Bertrand Russell. Autobiography Volumes 1, 2, and 3 (1967, 1968, 1969). Reviewed by Raeto West.

Many Reviews | big-lies.org

Review of Bertrand Russell Autobiography. Three volumes first published by Allen & Unwin 1967, 1968, 1969 in UK

Note: This review is also published within my collected reviews of most of Russell's books here.

Reasonably Honest Autobiography, Largely Greeted with Enthusiasm, by a British Aristocrat Torn Between Philosophy, Science, and Nascent Social Sciences. 11 March 2016. v. 13 Dec 2021
Volume I 1872-1914
Russell was born in 1872; old enough not to have been called up in the 'Great War'. Volume 1 of his Autobiography (with the green jacket design spine, and a black-and-white cover photo by Lotte Meitner-Graf, a copy of which appears in Chomsky's study, and in a 1970s film including Malcolm McDowell) was published by Allen & Unwin, his lifelong publisher. Volume I is 1872-1914; Volume II 1914-1944; Volume III 1944-1967 (from memory) with a 'tailpiece' of 1969. These divisions clearly correspond to milestones in Russell's mental life: the outbreak of the 'Great War', and the invention of nuclear weapons.
There were astounding changes in Russell's lifetime: automobiles and aeroplanes and skyscrapers hardly existed until he was about 40 years old. Underground and tube railways first came to London somewhat earlier. Telephones were rare and valuable. Oil-based plastic polymers were hardly known before 1945. Machine guns and dynamite pre-dated 1900. Their later developments were in time to be misreported by radio, and then television. Russell recognised the power of TV: he thought most people would believe any lie promoted by television.
Russell's longevity reflects on his cultural background. He was not of a temperament to be attracted to Greek and Roman classics; these had their day, but were outdated by Victorian progress. He was hopelessly impractical, not having any empirical scientific skill, though he recognised the importance of science. Such books as Lewis Carroll's and Edward Lear's, Tristram Shandy and The Trumpet Major and War and Peace (later, in English) and the Cambridge Modern History were part of his upbringing and early maturity. Alys Pearsall Smith (his first wife, an American New England Quaker) and Russell ploughed through standard histories together, as Darwin and his wife did. I don't think Russell ever applied scepticism to history: for example, about Nero, or Cromwell, or the Protestant view of the Reformation, or the French Revolution. Before this, his early years in his grandfather's gift-of-Victoria house in Richmond Park were partly spent looking through Prime Minister Russell's library, though L'Art de Verifier des Dates (the only 'art' involved was looking them up) is the only book (I think) he specifically locates there.
All Russell's early years were spent, more or less in isolation, in Richmond Park, with his elder brother Frank, his servants, and elderly relatives, notably an ancient puritanical Scottish grandmother—it's not clear to me which of his parents was her child. As in many European countries, aristocrats carried with them a considerable penumbra of hangers-on. Possibly there was a painful waste of talent: they might have observed the world more than they did. But equally possibly there was not; it's agonising to reflect on the missed opportunities.
Pembroke Lodge still exists, in a state of conversion into tea room with car park, and a huge outdoor poem carved into wood: City of Dreadful Night. Poor Russell is almost elided away by now. He loved the landscape and nature, which he thought of as wild, and described in old age with great vigour.
When Russell was young, Joseph Conrad did not of course exist as part of a more-or-less official literary canon. Shelley was there—Russell read Epipsychidion aloud to Alys in between kissing sessions. Byron furnished materials for Russell on 'Byronic unhappiness'. The really immense historical upheaval at that time was the French Revolution and Napoleon, and the preceding philosophical groundwork, Voltaire, Blake, Swedenborg and so on, but especially Rousseau, who retained an aura of irresponsibly-'romantic' evil in Russell's mind. The simple outline of this historical set of events (including slogans, the terror, and military conquests) adapted itself well to the so-called 'Russian Revolution' of volume 2 of Russell's Autobiography. Russell never had any doubt about this scheme, and for example always called the Jewish-run 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' Russia, as though it was simply another nation-state made up of one well-defined nationality.
Russell regarded himself as a triple philosopher-mathematician-social scientist. His philosophical life started largely with his attack on Christianity, in his exercise book labelled 'Greek Exercises'. It's similar to other rationalistic attacks of the time, concentrating fire on falsehood and absurdity. Russell was too young or naive to understand that much of established religion is an income-generating scheme, though he must have been aware of the history of the Reformation as presented in 19th-century England. Anyway, at the end of this process Russell recalls feeling relieved that it was all over. When he finally went 'up' to Cambridge, he says he met only one person who had heard of Draper's History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. Russell claims to have been led into mathematics by his brother's explaining some of mysteries of geometry to him, from Euclid, including the problem of parallel straight lines not meeting. Aged about 18, he was ready for Cambridge, full of promise—the famous Jowett came to visit what there was of his family. (Both his parents died when he was young—too young to remember them). Russell's social science interests started in Volume II; before that, he worked at his Principia Mathematica. He claims to have discovered much of the work of Cantor independently. My own belief is that Cantor and (later) Einstein are flawed. I suspect Russell was well aware of fame and publicity and renown; most of his beliefs were in accordance with ideas currently promoted at the time. One of his 1930s essays, on Tom Paine and Washington and the early views of democracy, Russell states that 'Some worldly wisdom is required even to secure praise for the lack of it.' In Volume I this hardly mattered; Russell's views were not very controversial. But, at least in my view, Russell always had some intellectual timidity: he never dared criticise Freud, for example, in any forthright way.
Russell at Cambridge found Cambridge University life exactly suited to his tastes and abilities. He was sought out by intellectual clubs, was able to talk for the first time in his life, found the buildings beautiful, met Whitehead, and generally expanded. He bought and smoked Fribourg & Treyer's 'Golden Mixture'. He took very long walks. He rode his bike. He became less shy. He liked the ambience of completely free discussion, and never noticed it was much less free than he'd imagined. He made fun of people who tried to popularise. A note that strikes me as discordant is his dislike of the 'Dons'. He wrote prose with purple patches. As with almost all biographies, Russell writes very little on what he actually learned at Cambridge. He gives no summary or account of the influence of mathematical structures on his thinking. Very likely 'propositional functions' are one such thing, but he doesn't explicitly say so. He liked philosophy 'and the curious ways of conceiving the world that the great philosophers offer to the imagination.' His first philosophical ventures led him, following others, to criticisms of Hegel and German Idealism, though not of the assumptions and mind-sets that led to its being favoured.
