examples: (1) Organisations that once were important and effective, become inert, or bogged down, or conventionalised—or something. Quigley produces quite a few examples, including college football in the USA, but seems unable to say anything very helpful about them. (2) 'Expansion' and 'conflict' are looked at—the reader could guess: Rome for instance—but are there general principles? Could there be general principles? Quigley was working on the 'sociology of weaponry' when he died—I suspect nuclear weapons were the prompt here. This is stated before the bibliography of his works, written by his wife, Lillian. The first listed is 'The Anglo-American Establishment' (1982), the reason I bought Quigley on Civilizations. I doubt it can be much good. 3 June 2009: I bought and read Carroll on evolution and civilizations, but I found it very disappointing. Are you sure his Anglo-American establishment book is anything more than a banal statement of what people generally know? In particular is there anything on [1] CIA and MI5 and the like's baleful/secret influence in Africa and South America and so on? [2] Anything on secret finance and (say) Rothschilds since Napoleon? [3] Anything on the way elites profiteer by bending laws to suit themselves? [4] Lots more. |
Let’s paws for thought. First, imagine a wolf. Second, imagine a chihuahua. Third, consider this fact: they belong to the same species. Not to similar species, but to the same species: the former is Canis lupus and the latter Canis lupus familiaris. Wolves and chihuahuas are very close cousins, having differentiated in an eyeblink of evolutionary time. They prove what Marxists and their liberal dupes have long sought to deny for humans: that tiny genetic differences can have very big consequences for bodies, brains and behavior. And the differences get even tinier when you consider what separates chihuahuas from other breeds of dog. From the highly intelligent border collie to the charming but stupid Afghan hound, from the giant St Bernard to the dwarvish corgi, from the gentle labrador to the aggressive pitbull: the DNA behind the huge variety of dog-breeds is almost identical. For “breed”, read “race.” Human DNA is almost identical too, but tiny differences still have very big consequences for our bodies, brains and behavior. If race doesn’t exist, then neither do dog-breeds. But dog-breeds do exist and so does race. The denying and the duping will continue for some time yet, but have no doubt about it: the Twilight of the Goulds is upon us.
Above: Canis lupus; Below: Canis lupus familiaris
1) Wolves and dogs belong to the same species.
2) Different breeds are almost identical in their DNA.
The late Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist who labored long and hard to deny the truth about race and IQ. The living Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin continue his work. The paradox is that the leading race-deniers prove the importance of race, because they all belong to that tiny minority known as Jews. So did Marx, Freud and Boas. Jews are very good at duping and deceiving, at creating seductive ideologies to fool naïve whites into acting against their own interests. Jews fool and rule; whites swallow and follow. And there are genetic reasons for this. Tiny differences in DNA don’t account just for a highly significant Jewish advantage in verbal IQ, but also for a highly significant Jewish advantage in arrogance, ethnocentrism and disregard for objective truth. Jews preach equality and universalism while ruthlessly pursuing their own advantage and enrichment. That’s how they’ve come to dominate white societies and that’s why they’ve led the race-denial crusade. The Jewish boxer has been fighting with lead in his gloves and doesn’t want them examined. But his cheating is about to be unmasked: the referee has blown his whistle and the gloves are being unlaced. In other words, science is providing stronger and stronger evidence for the existence and importance of race. Studies like this are just the beginning:
Researchers discovered genetic evidence that human evolution is speeding up – and has not halted or proceeded at a constant rate, as had been thought – indicating that humans on different continents are becoming increasingly different. “We used a new genomic technology to show that humans are evolving rapidly, and that the pace of change has accelerated a lot in the last 40,000 years, especially since the end of the Ice Age roughly 10,000 years ago,” says research team leader Henry Harpending, a distinguished professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. Harpending says there are provocative implications from the study, published online Monday, Dec. 10 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
• “We aren’t the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago,” he says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. “The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence.”
• “Human races are evolving away from each other,” Harpending says. “Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity.” He says that is happening because humans dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, “and there has not been much flow of genes between the regions since then.”
“Our study denies the widely held assumption or belief that modern humans [those who widely adopted advanced tools and art] appeared 40,000 years ago, have not changed since and that we are all pretty much the same. We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups.” (“Are Humans Evolving Faster?”, University of Utah press release, 10th December 2007)
Time to face the facts:
Race exists and race matters
And guess who’s leading race realism? Members of the race that respects objective truth and that created all the modern sciences. Whites, in other words. Even the whites who support race denial do so because they’ve been fooled into thinking that it is objective truth. Gould insisted that human equality was a “contingent fact of history.” It could have been different, inequality could have evolved instead in a hundred different ways, but somehow that just didn’t happen. And reader, I confess it: I was one of Gould’s gullible goyim. He and his Mismeasure of Man (1981) took me in for a time and I remember with shame how I once argued that even if blacks were less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons, we shouldn’t say so, because that kind of thinking was dangerous. You see, if we admit that race exists, we may end up in Auschwitz. I didn’t think back then that if we deny that race exists, we may end up in the Gulag. Nor did I think about other consequences of race denial: for example, its use to justify mass immigration, which has flooded white homelands with non-whites from a rich variety of violent and corrupt Third World nations. And surprise, surprise, they’ve brought their violence and corruption with them.
Twilight of the Goulds:
Marxist charlatan S. J. Gould
Race denial has also justified the steady loss of freedom in white homelands. Express the wrong opinions about race in the UK or Europe and you’re in for a dawn raid from the thought police. And how Jews like Abraham Foxman would love the same thing to start happening in the US! Free speech was born in white societies and is dying with those societies, as Jews re-create the Marxist police states they feel safest in. If we let a paranoid, self-obsessed minority continue to write our laws and buy our politicians, we’ll soon see that the Berlin Wall didn’t fall to let freedom into the East, but to let tyranny into the West. And if you want to know what East Germany was like, I recommend a book called The File, written by a historian called Timothy Garton Ash. He’s a liberal idiot, as anyone who reads his articles for The Guardian will soon see, but he saw at first hand how much the Jewish ideology of communism valued power and privacy. It valued power immensely and privacy not at all. Ash himself was spied on constantly when he was in East Germany and the File of his title is his own. It was one of millions: the Stasi, or the East German secret police, didn’t just use all the technological apparatus of surveillance – phone-tapping, bugs, cameras – they blackmailed and bribed their way into the most intimate relationships, forcing friends to spy on friends, husbands on wives, wives on husbands, children on parents, parents on children. And Ash, for all his liberal stupidity, hasn’t shaken off that innate white respect for truth. He’s a committed anti-racist and no doubt believes firmly in “If we admit race exists, then we end up in Auschwitz”, but that didn’t stop him revealing these highly significant facts:
Obey Jewish ideology or be shot:
The symbol of the Stasi
The sources the Stasi [Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, or Ministry for State Security] themselves considered most important were the “unofficial collaborators”, the IMs [Inoffiziale Mitarbeiten]. The numbers are extraordinary. According to internal records, in 1988 – the last “normal” year of the GDR [German Democratic Republic] – the Ministry for State Security had more than 170,000 “unofficial collaborators.” Of these, some 110,000 were regular informers, while the others were involved in “conspiratorial” services, such as lending their flats for secret meetings, or were simply listed as reliable contacts. The Ministry itself had over 90,000 full-time employees, of whom less than 5,000 were in the HVA [Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung, Main Administration Reconnaissance] foreign-intelligence wing. Setting the total figure against the adult population in the same year, this means that one out of every fifty adult East Germans had a direct connection with the secret police. The Nazis had nothing like as many. In 1941, the full-time staff of the Gestapo, the Nazis’ Secret State Police, for the vastly larger territory of Greater Germany, including Austria and what is today the Czech Republic, was less than 15,000. Even adding the Reich Security Service and other possibly comparable units, one can still not reach anything like the Stasi proportions. We have no national figures for the number of regular informers, but it seems clear that this was also very much smaller. Over its relatively short life, starting with real popular enthusiasm and ending with five-and-a-half years of war, the Third Reich could rely much more on voluntary denunciations – as I found in those dusty People’s Court files. In East Germany, the regime was never popular to start with, and the longer it went on the more it came to rely on this huge network of informers.
(The File: A Personal History, Timothy Garton Ash, HarperCollins, London, 1997, chapter V, pp 74-5)
A paranoid minority in pursuit of information and power:
Timothy Garton Ash describes Judeo-communism
Because communism denies the truth and opposes human nature, it has to work much harder at oppression and suppression. Its ideological cousin political correctness is having the same effect on the West: the state defines and enforces Truth, and dissenters are made to suffer. If Ash were right-wing rather than left-wing, his comments about the Nazis’ being much more popular than the communists might have put him in the same place as this German dog-owner:
Tyrannous about trivia:
Heil-hound on his track
Dog’s Nazi salute lands owner in jail for five months
As a dog lover, Hitler would no doubt have been flattered – “Adolf” the part Alsatian mongrel was not only his namesake but also meticulously trained by his Berlin owner to raise his right paw in a Nazi salute every time the command “Heil Hitler!” was uttered. But in a country where giving the Nazi salute even in jest has been strictly verboten since 1945, Adolf’s canine tricks did not amuse the police or the judiciary. Yesterday his owner, a pensioner named as Roland T, was starting what seemed like a draconian prison term of five months for repeatedly displaying banned Nazi symbols. His pet was dispatched to one of the city’s animal homes. The dog was pictured in newspapers and on Der Spiegel magazine’s online site sitting in a kennel with the name “Adolf” chalked across its entrance.
Evamarie König, a spokeswoman for the kennel, said she hoped the animal would find a new home soon. “He is healthy and obedient and we think he will find another owner quickly because he is so famous,” she said. The dog is to be renamed Adi. Roland T and his dog first attracted the attention of police in 2003 when the dog saluted as part of his owner’s provocative public repertoires of banned Nazi gestures, including wearing Hitler T-shirts and chanting “Sieg Heil.” Earlier this year, judges ruled that Roland T should serve a prison term after suspended jail sentences and fines failed to dissuade him from continuing to display Nazi symbols. Months before going to jail he had threatened to have the dog put down after claiming that he could no longer afford dog food because of the fines. He said the dog, which he claimed had been born on Hitler’s birthday, would be put down on the anniversary of the Nazi leader’s death. (The Independent, 21st December 2007)
But you can’t define and enforce truth in science, or at least not for long, and the race-denying foundations of the PC tyranny are starting to crack. If you listen carefully, you might be able to hear liberal brains whirring as they try desperately to think of a way out. There are serious biologists who still believe that brain evolution in Homo sapiens ground to a screeching halt 40,000 years ago. It didn’t. Race exists, race matters, and whites, like everyone else, should try to preserve their racial line. Good qualities are lost or diluted by race-mixing, just as they are in mongrel dogs. If a highly intelligent border collie is crossed with another breed, the offspring will be less intelligent than collies. If an obedient labrador is crossed with another breed, the offspring will be less obedient than labradors. Cross-breeding in humans does similar things to intelligence and respect for the law. That’s part of why mass immigration does us so much harm. Whites are physically and psychologically different from other races not just because of our environment but because of our genes. As more and more whites realize that, more and more of us are going to want our nations back. In 1980, East Germany looked very strong; by 1990, it was gone. PC looks very strong in 2007, but its Decade of Doom may already have begun.
LUKE O’FARRELL
Top of Page
Oyebola's CV:
The blurb says Oyebola wrote on many countries, on Nigerian Universities and foreign-owned companies, and 'Frank Talk by Omoye' on Nigerian society. 'Black Man's Dilemma' has its own website on this human rights 'advocate', the book having been revised in 2002. I have not seen this edition; some readers might like to check my guesswork.
(I Googled for more, but could only find 'Frank Talk was a political magazine established in 1984 in South Africa, and arising out of the student-led [read: Jewish anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s and 80s. He may have fathered a boxer, James Oyebola, who was shot; conceivably there may have been a political motive).
• The first point here is Oyebola's constant note of complaint; this of course is the standard Jewish technique of 'Critique'. At the present day the population is about 200 million, and 'comparable in size to Venezuela, and is about twice the size of the US state of California' to quote an Internet source. It's larger than any European country. Its population density is about the same as Germany and Italy. But of course the rate of growth is high. Many inventions by whites have been imported by Nigeria, in an erratic fashion; I doubt if the process has ever been explained convincingly. Electricity, concrete, trains, cars, airplanes, running water, types of food and medicine, printed media, electric media, computers. The constant Jewish complaints might reasonably have been opposed by Oyebola, who benefited considerably. There were also modern weapons, though whites were harmed far more by these than blacks, across the entirety of Europe from Spain to Russia. All this is missing from Oyebola, despite the fact he went to Ibadan University. It's saddening to see that from the start African 'education' was dominated by Jews.
• Oyebola's bibliography of about 100 titles are, it's obvious to me now, picked for ideological reasons, presumably (but not necessarily) by Oyebola.
Franz Boas (2 titles), Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, and 'Ashley Montague' are easy to spot. We also have UNESCO publications: Juan Comas (Racial Myths), Levi-Strauss, Michael Leiris, and K S Little, on Race and on Negroes in Britain. Basil Davidson (2 titles) was another Jewish writer on Africa. There's a 1965 Encounter (a CIA front) piece by Artur Lewis. L C Dunn was another UNESCO writers.
There are books on world-wide races. The racial basis of civilisation: A critique of the Nordic doctrine (between the wars; US book by F H Hankins) is listed. So is the 1924 book by A C Haddon The races of man and their distribution , which is descriptive of everything except achievements. And so is M J Herskovits' Man and his works: the study of cultural anthropology (1948), part of the post-1945 Jewish race-is-a-myth fantasy. But John Baker's Race (1974) is not listed. Nor is Waddington's large book. Galton's Hereditary Genius is not listed; nor are any books on IQ, I think, or hereditary weaknesses.
