Science and Society

First published by 1969 Allen Lane the Penguin Press. Copyright to both authors, though for my taste the book suggests female authorship: the utter unfamiliarity with any scientific ideas, except as manipulations and slogans and employees and percentages of GNP.

I wonder if the Roses were/are as completely married as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, as reported by Bertrand Russell? They seem to have no points of difference, and reek of the characteristic folie à deux of Jews.

This book does exist as a pdf of the Penguin paperback, yellowed inner pages and all. (Penguin came first; I'm not sure how accepted 'Pelican' was as a trade mark).

The blurb says: Hilary Rose lectures in sociology in the Department of Social Administration at the London School of Economics, and is the author of The Housing Problem (1968). At one time she taught in a secondary modern school, and later she did research for the Milner Holland Committee on London Housing. She is currently working on aspects of welfare rights and on the sociology of science.
      All this has a worrying sound about it: 'Social Administration', housing problems at at a time when Jews were doing everything to increase immigration into all European and white countries. Absence of criticism of official science; NASA and 'nuclear weapons' being expensive examples, and unsound biology as another example. And of course the complete omission on Jews from the narratives.

The Advisory Editor was someone called Gerald Leach, a sort of journalist deemed to be safe for the tidal wave of post-1945 crap. He seems to have departed in 2005, a more final death than editing crap books. Connoisseurs of media rubbish might be amused by Cambridge University Press's online thing on 'televising science 1962-1967'.

‘The authors are founder-members of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science.’ Probably in the wake of US war crimes in Vietnam, there were Jewish-dominated outfits trying to pose as responsible people; Jews tell lies. A good example is Bertrand Russell, who was hedged-in by Jews, never seems to have understood them, but was moved to action from 1963 by Americans in Vietnam. Some of this story is in my review of CBW: Chemical and Biological Warfare - its scope, implications, and future development

---

Throughout this book, the Roses stick entirely to the completely standard post-1945 Jewish narrative. Much of it is rather embarrassing. We have the 'exponential rise in science papers' which might end with paper weighing as much as the earth. Horror! Pages on this, but no reflection on the exponential rise of junk paperbacks, junk videos, and so on. There's nothing on the start of science; why should science be invented after 1000 years of religion, even if it had no name yet. Why that time? May it happen in future, if it's killed off? Can Jews make money out of it?
      It's astonishing to see the way the Roses divide 'scientists' into amateur and professional: only those paid fully by 'the State' are considered 'professional'. This needs a certain translation for the non-Jew: Jewish theory says that the Kahal will take over the world after sufficient secret generations pass; that's what's meant by 'the State'. State comes from the German Stadt, meaning 'town'. Jews don't like to discuss etymologies as a rule, any more than they like discussing their name-changes. To them. their phrases convey something like Stalin a great man of steel, background hidden, inspiring terror in the non-men, or a 'Moschiach' handing out slaves and money to the deserving Jews, but certainly not to the inferior goyim animals.

Study of Science and Society reveals absolutely nothing on the Federal Reserve, on the way Jews distribute themselves around the world, the close interactions between Jews and their secret communications, and the worldwide blocs of Jews—in the USA, European countries, Russia, Japan, and 'communist' in China. Nobody is encouraged to check how economies are split into Jewish parts, and non-Jewish parts, each section kept very separate and with far more connection with their tribal conspirators. The strange offshoots—new religions, new secret groups such as Freemasons remain unmentioned.

As I've said, Science and Society doesn't bother with early sciences. Or for that matter proto-sciences, or pseudo-sciences; nothing on long ages of savagery and witch-doctors, especially in Africa. (Note: despite a section on 'The Third World', Africa gets precisely two mentions in the text). The standard Jewish parasitical policy; don't bother with undeveloped stuff.
      We start with a few early things, then up to about 1600. Nothing on Cromwell and the 'Bank of England': the Jewish victory of the Netherlands vs England gets no mention. The first four chapters go up to 1945, the two world wars treated of course in standard fashion as victories for Jews by the rather slow allies and the USSR. There are 9 more chapters, believe it or not, for 25 years after WW2. Unimaginative stuff with no broad perspectives. A lot of modern effort is simply such things and building roads and infrastructure and farms and houses, with practical work and not much science. There is of course no consideration of Jewish funding and of selective Jewish promotion.
      Some of the material is leftovers from partly-digested theories, themselves partly-digested: Feudalism. Protestantism and 'advanced capitalist industrial societies. Nothing on religions spawned by Jews: no anticipation of Karlheinz Denschler. The later chapters are mostly concerned with spending! Grant applications, research papers, GNPs of richer countries. Most of the 'authorities' quoted are undeclared Jews.

It is unsurprising that the later stages in Jewish progress are somewhat vague. The big missing stage in all Jewish plots is the final stage. No amount of prophetic bullshit can substitute for accuracy. Let me finish with an extract illustrating exactly how the Roses try to grow:

Failures of Foresight a few notes which help explain the Roses' failures. One was their refusal to consider Hillman's material. Naturally this meant they got nowhere with medical problems in which cell biology is involved. Another was their failure to take account of computers: digital processing being the only brain-like synthesis to date. Rose was stuck with the wrong moving molecules model hopelessly wrong and slow. And there's plenty more; forgive me for getting weary.