Russell married (partly because he wanted children) and moved to a newly-built house. He was—I did some comparative calculations—the equivalent of a millionaire now, through inheritance. He was in a position to turn down work he found distasteful: for a short time in 1898 he tried diplomatic work in Paris, but disliked working on a dispute as to whether lobsters legally counted as fish. (Plus ça change ..: the EU had a dispute as to whether carrots count as fruit). It's not quite true to say that Russell was fully absorbed in philosophy and mathematics: his wife Alys spoke on votes for women and similar issues. I found a short essay by her in Nineteenth Century Opinion, taken from The Nineteenth Century of 1877-1901, in a 1951 paperback edited by Michael Goodwin (if you must know) in which she expressed the desire of single wealthy women for work—with the usual implicit restrictions. Russell was impressed (unfavourably) by Philadelphia politics—as a long letter to Graham Wallas in 1896 on 'bossism' and voting fraud shows. (This letter is instructive: Russell provides examples of bosses' voting frauds, purchases of votes, paid fake demonstrators, as he somewhere in his writings comments on the skilled management of bankrupt US railways. He could never, at any time in his life, bring himself to analyse the costs of party politics and the economics of corruption. As he puts it: Americans are unspeakably lazy about everything but their business [and] invent a pessimism, and say things can't be improved). Russell and Alys went to Germany to study 'social democracy' there; the outcome was his very first book German Social Democracy (1896). This set a style for all Russell's social science books: he simply had no idea about Jews, which of course was a standard head-in-the-sand attitude in polite Britain. Probably he simply assumed the vast number of Jewish publications in Germany, and the tiny number of those discussing Jewish influence, must have been a plain reflection of merit. Russell's following three books were An Essay on the Foundations of Geometry (1897), A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz (1900), and The Principles of Mathematics (1903). However, Russell doesn't write much about his books, which he often implied came from unconscious thought, as for example in his account of sitting in the parlour of the Beetle and Wedge at Moulsford, wondering what to say about 'our knowledge of the external world'.
One of the attractive characteristics of Russell's Autobiography is its peppering with famous names: G E Moore, J M Keynes, D H Lawrence, G B Shaw, Eddington, Einstein, H G Wells, Malinowski, Sidney and Beatrice 'Webb', Wittgenstein, as a tiny sample—though arguably some names are chosen for notoriety rather than firm reputation. Bernard Berenson (Bernhard Valvrojenski), 'American' art dealer, suspected of misidentification of works of art, is an example. Russell worked in Cambridge, London—at the time one of the world's largest cities— and his Hindhead house. And he had a large set of women companions, but this fact only emerged later, and is only very slightly present in his Autobiography. In this way, he might have proceeded from the 1890s to the twentieth century and onward, for the rest of his life as a respected academic, reading The Times and hefty Victorian books, with no inkling that other outlooks and forces were designing and plotting.
Woven into his narrative are relatives—often enough, surprising, because of the inevitable limitations of the first-and-surname principle. General Pitt-Rivers was his uncle. Lord Portal, responsible for bomber command (in Volume III) and perhaps therefore the Second World War, was Russell's cousin. The Duke of Bedford was 'head of my family'. And of course Russell had personal friends. Russell's chapters each end with a collection of letters; Volume II has far more of his letters than text, suggesting his early life had disproportionately the most emotional meaning for him, and that Russia, China, and America between them managed to exhaust him.
Volume II 1914-1944
Just a few comments on Russell's attitudes at the time. A run-in with a family doctor caused other family members to tell Russell he ought not to have children, because of the taint of insanity of a relative of Russell's. Russell said people at the time tended to believe overmuch in heredity. Since then, population movements have become so much easier that people if anything are at the opposite extreme, denying all role for genetics—this of course is a Jewish view. The point really is that if people are to be ignored as sub- or non-human, as per Jewish orthodoxy, it doesn't matter if there are differences. Similarly with Russell: if you're a secure aristocrat, what do other people matter? Russell assumes all human populations are similar: his book on Power doesn't differentiate in any way between populations, though there are token references in his books on education. This must have had a lot of effect on his attitude to the 'masses', and his attitude to Jews vs Russians.
Russell was aware of, and discussed in his books, genetics and Darwin. He seems to have veered away from such awareness: a letter in Volume III says all Germans would have been 'sired by Hitler', for example. In a way it's odd, because he himself felt some need for intellectual accomplishment; and yet he was forbidden from reading books in his grandfather's library, and discouraged from rationalist critiques of Christianity.
Russell disliked 'capitalism', but seems to have taken the word and its connotations straight from Marx. Although he was aware of finances, and the power of panics and crashes and so on, his use of 'capitalism' was just like that of all the other 'economists' of the time trying, or pretending, to be critical. Quite apart from money, as far as I recall there is nothing in Russell on economic goods: Can there be too much? Should inventions made in A be allowed into B? Is there some law making some level of 'productivity' ideal? Is there an optimum population? Despite Russell's attempts, I don't think he discovered anything, though some people credit him with 'effective demand' and 'spending out of depression'.
Russell regarded himself as an innovator: he regarded Prospects of Industrial Civilization (1923) as a pioneering work in sociology. No doubt it's partly due to Jews that writers such as Durkheim and Weber are given priority. Russell regarded Power as founding a new science, as Adam Smith is regarded as founding economics. Russell considered that Power had been plagiarised by Burnham in The Managerial Revolution). Russell complained his books on science and sociology were plagiarised by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World.
Russell was horrified by the 'Great War'. As with most people, he was at the level of calling it an 'outbreak'. His chapter The First War is worth reading, especially by people who have never heard any arguments against that war. He had no analysis of people who wanted war, and why they wanted war, though he implied he'd kept an eye on Sir Edward Grey and others. His eyes were on average people:
'... Although I did not foresee anything like the full disaster of the War, I foresaw a great deal more than most people did. The prospect filled me with horror, but what filled me with even more horror was the fact that the anticipation of carnage was delightful to something like ninety per cent of the population. I had to revise my views on human nature. At that time I was wholly ignorant of psycho-analysis, but I arrived for myself at a view of human passions not unlike that of the psycho-analysts. I arrived at this view in order to understand popular feeling about the war. I had supposed until that time that it was quite common for parents to love their children, but the war persuaded me that it is a rare exception. I had supposed that most people liked money better than almost anything else, but I discovered that they liked destruction even better. I had supposed that intellectuals frequently loved truth, but I found here again that not ten per cent of them prefer truth to popularity. ...
Thus Russell. But how could he be so sure of all this? Most of his information came from newspapers, and if newspapers are owned by people who want war, it's simple to fill the pages with war stories. The Bryce Report propaganda, and the prolonged leaks of anti-Russian and anti-German and anti-British material into other countries, clearly showed this. Russell did not talk to ordinary people; I've certainly met people who say they didn't want war at the time. Russell believed that pre-war outbreaks of violence (including those attributed to suffragettes) proved that British society unconsciously wanted war; in fact, it's likely that some of the supposed violence by suffragettes was in fact a Jewish false flag. However, the war gave him a new topic, the part played by impulse in human (and animal) life, which Russell mixed in with Freud, in my view unfortunately.