There are many books on slavery, meaning blacks in the USA, though Oyebola has some idea of Arab slavers. Islam had penetrated to Nigeria by that time. I think his book pre-dates the Nation of Islam's work, which helped show that Jews ran the slave trade. Oyebola assumes slavery is bad, as of course Jews claim, though people isolated in Africa in the most primitive conditions might have found it acceptable.
I was saddened, though not surprised, by his lightweight material on economics—he claimed a degree in economics, after all. The Pillage of the Third World by P Jale&ecuate; (1968) appears to argue with Jews. I could not find anywhere any recognition that Jews in South Africa, after the Boer Wars, got control of minerals there.
• Oyebola on Civilisations. Chapter 5 lists various supposed early African states. With no written language it's of course difficult to judge. Oyebola does record with disappointment that there must have been fraudulent promotion of Africa. (In the style of the South Sea Bubble). He doesn't seem to realise how common the analogous process is, though. For example, the idea that human life began in Africa.
Oyebola accepts Egypt, and Sumeria, Greece, Rome have claims to civilisation, though without examining in much detail. Were pyramids, for example, worth building? And he omits the traditional Jewish mimetic and suggestible work. His ideas of great men are chaos. He praises Hannibal, if he was blackish. He praises 'Martin Luther King'. He praises Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, Patrice Lumumba, Murtala Muhammed and Sekou Toure. He praises Mao Te Tung, Andrei Gromyko, Henry Kissinger, George Best, Ho Chi Minh, Winston Churchill.
• Oyebola's attitude to technology and science. The chapter called 'The Myth of White Superiority' has a small section on the 'electric-fan invention'. He thinks on Darwinian lines that in cold climates, uninventive people would die of cold. So surely blacks could have invented air conditioning and electric fans? It's fascinating to see the inability to understand science (and Oyebola appears to believe he talked with God, and thinks blacks are gifted with witchcraft). The long trail which led to the current understanding of electricity, including such things as electric charge, chemical generation of electricity, dynamos and fields and transmission, makes it obvious that there could never be an invention of electric fans.
I was amused to see in the final chapter, The Black Man Can Make It, that Oyebola wants Nigeria 'to become an atomic power as soon as possible.' I won't go into the tragic absurdity of this; see nukelies.org and weep.
Readers will be unsurprised that Oyebola has no lie detection circuitry. Chapter 8 on Black Americans (often of course mixed race) have shown 'indisputable excellence and creativity'. His list begins with Granville Woods, one of a number of fakes. I haven't found who compiled these things; I'd guess Jews and Jewish journalists. Black Inventions Myths decodes all these rather sad examples of mimicry and Jewish lies.
• Oyebola has a chapter on black Americans which shows a rather comic ignorance of Jewish activity there, such as the NAACP, forced 'integration', and the colossal expenses in such things as 'affirmative action'. '... although the blacks form 11 per cent of the United States population, they hold 15 per cent of all full-time jobs with the U.S. Federal Government. [And more, not worth quoting]. Oyebola knows nothing of media ownership and control.
• Chapter 7, 'The Myth of White Intellectual Superiority', could almost be taken from Jewish sources of the USA. Oyebola doesn't have the wit to challenge IQ tests, which are cheap pencil-and-paper assessments of such mental characteristics as can be estimated in a short time in an easily marked fashion. Oyebola quotes: One main conclusion that can be drawn from all the research and intelligence tests is that the range of mental groups is the same across all races.
The final paragraph of Black Man's Dilemma would seem to be impossible or near-impossible: '... black nations [ought not to copy—this is the dilemma—but] find original solutions to their complex problems of indiscipline, abject poverty and poor leadership. ... Education, discipline, self-reliance and the right leadership should form the basis of such a new position of strength. ...'
Oyebola is alive, over 80, and appears to occupy a position in Nigeria analogous to elderly journalistic and media hacks in the UK and USA, looked up to without any critical examination of their work. Saddening stuff.
RW 2019-08-14
Review of Race Elmer Pendell: Why Civilizations Self-Destruct Tries to puts the case for stupid people over-breeding wrecking civilizations, June 28, 2010 'Historical Review Press' publish this book under the name 'Elmer Pendel'; his name seems to have been Elmer Pendell, in fact (and Amazon may record him as Pendel Elmer!) It's undated, but internal evidence suggests about 1975—that's the latest publication date quoted. Incidentally there is absolutely nothing about the vast influx from Mexico and South America into the USA—it was written before that became a major issue. On the other hand there is a detailed proposal for a law requiring people to register before being allowed to have children. Nearly two-thirds of this book is concerned with personal psychology, and group psychology—there's a lot on consciousness, for example. It's interesting enough, but peripheral. There's also a great deal on early man, including the effect of ice ages, which Pendell considers must have had a good genetic effect. He goes for the ice-cap theory—must have weeded out people of less good brainpower. (He also says, just once, that deserts have the same effect; and he says the Black Death improved Britain). There's quite a bit on fossil man, but Pendell doesn't seem to realise how very tiny the total amount of evidence is—a few years ago all the human fossils so far discovered could fit onto a table-top. Incidentally he conflates 'evolution' in the full species sense, with population shifts or races within species. The issue in the title only really gets addressed near the end of the book, and even then Pendell introduces other possibilities: silting up of waterways; lead poisoning; over-powerful central administration; loosened family ties; raw materials having to be imported. He does at least discuss the issue of what civilizations are—he says, something with an organizational network. This permits e.g. stonehenge people to count contra-etymologically as 'civilized'. He thinks all civilizations 'self-destruct' and doesn't seem to consider that they may have been abandoned, or survivors moved somewhere else. However his main emphasis is on slaughter of brave men in wars, small families of the best types, and large families of the worst. He doesn't convincingly explain why the worst types have larger families: they have less self-control, and aren't motivated by important things, says Pendell. Also of course medical care is important here, since, more or less by definition, they must be less good at child support. Modern USA and Europe suggests civilisations can fall if tight control by 'elites' strangles thought; it may be that a firmly-enforced legal system operating with ruinous forces simply has to fall, just to free things up. Anyway: that's his book. I don't think there's any doubt that there's substantial truth in his thesis. But it's weakened very much by his inability to show how self-interest, and the interest of groups, can work in such a way as to damage the whole structure of a civilization. For example, many clever people work at things which are harmful to a society, if they're paid to, but Pendell believes in unsocialist societies, and can't face this issue, since he seems to think personal cleverness must always be of general benefit. Incidentally he seems to have worked all his life in universities, including Chicago (funded by the monopolist Rockefeller!) but seems to think he would make a great independent pioneer type. |
Wilmot Robertson: The Dispossessed MajorityUS Race Awareness, Plus Painful Jew NaivetyWilmot Robertson: The Dispossessed Majority (1996, 1981, 1976, 1973, 1972) Published by Howard Allen Enterprises Robertson (who founded Instauration) does his best to use Jewish news descriptions of a few centuries of world history. As always, Jews aimed at their own supposed interests, and ‘Wilmot Robertson’ was completely unable to draw accurate conclusions, or to analyse properly. Review by Rae West Jan 26, 2020 The book is online (though the quality is not very good) at https://archive.org/details/TheDispossessedMajority/ Robertson has a rather painful way of repeating what he was told by the Jewish-controlled media, with its full-spectrum dominance. He simply could not believe that the US north-vs-south war, the Great Depression, two World Wars, could ever have been anything different. The complacent ordinariness makes the book almost unreadable, in fact; I've had to force my way through it. But at least he understood that something was—he would not say wrong, or outrageous, or shocking—but just a bit puzzling. I've read that he anonymized himself; his real name was not Wilmot Robertson, and hardly anybody knew that he was the author. Here are some quotations from The Dispossessed Majority, 1996 online edition. With my comments in red. They give a sample of the tedious way Robertson rehearses what he'd been told all his life by the Jewish media. Don't imagine I'm carefully choosing dull or stupid quotations!:–
Lyndon Johnson, the [1964 Presidential Election] winner, was a bona fide Majority member who, as a senator from Texas, had fought tooth
and claw against civil rights legislation. When president, however, he completely reversed himself, once solemnly intoning the minority rallying cry, "We shall overcome" on a national television hookup.
• Robertson had no inkling of the Jewish origin of 'Johnson' in Texas, or the Jewish policy of wasting money (so borrowing from the Jewish 'Fed' would keep rising). He had no inkling of the Jewish policy of wrecking black families and making them dependent. He even uses Jewish slogans such as 'civil rights'.
The racial drive of the Northmen, before it was enervated in douce France and in warmer, lemon-scented lands farther south, catalyzed the Crusades, an ill-fated, Herculean effort to found a vast domain of Teutonic fiefs in the Near East. Although the ostensible purpose of the Crusaders, under such Norman leaders as Tancred, Bohemond, and Richard I of England, was to make the Holy Land safe for Christianity, they were equally, if not more intensely, motivated by an itch for glory and riches.
• Maybe, maybe not. Very often, Robertson simply repeats what he's been told.
In the l930s, probably for the first time in history, theories of racial superiority became state doctrine when the Nazi Party took command in Germany. But after the inventory of Hitler's racial politics was taken at the close of World War 2, all arguments for racial supremacy were placed beyond the pale of permissible thought.
• Robertson doesn't understand that Hitler's beliefs, which were in any case decided by Jews, were propagandist. As he notices himself, without understanding, the Jewish post-WW2 media declared race was not to be discussed, an anti-white move.
The somnambulism that has surrounded the formulation of America's nuclear strategy will vanish as soon as it is acknowledged that nuclear weapons arc not an ideological issue.
• Robertson had no inkling that nuclear issues were a huge Jewish fraud. He made no attempt to investigate. He just pontificated stupidly.
Alter the 1955 bill became law, white immigration [into the USA] began to dry up. Notable exceptions were those who claimed refugee status; upwards of 400,000 Jews from Europe via Israel and 250,000 Jews directly from the Soviet Union (before and after its breakup).
• Robertson imagines the influx of parasites just happens by chance. He can't understand it was planned.
Consider two American soldiers, one of Scandinavian, the other of Southern Italian origin, guarding a lonely outpost facing the North Koreans or North Vietnamese. At home the first might have called the second a Latin or an Italian when he was trying to be polite, a "wop" or a "greaser" when he was not. Now he feels he is in the presence of a fellow white.
• The infinitely saddening thins here is that Robertson has no idea why the (((USA))) invaded Vietnam. He just takes it as given. If a freak dwarf like Kissinger wanted mass killings, that's good enough for Robertson.
... the Majority's obsessive materialism, its habit of putting the tangibles before the intangibles of civilization, which made possible, and perhaps made certain, the Great Depression. Rugged individualism, laissez-faire, the separation of powers, and many other cherished possessions in the Majority hope chest went up in the smoke of emergency legislation to save the national economy. The New Deal, the first administration to inject a significant amount of non-Majority personnel and non-Majority ideology into the federal government, signified the coming of age of the liberal-minority coalition.
• Robertson has no idea of the restrictions on credit and insistence on repayments of loans that allowed Jews to buy up vast numbers of US farms. Many Americans incidentally still believe that in doing what they were told, they were rugged individualists etc. In fact, Jews wanted whites to build towns, which they could then take over. SO the pioneers were told, "Oy vey! You are wonderful intrepid brave self-reliant pioneers!" as they were laughed at behind their backs.
Fragmented by the Civil War, then softened into a humanitarian mood by a long era of peace and plenty, and driven by an overpowering desire for cheap labor, the nation builders from Britain and oilier parts of Northern Europe decided to share the benefits of their laboriously developed political institutions with newcomers of different races and cultures. Since these new Americans were almost totally unpracticed and unskilled in the mysteries of self-government and in their own historical experience quite unfamiliar with such ideas as self-reliance
and individual rights, they were all the more eager to gorge themselves on the rich libertarian feast, although more for their own private and collective appetites than for the public good.
• Fascinating complex of cliché ignorant of the entire money complex.
August Belmont, the Rothschilds' American agent, was able, thanks to the hugeness of the Rothschild reservoir of capital, to start out in America operating his own Federal Reserve System. [And married Caroline Slidell Perry (1829–1892). ... the daughter of naval officer Matthew Calbraith Perry (1794–1858), captain and commodore in the U.S. Navy, later famous for his expedition to open the trading ports of Japan in 1853]
• Robertson was at least aware of vast holdings by a few people; but he had no way of assessing the whole situation. Like most people today.
Death on the battlefield, for example, is a supreme act of altruism in which one sacrifices one's own genes so that the closely related genes of one's family or one's group will survive.
• Well, that's what Jews want both sides in combat to think!