I was pleased to see a paper by Miles Mathis from 2016 possibly showing up another aspect of Rose as a fraud, talking about physics in the Guardian (where else?). I'm waiting for Mathis to write some definitive science.

---

Note on the Almost Complete Monopoly of Jewish Ownership of Publishing

It's necessary to repeat this fact, since many people are not aware of it. Many people never visit bookshops; one has to wonder whether they can see ordinary bookshops are not for them, without understanding why. Similarly with people uneasy with the rubbish in cinemas, and modern radio, an TV, and advertising, and religion, and science.
      Jewish propaganda books looks at books in Britain from about 1900 to the Second World War, many of which I have owned for years. As you gain familiarity with authors and publishing imprints you learn to see how these things dovetail together, so that understand how the same people repeat, and the points of view recur, so a feel develops for information that has been suppressed. But don't take my word for it: look around and try to see who is feeding you what.

---

Note on Harold Hillman and Biology

Harold Hillman [1930-2016] ironically counterpoints Steven Rose [1938- ] his younger near-contemporary. One went for truth, the other didn't. A date point is 1980 for The Living Cell, co-written with Peter Sartory, by which time Rose has been professor at the Open University for about ten years.
      Hillman's cell biology ideas were certainly known by Rose - Hillman told him, himself. Rose's book on biology was described by Hillman, rather confusingly, as 'good' - meaning that it summarised very well all the current errors.

---

Note on 'Race' and Jewish Coercion

John Baker's book Race, published in 1974 by Oxford University Press; Baker was a professor there, seems to have nee more-or-less the last book on 'race' which was allowed to be published. I haven't attempted to track the probably secret campaigning, but there was unquestionably a universal Jewish censorship move. Baker was far more intellectually wide-ranging (biologist, zoologist, and microscopist says Wiki) than might be imagined from frantic campaigning. However, 1974 gives a convenient censorship date.
      Here's O'Farrell 30 years later, in about 2005: look at who has led race-denial over the past century: Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Jared Diamond, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, Steven Rose. They're Jews to a man, but with millions of deluded white disciples. (My collection of O'Farrelliana is there; I'm afraid it's not very-well sorted). That was 20 years ago; it has been a very long-term campaign. It's typical of Jewish campaigns that campaigning goes on forever, or until something interrupts it.
      It's also typical that tentacles of jewish bullshit extend all over the place: O'Farrell, discarding everything about Europe, thinks an event at the heart of European art, literature, and culture, was the crucifixion of Christ, not just another collection of rubbish.

      I don't entirely agree with O'Farrell on all this: Jewish superstition regards jews as maternally-descended; or at least this seems to be usually assumed. But this is inconsistent with the usual idea that a race is something more-or-less isolated and separated. I've seen it suggested that jewish circumcision supposedly on day 8 after birth is so terrifying that male babies are driven to never risk angering their parents, in case they are abandoned forever. This might have been worth investigating, but of course Rose would not do this. There's scope for research into 'Jews separated at birth', on similar lines to 'identical twins separated at birth', to see if consistent differences appear. This would be a difficult experiment; I'd assume Rose would never do it.
      Another revealing project might be suggested by the 'existentialist psychiatrist' Ronald D Laing (1927-1989), who considered that Schizophrenia, a disease or condition common in Jews, was induced by repetition of self-contradictory information and lies included in descriptions. Not much chance of such an investigation by the Roses. (I may be wrong, there; possibly Laing looked into Jews, but I don't think so—looking at videos of Laing and Szasz, I see now almost comic Jewish figures—but I could find no mention of Jews anywhere).

---

Note on the Open University

Here's a set of notes I made in 1977, at meeting in Mensa with Walter Perry, Vice-President of the OU at the time.
      At the time I had little appreciation of the intentional founding of biased institutions, of which supposedly Christian organisations are obvious examples. As I type I'm reminded to theIndependent a newspaper in Britain which seems to have been invented purely to promoted Jewish neo-con wars.
      Possibly the OU was founded with Jewish frauds in mind; they must have known about Nuclear Physics and the NASA moon-landings fraud. The devastations of modern wars had to be concealed, Stalin had to be concealed, and the Holocaust fraud had to be concealed. And bubbling up were environmental frauds such as 'Climate Change', pandemic frauds starting with AIDS (see e.g. the Terrence Higgins trust), drug frauds of the heroin type (see e.g. OxyContin), financial frauds. So what better arrangement than a new university, with a mass media-type advertising and promotional scheme. Fittingly, Steven Rose was the first 'Professor'

---

Note on the Socialist Workers Party

Socialist has a special Jewish meaning, a society or group controlled by Jews, without their knowledge. 'Goyim' understanding of 'socialism' are different, of course.
      Here's an 42 mins audiotape of Rose in 1996 addressing the 'Socialist Workers Party' with a talk on 'Is our behaviour in our Genes?'. The recording was by the SWP, I think. Rose has difficulty with 'determinism', as is often the case. As always, there's no discussion of who funds this stuff.
      I thought this included a bit where the crowd called out "The working class, united, will never be defeated!" but it must have been elsewhere. I wonder that the Russians and other murdered by Stalin would have thought of the impossibility of defeat. I doubt whether the genuine workers in that movement, if any, had a clue about the sinister motivational underpinnings of Rose, and other members of his supposed racial tribe.

---

-Raeto West   17 July 2024