George Bernard Shaw is represented by five letters to Russell, most relating to the 'Great War'. Shaw loathed it as an evil, a social problem, a monstrous triviality, a vulgar frivolity. He clearly had no idea of the forces behind it. Russell had an inkling, but was inclined to blame ordinary people, subjected to intensive propaganda, and, later, call-ups and conscription and two years' hard labour or trying to escape. The general lines of the War as it appeared in Britain show through Russell's pages, but he seems, as far as his autobiography reveals anything, to have been out of touch with belligerents. It's a sad story, but set him up as an out-of-touch useful idiot.

His new topic emerged as Principles of Social Reconstruction (1915):
'... I did not discover what it was all about until I had finished it. It has a framework and a formula, but I only discovered both when I had written all except the first and last words. ...'
The first sentence is: 'To all who are capable of new impressions and fresh thought, some modification of former beliefs and hopes has been brought by the war.' Last is: 'Out of their ghosts must come life, and it is we whom they must vivify.'
I quote, below, from Dear Bertrand Russell, on seeing a drowning child, to illustrate how Russell lacked completely a feel for instinct and impulse. He seemed to think everyday life had no connection with evolution; he had no idea that different people react differently for genetic reasons.

Russell states that his book on social reconstruction made him a great deal of money (with no figures either of money or copies sold). He was obviously right in regarding the 'Great War', and the 'Russian Revolution', as important; but he ignored serious attempts at analysis of the results—for example, who gained from it, and to what extent the gains were planned. Russell seemed to have been aware of the Bryce Report as a propaganda fake—he wrote a bit about it in his wartime articles. He must have been aware of the 'Balfour Declaration', and was aware that secret agreements preceded the war. I can find no reference to John Reed in Russell's publications; and he dismissed Hilaire Belloc as being 'anti-Semitic'. Despite Russell's theoretical devotion to free enquiry, he failed completely in this critically important test case.
Russell's chapter on 'The First War' reveals him to have been ineffectual—writing articles, addressing audiences. Despite knowing Keynes, and despite his family connections, and familiarity with Prime Ministers, and visits to the USA, his chapter shows his helplessness. The dark side of British, or Anglo-Jewish, power, showed itself in jailings, for himself in the 'first division', and with hard labour for E D Morel. And in compulsory call-up, when 'popular feeling about the war' proved insufficient. And of course in censorship. And in control over money 'for the duration'. And of course loans. The 1913 Federal Reserve and its other organisations set the stage. Anyone who takes Russell seriously must feel the tragedy of all this: he might have accomplished substantial work in deciphering events, as Europe's aristocrats fell and civilisation retrogressed; but he didn't.
Russell wrote articles throughout the Great War. One was Justice in Wartime, put into a book of essays; but most were I think not republished. He seems to have not taken them very seriously: a TV interview showed him talking about 'sheets' which nobody read. Russell was reluctant to have his writings republished if they showed him in a bad light: an entire 1930s book, Which Way to Peace, was never republished after 1945. I've now (June 2017) uploaded it; click here.
Death in the Great War embraced many promising people: Rupert Brooke, Mosley of atomic theory, Alfred Whitehead's son. Many were influenced intellectually, such as W H R Rivers (mentioned in Power on primitive beliefs), and W Trotter on herd instincts. Russell of course records some of this, for example Whitehead's anguish over the death of his son.
Russell often wrote for Jewish publications. It's curious to read (in an essay) that he was aware of the Coudenhove-Kalergi scheme for a mixed race Europe—he was inclined to think it may be a good idea, since of course he blamed Europeans for the slaughter of the 'Great War'.
Chapters II and III deal with Russell's visits to Russia after the Jewish coup, and then China. In the first case, he was an observer. He praised his hosts, but in such a vast territory, and with no Russian, it's difficult to see how he could expect to report reliably in such a land. He might have said he simply didn't know. But intellectuals dislike steps of that sort. Almost incredibly, he met Lenin and Trotsky and other 'revolutionaries'. In just one of his letters he talks of tyrannical Jews.
Russell was very gullible about Jews in the USSR. He writes for example of fish abounding in the Moskva river, but says only fish from trawlers were allowed, since they were industrial. Obviously people fishing would be called 'profiteers' and killed. Only the Jewish 'state' was allowed property—as in the famine in Ukraine. He records shots audible in (I think) Peter and Paul fortress, and thinks 'idealists' were being shot, rather than anyone educated, or rich and non-Jewish, or pro-Russian. He seems to have known nothing of anti-Russian Orthodox killings, and the expansion of Yiddish 'education'. He records how, after WW1 had officially finished, he was in Lulworth Cove, enjoying the scenery, and trying to decide between two lovers, indifferent to any serious concerns.
Russell then visited, and loved, China. ('Once a week the mail would arrive from England, and the letters and newspapers that came from there seemed to breathe upon us a hot blast of insanity like the fiery heat that comes from a furnace door suddenly opened.') He wrote somewhere that China's adopting Communism was inconceivable; in Russia he'd compared Communism with the ideals of Plato's Republic—showing he had no idea how Communism had been forced onto peoples. For that matter, he was surprised by the change in fortunes away from Germany near the end of the Great War—possibly the result of a secret agreement added to Balfour's Declaration giving Russia to Jews. He lectured in China, and his new companion, Dora, lectured on things like women's issues. (Russell realised he 'no longer loved Alys', on a bike ride). Russell's letters are moving and heartfelt, though understandably his grasp of the history of these vast regions was sketchy, mostly nourished by British Victorian history, in which Constantinople, the East India Co, ruination of the Peking Summer Palace, opium, Hong Kong, the Indian Mutiny, and so on were treated in the way distorted modern history is fed to gullible undergraduates now.

Addendum Oct 2017: Russell's visit to China appears to have been about a year—October 1920 to October 1921—and of that time about a quarter was spent in severe illness and recovery). The Chinese Lecture Association invited him, for a year; the previous year had been John Dewey. An online article by Tony Simpson says next year was to be Bergson—perhaps they thought official western philosophers were Confucius-like. And that Russell in his farewell address in July 1921 spoke of China passing through a stage analogous to that of the dictatorship of the communist party in Russia for the purposes of education and non-capitalistic industrialisation. It's not clear which parts are verbatim Russell; it is clear that the financing, which must have been Jewish, was of course secret. Russell never succeeded in separating 'capitalism' from 'finance': in practice, non-Jews relying on the fluctuating Federal Reserve Jewish lending policies were evil capitalists, while Jews printing money ad lib to suit themselves and finance wars were respectable financiers. No wonder Russell received a note after his departure very politely chiding him for giving no useful advice.
Russell seems to have had not the slightest insight into realities of money; it's possible it was far more secret even than now. Just a few examples: In Korea at that time a Christian was practically synonymous with a bomb-thrower. Really? Sounds like Jews to me. And I also had a seminar of the more advanced students. All of them were Bolsheviks except one, who was the nephew of the emperor. They used to slip off to Moscow [in 1920!] one by one. I'd take a large bet they were puppets of Jews, perhaps even the 'Kaifeng Jews', a taboo group of course. Russell says The National University of Peking was very remarkable, the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor both passionately devoted to the modernising of China. This despite the 'funds which should have gone to pay salaries were always being appropriated by Tuchuns ['provincial military governors'] so that teaching was mainly a labour of love.' Well, there are lots of teachers like that, aren't there?
A reprinted letter from Johnson Yuan (Yuan is not on the list of 7 sinified Jewish names I've seen) could not I think be the original invitation; he wants knowledge of Anarchism, Syndicalism, Socialism etc to be acquired, his letter written after Russell arrived in Shanghai. Anyway, a point which puzzled me is explained: Russell's works so far had been mainly in geometry, mathematics, and philosophy, and of course plenty of those might have been invited to China. He wrote against the 'Great War', but said nothing very helpful. His works on Social Reconstruction must have been the target. Russell mentions the Rockefeller Foundation as intellectual enemies. Probably in fact Russell was invited and paid as a useful idiot, conveying nothing. He writes all but nothing of his lectures and speeches, while much of his part-chapter talks of beautiful scenery, witty Chinese, impressive banquets, hotels elegant and otherwise, vicious British officialdom, Dora Black's pregnancy.
Aged almost 50, Russell never acquired more knowledge of China; he did nothing for the millions of deaths claimed to have been under 'Communism'.