It's obvious that Wilmot Robertson was fairly typical of post-WW2 simple Americans, thinking that a devastated world was fine, and the 1950s wonderful. Apart from a few problems. Instauration started in 1975, lasting to 2000, and in my view reflects very well the puzzlement and slight raise in awareness of whites. For all anyone can know, Robertson may have cut out all serious commentary, leaving just the lightweight stuff. It may even have been some sort of 'intel' operation, fishing for subscriber names. © Rae West 2020-1-27 |
Review of Jewish interest because of its clear example of unqualified Jews promoting unasked immigration K J B Rose & Associates: Colour and Citizenship—A Report on British Race Relations Very interesting, detailed look at Funded Jewish Promotion of Immigration (1969) Part of the covert Jewish push for immigration into the UK; interested people will find it worth owning a copy, because of the thoroughgoing anti-British content. 1969 book, published by Oxford University Press for the 'Institute for Race Relations', about whom see below. About 800 pages; hardback and paperback copies exist. It occurs to be this may have been intended as a British version of the book attributed to Gunnar Myrdal 25 years earlier, The American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. (1944). 'Widely venerated, this 1,500-or-so page book was funded by Carnegie, and written with the collaboration of R. M. E. Sterner and Arnold Rose. It was promoted in the 1950s and 1960s by the Jewish media as a sacrosanct analysis of White consciousness, which promoted the concept that America was a propositional [i.e. not white-founded] nation'. It was published in 1944, and shows dramatically how Jews perceive their war on whites as a continuum: while the Second World War was raging, Jews were working on money-making, profiting from wars, establishing new central banks, establishing new frauds, of which the Holohoax is best known to date. (According to E Michael Jones, Myrdal did not have time to write the book himself; it was the first shot in the war to destroy city centres, surround them with black slums, and build huge road networks to remote suburbs). Includes:-- - 'MYTHS'—List of supposed myths of equality before the law/ Theories of race / Myths about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill (p. 220)/ Housing shortage myth (233). - Very portentous; see e.g. chapter headings below. General idea seems to be to show all 'immigrants' as having families, houses, earning patterns etc just like us, and of course not taking up housing or jobs etc; I recall Jews in about 1975 assuring me that of course immigration has no effect on housing, an attitude perhaps gleaned from this book. The presumption, and perhaps necessary belief, is that immigration must inevitably be accepted, so less happy examples like expulsion of Jews in the Middle Ages, Normans invading, peoples moving into places like the Balkans, not to mention whites vs Red Indians in USA, go unmentioned. The Indian caste system seems to be mentioned almost nowhere; Jews now in the Middle East aren't mentioned except a bit on the 'Six Day War'. Endemic corruption in Pakistan, 445-6, is omitted from the index. - Odd double standards, e.g. it's assumed that blacks in the Midlands earn less than whites because they're offered less overtime, implying educational differences are of no significance, and yet there are pieties about better training. There are implications that passports are unimportant, which surely clashes with official views in all states. At one point the Empire is described as 'a gigantic confidence trick' though e.g. the subjugation of South Africa was military. It's explicitly stated that the only differences between races are 'the colour of the skin', when surely the differences simply aren't known. Europe is only mentioned because of transient labour, and France and Germany aren't in the index at all, so though the USA is mentioned fairly often, the book is tiresomely Anglo-centric. There is of course nothing on Jewish-caused massacres in the USSR. - The index isn't very satisfactory; anything 'nasty' is censored out. As a result many things are hard to track down. I found problems with: e.g. references to Paul Foot's book on Race, Galbraith, J F Kennedy, Adlai Stevenson, Hobsbawm, and parts of Britain like St Pauls Bristol & Smethwick with lots of immigrants, passport forgery, venereal disease & tuberculosis, sex (though 'women immigrants' get a few entries, so does 'miscegenation'), Rastafarians, etc. - The 'associates' are: Nicholas Deakin, Mark Abrams, Valerie Jackson, Maurice Peston [who contributed the chapter on economics], A H Vangas, Brian Cohen, Julia Gaitskell, Paul Ward. Extraordinarily—though perhaps it saves embarrassment of fulsome self-published plaudits—there are no biographies, anywhere, not even in the appendixes, though occasional book or article titles are listed in bibliographies or notes. NB: someone called Robin Jenkins attacked this report in January 1971 and caused a rift in the IRR; see the appendix to 'Black Britain', Mullard. - The book claims Notting Hill in 1962 and, earlier, the Carnegie Corporation of New York's backing or funding of Gunnar Myrdal's 'great book', 'An American Dilemma', 'resulted' in this book, which seems to have been funded by 'the Nuffield Foundation'. There's a foreword by Philip Mason, presumably of the Nuffield Foundation. Rose, or 'Jim Rose', 'had for more than ten years been Director of the International Press Institute at Zurich..' Apart from this book, 19 larger-scale research projects and 22 smaller ones resulted. - This is a hefty tome and interesting as part of the deliberate programme of subverting Britain. I give it 4 stars for importance—the content is contemptible. |
Review of Human Races J Philippe Rushton: Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (2nd Special Abridged Edition) Convincing overview but the vast panorama leaves a bit of doubt..., September 9, 2010 (First reviewed I think in Amazon, in its early days, before intensive censorship) Highly recommended (and—maybe I shouldn't say this—the abbreviated version is downloadable; it appears to be a fifth or less in size than the unabridged version). I have a few doubts:--
12 Years later:
Looking again at r/K theory, I'm struck by the insistent way in which both Chris Brand and Rushton avoided Jewish issues. I'd guess that they were part of controlled opposition, designed to make it seem that serious examination of anything Jewish would lead to disaster. Both got wide publicity in Jewish-owned media. - RW 19 02 2022 Note on r/K or r and K selection theory. I'd suggest intelligent people treat this phrase, and deductions supposedly from it, with scepticism. I've been unable even to find where the phrase came from, or what the abbreviations mean, or any theoretical derivation, or what sort of populations it is supposed to apply to. The general idea is that some organisms have huge numbers of tiny offspring, but don't take much care of them: clouds of spores from fungi, plants with large numbers of tiny seeds, fish which eject clouds of eggs and clouds of sperm illustrate the r type. K-type is illustrated by mammals, where the complications (heart, lungs, skeleton, digestive system ...) and need for viability at all stages of growth make vast numbers of offspring impossible. BUT in human beings this simplicity need not quite apply, since care and feeding can be offloaded: under Jewish influence, parasitic human offspring are encouraged as part of their anti-'goy' policy. Probably this fact made Jews censor the original idea. In its simplest form, k/R does not mention parasitism, but it begins to approach it, in a style worrying to Jewish financial controllers of science. [1] Geographical and biological: Is Africa benign, or dangerous? The climate is more manageable than the colder northern climates. But it's not only man that likes it—there are snakes, insects, parasites, poisonous and spiny plants, predatory animals that make books on African diseases such horrific reading. Large parts have soil (as does Australia) that isn't much use for growing things—laterite, full of iron oxide. Does Africa encourage fast breeding with little parenting? Maybe. Or maybe not. Much of the world is something like pure accident: some areas have dates, or rice, or crops able to be bred as maize, or wheat. Some seemed to have no staple. Some have clean springs of water; others presumably don't. Some have edible animals. Some have tameable animals. Some have timber suited for building. Some have good soil. Some have specific raw materials: gold, copper, naphtha as in 'Greek fire'; some don't—I believe Australian soil is low in molybdenum. 'Raw materials' are themselves a matter of knowledge: from a sheep farmer's viewpoint, grass is a raw material. Some have earthquakes. Some have everyday aspects which have long-term risks. There must have been a huge element of luck in human development. Because of the way inventions depend on other inventions, and because science is so recent, empiricism must have had a tremendous effect throughout human evolution. Fire, metal alloys, plants suited to make fabrics, ropes, easily-cut stone... pottery, knives, symbolic writing ... gunpowder, shipping.. Thus for example glass was unknown in China for centuries. Science was invented by a few westerners and this depended to some extent on inventions: fire, lenses, weights and measures. It's easy to imagine the amazement of aborigines in Australia on entering a wooden sailing ship. Another important distinction is defensibility: Europe is exceptional in having territories marked off by mountains, seas, snow barriers—to this day, countries are identifiable by these geographical markers. But other areas are trackless and unbounded and vast—prairies, steppes, mountainous regions, jungles, marshes, seas. Any area unable to defend itself is at risk: imagine mediaeval London magically moved to Timbuktu or Turkey. I'm just making the perhaps obvious point that environments have a vast effect. If China had had a calm inland sea like the Mediterranean, maybe they'd have colonised the world. If nobody had happened to find that urine could be used to make potassium nitrate, perhaps gunpowder would never have been discovered. It's as well to be cautious in speculation. [2] Rushton considers blacks, orientals (these are 'yellow'—rather than Indian), and whites. As far as I can see, he doesn't face another taboo, of 'semites'. They appear to be completely omitted. Kevin MacDonald has filled this gap on analogous lines to Rushton, though his work is more ideas-based than biological. MacDonald's work is an important reminder of the importance of 'memes'. Rushton has an r-strategy, and K-strategy. MacDonald adds in- and out-group strategies for internal competition. [3] Inheritance is a digital matter, but Rushton doesn't (I think) look at the cases where some characteristic definitely does, or doesn't, exist in an individual. For example, the ability to make enzymes that digest alcohol or milk. And he doesn't look at mixed effects, like sickle-cell anaemia, and haemochromatosis. He concentrates on gross effects, which of course may be the sum of many genes. One has to assume that (e.g.) genetic tendency to violence can't be mental, but must be a function of hormones and musculature and quickness of irritability and recognition; reasonably enough, Rushton doesn't go into detail. However it's as well to be aware that the actual mechanisms are not known or not well understood, so this allows a loophole for environmentalists to criticise. [4] AIDS. It's fairly well-known this is a mistake. (If you prefer, a fraud). Discount all this material in Rushton! [5] The problem with genetics has been that it's easier to study rare, isolated genetic oddities ... but populations are another study in themselves. It's amazing really that Rushton seems novel—people have been saying much the same since long-distance sea travel. The reason of course is the 'Jewish' stranglehold on education and information. NB Rushton's full-length book may answer many of these comments; I hope so. Well worth reading. Much of it in fact has a familiar, if remote, ring to it; surely you've heard it before? You have, and it's been censored or buried or evaded. Revise your outlook, therefore! It's too important to ignore. |
Stoddard has little feeling for global facts and figures. In my view, Jews had a plan, put into action on 1913, to control US money and US laws. The Federal Reserve and the then-new Income Tax, then the 'Great War' and coup in Russia, were parts of this; the Second World War being the next phase. Stoddard doesn't realise that Europe's wars, sometimes regarded as civil wars, were arranged with painstaking detail. And the final result was of course deaths and devastation in Europe. Stoddard thinks Islam expanded; he doesn't see that a weakened Europe inevitably made Islam look stronger.
Stoddard treats Islam as a self-generated event; he has no idea of its connection with Jews. I've tried to explain here. The result is a strange symbiosis between the two: both exploit semi-literacy, and have similar fanatical views, for example on rape of women and sex with children. He regards Turks as fanatical fighters who were dull-witted.
The Turkish overrunning of Asia Minor took place after the destruction of the Byzantine army in the great battle of Manzikert, a.d. 1071. The Turks captured Jerusalem in 1076. But he has no idea of crypto-Jews in the Anatolian plateau. Or for that matter in Arabia and China. Stoddard also has no idea of the massive massacres in India's northwest; he starts centuries later with the British Empire.
As with so-called 'Jews', some people count Islam as a 'race'. Obviously, with mass killings and also the use of Janissaries and large-scale wars, including in Spain and Portugal, 'race' does not apply with any rigidity. This of course is analogous to Jews: at the present time New York's Jew controllers have decided to permit full-term abortions, for which doctors have been ruled unnecessary! I suspect this may be because, as awareness of Jews has increased, it's clear that black slave women were raped by Jewish slaveholders. Stoddard seems unaware either of Jewish slaveowners, or the ruling (I don't know its dates) that males were not Jews—despite the obvious racial absurdity.
The book has nine chapters (each footnoted or endnoted). It is indexed, and has a map from north Africa, Turkey, Arabia, eastwards to the upper borders of India and China, and parts of Malaya.
RW 9 Feb 2019
Review of Lothrop Stoddard The French Revolution in San Domingo
History book; not anthropology. And non-revisionist. Leaves more questions than answers. February 7, 2014 The final sentence is: 'The white race had perished utterly out of the land, French San Domingo had vanished forever, and the black State of Haiti had begun its troubled history.' Lothrop Stoddard became an anthropologist; but this 1914 book seems to have been a history PhD dissertation; I may be wrong about that. However, all the notes at the end are from French sources, some apparently from Harvard's library. Unfortunately this book is in the tradition of excitement and derring-do and frightful massacres, the sort of thing rather easy to describe and copy. Note the date: 1914. Soon there were to be far more spectacular massacres. (Incidentally, I'd guess parts of the 'Bryce Report', propaganda to keep the Great War continuing, were taken from, or suggested by, Stoddard's book). The hidden aspects of money, trade in weapons, diplomatic promises made and broken, are largely omitted.
Lothrop Stoddard's book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (First published in 1920) is not reviewed here. Its population predictions are along the lines suggested by modernised medical techniques introduced into areas previously without them; it's something like a reversal of Malthus, presumably fairly temporary. But note that Stoddard had no idea of the parts played by Jews in the 'Great War', or their race-based supremacist 'chosen by G-d' outlook, which propels them into aggression. So his book is not of much use in practical action. Stoddard describes the history from the early 1600s to 1789 of this and other islands in the region; and has a chapter on the geography, social conditions, and connections mostly with France, but also with Spain (before) and Britain (after). The French part of the island (to the west) became Haiti; it's something like the size of Scotland, and no doubt more important as a myth than a fact. Then we have four chapters on race; I'm not very familiar with Stoddard, but it seems possible this material caused him to move into anthropology. We have whites: some from long-established French nobility; some poor white 'adventurers'; some soldiers and sailors. And also whites born there, called Creoles, looked down upon by the whites who sailed from France; bear in mind that travel in those days was slow and must have been expensive. Then mulattoes: these were called 'free people of color' (in French!) at the time. It's stated that black women wanted to have mixed race children, in perhaps the hope of advancement. There were very fine grades in type of mulatto; and a great deal of 'abhorrence of miscegenation', somewhat like the feeling of shock and embarrassment at 'bastards' at the time and later in Europe. However, similarly to South Africa and South America, mulatto numbers grew. Note that whites were definitely white, with no negro 'blood' at all; when Stoddard writes that whites had 'perished utterly' he didn't refer to mulattoes. Then we have blacks: Stoddard doesn't call his chapter 'Blacks', but 'The Slaves', for reasons beyond me. Unexpectedly, perhaps, they were not fast-breeding, and in fact tended to decline in numbers: there was for all this time more importation of slaves, and moreover from increasingly distant parts of Africa; eventually even as far as Madagascar. This is now known to have been a Jewish trade. The cost of ships, food, payments in Africa, captain, crew and other things cannot have been low, though of course less per head. Much of the French part of the island (Columbus patriotically named the whole island Hispaniola) seems to have been by the time under discussion planted with sugar cane. Or perhaps cane was there already, but then cultivated. The slaves did the work; the work's described as back-breaking and agonising, but without detail. But there seems agreement that slaves weren't interested, and were whipped to make them work. 'Marrons' (anglicised into 'maroons') were escaped slaves: the climate was hot all year round, and the soil productive, so they we able to live in mountainous forests, occasionally launching raids. Note that 'Vaudoux' ('that fetishism which appears to be the native African religion') is the word from which 'voodoo' came. There are some accounts of blacks, not usually flattering—remember that central Africa wasn't visited by whites until many years later. Stoddard's book will remind many readers of other events: it sounds a bit like Ireland; presumably there was more money in sugar (and rum distilled from it; and tobacco) than potatoes, otherwise Ireland might have been flooded with blacks. The pure whites (many were absentee landlords) sound (A BIT!) like Jews; maybe 'pure Jews' will be wiped out in the future? And Africa: is it the case that black just can't organise things? Many anecdotes suggest this; surely some of these French people would have been happy to live in Paris most of the time, paying off a percentage to some administrator? Anyway Stoddard's story revolves around events in France, which were decisive. If the 'French Revolution' had never happened, what might have happened in San Domingo? I don't know, but surely it's worth considering. Stoddard gives little information on trade and money; almost incredibly, after years of slaughter, parts of the island recovered, and with Spanish trade started to flourish again. Worth reading, but the book leaves very many questions. |
Rerevisionist's Review of Richard Herrnstein & Charles Murray The Bell Curve (first published 1994) Extra material is needed after 21 years. The effects of intra-human conflict must be understood. The most important group to understand is 'Jews'. 'Intelligence and class structure in American life.' Murray wrote this book after the death of Herrnstein; and Murray is laughably naive: 'Becoming an American requires only that immigrants buy into a set of American ideals. You can move to America from anywhere in the world, be of any ethnicity, social class, or race, and become an American.' Let's try to see what's needed. The 'bell curve'. This curve has been known for a few centuries (discovered by Gauss, in fact). It is also called the 'error curve': underlying the shape is the idea that a large number of small changes combine in the final result. For example, heights are more or less distributed like this, at least in similar groups, and allowing for gender. BUT the curve is misleading when applied to test scores. The scores, significantly called 'raw' as though they are inferior and in need of massaging, are modified to make them fit a 'bell curve'. To take an extreme case, imagine a population with two types of people, some of whom score 0 on some test, and some of whom score 100 out of 100. These cannot be fitted into a bell curve at all, but there's nothing impossible in such a distribution of scores. Part of the point of converting ranges of scores into a 'bell curve' is to make them look continuous; the aim is to support the idea that mental faculties are continuously distributed. In fact, they may be, or may not. In practice, the juggling is done by taking scores with quite a high range of marks, then dividing into (say) tenths of the total numbers tested. If there's a possible range of scores of 0 to 100, it may be found that about a tenth of tested people score 0-2, 3-8, 9-13, 14-25, 26-29, 30-35, 36-40, 41-48, 49-69, 70-100. I've deliberately picked some strange-looking ranges; in practice test items are weeded out in many ways, for example to try to make female and male scores the same. Herrnstein and Murray seem to assume there must be a single curve. Probably they'd accept that (for example) colour blindness, damage to infants, malnutrition complicate the issue. But if there are exceptional abilities—mathematical, musical, skill in estimating other personalities—these will only be detected if the tests look for them. IQ tests allow for this to some extent by trying to test mathematics, vision and spaces, and language separately, though to make them markable they tend to look at numerals, diagrams, and alphabetic phenomena, of the types used in puzzles, rather than in the real world. A deeper look at IQ tests. These tests were and are used because pencil and paper tests appear cheap and simple to administer. (Imagine a set of machines that gave a comprehensive overview of a person's intelligence and other characteristics, but cost $100,000 for each subject). But many people never developed an alphabet, or any other sort of writing, and never had paper. To sit IQ tests needs fine motor movements, appreciation of documents, and appreciation that signs can represent something that they don't resemble. They may have not had counting, and not had diagrams. It seems unlikely that such people can have been selected to be good at pencil-and-paper work. IQ tests were invented as a fast way to test for something like office work employability. A deeper look at human populations. It doesn't seem to have occurred to many people that reading and writing need a certain number of biological skills and abilities, which presumably may be selected for over the generations. The same sort of thing is true in principle for almost any change: the switch to agriculture may have selected for people with long-term patience and observation, rather than skill with wild animals and tracking. Staple foods—wheat, rice, maize, sorghum—must have had selection effects. Alcohol, animal milk, deep sea fish, animals which could be tamed, types of timber and so on must have had their effects. Philippe Rushton and others have looked into this, but as yet not in great depth. And—note particularly—most of these factors are largely external, not human. Rushton's view in effect was that local climate and local foods and building materials and plants and animals determine most of the variable part of human genetics. How deep this goes in attitudes seems uncertain: Roland Joffé (directed The Mission) said he found South American Guarani 'Indians' in modern cities preferred to be surround by life, including dangerous animals. Most people who can understand evolution (and large numbers can't) understand these aspects of human micro-evolution. They realise Africans who are skinny can run faster than tubby Eskimos. They are uneasy about insulin, since ever-more children are dependent on injections to keep alive. They may know that Down's syndrome ('mongolism') can now last into adulthood. The next phase in human evolutionary studies, which is invisible in Rushton, is rivalry within human groups, something that presumably can be assumed to have increased with every increase in skill. The easiest way to refer to this is as parasitism, and as symbiosis. We have, in my view because of the effects of documents and their propagandist effect, against which there seems no inbuilt defence, a perfect example in so-called 'Jews', caused originally by 'Talmudic' material operating on nomads in the Khazar country. Their characteristics involve logically absurd beliefs in texts which are self-contradictory, plus a class of 'expert' interpreters, producing the genetics to be expected from people with such ancestry. Let's consider a bell shape, a surface of revolution from a 'bell curve'. Or, if this makes no sense to you, another bell curve but with different tests, for such things as untruthfulness, secrecy, selfishness, egocentricity, callousness, manipulativeness, lack of empathy. (These are taken from the US Diagnostic and Statistical Manual which has sections wrestling with so-called personality disorders, sociopathy, and psychopathy). Whether such characteristics can be measured by self-tests seems unlikely; why should cunning people say they're cunning? The challenge for successors of Rushton and the others is to develop understanding of parasitism and of symbiosis. From the point of view of non-'Jews', 'Jews' have had a devastating impact, though of course this has been kept secret. My impression is that the elucidation of 'Jewish' behaviour counts as a new discovery, just as some new life-form might be found under the sea, or a new ecosystem discovered somewhere, or a new island or country. At present 'Jews' are spread across many countries, a little like a parasitic fungal infection. 'Jews' operate by parasitism, but with the aid of symbionts. These are of great historical importance: Cromwell and Napoleon are examples, but the 20th century has vast numbers: Balfour, Lenin, President Wilson, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin are just a few. Obama is a perfect example. The next analytical stage in human race examination is to try first to understand, then to quantify, the effects of Judaics. And model the effects of character traits. Maybe it will be possible to roughly estimate the effects of eugenic policies. Or perhaps 'genics' is a more neutral word, since it's not completely clear what 'eugenics' means—even putting aside the absurd judaic propaganda against eugenics, which is presumably designed to hide judaic supremacist violence, it's not obvious what counts as 'good', though presumably adaptation to modern conditions must be part of the assessment. Real-life example of awakening to Jew influence. This is Ed Connelly in January 9, 2022:– Yes indeed. I remember that well. I had just happened to read Sociobiology in 1984 and soon after “Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and “Human Nature” by the two authors you mention [Lewontin and Gould] plus Steven Rose came out. I remember being troubled by so many things about their “nurture” arguments vs. Wilson’s “nature” stuff. Having never been told about the Tribe, however, I couldn’t begin to put my finger on it. In addition, it never occurred to me then that scholars might not be arguing in good faith. But in the long run, I learned some important lessons from that debate, and needless to say was thrilled when KMAC wrote explicitly about Gould’s ethnic dishonesty. I wonder if E.O. Wilson ever talked about the Tribe explicitly, if only in private.
|
His site is now https://www.colinflaherty.com but seems increasingly to be censored. Many of his videos were copied from US local TV stations (but not clearly edited to distinguish their content from his own comments. He has made videos on riots, the 'knockout game', evasive words such as 'youths' which media owners make their staff use. He seems not to mention corrupting elements, such as Jewish media censorship and bribery of state officials and 'Federal Government' officials. Descriptive material rather than deep analysis, but a corrective from media crap.
At present, the 'coronavirus' fraud is continuing; there must be a planned script, but none of the closely-plotting filth will say what it is.
My Youtube channel was taken away without notice; though I imagine it's still held in Youtube. This may have been to do with Wojshit, or a similar name. You don't hate lumps of shit, but it makes sense to remove them!
The site NewNation.org (created 1998, US site) records race crime, I think from a US South viewpoint. It looks thorough, but I doubt it includes white rapes out of USA.
Warning: a much later site newnationnews dot org (Created 2018) looks like a Jewish harm site to me. I get a Trojan warning.
Review of Jewish interest John Howard Griffin: Black Like Me Interesting 1961 fraud, 19 Aug 2010 Like 'The Diary of Anne Frank' this is a phoney which has morphed into a money-spinner. There's a whole set of fraudulent books: 'T Lobsang Rampa' on Tibet is another example. However the black aspect is a bit depressing: all, or at least most, of the tear-jerking books on blacks are written by whites, starting with 'Uncle Tom's Cabin'. 'Cry the Beloved Country' was written by a white South African schoolteacher. 'To Kill a Mockingbird'—white author. 'Roots' was plagiarised from an early white novel. I seem to recall 'Amistad' was based on a white account. There's a book on Haiti, by a white woman—but anyway you see the point. Martin Luther King's material was plagiarised from whites. Obama—well! This 1961 book is presumably part of the anti-race realist movement. Read it and observe the fakery! |
Review of crit of multiculti Patrick West: The Poverty of Multiculturalism Dreadful Book—The Uneducated in Pursuit of the Unspeakable, 18 May 2009 Terrible small book (70 pages; most chapters are only a few pages) published by Civitas, first in 2005; reprinted 2008. It's an excellent specimen of what you get if you set a rather uneducated hack loose on a subject outside his grasp. [1] Let's look at the evidential basis first About 3/4 of the references are from ordinary newspapers. Here's a typical assertion which isn't even references in that way: 'History in schools concentrates not on the UK's role as a pioneer of parliamentary democracy ... Rather, we are told to hold or heads in shame .. etc.' (p 5). This may well be true, but no evidence is cited to prove it. As a corollary, it's clear that West has little grasp of world history. He thinks in terms of news items: Chapter 10, The End of Multiculturalism?—lists eg 'massacre of 30,000 Jews and Muslims in 1099 by Christian Crusader extremists' and the 'contribution of the Arab world in ... science and medicine'. West assumes the 'Holocaust' was fact—admittedly in the EU there may be legal problems discussing this. It's clear he knows nothing of 9/11 nor of (for example) the Vietnam War, African population figures, the Quran ('democracy is not antithetical-—p 66) and almost anything not included, presumably in his 'courses' at Manchester University. As another corollary, we find a small chapter 'The New Irrationalism' on anti-evolutionists and examples, many of them agonisingly absurd, on various tribes are their absurd beliefs. These are no more absurd than Christian beliefs—but West doesn't know enough to say that. The chapter has nothing to do with the subject—but, hey, it's a small book, so put it in anyway. As yet another corollary, it's no surprise that modern quotations are from political hacks and appointees—Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Trevor Phillips, and others who would never be quoted by anybody but for the subsidies they are stuffed with. [2] Now let's look at the assumptions West makes about 'us'. 'We' figure rather prominently: '.. how can we .. call ourselves superior.. We may have had the genius to split the atom, but we used that technology only to create atom bombs. We may have etc etc .. we seem to spend our existence making money, gorging.. on fast food..' (p 6). West has an absurd assumption that the commentariat know about the plebs: '.. this aspect of multiculturalism .. grates most upon the average Briton' (p xiii) is 'whatever in the way we live any [other] ethnic group might find offensive must be changed.' I haven't conducted immense surveys, but I'd expect the fact that immigrants, even illegals, get priority with housing, all expenses paid, and similar injustices, might just grate a little more. Like all hacks, West falls back on generalisations which are plausible, but questionable. 'The idea that non-urban societies are peaceful semi-paradises .. has always been a myth.' (P 27). Perhaps West would explain how he knows about (as just one example) all prehistoric societies, in, for example, Europe? How can he prove they were never peaceful semi-paradises? [3] Let's look at his grasp of the actual topic, at last! -- Chapter 7—It's My Culture So I'll Do What I Want To—makes some attempt to address such issues as halal slaughter (not of course Kosher) and 'honour killings' (not of course 'grooming'). Patrick West has no grasp of the statistics of violent crime and, as is now traditional, seems unaware of the far higher crime rates per head of immigrants. All this is feeble, poor quality stuff. And so far it's descriptive only. The question of how the whole thing could have been started is not gone into, except in a trite sense—'our governmental octopus is, of course, a benevolent creature, full of good intentions' (p x) is West's summary of EU fraud and corruption, systematic deceit by the British parties, and devastation caused to education, health, the economy. He is not aware of the roots of the pro-immigration lobbies, which appear to have been a combination of Jewish racists, employers aware that most of the costs of imported labour could be offloaded onto the taxpayer, multiple house owners able to tap the taxpayer for guaranteed rents, and bent lawyers able to make money from the system. |
Review of E P Thompson's 'marxism' Edward P. Thompson: The Making of the English Working Class Condescension as a Literary Form, June 28, 2010 Curiously desiccated 'useful idiot'. Edward and Dorothy Thompson has occasional TV appearances—for example a British Channel 4 thing with Tariq Ali and Sheila Rowbotham. They regarded themselves as lifelong dissidents. They were both in the, or a, Communist Party. He supported Stalin until Khruschev's speech was published. He left in 1956 after Hungary. They lived in a vicarage-style English building; his father wrote on the British in India. Their image was something like Mrs Webb or Beveridge or the Hammonds—conventional Oxbridge people with arrogance and incomes from unmentioned sources. They "always had families with enough [pause] resources.. we shouldn't starve if we were thrown out of a job, or blacklisted.." He was offered extra-mural teaching in the West Riding. This is where 'The Making of the English Working Class' took shape. With real working people. "19th century mining history. I was corrected by a miner, who said "Like this, Mr Thompson" and drew beautiful diagrams on the blackboard.."—Thompson said this. One notes however that he doesn't seem to have offered to stand down in place of the better-informed miner. Reading his book, bear this background in mind. The Thompsons were essentially religious heretics—they knew Marxism was rubbish, but couldn't bring themselves to admit that, and as a result evasions and half-truths became their life. Almost all the sources are government papers and reports, and newspapers of the time, top-down stuff. As anyone would expect, he has no feel for technology or the limits of possible social arrangements. It's a book worth reading if you're in the mood for superficial social history over several generations, but the limitations are enormous. |
This war is virtually always seen as Germany vs Russia, with other countries involved. But this ignores the part played by Jews and their allies, such as Freemasons. Consider another belligerent, namely Jews, worldwide, arranging politicians, propaganda, military materiel and plans, co-operating in the utmost secrecy. Using money to but propaganda, arms, and such people as Churchill. Understand this, and you'll understand the War, and the 'Great War'.