The second parts of Volume II deal with Russell's second marriage, and a school Russell tried to set up in Telegraph House, an obsolete building which he bought from his bankrupt brother. This was a great period for experimental schools, because the memories of 19th century paying schools (H G Wells wrote on this) were still alive. There was scope for a combination of business with idealistic education. Russell never seems to have thought of founding or jointly founding a new university. Taxation, and legal restrictions, are now so high that perhaps home-schooling will become the 21st-century equivalent. Musing over Russell at the time, writing newspaper columns and collections of essays, and a potboiler or two, in a school he couldn't manage, trying to write great books and short of money, suggests he was at the nadir of his fortunes. His history of the 19th century Freedom and Organization: 1814-1914, written in two parts Legitimacy vs Industrialism 1814 to 1848 and Freedom vs Organization 1776 to 1914 (1934), shows his struggle to make sense of the world whilst omitting the Jewish issue. Russell's literary non-starts are not stressed in his autobiography, but it's clear from McMaster University Archives that he tried, and failed, to write on 'fascism'. He said in a TV interview (not in his autobiography) that he had a new idea for a book almost every day.
Russell was invited to the USA to take up an academic position. If there were retirement and pension implications, Russell doesn't state them, though he does of course discuss his adventures when opposition was stirred up in the 'chair of indecency' Catholic incidents. At the time, New York had been spared the huge immigration of Jewish 'refugees', whose fraudulent claims provided them with a model for subsequent nonwhite invasions. Russell spent his time until the end of the Second World War in the USA. It's clear from his letters that he had no clue about Hitler or the Second World War.
During Russell's time in the USA, arms were shipped to the USSR in huge quantities, largely secretly as not everybody liked Stalin. Bear this in mind when reading Volume II. Russell isn't very clear on the 'phoney war' before 1941, or on the way Jews fixed up war against France, Germany, and Italy—and in effect eastern Europe, by supplying Stalin—and took part in the 'civil war' in Spain. Maybe this Anglo-American action will eventually produce a European backlash and revenge.