How Jews Won WW2 is my overview. For information on puzzling events of the Second World War, read some the files in Hexzane527 on WW2.
RW 12 Feb 2021
II Some notes on Taylor, from my review of his Origins of the Second World War a book now (2020) identifiable as a post-WW2 celebration of Jewish victory, concealing all the disgusting acts of Jews worldwide.
Taylor was born in 1906, in odd circumstances, in Southport, Lancashire. Southport is a coastal town, more or less midway between Manchester to its north and Liverpool to its south, both important to the cotton industry. The Manchester Ship Canal was finished in 1893, so probably Southport, which in fact does not have much of a port, must have been somewhat isolated; it specialised in golf and holidays and Lord Street, where the cast-iron overhead shelter influenced Napoleon III and Paris.
Online biographies of Taylor state 'His wealthy parents held strongly left-wing views, which he inherited. His parents were both pacifists who vocally opposed the First World War, and sent their son to Quaker schools as a way of protesting against the war.' His mother had at least one lover, Henry Sara 'a founding member of the Communist Party of Great Britain'. Nothing much is said about Taylor's (putative?) father. All this is consistent with his parents, or real parents, being Jewish—note for example the code words 'pacifist', 'left-wing', 'Communist', and the non-Christian school; and his accent wasn't Lancashire or Yorkshire. Family money seems to have allowed Taylor to hang around Oxford without a position. Later, Pribram and Namier, both Jewish historians, 'mentored' him. Even his biography is by a Jew (Sisman; there's another by K Burk who may or may not be). Without putting huge emphasis on all this, it is entirely consistent with Taylor's fierce anti-Germanism, and support for 'Russia', the Jewish-controlled USSR. Late in life he published a rather omissive introduction to an English translation of the Communist Manifesto—his introduction says nothing about divisions within states such as Jews exemplify; only class is considered. He was never as far as I can tell a technical Marxist—nobody intelligent can believe in the 'labour theory of value' or that 'all history is class war'. Taylor was a 'fellow traveller'—the 20th century fashion was to hush up such things.
Note that Jews have a special interest in topics such as law, history, sociology, religion, psychology, archaeology and anthropology, since they feel impulses to get in there and change things, which Americans, Britons, Germans, et al simply don't feel. All these theoretical and academic subjects have been penetrated by Jews in ways complementary to more practical activities such as Freemasonry, financial frauds and so on.
III Modern Catholic source says: “All the goods on Earth were placed here by God FOR THE USE OF ALL.” By implication - the high living of Whites is due to stealing from God. So if someone makes a chair, it belongs to society and not to the maker. Christianity is in symbiosis with Jews and shares a common parasitism.
IV The 'Communist Manifesto' was plagiarised from Victor Considerant of France. Various additions to 'Marxism' were made later: Lenin liked Hobson's book on 'Imperialism', which placed little blame on Jews and therefore suited Lenin's purpose; more recently, Jews in the USA have pretended to write 'Marxist' critiques of US wars and war crimes. All of this has two functions: (1) To hide the true role of Jews as much as possible; in particular, Jewish control of banks; (2) To find allies and useful idiots among the goyim host populations, either by promising them future riches, or in some cases paying them.
V From A H Lane's The Alien Menace
The Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels in 1847.
This Manifesto is the basis of the so called “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” in Russia to-day. These two promoters of the World Revolution concentrated upon this country [Britain] because they believed that the British Empire was the greatest obstacle to world revolution, and that their conspiracy could only succeed if and when the Empire was destroyed. This was admitted by Karl Marx, and the plan of attack was outlined in a message he sent to a meeting at Geneva in 1870 of the First International.
This message declared that:,—
VI Some of the best writing and information on Jews and 'Communism' as their Jewish plot, with 'intelligence' co-operation, is by Miles Mathis. (But Miles Mathis seems to me to underestimate allies such as churches (who wanted tithes and careers) and Freemasons (who wanted financial assistance).)
marx.pdf Real history of Marx
jenny.pdf Marx's wife
engels.pdf Engels
lenin.pdf 'Lenin': some real history
stalin.pdf 'Stalin' after a century of lies
nab.pdf 'Russian' Revolution
putsch.pdf Rosa Luxemburg
Review of frankfurt school Roger Simon: Gramsci's Political Thought—An Introduction (1982) Solidly biased; not worth the effort. Try elsewhere, 2 July 2009 Two worries. [1]ALL the MOST IMPORTANT events—First World War, USSR, Second World War, nuclear weapons—are treated as natural events—wars "break out", for example. No sociological theory of any power can be consistent with such evasiveness. [2] This is published by Lawrence & Wishart, a long-term 'Communist' publisher based in London. A small extract from a review is by Anne Showstack Sassoon. A little quotation from Marxism Today says it's a 'rigorous and polemical lifeline'. This and the author's name and other internal evidence—the big lie that the Soviet Union was 'socialist'—firmly situate this book as part of Jewish propaganda output. It simply is not credible that this book can be of any value, since serious topics are censored or ignored. This view is backed up by reading it! It is incoherent and has the wheedling tone adopted by propagandists everywhere trying to push their wares. You might as well try to find out about the Papacy by reading the Catholic Encyclopedia, or the Vietnam War by reading Kissinger. Further clues come from the bibliography: there are about two dozen titles, but in spite of claims made for his readability ('accessibility'), half of the titles show uncertainty: 'An Approach...', 'Approaches...', 'Towards ...', 'The origin Of...'. Gramsci was mainly interested in Italy, but didn't bother much with other countries, so there' little helpful in the way of international generalisation. As with Hegel, he's suited to interminable discussion and evasiveness. He died young (he was described as a hunchback). It's impossible to tell from this whether Gramsci was important in any sense. |
Review of A post-1945 Jewish interest example Barrows Dunham: Man Against Myth Belongs as a specimen of mid-rank Jewish propaganda with Kevin B MacDonald's collection of evidence, December 7, 2011 1948 book (published in Britain as well), with jacket comments by Joad, Einstein, Dorothy Parker, J B S Haldane, J D Bernal. This book supposedly is an analysis of 'slogans now current... which accepted and repeated uncritically, are misleading the judgment of men. ..' (attributed to Einstein, presumably in German). The blurb also says '.. dissection of beliefs chosen .. for their effect on human behaviour, for their benefit to the minority in concealing or excusing inequality and economic privilege. ..' This is designed to look like a book on popular errors: at about the same time (1947), Evan Bergen's 'The Natural History of Nonsense' was published; Evans thanked 'Ashley Montagu' (false name) of Hahnemann College) and his topics seemed quite wide—health, great apes and animal behaviour, arctic exploration, savages, sex, murder, circumstantial evidence, though a large influence was 'Ashley Montagu' (real name Israel Ehrenberg), of '... The Fallacy of Race' (1942). Somewhat similar was Ackermann's 'Popular Fallacies' (1907 to 1924, not updated till 1950), and Stefansson (a world famous explorer) 1936 book 'Adventures in Error', the same year as Jastrow's 'The Story of Human Error'. Martin Gardner's 'In the Name of Science' (1952) was somewhat similar, including the phoney no differences have been found between 'races' material. By coincidence, one hopes, Mencken, a German-origin American of considerable originality, was out of action in 1948 with a cerebral haemhorrage. Barrows Dunham I presume was in fact a Jew, though nobody says so—nonconformist, dissident etc are the words chosen. He was born in 1905, and went to Princeton to do academic philosophy, ending up with a doubtless unreadable dissertation on Kant. He worked, or at least was at, Temple University in Philadelphia, incorporated in 1907; it must have had a period of expansion, of which Dunham no doubt took advantage. (Incidentally he helped, or claimed to help, Bertrand Russell in his fight with Albert Barnes; later, Russell helped Dunham oppose the HUAC, when Dunham refused to testify and was sacked.) Anyway... 'Man Against Myth' is a perfect example of Jewish lies aimed against 'Anglo-Saxons' in the immediate post-WW2 period. I call it mid-rank, because MacDonald's material deals with people like Boas and Freud and Marx and Adorno, who for some reason are regarded as first rank. Dunham belongs to a lower level—the Reader's Digest/ mainstream TV and film level, itself above comic books and cheap trash aimed at white 'goyim'. There are eleven chapters, and ten of them are well-known phrases, something of a mixed bag—You can't change human nature, The rich and fit and the poor unfit, There are superior and inferior races, There are two sides to every question, Thinking makes it so, &c. Connoisseurs of this kind of thing will recognise the style. There's a sort of compost of philosophy on which his material is scattered; I strongly suspect that Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' (1945, in the USA—it was later in Britain, as there was a paper shortage). Every discussion moves to Jews and their bad luck; Hitler and 'fascist' occur throughout the book, along with uncorroborated stories. There are some quite comic malevolent portraits of his US hosts—an amusingly repulsive one of some chap at dinner with food in his teeth, for example. Then there's the USSR, which is always referred to as 'socialist'—a barefaced lie, of course, which unfortunately even Russell accepted. There's not much point going into detail, though I suppose anyone interested should go through a sample chapter or two. Anyway—a sample of Jewish lies after 1945. Interesting as part of the torrent which Americans have so far been unable to stand against. |
Review of More Jewish destructive pressure Lena Dominelli: Anti-Racist Social Work (BASW) One star for content; but 'Frankfurt School' investigators will be interested, 10 Feb 2012 1991 was the date (I quote from 'Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics' by Dennis & Erdos) of the start of the racism industry, when CCETSW ['Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work'] Diploma in Social Work guidelines 'set out in detail... the 'self-evident truth' that 'racism is endemic in the values, attitudes and structures of British society.' ... Colleges and courses that did not accept it would lose their licence to train social workers. ..' The Macpherson Report into Stephen Lawrence's 1993 murder—the panel of three included a Jew and a black C of E promotee—was the next phase, despite the complete absence of evidence. Macpherson invented the phrase 'institutional racism' which has been used by the media ever since. That murder has been used in a cynical campaign of lies ever since. [• here's a long commentary on the Macpherson Report, in 2012 by Dr Frank Ellis. 'Jack Straw' had been appointed Home Secretary by Jews; I'd guess Macpherson regarded himself as a Jew, and had descent from East European immigrants in the 19th and 20th century, then changed his name, typically into something somewhat foreign.] Dominelli's book is dated 1988. About 50 other titles are listed in the same series, and the book says it is (c) 'The British Association of Social Workers'. Assuming the author really was Lena Dominelli, 'Professor of Social Administration at Sheffield University' as then, I recommend all students of the subversion of Britain and white countries, via Frankfurt School style methods, get a copy. About a dozen organisations are listed in the back; some have changed their names subsequently; no detail is given of their funding or ideologies. There's also a bibliography, virtually all of the shrieking ideological type. There's no mention of Jews. There must be 250 authors mentioned, most of them not indexed, so one assumes the reader is not expected to actually read them. I don't want to go into detail—this book is repetitive, of course. It's touchingly unintelligent; there's a dedication to 'little girls who long[ed] for blonde hair and blue eyes...' which might stand as a general appearancist comment. It seems to be targeted at areas such as Tower Hamlets. Islam and Judaism—two racist cults—are unindexed. The costs, in terms of misallocated resources, timewasting, and societal damage, remain to be assessed. It is trash, but worth having a copy as a memento and horror story. |
Review of Fake 'left' in USA Tammy Bruce: The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds Unconsciously reveals—in part—how money controls American propaganda, July 15, 2010 Published 2000 so somewhat outdated, though in a way this can help give perspective. The material is mediocre—all the topics are north American 'news' items, formatted as separate pieces thrown together under chapter headings. Important, trivial, joke, and irrelevant items follow one after another. The cultural stuff is almost exclusively film and corporate magazines and other material. It's obviously aimed at a mass market of people assumed—probably rightly—to be 'dumb'—with the accompanying tripe—'award-winning'. She assumes the naive modern American dream:-- the Civil War was about freeing slaves/ Walter Cronkite was truthful/ Martin Luther King was a great reformer/ 'for over 300 years, people have left everything behind... [for] freedom' when in fact many came for money, and many kept connections with their roots/ the 'Holocaust' happened as in the media. To keep this review short, I'll make notes:-- [1] Secrecy. Steinem, Ireland, Friedan are revealed to be 'communists', a code-word for Jews, crypto-Jews, and puppets. NAACP gets some mentions, including its handling of Rosa Parks. So does ACLU with its 'pro bono counsel'/ and the ADL 'one of the more respected Jewish hate-monitoring groups'. All this of course shows the Jewish influence which is at least officially unmentioned. It's difficult to tease out the other threads—obviously other groups have interest groups too. [2] Examples of money. By comparison with national scams, the sums are tiny, of course. Note therefore the evasion of serious issues involving money including the likely funding of anti-free speech groups:-- * Jesse Jackson has three homes. * NOW—National Organisation of Women, only a few thousand members—took $800K during Clinton/Lewinsky (1995 on) * 'ebonics' invented to try for money for bilingual teaching 'The left's assault on free speech' is something of a code phrase. If you want to understand the bizarre way some crimes are ignored and others made into endless 'news', and how pressure groups work and laws become corrupted, this unfortunately isn't the book. |
Review of Count Richard M. Coudenhove-Kalergi Praktische Idealismus/ Practical Idealism and Other Works
Strange German-Japanese Cross-Breed, Publicist and Freemason Funded by Jews, Whose Work Helped Deliberately Damage Europe, June 13, 2014 Richard Nikolas Eijiro Graf Codenhave-Kalergi (1894-1972) has become increasingly famous among white nationalists and opponents of the European Union, for the reasons summed up in the caption (left). This is my assessment of Coudenove-Kalergi who seems to me a confused thinker, impressed by his own background rather than other matters (for example, wars), and probably adopted by the E.U. as the nearest thing they could find to a 'founding father' without admitting the Jewish nature of the entire EU project. His most-quoted book is one of his earliest, in German, Praktische Idealismus. |
Selected Reviews by Subject:- Film, TV, DVDs, CDs, media critics | Health, Medical | Jews (Frauds, Freemasons, Religions, Rules, Wars) | Race | Revisionism | Women | Bertrand Russell | Richard Dawkins | Martin Gardner | H G Wells
For a similar book review on the construction of 'criminology' as a Jewish project, see my review of R. H. Burke's Criminological Theory
The chapters are:
1 ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE [1864. It's unclear whether Biddiss understood Wallace's importance)
2 FRANCIS GALTON [1865 on Hereditary Talent. Popular, not too deep; poor Galton has been, and is, a target for Jews]
3 JOHN ELLIOT CAIRNES [1865. Negro suffrage. The US Civil War, with 1000x more deaths than Morant Bay, is unanalysed by Biddiss, not surprisingly. So is the mechanical reason for abolition]
4 CHARLES MACKAY [Negrophilists piece. The sort of anti-white thing remarked on e.g. by Dickens and Russell—how could they love negros and hate white children? Without noticing that the Jews behind the movements hated both and pretended to love the slaves they wanted to abandon for steam]
5 Anon, attributed to JOHN WILLIAM JACKSON [1866. All of history vs J S Mill, whom he states to be completely of the view that all men are equal, in the sense of being equally educable. Very clear on that point. Nothing is said of John Mill, or the East India Co, but clearly both may have been Jew promotees]
6 FREDERICK WILLIAM FARRAR
7 THOMAS HUXLEY
8 KELBURNE KING [In Jewish flyover mode, Biddiss says this surgeon 'far from being an eminent Victorian', 'provincial professional man', 'served three terms as Mayor' etc wrote this Inquiry into Rise and Fall of Nations. He divides races into pure and mixed, while finding many, in Europe. And discusses mixed races producing new ingenious types, after the attempts to explain ancient Greece. In common with all these extracts there's nothing on Jews.]
9 HERBERT SPENCER
10 EDWARD AUGUSTUS FREEMAN
11 GRANT ALLEN
They are chronologically ordered 1864-1880: and from the Journal of the Anthropological Society, Macmillan's Magazine Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Anthropological Review, Transactions of the Ethnological Society, Pall Mall Gazette, Anthropologia, Popular Science Monthly, Contemporary Review, and Fortnightly Review.
Characteristically, Biddiss says nothing about the ownership or processes of selection for publishing of these publications. As Hilaire Belloc pointed out later, 'The Jewish problem, present throughout history, has assumed a particular character to-day—it is the character of a sharp reaction against the old pretence that Jews were identical with the nations in which they happened to live—it first took the form of irritation only—it was suddenly exasperated in a very high degree by the Jewish revolution in Russia...' and he commented on the vast censorship (not his word) of Jewish history. For example, 'The Jews killed a quarter of a million of the people of Cyprus alone, and the Roman authorities answered with a repression which was a pitiless war.' Belloc goes on: 'The point is, that the average educated man has never been allowed to hear of them.'
Biddiss continues this long, though not great, tradition. I wonder what he's doing, in his 80s.
In my opinion, a great improvement in historical and practical understanding may result from the perception that Jews aim for maximum secrecy and censorship. And they construct elaborate schemes of pretence to hide evidence against them. Trying to understand people like Biddiss is just a part of this process, which must be applied to the whole of history and practical events.
- RW 2023
Review of Christopher Booker The Neophiliacs
Might be considered an example of 'Jew Shock', the phenomenon of people with no awareness of Jews, but who nevertheless notice that something is amiss with the world. It's a difficult book to review sensibly, but my review is in my Private Eye article. |
Review of EU Richard North & Christopher Booker: The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union Single-volume history of the EU, July 11, 2010. A revised look shows it is Jew-naive, 25 June 2023 Added June 2023: I must amend this review with this later comment. I don't want to leave such a misleading review. The fact is that, like most books, the Jewish imperative for self-concealment spoils the book, missing out the true dynamics post-1945, the Jewish victory of WW2. A better approach needs to take Jews into account. The papers of hexzane527, who's French, perhaps point the way, allowing for new plans such as a third world war. So I changed the Amazon-style star rating to 3. May I recommend (though not 100% wholeheartedly) The Great Deception by Christopher Booker & Richard North. (First published 2003. New edn 2005—possibly there's a newer one by now). This book goes right back to the roots. It puts most of the blame on Monnet, who acted through various others who generally wanted, and got, the attention; the original idea coming from Salter (civil servant influenced by international control of shipping) and Monnet himself (rather shady uncreative businessman, more interested in sales and secret deals than productivity)—these two types of person seem to have established the pattern. I think there was an unconscious wartime input: de Gaulle and others were treated as governments-in-waiting or in exile, which established a pattern in which unelected groups formed shadow 'governments'. This book disentangles many myths—the sort of thing vaguely remembered from incompetent and inchoate BBC programmes. Such as the myth of the post-war carve-up—in fact the federal ideas were thought of much earlier, but one of the main arguments for federation—that it would prevent war in Europe—clearly hadn't worked. Another myth is about Britain and CAP; the French would not accept Britain unless we accepted huge sums for French farming, which of course was a bit pointless from our point of view. Britain as a slow foot-dragger was the message. Fascinating to read how the 'supranational' idea was disguised and hidden by euphemisms: the intent all along was undemocratic. There's an alphabet soup of organisations, mostly with 'E' in—Council of Europe, ESDP, EDC, EDB, EIB, EMS, etc etc. These helped kill off other approaches to Europe—supernational, free trade, etc. Booker & North don't treat the EU in isolation—world events such as Suez and Berlin and the U2 incident and nuclear issues are factored in, often with new information—Suez for example was re-arranged between Israel, UK, and France, but went wrong. Macmillan, Thatcher, Major and others are shown to have never really quite known what was happening. However, it's not a perfect book; Booker is an unrevised right-winger; I never liked him—he regards for example Dien Bien Phu as a 'disaster'. North I assume to have done much of the research (including from original documents on Internet, and recent material released under 30-year or other rule). The book doesn't mention the Soviet Union at all, incredibly, despite the model it must have provided for decades; nor Russia as a European unit; it's not too good on raw materials—e.g. oil; and north African gas which was one of the motives for inclusion of Africans in Europe. The book mentions, briefly, the CIA's funding, and Bilderberg, and Foundations such as Ford and Rockefeller, though not (yet?) Common Purpose. Briefly, though—the idea the book is full of conspiracy theories is entirely wrong. If anything, there are too few conspiracy theories—for example UKIP gets few mentions, but its failure to do anything much is widely interpreted as it's being a fraudulent party invented to waste votes. Booker and North seem not very good on law—how on earth such a system be expected to work? Their book does not disentangle exactly why the USA opposed 'communism'—if indeed it did. It has a few pages on immigration. But it's a handy and hefty one-volume reference/ source/ account. It has a twenty-page detailed index which in a book of this size is a very valuable enhancement. It is in places hard going, but the fact is, much of the analysis necessarily deals with bureaucratic language, or the language of politicians with a long tradition of evasive wording, or conventionalised phrasing designed to disguise or soften actualities. Booker & North's writing is always better than the material they have to deal with—their presentation is probably about as good as it could be. Considering the bulk of this book, it's cheap, too. I foresee and hope that as the EU starts to crack, there will be updated version(s) of this book. |
Review of psychology of fear Christopher Booker: Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth The problem is this is pure hindsight..., 5 May 2009 Booker and North are to be applauded for their collection. This includes: the 'hygiene police', passive smoking, ritual child abuse and the anal dilation test, confusions with types of asbestos, and listeria. I liked the 'speed kills' and speed cameras chapter—most accidents aren't speed related (we're told). The authors regard lead in petrol as an example of a scare; I note that Prof Bryce-Smith isn't in the index though. Their longest and penultimate chapter is on global warming. What causes me concern however is that the authors have no methodology for identifying what are, in fact, phoney claims. This is partly because they seem not to have much science background—especially Booker. But also—and here Booker might have been expected to come up with something—they have no analysis of what might drive such events. They seem to think a nucleus of scientists or writers is sufficient to generate a movement. To take an example: AIDS is well-known to have been made up by the Centers for Disease Control in the USA to give funding to virologists, because viruses hadn't been found linked to cancer and they were going to lose money. So they fastened on high-risk homosexual drug-takers who were, unsurprisingly, ill. And it worked—they made a fortune. You may disagree with my comments here—but in a way that's the whole point. Booker and North know, looking back, that the scare was just that, a scare. But could they have known in 1984? This whole book is of the 'I've heard this before' type. And provides no basis for assessing new scares—or facts—which may be invented. In all the cases they discuss, civil servants, research establishments, private companies, and journalists all have a vested interest. For example, with BSE, the killing of Britain's national herd had huge money consequences, largely of course kept quiet by New Labour's insane borrowing policies. Much of the beef trade passed I believe to the USA. So this book is valuable as a retrospective. But it's not very helpful as a contributor to intellectual self-defence. |
Review of Political Correctness Anthony Browne: Retreat of Reason: Political Correctness & the Corruption of Public Debate in Modern Britain
Controlled Opposition. Potshots at a camouflaged moving wrongly-defined target, 11 Jun 2009 This book is itself 'politically correct'. Browne does mention the Frankfurt School, and also, that bane of people who suppress facts about the Vietnam War, 1960s radicals. He also mentions the more or less fraudulent damaging organisations in the UK and USA—Southern Poverty Law Centre, Amnesty, Index on Censorship which now campaigns against free speech, Greenpeace which won't touch the population issue, the National Lottery. And he mentions the outrageous double standards of Asian lawyers, Asian-only housing, and other race-based groups. His most abstract analysis is that 'PC seeks to redistribute power from the powerful to the powerless.' Try telling that to whites on sink estates, or women in Islamic countries. What he doesn't point out is the fact that most PC supporters are shadowy, unknown figures. If you look for overt supporters, they're few and far between: three obscure comedians—Jeremy Hardy (who joked about people being shot in the backs of their necks), Jo Brand, and that transvestite chap trying to get into films; pop musicians—not even C list—they have to give tickets away. There are no serious writers who overtly write in favour of PC material. All the pressure is behind the scenes—fake charities, commercial media owned by foreigners who control hacks, think tanks subsidised in secret ways, trade unionists of notable intellectual lack of distinction, anonymous BBC writers of news items, groups of lawyers making money. |
1 WHAT IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS?
-Lots of quotations (none mention Jews: Talmud has many disgusting quotations; Jewish history is replete with atocities and frauds; related issues include Freemasons and other secrecy, including 'Common Purpose' Jewish control of paper money isn't mentioned): Australian Minister ('heresy of liberalism.. where liberalism and leftism intersect') / US commentator Paul Weyrich ('certain topics are forbidden') / US commentator (William Lind) 'Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms') / Richard Bernstein (New York Times) '.. white male hegemony..') / William Safire ('.. conforming to liberal or far-left thought on sexual, racial, cultural.. environmental issues..') / Wall St Journal ('effort to save souls through language') / Browne himself ('.. ideology that classifies certain groups. as victims in need of protection..')