The final part of this volume has Russell working on History of Western Philosophy, as Jewish influence over the world sank deeper. Russell had theories on the rise and fall of civilisations and worldview: 'Three cycles: Greek, Catholic, Protestant. In each case.. decay of .. dogma leads to anarchy and thence to dictatorship. I like the growth of Catholicism out of Greek decadence, and of Luther out of Machiavelli's outlook'. This may have been related to the feeling of insecurity of a world amid a huge war—though very few people could explain why a tiny country like Germany should be taken so seriously. Thus Gilbert Murray, in typical confusion, to Russell: '.. not quite clear what the two sides were: Communism or Socialism against Fascism.. Christianity against ungodliness. But now.. Britain and America .. against the various autocracies, which means Liberalism v Tyranny..' Russell was not very secure in these categories. He was comfortable with philosophers and their schools, largely because some sort of consensus had been decided upon. But, despite his efforts, he never found convincing historical impulses and motives, as his book Power shows. Nor of course did for example Toynbee, at more or less the same time.
History of Western Philosophy can now be seen to be marred by errors, all to do with misunderstandings of Jews. No doubt others will become clear, for example related to science. Anyway, by Volume II Russell was convinced that Rousseau and Romanticism had led to 'Fascism'—Russell never seemed to use the expression 'NSDAP'. The NSDAP's name being a socialist workers party, and Russell advocating 'socialism', must have been a problem for him. However, the Labour Party leadership had decreed that Hitler was not left wing, after all, but right wing. Russell was primed to announce Rousseau 'led to Auschwitz' though this phrase is not present in History of Western Philosophy.
The reprinted letters following Chapters 12 and 13 (1930-7, 1938-44) light, one must assume, Russell's states of mind and activities when he was in his 60s, and well-known in the world. One from Einstein (1931), after flattery, recommends 'an international journalistic enterprise (Cooperation) to which the best people all belong as contributors ... to educate the public in all countries in international understanding. ... Dr J. Révész, will visit England in the near future..' [Original in German.] Russell's reply as printed merely invited Einstein to visit; probably this was just a small subsection of Jewish propaganda for Jewish control, which of course worked: Jews won the Second World War. Russell commented in the Tom Mooney case—no doubt a media-promoted thing. He wrote a 'brilliant' letter for the defence of Mátyás Rákosi, described in a footnote as 'a Hungarian Communist'. [And described by David Irving in a video The Manipulation of History as one of many cruel, murderous Jews]. It's clear Russell had no idea about the machinations intended to lead to world war. A large chunk—in my view, far too large—of the later letters deals with the City College of New York issue, in which an offer of a professorship was withdrawn—this is reminiscent of manufactured outbreaks of scandals in US education, which of course still happen. A letter from the 'Student Council' is enclosed; I'm sure Russell never got to the bottom of what happened, though he thought (as he said on early TV) it was a 'Catholic thing'.
Volume III 1944-1967
After the success of the first volumes of Russell's autobiography, there were problems with this. (Note: volume 3 is still not downloadable, in 2018). It seems the American publisher declined to publish. (I don't know any contractual or other details, though clearly the appearance of homogeneous external appearance of the volumes is misleading). Anyway, it was published eventually, though there seem to be traces of carelessness—Fennimore Cooper, Ralph Milliband, and Pablo Cassals suggest sluggish proofreading. (A tape-recorded transcription elsewhere of Russell has 'Bishop Bluebroom' for Brougham—perhaps proofreaders preferred simpler stuff). The problems were with war crimes and atrocities, which of course the Jewish media censor. The final quarter-century of Russell's life included his activism against the 'West'—Russell knew nothing of ZOG, except, just possibly, at the very end of his life. Certainly this volume is very much unlike the author's preceding volumes. Russell records his reactions to public events: the Second World War, the Cold War, the BBC, nuclear weapons, the Korean War, Kennedy's murder, the Cuba Crisis, the Vietnam War. Chapter III - Trafalgar Square looks at protests against nuclear weapons. Chapter IV - The Foundation is on the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation.
That at least is the formal version. Russell probably had no idea about Eisenhower (Jew from Sweden) starving Germans after the war. Or the fraud of what was later called 'the Holocaust', curious Greek expression as it is. Or the BBC frauds, of which the plump and oily Dimbleby, a Jew from London, started anti-German post-war propaganda in earnest. Or the fact, suppressed for decades, that mail bombs were sent to Labour Party leaders by Jews, over Israel. Russell had been to Germany: he accepted the figure of 135,000 Germans destroyed in the razing of Dresden, 'but also their houses and countless treasures'. 'By giving part of Germany to Russia and part to the West, the victorious Governments ensured the continuation of strife between East and West, particularly as Berlin was partitioned and there was no guarantee of access by the West to its part of Berlin except by air.' Note Russell's assumption that the Governments, all of course known now to be Jewish controlled, wanted to stop strife. He must have been laughed at, for his gullibility.