6ff on lack of evidence eg on sex differences
9: 'PC seeks to redistribute power from the powerful to the powerless' [Examples: Israel strong / USA strong / west is strong / Multinationals strong / Muslims weak - van Gogh murder supported / tube attack vs Brazilian two weeks later [NB is it possible it was a deliberate distraction?]/ China weak re US but strong re Tibet / ethnic minorities as cp white working class
13 effects: homophobic black 'rap'/ halal slaughter vs fox hunting
14 also desire for victim status - obese, Christians, smokers, fox hunters. In Denmark it was illegal to publish crime figures broken down by ethnicity
2 THE HALLMARKS OF PC
Lack of faith in people BUT 'belief in perfectibility'. (Browne claims this is Marxist tho it sounds more like Rousseau to me)
Promotion of Re-Education in children's boos, absurd history months, 'diversity'
Lack of faith in democracy: hanging, homosexuality; contemptuous of 'populists' and 'ordinary people'
Censorship and no platform for previous reasons
'Liberal guilt' over unearned privilege. '.. Western guilt and fear of racism has all but killed off public concern about overpopulation..' (p 19). It's all our fault arguments. [This passage is a bit unfocussed, I think]
Psychologising - ie attributing motives like racism, rather than addressing the arguments - of course this happens all the time anyway
Ad hominem ditto
Guilt by association: 'that's what the National Front said' etc
Personal rather than abstract [he means general] ...
Double standards (p 24 - in fact of course only double standards if you assume equality - as with male and female sexual fidelity). eg Asian lawyers, Asian only housing, men and women retirement, Islamic slaves vs USA, Islamic fundamentalist but not Christian, Communist dictators vs Fascist.
Extremism/ Taking Offence/ Lack of Sense of Humour ['Affirmative action bake sales' of 'cookies']
3 THE ORIGINS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
1923 Frankfurt School; and 1960s radicalism are blamed but with barely any evidence. The author (or poss Conway, a Professor of ideas - or something similar) mentions post modern philosophies too.
There's a comment that Tacitus praised the Germans! Shock
4 THE TRIUMPH OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
-US colleges and schools. PC left is now establishment. P 34 gives a list: services and central govt; BBC etc; comedy, literature, unions, charities, professions, trades; finally multinationals and police. [Note: cp this list with the 'professionalisation' of Britain]. Pop music, BBC, films. 35 mentions Southern Poverty Law Centre [sic] but, incredibly. not Jews/ Amnesty International/ Index on Censorship campaigns against free speech now Browne says. Greenpeace, Refugee Action, one parent family organisation, Liberty [doesn't mention Rowntree Foundation] often taxpayer funded or subsidised by tax relief - free BBC publicity. National Lottery.
p 38 on human rights laws, charters, conventions, treaties
Cp Council for the Protection of Rural England - wouldn't tackle mass immigration. Migrationwatch - no taxpayers' money against 'dozens of groups'.
Superficial celebrity culture.
-'.. extraordinarily rapid advance..' ** BUT ** Browne has no idea of the dynamic behind it, which of course is Jews using enormous funds to promote what they think are their interests.
5 THE BENEFITS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
-'.. powerful weapon to promote basic decency..'
6 THE DRAWBACKS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
-i.e. if it becomes extreme. P 42 Four examples:
'Redistributing wealth.. fairer.. but, as the failure of communism showed, excess [sic - what rubbish] leads to economic stagnation...'
'Denunciations of xenophobia, jingo and racism .. taken to excess... loss of any sense of national identify..' [what about anti-war feeling?]
42-44: Victim mentality including women, Muslims, Chernobyl, quarter of some parts of Wales disability used for benefits.
45-48: Rewarding of vice. Gives Condoleezza Rica and Blunkett as positive examples of overcoming drawbacks! In fact of course they are funded and coached in what Jews want them to say.
48-53: War against freedom of speech.
ESRC almost entirely politically correct agenda [no evidence apart from 49 'men surpass women at almost every measure of social failure'-this is the same sort of impression as is conveyed by TV and film ads showing successful blacks]
Newspapers are 'bound' [by what?] to not mention race of criminals
Ray Honeyford, a headmaster sacked in Bradford re learning English. Probably publicised by the Jewish press and TV as a warning
Netherlands, France ..
51 media examples 52 BNP and sackings
53 ff - consequences: eg people smugglers/ HIV/ Islam all censored [what about local authority corruption/ NHS/ PFI etc] / Undermining democracy: EU not debated/ immigration / multiculturalism / criminals' rights / 56-57 arrests in Europe of the 'far right'. [58 - says 'mosques, churches and schools' were burnt down 'prompted by' T van Gogh's murder]
7 HOW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AFFECTS POLICIES
59 women's pay
60 EU pro view said to have little going for it - not argued in detail
62 Capitalism 'Few things have done more to improve human existence...' [ridiculously naive; - what about technology? But this is what Jews believe, or pretend to believe]
'All alternatives have proved disastrous failures' [what about Japan?]
63 NHS incredibly naive - nothing on PFI, i.e. using Jewish money to buy public assets
63 Punishment - inc estimates of prison numbers if eg 1954 imprisonment rates applied in 2004 [300,000 total]
65 Environment
66 Human Rights [author doesn't know about Vietnam etc]
66 Racial profiling, and age and gender - even the phrase is silly - meaning go for high probability groups
8 THE TROUBLE WITH DISCRIMINATION
9 THE DISSIDENTS FROM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
10 HOW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS CAN BE DEFEATED
Rae West 12 Sep 2020
Review of British politics Polly Toynbee: Better or Worse?: Has Labour Delivered? News, a tool of corrupted government, rehashed by hacks, to get votes, 23 Jun 2009 2005. Obviously Published to promote 'Labour'. This book is extraordinarily bad. Everything in it, from the selection of chapter heading to the content, is simply rehashed short-term 'news', itself determined by the censoring policies of civil servants, editors, the BBC, and the rest of the shambolic half-educated phonies who front for real power. There is nothing long-term, nothing wise, nothing that involves planning or allowing for remote consequences. Everything is unelected placemen (only a few years later it's hard to remember who they were), fragmentary statistics, a small standardised official vocabulary supplemented by newly made-up phrases—'liberal', '9/11', 'Taliban', 'galvanising vision', 'basic skills', 'communities', 'localism', 'devolution', 'governance', 'human rights' ... What all these things have in common is taking the official version and feeding it back to the suckers. The only amusing part is the way the authors try to liven up their rubbish, usually with mixed metaphors—there's a comic passage about snakes and ladders, based on 'Schools minister David Miliband' which is typical of the nauseating writing style. What's omitted is: let's try to list them: wider aspects of war; what was the real object? Britain's legal system: how much is arranged as a money-making scheme? Immigrant violence: why is it systematically concealed? The 'Joint Tenancy' arrangement by which immigrants, even phony asylum seekers, are housed before locals? (By John Prescott's son, for example). What about teaching—is it deliberately dumbed down? Could anybody have ever been serious about 50% attending university? Fake colleges? Why are public schools left alone despite supposed egalitarianism? What about the Bank of England? And investment in the hands of a tiny number of fund managers? Energy and power stations? Persistent residues from pesticides? Selling off of Britain's assets—and Blair's deliberate Clause 4 removal to allow this? EU and its attempt to take over? Population numbers in the third world? Support for genocide in the third world? 2008, fast forward three years, to another book by Toynbee: to quote from an Amazon review: 'suddenly Toynbee is talking about a totally different and unrecognisable country. Given that she is a famed New Labour luvvie, her indictment of modern Britain is an indictment of New Labour's record and by extension, is an indictment of Toynbee and her ilk.' |
Review of British society Richard Littlejohn: You Couldn't Make it Up Thatcher/Major era—interesting to compare with Bliar era, 14 Jun 2010 Collection of about 60 pieces of different lengths; dating roughly from the era when the Tories were regarded as 'sleazy' usually in the sex sense ('family values' joke, Mellor &c), and corrupt in the money sense—MP company interests, monopolist utility companies with billion profits, share options, ministers taking jobs in ex-public companies they'd invented. Fascinating to compare with today's situation though the wars today compared with those around USSR breakup seem larger and perhaps worse. There's material on Europe, including ex-chancellor Lamont saying there was no benefit whatever to Britain that he knew of. Also perhaps especially pieces on the genesis of social engineering frauds—he mentions eg Rowntree foundation reports and has several pieces (p83 on inventing conferences and syndromes, p93 inventing a new pressure group, p187 on lawyer-driven litigation, p125 one parent families, etc.) In some sense he's a bit naive—remember the dead 'defence' MP with a satsuma in his mouth? [109-111—Steven Milligan]—Littlejohn doesn't realise the trappings were probably a distraction. (This trait continues today—he's naive about Jewish influences for example. He has no sense of huge military interests. He accepts the 9/11 story at face value. All the material is unsourced—which of course is typical of the entire media spectrum, so one can't be too harsh. But some of the one-legged lesbian collective stories of this era were, apparently, made up. However as part of the momentum which eventually led to Bliar (this was a popular nickname for Tony Blair) being elected—and will no doubt result in Labour being removed—it's a fascinating though rather depressing collection. He does have a collection of traditional beliefs, on, say WW2 but not WW1; and top atrocities of all time; but these are so common that criticism is on another plane. Whatever you are told, these are not 'rants'. |
A starting-point.
RW 26 Sept 2018
Review of Dennis Wise Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story NEVER told This is a set of videos. Formats: DVDs, zipped video files. Possibly on Youtube. Various dates. Purchasable from 'Dennis Wise' website; at this time requires membership of their club.
** I've added this review because Jewish censorship of race issues may cause many people to misunderstand Jewish racial supremacist beliefs. It remains one of my most popular reviews. **
Update: 21 Feb 2019: My ironically-titled, long webpage big-lies.org/how-master-race-won-ww2/ has been online for months. It gives some idea how Jews in unison promoted wars, to carry out their Talmudic, or perhaps just Old Testament, idea of killing the best 'goyim'. I've included more material new to me, such as the idea that 'concentration camps' were for preserving Jews in safe spaces; when the time came to let them out, there was a preliminary bombing campaign, after which non-Jews would be starved and killed to display to the world's Jewish media.
Update: 17 Jan 2018: I've recently 'launched' a video Was Hitler a Jewish Agent? (with A C Hitchcock) on my website and on Youtube, examining the idea that Jewish power, submerged and kept out of the way, was easily large enough to encircle Germany and fund, corral, and invent what became the NSDAP. Although this idea must be common in Jewish circles, it was new to me. I have to suspect that the de facto copyright permission, and the acceptance of Dennis Wise's DVD in public, are tacitly approved, because they serve the idea that Germans and Russians had to fight, of necessity. An alternative view, that the war fever was generated with the usual Jewish methods, is therefore missing from TGSNT. Dennis Wise might test this idea by adding another episode, to see how well it fares. Update: 8 March 2018: Dennis Wise has a Youtube interview Claims of Hitler Being Controlled Opposition with Kyle Hunt (107 minutes, 28 May 2017 was the version I found), and which includes mention of his video Communism by the Back Door. My own view is that Jewish spying has been underestimated: Bletchley Park had large numbers of Jews, which are understated (Andrew Hodges on Alan Turing says nothing about the issue), and there are reliable reports of cables in gardens which could have been used to broadcast from Britain. Jews in the USSR must have had elaborate communications, including landlines for their money transactions. The USA didn't yet have the CIA, but of course had spying—for example, on the Japanese. So it's unquestionable that, while the war continued in its own way, Jews were carrying out their own secret operations. Whether Hitler was involved is a controversial issue for many, but Wise takes the conventional view at all times, Germany vs USA, USSR, Britain, without realising Jews were (probably) shaping things to suit themselves. Here are some of Wise's remarks:
Dennis Wise discussed online the claims of Hitler being controlled opposition, on 28 May 2017, with Kyle Hunt. (107 mins). Here are some notes. But: Important: the claim that the entire leadership of the NSDAP was Jewish was not discussed.
• Wise's case: Hitler was the heroic leader v the Jew World Order CALLERS: • Stalin sent people who'd seen the west to Gulags. Stalin became anti-Semitic: "two sets of jews - American capitalist; soviet jews" • Serious mind control: holohoax/'Holocast' indoctrination 'so it doesn't happen again' • Night of the long knives "always amuses me ... how people who hate Hitler worry about infighting in the Nazi party ... Treaty of Versailles - SA was far larger than the army... has to be a ruthless streak" [NB evades the point about why SA leader were killed, perhaps because they were Jew-aware -RW] • Leadership - don't see Aryan ideal, blond, big strapping men... "Jews were the ones committing the holocaust.. everything racial.. all eastern Europe.. Hungary and Romania got the full force.." ...how communism succeeded. Vast section of land. Cultural Marxism in the west... • Fighting against anti-white propaganda. ...last half hour. dominance. Banks, media. unopposed; they make up their own aims. Big question: how do we do it? • "we lost ww2.. fruits of communism.. faint hope ... Putin.. forget holohoax laws .. increased birthrate.. It could be set up. If so... hoping people rise up - sickening anti-white garbage ... replacement... media inciting... faked escape ... ... ... ... " nucular subs to israel... how do we spread the word effectively? • WW3. Coup would be beautiful. It's got to come from the people. How could there not be opposition? Jews openly bragging about white genocide ... they're trying to intimidate. All encompassing... obvious ... other races come to agree and identify white - "carte blanche since ww2. either die lying down or standing up. it's going to come" • kill .. gun control... large numbers in USA.. people unaware.. we need to point out.. it all starts to make sense... • communism by the backdoor ... Jewish revolutions to white extinction... definitely goes back to US Civil War • Wagner said the worst Jew is the pretender to Christianity - get to the point where with 50 people in a room, nobody sees a Jew • Clintons etc, Marine le Pen's father a Mossad agent, antiChrist.... Notes to show the incredible chaotic jumble of half-truths resulting from jewish media control. Rae West 16 Sept 2017 A new video series, in (I think) ten parts, typically averaging more than an hour, EUROPA - The Last Battle, has been uploaded on Youtube by EUROPA Tv (that link may cease to work, of course). It is in a similar style to Dennis Wise's video series. The only written plans for genocide during the 20th-century was not a German plan to exterminate the Jews but rather Jewish plans to exterminate the Germans. .... Important note on Revisionism Miles W Mathis (as far as I know) pioneered the work in a new school of thought, according to which the whole Second World War was orchestrated behind the scenes by Jews, with Hitler and Mussolini and other 'public' figures acting their parts. By Mathis' standard, both Wise's work and Europa Tv fall short of the truth, though no doubt they were and are a necessary stage in revisionist progress. Dennis Wise—a pseudonym, I think—started his work on Adolf Hitler (I'm pretty sure; some of these statements may not be precisely correct) in 2012. At that time, Youtube had a 15-minute limit on videos, at least for most uploaders. Wise's videos, issued under the nickname TruthWillOut, seem not to have been numbered at the start. Wise added to them, completing his series in 2013. At least, that seems to have been his plan: since then further segments or episodes have been added: Part 25 is post-German defeat reminiscences (Patton, several Germans) plus a survey contrasting war (and peacetime) criminals Stalin, FDR, Churchill and Truman with Hitler. Part 26 is 'Sources', or 'Credits and Thanks': these are in three parts: books, youtubes, and websites. These are not very professionally identified: books are listed alphabetically, by title, without publication dates, and not in the usual author name sequence. Youtubes (in any case difficult to identify, as the titles can easily be changed or imitated, and the accounts can change or vanish) are listed alphabetically by first names; and websites are in alphabetical order, some recommended rather than relevant to the videos. There is no list of influential suppressed authors (Henry Beamish, Ezra Pound, Archibald Ramsey, Paul Hogan, F T P Veale...). When I watched a download (online viewing isn't recommended by me, unless your broadband is very reliable—the full Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told is nearly six hours) I was amazed to find that none of the material was independently filmed by Wise; it seems to have all been taken from downloads. The version I watched is 640 by 360 pixels, not high resolution and in fact not good enough to make easy reading of the scrolling text (white serif text on black; some titles in red) which presumably was written by Wise, who avoided voiceovers. The result is a mixture of old black and white film, with some colour film from the time, and 'faction' style filmed reconstructions, so that occasionally well-known actors appear playing Hitler. I think I recognised Jeremy Irons' voiceover in several places. There are cinema newsreel sequences. And extracts from much later TV documentaries, in colour. All the subtitles are in English; if there are subtleties in translating from German, they are lost. I'm told for example that Blitzkrieg was not a German word, but was invented by British propagandists, embarrassed at German success. The soundtrack is for my taste obtrusive: Wise has modelled his video on traditional documentaries, which of course have unsourced film, commentaries intended to be authoritative despite being read by actors, music tracks, and almost no signposting apart from occasional names in subtitles. But traditional documentaries are generally part of the Jewish lie factory, and unconcerned with truth. Maybe Wise made a mistake in not rethinking. His soundtrack has a 'Lord of the Rings' feel; there are some repetitions, Saga's Slaget ved Stalingrad, some tracks from Globus's Epicon. I don't remember any Wagner or songs by Sleipnir. It has to be said the spelling and style of the on-screen titles and scrolling text is a bit erratic. 'The greatest story Never told', 'upmost' for utmost, civillian, decisions, both Pearl Harbour and Pearl Harbor, illustrate the sort of thing. Wise talks about 'Earnst Zundell' on his Youtube site; spelling is obviously not his strong suit. His sentences sometimes get a bit lost: 'Under National Socialism, Germany in only a few short years had dragged themselves from financial ruin and social degradation, to lead Europe in science, technology, art and literature will now be surrounded.' However, the most recent 'remastered' version may have cured all this. I was fascinated by the copyright infringement possibilities, and not surprised to find his videos had been taken down by Youtube, though Wise doesn't seem to state anywhere what his attitude is to infringement. Many of the clips are old; there are issues with 'fair dealing'; the proportion of six hours taken up by any one clip isn't very high. My impression is that his website http://thegreateststorynevertold.tv (also www.tgsnt.tv) has a pay area for club members; from there, people pay to download, on condition they do not resell or otherwise use the material for profit. This seems to be to get round copyright issues—he's not legally allowed to charge for copyright segments, but joining a paid club allows for income. Cash flow is difficult for any revisionists, and I'd love to know if his business model works. But I don't. The DVDs on sale are mp4 format, zipped, and therefore don't play like normal DVDs. Copyright is claimed by Dennis Wise. NB Amazon hosts large numbers of media things entitled The Greatest Story Never Told, but Dennis Wise's videos aren't included in them, and aren't on Amazon anywhere that I could find, perhaps because they can't be sold without copyright complications. Here's a sample (in no particular order) of topics, each usually in one episode:- • Mussolini's rescue by Otto Skorzeny • Eisenhower: death camps for Germans after WW2, only recently publicised • Battle of the Bulge • Katyn massacre of Polish officers, and the slow process of revealing truth • Ukraine and the 'Holodomor' • Stalin's extermination of Uighurs etc; the vast area of the steppes, Siberia, and Muslim territories included large numbers of tribes dating back to prehistoric times. Dennis Wise hints at the death rates. • Stalingrad. I don't think the earlier name of this city is mentioned. Stalin's orders to keep all civilians in Stalingrad, and send troops to machine-gun any deserters or retreaters (or returned prisoners), are outlined • Porn in Berlin • Cossacks and their treatment by the British Army • Japan and Singapore and the Japanese empire, and Pearl Harbor, are of course mentioned • Danzig, cut off from Germany by the Versailles Treaty. And Jews in Poland committing atrocities against ethnic Germans given as the cause of Britain and France being 'at war with Germany'. • Dunkirk • Dresden bombing • 'The British received over two dozen peace offers [from Hitler] between 1939 and 1941' • US policy of Mexican repatriation in the 1930s • Germany-USSR PACT ('Nazi-Soviet Pact') • Rommel, the 'Desert Fox' and his career • Indianapolis, torpedoed by Japan, returning across the Pacific from the supposed Hiroshima atom bombing. I think most people would pick up some new detail or other, even if they think they know a great deal about Hitler and the war. By the standards of full-on revisionism, I'd say this package is about 2 out of 5, where 5 is some limiting state not yet achieved. If revisionism were graded like fuel, in octane levels, in my view it's true Wise is not at the highest level. On the other hand, most people don't have Formula 1 brains, so it makes sense to pitch things at a lower comfortable level. Many people simply have no idea of the weakness of the traditional case built up in the 'west'. See my short youtube of 15 or so Britons dated mid-2014 "Have you heard the idea that the 'Holocaust' was a fraud?" for examples of unawareness. For people like this, Dennis Wise's compilation seems to be exactly right and ought to work well. The division into bite-size chunks makes sense; and the viewers will, literally, have seen a lot of it before, so it won't seem weird or fantastic. The scrolling commentary will be new and surprising to them: just one example is Hitler praised as the most popular leader ever. There are of course missing items: the start of the 'Great War'/ 'First World War' (as opposed to the Treaty of Versailles) is missing. The Bengal Famine I think isn't there. Faurisson's four giants and three dwarfs could have been mapped more clearly: the USA and the western hemisphere, plus the British Empire, plus the interlocking French Empire, and the vast area of the USSR, against the peanut-sized Germany, and Italy, and Japan. Probable murders by Jews (Patton, Forrestal, Roosevelt, Keynes? ...) and vast population movements forced by Jews might have been mentioned more. There isn't much on Jews funding both sides of wars, loving divide-and-rule, making money and laughing at patriots who do it for nothing. The criminal inaction of churches, refusing to expose the Talmud; detail on the BBC lie factory; the simple soldiery doing whatever they're told are understated, as of course is traditional. A few myths have got through, for example Hiroshima as 'atom bombed', now known to have been a fraud: Wise's video uses BBC computer-generated imagery as 'evidence'. I'm suspicious of the widely-promoted idea of joy at the announcement of war, notably the 'Great War'. There were many newspaper accounts of cheering crowds and so on. But newspapers were mostly Jewish-owned. How enthusiastic were ordinary people, in fact? The apparent normality of such people as Churchill survives because of the intense censorship. One gathers his whole mentality was destructive—he delighted in planning explosions, death and destruction. It seems he often stank of his own excreta, rolled around drunk, buggered little boys when young and maybe older, planned murders where Jews supposedly benefitted; in view of his talentless schooling, one has to wonder whether his writings and speeches were in any way written by him. More generally, there's a tendency, derived from the source material, to show things which are immediate and obvious: tanks moving, artillery shooting shells, marching men, airplanes on the move, bombed buildings, firestorms, impassable snowdrifts, and Hitler and others bellowing out oratory. But planes and bombs and tanks and weapons have to be designed and made; ships have to secretly unload huge numbers of tanks for Stalin; factories must make munitions; Jews in the USA and Europe and USSR co-operated to make war by secretly transferring money for Europeans and Americans to build factories in Russia; intelligence secrets (and decodes) went on, accompanied by lies and deception... these things are just as important, in fact much more so, but more difficult to get onto film. Questions about what might have been are difficult to show, too. Was Normandy invaded because it was clearly going to be a slow process, to allow the 'Red' Army to get to Berlin? And the fragmented approach makes it difficult to appreciate the apparently inexorable flow of lies: as all this was happening, Harold Wilson in Oxford University in wartime Britain was already planning vast coloured immigration, Jewish control of unions, expanded low-criticism education after the war; Monnet and others were working on a Soviet-style European régime; Jews were planning ways to keep the USSR from any investigation, the fraud of the 'Holocaust' was being shaped, and the paper dollar was starting its long decline as Jews dipped into it to fund their huge range of projects: hiring collaborators and dupes, paying for Israel and destroying Palestine, publicising lies about race and slavery, using the promising new one-way medium of television, promoting legal corruption, political corruption, anti-white propaganda, anti-Christianity, NASA and many other fraudulent sciences, lucrative wars against almost defenceless people in Korea, Vietnam .... This linked standalone review 30 Nov 2018 - RW |
The full title is or was Race Mixing: Deadlier Than The H-Bomb. The author was a Wing Commander who fought in the Second World War. I haven't been able to find his years of birth and death online. As far as I can find, Leonard Young's The Basic Factors in British Greatness was published in 1997, just at the start of Internet, though nobody has yet put it online.
62 years later (2018) this booklet is seen to be a product of its time, a partial revisionist work; how Jews and their collaborators must laugh at such things as this. Anyway, just a few notes—
Review of social speculation futurology Michael Young: The Rise of the Meritocracy Educational tokenism ... the origin of fraudulent state-funded pseudo-research, 9 July 2009 This book is usually described as a 'satire'. I don't believe it is—the word 'satire' was popularised at about the time this book was issued in paperback, and the blurb-writers must have thought it was the best available word to fit this odd work. 'Satire' has the great advantage that any mistakes can be ascribed to satirical intent. Several very striking things: [1] Young is not very well educated, and has astonishingly little curiosity; he is agonisingly conventional within the framework of the 'Labour Party' of the time. The mid-1950s saw among other things the supposed invention of the H bomb; concern about population growth, or 'explosion' (except for Jews); plans for new towns, motorways, cheap cars, airports and other oil-related novelties; television; the feeling that Europe ought to be unified. There is absolutely nothing whatever of this in Young. Young (like C P Snow) called the Second World War 'the Hitler War'. Young's belief about the 'British genius' was that is put 'new beer into old bottles'. His entire sphere is a narrow type of educational politics. He was reported as having drafted, or read, or otherwise helped with, the 1945 Labour manifesto; they thought they'd lose, but when it became clear they were popular, Young said they "thought, my God, we might have to put this into practice! So they started to worry about the manifesto." [2] 'The Rise of the Meritocracy' is almost entirely concerned with education. I don't think there's a single page without some mention of formal education: schools, comprehensive schools, primary schools, the young, the stupid, the 'able', the clever, the brilliant, residential nurseries, class sizes, grammar schools, science teachers, public schools, early developers, late developers, Wykehamists, Rugbeians and Carthusians, mental labour, manual labour, higher education, and, particularly, I.Q.s. It's difficult to know what Young thought of IQ; I can't believe he would have measured very highly, and therefore, on the same principle as in Liam Hudson's books, I doubt he liked them much. On the other hand, they fit in with his tokenistic outlook to education. As far as Young is concerned, anyone who went to Oxbridge must have a first-class mind; Young lacks any scientific curiosity, and the idea of checking to see whether hothouse education, where there are officially correct answers, does in fact lead to competence, is completely lacking. He does mention people like Bevin (son of a farm labourer) who he compares with a mythical Lord Wiffen; however he naturally has no way to assess Bevin—was he, in fact, any good? Young unconsciously sees Bevin: a Cabinet Minister, with money. Can't be bad, eh! His attitude to the Civil Service is the same. In fact Young himself became Lord Young of Dartington—the Dartington referring to the experimental school in Devon he'd attended. There are a few bits of realism here and there, invariably I think taken from other people. Dates of Education Acts as a reaction to wars: after the Boer War, First and Second World Wars. The Institute of Management's selection processes and the 'Pioneer Corps' during the war get some comment, as fitting square pegs into square holes, even if the pegs are resentful. Beatrice Webb gets a footnote on the inadequacies of ordinary people. A 'Labour' Party man is quoted as saying he knows no 'Labour' party members who don't sent their children to public schools. (For US readers, these are schools where people pay). A Civil servant is quoted on replies to Parliamentary questions—ideally they reveal nothing. Young helped found Which?—the Consumers Association. He had something to do with the Open University. 'From 1965-8 he was Chairman of the Social Science Research Council.' (Latter quoted from a Penguin blurb). It is impossible to be certain how seriously this 'essay' was put forward as satire. but the overwhelming impression is of Young as intellectually entirely 'safe', unwilling to risk an investigation into any important topic. If Young has left a legacy, it is of countless 'Labour' quangoes, 'think tanks', pressure groups, phoney charities, university departments, professoriats arranging their own successors, institutes, 'trusts', 'research' groups, union organisations, all dishonest, all taking public money in tacit exchange for avoiding genuine statistical, economic, legal, and sociological investigation. |