Russell made a public announcement that Stalin's USSR should be invaded. He later denied his words, but the important point is that Jews in Russia felt they had to pretend to 'explode their first bomb in August, 1949'. Perhaps readers who have not met the nuclear revisionist view before might reread the above few sentences. A typical example of Russell's activism was his campaign on the Cuba Crisis—clearly at this distance a fake rigged up by Jews, along with the marrano Castro. About a year later, Kennedy was murdered (or allegedly murdered); again there's a Jewish link. (The Who Killed Kennedy? team included Mark Lane, a Jew, and Victor Gollancz, a lifelong propagandist for Jews. It's unlikely they would ever investigate seriously, of course).
In the late 1940s and 1950s, Russell was lonely and rather isolated. He says himself that after the war, Cambridge ladies thought he and his wife were 'not respectable'—you'd imagine they might have had other things to think about. Rupert Crawshay-Williams is my source for the 'loneliness' of Russell. His friends from youth had largely died. Alan Wood (who wrote on the then-notorious money-wasting groundnuts scheme) and his wife became friends; but Wood died, after writing a biography of Russell.
Russell's lifelong ignorance of Jews is clearer in (for example) Ronald Clark's Life. In 1945, the Jew propagandist, publisher and liar Victor Gollancz, 'leader of the "Save Europe Now" campaign', wrote to Russell: '.. the meeting may be given the character of an "anti-Bolshevik crusade" in the bad sense. I am told that already, as a result of the things they have seen, a lot of soldiers in Berlin are saying "Goebbels was right"; we don't want that sort of development.'
Russell's public views appeared on BBC radio as the first Reith Lectures, in 1948, a series of six, Authority and the Individual. Probably suggested by Sir Arthur Keith, and by nuclear myths, part of his talk stated that war had been a leading cause of innovation—very probably the reverse of the truth. Russell took little effective interest in the 'United Nations', unfortunately. For example, one of its foundational bases was the idea that races were of no importance—naturally, Jewish input was important here. Russell therefore was weak on actual possible world government, which he considered essential, since he swallowed the myth of nuclear annihilation. Volume III has Russell meditating on the future: the population problem. And 'economic justice'. Russell, misreading the world, thought political democracy applies in industrialised countries, no doubt accepting the Jewish view; but economic justice is 'still a painfully-sought goal.' Fascinating to read this elderly man's lucubrations on likely events of the next few centuries, especially, now, from a revisionist viewpoint.
Russell was given a Nobel Prize (for Literature) in 1950—most of which went in alimony payments, he writes here. Nobel Prizes are of course something of a joke; probably it had been decided that Russell's support for WW2 was worth a bit of cash. Among other things, Russell in 1952 visited Greece, troubled by the US Army; 1953, Scotland; 1954, Paris; in 1955 made a speech in Glasgow for a Labour candidate (which Alistair Cooke, a BBC hack from Salford in northern England, wrote about). This period was enlivened by philosophical disputations; Russell disliked linguistic philosophy, with 'common usage' one of its slogans, and Russell has accounts of his disputes. He seems not to have realised that Oxford philosophers might feel out of their depths in a world of nuclear weapons and mass murder of Jews, in which in retrospect they must have been laughed at, by politicians in the know.
And in 1955, Russell tried to get 'eminent scientists' to make a statement calling for joint action; Neils Bohr, Russian Academicians, Otto Hahn, Lord Adrian and others refused, and there was no reply from China. Josef Rotblat agreed to act as Chairman; I believe he was a Jew from Hungary. Looking back, he must have been part of the scheme to pretend Jews had nuclear weapons. In 1957, Cyrus Eaton, a Jew in Canada, put up money for a meeting in Pugwash. It can be seen that Jews were circling, just in case. (Note that Herman Kahn invented or popularised the word 'megadeath': I wonder if this was a leftover from the Jewish victory in the second World War). Ralph Schoenman is reported to have met Russell in 1960, the story being he hitch-hiked there; but who knows?
Russell's Autobiography mentions his affection for Victor William Williams Saunders Purcell (1896–1965), 'a Government administrator in South East Asia' [probably Malaya] and Don at Cambridge. 'I did not even begin to know him till he was drawn into discussions with us about the Foundation's doings in relation to South East Asia. ... it was not until May, 1964, that we really came to know each other...' They only really knew each other for about 9 months before Purcell's death. It struck me that perhaps he was part of the control being applied to Russell.
The Foundation: Russell's first speech to members of the Vietnam War crimes Tribunal was November 13th, 1966. This met some ridicule from the Jewish media; I doubt if anyone yet has researched into archives of (for example) the New York Times. Russell was uncomprehending about the Jewish media: newspapers exist to facilitate truth, and improve the world; surely that's an obvious ethical ground rule? Russell uncomprehendingly faced the Jewish liars of the world, to whom bombs meant money and young Vietnamese girls raped were good for a Jewish laugh. I think his letters to the New York Times were the first occasion in which he was faced with people genuinely and unblushingly favouring evil: destruction of Vietnamese landscape, bombing villages, large-scale rape, chemical warfare etc. The sort of thing that caused Robert Faurisson to say the USAF killed more children than any other organisation. Russell had no idea that so-called 'Jews' were evil, wanted to be evil, and liked being evil. His verdict on the destruction of Vietnam was pitifully innocent, and utterly non-aware of Jews: The Press, the military authorities, and many of the American and British legal luminaries, consider that their honour and humanity will be better served by allowing their officers to burn women and children to death than by adopting the standards applied in the Nuremberg Trials. This comes of accepting Hitler's legacy. It's now known by many that, of course, it was Jewish legacy, and here's my extra note–

8 Feb 2018: Detailed notes on Russell's Vol III, section 4 The Foundation, (Chapter 17 of the complete The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell). This is a revisionist review of Russell's important chapter The Foundation in which Russell describes his activities. In my view, the only part which stands up now is his anti-war work, which of course was targeted by Jews. (Remember Russell was born in 1872, so his Foundation was established in his 90s).

[1] Nuclear Weapons.
[2] Persecuted minorities.
[3] Persecuted individuals and liberation of prisoners.
[4] 1963 Foundation formed, probably by 'Hungarian Jew' Ralph Schoenman. With Christopher Farley and Pamela Wood. Offices, secretaries, fact-finders, representatives, correspondents etc.
[5] 1963 JFK
[6] 1965 Russell's speeches against Harold Wilson and Britain's "Labour Party".
[7] 1966 Vietnam War: International War Crimes Tribunal

[1] Nuclear Weapons. Russell believed the entire propaganda message on nuclear weapons, and considered himself qualified to discuss them. He must have unwittingly become part of the propaganda process. Rotblat, Cyrus Eaton, Herman Kahn, Edward Teller, and many other Jews were part of the circus. How many members of the public were sceptical remains a secret, though probably Jewish public opinion samplings could provide some insight. Russell's chapter begins with his assertions about "self-preservation", and this (according to Russell) "trumped by the desire to get the better of the other fellow". Russell of course was naive about the entire Jewish technical faked superstructure. He believed in US search for raw materials and markets, for example cobalt which (Russell thought) could be used in a 'cobalt bomb'. Russell had no idea that Jewish profits from weapons, takeover of central banks, plus imposition of rents, could be far more lucrative: He was a perfect model of the type who sucks up to the rich, without determining where the riches come from, as described by Hilaire Belloc. Russell gives a puzzled account, in his section on financial begging: ... we [met] only once with virulent discourtesy. This was at a party of rich Jews given in order that I might speak of our work for the Jews in Soviet countries in whom they professed themselves mightily interested. Unfortunately, Russell doesn't say what the rich Jews said. And he doesn't say why Jews predominated in the Foundation; were there really so few honest whites in the world?
Cold War—Russell believed in the Cold War (and Cuba as a 'Communist' country) just as advertised in the Jewish media. Today, it's far more obvious that Jews controlled both the USA and USSR.
[2] Persecuted minorities. Russell mentions the Naga—still a live issue; they are being flooded by Bengalis. He also mentions 'Gypsies'. But on the whole there are few of these; certainly not whites, for example. Of course the Jew media approach only considers Jews, and Russell, with an almost comic ignorance, was concerned with Jews in the Soviet Union! ...
[3] Persecuted individuals and liberation of prisoners. ... Russell often championed individuals, generally with the most extraordinary indifference to what they had done. One gets the feeling that if Stalin had been found in prison, Russell would have responded to a letter pleading for the release of this long-term activist, with, admittedly, an uneven history. He lists a Jew from Germany, wanting to get an English girl pregnant; a Pole, or perhaps Jew, writing obscene verse; Greeks described as 'Communists, I'd guess Jew collaborators; Palestinians, described by Russell as 'refugees'; Jews in the USSR—'I began to make appeals on behalf of whole groups'; Sobell, the fake nuclear spy—but, if his story were true—might have imperilled the entire human race; Heintz [sic] Brandt. Even the notorious killer Jew, Rákosi.
[4] 1963 Foundation formed, probably by 'Hungarian Jew' Ralph Schoenman. Secretaries, fact-finders, representatives, correspondents etc. Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation (company limited by guarantee), and Atlantic Peace Commission (the latter a charity).
[5] 1963 JFK Russell lists (in about 9 pages) '16 QUESTIONS ON THE ASSASSINATION'. He was of course ignorant of the pattern of Jewish assassinations and violence through the ages. He was of course also ignorant of media-driven false flags and campaigns of lies.
[6] 1965 Russell's speeches against Harold Wilson and Britain's "Labour Party"
[7] 1966 Vietnam War: International War Crimes Tribunal. Russell talks in the final five pages or so, before the letters section, of his book War Crimes in Vietnam, which is not reprinted (2018) by his supposed trusts. Russell says it sold out, and was widely translated, but gives no sales figures. Here are the relevant pages from his autobiography: russell autobiography war crimes in vietnam

Note how Russell, under the influence of post-1945 Jewish propaganda, always blames Germans and Japanese: '... [pretexts] reminded me of nothing less than those offered ... for Hitler's adventures in Europe ...' and '... American conduct in Vietnam as barbarism 'reminiscent of warfare as practised by the Germans in eastern Europe and the Japanese in South-East Asia'.
Russell's letters and appendices say more about the Vietnam War. The biography of 1975 by Ronald W Clark gives more information, including Russell's 'Private Memorandum concerning Ralph Schoenman'; the final portion states that Schoenman stated that all Russell's major initiatives since 1960 were Schoenman's work, 'in thought and deed', which Russell describes as 'preposterous' and perhaps 'well established in megalomania'. However, it may be truer than Russell thought: the 'Committee of 100' started in 1960, and it now appears that nuclear weapons were a hoax, and e.g. Cuba was controlled all the time. It's easy to imagine Schoenman selecting misinformation to feed to Russell, in (for example) Has Man a Future? published in 1961, and Unarmed Victory, published in 1963, on the 'Cuba Crisis' and Sino-Indian dispute. According to Clark, Schoenman's behavior (which included a lot of unexplained absences) became erratic and insulting as the War Crimes Tribunal took shape.

But note that Russell never, ever, separated the idea of a state or nation from the internal Jewish influence. No doubt the Vietnam War was a takeover by Jews; to this day as far as can be determined Jews control the money, and also control war crimes information—the opposite policy to their Holohoax fraud. He really thought some countries were 'Communist', for example.
Jews gathered round and controlled poor Russell's Foundation. Vladimir Dedijer was probably a Jew activist claiming to be a Serb; Isaac Deutscher wrote a junk biography of Stalin; Noam Chomsky issued statements mainly about Jews, and his later record on e.g. 9/11 and Kennedy proves his rôole was to obstruct and evade. Victor Gollancz corresponded with Russell (says Ronald Clark—himself of course a gullible paid-by-advances writer, who even wrote on Einstein); Barry Feinberg was an editor; Anton Felton was an accountant for Russell; Cyrus Eaton in Canada kept an eye on nuclear discussions; the New York Times censored him; so did the BBC. A large proportion of the writers in the Foundation's London Bulletin were Jews.
Looking back, it's clear a large part of Jewish activity was propagandist, and aimed to conceal Jewish wars and mass killings.

Jewish wars are not between nations or states, as is advertised, but to make money for Jews by control of weapons and equipment by finance, and making money from loans, usually to governments or 'governments', and controlling issue of money, with the bonus of maiming killing goyim and destroying creative achievements such as splendid cities. None of this is present in Russell. (It's just possible, though very unlikely, that John Russell ('Lord John Russell'), could have lived long enough to tell young Bertrand a thing or two). His speech to his tribunal was three or four years after his epistolary exchange with the 'Jew York Times'. His book War Crimes in Vietnam remains discreetly unpublished by Routledge, his posthumous publishers, presumably picked by his Foundation. All this activity by Russell causes me to doubt Russell ever considered himself a Jew, something which has been suggested. I see why they say it; and why judging from published books it's credible. But I don't think it's true; he was just a Briton being polite and Christian to a few racially outlandish oddities. But he did follow the convention of secrecy about Jews: if there were any in his family tree, as is likely enough, he said nothing of them in his autobiography.
The main office or centre of the B.R.P.F. was established in Nottingham. Certainly atrocity accounts from Vietnam were known in Nottingham University. There were student actions in 1968, which have subsequently been presented by the Jewish media as hippiesque 1960s self-indulgence, and many people considering themselves politically aware have no comprehension of the underlying issues. Most of the activists were Jews, and most non-Jews at the time had no idea of this; and Jewish motives were mainly to hide the truth of creatures like Kissinger, and to hold on to money Jews made from war. The BRPF was a Jewish front from the start; just the list of their writers makes this plain enough. Probably revisionist re-examinations of the 1960s will correct the media mirage which has been assembled. But the picture largely remains intact: Richard Dawkins' autobiography, for example, shows complete ignorance of that time.
Looking again at Russell's conclusions drawn from his long life, we find: Consider the vast areas of the world where the young have little or no education and where adults have not the capacity to realise elementary conditions of comfort. These inequalities rouse envy and are potential causes of great disorder. Whether the world will be able by peaceful means to raise the conditions of the poorer nations is, to my mind, very doubtful, and is likely to prove the most difficult governmental problem of coming centuries. Russell used the expression 'third world' in his Autobiography, perhaps borrowed from Schoenman, I'd guess. But he left the problems to others: he believed 'the techniques are all known' for general prosperity; but he expressed no views on the genetic ability of populations, or the availability of raw materials and energy to move them around.
His final paragraph is about the 'The essential unity of American military, economic and cold war policies was increasingly revealed by the sordidness and cruelty of the Vietnam war. ... Most difficult for many in the West to admit.' Russell faced opposition, but never fathomed the truth.
After his Autobiography, Russell continued his activities as best he could. Dear Bertrand Russell was extracted from his archived letters, but edited by two Jews. His last published statement was on Israel's expansionism. His The Entire American People Are On Trial was published posthumously in March 1970. Russell's Autobiography is a landmark on the road to reversing several centuries of evil. It is well worth reading in entirety. He was not completely honest; and he missed some important truths, to such an extent that he might legitimately be regarded as worthless. But he has one thing which Jews and their allies can never have: they will never be able to present their lives, as truthfully as they can, to genuinely interested audiences, in the way Russell does.

Top of Page